What in the hay now?

[potato]

I think noting that an increase in environmental damage correlates to an increase in an area's popularity is less about "elitism" and more about empiricism.

Sorry to say it but I don't really think this issue revolves around environmental damage.

A forest can handle some trampled ferns. We do a lot worse things than that as a species. Hell, all these forests have been logged in the past, we've built roads through them (and there are those who consider the leftover junk from that era to be sacred archaeological relics). We burn petroleum to get to the trailhead. Our hiking gear is made in China and shipped here. If the worst thing a forest has going for it is that some of its ferns get trampled and eroded, it's lucky.

Does the trampling make the trail look less pristine? Yes. Does it give you the sense you're not the only person who's been there? Yes. But those are aesthetic complaints, rather than a threat to an ecosystem. That's why it feels to me like you're mostly mad that other people are finding "your" spot. Like they're ruining your fun.

Portland is a big city, and it's growing, and the gorge is very close and popular. This is simply inevitable. Is it a bummer? Sure. But if I am someone who is outraged by environmental damage, I can think of about 50 problems I would want to complain about instead of an ugly trail. I am glad more people are getting out hiking even if they don't do it perfectly. It's good for them. I'll let them do it in the crowded places, and I will go somewhere more remote when I want privacy because that's just how it works. I didn't see a single day hiker on the trail for the first 700 miles of the PCT (just other thru hikers).

Of course, as others have reminded me before... this is a hiking forum, so it is an appropriate place to focus on trail topics. Forgive me if I'm too harsh. I just feel like you're getting worked up about something that's inevitable. Instead of combating the problem in a negative way (the info shouldn't be out there so people won't find it), why not find a positive solution to help other/new hikers tread more carefully (an explanatory sign or maybe help designate a main path)?

[romann]

Does the trampling make the trail look less pristine? Yes. Does it give you the sense you're not the only person who's been there? Yes. But those are aesthetic complaints, rather than a threat to an ecosystem. That's why it feels to me like you're mostly mad that other people are finding "your" spot. Like they're ruining your fun.

Portland is a big city, and it's growing, and the gorge is very close and popular. This is simply inevitable. Is it a bummer? Sure. But if I am someone who is outraged by environmental damage, I can think of about 50 problems I would want to complain about instead of an ugly trail.

Well said, Potato (and the rest of your post, too). The impact outdoors users cause won't make big harm for environment; it's mostly cosmetic damage that can take away from hikers' recreation experience, our sense of "discovering" new virgin area, or quest for solitude. These elements are important imho, but discussions about user impact centered on hikers take focus away from far bigger problems. Like Forest Park's wildlife migratory corridor is about to be cut-off from Coast Range by urban growth, or almost annual fish dieoffs @ Oregon Coast, or continued (increasing?) logging that far surpasses sustainable rate.

These pictures I took yesterday near Table Mtn, just south of Crescent Lake. Some virgin ridges and pockets of "wilderness" still survive around there, but overall this area is being destroyed even as we speak. They razed new roads all over the place, one ~50 yards from the lake and are preparing to log its NE side.

Yes it's Table Mtn and Two Chiefs in the background. And it's all in protected National Scenic Area

Smallest logs are less than 1 ft in diameter... they literally take everything they can

They left 50-100 ft corridor around the lake, but trees on the hill in the background may be gone by next weekend

[Lurch]

While the two scenarios are similar in that they deal with their environment, I think they're vastly different when it comes to an actual Wilderness Area, vs Misc National Forest, vs privately owned land. The defeatism in that view is just depressing and sad, that we should just accept exponentially growing damage to our wilderness areas, why? Meh, because people.

[Koda]

yeah there are plenty of "bigger fish" but that doesn’t discredit the smaller issues in life, I disagree we should ignore them just because there are bigger fish to fry. Its all proportional, but no one can say that someone on a small scale doesn’t prevent a small issue from becoming a bigger fish by doing their part.

