ADK day group size II

I'm not continuing on the other thread, because this one has a slightly different spin to it.

While the high peaks wilderness area, has a daytime group size of 15, and that is the law, other areas do not. In particular, Giant and Dix wilderness areas, have in their UMP that the day group size shall not exceed 15, however it has not yet been codified into law. It will... this year or next year, but it is not there now. Hence although the rules say that the group size must be 15 or less, nothing can be done if there is a larger group.

So, do you abide by the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law. Do you keep the group size down, or say that you will when it becomes law, but for now, you can take large groups day-hiking?

Rules-is-rules

Rules is rules, both in spirit and letter.

I think back to the Adirondacks bear canister rule imposed last summer. It had been under discussion for some time. Interestingly, it seems that a fair number of people started using the canisters before it was required, thus getting with the spirit of the thing, which was to reduce problematic bear-camper encounters. It's hard to believe that isn't all to the good.

So even though group size restrictions in the Giant and Dix Wilderness units aren't "officially official" as yet, it certainly seems like folks of good will might abide by them anyway.

G.

Pete,
Remember that old "Illegal Camping on the Summit" thread??

Some thought that if you get there 3-4 hours before dawn and just "nap" at the summit until dawn it isn't camping?

Well I feel the same way about group size. Most attorneys may argue differently, but I beleive in managing to the the spirit and intent of the law and maintaining respect for others, rather then the old "I'll do what I want, Prove to me where I can't"
Don't mean to open a can of worms, but Respect for People and Property goes a long way into showing others what kind of person you are.

Interesting debate....

Thanks for moving out of the old one

I'm general, I'm a spirit of the law kinda guy. Reading the GMWA (Giant Mt.) UMP, under current issues, it states;

Many visitors consider large groups inappropriate and undesirable in wilderness. Aside from behavioral factors, the potential to cause impact varies with party size and the type of user. Parties larger than 8 persons in a group have been documented to cause greater impacts to certain environmental and sociological resources than smaller groups (Cole, 1987, 1989, Hendee, 1990, and USDA Forest Service, 1994). Although large party use in the Unit represents a small proportion of total users, they contribute a disproportionate amount of impact when compared to smaller parties.

Regardless of activity (overnight or day use), large groups commonly create congestion problems in trailhead facilities, on trails, rock and ice climbing sites, and mountain summits. It is very difficult to control and confine large groups in vulnerable locations, such as on alpine summits or riparian areas. The rate of unacceptable change on a particular resource can be accelerated by large group occupancy of a site over a short period of time. Higher noise levels and sound issues are associated with large groups.

Click to expand...

So, knowing that that is one of the current issues facing us, I personally would refrain from exceeding that the size limits when planning a hike or participating in one, whether codified or not. OTOH, I do understand that there are degrees of infractions and that "the spirit" is somewhat understanding of some infractions vs. others.

For instance, Take a bus tour with 25 hikers stopping at the trailhead and disgorging 20 hikers at the Zander Scott trailhead to Giant Mt. then all proceeding together in one group all the way up the trail to the summit. Is that on the same magnitude as 3 groups of six traveling separately and arriving at the summit in an overlapping fashion to discreetly celebrate someone reaching the 46er goal. Not even close. I personally view both as separate entities and one far more "wrong" than the other, despite the fact that each are violations (or soon will be). Does that mean I condone one but not the other? No, not necessarily, but I do think that one is much worse than the other tharts for sure.

And since we are talking "spirit of the law". We all should know by now that group size and intensive use questions are serious issues facing the high peaks as a whole and if we are to consider ourselves "Spirit of the law" people, do carry over that same spirit to other places. For instance, Whiteface and Esther are not on protected lands, and group size is not restricted there. Does that mean we should abandon those principals simply because there is a ROAD on the other side of the mountain and the rules say we can. Do Whiteface trails not deserve the same consideration as Giant (or Dix, or any other) trails do? And if not, why.

Ditto for hiking on "less restrictive" lands such as Wild Forest, or Primitive lands. Are we allowed to relax our "standards" that we carry for LNT hiking in wilderness areas, simply cause we've moved into regions that are not a strictly regulated. It's all very interesting to consider and not always simple and clear cut.

For me, I try to think as in what's best for peaks and lands, regardless of the current regulations in place. I would make every attempt to "follow the rules" and do the right thing, but am certainly fallible like all humans. I do the best I can and hope that that is "enough".

