Bushwhack Rating System

[el-bagr]

With what appears to be increasing interest in the subject, some of you might appreciate this proposed bushwhack rating system.

http://alpenglow.org/themes/subalpine/brush-ratings.html

It's all fun and games, but this might help give a common basis for evaluating bushwhacks. They can't all be Turnbill's "boulder-strewn open glades"!

 

[Barbarossa]

...because that is where the coolest stuff is

Hold still, Brownie. I have difficulty with moving targets

Point by point...

At the risk of social suicide here goes:

If all the bushwhackers of the world decided to ostracize you, how would you ever know? ;]

"what if everybody bushwhacked?"

It won't happen.

Bushwhacking isn't exactly "leave no trace".

You are absolutely correct. I break twigs and branches, chew up moss, trample ferns. There are places that I have gone that no large mammal has set foot in a couple decades, and there I go disturbing this pristine clump of dead spruce branches.

Moose shamelessy flaunt the Leave No Trace Ethic, leaving evidence of their passing everywhere. They poop indiscriminantly, flatten large areas of ferns when they sleep, and they make paths throughout the forest. Most of the herd paths I follow are created by moose.

It damages the forest which is under the protection and management of the US Forestry Service.

A forest is an eco-system, not a museum. It recovers from damage naturally. This years rotting leaves and moldy moose poop are next year's topsoil. The White Moutains recovered from over logging and forest fires that burned topsoil. I believe it can recover from my wanderings.

 

[Puma concolor]

I agree with Brownie. Every mountain should have a federally built road and trail maintained by the Forest Service. This would have far less impact on a fragile ecosystem that was never intended for animals of any type (humans or other) to walk through it. Bears, moose, mountain lions and coyotes should also be forced to walk on the maintained path to lessen impact.

PS - Though I don't agree, I'm giving you a green square for having guts.

 

[spencer]

Brownie,

thanks for bringing it up.

Please expound on the idea that "It damages the forest which is under the protection and management of the US Forestry Service."


spencer

 

[dr_wu002]

But here in New England, under a drove of outdoor enthusiasts and limited resources, I would expect more conservation efforts.
Bushwhacking isn't exactly "leave no trace".

I know I'll here from folks determined to justify their wanderings as soft footed, "low" impact backcountry journeys. Hunters do this all the time right?

Eric already packed a lot of fortitude in his post so I'll keep this brief. What are you calling leave-no-trace? I don't think anyone is seriously advocating cutting their own trails, blazing paths, or whatever. Also, I think a lot of people here are conscientious about keeping bushwhacking party numbers to a minimum to minimize impact etc.

You do have a point though and I know that Pete Hickey can expand on this... besides just Alpine Zones, various 'trailless' peaks that are on lists receive high amounts of use -- and from some people probably more interested in the notch on their belt than the condition they leave the forest in. Pete had expressed concern about Gray, I believe it was, recently and the number of herd paths destroying fragile vegetation. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of peaks in the WMNF have similar problems. Vose Spur (haven't done it yet) apparently has a herd path. Is this bad? I'm not making judgment -- looking for input here.

For the individual, walking around the forest -- so long as you're not blazing a path or leaving your beer bottles all over -- isn't going to damage any more than a moosie or a bear walking around. There are a lot of peaks that won't get much use and I promise you that the East Coast Populations isn't going to suddenly name bushwhacking the next American Pastime. However, the large numbers going for the peaks on the Hundred Highest List is worth looking into.

El-Bagr's post post was more humorous than anything though.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Warren]

I've had a rather heated disagreement over this with a microbiologist friend of mine. Her feeling was a foot fall could cause damage to top soil and all bushwhacking was bad and that the forest could not recover all that quickly.

I'm out to lunch on this question still but over time I've thought out a few things about it. First off the NE recovers rather quickly, it does have bounce back potential. So I don't think a non machete wielding bushwacker will cause all that much damage, in typical locations in the North east.

But the picture isn't that simple......

... becuase after we bushwhack we may advertise the route by detailing the route to others and raving about the trip or before hand we may have recieved instructions from others who have been there before. The various lists serve as a back channel for such information exchange. The natural desire to optimize a walk or to avoid an over night may mean one approach gets detailed and becomes a preferred route. A thoughtful hiker may introduce a cairn guaranteeing that other bushwackers begin at the same point. In time perhaps a club bringing a largish group comes through, a herd path could develop. But it still isn't that simple.....

