Trailess 46er Peaks - What can we learn from them?

[Mavs00]

In an effort to end the "threadjack" on the -SENTINEL- (http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16900#post16900), I thought I'd start a new thread.

There was an exchange in post 16 (http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16898&postcount=16) -17 (http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16900&postcount=17) of that thread between me and Pete Hickey that I want to explore further. The context that it had come under was about how views from summits change over time, in natural and unnatural ways. Well... it's best read through the thread, so I encourage you to do so.

Pete's last line in his thread really got me thinking. It was in response to my statement;

Not jumping on a soap box here, but the sheer fact is, these peaks are getting use, and unless someone starts paying attention, it'll be "herd path nightmare ala trailess 46" all over."

He said;

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Okay.......... 1) What is the history of the trailess 46. 2) What impact has it had on those peaks (good or bad). 3) And what are we "doomed" to repeat by ignoring the current use and increasing traffic on hereto "ignored summits". 4) Is it, in the great scheme of things, something we need to worry about.

Obviously, this is not just for Pete. Anyone that cares, probably has thoughts on the matter and I'd be interested in hearing them. I think we all would.

I'll post mine later ;)

[Skyclimber]

Since I started climbing in 1990, I have seen many changes in the peaks. I can't really say all for the good. Hurricane Floyd had destroyed some of the wilderness.
Cliff was a totally and I mean totally viewless summit. The joy of climbing that peak came with the challenge that it took to do so. Now it is a very beautiful peak with an awesome, unique view of Colden and also of Marcy.

Allen well, again the challenge came within climbing it. The only viewpoint was that of the Dix Range and it is better now than before. The spectacular view of Marcy/Haystack looking up into Panther Gorge was created by Hurricane Floyd.

Blake used to have a view of Elk Lake from the back of the summit but that has grown up and no longer is visible. But it does have a nice view from the top of another kind below the summit. It also used to have a little green sign that read, "Blake's Peak."

Sawteeth a beautiful view along the ridge that didn't exist before, of Giant and other peaks.

I also believe the view of the Seward Range just below the summit of Seymour is also something new, on the big boulder.

The view from the Shoulder of Noonmark on the way to Dial is also something new. That was created by the great fire, in 1999. That was also a totally wooded summit.

The view from Marshall of Colden is another new vantage point.

Tabletop totally viewless. We used to climb a tree to see the view.

The erosion in the peaks are ten times worse than it ever was. The herdpaths are definitely more distinctive than before. I remember first climbing the Seward Range and we had to bushwhack off Seward as we lost the herdpath.

Street and Nye used to be a maze of herdpaths, with paths in every direction. Never did we ever go up and down Street and Nye the same way. Coming off of Street used to be a great challenge, bushwhacking our way down.
Basically all of the "trailless" peaks had spur trails of some kind. You reach a dead end and turn around to find the main path. You did have to carry a compass with you, for assurance of not getting lost.

I remember Rocky Peak's path always seemed more like a herd path than a trail, even though it was marked. It was rather narrow and nothing like the wide trail it has now.

Lets not forgot Avalanche Pass. Oh that was a beautiful place, with high rock wall cliffs that was so beautiful to walk through. Also a waterfall during the wet season would come pouring down off the cliffs. I was in complete devastation the day I heard the Avalanche destroyed the pass, as well when I heard of the fire on the Shoulder of Noonmark.

The Canister Era. That was best of all, to finally reach the top and sign in. With A notebook and pen inside (sometimes the pen didn't work) so we would have a spare one in our pack. We then took the last three names out of the logbook and send them into Grace. This was our proof of climbing the mountain.

The day we headed for Marshall with a group, they never told me until half way there, that we were on a "mission" this was the start of the removal of the Canister Era.

Not sure if this is what answer that you wanted. But these are some of the changes, at the top of my head, that I have seen throughout the years.

[pete_hickey]

Okay.......... 1) What is the history of the trailess 46.
In general... They were wild. A few people started climbing them. More people climbed. Herd paths developped. Doing the 46 got more popular. More people... multiple paths...Then recently these wild peaks were tamed and pretty much maintained. Maintained to give the APPEARANCE of a wild path.

2) What impact has it had on those peaks (good or bad).
The trails are in better condition now. The peaks are less wild. It's a tradeoff.
3) And what are we "doomed" to repeat by ignoring the current use and increasing traffic on hereto "ignored summits". At least we can look back to see what happened, then look at what is happening, and predict with a fair amount of certainty about what will happen. We could be more proactive and less reactive. THe problem is that time is moving faster these days.
4) Is it, in the great scheme of things, something we need to worry about. Depends on how and how much you value them.

[Mark Schaefer]

We know that if a mountain is on a published list, or if word circulates about the view, eventually enough people will come and create paths, either intentionally or unintentionally. All of our trailed 46er peaks started off trailless. Some had trails cut intentionally, Herd paths formed on others that became marked and maintained trails. Difficult to maintain routes were created by both methods.

In general I believe that the usage of the mountain should dictate whether or not a trail is needed, and to what degree the trail should be maintained and marked. We could not keep a mountain truly trailless even if we tried.

In the Catskills a new master plan is in review. To preserve the trailless summits, some would like to see a ban on all trail building within 1/2 mile of all currently trailless mountains. My reaction to that is "good luck!" :rolleyes: How do your propose to stop the herd paths? Is it even wise to create a trail that skirts a summit when you know that many will want to climb the summit? It is a natural desire to climb to a high point. IMHO It would be better to build the trail over the summit rather than spawn multiple herd paths with a near-miss trail.

On many summits herd paths will form - let them, its OK. If they're not broke, don't fix them. When there are erosion problems, or multiple paths creating a trampling problem then it is time to engineer a lightly maintained trail, marked as minimally as possible. The 46er herd paths are exemplary. If the herds have trouble staying on the path, then perhaps the path should become a fully maintained and marked trail. It should be about what is best for the mountain. Most likely that will require some intervention.

There are also legitimate reasons for building new trails where there are currently no paths at all. Long distance trails are an example, but those tend to be relatively rare. The trail crews are already busy.

[Neil]

My interest is less with the trails themselves as with the potential for erosion of the wild nature of these trailless areas. Sometimes it seems totally impossible. Other times it seems inevitable.

It has been said over and over again that more people are hiking the Sentinels and other wild peaks. View improvements (who dosn't like a beautiful view?), trampled human zones on summits, herd trails etc. are inevitable.

How can someone lobby for a concept as nebulous and difficult to grasp as keeping the wild in the wilderness. Look at the Great Trail Run discussion on ADKForum. It would be hard to take someone up onto Marcy on a tuesday morning in April and convince them that the wilderness surrounding you had lost its wild character. (Take the same person up on a sunny Saturday in July with the crowds and sightseeing planes ;) and they might begin to understand.)

How can you freeze the man-made impact at its current level?

Quick question: If the internet was shut down tomorrow would impact be increased, lessened or remain the same?

[pete_hickey]

Quick question: If the internet was shut down tomorrow would impact be increased, lessened or remain the same?
It would be concentrated into fewer areas. The net is a big influence. My two points.

Winter: Several years ago, it was posted that Alain had broken out the trail for Allen. The sunday after that, 19 cars were counted in the Allen parking lot.

Summer: Last year, talking to Dan, the DEC caretaker at the Johns Brook Interior Outpost, he told me, "In the past two weeks I've seen more people climbing Gothics True North than I have all year." A trip report with detailed directions had been posted on the net.


How can you freeze the man-made impact at its current level?It depends on how much 'we' are willing to accept. Out west, they are much more willing to accept limitting number of people in an area, certain areas off limits to hikers, etc. Around here, we want complete freedom.

[Skyclimber]

Winter: Several years ago, it was posted that Alain had broken out the trail for Allen. The sunday after that, 19 cars were counted in the Allen parking lot.

.


