the evolution of "herd paths"

[Peakbagr]

G-

Not sure about that. We've got a couple of Karnak's we hike with.

 

[dave.m]

This is the common sense rule...

Ah. But common sense isn't, is it?

 

[Skyclimber]

When it comes to bushwhacking the peaks, how can you say, that with the guidebook giving you directions to the top of the mountain, that they are announcing they want a trail there? When it comes to bushwhacking it appears to me, that most people don't usually take the same route as the previous group does. With the Top 100's, outside the 46 High Peaks, many of those Mountains are total bushwhacks and I have seldom seen any herd trails to the tops of them. I have done much bushwhacking over many years and coming back and telling my story and a friend goes and does the same peak, they come back with a different story. One tends to go an entirely different way.

Every person has the right to travel these Mountains, no matter what their degree of skill is. Some people have trouble with navigation skills. Just because others are more skilled than others, that does not mean that these hikers should not be allowed to go into the backcountry.

As far as the Adirondacks goes and the so called "trailless peaks" they are now called "Wilderness Paths." We have blocked the non existing spur trails off, in which to keep hikers all on the same path, in order to minimize damage done to the Mountains.

 

[thuja]

It seems I should have been a little more careful in what I said, and how I said it. I appreciate the generally reasoned replies here. It's pretty rare in web forums. Some responses to your comments, and some clarifications:

1) I consider myself a bushwacker. Putting bushwackers in the list with neo-nazis and model train enthusiasts was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. C'mon, admit it, their *is* something crazy, eccentric, cult-like about this bushwhacking thing.

2) When I tell people to "shut up" about specific routes, I am speaking as someone who used to happily post detailed off-trail route descriptions on the web, with pics and maps, even, who has since shut up. My route descriptions are still up there, years fter I wrote them. It's natural, it's human, to do this, to want to share neat stuff and help other folks out. But I think we all need to sit back and think a little about how the web differs from other communications media. It's definitely *not* like sharing this stuff with a few friends, or an acquaintance who wants a hint or two, or even a club publication received by a couple of hundred people. You're sharing this stuff with the whole world, baby, and thanks to google, what you put up there is really persistent, maybe even immortal. Kind of odd to think that your web trip reports will outlive you, but it could very well be true. This enormous increase in the rate of information accessibility and propagation means that obscure or incipient herd paths, or former trails, which once would have disappeared back into the woods, are now likely to go the other way.

I suppose I could bring up the rise of hand-held GPS units, and the sharing of routes in GPS coordinates, as another new technology which is likely to increase the speed of way trail development.

3) I have been assuming, more or less as an axiom, that the proliferation of informal user-created trails ("herd paths", "way trails") is a bad thing. Some of you may not think so. But I think a lot of you would probably agree with that. After all, many of you are bushwhackers, and if there are "herd paths" to all attractive destinations, the sphere of bushwacking gets ever more circumscribed. Trails make places less wild, and there ain't much wildness left in the lower 48, and even less in the northeast.

Some of you insist that this is not a problem in the Adirondacks, nah, the formal and informal trail system is as it is, and no more trails are springing into existence. I acknowledge my ignorance of the Adirondacks, relative to many of you. I am happy to see that accepted ethics are more conservative about these matters than they are in Washington state. Here we still have loppers and flaggers and build-your-own-trail entrepeneurs galore, although the climate of opinion is slowly shifting. But I am enormously skeptical that it is not a problem in the Adirondacks. The "trailless peaks" were called that because they had no trails on them. Now they do. Where did these trails come from? Other posters have mentioned that the "hundred highest" peaks are all developing way trails. It is an ongoing process. Why should it stop where it is? Why should not way trails develop on all the Adirondack 3000'ers which have nice views, particularly if somebody publishes a convenient list with detailed route descriptions, and others publish glowing trip reports? Those of you who have observed these mountains over, say, twenty years or more, have not new trails appeared in this interval?

4) Ethics are situational, appropriate to a given time, place, society. Colvin and Nye (famous guides?) and their peers undoubtedly blazed trails all over the place. John Muir made roaring fires at tree line in the Sierras. Twenty-five years ago out here, it was perfectly accepted practice for people to build their own trails on public lands. Nothing wrong with any of that, given time, place, context. But nowdays, with shrinking islands of genuine wild country, with expanding populations, probably increasing participation rates, and the new technologies mentioned above, ethics need to evolve. And that means, at the least, being careful what you put on the web, careful about propagating detailed route descriptions of off-trail routes. And I'd probably argue for no maintenance (lopping, deadfall removal) of unofficial routes.