The Catskills, land of one dirt for every three rocks may be much more resilient, especially at the lower elevations. The Adirondacks (at least the high peaks) on the the other hand has a thin layer of soil over rock and can be said to be not as resilient. The Whites seem to fall between. But what of all the above tree line, or just high elevation forest? Bushwacking in any of those three locations may not have much of an impact at 2000', but how many hikers will hike to say, 3500' and then turn around?

I wanted so much to get my microbiologist friend out to the Catskils and get her opinion of the topsoil. She was unwilling and much of her objections were based on studies of New Mexican desert with a living top layer hundreds of years old and very rough growth cycle, her claims of lawbreaking are largely limited to national parks. Ultimately I want to see a study that indicates region, elevation and amount of traffic to the recovery time before I woud come out with anything definitive on the bushwacking question.

For me, for now, I feel that for forested bushwack routes (not slides) one should make an effort to make thier own approach, the emergence of herd paths in the ADKs to multitudes of herd paths to officially establishing them shows that when numbers are involved bushwacking will establish de-facto trails. When bushwhacking with the goal of a peak, one should really think about what you'll be wacking through as you approach the alpine zone. It may not be wrong for the single or small group of bushwackers but those that may follow you may create a situation that can change the character of a previously untrailed and arguably more pristine than trailed area.

I'm bushwacker if you will. The ability, the privilege to travel off trail and wander through what might be the illusion of wilderness in the north east is a major if not the main part of my outdoor experience. I worry that there will be a backlash against such activities at some point in the future. I am very aware that the majority of the membership of the Sierra club and the AMC are not active hikers, let alone "wilderness travelers" and that when dealing with high use levels bushwacking is a problem and could become an issue to address at some point in the future. Ultimately I want to see facts on the impact so those of us that travel this way have the tools we need to employ judgment in how, where and when we travel.

Sorry for the long post, anyone interested in the topic should pursue a thread Maavs started last year about the Basin Amphitheater that discussed the ethics of traveling in rare special places and posting about it.

Added in edit: [oops] sorry to contribute to the high jack of the topic...

 

[Papa Bear]

There are a couple of cases here to discuss (and I restrict this particular argument to NE):

1) NEHH "trailess peaks". Most of these are no longer trailless. I would say the few left that have less then 50% of the route on herd paths are Mendon, PatN and Scar Ridge. These are still "partly to mostly trailess". Those with 50 - 100% herd paths (if you find them) are Elephant, Vose Spur, Cupsuptic Snow, East Kennebago, Noth Kennebago,and Whitecap. Those with 100% herdpaths are Fort and Nancy (did I miss any).

These are alll likely to become 100% herd paths in the next 10 years. At that point there will be no more bushwhacking on the HHs, and the herdpaths will become de facto trails. Ironically (and the experience in the ADKs confirms this) this will probably be a good thing for the forest as the usage will be concentrated in an easily defined (and perhaps maintained) corridor.

2) "Lesser lists" (NHHH, 3ks etc.). These get so little use as to be laughable. We did a peak last weekend that had recieved ony 2 visits before us since 2000 according to the register, and peak baggers really, really love to find and sign those registers (some peak baggers are really "canister baggers" pretending to look for peaks ). Any twigs broken or moss steped on on these peaks are regrown in a season, if not sooner. Besides, there being no herd paths, everyone follows a different route (even Spencer and I followed different routes last weekend, although we were perhaps 10 yards apart). As someone above said, moose make a much bigger impact.

So in one case the problems solves itself (if you look at it that way), in the other case there is no problem.

But wait, what about the first case? Well compare the development of herdpaths into de facto trails with maintained trails. Some would say there are way too many trails on the Presidential Range than there needs to be. Should the USFS close them? Would that help? My experience is that the Presidentials are in significantly better shape than 30 - 40 years ago (as far as alpine zones, litter, etc.) except perhaps the summit of Washington. Ditto Mooselauke. Ditto the Franconia Ridge. I think at the moment, the forest can support the usage as long as we have dillagent users and good management.

Could things get worse? Of course. If usage went up by a factor of say 3 to 10, things would likely deteriorate. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with bushwhacking. In a sense the "real" bushwhackers would just be driven away to find lesser used areas. Just yesterday I read a post by someone lamenting the "development" in the Pittsburg NH area. As a resident of NYC, that gave me a chuckle.

So look at the big picture. There are real problems for nature and nature lovers (from Global Warming all the way to the hot dog stand on Mount Washington) but I think bushwhacking is way down the list of priorities.

 

[Rik]

Well put everyone. Just to nitpick a little: Between the logging roads and herdpath I would put Mendon in the catagory of well over 50 percent by path.