I would have to say this statement is true with whatever Mountain is posted being broken out, especially the "so-called" trailless ones. Look at the Santanoni's last Winter. There were "herds" of people swarming to those peaks once they found out they were all broken out, straight to their summits.

I remember in the late 90's, a group of us were starting for the Seward Range in Winter. When we reached Corey's there were around another dozen people waiting there for us. They got "wind" through the Internet that we were going. (don't know how, I didn't even own a computer then) Needless to say, we didn't invite them, so we went our Merry way and so did they. We got all three that day and we later found out the others only got two.

Winter climbing has grown in Popularity. Why? Because of the Internet. Scope it, find out, who went where and go. Some may have never broken a trail throughout their whole Winter Journey. They truly missed out on something because I feel that is part of the challenge of reaching the peak and earning the Winter Rocker.

[Mavs00]

Two thoughts

1) As I read this quote

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

as referenced from my statement, to me it implies that on some level, there are questions as to whether things should have been handled differently when it came to the "trailless 46". For instance, by maintaining the fallacy that these peaks were trailess, it encouraged continued use of multiple, or crappily designed trails that ultimately required the 46ers, DEC (perhaps others) to go in and correct issues that are not becoming apparent. Perhaps if, when the spike of activity was noticed to be going up, if there had been an increased effort (who knows what) that would have prevented or limited things like multiple confusing herd paths on Street/Nye, continued use/erosion on crappy paths like Cliff, Seward, etc. to now having be face with the (IMO) embarrassing reality of accepting an illegally cut path (Calkins Brook) as the "preferred" route to S,E,D. All f which now requires "official" action or attention

So.... would earlier intervention by the 46ers (or any other advocacy group) on these peaks, outweighed, on a physical level, the loss of our "romantic" notion of climbing trailess peaks?

------------------------------

2) Are group like the 46ers a good or bad thing. Obviously at this point, their advocacy programs, trail maintenance and efforts are certainly good things, but do they outweigh the fact that some people are encouraged to climb peaks. Keeping in mind that the OVERWHELMING majority that use the peaks are not 46ers, or even aspiring 46ers and 46er efforts directly impact their use.

How bout this site, Does it help or hurt the situation as it pertains to the ADK100 or lesser peaks. It may encourage additional usage of lesser peaks (which seems to be growing anyway), But at the same time is providing information about private property, bushwhacking etiquette, ect. that may increase responsible behavior for those partaking. Given the proliferation of list and information out there

I always wonder that and I'd hate consider myself part of the problem. If I am, I'll redirect my energies.

[Mavs00]

I always wonder that and I'd hate consider myself part of the problem. If I am, I'll redirect my energies.

I say I, but I think we all know that its a "we' thing since WE all participate here. If I shut this site down tomorow, another could pop up with ADK100 info within weeks or days (hours even).

I'm just specifically talking about the ME part of the equation.

[TFR]

Some may have never broken a trail throughout their whole Winter Journey. They truly missed out on something because I feel that is part of the challenge of reaching the peak and earning the Winter Rocker.

The last 2 winters, when I did about 30 peaks, still saw a significant amount of trailbreaking. It also featured following Pinpin at least once! :oops: :eek: :D

[Neil]

The last 2 winters, when I did about 30 peaks, still saw a significant amount of trailbreaking. It also featured following Pinpin at least once! :oops: :eek: :D
You didn't do any trailbreaking on Hurricane last October by any chance did you?

[pete_hickey]

there are questions as to whether things should have been handled differently when it came to the "trailless 46". For instance, by maintaining the fallacy that these peaks were trailess, it encouraged continued use of multiple, or crappily designed trails that ultimately required the 46ers, DEC (perhaps others) to go in and correct issues that are not becoming apparent. First of all, you have to be clear on what you are talking about when you talk about protection. If you're talking about proventing erosion, ugly trails, protecting vegetation, it can be solved by work. Hardening a trail so that it is almost concrete keeps everything in good shape. Taking this argument to the limit, and what should be done is design a path ot each and every mountain. Pave the most popular. Build walkways around fragile alpine vegetation. You can find a huge wooden walkway across a bog on Mt Albert in Gaspé

On the other hand, do you want to protect the wilderness. In that case, the solution is to eliminate the people. Note, that in this cse, protecting the wilderness and protecting the environment are somewhat in conflict with each other.

Finally, there is a third area. Those who use the mountains as a 'proving ground'. It is tough to do, and it is a badge of honor that I did it, and that it shouldn't be made easier for others.

Note that most people have a combination of the three, however by seperating them, the problems/conflicts become more obvious.

Perhaps if, when the spike of activity was noticed to be going up, if there had been an increased effort (who knows what) that would have prevented or limited things like multiple confusing herd paths on Street/Nye, Know what caused those multiple herd paths on Street & Nye? 46ers who thought that the herd paths were making things too easy. People were reaching the summit without using a map or compass. The false paths were created to confuse less able hikers.

continued use/erosion on crappy paths like Cliff, Seward, etc. to now having be face with the (IMO) embarrassing reality of accepting an illegally cut path (Calkins Brook) as the "preferred" route to S,E,D. All f which now requires "official" action or attention Most of this is lack of funds and time (really, the same thing). Had the means been there, all trailless peaks would have been done about 10 years ago. The Cliff cliff problem wasn't there 10 years ago. Before the work started, it took quite a few years for the compromise to be made on how things should be done. Ideally, people would have started BEFORE the problems became apparent.... Will we learn from history?

So.... would earlier intervention by the 46ers (or any other advocacy group) on these peaks, outweighed, on a physical level, the loss of our "romantic" notion of climbing trailess peaks?The problem is that there are (and will be) people wanting different things. Remember that 40 or so years ago, the 46ers had a vote to disolve the group. To this day, there are people complaining because we are maintaining the herd paths.... Note that the way we do it is a COMPROMISE between those wanting nothing to be done, and those wanting a marked maintained trail Note that canisters are(were) something wanted by those wanting to protect the summit (stops wandering around looking for the true summit) as well as those wanting 'proof of ability".

So, I ask you what do you want to maintain, and what do you want to sacrifice in order to maintain it, and how will you compromise with others wanting something else.

Me? The older I get, the more I want to protect WILDERNESS. There is so little left of it on this planet, and what little there is, is going fast. Bit by bit.

46ers......but do they outweigh the fact that some people are encouraged to climb peaks. Keeping in mind that the OVERWHELMING majority that use the peaks are not 46ers, or even aspiring 46ers and 46er efforts directly impact their use. I'll use the argument that Ketch used when there were votes to disolve the 46ers.

1) People will climb the 46 without the club. Look at the growth in the HH and there is no club.

2) What would happen if the 46ers would vote to disolve themselves? That would happen if the majority were wilderness protectors, and thought that would be the best way to protect it. A new club would most likely spring up, because it would not be a unamamous vote. This new club would be made up of the same people, without those wanting to protect the wilderness.


How bout this site,... I use this site (and 'the other') as a way of 'preaching my gospel' (and also for jokes). I know that I have not reached the majority of people out there, but I have reached some. This site has allowed me to get others to think more about preserving wilderness. Have the some I've reached make up for the increased 'problems' it is causing in other areas???

Uhhh.. Thanks tim... Just made me waste my lunch hour.

[Neil]

Anthropocentric or biocentric ?

This is a hard one. I assume, Pete, that you espouse the former view on wilderness. I say that based on your contributions to trail building. Or is it more a case of resignation. ie. you can't keep the people out so at least limit the mess they make?

I think a lot of us like the idea of a biocentric approach to wilderness as long as WE are not excluded.

Minimum maintenance trails are a neat metaphor for balance between the 2 views. Blowdown is only cut if it is likely it will lead to a herd trail forming around it. Humans are taken into account but preserving the natural environment is given priority.

[pete_hickey]

Anthropocentric or biocentric ?

This is a hard one. I assume, Pete, that you espouse the former view on wilderness. Wrong. I say that based on your contributions to trail building. Or is it more a case of resignation. ie. you can't keep the people out so at least limit the mess they make?Right.

