Gray to Marcy: A Costly Bushwhack Is Closed Definitively

[BlackSpruce]

http://www.adkmtnclub.blogspot.com/2015/07/gray-to-marcy-costly-bushwhack-is.html#more



This DEC approved sign was carried up to Gray Peak and installed at the end of September 2014 by a Summit Steward. She as well blocked the very beginning of said herdapth. To our surprised we never either read or heard about it and figured a contrarian climber had decided to get rid of it. We knew it could not be very far due to its significant size, Pete and I had to look for it but we somehow thanks to the perfectly sunny weather found it where it certainly had not been by natural causes, and noted the path had been "re-opened" even though it becomes almost invisible within 30 yards.

We specially want to thank profusely Jared and Russell without who it would have been much more difficult to reinstall this large sign and thouroughly blocked the closed route. It's now secure three different ways, lets hope it will stay put for the rest of the summer, if only in deference to the extraordinary effort it took to carry that far up and away!

 

[jrbren]

My vote would have been to convert it to a maintained, well marked trail, eliminating or at least minimizing the "maze" of heard paths. I share that opinion with the rest of the major heard paths to ADK 46er "trailless" peaks (ADK hiker treason). When I did my 46er rounds back in the 1990's they were often more heavily traveled then many of the maintained trails I hiked. It makes little sense to me to "close" a bushwack. People who want to do it will just bush wack without the heard path. That said, this particular bush wack was not particularly attractive in hind sight, I would never had done it again or recommended it to anyone else. I support the notion of protecting the rare plants above treeline, but this solution reminds me of the toll both on Blazing Saddles.

 

[BlackSpruce]

There are already two trails to reach the Top of New York which is already more than to most High Peaks summits and to per UMP guidelines, the idea is not only to spare the high elevation forest but the above treeline fragile alpine vegetation and the summit cone beautiful scenery. We are talking of about one mile as the crows fly, of which more than half is alpine meadows.

 

[jrbren]

I disagree that an arbitrary limit on number of trails to a summit is a valid reason for adding or not adding another. There have been 2 trails to the Marcy's summit for as long as I have been paying attention, which is over 25 years, and I do not think they were new in 1990. I think the number of hikers on ADK summits have increased quite a bit since then based on what I have read. At least the number of 46ers has. Based on that alone I would say either another trail is warranted or a way of limiting the number of hikers, such as the permit system they employ in the WA cascades. I would like to see new trails based on past traffic flows and number of hikers. From what I read, all major 46er herd paths would warrant a new trail. From my experience in the ADKs, I think a maintained well marked trail is less intrusive to the wilderness then herd paths. I can't imagine Monadnock being limited to 2 trails. I understand this is not how most ADK hikers think, and this is not happening anytime soon, but that is my opinion nonetheless.

 

[BlackSpruce]

The number of 46ers who climbed Marcy and a number of other busy High Peaks is a drop in the bucket! For example Cascade had 30,000 visitors last year according to the trail register, 10,357 signed with the intention of reaching Giant via the Zander Scott trail near Chapel Pond, etc. on the other end "only" 528 became 46ers during 2014, we can safely assume only a few of them and a few others travelled directly from Gray to Marcy.

 

[Puma concolor]

I thought the 528 must surely be a typo until I checked the 46R site.

Been a bunch of years since I stopped subscribing to Peeks and I no longer summer hike but I had never even seen 300 in a year before. 400-plus now seems to be the norm. Stunning.

As far as the Gray to Marcy herdpath, the very idea of one seems ridiculous. Glad it's shut down. Of course, this might negatively affect folks trying to reach all 46 from the cardinal points of the compass.

 

[jrbren]

Thanks for the numbers. But the number of hikers on the Gray to Marcy direct route was large enough to form a herd path maze and cause damage to to sensitive alpine plants above timberline, its enough to justify a marked trail. I think it would make a great loop with the Lake Tear trail. I do not think the sign is going dissuade many hikers who would want to do that route in the first place. It would not have dissuaded me, there was not much of a herd path back when I did the route, is was mostly a bushwack through cripple brush. I think the sign is far uglier and more intrusive then the herd path, but hopefully it helps the rare plants above. My guess if there was a valid reason for closing the route I would have heard by now, but my ears/eyes are always open.

