HikeArizona.COM

Do you respect all boundaries?

private
Indian lands
switchbacks
area closed

Reasoning? (either way)

In response to joe bartels' reply:
no, except for area closed.

Reasoning. I don't mind if respectful people walk on my property to get across is to go somewhere else. I am not super-territorial. In fact, I am not territorial at all. Since I LNT, and I don't walk on cyrogenic soil, if I can help it, and I don't intentionally try to destroy vegetation to get somewhere ( walking around shrubs, instead of bushwacking them). So, I have walked on private property, Indian reservation land (although I avoid going onto any holy ground or tops of mountains that are off-limits)
and switchbacks, cuz I'm human. If areas are closed, it is usually for a good reason, too much travel in one place is causing washing out, vegetation stress, or wildlife stress.

Yes. I consider Indian land and private land together. I try to respect the land and other people's property rights. I wouldn't appreciate others ignoring my property rights. I try to turn it around and wonder if I'd appreciate someone going through my back yard without permission. Even if they left no trace I don't think I'd like it.

In places that require you to stay on the trails I do and I respect closed areas. I think both requirements are to protect the land from damage or to give it a chance to recover from past damage.

I never shortcut switchbacks. Once again it's about respecting the land. Shortcutting switchbacks causes gulleys to form that are extremely difficult to repair.

I am floored by a simple question! Therefore, I will say it depends on the circumstances, which is why did not vote:

Private: Well now when its a rancher who has the checkerboard land use in his vast domain, i.e. private/state land I have hiked through it. Afterall, if the antelope and cows can play on it, why not me and I don't know the boundary of private/state land. On the other hand if it is a small home owner on a 100'X100' lot in a residents, I do not cross the property line at of respect for the property owner.

Indian Land: Years ago I've been known to walk onto indian land. But I have not recently. But could later.

Switchbacks: On a trail I do not short-cut switchbacks. May think about it, may ponder it, but never have.

Area Closed: Do not know. Have not ran into that. Or at least that I am aware of.

private
personally I wouldn't knowingly cross onto private land
my thoughts are that most wouldn't if it's fenced off stating such but might otherwise

Indian lands
once again I wouldn't knowingly do it
I separated from general public because...
I've seen many times over the years where people seem to cross over private Indian land with the thought of "it's not the same as other private land"

switchbacks
generally I wouldn't due to the fact that most are in place to prevent erosion
Though on a solid rock surface I beg to differ. I believe there's a switchback on the upper section of Peralta that herds of elephants couldn't damage. Also there's a solid rock shortcut on Squaw before the final furlong just after the rail. "Red shorts Mark" yelled at me maybe four years ago. At which point I told him to ___ off. Then he went on to tell me how the park rangers use binoculars to site "switchback violators"
Being a preserve I figure it's best to follow the appropriate path, so I have ever since. So maybe Marks yelling helped however I'm not convinced there will ever be erosion or multi-path confusion problems in that area.


area closed
generally this would be an easy no
However channel 8 is making it tougher to walk by those signs on South Mountain. Almost wonder if they should stop airing that show!

I only go where its open, I have been invited or allowed (exception nighthikes). I also have a state land permit. On designated trails I stay on trails, but I also visit many areas were there are no trails. I been leave no trace long before there was Leave No Trace.

private
YES, for fear of being shot.

Indian lands
YES for fear of having them take away everything I have on me (legally).

switchbacks
Usually

area closed
Usually, depends on reasons and chances of getting caught.

I respect all boundaries. Even when the rest of my traveling party does not. I always feel that anything that I abuse will be taken away.

Case by case bases. Depends what the situation is and where i'm at i guess.

In response to overrocked's reply:
Indian Lands: Get a Permit
Private Land: Get permission or Don't go. There's a reason it's private.
Switchbacks: Don't do it, it's what gives hikers a bad name and gets areas closed!
Closed Areas: Well let's think, it's probably closed for a reason, maybe it's because people crossed switchbacks, it's Indian Land, or Private Land.

Just because "hey i'd let responsible people go on my land" doesn't make everyone else think the same.
Indian Lands are in fact the same as Private Lands look it up. Crossing it without a permit is what makes Indian land off limits to hikers and outsiders. Kabito Creek: Closed, Starting Water Wash: Closed both on Navajo lands, among other canyons.
National Sovereignty Rights says it all.
Don't be selfish and ruin it for other hikers who obey the law, private lands , Indian lands etc.
Know where the boundries are before setting off.
[/i]

Private lands: yes, in the majority of cases (barring any sort of extenuating circumstances)

switchbacks: I always use 'em.

closed: depends on why it's closed. If it's closed because someone just arbitrarily decided to close it, then no dice (didn't this happen in the Supes?) I

Indian lands: are they private lands, or sovereign nations? Hmmm, maybe we should ask the Mexican government and illegal aliens about this, they seem to know all sorts of good things about borders, restricted areas, and national sovereignty rights.