Bushwhack Rating System

[ADK4Life]

"Bushwhack a route up to MT Lincoln? Need I say more for such abuse to the most populated trek in the Whites?
What happens when you get to the Alpine zone?"

A trailess ascent up Lincon would never become popular, at best the few that would go through such and undertaking would probably not repeat. Have you never been on an established trail and asked yourself what it would be like to ascend up a route that catches your eye?

"John Muir did travel this land wild and trail-less, but was also a master of LNT and helped lead the effort to establish protected National Parks.
The name “bushwhack” alone suggests a damaging activity."

Read up on Muir a bit more on his trailess ascents up smaller mountians. You will find he really wacked his way through parts.

 

[twigeater]

This is an "interesting" discussion...

I've been told that Baxter Park doesn't have a trail to every peak and neat-o place in the park so that those who choose can bushwack.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

In New York, the DEC recomends bushwhacking during the 'mud season' There are two reasons for this.

It will spread out the impact

They know very few people will do it.

The latter, is important. If it would be the case where a lot of people do things, things would be different. In more popular areas/fragile areas, 'Keep on the trail' is important, but not (yet) when spread out ofver a forest.

Spread out.... What is the probability of others taking the same route? It depends smoewhat on the terrain, but things are changing. In the days of the net, when someone posts the GPS waypoints of a bushwhack, and others follow, tthe spreading out will no longer be as it was in the past.

One issue, is recivery time. How long does it take for a path to recover after someone has passed? If recovery time is X days, and people pass that way more than once every X days, the damage is permanant. If people pass less frequently the path recovers. The time, depends on the type of land and vegetation. In an open hardwood forest, recovery time is short. In wetlands, it may take a long time. I know a few places which I will never tell people about. Vegetation is so fragile, that one person a week will destroy it before long.

Herd path creation is really straightforward. Although it got its name from paths animals made, that is only a small part of it. COnsider going from point A to point B, where it is a relatively short distance. Most people will take the easiest route, thus, it won't be long before a human path is created. COnsider walking along a stream, and you reach a section with cliffs on either side. Most everyone will be forced to the same path. COnsider that you are following a brook, and there is a waterfall. Many will take the same route around the falls.

Little bits of human paths are created, then these lengthen over time, and tehy connect. Why do these paths grow? Because the recovery time is greater than the time which others will come along theh path aqain.

Working on trails, and doing re-routes has amazed me at how quickly and easily a new path is formed. In closing off old paths, one techniqui I've used, is to simply transplant moss in the middle of the path. Amaxingly enough, this stops traffic, because it doesn't LOOK like a path. I then let others' feet do the rest of the work.

 

[Rik]

BTW, if you ever need WMNF rescue while on a NH bushwhack, you will be sure to be issued a "Reckless Hiker" citation.

I would argue that this isn't necessarily true. If one was prepared for off trail travel (like that term better than bushwhacking) then I don't think the citation would stick. I would hope not at least. My feeling is that these are public lands available for many uses.

Also, I felt like Spencer was trying to open this discussion up by being fair to both sides. Your response to him seemed defensive to me. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

Brownie,

I agree with you. I don't bushwhack rather I stay on the trail. Only once when I was lost was the exception, I can't say I even enjoyed it. Trails are much more attractive anyway.

 

[spencer]

Thanks for responding, Brownie.

As a forest researcher and frequent bushwhacker, I have yet to find evidence, literature or in practice, that bushwhacking itself harms a forest ecosystem. When I break branches from trees (from hitting them with my shoulders and whatnot) they break b/c they are brittle wood (dead xylem tissue). The branches have already died due to senescence. Conversely, the living branches with needles have resilient phloem tissue which, in part, allows the branches to give as we (or moose) brush past them.

There is no question that increased popularity encourages noticeable impacts. However, I think the internet and sharing of detailed trip reports contributes far more to this than the whacking itself. You'll notice, that despite my proclivities for dense travels, you'll infrequently read a report detailing my routes to places.

As others have mentioned there is a very strong argument for combining extensive use (spreading the footprint) AND intensive use (already hardened trails/campsites). It is the intermediate terrain (e.g. herd paths) that suffer the fates you worry about. I think if you read the WMNF rules carefully, I think you'll find they reflect what I have just said.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiments that some of the lesser lists will never receive overuse/frequent use. If you asked Miriam Underhill if she thought Vose Spur would have received many visitors, I bet she would have laughed. While I like to think that the 3ks will remain as they are, in the last few years alone, there have been many, many more references to them than in times past (I am as guilty as anyone, although I don't discuss routes).

