HikeArizona.COM

This is what comment control was made for

@chumley
mea culpa... partly anyway. I'll admit this would have been more appropriate in a forum thread.
(Can it be moved into a forum thread?)

@Tough_Boots Wow... tough crowd... speaking about 'impact', no I have NOT found something that reinforced a belief I already held.
I'm not trying to be snippy about this, I genuinely am interested to know, who are the experts you refer to? And what are the various parameters they use to gauge the impact? Do they use an algorithm? Are different algorithms used for Wilderness Areas compared to National Parks, National Forests, BLM, etc.?
Without that information, how can anyone form an educated opinion as to what size group is best?

CannondaleKid wrote: However, I did find one thing I believe 100%...

I'm going to continue to go with the experts rather than the guy who spent some spare time on Google over a couple days until he found something that reinforced a belief he already held.

@CannondaleKid
Welcome to a modern, educated, first-world society governed by the rule of law.

On a side note, I apologize to @AndrewAZ for my contributions to turning your otherwise useful triplog into a sh*%show of wilderness ethics! Happy trails!

Tough_Boots wrote: Impact is about a whole lot more than footsteps and litter.

I'm sure it does... but what does a whole lot more consist of?
I'll admit this has started me down a rabbit-hole searching for studies on this. Many studies and tons of outdoor sites reference low-impact but they never actually define it.
So I have to wonder, IS there an accepted definition of this impact we keep referencing?

Scanning through a number of Wilderness Studies over a range of 50 years, I came to a conclusion there are so many variations in studies, all of which seem to be skewed one way or another due to who is conducting the study as well as who is the intended recipient of the study. In short, various studies are contradictory... so who do we believe?

However, I did find one thing I believe 100%... which relates to this very conversation:
Hiking groups of each size are often disturbed by contact with their opposites. Each group apparently perceives the other type of use as inappropriate or undesirable.

So it seems to boil down to: Conflict results when any individual breaks someone else’s norms of appropriate behavior and is observed in the act, or the consequences of that act are observed.

In general, big groups tend to follow each other in straight lines which has a greater inpact IMO..

@CannondaleKid
Impact is about a whole lot more than footsteps and litter.

chumley wrote: I think you'll find many studies that show the impact of groups to be higher than just the sum of their footprints.

I'd be interested in both the methodologies and the findings, because I can see good and bad in both large and small groups.
Personally, I'd think the difference of the impact of various groups relies more on how 'responsible' they are than just the size. Whether large or small, the irresponsible folks will be leaving their TP & empties wherever they please.
So would peer pressure to be more responsible be more with a large group?
Not if none of their peers care whether they trash the environment.

CannondaleKid wrote: the SAME 100 foot-falls will hit the trail by the end of the day, so does it really matter?

Impact is measured in ways beyond just footsteps on the trail. I think you'll find many studies that show the impact of groups to be higher than just the sum of their footprints.

@JVFurniss
Thank you for replying. So just to clarify-- when the AMC organizes a group larger than the allowed group size and splits their starting times, they feel as though they are acting with the intended purpose of that rule in mind and not just sneaking their way into compliance?

An Arizona Mountaineering Club (AMC) member contacted me regarding this post and the references to the AMC in the accompanying message stream. By way of background, the AMC is strongly committed to the establishment, maintenance and protection of our climbing and hiking natural resources in Arizona and beyond. Compliance with the laws, regulations and rules associated with the use of these resources represents the minimum expectation we have of each of our members. That said, the AMC, like any other organization, is made up of individuals and, at any time, one or more of these individuals may inadvertently or intentionally fall short of that expectation. It is my responsibility, and that of the leadership team, to follow up should we become aware of any alleged behaviors that fail to comply with the letter or spirit of our commitment and to either correct the behavior or correct the allegation.
First, members of the AMC did post an event on Meetup for a hike of the Superstition Ridgeline Trail for Saturday, 26 January and set a maximum of 30 participants. The AMC uses Meetup to coordinate many of our events. I contacted the AMC leaders involved with the event and determined the following:

Knowledge of the rules regarding group size:
They confirmed they were very much aware of the group size limit of 15 in advance of the event.

Compliance with the rules regarding group size:
The leaders were and remain committed to “scrupulously complying” with the rules regarding group size and all other rules. There were a total of twenty five participants that were organized in advance of the event into two groups; one of 11 and one of 14. The group of 11 departed the trail head 45 minutes ahead of the group of 14. Both groups broke down into smaller groups of 3-5 along the course of the trail. The group of 14 generally caught up and passed the group of 11 along the segment that runs past Flatiron. The same commitment to compliance has been applied to prior Ridgeline hikes organized by club members.

Missing pair of hikers:
Leaders of both groups confirm that at no point during the day were they concerned about the whereabouts of any members of their respective groups nor were any considered missing.

Other hikers on the trail:
Numerous hikers who were not part of either AMC group were encountered on the ridgeline trail, which has become an increasingly popular hike. The parking at the Carney Springs TH has been significantly enlarged and was very congested later in the day, evidently due in large part to the increasing popularity of the “Wave Cave”. The sum total of the shuttle vehicles used by both groups was 7, compared to perhaps 25+ vehicles parked at Carney Springs mid-afternoon.

On behalf of the AMC leadership team, we expect to be held to a higher standard and invite anyone who believes they observe inappropriate behaviors to address the issue directly with our members at the time and, if needed, contact the AMC leadership team via the email link on our website: http://arizonamountaineeringclub.net/

Respectfully,
John Furniss
President, Arizona Mountaineering Club

CannondaleKid wrote: Whether the groups were as in the example above or if it were 50 groups of two hikers, either way, the SAME 100 foot-falls will hit the trail by the end of the day, so does it really matter?

