I asked a question buried deep in the “summit registers” thread (post #121) so I’ll ask it again in its own box.
Is the question really: Are we ruining the earth or ruining the experience?
Which is worse for the earth – a trail to replace multiple herd paths, trees cut to create a view or a list that is circulated?
In one hiking area some tree tops have been cut to open up the view (and what an awesome view at that). The experience is enhanced and yet the crowds are not there because it isn’t on the list. Would it be better for the earth to not cut the tree tops? I see no harm done.
In another hiking area the view is there already (there are no trees), the herd paths to the summit have made the hike hideous and the crowds are there but it’s not on the list either. Making a well defined trail and brushing in the maze of herd paths is giving people one trail now instead of a maze to get confused on and it enhances the experience to see growth rather than erosion. The crowds are already there so directing the foot traffic seems better for the earth in my opinion.
So now we have a question of lists. Do they draw more people to certain places? Are herd paths ruining the earth and the experience? Wouldn’t a trail be better for both? What if we stop talking and posting about these lists – will people stop going? As some have stated for some lists/peaks it may be too late. Will our children and their children lose the experience of the bushwhack, the skill and the untamed wild? Maybe, maybe not.
As long as we have wilderness the opportunity is there to bushwhack, hone the skill and enjoy the wild. But will that experience be lessened by not reaching a viewless summit and a canister/sign? Maybe, maybe not.
As we know, at one time the all the summits had no trails and some that have views now, didn’t in the past. Is the experience lessened when, say, you walk the Crawford Path? Not for me. Is the earth better off having a trail? I say yes.
Am I saying that all summits should have trails? No. But if the traffic is there and isn’t going away what is better for the earth? People created these lists, people circulated these lists, people go to these peaks, people put canisters on these peaks for other people to come see and sign. Will it end? Maybe. (Thus my reference in the ‘other’ thread to Cabbage Patch Dolls.) It could just be the latest craze that will slowly pass -or- people will resist the urge to join the craze. Maybe not.
People started it so people must preserve it.
So I rephrase my question: Is it more important to preserve the experience or to preserve the earth?
Is the question really: Are we ruining the earth or ruining the experience?
Which is worse for the earth – a trail to replace multiple herd paths, trees cut to create a view or a list that is circulated?
In one hiking area some tree tops have been cut to open up the view (and what an awesome view at that). The experience is enhanced and yet the crowds are not there because it isn’t on the list. Would it be better for the earth to not cut the tree tops? I see no harm done.
In another hiking area the view is there already (there are no trees), the herd paths to the summit have made the hike hideous and the crowds are there but it’s not on the list either. Making a well defined trail and brushing in the maze of herd paths is giving people one trail now instead of a maze to get confused on and it enhances the experience to see growth rather than erosion. The crowds are already there so directing the foot traffic seems better for the earth in my opinion.
So now we have a question of lists. Do they draw more people to certain places? Are herd paths ruining the earth and the experience? Wouldn’t a trail be better for both? What if we stop talking and posting about these lists – will people stop going? As some have stated for some lists/peaks it may be too late. Will our children and their children lose the experience of the bushwhack, the skill and the untamed wild? Maybe, maybe not.
As long as we have wilderness the opportunity is there to bushwhack, hone the skill and enjoy the wild. But will that experience be lessened by not reaching a viewless summit and a canister/sign? Maybe, maybe not.
As we know, at one time the all the summits had no trails and some that have views now, didn’t in the past. Is the experience lessened when, say, you walk the Crawford Path? Not for me. Is the earth better off having a trail? I say yes.
Am I saying that all summits should have trails? No. But if the traffic is there and isn’t going away what is better for the earth? People created these lists, people circulated these lists, people go to these peaks, people put canisters on these peaks for other people to come see and sign. Will it end? Maybe. (Thus my reference in the ‘other’ thread to Cabbage Patch Dolls.) It could just be the latest craze that will slowly pass -or- people will resist the urge to join the craze. Maybe not.
People started it so people must preserve it.
So I rephrase my question: Is it more important to preserve the experience or to preserve the earth?