 

[arghman]

I think the "aid ratings" (in the link el-bagr posted) were in poor taste, but the rest of it is useful.

Herd paths are definitely a concern, as are high-traffic peaks inviting bushwhacks. I agree with Warren's point about advertising a bushwhack, I think it's better to keep routes private, or at least not post detailed information in a public forum.

Here's another monkey wrench: As an amateur botanist, I am still learning about the proper methods of doing plant surveys. Bottom line: bushwhacking is a necessity, unless it is decided that an area is so fragile that further exploration / evaluation for the good of understanding the natural environment is outweighed by the protection of that area's plant life. (e.g. Monroe Flats & the dwarf cinquefoil) Minimizing impact is certainly of utmost importance, but it's a question of tradeoffs. I have done plant surveys with groups for New England Wildflower Society which involve traversing areas with bogs or alpine vegetation, to locate and evaluate the health of rare plant species. Do we have an impact on the vegetation? Absolutely, though I hope we have taken steps to minimize that impact. Have we caused a measurable threat to any occurrences of rare species or a plant community? I would say no. (Although, yes, if we had 100,000 people a year doing plant surveys at these locations, there would be a measurable impact. The botanists of the 1800's congregated in the White Mountains en masse, and did not always adhere to or consider ethical principles, and probably led to extirpation of certain rare plant occurrences.) Would I traverse these areas if I were going places for recreational and not scientific reasons? No.

As far as recreational bushwhacking goes, in habitats which are not as sensitive (e.g. spruce/fir forests), I think the deer/moose test is a good one. If you think that both you and rest the aggregate bushwhacking community are having a greater impact on the environment than the native deer/moose, don't go. This is not a rhetorical question... I think if I went on a bushwhack to a mountain peak and I saw a few dozen others from different groups taking the same route, I would not want to go back.

 

[Papa Bear]

As far as recreational bushwhacking goes, in habitats which are not as sensitive (e.g. spruce/fir forests), I think the deer/moose test is a good one. If you think that both you and rest the aggregate bushwhacking community are having a greater impact on the environment than the native deer/moose, don't go. This is not a rhetorical question... I think if I went on a bushwhack to a mountain peak and I saw a few dozen others from different groups taking the same route, I would not want to go back.

Actually there was a route we did last weekend that was so thick (spruce/fir) and so ledgy that the moose weren't even using the area. I guess they were smarter then we were.

 

[el-bagr]

I'm glad folks are taking the "Cascade Brush and Bushwhack Rating System" I linked to as what it is -- largely tongue-in-cheek. I'm also glad it's being used as a springboard for a larger issue: an ethical debate as to what's right for humans to do.

A bit more info about the linked "Cascade Brush and Bushwhack Rating System". As the name suggests, this was developed by mountaineers in the PNW. My climbing experience there is rather limited, but we did find a number of significant climbs that did not have designated trails or even real herd paths -- just game trails through thorny brush and frustrating slide alder. (Want to feel like you're a microbe crawling through velcro?) The eastern Sierra also has notorious bushwhacks -- Mount Williamson, for example -- that require rough bushwhacks despite a relatively high degree of mountaineering interest. As many other objectives in those areas involve either trails or open cross-country travel, perhaps the thorough 'whacks out there draw a lesser fraction of user interest than do comparable slogs here.

A few musings: What's a trail, anyway? Does it have to be designated by the USFS or another land management entity to be a trail? I borrowed a friend's dog a few weeks ago and jogged Tom-Field-Willey-Avalon (fire away!), and was interested to see how Moriah was able to determine where to go. For the most part, she was able to tell where the trail went; she paid no attention to grassed-under abandoned roads, but did get confused at heavily eroded waterbars at switchbacks on the descent of Avalon. The experience made me ponder the set of heuristics that let humans answer the question, "Is this a trail?" Think of what you'd have to do to program Mr. Robohiker to be able to distinguish trail from not trail. Last weekend in Baxter, I followed fisherman and game trails through head-high blueberries and heath plants around a few ponds -- undesignated trails, or trails abandoned by humans, but generally discernable routes. They were fairly obvious to me, but I could see how you might not see them.

Stepping back a few degrees of abstraction, try following an unclear trail -- Weeks Brook Trail up Kearsarge North, for example, or some of Joe Jalbert's "Lost Trails". Take along someone who's either more or less experienced at finding trails, and see how past experiences help you determine "what's the trail". Many of us don't need blazes to follow a route; by extension, some of us don't need an eroded footway, or even clear signs of human passage. (Even this is worth dissecting: I am privileged to count an experienced logger as a hiking partner; every walk with Fred reveals countless signs of landscape uses that Fred sees that I would not have noticed.)

