
Can the Appalachian Trail Survive ‘A Walk in the Woods?’ - trevin
http://www.outsideonline.com/2011851/can-appalachian-trail-survive-walk-woods
======
sandworm101
The generational shift isn't between people, but between decades. Many of the
"leave no trace" hikers today were very different in their youth. Look through
the history and you will find people in the 60s regularly doing things that
today are simply not allowed (fires, cutting down small trees etc). So it
isn't that people are different today. There are just more of them on trails.

Some would say the answer is to provide more services such as better camping
accommodations and harder trail surfaces to handle the extra people. I do not
support this. I suggest that making trails easier attracts more people, only
exacerbating the problem. It's a game that cannot be won.

So rather than try to accommodate all these people, perhaps parts of the trail
should be made less accommodating. Rock climbers do this all the time. See
debates over sport (heavily bolted) v. traditional climbing methods. Adding
safety features to a route attracts more traffic. Making/keeping a route
difficult or even dangerous keeps beginners away, which reduces traffic. If we
assume that there will always be more people in the future than there are now,
that if nothing changes population pressure will always increase, then
actively trying to keep people away may be the only sustainable plan.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> So rather than try to accommodate all these people, perhaps parts of the
> trail should be made less accommodating. Rock climbers do this all the time.

This makes perfect sense if the goal of being a hiker is to show that you're
more macho, or otherwise more morally worthy, than non-hikers.

It makes no sense at all if your viewpoint is that nature is beautiful and
people should be encouraged to experience that.

~~~
sandworm101
But allowing so many people to enjoy that beauty simultaneously works to
destroy that beauty. So to protect you must either you take steps to dissuade
people, or resort to some form of enforced quota system. When it comes to
public resources I'd rather see dissuasion than quotas.

If machismo works to reduce the footfall on a trail, so be it. That's much
better than a gated trailhead manned by a guard taking tickets. And its far
better than paved sidewalks and concrete staircases replacing trails.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> to protect you must either you take steps to dissuade people, or resort to
> some form of enforced quota system

This isn't true. You can channel people into the behaviors you want by making
them easier; it's not an all-or-nothing "no matter what our environment is
like, 3% of visitors will leave litter" situation. There are many things you
could do to reduce environmental damage while accommodating _more_ visitors:

\- You could put handrails around the trails. People aren't supposed to leave
them anyway.

\- You could station trash cans along the trails. This makes it much easier to
throw your trash in an appropriate place.

\- You could establish fire pits in which it was officially OK to have fires.

\- You could patrol the trails. This doesn't work well when hikers are rare,
but it scales beautifully as they get more common. Or, you could have a
stationary security presence in problem areas.

\- You could blaze new trails.

Everything I've listed except trail patrols is something I've personally seen
in some areas. (Full disclosure, I'm actually just assuming that new trails
get blazed from time to time. I have, however, personally experienced trails
being radically reworked between visits.)

> [machismo is] far better than paved sidewalks and concrete staircases
> replacing trails

Why?

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Handrails don't keep off-trail hikers from hiking off trail. Trail etiquette
keeps people on trail. Respect to nature keeps people on trail.

Garbage cans in the middle of nowhere still need to be emptied or else they
become full and no longer serve the need. A lot of these places are remote. It
might take several hours to empty one trash can. Our parks barely have enough
resources to maintain as they are. We shouldn't need to pay someone to hike in
and remove your trash. I don't think it is too much to ask that if you hiked
in with 5 full snickers bars that you hike out with their wrappers. Your pack
always gets lighter as you go so there really is no excuse for not coming out
with all your trash.

~~~
tired_man
I heard "Always carry out more than you brought in," and try to go with that
in mind when I can manage a good hike.

------
WDCDev
I REALLY want to explain this away as the complaining from some grumpy park
rangers. Then you have these stories and you begin to wonder if there is
something generational going on.