I think a lot of us like the idea of a biocentric approach to wilderness as long as WE are not excluded. That's the crux. Thats why I ask "What do you want to sacifice for what you want."

Minimum maintenance trails are a neat metaphor for balance between the 2 views. A compromise. If I were supreme ruler of the world, things would be different.

[TFR]

You didn't do any trailbreaking on Hurricane last October by any chance did you?

Why, yes! Yes, I did!!! :D Up to 3' of snow! Yes, that's FEET! One of the toughest 'Winter' hikes I did last 'Fall'. :eek: :D

[TFR]

Know what caused those multiple herd paths on Street & Nye? 46ers who thought that the herd paths were making things too easy. People were reaching the summit without using a map or compass. The false paths were created to confuse less able hikers.

Boy, I hope this is one of your sick jokes Pete! :eek:

[Skyclimber]

Note that canisters are(were) something wanted by those wanting to protect the summit (stops wandering around looking for the true summit) as well as those wanting 'proof of ability".
r.

It was also so that the Forty Sixers were aware of new climbers and it informed them of the progress of those nearing the goal. Grace kept such records from day one pretty much after she finished.

It was to keep the summits free of litter, so that the hikers would stop leaving their names on scraps of paper and inside ointment containers and such to record their accents.

Emmons was the first Mountain that a canister was placed on, in September of 1950. Then all was removed in 2001 as they were declared Non Conforming Acts of Wilderness Areas.

[pete_hickey]

Boy, I hope this is one of your sick jokes Pete! :eek:No it is not. They were intentionally created.. that was a LONG time ago. It was only in '99 that we patched it up, although Pete Fish went there in '97 or so and did some blazing to help people out.

[Skyclimber]

Street and Nye used to have the highest rate for Search and Rescue. It used to have a maze of herdpaths that led nowhere but circles. Getting out the map and compass got you back on the right track.

[funkyfreddy]

How can you freeze the man-made impact at its current level?

Quick question: If the internet was shut down tomorrow would impact be increased, lessened or remain the same?

Lessened for sure, there's no question at all in my mind! That's why I haven't posted pics or trail reports for some places I've been lately.....

[Dick]

Good question. There are probably countless numbers of people who look up hikes on the internet and do them, without belonging to any forum, and we wouldn't know. On the other hand, I have a feeling (only a feeling) that on an internet board there may be a tendency to think that the members of a forum are the only principal hikers of the mountains, because those are the names we see and know, and through which hiking partners are found. But I wonder if usage, at least as seen in register books, would tell a different story, at least by sheer numbers? Certainly I have met many people on many trails who don't even know about the forum.

[kwc]

Anthropocentric or biocentric ?

This is a hard one. I assume, Pete, that you espouse the former view on wilderness. I say that based on your contributions to trail building. Or is it more a case of resignation. ie. you can't keep the people out so at least limit the mess they make?

I think a lot of us like the idea of a biocentric approach to wilderness as long as WE are not excluded.

Minimum maintenance trails are a neat metaphor for balance between the 2 views. Blowdown is only cut if it is likely it will lead to a herd trail forming around it. Humans are taken into account but preserving the natural environment is given priority.

The biocentric approach to wilderness does NOT exclude humans. Biocentrists place value on all life, and do not focus solely upon the human species.

I think Pete's approach to wilderness is more ecocentric, which looks at wilderness as a natural system, and includes not only life, but the inorganic components as well.

just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[pete_hickey]

Parks are for people, are they?
A bit more on this..... Why I am getting more pro-wilderness the older I get.

This planet we are on is big. How many square miles? Why does man have to conquer every square mile of it? Why can'T we leave 0.001% of the planet as wilderness? Where man can't go.

I look at unique places, like the Galapagos.. They are now tourist attractions. Every wild place must be conquered. Man against nature.

Why am I getting more pro-wilderness as I get older? Because I see that every time there is a conflict between man and wilderness, there is a compromise. A compromise means that a little piece of the wilderness is gone. The next time there is a conflict, there will be another compromise, and another piece will be gone.

Wilderness is going. Bit by bit, but it will be gone before long. In my short lifetime, I've seen lots of little pieces go.... I just want to make what remains last as long as possible.

[mikeharo]

Pete,

I know where you are coming from. I live in an area that had the potential to be a beautiful area. A beautiful river valley fornicated with coal mining projects. Now it is an acid mine drainage area and the river is the largest contributer of pollution to the Chesepeake Bay. And we don't have enough money to solve the acid mine drainage issue. What did The Doors say: "What have we done to the Earth? What have we done to our fair sister - stuck her with knives and ripped her and bit..." Pink Floyd's song Sorrow also put it well. "The sweet smell of a great sorrow lies over the land
Plumes of smoke rise and merge into the leaden sky:
A man lies and dreams of green fields and rivers"

Anyway, I do not have much to contribute to this thread because everyone who has replied has been so good. I just want to say that I support land preservation. I support Leave No Tracea and the Access Fund. I also support the EPA, most of the time.

The way I think about it - we can set examples. I learned my outdoor ethics from the people I learned my outdoor skills from. I pass them on everytime I see something going on that is not right. What can we do? Advocate what we think is right. We can not be wrong trying to preserve an area that has given us so much and asked nothing in return....

[Skyclimber]

We can not be wrong trying to preserve an area that has given us so much and asked nothing in return....

That's why, "love and respect is owed to them, by us."

[Mavs00]

Anthropocentric or biocentric ?

Interesting discussion.

First a disclaimer, obviously we are talking varying degrees of Anthropocentrism or biocentrism. I'm sure all of us would admit than we're not 100% tilted to one side or the other in word or deed.

From past discussions, It seems many of us (regular participators here anyway) are generally biocentric in our way of thinking and many of us try practice principles consistent with that while we recreate (i.e. leave no trace, ect).

But we do live in Anthropocentric world and many of us who are biocentric on the weekend, perhaps aren't quite are stringent with it M-F. The reality of it is that does creep into our recreation as well. Cut, marked and improved footpaths, lean-tos, pit privies all are, IMO, slices of Anthropocentricity intruding on our biocentric harmony. We build them for us and our benefit. Hell, even the concept of wilderness itself, how it's managed, the confines of its borders (area), etc. are all dictated by us and OUR ideals and subject to our whims. I think it's important we all understand that.

According to the ADIRONDACK PARK STATE LAND MASTER PLAN, wilderness is defined as

A wilderness area, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man--where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. A wilderness area is further defined to mean an area of state land or water having a primeval character, without significant improvement or permanent human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve, enhance and restore, where necessary, its natural conditions, and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.......

It doesn't really state that man is not intended to interact with wilderness and to stay away. Quite the opposite. It's as much for us as it is its inhabitants, we just have an obligation if we choose to go there, to make every attempt to leave it unaltered, untrammeled and so that "the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable".

So, should we really have the expectation that we might climb, say one of the Sentinels and find the summit void of ANY human signs such as trampled vegetation and faint paths, probably not? Should we have the expectation that we could go there and not find artificially cut views, cut paths, litter, ect, most assuredly?

If I share info about a peak, general stuff mind you, like........... "The view from bushwhack peak X is great" and 10 people from here go climb it that otherwise might not have, am I........... or we, responsible if one of them decides that the view would be a little better without this tree of that tree. Or is that just a personal responsibility thing (each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions).

But what if going there and continued thoughful dialog here fosters a greater appreciation by the other nine so that they begin too begin to advocate for the uniqueness of these places and how we should treat them. Do we come out ahead with 9 more advocates, or behind because the wilderness has been "altered" by the first guy?

I often wonder.

[Skyclimber]

If I share info about a peak, general stuff mind you, like........... "The view from bushwhack peak X is great" and 10 people from here go climb it that otherwise might not have, am I........... or we, responsible if one of them decides that the view would be a little better without this tree of that tree. Or is that just a personal responsibility thing (each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions).
.

