Mark S said:
As to the issue of better ways of cutting new paths, I guess you could count me among those who think things should have be left as is. I think that as the route-finding difficulties of the 46Rs are removed, you will see more and more looking to the Highest 100 as a way of 'proving' their woodsmanship skills. Ultimately, this will lead to the proliferation of herd paths in other parts of the Dacks.
This is a different issue altogether I think. Although, I cannot see the correlation between the flagging of routes currently done by the 46ers (through the auspices of the DEC) and this issue. I think Pete (who is closer than all of us to the scene) laid to rest well enough that the problems of multiple paths on Street/Nye has been significantly reduced by directing traffic up a single well-designed path.
You can make an argument that the reason the problem even exists at all is because of 46er inaction in the past. For years, the notion of “trailless” peeks meant that people would, by and large, climb “however they hell they wanted” to the summit. Given the increased volume over the years, paths developed that were “not particularly” well developed or designed. By maintaining this false illusion of “trailess peaks” for so long, while usage went through the roof, problems with erosion along crappy paths intensified and worsened. What’s being done now with flagging and rerouting is simply a reaction to a problem that its been long overdue to address. You might be able to argue that had the illusion of “trailess peaks” been abandoned 10-15 years ago (as usage increased), there’s a possibility that better and more ecologically friendly “paths” would already be in place on the trailess peak and the problem of “official” flagging would be mute.
As for the 100 Highest. The list is out already there, and printed in the back of the ADK Guide no less, along with a caveat that it’s there in hopes that climbing some of them will “relieve pressure” on the top 46. I hear about these peaks more and more, and I even read a recent article in the Press Republican about someone that climbed all xxx peaks under xxx feet in winter. I loved it, and It was a great article about adventure and exploration, but at the same time its certain to generate interest in some of these lesser peaks for those with a certain peakbagging mentality (i.e. many of us). The word is slowly getting out. People may not be climbing all 100, but individually (peak by peak), usage is spreading. Lets face it, with technology today (and the advent of GPS) the woodcraft needed to negotiate the Sawtooths or Sentinels is NOT what it used to be and any ole idiot willing to risk some skin can do it (I include myself in there
). Add to that, books or websites like this one, mine, or any number of a dozen others, and it is all but inevitable that these peaks will see more hikers. That my make you sad, or forlorn, but it is, IN FACT, reality.
It would be, and is, easy to blame one or two simple factors on why this is happening, but much like currently blaming the 46er for current the “flagging infractions”, its way too simple and convenient, and probably not really accurate. We can continue to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that “trailess peaks” still exist (everyone agrees they don’t), or that the 100 highest aren’t being climbed more and more frequently, but we do so at great peril to these wild and magnificent places. The problems will even be worse for the HH peaks as there are private property concerns for quite a few. When only 1-2 "blitz" the peak a year (as has been done in the past), it wasn't a huge issue. It soon will be at this rate.
Sorry, I drifted from flagging, but……………. My position on flagging? I pretty much find it ugly as hell and hate it, and will generally remove it if I don’t think it belongs. To be truthful, I’ve come across quite a bit of it, and I’ve found that it’s pretty easy to determine if it served a legitimate purpose or not. This is how I see it, and like anything else, I could be way off base.