Thanks for your concern, Brownie! This is a very important topic. I've said it once and I'll say it again - Guy W. was afraid of us "loving our mountains to death." It's up to us to find a way to educate ourselves and others while not trampling the resource in the process.

spencer

 

[Rik]

Brownie,
Can you show me a link to the reckless hiker law? The link in your last post makes reference to the law but doesn't show the law itself. I guess I have a hard time equating reckless with leaving the trail. Seems that if everything else was equal in a rescue situation you believe just by being off trail during the incident would get you fined? Not trying to antagonize just trying to understand.

 

[Double Bow]

Brownie, there does not seem to be anything in the "Reckless Hiker" law that mentions off-trail navigation as an activity that falls under its reaches. I've seen many more reckless hikers on the trail than I have heard of attemping tasks off the trail.

I used to be strongly opposed to "bushwhacking" (I perfer the term "off-trail navigation"). Then I learned that so few people pass over the exact same swath of forrest, even when starting from the same parking area, that the impact is negligable. Indeed, the damage is less than that of moose and deer, whom we SHARE the woods with. It is not ours, nor is it exclusively theirs. We do have a right to be there and not just on a designated strip. The fact that I do not carry a rifle and the intention to kill something does not give me less right than hunters to wander off-trail.

From what I've read it seems as though you have two chief concerns. The first seems to be people trampling on alpine vegetation. Well, as far as I am aware, none of the trailess peaks in New England have an alpine zone, therefore, there is no issue. The vast majority of folks who do participate in "bushwhacking", would not to so on a peak that has trails. Obviously, Guy Waterman was an exception as are some scientists.

Your second concern seems to be your user reputation. From experience I can say that when you call attention to the fact that someone gave you a red square, you are simply sending an invitation for more.

Also, it is considered poor board etiquite to post something that some one has send you privately, whether it's via PM or through the rating system. Others have been disciplined in the past for doing so and I don't want this to happen to you as you raise an important issue to discuss.

 

[Doc McPeak]

For those of you interested, here is a quick link to a friendly message from our folks at WMNF.

Reckless Hiker law

During this thread thus far, my positive reputation has been winning WAY over the reds, so I am not fazed by the disgruntled.

Brownie

If you read the hiker responsibilty code I would bet a higher percentage of "bushwhackers" adhere to the code as opposed to trail hikers, which comprise plenty of weekenders and newbies. Most bushwhackers are experienced hikers first and have much more survival skills, planning skills, etc. than the average hiker.

ps. I don't completely agree with all your premises, Brownie, but I understand where you're coming from and would never (nor did I) redtag you for it.

I'll still defer to the opinion of one of the Northeast's most prominent conservationalists who has a twenty+ year track record of summit restorations under his belt...

 

[el-bagr]

The Hiker Responsibility Code:

You are responsible for yourself, so be prepared:


1. With knowledge and gear. Become self reliant by learning about the terrain, conditions, local weather and your equipment before you start.

2. To leave your plans. Tell someone where you are going, the trails you are hiking, when you will return and your emergency plans.

3. To stay together. When you start as a group, hike as a group, end as a group. Pace your hike to the slowest person.

4. To turn back. Weather changes quickly in the mountains. Fatigue and unexpected conditions can also affect your hike. Know your limitations and when to postpone your hike. The mountains will be there another day.

5. For emergencies. Even if you are headed out for just an hour, an injury, severe weather or a wrong turn could become life threatening. Don’t assume you will be rescued; know how to rescue yourself.

6. To share the hiker code with others.

hikeSafe: It’s Your Responsibility.
The Hiker Responsibility Code was developed and is endorsed by the White Mountain National Forest and New Hampshire Fish and Game.

The "reckless hiker law", NH RSA 153-A:24:

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.

 

[Pucknuts61]

A voice of reason? NOT!

So you openly speak your opinion and back it up with some specific examples and factual information and you get red squared?
Very lame!
User reps should have nothing to do with conservative thoughts, concerns, and attitudes about our forest. My agreement or disagreement with anyone's opinion should have nothing to do with colored squares and points. I'll green square you when I agree with your post but I have yet to submit a single red square for any post that's adverse to my principles. There are too many people on this board that trully care about the woods and I really see no need to piss off my fellow hiker with a red square simply because I disagree with their opinion.

There are no current laws about this subject so it's all speculation and personal preference anyway. Heck, any AMC hut has more of an impact on the environment in one days use than any bushwhack.