Letter of the law, spirit of the wilderness. Here's another take...
A few weeks ago I planned a long day trip involving a mtn. bike for quick penetration. The beta I was getting was contradictory as to just how far I could peddle but I was hoping to get 7 miles worth (each way, not RT). At mile 2 there was a DEC sign staing that bicycles were not permitted beyond that point. So there I was on a weekday between Newcomb and Moose Pond with nary a soul around. The chances of being caught? Zero. Somehow though it didn't feel right to continue on. To be honest, I didn't care about the letter of the law. I felt uneasy about infringing on the spirit of the wilderness (the sign was at the beginning of the HPW). But all of a sudden I now had 10 miles of hiking instead of 10 miles of riding. I hiked. I hiked real fast and then I bushwhacked hard and fast but for a variety of reasons turned back 800 horizontal (and about 1000 vertical feet!) meters shy of my goal. No biggy, I got what I paid for and I enjoyed the whole thing anyway. On my way out I saw that a beautiful and huge (like I mean huge!) tent had been set up near the trail in prevision of hunting season I would imagine. (Note: I have nothing against hunting, nothing at all). The fresh tracks and fresh horse manure on the freshly chewed up trail showed clearly that a horse and carriage had brought everything in.
Now, I know this was all strictly legal (grandfather clauses, someone's livelihood et al) but how do you think I felt as I hiked those miles back to my bike? For me that day there was a mismatch here between the letter of the law vs. spirit of the wilderness.

If you're sticking to the letter of the law, what happens when twenty-five people show up for trail crew?

Daniel Eagan said:

If you're sticking to the letter of the law, what happens when twenty-five people show up for trail crew?

Click to expand...

That's easy, break them into groups of 3 groups of 6 and one of 7 and keep 'em a mile apart.

Neil said:

That's easy, break them into groups of 3 groups of 6 and one of 7 and keep 'em a mile apart.

Click to expand...

Except that they are often working together on one project, i.e., trail hardening.

Pete, Have you or Len ever even gotten 25 people to show up for a trail project????

Rick said:

Pete, Have you or Len ever even gotten 25 people to show up for a trail project????

Click to expand...

October 2, 2004: twenty-six for the Dix-Round Pond trail crew
October 1, 2005: twenty-eight for the same

Granted, in 2005 we split into five different crews. But in 2004, most of us concentrated on trail hardening near the junction with the trail to Noonmark.

I'm not trying to criticize trail crews, just point out that rules sometimes need to be bent.

Daniel Eagan said:

If you're sticking to the letter of the law, what happens when twenty-five people show up for trail crew?

Click to expand...

This is an issue we have to deal with. On one hand, ti may look good that a large groop is volunteering their time to do work, while on the other hand, there are some who look and say, "Look at those 46ers paying no attention to the rules."

Setting an example may be as important as getting a job done.

Daniel Eagan said:

Granted, in 2005 we split into five different crews.

Click to expand...

and one poor group had the task of moving an overflowing privy!!! Unfortunately, my photos didn't turn out well at all. I think my camera was affected by the smell.

Some trail hardening projects can be done very efficiently by a large group.(eg when gravel has to be hauled from a stream which is a distance away)

mavs00 said:

Do Whiteface trails not deserve the same consideration as Giant (or Dix, or any other) trails do? And if not, why.

Click to expand...

Maybe, mayne not, and here's why. Personally, I would hate to hike in a large group. A max group of 15 for day use seems quite reasonable to me. Any more and it would look like one of those train dances you see at weddings. But if you were going to allow it in one area, I'd vote for Whiteface. They already have a toll road on it. You can buy hot chocolate at the top. It's handicap accessible. You can alpine ski down it. It's the mountain for all people.

I realize concentrating large groups just in one spot probably makes it even worse, at least for that particular area. I don't claim to have all the answers...


-Shayne

Pete_Hickey said:

This is an issue we have to deal with. On one hand, ti may look good that a large groop is volunteering their time to do work, while on the other hand, there are some who look and say, "Look at those 46ers paying no attention to the rules."

Setting an example may be as important as getting a job done.

and one poor group had the task of moving an overflowing privy!!! Unfortunately, my photos didn't turn out well at all. I think my camera was affected by the smell.

Some trail hardening projects can be done very efficiently by a large group.(eg when gravel has to be hauled from a stream which is a distance away)

Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old Abbott & Costello routine about the duo going around peddling "no peddlers" signs.

Neil:
You made the right call with the bike.
It must have felt real nice putting the muddy bike back into the car knowing you did the right thing. Those little decisions out in the woods where nobody is watching and no one will know, that is how we can define ourselves as caretakers. Some day soon you might be standing up on a summit somewhere and feel a certain harmony and rhythm with nature that makes the extra 8 miles worth it.

hardrain said:

Neil:
You made the right call with the bike.
It must have felt real nice putting the muddy bike back into the car knowing you did the right thing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thumb's up!

