HikeArizona.COM

I think this perspective is rather naive, but it's something to discuss: http://arizonahiking.b....

I think this perspective is rather naive

I concur....

The best hiking I've done around here has been "technically" off trail.

While the author does raise some good points about potential harm, I think the other fact (which they do not address) is the desire for hikers generally to "get away from it all." How many people would be happy if the only trail open at the Grand Canyon was the BA, to limit impacts elsewhere? And if Leave No Trace and backcountry hiking can coexist, I don't really see an issue going off-trail, provided that the circumstances are right (it is allowed, low visitation area in general, etc.).

There are numerous Wilderness Areas (especially BLM) open to the public which have zero trails. Are we to avoid these entirely now in order to remain ethical?

In places like Aravaipa, there aren't any official trails but paths form from use, and the BLM requests that people avoid walking on these trails when possible in order to disperse the impact instead of concentrating it on one point.

There are heavily used areas where rules forbidding off-trail hiking may make sense, because if all the annual users went off trail, it would cause heavy impact. In many low-use areas, however, there simply aren't enough visitors for off-trail hiking to have an impact.

I read an almost identical article about 20 years ago. It made me mad then, and it still makes me mad. I understand that maybe the writer lives near a city where, it is true, the proliferation of so-called "social trails" causes erosion and other problems. But many of us hike in places where almost no one ever goes. I've been to a lot of random places where I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has walked there in years.

I think it's a dangerous attitude. If this idea becomes too popular it could lead to restrictions on reasonable off-trail hiking. If off-trail hiking were not permitted, then wouldn't off-trail hunting also be banned? And what hunter wants to stay on a trail? This is a topic where hunters and off-trail hikers could find common ground. It burns me. There are virtually NO trails near where I'm currently living. But there are many mountain ranges and wilderness areas everywhere you look (Northwestern AZ/Calif border/Mohave Desert region.) And this arrogant authoritarian wants me to not set foot in these local mountains?

Yes, people, stay on those trails. Then I won't have to see anyone ever out there. Thank you.

I should also mention that this article was in the AZ Republic, last Saturday I believe.

that guy must suck to hike with...

I agree with staying on trails where there is crypto soil and in areas where a single hiker would create devastating erosion. But for the most part these conditions don't exist in rocky Arizona.

@nonot
But even the crypto soil thing is misleading. There is a bit of biological propaganda about it that I don't happen to agree with. Unless there is a huge amount of constant traffic that stuff mostly does grow back pretty quickly.

@azbackpackr I agree!

What next? A law that wildlife must stick to designated trails as well?
Then we'd have to capture and detain every animal that dared traverse natural terrain... the same terrain they have been treading on for thousands of years. Now does that sound ridiculous?

Every bit as ridiculous as the implied vein of the article.

@RedRoxx44 I'm with you Letty... off by myself and enjoying it immensely away from all the noise and trash which seems to have become the norm where the masses are hiking on-trail.

@azbackpackr
I agree about the crypto soil growing back much more rapidly than some people will let you believe. When I last hiked through Biscuit Flats (South of Carefree Hwy, north of Deem Hills Park, in NW Phoenix), I was surprised to see a lot of it. That area was heavily ranched at least to the mid eighties. There was a lot of dove hunting in the area, and then the OHV crowd had a heyday back there.

You can also find it growing in cattle tracks up on the Plateau too. I would like to see some peer-reviewed articles on actual growth rates and "climax" stage cryptobiotic soil to see if/how the trail signs are oversimplifying things.

Tough_Boots wrote:that guy must suck to hike with...

Correction. That guy is a gal.

And perhaps Ambika or Jason would like to opine? Apparently they're both friends. At least on the interwebs.

chumley wrote:Correction. That guy is a gal.

my sincerest apologies ;)

I wonder if she refuses to hike on poorly constructed trails... like the ones that turn into creeks during a good rain. Surely she sees how they've altered the natural drainage of a hillside as a downright tragedy.

The scientific evidence on cryptobiotic soils is pretty clear: in deserts, it takes a decades for them to start to recover (return of cyanobacteria). And then it's on the order of centuries to fully recover (full growth of lichens and mosses). Even a single footprint has a real effect: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2001/0065/pdf/fs065-01.pdf

The real "function" of cryptobiotic crust is to stabilize the soil and fix nitrogen and carbon. That doesn't happen until the lichens return. So when you see the crusts start to return after ~20 years, the recovery is really only visual. Meaningful recovery takes over 200 years on the Colorado Plateau and maybe over 600 in the Mojave Desert (I didn't see figures for the Sonoran).

So just because you see what looks like crypto soils on a place that was disturbed does not mean that it's recovered. In the same way, if you cut down a forest and see a few saplings coming back, you can't say it's recovered--it's just the start of recovery.

...I'm not really weighing on hiking on or off trail. It's a trade-off. But the effect of physical disturbance on biological crusts is real and long-lasting.

This article has a nice summary. Free if you sign up: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3868062?seq ... b_contents

@flagscott
Just what I was looking for. Thanks!

rcorfman wrote:I think this perspective is rather naive, but it's something to discuss: http://arizonahiking.b....

I'm going to apologize for this post in advance because I'm going to step on some toes. It's not personal people.

I agree, who has the "legal" right to define ethical or put restrictions on any public lands, nobody! BLM and other public lands are supposedly held in trust for future generations, protecting our land from us. Are some restrictions necessary, maybe? Here is the truth, and it's going to piss off many of you here. Left wing groups like the Sierra Club among others, use the legal system to confiscate private property under the guise of environmental protection and other bogus claims. Then donate the land back to the federal government, BLM primarily, to be held in trust. This isn't in most cases to protect vital riparian areas, endangered species, or prevent farmer Joe from peeing on a juniper. It's about controlling the land for special interests. Oh yes, they humble themselves by allowing a few of you to walk their precious trails, provided you tread lite.

A group of real estate attorneys formerly from Colorado, the liberal mecca, came to Lake Havasu City Arizona to continue their practice of stealing land from private citizens. A retired businessman who developed a 640 acre retreat near Dolan Springs AZ recently had all his BLM approved permit canceled by a federal judge who sided with these attorneys. Ruined and out of business, the man sold his land to the law firm for $00.50 on a dollar. Once acquired, the land was donating back to the BLM adding it to an adjacent section of BLM managed "public" land to the North. The future of the land is now uncertain but an attorney from this group said it could be used for mining purposes. You want to know what tread lite and ethical means, you're looking at it? I deliberately threw the Sierra Club under the bus because they, like these attorneys, are a self serving special interest who as an organization only care about themselves. Yes there are many awesome club volunteers out there, many who I know and respect dearly because they do good things. They are unfortunately blind to the truth. People, look behind the curtain!

@AZDigger

I think you mistook this for a thread about Malheur... this one is about the environmental impact of off-trail hiking.