Doc McPeak has it right (my opinion!). It's the newbie and weekend warrior that causes more damage than any one that posts on this board. We are the ones that care, we are the ones that work on the trails, we are the ones that go in with nothing and come out with a bag of other peoples trash, we are the ones that abide strictly by LNT principals, and it is only the most educated and well versed hiker that attempts to bag untrailed peaks (OK, usually this is the case)
And I am positive that the bushwhackers (or off-trail croo) take more care and are more concerned about their potential impact that anyone currently driving on the Mt. Washington auto road.

 

[ADK4Life]

I am almost fearing to respond due to getting a red square.

 

[Jaytrek57]

Correct, but the law suggests if you take irresponsible steps to PUT you there in the first place, like off trail navigation, then you could be required to reimburse search party efforts. How are they going to find you?

I have many comments on this, but I will try to limit them. I honestly believe most who bushwhack have/can do the following:

1. An itinerary with general "area" information where you are.
2. Solid map/compass or GPS skills. Another topic, but if you had a usable cell phone you could talk SAR in.
3. Proper knowledge of signaling devices.
4. The ability to self rescue.

Your premise that "off trail navigation" is, by itself, an irresponsibile action is IMHO not valid. It is like every other skill and different people have different levels of ability.

Interesting thread.

peace

 

[arghman]

just a side comment:
I noticed WMNF has been placing new signs in sensitive areas of the alpine zone (at Lakes Hut... where there were a few kids running around above treeline , also in at least one other location I've been to):

IMHO these are much clearer than the alpine zone signs (see below), which I hope WMNF changes to be a little more direct.

"It's a tough place to grow", "BE a caring steward"... these may be slightly catchy slogans, but I wonder if they add anything to people's understanding of the issue. "STAY on the trail or walk on bare rocks" -- well, that's the most important message here, but it's in small print. I think they should say "Please stay on the trail or walk on bare rocks, to help protect our alpine plants and prevent erosion. It may take years or decades for the alpine zone to recover."

Back to bushwhacking, I also do it as a land steward -- formally for one of SPNHF's properties, informally for one of our town's properties. On Sunday I was checking out the boundaries of the town property (unmarked, so I had to use a GPS) and making notes on the back of an envelope. At one point I went to write something down and the envelope was gone (along with all my notes!!!!!). I spent about half an hour walking through fairly open woods, trying to follow the same path. I finally did find my envelope, but it made me aware that even with a GPS and knowing that I'm within 30 or 40 feet of a line I want to follow, it is nearly impossible to follow the same footsteps unless you are following a trail.

I always thought the word "bushwhack" meant you were whacked by bushes. (About a week ago I had some cuts on my face to prove it.)

 

[Steve-o]

[One thing many of you failed to realize in your justifications:
BEARS, MOOSE, DEER, SQUIRRELS and all wild creatures have “rights” over you!
Wild animals can climb any tree, trample any bush it wants, anywhere in the forest.
ITS THEIR HOME!
You are nothing more than a visiting guest who owe more respect.

True.
But at one time we were all wild creatures.
We were all put on earth for some reason.
I don't see " wild animals" having any more right to the forest than we have.
If you think about it, no matter where you live, it was all wild once.

However, because of evolution, and having a larger brain, we have adapted.
We eventually learned how to build shelters,gather food, build suv's and log on to the internet.
I think if a moose had the capability's, it would much rather be living in a air-conditioned house, kicking back on the lazy-boy and watching some HD TV
while waiting for the pizza guy, instaed of being chowed by bugs.

So, should it bother me if I see a deer,squirrel or rabbit in my backyard.
( My Home! ) I don't think so.

I feel, if you want to go somewhere and you can do it. Then go for it.

Frankly, I think that a large tree falling in the forest ( which happens occasionally) will have a greater impact on the enviroment than me.

BTW, Although I disagree, I would NEVER give anyone a red square for posting their opinion. ( like it even matters )

Steve

 

[Warren]

Wish this thread happened on a weekend or less busy week so I could track it better....

A herd path does not impact an ecosystem, for the most part. But a defined herd path does change the character of a mountain from the human point if view. I do agree that the posting of route information is a likely stronger contributor to over use of a trail less route.

I don't buy into that the activity is self limiting. Lots of folks would have never have anticipated the number of winter travelers we now see. If it can happened with winter it can happen with bushwacking.

Aside from alpine areas, I've never known any of the major wilderness areas to be off limits to off trail travel in the NE. The idea that it's reckless is, well, a matter of opinion. I do not think you would find that Rangers will immediately assume off trail travel to be irresponsible. From my view mentioning the intent to travel off trail seems to warm the rangers to me.

