HikeArizona.COM

into a Wilderness area, i.e. 'leading them' on a 'guided tour', including the day and time, what would YOU do, if anything?

I'm asking from the moral/ethical/mind your own business angle...

[-X

I'd shake my head an judge them from afar.

Drop the dime.

I'd call the Forest Service (assuming it's a USFS wilderness area) and let them know. Some wilderness areas have explicit group size limits, which are almost always lower than 20. Also, if it's a paid, guided tour, the tour operator has to be registered with USFS, primarily to prevent this sort of thing.

Can you provide more details about the hike, Jason? Professionals acting unprofessionally is one thing, but someone who is just an average hiker is another, and frankly, irrelevant overall to the actual "wilderness" qualities of a given area.

I get really tired of how social media has created and even fostered an environment of outrage over such trivial things. Who uses what bathroom, what so and so said, who took a selfie over what animal, and on and on, and then on to wilderness areas and OMG! Not someone taking a group over the legislated limit, into the "wilderness area", it will destroy it's character and harm it's ecology forever! Seriously, if a professional, just report them, if amateur, ignore it or privately remind the person of the limits. If they ignore it, forget about it.

@Jim_H

If everyone always did nothing, then what would we be left with? It's just a guy, not a professional. Frankly, that makes me more apt to report it. There's more to the story but many of the people that appear to be 'attending' appear to be the typical unprepared novice hikers that don't understand LNT (within reason, I'm not a fanatic of LNT) or how much water to take, etc.

I'm still deciding, but at this point I am leaning toward contacting USFS.

I understand this is AZ, and rules and regulations both federal(OBAMA is a Muslim !!!!!!!!) and lesser are for suckers, but I don't see the world that way.

Also, I know that whether its 25 or 50 people that attend this hike it won't likely do irretrievable harm to the ecology. I'm not naive. But if everyone looks the other way forever, then it may, over time. I also understand that nature is resilient and heals itself, adapts, etc. I get it, in other words.

I would explain to them the rules of the Wilderness Area and convince them to do otherwise. Especially if they are a youth group and just simply do not know the possible consequences of their actions. I had to do this once on the rim above Strawberry when a church group was trying to enter a Forest Service Road and camp on a late Friday winter night. The Forest Service had placed closed signs on the roads because of the unfrozen ground with snow on top. I took them from the rim to the Fossil Springs trail head west of Strawberry and we camped there instead.

SuperstitionGuy wrote:I would explain to them the rules of the Wilderness Area and convince them to do otherwise. Especially if they are a youth group and just simply do not know the possible consequences of their actions. I had to do this once on the rim above Strawberry when a church group was trying to enter a Forest Service Road and camp on a late Friday winter night. The Forest Service had placed closed signs on the roads because of the unfrozen ground with snow on top. I took them from the rim to the Fossil Springs trail head west of Strawberry and we camped there instead.

Thanks for the response. I tried, last night to do just that, and basically got the 'we love the land' or 'we aren't hurting anything' types of counter responses...

@JasonCleghorn
Taking 25 or even 50 people is different than everyone bringing trash and littering, or strip mining, or ATV riders tearing up a place for the sport doing donuts on wet grass. Seriously, unless they link arms 10 abreast and hike that way, they aren't really that bad. Can one tell the difference between 3 groups of 10, and 1 group of 30, on the trail?

It is your battle, and as I suggested first, remind the leader (since a private person) and if they continue to do it, I feel you are better off ignoring it. Because, as I said, the recent trend of becoming outraged over ever trivial thing, especially on the internet, is tiresome and accomplishes little. I am aware of the irony here, it was just a suggestion.

Where are they going, anyway?

I thought the exact same thing when I saw that post on Facebook. You obviously went back and made a comment, so just returned to that thread to see what the fuss was about. I only joined that group because FB suggested it and frankly after a week of getting their posts I'm about ready to un-join. People sharing pics of their big trip of a lifetime to Devil's Bridge or up Camelback or old ladies posting about their daily jaunt around North Mountain.

My thought is that no hiking group should be over 10 people or so. Anymore than that and it clogs up the trail and it's tough to keep track of everyone if you are leading.

Jim_H wrote:Where are they going, anyway?

And Is this one of those clothing optional groups where we can get some laughs as well? ;)

Not really too sure that the Forest Service can actually do much about it, depending on what Wilderness it's in. The Restriction is more "Enforceable" in some Wildernesses vs others it seems. A lot of the Social Media Hiking "Groups" are just that. Social Groups that like to go out Hiking. However, they need to abide by the Regulations as well as everyone else and there are plenty of places to take those Social Events besides Wilderness Areas. There is a Reason for the Regulations. That many people at once does impact the Ecosystem and if they allow it on any kind of Basis at all, it will get out of Hand.... I actually belong to a couple of Meet-Up Groups, but I probably will never do an Event because the Groups and how many they allow is just way too much for me...The Exception for that is my New Year's Day Event, but I don't go into the Wilderness with that Event either....If I'm going to go with a Group, I like it to normally be 8 or less.... I'm with Shawn on this, go ahead and Drop that Dime....

