A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known places...

[5th]

is seeking out "blank spots" on the map and then venturing off to tromp around those blank spots looking for previously unknown waterfalls or slot canyons something anyone should be doing in the first place?

Yes, but only if one enjoys it.

[Koda]

From a purely scientific/ecological standpoint, I'm still wondering about the question suggested by Koda's earlier post: to minimize environmental damage, is it better for each person to create their own trail through trackless forest? Or for everyone to use and stay on a single established trail? If anyone knows a proven scientific answer to this question I'd love to know.

I don’t have any science to back anything up, just my own observation that the more your walk a path the more it becomes defined. Im not suggesting one always make their own path, just saying what happens when you follow others. As an example, Ive read that grow operators always take a different path to their location.

Because if keeping to an existing path or trail is the better choice, then (in the case of Devils Staircase) I've read in a few places that there is some sort of quasi-established path already (possibly even flagged in places?). If I decide to go myself, I'd like to know whether I should stay on this path (in which case a GPX track would be helpful)? Or just do my own thing?

The cats outta the bag with the Devils Staircase. Might as well take the user path.

And for what it's worth, even in this digital age, the number of people who actually know how to take a GPX track, upload it to their GPS, then actually use it in the woods is fewer than you might think. (I'm amazed at the number of people today who still don't have a GPS.)

I have to disagree about GPS not being used much. That’s a whole another discussion…

And I don't think I saw any responses to my earlier, admittedly rhetorical question: is seeking out "blank spots" on the map and then venturing off to tromp around those blank spots looking for previously unknown waterfalls or slot canyons something anyone should be doing in the first place?

I did respond to that question in my last post, a quote from Edward Abby.

[Lurch]

I don't believe there are nay more hikeable destinations that have not been discovered.

Peeerrrrfect.. That's just how we'd like to keep it..

[kepPNW]

Robbing the view from the masses was unpopular in the 19th century (e.g. Niagara Falls), which led to protection of places people seek for their visual aesthetics.

I wish it'd continued into the 20th century. I've heard it postulated that we'd still be able to enjoy Celilo Falls had Meriweather Lewis not fallen into a deep funk, but instead had written as eloquently about it as he had with Great Falls. Oh how I wish we'd blow up both Bonneville and The Dalles dams, to once again uncover both the Cascades and Celilo.

I'd be more concerned with the area being opened up to logging because it is of no recreational value to the general public.

That's one helluvan interesting point, there.

[Koda]

I'd be more concerned with the area being opened up to logging because it is of no recreational value to the general public.

That’s actually a good point but I don’t think individuals sharing GPS files publicly is what makes a place protected. Doing so only impacts that location uncontrolled indefinitely until enough momentum is gained to preserve an area usually by other political means (old growth, habitat loss...). Off trailers are but a very small subset of the outdoor recreationalists, for a place to become popular enough to protect for its recreational value its going to take much larger user groups getting out there.…hikers, mt bikers, hunters, fishing, motorcross, ATV, backpackers, horseriders, car campers, backpackers… but even protection from commercialization doesn't protect a location from overuse (e.g.: munra)


note, the waterfall recently discovered near Mt Jefferson is already inside a wilderness area so, already protected from logging etc. but not overuse...

[Sean Thomas]

How do people feel about areas like the Dark Divide or Northern Oregon Coast Range where proper protection is lacking? Areas like the coast range are often subjected to poor and unsustainable logging practices, or in the case of the Dark Divide, weaker overall protection under a roadless status and the allowance of motor vehicles on trails etc. Can some attention to such places be a positive if it leads to further protection down the road, even if the destination is off trail and word spreads via a trip report or gps track?