Hey, I don't know the answers. But I do know there's a problem, and I think it's worth thinking about, and groping for answers, even if there aren't any good ones.

 

[Peakbagr]

A good re-balancing of the "Force". Yoda would be proud.
No harm, no foul.

 

[MarkJ]

herdpaths

I don't think you can compare the wacked' mts hiked here in the Northeast to the ones in Northwest.I have been out there (600 miles of PCT,Siad Valley to Chelan).Iagreewith limiting hikers in those Alpine areas and wackin out there should not be advertised....most wacked' mts out here are below 4k.One we did this weekend is probably in better condition now,since it was most likely logged out years ago...and the moose paths were worn to dirt in many spots.I don't think wackin has effected this mini piece of heaven,I do see your point tho........MJ

 

[Neil]

Cedar, I mean Thuja, much better post.
You know there was a time ( a fraction of a blink of an eye in geologic time) when getting to Mount Marcy meant bushwhacking from L. Placid. The discussion could go on for ever (and be constructive) whether its good or bad that all 46 summits now have well defined paths. As for those summits that are truely trailless in the ADK's I wouldn't be too worried. Most of them are bears to get and only a handful of people do them. There are some very devoted ADK people who would like to see them get more traffic in order to take pressure off the High Peaks but I can't see it (herd trails forming) happening. For ex. several parties did Avalanche Mtn. (between Algonquin and Colden) this summer. In comparing notes we all went completley different ways.

Even with a gps tracklog there is about a 50 foot total margin of error if each gps is accurate to 25 feet.

 

[mavs00]

A good re-balancing of the "Force". Yoda would be proud.
No harm, no foul.

Totally agreed. As I stated earlier, my simple asertion was that tone detracted from the very importtant topics and sentiments stated. You have done very good job outlaying your points in this second post, and there is much for us to consider.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I once was reading something about leave no trace and it mentioned how a group of 11 people (or maybe it was 15) walking in a straight line would leave sign of a trail.

I guess it means that 11 (or 15) people could create a trail just by walking in a straight line.

You'd be surprised how quickly a tread can be laid out. We just did a re-route a week ago, and we had our crew walk over the path several times, and it LOOKs like a path. We flagged it as well, but I'm willing to wager that after 2 weeks, we can remove the flagging and there will be no problem following the path, even through open sections of forest. (ANyone climb Macomb this weekend?)

There are several issues here, as to how quickly and how many feet will create a path. The land has a certain 'carrying capacity', and there is a 'recovery time'. Some terrain, takes a long time to recover. For instance, a boggy/grassy section along a lake will take a much longer time to recover from a footstep, than an open hardwood forest. You may think that the open hardwood forest will suffer no ill effects from a foot, but it does. The soil is compressed somewhat, and some small branches may get broken.

Now, the amount of traffic comes into play. If the rate of traffic is such that the land never has time to recover, a path will develop. Note that the volume of traffic, depends on the terrain.

In addition, recovery time is non-linear. a dozen people walking seconds apart, will do more damage than a dozen people walking hours apart. One can notice this if one sits and watches hikers walk through muddy sections... yes, I have done this... One learns a lot sitting by the side of a trail, watching hikers feet. I work on trails, and I study how they are used.

The whole issue of development of paths is multi-demensional, and I can (and have) written pages about it. Not enough room and not enough time now for all the details.

Paths do develop on their own, without any marking/flagging. Flagging greatly accelerates the process, however. Path creation is quite interesting. Even in non-woods areas. Have you ever seen paths on a campus, where people take 'shortcuts' iacross the grass, instead of using the sidewalk. Ever hear the story of optimal campus sidewalk layout? Designers planted grass everywhere, then watched the paths develop as people walked, then installed sidewalks where the paths developped.

It is a bit more complicated in forests, but is surprisingly similar.

 

[Neil]

Have you ever seen paths on a campus, where people take 'shortcuts' iacross the grass, instead of using the sidewalk. Ever hear the story of optimal campus sidewalk layout? Designers planted grass everywhere, then watched the paths develop as people walked, then installed sidewalks where the paths developped.

It is a bit more complicated in forests, but is surprisingly similar.