That's why it feels to me like you're mostly mad that other people are finding "your" spot. Like they're ruining your fun.

I don’t want to speak on anyone's behalf but I'll go out on a limb and say I'd like to dispel the idea that anyone here thinks we want to keep "our secret spot" away from the masses so we can enjoy it all to ourselves. Personally I encourage anyone to explore new places, including off trail. Yes I enjoy the solitude I get from the extra effort to get there away from the crowds, but it doesn’t ruin my experience to run into someone else. My only interest in not disclosing "unofficial" locations and adventures is keeping it pristine for everyone. I believe by doing so I’m extending my Leave No Trace principles to the virtual world, the internet. I believe it does have an impact, how much or how little depends but it does. And I think in the context of the subject of this thread user populated data on unofficial locations contributes.

yes, I know... once the data is free its free. Thats actually the problem in the virtual world, in regards to leaving no trace virtually.

[Koda]

The impact outdoors users cause won't make big harm for environment; it's mostly cosmetic damage that can take away from hikers' recreation experience, our sense of "discovering" new virgin area, or quest for solitude.

Respectfully, I have to challenge that logic. There are plenty of permit systems in place to prove otherwise. Permit systems that are put in place because of the damage caused by outdoor hikers whether intentional or a result of popularity and heavy use.

yeah, I know in the grand scheme of things this isn’t as big a deal as clearcutting near a salmon stream. Its also not as big of a problem as starvation, the terrorism in Europe, N. Koreas nukes, I could go on....

[Guy]

This thread just got a lot more interesting, I find myself agreeing with the latest posts of Potato, Romann & Koda, even though those three posts are not necessarily in sync with each other.

Complicated issue for sure!

[romann]

Respectfully, I have to challenge that logic. There are plenty of permit systems in place to prove otherwise. Permit systems that are put in place because of the damage caused by outdoor hikers whether intentional or a result of popularity and heavy use.

There's a couple of good examples where permits were a bit of overkill. Plains of Abraham on MSH is restriction-free area (allows off-trail hiking, camping, dogs, bikes...), is adjacent to virtually identical area north with very tight restrictions. I couldn't tell any notable difference in plant life or wild life in between the two (seen goats, elk and plenty of marmots in both). I feel same thing with Obsidian area on Sisters; I recall permit's information brochure explained its purpose was to 'preserve wilderness experience' which I understand as limiting noise/crowds. They still allow off-trailing there with permit, but limit number of hikers on trail.

OTOH I think if they allow unrestricted camping on Rainier's Paradise or Grand Park these places will be ruined within a year. So when the hiker pressure reaches a certain threshold, the answer is definite yes...

Some fragile offtrail destinations can certainly be damaged by the crowds, but in most cases it's in the sense of their wilderness feel and attractiveness (and I think we can agree it's still very important). My perspective may be off after seeing couple hundred acres of total destruction yesterday, and still I think elk and deer may appreciate new pastures. But in the eyes of wilderness adventurer that land is ruined for outdoor activites. I don't argue that hikers don't have some negative impact we should ignore just because there are bigger issues, and by not advertising fragile/untouched places we can at least do our part & minimize that footprint

[Koda]

Plains of Abraham on MSH is restriction-free area (allows off-trail hiking, camping, dogs, bikes...), is adjacent to virtually identical area north with very tight restrictions. I couldn't tell any notable difference in plant life or wild life in between the two (seen goats, elk and plenty of marmots in both).

I think the difference in that area is the crater zone, would be inundated with people wanting to go in there. Outside of the "zone" not so much any different than open wilderness.

I feel same thing with Obsidian area on Sisters; I recall permit's information brochure explained its purpose was to 'preserve wilderness experience' which I understand as limiting noise/crowds. They still allow off-trailing there with permit, but limit number of hikers on trail.

correct me if I’m wrong, but off trail hiking is allowed there. The Obsidian permit system is only for camping overnight, on or off trail. You dont need a permit there for day hiking, including off trail.