We are NOT responsible for others actions. If another goes in there and cuts tree X so that the view is much better from peak X that is showing this person has NO respect for the mountain. Every mountain should be taken for what it is NOT for what it could be. It should NOT be altered in any way. I have said it before but will say it again, every mountain holds some sort of beauty of its own, whether it be the view, surroundings or the trail itself. The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That's why to me every mountain is beautiful. I have found something in every one that I do appreciate and love.

[pete_hickey]

"No single raindrop beleives it is to blame for the flood."

[Mavs00]

"No single raindrop beleives it is to blame for the flood."

With all do respect

"No single raindrop IS to blame for the flood either."

;)

{just saying......... You know how important I think this stuff is. I'd close this place in a second if I didn't think the overall message outweighed the occasional negative effect.}

[Mark Schaefer]

"No single raindrop beleives it is to blame for the flood." And if any raindrop decided to drop out and refuse to participate any more, the flood would still happen. Even if we convinced the richest man in the world to buy up the last remaining wilderness and build gates around it we could not stop the raindrops from falling nor the hikers from entering.

Information on the internet or in guidebooks hopefully will educate more than encourage destruction. An informed hiker has a better opportunity to minimize their impact on the wilderness. The trail crews also play an important role in channeling the flow to minimize the effect of the inevitable rain/flood. The damage would probably be far worse without the crews and the internet.

[Neil]

Interesting discussion.

First a disclaimer, obviously we are talking varying degrees of Anthropocentrism or biocentrism. I'm sure all of us would admit than we're not 100% tilted to one side or the other in word or deed.

From past discussions, It seems many of us (regular participators here anyway) are generally biocentric in our way of thinking and many of us try practice principles consistent with that while we recreate (i.e. leave no trace, ect).

But we do live in Anthropocentric world and many of us who are biocentric on the weekend, perhaps aren't quite are stringent with it M-F. The reality of it is that does creep into our recreation as well. Cut, marked and improved footpaths, lean-tos, pit privies all are, IMO, slices of Anthropocentricity intruding on our biocentric harmony. We build them for us and our benefit. Hell, even the concept of wilderness itself, how it's managed, the confines of its borders (area), etc. are all dictated by us and OUR ideals and subject to our whims. I think it's important we all understand that.


Maybe the most realistic compromise is wilderness zones for people who are biocentric in the way they experiencie the wilderness. "Parks without handrails".

[pete_hickey]

"Parks without handrails". Which are not mapped.. which don't have satalite pictures.. From where even satalite phones won't work... A place where you can drink the water!

The damage would probably be far worse without the crews and the internet. I absolutely disagree that the net has made things better. It is making things worse. Yes, there are some places on the net that help, but overall, the net is BAD for wilderness.

The key is to get to people and change their thinking. My guess is that it works for way less than 10%...Although I've seen some interesting people change their way of thinking due to what they saw on the net, in most cases, it is after teh fact that people realize the damage... Hence my line (history) that time started this thread with.

[Neil]

No maps, no satellites flying over, no gps coverage etc.

Gee uncle Pete, does that mean there won't be any sight-seeing planes? :tup:


BTW: No risk = no wild.

[Silverback]

Information on the internet or in guidebooks hopefully will educate more than encourage destruction. An informed hiker has a better opportunity to minimize their impact on the wilderness. The trial crews also play an important role in channeling the flow to minimize the effect of the inevitable rain/flood. The damage would probably be far worse without the crews and the internet.

I agree with Mark on the educational value of these forums. I was hiking long before the internet and started the 46 before I even knew about these forums. I do it because I like it. I have always been concerned with protecting that fragile balance between Humans and the rest of the natural world. Hell, I am original Earth Day graduate (younger folk can catch it on the History channel). That being said, I will never be as knowledgeable as I could be as to how to find and maintain that balance. Every new thought, Every new comment, every new article, brings me closer to that goal.

While some may start hiking because of what they read, no one continues to do it unless they like it. Everyone of us can name dozens of hikes that were brutal and would certainly convince the casual hiker to turn away.

For those who get hooked, these forums are creating a culture of concern and respect for the wilderness. I believe that the education provided, coupled with the peer pressure that such a culture creates, has been nothing but beneficial to the goal of protecting the natural world as much as we can.

One example that comes to mind of this value, is the subject of Bear bags and Bear canisters. When I joined VFTT about five years ago, I was astounded by the lack of knowledge people had about either, especially bear cans. Now, through these forums, most people who venture in the wild understand these things.

As far as being that drop of rain, well, I'm all too painfully aware that I am one of those drops that contributes to the flood. Everytime I start my car, turn on a light, throw out trash or walk on a trail I am reminded of my personal impact on the environment. It is unavoidable. However, that should not stop me, or anyone else, from doing all that we can to minimize our own impact on the world.

I owe it to my children and granchildren, and it is a debt that every one of us must acknowledge.

[pete_hickey]

BTW: No risk = no wild. Thank you. You reminded me of something I forgot to add for my talk at vespers at the meeting...

Safety. It is important.

"I take a cell phone, but use it only for emergency."

"We need to build this cellphone tower for safety's sake."

Which is wilderness. You are in the 'middle of nowhere' and break a leg, but you call on your {cell | sat} phone and a copter comes by to get you out.

You are in the middle of nowhere, and break a leg, amputate it with your swiss army knife, and crawl out.

Is it in northern québec where that wilderness park is, but in order to go into the backcountry, you must take some kind of satalite beacon.. or whatever those things are called.

[Mavs00]

It's interesting. I just conducted a test (a very unscientific one at that).

I googled the following = "XXXXX MT" Adirondacks , and got the following;

Lost Pond and Sentinel = Each had about 20 major hits (about 200 when you go to repetee mentions) - Most were just hits on sites with the ADK100 list and these two peaks on it. VFTT, ADKhighpeaks and ADKForum shared about the same number of hits- and a few misc. mentions here or there - I checked some of the links and no provided any specific "how to" info.

Beull, Dun Brook and Hoffman - All had less then 10, again, some list mentions and the big 3 forums were all there, but you really could not glean much useful info from the links I saw.

The lists are certainly on line in a bunch of places other than here, some pretty high traffic too, but still if you went to look for specific (meaning you wanted to climb one or all), chances are you'd bounce in here or the other two forums. Since most of us belong to all 3, we all in a pretty good position to "preach our gospel" and help direct the flow of information.

[pete_hickey]

I googled the following = "XXXXX MT" Adirondacks , and got the following;Remember not to think one dimensionally. What you did, is a snapshot in time. Think about this. How much less you would have gotten, five years ago? What will you get in five years from now?

Milti-diminsional thinking is important. If you don't look at things this way, you will not see problems until they are there. It's math. Curve fitting. You have a bunch of points, and fit an equation to the points to see where the next point will be.

Again, the imporance of history.

[Mavs00]

Remember not to think one dimensionally. What you did, is a snapshot in time.

I'm not thinking about it one dimensionally at all. I'm specifically talking about a "point in time snapshot". Right Now. The web spiders are crawling around and picking up info that's put out recently. That's what I was looking for. What's being put out now.

as for the future, this site might not be around in five year (likely won't), or even tomorrow. Others might be (and likely will be), but we can control (and be responsible) for the flow of info put out here, at least insomuch that if people do get info from this site, it's more than just LIST data. Not specifics mind you as the site is pretty non-specific as to route info on lesser peaks. A novice would have a hard time getting route info on particular peaks from the TR's here (I think anyway).

As for the past, perhaps not 5 years ago, but using a resource (and I won't share it here so the data stays fairly obscure), Here's what I found.