I'm going to side with whatever the people who have devoted their lives to studying these things decide. It's a much more scientific method than debating with armchair naturalists and habitual devil's advocates.

#1 It's a fact of life, no matter whether much is due to social media there are a lot more hikers on the trails.
#2 I do agree with the 15 head limit but the more I thought about it, in the grand scheme does size really matter?
Example: Let's say 100 people will be hiking the same trail on the same day and it is broken down like this...
10 = Solo hikers
30 = 15 groups of two
30 = 3 groups of 15
30 = 1 group of 30
Whether the groups were as in the example above or if it were 50 groups of two hikers, either way, the SAME 100 foot-falls will hit the trail by the end of the day, so does it really matter?

Tough_Boots wrote: Its idiot logic.

@Tough_Boots
I agree fully... idiotic or not, it wasn't my idea. I wasn't even aware it was a meetup group, a hiker I met while hiking in the Supes told me I should hike the Ridgeline and just gave me Rogil's email.
Before I showed up at Carney that morning, I had no idea there would be so many. If I HAD known I wouldn't have attended.

chumley wrote: Do you not understand the concept behind the group size limitation?

Anyone who does not understand group size limits or doesn't realize the limits exist should obviously not be leading hikes. It's not an oversight-- it's either ignorance or blatant disregard.

@Tough_Boots
I've seen this on Humphreys (which also has a group limit). FS volunteers inform the party (including when it's a luxury bus of 60 tourists) and "split them up" ... aka, wait 3 minutes before the next group of 15 can begin hiking. Seriously, what's the point? Do you not understand the concept behind the group size limitation?

CannondaleKid wrote:
HOWEVER, back then she made sure to split the groups so the fastest group of 15 went first, 2nd fastest 15 left 15 minutes later, 3rd fastest group 30 minutes after the first, and the slowest group of 15 left 45 minutes later. If it worked well, the 4 groups were more likely NOT to end up in groups over 15.
Its idiot logic. That's still a group of 60 whether or not someone thinks they've found a clever loophole.

advertised on amc meetup as having a limit of 30
can't imagine going on a hike with 30 other people whether doing so violates wilderness regulations or not

@DennisWilliams @chumley @mazatzal
I hiked my first Ridgeline over a dozen years ago with a group with the SAME hike organizer, Rogil... and she DOES KNOW better. I can only guess it wasn't nearly as coordinated as usual for her groups. They were probably too homogenized.
Back in 2004 (before I was a HAZ member), Rogil had 60 people signed up!
HOWEVER, back then she made sure to split the groups so the fastest group of 15 went first, 2nd fastest 15 left 15 minutes later, 3rd fastest group 30 minutes after the first, and the slowest group of 15 left 45 minutes later. If it worked well, the 4 groups were more likely NOT to end up in groups over 15.
I was in the third group but I caught and passed group #2 well before reaching West Boulder Saddle, and caught up to group #1 before Peak 5057. That was when two gals in their 20's asked me to if I'd go along with them as a route finder because they weren't sure where it went. (Neither did I back then, but hey, I didn't care to hike in the herd) We took off and ended up sitting at Lost Dutchman for over an hour before the rest of the fast group finished.

FYI... that was the last time I ever hiked with a meetup group, once of ANY hike with a meetup group was more than enough for me.
@adilling @Jim_H
Yup, I'm all for solitude.

@mazatzal Yours is a just criticism. I have emailed the AMC president. If it was indeed them, and it probably was, it was more likely an oversight. The AMC is committed to continuing land access and does a great deal of volunteer work to keep lands open to all of us. If it was them then I'm sure they'll be more sensitive in the future.

That's too many up there. UGH. I go up there to get away from giant crowds!

mazatzal wrote: Surprised AMC unaware

I doubt they care.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tonto/sp ... ev3_018739
“A group size of no more than 15 people and no more than 15 head of pack or saddle animals of any type is enforced within this wilderness year-round.“
Surprised AMC unaware.

A group of 30+! On a weekend? I think the availability of a Monday makes for more solitude.

Nice hike with a ton of AEG, and fast. There was a meetup group of the AMC on the Ridgeline. Surprised it was so large. Hope their missing hikers made it out.

Why do we need a wilderness permit to go into the Wilderness?
A daily entry quota system is in effect for all wilderness areas to protect the natural resources and to preserve the quality of the wilderness. The land can only support a certain number of visitors. When excessive use occurs all at one time, the opportunity for solitude decreases, vegetation gets damaged, erosion is accelerated, and the risk of water pollution increases.

When Is A Wilderness Permit Required?
Wilderness permits are required on the Sierra National Forest for all overnight trips into the John Muir, Ansel Adams, Dinkey and Kaiser Wildernesses. By limiting the number of people we hope to provide a true wilderness experience while protecting the physical and biological resources of the land.

How many people can be on my wilderness permit?
There is a maximum of 15 people on one wilderness permit.

Maximum group size is limited to 10 people. Associated parties must split into smaller groups while camping and hiking in the canyon.

A backountry permit is void if on any night another group affiliated to yours (i.e. same club, organization, group of friends, etc.) is using the same campground or use area. More than one group from the same organization or affiliation camping in the same designated campground or use area per night is prohibited.

chumley wrote:Then again, the premise of the Wilderness Act is to NOT manage the land.

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.