When I was thinking of plenty of permit systems that prove hikers harm the environment I was thinking of places like the Enchantments and the newly established camp-site permit system in Jefferson Park. The Obsidian area would might fit in here too. "Preserving the wilderness experience" is open to interpretation, its my understanding that these permit systems are there because of the environmental impact of hikers due to the popularity of those places. For example the new Jeff Park campsite permits are because campers were camping in closed campsites.

now lets extend this topic back to the OP, the ROA arch is technically unofficial... These are the kind of places are showing up more and and are being impacted negatively... evidence such as Munra, and the photos of the ROA unofficial trail damage Bosterson provided. The evidence shows, these are the kind of places the public wants to visit. The electronic information on these places available today is 10x more assessable than even 10 years ago and 100x more accessible than analogue information (guide books) since written, all this electronic data is 100% driven by the public. My concern is how rapidly unofficial and then/next off trail destinations will be impacted as well.

I don't argue that hikers have some negative impact as well, and by not advertising fragile/untouched places we can at least minimize that footprint

that pretty much sums up what Im trying to say. Leave No Trace virtually. We are asked not to leave a fire ring, but yet have no ethic against plastering the web with detailed photos, GPS coordinates and track files to download and hyperlinks to entire mapsets on Caltopo.com, trip reports, Instagram hastags, Facebook...

I agree with Potato, that fire ring I saw off trail is nothing compared to the damage of sharing on line.

[Lurch]

We do have a built in source on popularity..... Is there any chance we can see some analytics trends going back as far as possible for the Munra and ROA FG pages? I'm curious how much site traffic on the two has actually increased over the past few years or if it's been relatively static, contrary to what we seem to actually be seeing in the field

[VanMarmot]

now lets extend this topic back to the OP, the ROA arch is technically unofficial... These are the kind of places are showing up more and and are being impacted negatively... evidence such as Munra, and the photos of the ROA unofficial trail damage Bosterson provided. The evidence shows, these are the kind of places the public wants to visit. The electronic information on these places available today is 10x more assessable than even 10 years ago and 100x more accessible than analogue information (guide books) since written, all this electronic data is 100% driven by the public. My concern is how rapidly unofficial and then/next off trail destinations will be impacted as well.

Looking through my collection of old guidebooks, it's obvious that the routes up both Munra Point and ROA (and lots of other such places) have been clearly described (In print. Analog? My addiction to cellulose is showing. ) for 35+ years. So it's not as though these places have been "secret" all these years. So what's changed? First and foremost - and this is why I copied Koda's post - the Internet makes information vastly more accessible to a whole bunch more people - no need to acquire a guidebook, new or old, or know someone who's been there before, etc. Just click and go. Second, the Internet makes these places into "destinations" - places that you want to go to with your friends or to impress your friends or blog about and which won't waste your time by being uninteresting or boring. Third, there are now many more people in the Portland/Vancouver/SW Washington metro area - all of them within 2 hours of these places. Put these three factors together and - shazaam - the hoards descend. I suspect you'll see more of this as digital natives search the Field Guide and old guidebooks looking for the next new special place to post & map close to Portland.

If you don't want to share with the hoards, then DON'T POST a description/map/gpx of your special place - just DON'T. Because, as Karl continually reminds us, data want to be free and, once free on the Internet, there's no going back. I don't have any ready answers for those places that have already been (or soon will be) posted and are being (or soon will be) pressured by the hoards. But I'd look for some kind of affirmative response - LNT education or some kind of regulation by the State or USFS (at least a sign?) or maybe volunteer efforts to "formalize" the user trails that once served these areas - rather than trying to put the toothpaste back in the (hiking) tube so to speak.

I should say that during a 1,000 miles (in 2015) of hiking down here in the provincial south (and Nor Cal), we encountered no more than 3-4 dozen other hikers - suggesting that the hoards are something of an urban problem. So, if you have any hoards to spare, feel free send them on down here - we'll be happy to make room for them in our tourist economy!