Detailed (more than you get now-a-days), route specific data for -

* Blue Ridge (E. Cedar Lakes) - winter 03
* Stewart - Winter 03
* Little Santanoni - Fall 02
* Boreas (private) - Fall 03
* Wolf Pond - Fall 03
* Blue Ridge + Hoffman (from the North, no mention made of Private land) - Fall - 03
* Blue Ridge, Cellar, Lewey - Fall 03 (very detailed)
* North River - Fall 03

There's quite a bit more from 02 and 04, but you get my point. RIGHT??

Many of those reports were posted by current members here (you know who you are :D). Over time, and I think through the proliferation of sites (like this one), They've adjusted their postings in such a way that is much more constructive. Do they still post, YES....... and they give out invaluable information that future climbers (like me and people like me) can use in our responsible hiking travels. I think they are crafting the "release of information" more responsibly.

Some of them give me SPECIFIC back-channel stuff too (or give some other assistance), and it's always with caveat that "hey, I trust you with this stuff, use it wisely, or it's the last bit you get". I'd like to think I do....

Here's another area where I think we might be having a positive impact. In the 80's - 90's, at least with the stories I hear, part of the b-whacking creed was. "WE'LL GO ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, WE DON'T GIVE A CRAP WHO'S LAND IT IS". You'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE posting.... "hey, lets go knock off Cheney from the south, cuz it's the easiest way, eff the East River folks, we'll jog the roads". Is it still done, very discreetly I imagine (old habits die hard :eek: ), but for the most part I think that those days are slowly coming to an end, because people more sensitive to it with increased volume of traffic..........

Does this site drive that movement? GET REAL......... even I'm not egotistical enough to think that we have that much impact. But, one things for sure, most responsible hikers will read this thread and, even if they think I'm a total tool, might spend a few minutes of reflection on the things that were said (by everyone that participating).

That can't be bad. I don't think anyway......

Sorry, this was a long one..... going running now.

[masshysteria]

I'd close this place in a second if I didn't think the overall message outweighed the occasional negative effect.}


Tim, has this forum increased interest in the HH? Absolutely! Has the increased traffic on the lower 54 of the HH been a direct result of this forum? Yes, but ever so slightly. Will your closing of this forum eliminate the problem? Absolutely NOT. If any thing, it will encourage permanent scarring of the mountains.

The handful of people that have been turned on to the HH through ADK High Peaks can be counted on both hands. There were people doing the HH long before ADKHP hit the scene, and they will still be doing it long after you pull the plug.

What this forum does offer that is irreplaceable is the dialogue that is going on in this and other threads: The principles of 'Leave No Trace'. It is one of the many environmental principles that are kept in the forefront by this forum. Anyone who is casually grazing on ADKHP can't help but pick up these principles, and recognize that hikers in these pristine areas are expected to practice LNT.

Great thread!

[Neil]

Will your closing of this forum eliminate the problem?
What problem?

[pete_hickey]

.....specifically talking about a "point in time snapshot". Right Now. The web spiders are crawling around and picking up info that's put out recently.....They pick it up and save it.
as for the future, this site might not be around in five year (likely won't), But the information may.

Look at the date on this which is in google's cache:

http://groups.google.com/group/net.bizarre/browse_frm/thread/bd3a9132db153845/69dfca169f06f810?lnk=st&q=pete+hickey&rnum=4&hl=en#69dfca169f06f810

There are a three things to remember...

1) Prolifferation
2) Caching
3) Virginity

1) The number of both sites, and people using the internet are increasing.

2) Even if you take down this site, the information remains. I should mention now, that restricting certain areas to logged on users is a fantastic thing. The expression 'Google is your friend' is not always true.

Not only do you have things like google caching things, but anyone can take something you've put up, and put it on their site. I've recently become aware of someone using the axe picture of me in their web site. I can get rid of my avatar, eliminate that picture from everything I have, but it is still out there.

3) Privacy/secracy on the net is like virginity. Once it's gone, it's gone. And all it takes is one person to do it. Tim, you run a very respectable place here. Top of the line...but there are lots of people out there (number 1), and one of them... given enough time... will publish things that should not be published about a sacred place. Note what is happening with certain private walking on lake issues.

OK, I suppose I should have added a fourth, but the virginity shock would not have been as effective if I had.

New technologies. For example, you can now look at satalite pictures of areas, and translate from the picture into GPS waypoints. Wow!

So, when I'm talking about the Internet, It isn't just about sites like this.

We're loosing wilderness, and there is nothing that can be done. It WILL be gone. The question is how long. Can we preserve it for out children? Grandchildren? I doubt it.

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone"

A simple example. Drinking the water. Drinking it just about everywhere. We took it for granted. We just drank the water. We never thought something like that would go.

And now it's gone.

Remember that when you drink straight from the stream on a remote HH. Cherish it. Have someone take a picture, so you can show your grandchildren.

[daxs]

I was hiking the in the ADK's long before the internet and hiking forums were on the scene. If the forums go away, I'll still be hiking in both the catskills and ADK's. The forums have given me the opportunity to meet people and have hiking partners versus hiking alone. Everyone I hike with from the forums was already hiking too. I think any avid hiker will find information on hikes with or without forums - trail guides, maps, talking to other people on the trail. Looking back, I know the traffic in the high peaks has increased since the 1980's when I first started hiking in the ADK's but I also think the numbers had picked up before the advent of forums. You can always censor what you post; if you think an area is sensitive don't post a report, don;t advertise your hiking lists, don;t post pictures of an area that will raise peoples interest...

Does anyone think the patches and clubs that are out there contribute to overuse?

[Dick]

While talking with people I meet on trails, the conversation sometimes eventually includes something like this:

We: "Do you ever post on VFTT, ADKhighpeaks, or ADKForum?"
They: "What's VFTT?"
We: "It's an internet hiking board."
They: "Nah, I don't have time for those things."

This one happens less often:

They: "Ah...so YOU'RE the famous Pete Hickey! I've always wanted to meet you! I just LOVE all of your posts!
We: That's right. Thanks, and I'm glad to meet you."

Dick

[Neil]

On several occasions while out hiking people have asked me if I was Neil, having recognized me from my avatar. I always say "No, I'm Rik" and proceed to toss litter away.

The question: "Is (or how is) the internet contributing to the deterioration or loss of wilderness" is an interesting one allright. I for one have made use of satellite images via the net in order to upload waypoints for certain slides into my gps. Would my personal wilderness experience be richer had I navigated to those slides without those tools? Maybe requiring more than one trip to get to the slide?

Or is my example less a question of my personal experience and more one of a degradation of the concept of wilderness in general when it becomes so easily accessable with a few clicks of the mouse. Does the sanctity of the wilderness, and its psychological impact on all people, whether they go to the wilderness or not, diminish by running "technological roughshod" over it?

In conferring an element of certainty to wilderness trips, do gps, cell phones, emergency beacons, downloadable information etc. erode the wilderness experience?

[1ADAM12]

In conferring an element of certainty to wilderness trips, do gps, cell phones, emergency beacons, downloadable information etc. erode the wilderness experience?

For some maybe not for me :D

[Willie]

In conferring an element of certainty to wilderness trips, do gps, cell phones, emergency beacons, downloadable information etc. erode the wilderness experience?
... or maybe it takes the "wild" out of "wilderness." ;)

[pete_hickey]

In conferring an element of certainty to wilderness trips, do gps, cell phones, emergency beacons, downloadable information etc. erode the wilderness experience?They erode the wilderness.

"WIlderness experience" is MAN's perception. Given the money and incentive, Disney could produce a 'ride' with an excellent wilderness experience. Just script in the things that make it wilderness. Throw in the occational animal, make sure that others aren't visible, etc.

It isn't yet profitable.

"They took all the trees, and put them in a tree museum
Charged all the people $1.50 just to see-em."

[daLunartik]

Sorry for the long post, but this has the feeling of the whole Leave No Trace "don't feed the animals vs. don't breath in the direction of the woods" topics discussed in other forums. Skip to the last paragraph if you want my response to the original "on thread" questions.

Does the ready availablity of Topographic maps degrade/erode the wilderness? After all, using the Topo allows me to plan where I am going, identify landmarks and once in the wilderness, triangulate where I am and allows me to continue on my way with some certainty of being on the right mountain / headed in the right direction. I'm specificlly refering to paper maps, and not to Topographic mapping software w/coordinate downloading capabilites.

Does the ready availablity of "newer" hiking gear (i.e. lighter fabrics, internal frame packs, etc) degrade/erode the wilderness. After all, being able to save weight due to the newer, lighter gear is more likely to cause folks who might have balked at carrying a 50lb pack into hiking since they are now only carring a 30lb pack?

If the issue is "technology", then the valid argument could be made that we, humans, started to degrade the wilderness when we moved from being a nomadic Hunter/Gatherer society to a sedentary Agricultural society. Does a sea otter degrage/erode the wilderness when it uses a tool (i.e. a rock) to open a clam? After all, it's use of a tool enables it to eat more clams, which reduces the clam population? Or is that ok because there are so few of them in comparison to us humans?

Or to use the raindrop / flood analogy: Is the raindrop ok if it's a light drizzle and not a heavy down pour? Does the timing matter? i.e. after a heavy down pour, a light drizzle could cause a mudslide or a river to overflow it's banks, but a light drizzle after a drought is a welcome relief? Meaning, a few more humans in the ADK wilderness is bad, because of the recent heavy downpour of humans in that area, but a few more is ok in the Canadian wilderness because it's experiencing a drought of humans?

My understanding of the history of the trailless 46 (not from experience) is there were lots of herd paths and the relative impact of humans was greater, i.e. lots of folks tramping around all over the place. Now that some of these herd paths are "maintained", folks are less likely to deviate from them, thus increasing the concentration of impact to a smaller area, and reducing the overall impact to the larger area (i.e. channeling the flood). I would therfore speculate that if we ignore the 'wilderness' usage trends, that we are going to have this or a similar issue once again on the 'trailless' peaks. As to whether this "matters in the greater scheme of things", I guess that depends on the time scale. After all, the ADK's were once on the South Pole (happened to see an animated continental drift display at the New York State Museum in Albany this past weekend).

[Willie]

I editted my post above, regarding the "wilderness" remark, to indicate that it was intended to be tongue in cheek. So is this comment:

4) Is it, in the great scheme of things, something we need to worry about.
After all, the ADK's were once on the South Pole.

Using geologic time and the cosmos as our scale of reference for "the great scheme of things," I suppose there's no need to worry about anything. ;)

[Eric]

That explains the black eye I got this morning.


Should have picked up that bottle you left behind on Chimney.

[Mavs00]

"Wilderness experience" is MAN's perception.

That's just it. The Wilderness experience is a perception. It’s also an individual perception. We all probably share a reasonably similar "definition" of what the Wilderness experience is to us. However, we must realize it might be slightly egotistical to think that our definition must be the "right one".

For example, I bet for tons of people that hike Algonquin each year, in their own minds, they are having quite the intense "Wilderness experience". I can't begrudge that, just cuz IMO it may be an experience, but I'd hardly call it a Wilderness one. Hell, to me it seems like the path might as well be paved. No, I bet most feel right out there on the edge..... you see it in their faces. Are they wrong? Not for them.

Also, Disney might not be able to create a "wilderness experience" for you or I, but I bet they could for my dear ole mum, and millions like her. Hell, when she DROVE to the top of Whiteface for our finish, that was just about all the wilderness she could take.

Conversely, I remember some times in the last few years, like in the North River Range, the Amphitheatre, Lost Pond and a few others places where I DEFINITLTY felt I was having a "Wilderness experience" and no-one will convince me otherwise. I also think I had a phone (which was off and without service anyway), a GPS, plus a pack loaded with goodies for all sorts of contingencies. NONE of those items took away from what I was feeling.

In fact, I remember last year while hiking with Neil (among others) on Lost Pond, he took a moment and played his flute down by the water and the melodic notes floated through the trees. It was quite spiritual and, I felt, enhanced my wilderness experience a great deal. So while I enjoyed it, I certainly recognize that others, upon hearing it, would want to bash him over the head with it for ruining theirs.

My point is; While wilderness may have a more specific definition, the wilderness experience is unique within all of us and I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that its automatic for everyone that a GPS, using a trail, or even pre-hike satellite overlays, ect. , ect. disqualifies or has to significantly erodes "wilderness experience" for everyone.

For you and me perhaps, but we ain't everyone.

p.s. For a Lunartik, daLunartik sure made some good points.

[Neil]

It's pretty tough to objectively define something that people experience on such a subjective level.

Some peoples' wilderness experience would be ruined just by knowing there is another party within miles of them.

[pete_hickey]

My point is; While wilderness may have a more specific definition, the wilderness experience is unique within all of us and I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that its automatic for everyone that a GPS, using a trail, or even pre-hike satellite overlays, ect. , ect. disqualifies or has to significantly erodes "wilderness experience" for everyone.

No, it does not erode the wilderness experience, but it does erode the Wilderness. Note the word "erode" is a very apt word here. And it's non-linear. It's going faster now, than it was.

And, in the long term, Wilderness is necessary for that 'wilderness experience'


This is why I argue for wilderness. I don't care about the wilderness experience.

BTW, arguing for the "wilderness experience" marks you as selfish, according to foresters, ATVers.. You want to keep things so that YOU can have an experience.

I argue for wilderness for the earth, not for my benefit.

I just want to slow down that erosion.

[Neil]

I don't think this thread has the feeling of the antler debates elsewhere. I think it's a more open and even-toned discussion on a subject of broader importance.

Pete, when I said (in a PM) I was 100% in agreement with you on wilderness I thought I was but I was looking at it more subjectively. All my references have been from the "wilderness experience" point of view. Lobbying and debating from that point of view skews the debate (anthro versus bio) and like you said, opens one up to attack from ATV groups as elitist, selfish etc.

It would be easier for those who who would like to open up the wilderness to motorized and "economically durable" exploitation to attack me and say that I only care about wilderness because I want to go there and have fun, my own kind of fun.

In excluding the notion of wilderness for humans' sake, how do gps and cell phones erode the wilderness itself? Does a topo map and compass erode it less?

[Willie]

I argue for wilderness for the earth, not for my benefit.
This is an argument I never really understood. I believe we (individuals and society) argue for wilderness for our own benefit. Here’s my argument:

If we do not argue for wilderness for our own benefit, then whose? The earth is an inanimate object without a conscience. Perhaps we argue for wilderness for the sake of preserving wilderness biota and biological diversity. Why should we care about biodiversity? “Biological diversity is crucial to human welfare.” See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Assessing Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations—Background Paper #2, OTA-BP-F-39 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986). Moreover, biodiversity has aesthetic and recreational value. See Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Na-92-7807 (June 5, 1992). I submit, that we do, in deed, argue for wilderness for our own benefit.

[Grumpy]

The question that started this discussion said, “Trailess 46er Peaks - What can we learn from them?”

After noodling a while, I decided the lesson is that we humans have great proclivity to make messes but we also have great power to make corrections.

What it takes is perception, vision and leadership, and willingness to pitch in with personal effort to make things happen (in this case, on the ground). For example, decades ago when the peakbagging craze really was starting to take off, it was perceived that a real overuse problem was developing in the High Peaks. A proposed one-dimensional solution was to disband the 46ers in the belief that would help quell some of the enthusiasm or motivation for the peakbagging pastime. The more visionary solution, which prevailed because there was leadership and willing hands to do the dirty work, was to redefine and redirect the 46ers’ reason for being. There can be no real question that the High Peaks District is better off today because of the 46ers’ acceptance and embrace of stewardship responsibility.

It also takes time and patience, as we struggle toward solving the various problems and resolving the many dilemmas our messes present. We have seen this in the efforts to “rehabilitate” the so-called “trailless” summits, first by removal of the canisters and later by the oxymoronic designation of “official” herd paths. I’m sure Pete H can provide many more examples.