Fred's a very interesting guy. Fred's the one who taught me trail construction and management principles (I bet he taught BrentD22 as well). Fred and his wife are two of the most conscientious LNT practitioners I know. We often roam off-trail in search of hidden mysteries in the woods. Fred's terse advice on the subject: "four footfalls leave a mark". In other words, don't follow exactly in each others' footsteps; spread out a bit when feasible. Obviously this is contextual, but for small parties in generally unexplored and obscure territory, Fred's advice was to fan out and disperse light impact rather than concentrate impact on what would become a herd path.

I do agree with PB that there are few high-volume "bushwhacks" -- it doesn't take many footsteps (Fred would say four) before it's a trail, albeit a nascent one.

Here's a monkey wrench for you: can you reconcile Guy Waterman's LNT activism with his climbing each of the high-volume NH48 from all four cardinal directions? Guy apparently could.

As fellow plant-lover arghman observes, the aid ratings are of course a joke. VFTT is more oriented toward hiking than toward climbing, so most readers may not be aware of controversies in the climbing community around "aid". Even more than in climbing, I think there is general consensus that "aid' of the type proposed in the bushwhack ratings system is nothing more than satire. Where are you going to find Agent Orange refills, anyway?

 

[imarchant]

I am relativley new to bushwacking, so I am certainly no expert. But I have seen several herd paths that were most likley created and used by animals more than humans. I believe the term "herd path" is actually originated from herds of animals creating them not human created paths. If a human follows such a path will it deter animals from using the path in the future? if so fo how long?

My opinion is also it is better to have relitively few well defined herdpaths than many small faint ones. The herd path then becomes more like an unmaintained or marked trail. If this is not the case then all trails should ceased to be maintained and/or marked.

 

[ADK4Life]

I was thinking about bushwacking up Lincon from the Old Bridal Trail, would anyone be interested? looks nice and steep. Having "bushwacked" a 11 and 13 thousand footer in the High Seirra I must saw that you can get up a peak without damaging anything if you take the right steps, its was quite nice.

 

[ADK4Life]

"Is this activity really for escape to wild places, or for bragging rights?"

If you are following crowded established trails that lead to places like Lake Of The Crowds hut of Marcy Dam the wild aspect changes from animals to people.

Some bushwack for mountaineering experiences and not braging rights. If John Muir had followed trails his adventures would be minimal. I personally like to go off trail to be uncertian, it helps add to the feeling of being in the hills.

 

[lumberzac]

I believe the term "herd path" is actually originated from herds of animals creating them not human created paths. If a human follows such a path will it deter animals from using the path in the future? if so fo how long?

It will deter animals for a short time until the smell of humans dissipates. Generally I would say no more than a couple of hours.

 

[spencer]

Brownie,

before you get upset at the lack of agreement with you, you need to explain your rational. Forest growth and recovery and our impact on it is a very complicated issue. You said nothing that leads us to believe you've formed your opinions on real information.

Please give us some background for your statements and I'm sure many people will be happy to discuss.


spencer

 

[el-bagr]

Thanks for keeping the dialogue going, Brownie. I agree wholeheartedly that "BEARS, MOOSE, DEER, SQUIRRELS and all wild creatures have “rights” over you!" They can indeed go where they want. In fact, I spent two years living in a small room with a chipmunk and a beehive; we got along great except when the chipmunk exercized her right to rifle through my closet and chew through my backpack to get at a forgotten Snickers bar. (I forgave her.) Four times I have played host to little brown bats, once to an opossum, and twice to a raccoon. When I find a spider in my house, I put it carefully outside on some plants, but realize that doing so may mean more insects in my house.

When in these animals' domains, it's easier to be respectful of the big guys: when you encounter a momma moose and calf on a trail around a bog, you stop, watch, and consider retreating if she wants you to. Bears are more wary, but when a medium-sized black bear woofed at us while we gorged on blueberries on Sunday, we respectfully departed his patch. Don't worry -- we left him plenty.

Part of the issue may be the artificial distinction between "our world" (humans) and "their world" (other animals). We are but particularly noisy mammals. Is there something about our disturbance of a bird's nest that is worse than when a beaver fells the same tree to harvest its resources? Scale, maybe, due to our population's pressure for resources, but the processes are similar.

