This issue of how "herd paths" or "way trails" come into existence is worth some thought. It's clear that it's all about concentrating usage. Around here, in western WA, I contend that except in cases where natural travel routes are highly confined, as, for example, on a ridgeline, bushwhacking, because it is dispersed, does not create "way trails" or "herd paths" in forested or brushy terrain. To get a "way trail" somebody has to encourage use concentration by doing some lopping or flagging. Detailed off-trail route descriptions in guidebooks are also highly conducive to use concentration; one could say that the act of promoting or naming or defining a particular off-trail route is pretty much the same thing as announcing to the world that you want a trail there. Once you've got a defined, followable tread, of course, it draws usage and becomes more and more obvious.
I have seen enough "way trails" spring into existence around here to really dislike it. Unless you experience both the "before" and the "after" it's hard to appreciate the degree to which such informal trails draw people and facilitate usage, and destroy wildness. It is, after all, a whole lot easier, both physically and mentally, to follow a "way trail" than to shoulder the burden of making your own way in the woods. Thus these arguments one often hears about how improving or formalizing a trail lessens resource damage are incomplete. The increased number of people who will go there, thanks to greater ease and speed, and lower skill requirements, also need to be factored in, as an environmental cost.
My own personal rule about off-trail travel, is I do not publicize routes. I do not post trip reports or maps on the web. If you can't find your own route up a mountain, you probably shouldn't be bushwhacking or travelling autonomously. I certainly do not brush, clear, or flag my travel routes in any way, and I remove such flagging when I find it. "Leave no trace" means what it says. Insofar as possible, nobody should know you've been there. Bringing your handy flagging tape and brush loppers to "help out" the next person constitutes resource destruction. The next time you travel a particularly neat off-trail route, or one you are proud of in some way, do something novel: shut up about it. This is particularly true nowdays, in the age of the Web, very well suited for spreading information amongst small cults, like model train fanciers, neo-nazis, peak-baggers, and bushwhackers. It's the best thing you can do to keep that place the way you experienced it, for the next person who happens to wander that way. I would also say that the parties most guilty of route creation around here are those who are not really into off-trail travel or bushwhacking, as a means of exploring wild places or developing some intimacy with the natural landscape, but have some external objective like a fishing site or a summit (peak-baggers and climbers) and the stuff in between the car and this objective is in some sense just an obstacle.
Now, although I am very fond of the Adirondacks (less so the Whites) I know they are considerably more developed, and under considerably greater recreational pressure, than the Olympics or N Cascades out here , so it seems that these precepts should be doubly applicable in the NE. It seems to me that the whole myth of the "trailless peaks" serves to confuse many people in the Adirondacks, to the point where they equate travel on way trails with bushwhacking, which it ain't, which they'd
know, if they'd ever done it.
I have seen enough "way trails" spring into existence around here to really dislike it. Unless you experience both the "before" and the "after" it's hard to appreciate the degree to which such informal trails draw people and facilitate usage, and destroy wildness. It is, after all, a whole lot easier, both physically and mentally, to follow a "way trail" than to shoulder the burden of making your own way in the woods. Thus these arguments one often hears about how improving or formalizing a trail lessens resource damage are incomplete. The increased number of people who will go there, thanks to greater ease and speed, and lower skill requirements, also need to be factored in, as an environmental cost.
My own personal rule about off-trail travel, is I do not publicize routes. I do not post trip reports or maps on the web. If you can't find your own route up a mountain, you probably shouldn't be bushwhacking or travelling autonomously. I certainly do not brush, clear, or flag my travel routes in any way, and I remove such flagging when I find it. "Leave no trace" means what it says. Insofar as possible, nobody should know you've been there. Bringing your handy flagging tape and brush loppers to "help out" the next person constitutes resource destruction. The next time you travel a particularly neat off-trail route, or one you are proud of in some way, do something novel: shut up about it. This is particularly true nowdays, in the age of the Web, very well suited for spreading information amongst small cults, like model train fanciers, neo-nazis, peak-baggers, and bushwhackers. It's the best thing you can do to keep that place the way you experienced it, for the next person who happens to wander that way. I would also say that the parties most guilty of route creation around here are those who are not really into off-trail travel or bushwhacking, as a means of exploring wild places or developing some intimacy with the natural landscape, but have some external objective like a fishing site or a summit (peak-baggers and climbers) and the stuff in between the car and this objective is in some sense just an obstacle.
Now, although I am very fond of the Adirondacks (less so the Whites) I know they are considerably more developed, and under considerably greater recreational pressure, than the Olympics or N Cascades out here , so it seems that these precepts should be doubly applicable in the NE. It seems to me that the whole myth of the "trailless peaks" serves to confuse many people in the Adirondacks, to the point where they equate travel on way trails with bushwhacking, which it ain't, which they'd
know, if they'd ever done it.
Last edited:
