WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-07 19:37:55 +0000

pChippy -- I'm sure you have taken in the environmental concerns with a bushwack, but I have generally been told NOT to do so. Is the "Stay on the Trail" motto outdated, unscientific, or just stupid? Is this something that Raymand Cataract is good for, or at least has minimal environmental damage?

Posted by pchippy on 2005-08-07 22:19:07 +0000

There are two main reasons why land managers and environmental clubs encourage the public to stay on the trail, Dawn: 1. For the safety of the hiker. Many visitors to the mountains don't understand the potential risks that mountains pose; rather than explaining in full the complete set of skills one needs in order to be able to navigate untrailed wilderness, the Forest Service finds it more efficient to encourage us all to stay on marked trails. There is no rule or law, however, saying one can't step off the trail for recreational purposes; in fact, all rock-climbing, ice-climbing, and spring skiing in the White Mountains involves leaving the marked trails--and all of these are officially permitted, unregulated activities in the National Forest. Personally, I'm willing to assume a certain degree of risk in exchange for a more authentic wilderness experience, and I am confident that I have the skills necessary to enable me to minimize that risk through exercise of caution and sound judgment. 2. For the protection of the environment. The official Forest Service policy in the WMNF is to request that hikers A.) refrain from taking shortcuts across switchbacks (which causes major erosion), and B.) walk on bare rock above treeline, rather than on alpine plants, whenever possible. In extreme cases, as for instance at the Potentilla flats near Lakes of the Clouds, the Forest Service will actually close an area to hikers altogether. The greatest potential for environmental damage occurs near heavily-travelled trails, especially above treeline, where thousands of people may pass in the course of a single summer weekend and where, if there weren't scree walls keeping people on the path, hikers would fan out across the ridge on their way to the summit. Franconia Ridge on Mt. Lafayette is a good example of this phenomenon. The best rule of thumb is to avoid MINOR detours off the trail unless you can hop from rock to rock, and to avoid MAJOR detours off the trail unless you really know what you're doing. But most bushwhacks that involve traveling more than a hundred yards off a trail aren't heavily enough travelled for soil erosion to be a major concern. You may ask, "But what if everyone rationalized bushwhacking this way? Wouldn't the ravines and ridges of the mountains be trashed as millions of visitors ventured off-trail?" But the fact of the matter is that very few people are interested in major bushwhacks. (Even in a community of otherwise cool people like Rideside there's not a whole lot of interest.) Believe me, if I felt that my impact on the environment were beyond the mountains' ability to absorb it, I wouldn't go. And I heartily approve of staying on the trail as a general guideline. NOBODY should go off trail simply as a short cut to a point that is accessible by staying on the trail. Lots of inexperienced people get hurt and lost doing so, and lots of them stomp fragile and uncommon plants in the process, causing damage to the alpine vegetation that will take decades or more to recover. But when the hiker is cautious and environmentally conscientious and when the objective is not trail-accessible (as in the case of Raymond Cataract), I believe bushwhacking is justifiable. If the route to a given bushwhacking objective becomes so heavily travelled that significant environmental damage results, a hardened trail should be built to concentrate the use and prevent further degradation. This kind of trail development is part of a natural cycle: popular bushwhacks get built into trails, and unpopular trails (like the west ridge of Mt. Lincoln) are abandoned and turn back into bushwhacks. Really, almost no facet of outdoor behavior can be reduced to one single rule. Take, for instance, the question of shit. Shit, they tell us, should be buried six inches deep or more--except in higher-altitude forests, where the area of highest biological activity is shallower and you should bury it just a few inches down--or on rock climbs, where you should use a small rock to smear your shit against the cliff--unless you're on a heavily-travelled cliff face like El Capitan in Yosemite, in which case you should shit into a bag and toss it off the cliff (I'm not making this up!). If you're on Mount Rainier, you should carry your shit bag out with you. If you're climbing an unnamed summit in the Yukon, you can shit right into the snow of a glacier, and leave it there.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-07 22:33:11 +0000

Eloquent, yet indepth. Pchippy, whenever I throw my shit off a cliff, I will thinking of you. Thanks for a better perspective on the bushwack picture. Cheers!

Posted by pchippy on 2005-08-07 23:23:39 +0000

Dawn, next time you throw your shit off a cliff, I hope I'm there with you--at the UPPER end of the rope! Sorry about the length of my manifesto.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-08-07 23:45:40 +0000

I loved the length -- a good read.

Posted by G lib on 2005-08-08 13:20:18 +0000

I'm telling-- PChippy swore! ________________ --Feminazi

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-08-08 13:22:50 +0000

That was definitely a quote. He remains blameless, like a newborn lamb. A newborn lamb with mad skillz, yo!

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-08 13:38:29 +0000

Bushwhack'd with P. Chippy

Posted by tgl on 2005-08-08 13:47:28 +0000

Thanks for the question, db, and the answer, pc.