HikeArizona.COM

I received another issue of Backpacker today. They taunt Get Out More ! I would like to advocate to Get Off Trail ! Abbey got most of us to get out of our motor vehicles and plod along on are own two feet. On pavement, signs advise us to merge left, no right on red and no u turn. Abbey also got us to put the dam builders out of work, but he forgot the sign painters. Public Land managers extol the visual qualities of our public land, they even hired sign painters to point this out. If you are a knowledgeable and a responsible hiker, Get Off Trail.

Off Trail is my favorite and most enjoyable way to go, so I couldn't agree with you more, but if everyone went off trail their would be trails everywhere going no where.

Before venturing off trail know how to navigate and always have your maps. They rescued 13 hikers in the Supes this weekend and most of them were on trail just took wrong turns etc. Prime examples of why you want to go prepared and have your navigation tools.

Authorities Rescue 13 From Mountain
Visitors from Denmark lost in wilderness

By Jill Jones

The News

SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS- The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and posse successfully rescued thirteen hikers from the Superstition Wilderness last week, eight of the lost hikers were visiting from Denmark.

MCSO received a call around 3:30 on Saturday, June 28, reporting that twelve people were missing and eight of them had limited English skills.

The missing people were visiting from Denmark and, after hiking the Superstitions, were planning to move on to the Grand Canyon. Not all of them will make it to the Grand Canyon, one of them was admitted to an area hospital for severe dehydration and will not make the trip with his companions.

MCSO focused their search on the Weavers Needle and Peralta Trail areas and quickly found four subjects who were in very serious condition, suffering from severe dehydration sickness. The remaining hikers were located two hours later and were air lifted to safety.

According to Robert Cooper of Superstition Search and Rescue, the hikers had adequate water for their planned hike. What the hikers didn’t plan on was getting lost and also having to deal with the added hours in the unrelenting heat.

In addition to the hikers from Denmark, four other people were rescued in the area over the weekend. Two hikers approximately 30 years old, David Nye and David Ampha made a wrong turn on Bluff Springs Loop and became lost. The Department of Public Safety air dropped a paramedic, and after treatment, the men were able to walk out.

Two Scottsdale men in their 30’s lost their way in Coffee Flats. Superstition Search and Rescue (SSR) were able to locate them, dehydrated and exhausted, but they were also able to make their way out under their own power.

On Tuesday, July 1, 31 year-old Kellie Whorley of Nashville, Tennessee, fell while hiking Siphon Draw. Whorley apparently aggravated an old injury to her hip after falling and thought she would have to be air lifted off the trail.

After SSR and an Apache Junction Fire District paramedic attended to her and she was able to rest and rehydrate, she was able to be taken out on a quad.

"When you find someone out there (Superstition Mountain area) at this time of the year, you know they’re in trouble," said Robert Cooper of SSR.

I wonder how many will reply to this a month after the map and compass class.

Hey ArizonaHeat-
Thanks for bringing up those two important points. Once again, you have proved to be an invaluable advocate for the people here, and the land you love.

That reminds me of the saying that "A 4x4 doesnt keep you from getting stuck, it just lets you get stuck further away and deeper." Same with off trail hiking, I think.

These are pertinent in this discussion:
1. Low impact ethics
http://www.hikearizona...
and
2.Lost
http://www.hikearizona...

The draw of off-trail hiking is a tempting one-Somehow people feel drawn to do it.
It is just imortant to be very aware of IMPACT. Blazing a new trail can be very detrimental, especially through vegetation where your trail is obvious or on slopes where erosion can occur from the broken up soil. Think durable surfaces.
Oh, and Being lost really stinks.
It seems to me that respect and reverence for the land you hike is the best approach.
Hike another day!

I personally like off trailing it. Alot of time taking a trail to a point then getting off and heading in your own dierection is a great experiance. I've done off trail in different areas of Arizona and Colorado.

You mean not a one of those hikers were from Philly?? shame shame shame.......they could have written an article on how the desert eats tourists.....
I hiked the supes wayyyyyyy back in the early 60's......there weren't any trails so speak of. Just the pack mule trails up into the canyons. We just followed faint animal trails.....and yes we found GOLD..tons of it!! Just can't find it again.....surely you've heard of the Lost Hoppy Mine.....

Nighthiker wrote:If you are a knowledgeable and a responsible hiker, Get Off Trail.

If you're a knowledgeable and responsible hiker...please stay ON the trail.

Let's all be role models for the other uneducated and irresponsible hikers that: cause erosion, tear up vegetation, leave trash around, and generally add more visual distress to remote areas.