Prom Date spray painted on Black Rocks
-[http://jonathanturley.org/2015/05/08/destinys-child-
police-s...](http://jonathanturley.org/2015/05/08/destinys-child-police-
search-for-teenager-who-defaced-park-cliff-to-snag-a-date-to-the-prom/)

Casey Nocket - [http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/11/08/ams-
woma...](http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/11/08/ams-woman-paints-
faces-defacing-8-national-parks-including-zion-canyonlands/#.VenrqBHBzRY)

~~~
GavinMcG
Why jump to a generational explanation?

It could just as easily be a function of population growth, easier access
(e.g. more info available about how to get outdoors), better marketing by the
NPS to attract more visitors, etc. More people visited the parks last year
than ever before.

~~~
WDCDev
Because in both cases I linked to, the perpetrators were under the age of 25.

Sure it's anecdotal ... but you did ask.

~~~
cma
But wouldn't you expect most vandalism in general is done by people around 25
and younger?

I would expect most of the mining company executives organizing whole
mountaintop removal are well over 25, since most executives are over that age.
Goes a little beyond graffiti.

~~~
Crito
He would, yes. _That 's the point._

~~~
cma
To say it is a generational thing doesn't mean it is always the current young
generation, it means it is specific generation(s), i.e. generation X,
millenials, etc.

------
maresca
I don't think this is as much of an issue as being portrayed. I've hiked 2
sections of the AT this summer and found no trash in either of them. I could
see certain parts like the beginning and ending being worse, which would be
expected. Designated camping spots weren't overcrowded. Besides cheeky
motivational sayings written over trail markers, everything in both sections
were pristine.

------
meritt
Not a fan of either film but I really enjoyed both books. I think Wild has
substantially further reach, especially among women, while Bryson's book is
amusing and entertaining, yet ultimately forgettable. Either way, an increase
in Americans focused on exercise, spending time in the wilderness, and general
soul-searching activities will be a good thing.

~~~
jlarocco
> Either way, an increase in Americans focused on exercise, spending time in
> the wilderness, and general soul-searching activities will be a good thing.

I disagree. The problem pointed out in the article is that a lot of people
aren't there to exercise and soul search, and they're ruining it for people
who would like to do so in the future by trashing the place.

It's absolutely _not_ a good thing if many of the people are going into the
wilderness and destroying it with trash, vandalism, and dog shit.

~~~
meritt
> dog shit

You know the woods are filled with animals that shit in the woods all the
time, right? People should be burying it or at least moving it off trail but
feces is a purely natural occurrence.

The trash and vandalism I absolutely agree with you.

~~~
cowsandmilk
The reason you aren't allowed to have dogs on Katahdin is because that type of
animal doesn't actually go up into the alpine zone of Katahdin. The plants
there are extremely sensitive and cannot survive being stepped on by animals.
And they are only able to grow for a couple weeks a year, so one dog can kill
decades of growth by stepping on a small plant.

So, I agree with the woods part, bring all the dogs you want onto the trail
when you're in the woods, but when the rangers in Baxter State Park complain
about people bringing dogs up the mountain, they are absolutely in the right.

------
cakeface
"Baxter officials say thru-hikers are openly using drugs and drinking alcohol,
camping where they aren’t supposed to, and trying to pass their pets off as
service dogs." \- Sounds like a pretty good time to me.

I don't think that I can get behind a complaint that people are hiking in the
wilderness _too much_. This is a good problem to have.

~~~
nether
These are the kinds of folks on the AT:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjyNO0Ltc6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjyNO0Ltc6U).
They're partiers, not hikers, who are destroying the wilderness and
opportunities for solitude.

~~~
matwood
I'm confused how people can party every night and then hike. The problem is
the AT is just so accessible these are the things you're going to find when
something becomes hip.

Head to the Rockies or out to Oregon if you want solitude hiking. When I hiked
Mt. Bierdstadt in CO I was completely alone for 7 hours and never saw another
person the entire day.

~~~
burningion
I attempted a thru hike in 2005. The thing about hiking is, doing it is a lot
more difficult than talking about it. Something like 60% of thru hikers give
up in the first 20 miles of their 2100 mile hike.

That being said, of course there are people like in this article, but they're
only at the shelters that are close to town. Walk a bit away from the town,
and you're golden.

Walking 15 miles into the woods to "party" is a huge ask. Shitty people are
lazy.

The real story behind all of this is how young / homeless / disenfranchised
people are turning to the trail as an outlet / support group. That is more
interesting to me, and worthy of a story, rather than judgement as doom of the
trail.