Now . . .

This discussion has drifted a good distance, and into some interesting and wild territory. Many thought-provoking comments aired. As a good primer on many of the points raised, I suggest reading two books by Laura and Guy Waterman: “Backcountry Ethics” and “Wilderness Ethics.” My copies bear a 1993 copyright, but the text remains very relevant.

G.

[pete_hickey]

In excluding the notion of wilderness for humans' sake, how do gps and cell phones erode the wilderness itself? Does a topo map and compass erode it less?They make it MORE ACCESSABLE. An order of magnitude more than map and compass. Less 'work' to reach areas. Not only that, but high-tech clothes and gear as well. Technology

But the map also destroys wilderness.

Imagine an area for which there is no map. Imagine exploring that area. Imagine Colvin when he was first surveying the area.

I'm no fool to think that we will ever get there again. GPS are hear to stay. What about GPS interacting with cameras on satalites... give it another 10 years. Technology is here, just not the economics.

The reason I talk the way I do, is not to convince people to throway maps, GPS, goretex coats, but to make people think of what is happening. Maybe the realization that certain things are eroding wilderness--things beyond their control-- will make people care about things that they can control.

It also takes time and patience, as we struggle toward solving the various problems and resolving the many dilemmas our messes present. We have seen this in the efforts to “rehabilitate” the so-called “trailless” summits, first by removal of the canisters and later by the oxymoronic designation of “official” herd paths. Some of the delemmas are the result of compromises. Not the best solution, but one that the majority can live with. More obvious dilemnas are things like laders, bridges, and hardened trails. Signs and marked walkways through the alpine vegetation. We take away a piece of wilderness to protect it.

I'll second Grumpy's suggestion of the watermans' books. I've been greatly influenced by them.

[Mavs00]

I don't think this thread has the feeling of the antler debates elsewhere. I think it's a more open and even-toned discussion on a subject of broader importance.

Absolutely, Part of that is that, I think most of us understand the gravity of the discussion. Plus, I'm pretty sure many of us are fairly like-minded, and came easily see past minor differences. I think Pete is smart enough to have come to understand me over my posts of the last few years to know that, in essence, I am in total agreement with much of what he says. I may be playing "devil's advocate" to further the discussion :twisted: , but he know I think his points are salient and insightful. I think he takes it farther than I would, but he is OLDER too, and that makes a difference :D

For true wilderness, we would have to WALL OFF the portion of land we're talking about and NOT let us destructive monkeys in it. The HPWA is not a wilderness, given the plethora of those little avenues of anthropocentricity called trails :D. Like Pete said, it's a compromise, Pete might make a water bar and call it "necessary", but that doesn't mean I'll look and it and say anything other than "yuk, another of man's ugly mark".

Of course this goes way beyond the initial discussion, but is still valuable. For the most part, MANY of the ADK HH summit and peaks are free of man's ugly mark, but unless we ALL make a continuous effort, that will not last long.

Great discussion....

[Neil]

I'll second Grumpy's suggestion of the watermans' books. I've been greatly influenced by them.
I'll third that.

I read Wilderness Ethics after seeing references to GW on VFTT. At first I thought I would be reading the opinions of a whack job but no, I was real impressed and influenced. Wilderness and the American Mind by Nash, Forever Wild and Contested Terrain by Terrie are 3 others I recommend.

I'd love to go to a "blank spot on the map" and wander around for days and weeks with no navigational aids. All you'd need to get back out is the sun. If it was cloudy, no problem, the next day would be sunny.

Would I get to bring my flute?

[Inge]

I don't think we need wilderness to have a wilderness experience - just like some area titled "Wilderness Area" doesn't guarantee the wilderness experience.

Just go out and get disoriented, cold, lost, tired, hungry, injured and suddenly you got more wilderness than the wildest wild west or north adventure!

On the other hand, if you are totally prepared (whatever that means to the individual), it hardly feeling like wilderness.

To me wilderness has to do w/ a loss of control.

sincerely,
Frik N. conTrolfreek :oops:

[tgoodwin]

An interesting discussion that is similar to one that has been going on for many years. In "Forest and Crag" the Watermans review the arguments for and against the AMC's construction of Madison Spring Hut in the 1880's. The words "GPS" and "Gore-Tex" don't appear in the debate, but otherwise the themes are much the same as expressed in this thread.

I agree that the "wilderness experience" is personal and we shouldn't impose our own idea of what is "acceptable" on others unless their actions clearly and permanently degrade the resource. For instance, the hordes hiking Cascade on a Saturday in September make it a different experience than one gets climbing, say, McKenzie the following Monday; but by Monday most of the hikers are gone from Cascade and the trail (thanks to some good work over the years) remains in good shape.

One statement about the maze of herd trails between Street and Nye said that they were deliberately created to confuse hikers and make it harder to climb those peaks. I don't think that's quite right in this case; but after the first 1966 article in "Peeks" that "discovered" there were herdpaths, there were some who tried to disguise the entrances to the then-herdpaths to Phelps and Rocky Peak. I think the Street/Nye maze just developed because there was no single obvious route and frequent blowdown kept causing new trails to form.

The idea of "designated" herd paths came out of the meetings of the High Peaks UMP Citizen's Advisory Committee in the early 90's. The 46-Rs had sent out a questionaire to gather opinions to guide their representative to those meetings. As I recall, he cited nearly 90% of those responding to be against trails on the trailless peaks. When a change of jobs prevented him from attending meetings, I sort of "hijacked" his position and proposed the compromise that was finally enacted and seems to work farily well.

With regards to whether herd paths will form on the Hundred Highest, I don't think that is an issue at the moment. Having climbed Avalanche last summer, I noticed just the faintest of herd paths for about 1/4 mile around 3,000 feet where the woods are open and the ridge is sharply defined. Above and below that where there was no "obvious" best route no herd path. Given that Avalanche is one of the most accessible of the trailless Hundred Highest, I see no immediate danger that any of these peaks will end up looking like the north side of Seward or Seymour anytime soon.

And finally, for what it's worth, when he was Director of Lands and Forests for th DEC in Albany, Norm VanValkenburg actually seriously proposed that all shelters, signs, and markers be removed in designated wilderness areas. He also proposed to cease trail maintenance and said he would have stopped the publication of maps if he could. His idea was to get back to the experience that Colvin and other pioneers had when they first explored the Adirondacks. Obviously totally impractical and never seriously considered. But if you want the "Colvin experience" just think of the number of acres in the Adirondacks where a map is still about the only guide one has.

[Mavs00]

Incredibly good points.

Another point I wanna make about navigation aides (GPS, maps, etc.) and the wilderness experience. I'd agree with Pete in that they make places more assessable to a degree with ease of use.

But if we look back in history, we've always employed some type of navigational aide in order to reach places previously believed unaccessible and usually it was common to use the most "advanced" means of the day. Harken back to the good ole' days of "true wilderness" and they were doing it back then too.

In fact, tongue and cheek of course, but Redfield and Emmons used the "GPS" of the day back in 1837 to get to the top of Marcy. There names were John Cheney and Harvey Holt. While they were probably fair woodsman, they "hired" local people, with intimate local knowledge to help take them someplace they would have had difficulty getting to on their own, which is the very definition of a navagational aide.

In fact, For many, many years, local woodsman from Keene made a name for themselves along with a profitable living (and in the process entered into ADK folklore) by being "the GPS of the time" for those that would otherwise had difficulty if not impossible times reaching these places. People like Cheney, Holt, Phelps (Old Mountain & Ed), Orlando Beede, Clark, Mckenzie..... and I even think there is a Goodwin in there somewhere too ;) .

My point is navigational aides in and of themselves, IMO, do not degrade wilderness or the wilderness experience. The single biggest degradation is our (man's) interaction with the environment. It doesn't matter if you hire a guide, use M&C, GPS, or even if you use a trail, or bushwhack....... we should all make an effort to understand that the resource we are recreating in is precious and needs our protection.