In my opinion its actually the trail-hikers who tear up the desert. Trail hikers find a trail, then walk along the edges of it, thereby widening the track and destroying vegitation. Trail hikers also have a tendency to cut switchbacks (unnecessary erosion) and create new trails off existing ones. Trail hikers also seem to be the ones who discard trash along the trail as they go, very rarely do I see trash off-trails.

I do agree that off-trail hikers need to be especially careful about where they put their feet, but that is what I think nighthiker meant by "knowledgeable and responsible".

Off trail isn't for everyone, but it seems to me that those who choose to hike off trail generally take more responsibility for maintaining the "wildness" of a given area than the trail-hikers.

Matt-
on this one you are way off.
How do you think the trails off the main trail get started? Going off trail, maybe? Of course you see trash on the trail, that's because there is traffic there. Trails allow access to areas with the least amt of impact. period.

I still disagree. When going off-trail I very rarely start from a trail or trailhead. I usually just start from the side of a road that looks promising on the map. Trails are a necessary function of the wilderness, but at the same time they are a blight on the landscape. I am not asserting that off-trail hiking causes no damage to the landscape, only that those who participate in off-trail hiking are gennerally not the sort to cause extra unnecessary damage. I do take pains to avoid stepping in delicate patches of rare soils, dislodging rocks and the wanton destruction of vegitation, I cannot say the same about all the trail hikers. Most of the secondary trails that form off of main trails are short lived excursions, often to some feature visible from the trail but not accessable thereby, that or they are "shortcuts" from one part of a trail to another.

I also agree that trails allow easy access to many areas with little impact along the trail. But the fact is the trails allow more and more people to access those areas that otherwise probably never would have been able to find the areas in the first place. So yes, the trails do allow the most access to areas, but in return the destruction in trailed areas increases proportionately with the traffic. Trails allow people with few backcountry skills or ethics to readily access those backcountry areas. This is where the damage comes from. Take the Tonto Narrows for instance, As soon as the trails stop, so does the garbage. The people with the skill and desire to explore beyond the trails are the responsible ones who clean up after themselves.

The fundamental flaw in my argument is that trails are a neccessary evil. They do keep the herds of people out of the real backcountry. If you are on a trail, then yes, by all means stay on that trail, do not deviate even an inch, but one person finding their own route through an area can still practice the leave no trace ethic quite effectively.

This is not, of course, an attack on all trail hikers. I hike trails too, and when I do I stay on them, religiously. Trails are a valuable (and destructive) part of the backcountry experience, it is up to the people who use (or avoid) them to define how they affect our wilderness.

Back to AZheat's very fine but maybe missed point. If everyone hiked off trail, we'd have trails everywhere.
Matt said trails are widened when people walk on the edges of them. With that thinking, what happens when people walk where a trail isn't? They create a new trail (how do you think most trails started)! If you do hike off trail, I'd suggest sticking to washes, river beds, animal paths and old jeep trails to prevent creating new trails that other people will follow.

Also, morons that drop trash will drop trash anywhere. Thus, encouraging them to hike off trail will only result in more trash off trail.

Daryl wrote:Back to AZheat's very fine but maybe missed point. If everyone hiked off trail, we'd have trails everywhere.
Matt said trails are widened when people walk on the edges of them. With that thinking, what happens when people walk where a trail isn't? They create a new trail (how do you think most trails started)! If you do hike off trail, I'd suggest sticking to washes, river beds, animal paths and old jeep trails to prevent creating new trails that other people will follow.

AZHeat maks a very good point. Fortunately most people don't hike off trail. I am not in the business of encouraging people to walk off trails. Quite the opposite, I would recomment that everyone stays on trails as much as they can. All I am trying to do is defend the off-trail hikers mindset. As far as the new trails goes, its true that is how trails get started. But I am not talking about walking off trails in areas that already have trails. I am talking about walking through trail-less country! If there are trails I follow them. I prefer to find areas where there are fewer trails. Fewer trails means less people, less people means less impact. And with minimum impact I feel it is appropriate to walk in areas without trails.

Again I would like to encourage everyone to stay on trails ESPECIALLY when they are already established. Not just to keep impact down but for safety reasons too. Im sure Daryl will back me up when I say that its easier to rescue someone on a trail than off the trail. As far as off trail adventures, leave that until you're competent enough to minimize both your impact and the probability of having to be rescued.

Matt Gilbert said:

The fundamental flaw in my argument is that trails are a neccessary evil. They do keep the herds of people out of the real backcountry.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is forgetting that you are part of the herd.

I am glad that there are others willing to speak up about this.

Here's a pretty good article about it.

[ dead link removed ]

I always thought that part of hiking was getting away from the herd.

If Im wrong about that, I'd rather not be right.


By the way; I agreed with everything in the article linked in pfredrick's post above. Everyone should take the time to read it.