I don't think our travel on or off trail stops any animal from using a path. Also, I don't buy the moose test. Moose do not make a bee line to the summit. You will not see 1000 Moose per season using the same trail (uh, Spencer is that correct?).

It's better to have no herd paths, instead of a few well defined ones, if you seek to maintain the un trailed character of an area or mountain.

Bushwacking vs. Cross country: I think this is just semantics. In the North West which I'm more familiar with than the Sierras, cross country is usually scrambling. This is above treeline travel. I think the huge size of the Cascades helps to spread impact. We are much more concentrated in the NE.

What is the bushwacking activity for? Ask 10 hikers, get ten answers?

John Muir built lean to's, bough beds, made fires. I don't know if he would be a master of leave no trace by our standards.

While bushwacking may be on it's way to a fad, it is not new. Off trail travel has been with us for a long time.

The name bushwack also suggest what happens to me more than the vegetation around me.

Aside from the common sense point of view, make efforts to not repeat others off trail foot steps there is no real info on impact of use over time considering numbers traveling. Pete's point on how quickly a path can be established emphasizes to me that we need more study on the topic.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I don't buy into that the activity is self limiting. Lots of folks would have never have anticipated the number of winter travelers we now see. If it can happened with winter it can happen with bushwacking.

It is now. If things change, regulations will follow. In the past, NY allowed winter camping over 4K feet. There was very little. There is now, much more camping, and it is now prohibitted over 4K feet. I'm also predicting more requlations in reaction to increased winter use. In particular, human waste disposal. Come springtime..

For now, bushwhacking is self limiting. If things change, things will change.

Pete's point on how quickly a path can be established emphasizes to me that we need more study on the topic.

Prof Ed Kethlege (sp?) has done a fair amount of research, putting nails in trees, and measuring depth of trails wearing over the years. Interesting stuff. I wish it were easy to find.

 

[Brownie]

To all on board

To all group members,

I am new to the group, so in hindsight I should have taken more time to ask the group opinions of bushwhacking before making my comments. I have learned.

Once I started to read replies, I realized that the broader scope of bushwhacking was far outside my message on making the point of not traveling over delicate regions.

Repeated bushwhacking to alpine vegetated peaks is seriously questionable.
That was my main point.
You all have said you don't do this.

I missed the mark completely in explanation.

Thank you for all your comments, both positive and negative.

Brownie

 

[mavs00]

I followed this thread with interest for a few days. It’s a perfect example of the philosophical inter----.....… err, debate that should go on here. Threads like these are perfect for us that pursue a particular activity and then, when given a contrary opinion, are forced to take an introspective look at our own ideas and determine what, if any responsibility we have. I found it interesting to follow along.

Brownie (et all), no need for apologies. You spoke you feelings and we entered a (mostly) civil discourse into the topic. I find that refreshing. I ultimately disagree with your position, but I certainly took some time to review my own behavior and determine if “my practice” of occasional bushwhacking is done with the utmost responsibility. I think many of us may have. That’s one of the great things about this place.

Now, onto the original question of the rating system. I understand it primarily meant to be more “tongue and cheek” than anything else. However, I’ve seen some attempts to have some type rating system for this activity and this is probably as good as any. Problem is, damn if you can get anyone to agree on route. A bushwhack’s entire complexity can change but simply moving 10-20 yds left or right in some cases.

For example, earlier this summer I climbed Stewart (Sentinel Range) and the way we went, I'd rate that nastiness a Grade IV, BW 4+. I later talked to a friend that had taken a similar line (but not exact) as we did and he’d give it no more than a “not so bad”. Given that I wanted to smack him, obviously it be tough to agree on a rating for that peak . Hell, you wouldn’t even get agreement within the same climbing party. Last year, we took my son (13 at the time) on a whack up Avalanche Mt. When I got done, I wasn’t too torn-up, so I'd probably give it a Grade III, BW3. My son, on the other hand, (who was within 10-15 feet of me the whole hike) had a different impression. He told me he should have me brought up on child abuse charges for even inviting him.

Great in theory, tough to impliment in reality.

 

[Neil]

How did I miss this thread? Super discussion. (I thought about wilderness and off-trail hiking all day yesterday and posted a reply on the bushwhacking poll that really belongs over here.)

Above treeline it is impossible to "bushwhack" anyway and everyone should stay on the trail. Absolutely 100%.

In the thick ADK forest where there is nothing but a seemingly endless, untrammeled carpet of blowdown, moss and spruce you can wander at will.

Let's all reflect on Brownie's comments and the excellent replies and use common sense. Will recovery be slower than repetitive damage?