 

[jrbren]

I thought the 528 must surely be a typo until I checked the 46R site.


As far as the Gray to Marcy herdpath, the very idea of one seems ridiculous.

Please elaborate ? Why is this path any more or less "ridiculous" then any other path ?

 

[BlackSpruce]

At high altitude it takes very little traffic to form an herdpath and very little foot traffic to kill a 50 year-old Diapensia or Sandworth. Of course it would be nice to make a loop, go ahead nobody can stop you if you must but pretty please avoid the presently faint herdpath. Yes the sign is not a piece of art but same goes for highway signage.

 

[teleskier]

There are already two trails to reach the Top of New York which is already more than to most High Peaks

There are two trails from opposite directions which meet on the summit. As there are on, oh, let's see, every peak in the Great Range, Dix, Porter, Rocky Peak Ridge, Giant, Big Slide, Whiteface, Algonquin, Colden, well, you get the idea...

 

[skiguy]

Is it not possible that by closing this herd path will only encourage trampers to seek alternative routes somewhat adjacent to the existing corridor. Therefore it could be argued that impact would only be dispersed over an even greater area. Where as leaving the Herd path in place would narrow the impact. Short of closing the entire shoulder between Gray to Marcy from it's high point down to the elevation of the valley floor. Trail development IMO would be a better direction. The use of dragging and blocking a herd path with brush in itself causes impact. Is the DEC going to go up there on a regular basis to insure that sign and this dragging and blocking is being effective meanwhile causing more damage in itself. If not will there be more dragging and blocking and more damage to the Alpine vegetation? This herd path is a shortcut. It will still get used. Why not develop it into a true trail, with appropriate sinage and blazing and funnel the inpact.

 

[BlackSpruce]

Sorry guys, but I am off to bushwhack someplace up there...

 

[Puma concolor]

Please elaborate ? Why is this path any more or less "ridiculous" then any other path ?

Because it's unnecessary. All other herd paths to the "trail less" 46Rs developed because there was no other established route. And the 46Rs have done a considerable amount of work over the last 15-20 years to consolidate multiple paths down to one on numerous other peaks. Many 46Rs seem to forget that part of the history of the Club is one of stewardship. Forging a new path between a summit that has multiple maintained trails and a peak that has another perfectly good herd path is a needless shortcut not consistent with the mission of the 46Rs as a Club.

 

[jrbren]

Puma, I am with you on the stewardship issue and protecting the high altitude plants. But I think I am trying to say what ski guy is saying. The hikers are going to come unless there is some sort of limiting system like permits due to the popularity and beauty of this region, accessibility from nearby population centers, and the quantifiable draw of the 46er endeavor. I think it is better steward ship to admit there are allot of hikers up here and its better to make sure they stay in well defined corridors, I think that lessens the impact. I do not agree with any (arbitrary IMHO) rule that says there must be one and only one path to a "trailess" summit. I enjoy getting different perspectives of the same mountain via many different routes on it. The best example that comes to mind are the northern Presi's in NH from Appalachia. If they limited those peaks to 1 or 2 trails it would be a very different experience.

I want to emphasize I have no plans to go back up there and hike this closed off region, I am just trying to be honest and say what I would have done if it was my first time up there. If I think that way, I doubt I am the only one. I think hikers will look for a reason to justify the sign only applies to that herd path and just bush wack around it, still rock hopping once above the treeline. Result will be a maze of confusing paths increasing damage to the plants. And it looks easy because Marcy looks like it is right there (any of us who have tried know post mortem it is not easy).

I guess you could close off that entire side of Marcy, not unlike the west side of Mansfield's chin was closed for many years (and maybe still is). I seem to recall you could stay on the rocks almost the entire way from treeline to Marcy's summit without stepping on any alpine plants, but that was over 20 years since I did that route. You had to be making an effort, which I was, as this effort to stay off the alpine plants is nothing new.

 

[jrbren]

At high altitude it takes very little traffic to form an herdpath and very little foot traffic to kill a 50 year-old Diapensia or Sandworth. Of course it would be nice to make a loop, go ahead nobody can stop you if you must but pretty please avoid the presently faint herdpath. Yes the sign is not a piece of art but same goes for highway signage.