I still disagree. When going off-trail I very rarely start from a trail or trailhead. I usually just start from the side of a road that looks promising on the map.

You have sort of answered a lot of the initial criticism of your original post with this one pithy comment. The vast majority of hikers stay on-trail for the bulk of a hike, only going "off-trail" to see a particular sight or take a quick break (and those little side-hikes turn into trails after a while anyway). Most of them are not going to go off-trail simply because it is more difficult and more dangerous, and they know that.

The people that go off-trail on a regular basis generally do exactly what Matt talks about - they see something that looks interesting, and go off to take a closer look. Fritzki and Glenn are classic examples of this - they just take off in any old direction and find cool stuff. They are experienced and they have the ability.

Most people hear the stories of the boneheads that get pulled off the mountains for going off-trail and say "the idiot deserved it for going off trail." Those morons are what I have heard referred to as "useful idiots." They scare other would-be off-trail hikers into staying on the main.

I don't think that Backpacker has the right idea. There are PLENTY of really good trails that get into some seriously remote country that 99.9% of all hikers will never get to. For a major publication to advocate going off-trail seems somewhat irresponsible. There are lots of underused trails out there that you can explore before needing to get off-trail. Stay on the trail. Encourage people to stay on-trail.

If you get bored with staying on the trail - and you have the skill and experience - then give that a shot. But don't encourage it broadly. And when you are on a major trail - stay on the trail to set a good example as well. If you're going to go off trail - go where there isn't a trail to begin with.

Interestingly enough - I think that the discussion of hikers going off trail is not the one that is most relevant. I think it would be better served to have a discussion about off-roading and ATV riding that is "off-trail" - far more destructive, far more irresponsible, and a much bigger danger than hikers.

You're probably right olesma, we would be better served by a discussion of OHV use. Unfortunately I imagine we (as hikers) would all agree that they are "bad" and we are "good" both off trail and on. Probably turn into more of a critisicm than a discussion.

Thank you for your pointed statement about backpacker magazine, this is a good point that has been missed by everyone so far. Why is a publication, who's interests should ere towards conservation, publicly condone and even encourage off-trail hiking?

I realize my prior posts may sound like an advocation of off-trail hiking. And to some extent they are. However I would never advocate it to the general public. As far as I am concerned this is a forum for discussion and that is exactly what we are doing; discussing, not advocating. So you will have to accept my apologies if it sounds like I am encouraging people to go off-trail.

I will quote "Searches in the American Desert" By Sheila Cowling- In the desert, sometimes the wind seems to call when it brushes a red rock arch. A coyote sings, and a visitor, scrambling over rocks and around prickly tangles of brush to see it, may wander into a canyon few others have visited.
People love to explore. We search new places as if we were looking for something we have lost and cannot live without. We continue to explore the desert because it is a wilderness full of mystery> end quote.
That is my feeling- trails are fine but the true wilderness explorer will follow his or her heart and desires- hopefully responsibly.

There are actually less designated trails in some areas then 10 or even 20 years ago. Reviewing public land manager maps since the late 1960's some roads and trails are no longer listed on current maps. I think you need to review my first post and take note of the last sentence. Granted off trail is not for everone, but I believe there are some responsible people who could and should hike off trail (and at night).

Let's consider this in the argument FOR off trail hiking. Trails are the big blighted scars that they are because of the constant pounding they take from the masses day in and day out. Plants get crushed, roots torn out, seeds displaced, soil gets compacted or eroded depending on topography, rocks get overturned. That trail will be there a long time, probably forever in our desert environment. Ray Jardine contends that it is better for the land to spread out the impact rather than concentrate it. He is speaking to camping and not hiking I will admit, but I feel the theory can be transferred to hiking as well. He also expresses the caveat that a light touch on the land is a given. The argument that we would have trails"everywhere" does not hold up if one steps carefully and uses LNT practices. On the contrary, we wouldn't see trails anywhere. Of course I'm operating on the premise that we are talking about knowledgable and responsible hikers. I generally make a practice of trying to leave no footprints even when on trail (by stepping on rock, not plant) avoiding even soft dirt that would leave a print. It is usually easy to go quite some distance and leave absolutely no indication of your visit. It doesn't really work in the desert, but most grasses will recover nicely if stepped on once. But crush them over and over again, and you soon have a trail.

I agree some areas require trails to protect sensitive lifeforms and this should be respected. Some areas receive too large a volume of traffic to not have trails, and where a trail already exists, it should be used. But I believe responsible, non-destructive off trail hiking can be accomplished.

All this talk about who's "knowledgeable and responsible", and who's tip toeing on dandy lions is beginning to sound a tad elitist.

On a side note, check this from the paper yesterday:
[ dead link removed ]