~~~
jandrese
That 60% statistic is incredible. It takes months of planning and preparation
to thruhike the AT. Throwing it all away on the second day is mind boggling to
me.

~~~
matwood
I don't think many of the people you see in videos or in this article are
doing months of planning. They buy a pack, quit their job and show up.

------
debacle
The biggest problem I see today is that there are so many hikers who say
"leave no trace" and then kind of just treat the outdoors like their bedroom.

You can't do anything about the boat campers and the cooler campers, but the
backpackers and hikers that I have been around have been less conservation
minded than I would like.

~~~
Crito
In my experience, backpackers are the _least_ inclined to bring their trash
back out with them. Too many selfishly prioritize their comfort (particularly,
how much weight they are carrying) over respect for the environment.

~~~
aero142
Really? Where? I've done several multi day backcountry backpacking trips in
national parks recent years, and I can't think of a single piece of trash I've
seen or person I've seen leaving trash at camp.

------
protomyth
Gary Player had an epic rant[1] about public golf courses getting harder and
its affect on amateur numbers. I point to that example to explain my worry
about making the trails more inaccessible to cut down the traffic. Making the
normal person see the trail as a plaything for the elitist will not help
future funding.

1)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha59iKfjTxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha59iKfjTxw)

------
astr0n0m3r
Here's the ALDHA's newsletter from this past winter which gives a more
detailed account of the problems at Katahdin.
[http://aldha.org/newsletter/2014D_winter.pdf](http://aldha.org/newsletter/2014D_winter.pdf)

I thru-hiked in 2007, and many of the problems now were in their infancy but
not out of hand yet. There has always been a couple bad apples, but this is
simply a result of the numbers.

In June, I was visiting family near the trail at the same time the wave of
thru-hikers comes by, and I couldn't believe how many there were. I also gave
two thru-hikers a hitch, so I had a chance to talk to them about some of this.
They estimated about 4x as many hikers compared to the year I thru-hiked. And
I think they said there was one campsite somewhere down south with 89 tents
(or hikers I can't remember) in a single night. One of them said they were
hiking this year specifically because they heard the movie was coming out.

------
JoeAltmaier
Fundamentally, the Earth is finite and people are growing geometrically. If
we're not at the 'natural spaces and trails' load limit now, we will get there
sometime soon.

Rationing is a frustrating solution. It means, only the special few get to
enjoy these spaces. Then it no longer 'belongs to all of us' i.e. isn't a
public space any more. So should the Federal Govt even administer it? Why do
we all pay for it, when only a special few get to go there?

I'm not anti-conservation. But these questions inevitably will arise as
population (& demand) grows and the public spaces stay exactly the same size.

~~~
erikpukinskis
What makes you think we are near the limit? There are two major north-south
trails in the U.S. and the PCT is not crowded. It seems totally reasonable to
increase the number of such routes by 10x or 100x. There is a lot of open
space, and backcountry trails and camps are not particularly disruptive.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Population grows geometrically. Land area is a constant. QED

------
chiph
I hate to see a quota imposed, but if the problems increase (who takes a
hairdryer into the wilderness??) maybe there needs to be some qualification
hikes, much like how you have to finish a certain number of marathons before
being allowed into the Boston marathon.

~~~
crctnt
You only have to finish 1 marathon before running Boston, you just have to run
it fast enough to qualify. [http://www.baa.org/races/boston-
marathon/participant-informa...](http://www.baa.org/races/boston-
marathon/participant-information/qualifying/qualifying-standards.aspx) You can
also get in with a charity slot without qualifying.

------
meursault334
Was it even a good movie? I've heard pretty negative things about. I'm a fan
of long distance walks but I've been reluctant to see the movie thus far.

~~~
DanBC
The movie _Wild_ is a good film. It might not be good if you know anything
about long distance walking and wilderness trails. In the same way that movies
get coding and cracking wrong, even if they make an attempt at honesty.

~~~
meursault334
Yeah _Wild_ seemed like a good film but I didn't like how much they got wrong.
I'll check out _Do More With Less_ per the other poster's suggestion.

------
jqm
Maybe coming soon: a toll gate. Onstensibly to pay for trash pickup. Really to
pay for a park official mid-management bureaucrat's pension.