Thanks for letting me skate on the sign. After I posted I thought for sure you would point out that if we make this a maintained trail, were going to need a sign

 

[teleskier]

There are multiple ways to approach (read, herdpaths) a number of the "trailless" peaks, notably Santanoni, Seward, Marshall and all of the trailless Dixes. In response, of course, to people not only wanting to hike these mountains, but hike them from different directions and in combination with other peaks. That doesn't mean the answer to the question "should there be a herd path between Marcy and Gray?" is yes, but I think what a number of us are saying (myself, certainly) is that it's not a ridiculous question to ask. That's all...

 

[SpencerVT]

All I know is that I've hiked all over the northeast and the Adirondack herdpaths are severely eroded more than anywhere else I've been. Cliff Mountain is insane how much mud/erosion/root upheaval there is. It's gotta be taking an environmental toll, especially given how many 46rs there increasingly seem to be. I think established maintained trails need to come into existence to supplant the herd trails that are getting too much traffic to remain informal any longer.

 

[Peakbagr]

What was for decades a lightly used route between Marcy and Gray is now a 'trample' path through alpine vegetation. For years it was lightly used enough that it wasn't a problem. With the huge increase in people hiking the 46, many of them new to the sport, the path has become a mess.
I've been concerned with the growing numbers of 46er finishers, and while the organization struggles with how to handle it, closing this path makes a lot of sense. No disagreement about the state of some of the herd paths....
Though I've been against the idea for years, IMO it's time for backcountry permits to help manage what's happening in many areas of the High Peaks.

 

[Trail Boss]

I hiked Marcy to Gray in April 2011 on a deep, solid snowpack. Just a few treetops visible and no sprucetraps. It was a very enjoyable hike and far more interesting than the 'trade route' from Lake Tear.





However, outside of ideal snow conditions, the route is not only less appealing but the DEC has been discouraging hikers from using it for many years owing to destruction of alpine flora. Of course, the only way you knew that was if you stumbled onto it in a hiking forum or heard it from a ranger or summit steward. The posted sign now helps to publicize it. However, it might help to have a similar one posted at major trail-heads to forewarn hikers. When several high-elevation lean-to's were removed in the mid 70's they posted signs at a low-elevation along the trail leading to the lean-to's (and not at the empty lean-to site). Best to know about the closure sooner than later.

If a "herd-path" is the human equivalent of a game trail (a distinct unofficial path forming after sufficient usage) then the term no longer accurately describes what one finds leading to the so-called "trail-less peaks". They may have started as "herd-paths" (decades ago) but, as part of a goal to minimize environmental damage caused by multiple braided paths to a summit, were winnowed to one or two paths to a given peak. These routes are, I feel, more aptly called "unmarked trails". They are officially recognized in Unit Management Plans (UMP) and receive light maintenance by trail adopters. A handful are indicated by DEC signs and even have bog-bridges to prevent destruction of alpine flora. That's atypical for a herd-path of bygone days. The latest ADK High Peaks trail map has even seen fit to indicate them. The term "trail-less peaks" is a throwback to yesteryear and fails to describe the modern reality; all 46er peaks have defined trails only some are not blazed. There are true herd-paths in the High Peaks: faint, unmarked, unmaintained, unofficial, and nowhere to be found on a map. None of the unmarked trails fit this description.

Carping about the condition of marked and unmarked Adirondack trails is a great pastime. I recall a hike to the Tripyramids in New Hampshire where during our ascent I pointed to the adjacent brook and chuckled "There's the Adirondack version of this trail!" However, I also accept these rugged, eroded, messy, and tortured paths to be part of the Adirondack experience. Frankly, they really don't seem much different (read: worse) since I first experienced them over 35 years ago. In some ways they are even better (protection and restoration of alpine flora) despite the tremendous increase in hiker traffic (and limited trail maintenance budgets). In lieu of quotas, I'd prefer to see more educational programs along the line of summit stewards (like trail-head stewards).


Having said all that, the initial section of trail to Cliff is truly memorable ... for all the wrong reasons! A great motivator to hike in winter.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I've also had discussions with people who claim it is perfectly ok to go directly between these 2 peaks in winter. The problem is 'What is Winter?'. In Spring, every week that passes the Winter route will melt out (on average). People start falling into spruce traps, and then one is following a snow spine (monorail), and finally just a muddy herd path.

I am guilty as charged in this, but I also believe the more we talk about this route, the more use it will get.