I think the problem with the digital age as Lurch and others have said is with the accessibility of the data(whether it be a gps track, trip report etc) that used to come by word of mouth can now be accessed at the tip of a finger and is incredibly far ranging. This makes physical human contact with these otherwise seldom visited places much easier. Along with that, I think if it helps to keep wild places "wild" by limiting the data we share online, then we should also look to limit the impacts we have on the planet that don't involve physically visiting a place to damage it. Things like climate change and pollution greatly impact the places we have all come to know and love yet we often shy away from addressing these issues in a manner in which we should, all while conversing on the web about a boot-path on a ridgeline. The problem I think partly lies with our view of wild. We see a trail-less ridge, the open ocean etc as wild and untrammeled, but even the most remote part of our state for example, probably lacks some species or attribute that used to call it home a century or two ago. Does this make it any less wild? Obviously, im kind of trying to play devils advocate here, I think limiting our online trail in respect to places we feel are fragile is a good thing, and there are things I have posted in the past that I now question thanks to the discussion on this forum and I will look be more thoughtful when sharing in the future, as the last thing any of us wants is to harm the places we love.

[Sean Thomas]

"note, the waterfall recently discovered near Mt Jefferson is already inside a wilderness area so, already protected from logging etc. but not overuse..."

Well said Koda.

[drm]

So many issues here. The thing with unofficial trails is that they come in so many varieties, which is why I said it was a case-by-case issue. Some unofficial trails were official once and were dropped simply due to maintenance overload. Anybody who has an old map can find many of them. I'm not sure I would use the word "anarchy" to describe this situation. I started by backpacking in the High Sierra using USGS quad maps. These had every trail that had ever existed it seemed, including many that got no maintenance. But because they were above treeline, they might be in decent shape for the most part but lost in sections. This is what I was thinking about when I said it was case-by-case and I wouldn't mind posting a track of such a trail.

When going cross-country it is generally recommended that people not follow the exact same path so as to not create new trails. This changes about the time when so many people are going there that there is the threat of many new trails, some of which may have serious design issues, like causing erosion. At that point there needs to be consideration for consolidating the impact into a well-designed trail.

I don't think I have ever posted a GPS track online. I have a GPS but I only use it when I really need it for route-finding or altitude measurement. My most common use of them is early season when I want to follow a trail that is covered by snow. So if I mainly use GPS tracks for route-finding, that most likely means there is some off-trail use and based on what I said before, I would not post.

[Koda]

How do people feel about areas like the Dark Divide or Northern Oregon Coast Range where proper protection is lacking? Areas like the coast range are often subjected to poor and unsustainable logging practices, or in the case of the Dark Divide, weaker overall protection under a roadless status and the allowance of motor vehicles on trails etc. Can some attention to such places be a positive if it leads to further protection down the road, even if the destination is off trail and word spreads via a trip report or gps track?

I don’t think it has to do with an off trail location or GPS track being shared. I don’t know how to get an area protected, but my guess is it has to do with protecting the resources there like old growth, wildlife, habitat etc. more than a hidden gem like a waterfall or hidden pristine swimming hold, or mysterious slot canyon. Recreation opportunities alone are not enough (on or off trail…), because recreation is already preserved on public lands

My opinion is only that sharing that kind of information (GPS, off trail TRs) publicly only increases impact for those locations negatively. I feel we should always have wild areas that offer a sense of discovery, places where we don’t need to tag every location worth visiting until we get them all documented… seems in my opinion to go against the idea of backcountry and LNT principals.

Look up most any wilderness area in Oregon and find the reason they were established. Those are the things that get enough votes to protect an area that you would have to advocate for. The Dark Divide could be classified as wilderness for those reasons. The part I’m unfamiliar with is how to protect areas that are not on federal land, such as state forests. Places like Angora and Onion peak would be a good example. Converting the old forest road that’s used to hike there into a trail would be a good idea, but I’m not certain if that’s even public land I think its owned by a logging company?

[kepPNW]

The thing with unofficial trails is that they come in so many varieties, which is why I said it was a case-by-case issue. ...<snip>... I'm not sure I would use the word "anarchy" to describe this situation.

I just used that term to highlight the "case-by-case" thing, presumably each case being judged individually. End result would be (is, actually) that virtually everything gets out there, even if a few decide they themselves won't share.

Data wants to be free.

Why not do one's best to see that it's at least accurate?