Back in Ecology 101 the prof used this as an example pointing out the various transition zones from the center of the path which was bare ground to the edge where the grass was normal. There were different plant species growing in each zone according to tolerance to frequent versus occasional trampling.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

There were different plant species growing in each zone according to tolerance to frequent versus occasional trampling.

Note that while the trampling of the plant is part of it, the larger effect is from the compaction of the earth. Compacted earth does not hold as much oxygen for the roots, nor does it hold water the way uncompacted soil does.

 

[RoySwkr]

I guess this says you should bushwack in small groups and if you must hike in not so small groups stagger the line not to create a path.

WMNF guidelines for Wilderness limit group size on bushwhacks to 4 for perhaps this reason. Of course for safety reasons they suggest a minimum group of 4 and if anything you might think it should be larger in Wilderness where rescue might take longer

When I climbed Mendon 20+ years ago there was a herd path obvious enough to be followed in winter, so they do become obscure in time (perhaps a couple fallen trees scattered hikers).

 

[Tom Rankin]

When I climbed Mendon 20+ years ago there was a herd path obvious enough to be followed in winter, so they do become obscure in time (perhaps a couple fallen trees scattered hikers).

I think this is correct, although it depends on where you started. There are places where the path is quite well defined, and then it vanishes. Then you find it again. Repeat until at summit...

Not following a herd path exactly can be useful. I've been in groups where if we lost the herd path, we spread out and try to discover where it went.

In Winter, when there is deep snow, people tend to stay on the path.

 

[arghman]

Path creation is quite interesting. Even in non-woods areas. Have you ever seen paths on a campus, where people take 'shortcuts' iacross the grass, instead of using the sidewalk. Ever hear the story of optimal campus sidewalk layout? Designers planted grass everywhere, then watched the paths develop as people walked, then installed sidewalks where the paths developped.

as an aside, this reminded me of my college days at a certain engineering school, there was a herd path across one corner of a grassy oval called the "nerd path", even to the point where the ends of the "nerd path" were marked in paint on nearby pavement. Phys. plant eventually removed it & blocked off the grass to let it recover. (I never got the "nerd path" pun until reading this thread. )

also note -- crustose lichens (e.g. map lichen & ring lichen) generally are unaffected by foot travel or anything else short of scraping/grinding them off with another hard surface.

 

[HighHorse]

what the ?!

I once was reading something about leave no trace and it mentioned how a group of 11 people (or maybe it was 15) walking in a straight line would leave sign of a trail.

I guess it means that 11 (or 15) people could create a trail just by walking in a straight line. I guess this says you should bushwack in small groups and if you must hike in not so small groups stagger the line not to create a path.

when was the last time you saw a group of 12 people bushwacking?

 

[Tom Rankin]

when was the last time you saw a group of 12 people bushwacking?

It happens. The Catskill 3500 club leads trips to a lot of trailless peaks, and the maximum # they allow at once is 12, so sometimes they have to cut off registration, because they are full.

 

[dms]

I remember trips in the 80's when Gene Daniell used to lead trips to White Cap and Boundry that were at least 20 to 30 people.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I remember trips in the 80's when Gene Daniell used to lead trips to White Cap and Boundry that were at least 20 to 30 people.

In the past, "we" did lots of things that we later found out were not following 'best practices." Compare old hiking/backpacking to those available now.

Unfortunately, some consider "us" hypocrites because "we" are telling others not to do something "we" once did.

also note -- crustose lichens (e.g. map lichen & ring lichen) generally are unaffected by foot travel or anything else short of scraping/grinding them off with another hard surface.

Hmmmm.. Could be an interesting way or marking an above-treeline route, when rocks for cairns are not available..

 

[dms]

Pete, you are right, back when these trips were done, it was an accepted practice. In fact, the trips were AMC trips listed in the Bulletin. However, most of the travel was done on logging roads and the boundary swath.

 

[DougPaul]

also note -- crustose lichens (e.g. map lichen & ring lichen) generally are unaffected by foot travel or anything else short of scraping/grinding them off with another hard surface.

Hmmmm.. Could be an interesting way or marking an above-treeline route, when rocks for cairns are not available..

Works for rock climbers...

Some of the routes at the Gunks can be followed by following the light-colored "paths". (Light-colored rock, dark lichens.) In fact, rock climbers have been known to use a wire brush to clean the rock to make it easier to climb.

I have certainly seen (and walked on) "paths" worn in the lichens in exposed areas in the Whites.

Doug