[Hikerdad]

Lots of thoughts and issues floating around here...I'll add some of my own...

Knowledge can be a good, positve thing...knowledge of an area, knowledge of it's history, of it's high points and it's limitations. Knowledge allows us to explore the ADK's...AND allows us to protect it. I think that any medium that allows for an extension of knowledge to more people can be good. Things like maps, guidebook and internet site are basically educational tools...if the "good" info (which I quess is the rub) is distributed then the medium has had a "good" impact...When I started hiking and camping I built fires, burned garbage, trenched tents (albeit small trenches), wandered around alpine summits (always carefully but not zealously)...now I don't because I saw info and learned....I also learned enough to teach my kids....I learned this via guidebooks and the internet...so I think that some good does and can come out of all this info we pass along.

As far as lists go I have no problem with 46 lists, HH lists, 111 lists, etc. I think they can and do promote a broader (and therefore deeper) knowledge and appreciation of an area...If there was no 46 list I still would have loved the ADKs but probably would have been on Marcy 4 or 5 times more than I have because instead of going to Marcy I was out treking to Couchie or Allen or some other out of the way summit.

I regards to paths (maintained or not, official or not) I also don't have a big problem. I think they limit abuse by concentrating the impact...thereby protecting the VAST bulk of the mountain....I mean paths and trails make up, what .0005%, of the ADKs. That leaves a lot of "undisturbed" land for true bushwhacking. I remember fighting up Seward (off the path...we couldn't find it) just chewing the heck out of the duff thinking "God what a mess we're making, just mark the @#&!$# path"...Come to think of it I was probably aware of the potential damage we were causing because of "education" I got from a guidebook or the internet...of course maybe I wouldn't have even been there if not for that 46er book I saw in college way back when....

But, given that people exist and that some of us crazies will always want to tromp around mountains I think that more knowledge is preferable to less knowledge....

[daLunartik]

Another point I wanna make about navigation aides (GPS, maps, etc.) and the wilderness experience. I'd agree with Pete in that they make places more assessable to a degree with ease of use.


Definetly. And the internet increases the speed and ease to which we can access some of these navigational aides, leading to a potential increase in hikers and the related impact that we have. Much like the Leave No Trace ethic arose from the hiker community noticing the effect of the impact on the environment over time, the hiker community on the web has more or less noticed the impact we are having on the environment through the web. Some of this impact is "bad", i.e. google cached listings of remote peaks with gps waypoint routes or fire rings at upper elevations and some are good, i.e. noticies on how to avoid / obtain permission to cross private land when accessing a peak or more folks practicing the pack in pack out methodology. Other exampes could be used as well.


I regards to paths (maintained or not, official or not) I also don't have a big problem. I think they limit abuse by concentrating the impact...thereby protecting the VAST bulk of the mountain....I mean paths and trails make up, what .0005%, of the ADKs. That leaves a lot of "undisturbed" land for true bushwhacking. I remember fighting up Seward (off the path...we couldn't find it) just chewing the heck out of the duff thinking "God what a mess we're making, just mark the @#&!$# path"

I'm always concerned when off trail, cause I know my boots are chewing up the terrain and who knows what I'm tramping on (even when looking). At the same time, I know this impact is somewhat lessened the "further" I am from a trail - not that I am neccessarliy doing less damage, but that my impact will not be added to the impact of that many others (raindrop flood analogy - the further from a trail you are, the more likely you are to be a raindrop in a drizzle after a drought). Herd paths are the result of many hikers walking the same ground, not one hiker crossing terrain once. Thus, if more folks are hiking the "trailless peaks", then the potential for a herd path(s) increases with the increase in foot traffic. One of the thread starting question was "what do we learn and are we doomed to repeat the past". If the herd paths (and the Street and Nye maze) were created as a result of an increase in foot traffic, and if "unofficially " maintaining some of these herd paths has reduced the # of herd paths, then I would say that the lesson is to change policy according to use - i.e. maintain (officially or otherwise) trails/herd paths to mountain summits once a herd path has been established. Don't create / maintain a herd path until one is established. Leverage the technology available to route the herd path (once formed) to the least impacting route (i.e. gps and other GIS tools), or recognize that a "trailless peak" has a de facto trail, harden it and route it accordingly.

Certainly, putting a trail on a trailless peak does "reduce" it's wildness a bit, but if the herd trail is well established, is it really a "trailless" peak? True, lack of an official "trail" designation does keep it off of maps and helps to keep down the traffic, but those folks who are already creating the herd path are clearly not stopped by lack of a map designation. The impact may go up due to an official designation, but, in theory, a trail is hardened and routed properly to minimize the impact (assuming we can find more volunteers for Pete, that is!).

[pete_hickey]

One statement about the maze of herd trails between Street and Nye said that they were deliberately created to confuse hikers and make it harder to climb those peaks. I don't think that's quite right in this case; but after the first 1966 article in "Peeks" that "discovered" there were herdpaths, there were some who tried to disguise the entrances to the then-herdpaths to Phelps and Rocky Peak. I think the Street/Nye maze just developed because there was no single obvious route and frequent blowdown kept causing new trails to form. I'll have to dig out my reference for that. Both you and I are too young to really remember. :)



...Another point I wanna make about navigation aides (GPS, maps, etc.) and the wilderness experience. I'd agree with Pete in that they make places more assessable to a degree with ease of use.More than just to a degree. Just read on the net the coordinates of a place, enter them, and follow the yellow brick road.

People have been able to drive from the East coast to the West coast for almost 100 years, but the building of the interstate highway system opened it up by an order of magnitude, making it quite feasible for anyone to do it.

In fact, For many, many years, local woodsman from Keene made a name for themselves along with a profitable living (and in the process entered into ADK folklore) by being "the GPS of the time" for those that would otherwise had difficulty It is a good example. Only a small subset of people were skilled enough to do it. These days, very little skill is needed.

My point is navigational aides in and of themselves, IMO, do not degrade wilderness or the wilderness experience. It is accademic, since they are here and not going away, but their existance has degraded the wilderness (not the experience). There is no more unknown. At least on the surface of the earth. Note that the last true wilderness on the planet is the ocean floor.

But, given that people exist and that some of us crazies will always want to tromp around mountains I think that more knowledge is preferable to less knowledge.... Depends on the kind of knowledge, doesn't it.

[Tim Seaver]

I agree that the "wilderness experience" is personal and we shouldn't impose our own idea of what is "acceptable" on others unless their actions clearly and permanently degrade the resource.

That seems simple enough.

I agree with Tony! :D

[pete_hickey]

I'm always concerned when off trail, cause I know my boots are chewing up the terrain and who knows what I'm tramping on (even when looking). Remember 'recovery time'. If the land has a chance to recover/regrow before someone else 'hits' is, it will remain 'pristine'
At the same time, I know this impact is somewhat lessened the "further" I am from a trail In theory, not in practice. If a detailed descption is published....Or, in the case of some peaks, there are a few 'obvious' routes, and everyone takes the 'obvious' route. This is one of the reasons herd paths form.
Thus, if more folks are hiking the "trailless peaks", then the potential for a herd path(s) increases with the increase in foot traffic. Then again, there are some who simply decide that they want a path. Calkins Brook, and the path from Iroquois pass to Marshall. One was well flagged, the other blazed. Someone (last year? Year before?) painted blazes on the path to Macomb. Nummerous paths by skiers and fisherpeople (what is the politically correct term for a fisherman?)
The impact may go up due to an official designation, but, in theory, a trail is hardened and routed properly to minimize the impact (assuming we can find more volunteers for Pete, that is!). Every trail/path has a certain carrying capacity. In general, incresing its capacity, reduces its wilderness feel. The VanHo to Marcy Dam has a large capacity. One of the routes up Whitface has even more.

Even if I had a ton of volunteers... There is a lot of time consuming work that is beyond volunteer work.