But do you know what REALLY felt good? Getting on it and gliding those last two miles back to the car.

Neil said:

At mile 2 there was a DEC sign staing that bicycles were not permitted beyond that point.

Click to expand...

Why do they not allow bikes in certain places, like the South Meadows road, or this place Neil describes?

Scares horses? Erosion? The constant battle between hikers and mountain bikers? I doubt very much the hard core mountain bikers are going to pedal down South Meadows road back and forth, they'll be at Whiteface.


-Shayne

spaddock said:

Why do they not allow bikes in certain places, like the South Meadows road, or this place Neil describes?

Scares horses? Erosion? The constant battle between hikers and mountain bikers? I doubt very much the hard core mountain bikers are going to peddle down South Meadows road back and forth, they'll be at Whiteface.


-Shayne

Click to expand...

For a good and thought-provoking discussion of this, read the book, Wilderness Ethics, by Laura and Guy Waterman. If you are impatient, go directly to Chapter 12, which is titled, "One Person Transportation Devices and Wildness."

G.

Wilderness Ethics by Laura and Guy Waterman

I 2nd Grumpy's recommendation of Wilderness Ethics by Laura and Guy Waterman. It's a very well written and thought provoking book, should be required reading for all wilderness travelers.

spaddock said:

Why do they not allow bikes in certain places, like the South Meadows road, or this place Neil describes?

Scares horses? Erosion? The constant battle between hikers and mountain bikers? I doubt very much the hard core mountain bikers are going to pedal down South Meadows road back and forth, they'll be at Whiteface.


-Shayne

Click to expand...

Because in the ADIRONDACK PARK STATE LAND MASTER PLAN, on page 24, in the General Rules and Regulations section for designated Wilderness areas, it states (in reference to All-terrain bicycles) that on wilderness lands;

l. Public use of all terrain bicycles will be prohibited.

The area in question though is on the Santanoni Preserve which is Part of the High Peak Wilderness Area. However, part of preserve is a designated Historic Site. As such, it's governed by the Adirondack Park Agnecy Approved Camp Santanoni Historic Area UMP. This allows for slight, but obviously required, practical deviations from the general wilderness rules/regs. The UMP states, as related to the Carriage Road to the camp itself;

"Summer use will include motor vehicle access by those with disabilities as discussed elsewhere in the plan, foot traffic, horseback riding, horse and wagon livery service, and mountain biking.".

to get out to Ermine Brook (where Neil was headed) one starts on the Carriage road for the first 2 miles or so, then you must turn onto a horse path for the remaining 6 miles out to the Brook crossinfg. Once you hit the split from the carriage road, you leave it behind an, as such, bikes are no longer allowed.

Almost 2 topics here in this thread...

Regarding group size:
There is a HUGE difference between one group of, say, 9 persons versus two groups of 6 persons hiking/camping together, particularly in backcountry wilderness areas. Many aspects of LNT come into play. Most of the best (why are they best?) backcountry designated campsites have a fairly small footprint, usually comfortable for no more than 3 small tents. A fourth or more tents would likely infringe on surrounding vegetation, expanding the site in violation of LNT and DEC guidelines. Add to that the extra random foot traffic within a short period of time, people trying to stay out of each other's way, the additional requirements for multiple catholes and privacy... soon both the real estate demands and environmental damage caused increase exponentially, not linearly, with more folks in the site at the same time. Just in hiking, think about stopping to observe something interesting along the trail. How do people gather around? Small groups can stay on the trail to converse, large groups step off to gather themselves on the sides, causing damage. What if Joe at the end of the line needs to talk to Sally at the front... voice volume increases with increased numbers as well. On and on and on... one large group is much less LNT friendly than two smaller groups. On my guided trips it is simply more fun to have a smaller group and I can provide a much better experience for all without constantly having to remind everyone of the rules.

The other topic... I bought a mountain bike several years ago specifically to get me down logging roads (not hiking trails) where I could bushwhack into interesting areas I was exploring at the time. This was long before most people ever thought of using a bike on Adirondack roads and trails, just as mountain bikes were coming on the rise and a friend of mine was in the custom bike building business. I could cover the same distance in a couple of hours or less that previously took an entire long day of hiking. It extended the possible depth of my wilderness area bushwhacks. It worked well, until new state land acquisitions and the popular "sport" of mountain biking on foot trails took off. Today, in general, bikes are prohibited in wilderness areas. That's actually fine with me, I use a Hornbeck canoe now for much the same purpose and leave the bike at home. Thanks, Neil, for the story of your shortened bike trip and for playing by the rules for the greater good.