Post Irene Damage in Wilderness Areas

[Craig]

"Arguably" being the key word in that sentence.

Arguably – (as used to qualify a statement of an opinion or belief)
Obviously, this entire discussion is based on opinion. There is little to no comprehensive data available regarding wilderness use (to my knowledge) that would allow for a fact based discussion.

IMO #1 - There is a lot of activity in the woods and hills that doesn't get posted on the intertoobz - that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

IMO#2 -Peakbaggers make a lot of noise about what they are doing, which may create the illusion that they are a majority. Hard to say without some actual data.

Agreed

arguably the trail systems are overwhelmingly used by peakbaggers in some of the NH wilderness areas. e.g. Sandwich Range Wilderness

What do you base this statement on?

I'll take the Sandwich Range Wilderness, that I used in my example, to frame my opinion.
Look at a trails map of this wilderness and tell me what you see for potential backcountry uses.
Now take a look at the trail map and imagine what the trails systems in this wilderness are used to access.

IMO, the trails within this wilderness are overwhelmingly use to access peaks, ergo, “arguably the trail systems are overwhelmingly used by peakbaggers in some of the NH wilderness areas”.

However, lets not forget the context in which I asked the question of Creag.

An officially designated and mapped and marked trail is much more followable, therefore both safer and lower-impact, than the notion of some managers that trails have to be subtle, brushed narrowly, with minimal or no blazing yet somehow brushed to indicate where the trail is.

What if there were no 4K peaks or peaks on popular list within the wilderness area. Traffic would obviously be dramatically decreased. Would your opinion “regarding protecting the land from it's impact” be different in this situation?

 

[Tim Seaver]

IMO, the trails within this wilderness are overwhelmingly use to access peaks, ergo, “arguably the trail systems are overwhelmingly used by peakbaggers in some of the NH wilderness areas”.

Perhaps it's just a manner of semantics - when I use the word "Peakbagger", I am specifically referring to somebody who is pursuing a list, as opposed to somebody randomly hiking places and peaks because they are simply exploring (which would describe 99% of my time in the hills).

In other words, in my mind:

All Peakbaggers are Hikers, but not all Hikers are Peakbaggers.

 

[Craig]

All Peakbaggers are Hikers, but not all Hikers are Peakbaggers.

That’s a fair point.

I hereby declare that all previous references to the term peakbaggers are synonymous with the term hiker.

 

[DougPaul]

All Peakbaggers are Hikers, but not all Hikers are Peakbaggers.

Not necessarily: some peaks have been bagged by motorists...

I suppose one could also include some skiers and mountain bikers among the non-hiking peak baggers too.

Doug

 

[psmart]

Peakbaggers make a lot of noise about what they are doing, which may create the illusion that they are a majority. Hard to say without some actual data.

Actually, a WODC member did a rather extensive hiker survey a few years ago. As I recall, the vast majority of hikers he surveyed at the Wonalancet trailhead stated they were there primarily to climb the 4000 footers.

This agrees with informal surveys done by some of our trail crews, as they spoke to folks going past the work site. We often joke about how much less traffic (and trail impact) there would be on WODC trails if we could cut a few feet off Whiteface and Passaconaway.

I'll see if I can locate a copy of the survey.

 

[Little Rickie]

After what has just happened I'm starting to think we just have to let nature have her way and we shouldn't do much more than mark trails and reroute trails. Let us bend to nature rather than us bending nature to conform to what we think suits us. Nature is going to win, why fight her?