I'd like to follow up on your “cross country” versus “bushwhacking” distinction. Sometimes a name does indeed make all the difference, but sometimes the meaning dictates the name. Walking through stone-strewn waist-high rabbitbrush flats is one thing, but crawling through spruce five feet off the ground is another altogether. Whatever you call it, we're talking here about off-trail travel through heavily vegetated country.

The points about bragging rights are well-taken. Why post trip reports at all? Personally, the percentage of experiences I've posted about has varied widely over the past decade -- these days, I keep quiet about most of what I do. If I'm exploring a widely-known area, perhaps the community's interest is less; if I'm exploring an obscure area, perhaps I'd rather it stay that way. (This is particularly true in winter, for personal reasons you might surmise.) I'm currently re-reading the Watermans' "Yankee Rock and Ice", which has an interesting discussion of the "claiming" issue from a historian's point of view.

As oft-debated as guns are around here, it strikes me as a patently overbroad attack to paint all hunters as poor stewards of our shared environment. Just as there are unethical or unaware trail-hikers, bushwhackers, and drivers, so too are there bad apples in the hunting community. I would hope that we can keep our discussion free from oversimplified arguments that the stain of the few taints the hearts of the many.

Thanks for keeping this civil, all.

 

[bill bowden]

Rating bushwhacks

Once you get beyond the NEHH summits only a very few parties will visit them. Typical NHHH summits get perhaps 3-4 visits/year; 3000 footers sometimes one in three years. Not enough to leave a distinct path. In contrast, moose leave distinct trails, generally headed to the summit of a ridge (to get a breeze to driveoff flies) or else to a bog/pond (lunch).

My own personal rating system is based on South Hitchcock, the nastiest mountain I've encountered (haven't done Barren or Squaw's bosom). My unit of measure is the "milli-Hitchcock" = 0.001 Hitchcocks. Some examples: Big Coolidge (nasty trip) = about 700. Gore from Meriden Hill Road= about 100; whitewall from the A-Z trail about 50 (open woods and summit with views).

To misquote the exact words of Guy Waterman, the environemntal impact of bushwhacking is mostly on the bushwhacker, not on the bush.
Have fun, don't annoy the bears.

bushwhack Bill

 

[Doc McPeak]

According to Dr. Ed Ketchledge, one of the foremost botanists and the leading alpine conservationist on the east coast, bushwhacking does little to no damage to the mountains. That was from a direct question asked to him only a few months ago. This is the guy who pioneered the summit steward programs that have had incredible success on the bare ADK high peaks. The alpine arctic zones are the fragile areas that need vigilant protection, virtually all lower forest regions below this will show no permanent damage from bushwhacking. Of course, Pete brought out the good point of bushwhacking to an alpine arctic zone. The lower bushwhack damage will bounce right back, the upper slope damage may never come back.

As for posting a route that will bring more to follow. Originally I felt posting was a bad idea and would encourage more to follow. The trailless ADK High Peaks (and probably the NEHH) began dissolving into herd path routes without any help from posting routes. It's the "bigger" lists themselves that are promoting this. Think of the Basin Amp info now. NO ONE has gone into there because of that posting. Just like the ADK100, even as new 46er members continues to climb, NO ONE is climbing this list. You can post routes into them, doesn't matter. There's a handful of people poking around in there and that's it. Of the 5000+ people who have done the 46, only perhaps 50 or so have done the 100. Hundreds have started, they head in for a couple and that's that. They're kinda tough, kinda scratchy, and boring as hell and not surrounded by the towering mountains of presence that most people are moved by. Now, could this change? Perhaps, but not because of posting just the info. It will come from the peakbagging my special list bravura posts, the I've been here and you haven't posts. But even then some lists will never ascend to the rarified reaches...

And all lower vegetation will grow back in time anyway...

 

[Mark Schaefer]

But I have seen several herd paths that were most likely created and used by animals more than humans. I believe the term "herd path" is actually originated from herds of animals creating them not human created paths. If a human follows such a path will it deter animals from using the path in the future? if so for how long?

Many paths are created by animals such as deer. I have followed a few, and later the same day observed deer using the same path. They also appear to have no hesitation using marked trails. I have observed bear, foxes, and deer using marked trails and old roads. One of the more amusing was a bear gingerly tiptoeing around the large mud wallows on the ridge road on Bearpen Mt in the Catskills. He didn't want to get his feet wet anymore than most hikers using that road. So much for staying in the middle of the trail.

On the broader subject. I think it is possible to hike off trail in a responsible way that minimizes impact. Part of that is advance research on sensitive areas to avoid and on the designated or de facto herd paths to use.