group bushwhacking ethics

[rocksnrolls]

I'm just starting to get into 'whacking and have been contemplating this subject:

I've read somewhere (maybe in Waterman's "Wilderness Ethics") that when bushwhacking, hikers in groups should try to follow slightly different routes so as to lessen the concentration of damage to the vegetation and the creation of herd paths. I would think this is unneccessary in places that already have discernable herd paths, but I was curious what thoughts people have on this subject. I suppose the larger the group, the more of an issue this becomes, as well as what kind of terrain. Of course, vegetation will rebound, especially in places getting infrequent hikers. Also, if people are spread out it's more likely any unusual things in the area (cellar holes, artifacts, bones, etc) will be spotted by at least one person in the group - probably causing the others to converge on the spot

 

[DougPaul]

I would think this is unneccessary in places that already have discernable herd paths, but I was curious what thoughts people have on this subject.

Remember, every set of feet traveling over the herd path increase the damage. This damage will make the path more obvious to the next hiker as well as increase the impact and potential for erosion.

Yes there comes a point where it is best for everyone to follow the same line of damage, as in a planned (and potentially hardened) trail, but the dividing line may not be at the point where the herd path becomes discernible.

Doug

 

[onestep]

Once you get past the NEHH "bushwhacks" I wouldn't worry at all about the environmental concerns you've been contemplating... just carry a package of fern & moss seed.

 

[Neil]

Group bushwhacking is something I dislike. Group sizes from 1 to 4 with 4 pushing it is what I prefer. I would say spread out to avoid soil compaction as well as tearing up the moss etc., or forming a path.

Then when you spread out have fun keeping track of everybody.

 

[Nessmuk]

I'm just starting to get into 'whacking and have been contemplating this subject:

I've read somewhere (maybe in Waterman's "Wilderness Ethics") that when bushwhacking, hikers in groups should try to follow slightly different routes so as to lessen the concentration of damage to the vegetation and the creation of herd paths.

Run, don't walk to LNT. Then get yourself a copy of Soft Paths. You are on the right path with your questions, especially as you venture off from the highly impacted trails. Understand that some LNT instructors teach only in black and white. There are of course shades of gray, but it takes a bit of thought about reality and consequences to make the proper choices.

 

[Double Bow]

I agree with the point about peaks beyond the NEHH. Seldom is there a herd path and if there is one, it's a TRUE herd path... you know, as in created by a herd.

If only we could get those moose and deer and other critters to stop using the same routes, the moss & fern could regrow!

 

[albee]

In the winter people usually tend to follow the same course, due to packing a trail. This can mean out and back if you aren't doing a loop. In this case it is only snapping some branches. (Only the dead ones, obviously.)

In the other seasons, unless you're bushwhacking in a conga line, people tend to spread out a bit anyway - unless they're strictly along for the ride and never take a turn at route-finding. There are always going to be some spots where everybody climbs over the same blowdown or goes between the same 2 trees, but in general I would agree with Onestep - after the NEHH your group size won't make much of an impact as far as herd paths go. If you 'whack enough, you will start to notice and follow animal paths more often, and these are fair game because the animals are going to follow them either way.

Group size is not something I ever really worry about, since I generally prefer to go solo, and when I join other groups I'm usually off to the side following my own course. (Unless it is winter.) I have noticed that people tend to closely follow the same route when descending more so than climbing.

Up on Calamity in NY last weekend, I found the remnants of a herd path from a group that had gone through 2 weeks earlier. If the soil is especially soft, rotten, or muddy, your footprints will stick around for longer than you may expect! I haven't noticed that much in New England, though.

 

[dug]

After just coming back from the Gates of the Arctice in Alaska - which is entirely trailless throughout the park - we were advised to not follow in the same foot steps and to spread it around where possible.

I will be honest, however, that when we were in some thick alders with no end in site, it was pure survival mode and impossible to resist the temptation to follow in the same footsteps on occasion.

 

[Paradox]

On my last bushwack: peak bgr, bushwacker and coldriverrun were so far ahead that the ferns had time to germinate, sprout and reach maturity before I got there.

 

[Pig Pen]

Whack free or die

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

...I would think this is unneccessary in places that already have discernable herd paths...

It's that kind of thinking that leads to unnecessary, discernible herd paths.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're whacking with a group, that's all the more reason to avoid the herd paths. Illegal trails are a different story.

In the case of group whacks of six or more, the whacked organizer should be fed to the bears.

 

[Neil]

If I understand the wording of the 1964 wilderness act's definition of wilderness then it's OK for moose and other ungulates, rodentia, marsupials or what-have-you to form herd paths.

Man, however (niggle, niggle) should not be allowed to create herd paths in a wilderness zone. That is, "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man".

Whack free but don't cause path formation in a wilderness zone. (That will not fit on my license plate.)

 

[Tom Rankin]

In the case of group whacks of six or more, the whacked organizer should be fed to the bears.

Hmmm, I guess I'm bear food!

The Catskill 3500 Club leads whacks with up to 12 people. I've led several and I've never been on one where any other leader asked everyone to spread out. We tend to use established herd paths for many of the climbs, apparently believing that it is ok to have one hardened herd path up a mountain.

The ADK leads hikes to the 'trailess' 46, but most of these are not really herd paths these days. 'Unmaintained' would be a better word, although even that seems to be changing! The Catskill herd paths are usually much less well-established.

We've never really discussed it (that I know of), but maybe we should!

(Reading Neil's post just now, I should add that most of the Catskills are not Wilderness, they are mostly 'wild forests').

 

[bill bowden]

A classic "herd path" in NH

The famous "Castle Mountain Expressway" from roughly the col with Sugarloaf to the summit of Castle, perhaps half a mile, about three feet wide. I was (if I recall correctly) the second person to sign the register (placed by John Swanson several years before) and when I returned two years later I was the last previous signer.
there seems to be a real problemof overuse leading to herd paths on the NEHH peaks to the point that maintained trails would be less environmentally damaging but lower peaks usually get little enough traffic from humans to be relatively free from human herd paths.

 

[Neil]

Hmmm, I guess I'm bear food!

The Catskill 3500 Club leads whacks with up to 12 people. I've led several and I've never been on one where any other leader asked everyone to spread out. We tend to use established herd paths for many of the climbs, apparently believing that it is ok to have one hardened herd path up a mountain.

The ADK leads hikes to the 'trailess' 46, but most of these are not really herd paths these days. 'Unmaintained' would be a better word, although even that seems to be changing! The Catskill herd paths are usually much less well-established.

Your not bear food because what you have described are not bushwhacks.

 

[albee]

Your not bear food because what you have described are not bushwhacks.

Be careful, Neil - you might bruise a lot of people's egos saying stuff like that.

 

[Mike P.]

The ADK paths really are more of less maintained, slightly marked trails & they are trying to focus most of the use (They can't arrest you - as far as I know- if you choose your own way) to the formerly trail-less 46 on these trails.

While the Catskills are less traveled some of these do use old roads (Graham for instance) & I while I did not find SW Hunter one winter when I was looking for it, (from near the lean-to) most of the way was not too hard to follow.

Back in 1998 when I did Fort the herd path as pretty easy to follow except in the col so with the increase in peakbagging I would think it's a pretty easy path to follow. (we lost the trail in the col & took the spread formation to find it again)

With the few people over all going after the NE 3,000 or the even less traveled peaks, spreading impact seems smart.

 

[rocksnrolls]

thanks for the food for thought!