I once encountered a group of over 50 people dayhiking the Black Mesa Loop. It was more crowded than dowtown Gilbert. I encountered an oversized group nearthe junction of the Reavis Ranch and Rogers Canyon Trails. (I still laugh about how badly I unintentionally scared them. Did they think I was going to mug 20 people all by myself?). I didn't report either group, because it seems pretty clear that organized groups routinely violate the regulations and the Rangers I've talked to previously haven't been very interested in taking reports of violations.

SuperstitionGuy wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Where are they going, anyway?

And Is this one of those clothing optional groups where we can get some laughs as well? ;)

From the looks of some of the potential attendees, I could think of a view other verbs and nouns, were that the case.

big_load wrote:I once encountered a group of over 50 people dayhiking the Black Mesa Loop. It was more crowded than dowtown Gilbert. I encountered an oversized group nearthe junction of the Reavis Ranch and Rogers Canyon Trails. (I still laugh about how badly I unintentionally scared them. Did they think I was going to mug 20 people all by myself?). I didn't report either group, because it seems pretty clear that organized groups routinely violate the regulations and the Rangers I've talked to previously haven't been very interested in taking reports of violations.

Makes me wonder if its one of those job security kinds of things. No people out hiking, no job.

Who knows.

Jim_H wrote:Taking 25 or even 50 people is different than everyone bringing trash and littering, or strip mining, or ATV riders tearing up a place for the sport doing donuts on wet grass. Seriously, unless they link arms 10 abreast and hike that way, they aren't really that bad. Can one tell the difference between 3 groups of 10, and 1 group of 30, on the trail?

It is your battle, and as I suggested first, remind the leader (since a private person) and if they continue to do it, I feel you are better off ignoring it. Because, as I said, the recent trend of becoming outraged over ever trivial thing, especially on the internet, is tiresome and accomplishes little. I am aware of the irony here, it was just a suggestion.

Obviously, any group of hikers is less damaging than a strip mine, but I think you underestimate the impact of large groups. When on the trail, a large group is not really damaging anything, but it's when they step off the trail that such a big group causes problems. There are few places in Arizona wilderness areas where 25 people can camp on a hardened site (which the LNT people tell me is the only type of site you should be using), so it's likely that the group is going to have to create their own sites, trampling vegetation and disturbing the soil. With 20+ people, even taking a break off the trail somewhere can do damage.

So, yes, I think you can tell the difference between 3 groups of 10 and 1 of 30, and I don't considered lots of trampled vegetation and soils a trivial thing, especially in Arizona.

This is why the Forest Service limits group sizes in wilderness and why the Pacific Crest Trail recently instituted a quota system--when 150 hikers were starting thru-hikes on the same day, there were just too many people camping in the same places, and it was doing damage to the vegetation and soils.

(BTW, I don't see anyone here, including myself, getting "outraged" over this. I see a calm discussion over wilderness etiquette and rules.)

JasonCleghorn wrote:

big_load wrote:I once encountered a group of over 50 people dayhiking the Black Mesa Loop. It was more crowded than dowtown Gilbert. I encountered an oversized group nearthe junction of the Reavis Ranch and Rogers Canyon Trails. (I still laugh about how badly I unintentionally scared them. Did they think I was going to mug 20 people all by myself?). I didn't report either group, because it seems pretty clear that organized groups routinely violate the regulations and the Rangers I've talked to previously haven't been very interested in taking reports of violations.

Makes me wonder if its one of those job security kinds of things. No people out hiking, no job.

Who knows.

I think it's more along the lines of just more unplanned effort for an underfunded and understaffed organization.

big_load wrote:

JasonCleghorn wrote:

big_load wrote:I once encountered a group of over 50 people dayhiking the Black Mesa Loop. It was more crowded than dowtown Gilbert. I encountered an oversized group nearthe junction of the Reavis Ranch and Rogers Canyon Trails. (I still laugh about how badly I unintentionally scared them. Did they think I was going to mug 20 people all by myself?). I didn't report either group, because it seems pretty clear that organized groups routinely violate the regulations and the Rangers I've talked to previously haven't been very interested in taking reports of violations.

Makes me wonder if its one of those job security kinds of things. No people out hiking, no job.

Who knows.

I think it's more along the lines of just more unplanned effort for an underfunded and understaffed organization.

Yes. You are right.

@flagscott
We agree on some things, and we disagree on others. I

try to be pragmatic on stuff like this. Here is what I mean, discussing on the internet won't change much. Let's assume that this is a horrible group that liters, tramples, and damages stuff. However, they did it in one of the few still unburned and fire suppressed, over stocked, and heavily degraded wilderness areas. 1 week after they come through, a wind driven lightning fire burns the area hot. Monsoon season comes, and there is a lot of soil erosion. My point? Unintentional effects and poor actions rarely get public out cry, but can be far more important. Therefore, I consider stuff like this trivial, and find that it is better for me to ignore stuff like it.

We are having a civil discussion, but there is a pattern now of people becoming outraged on the internet, and wanting the same. It grows tiresome. If you knew me, you'd know why I wrote about the irony.