publicizing sensitive areas

[allison]

From the nwhikers.net site:

I do not know much about the trails out of the highway two area, but there are really a lot of trails that have appeared in the past fifty years. For example, In the highway two area. Eagle lake, crater lake, Kanim, Otter, La Bohn, Rock & Panorama, lake serene, lake phillippa, goat & horseshoe, hardscrabbles, wildcats near lake caroline, etc. I haven’t been to most of these places, but from what I have read on the trailblazers website and other websites I am positive that they had a lot less pressure back fifty years ago due to less trail/road access. O and by the way, I bet the number of trails in the enchantments has risen too. I admit that the amount of trails has declined in the north cascades near the canadian border, but they have increased everywhere else.

Thread can be read http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13707&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
here.

Thought the discussion might be of interest to some of the TB/HL folks.

[McPilchuckblazer]

Guide books, maps, as well as detailed route descriptions posted or published on the internet and in magazines have contributed to the factor, let alone the population boost, tho in the 1970s I think backpacking reached an all time high. When too much info is described, more or less the detailed easy routes, an influx of hikers follow which IMO takes the charm out of most of those places described thereby reducing its wildness. Nothing wrong with loving the wild but the impact needs to be considered much like the width of a road as opposed to a path…the more traveled, the more impact. There are folks who however see no reason to hold anything back from publication, but then I’ve seen some of these folks take a turn around in their thinking once they have vision upon some secluded place that others haven’t trampled too much yet. When I see too much descriptive route stuff published with a theme of “I conquered it in this amount of time”, it turns my gut. For that is all self glorification in conquest, and adds nothing to the environment.

http://www.alpinequest.com/offthetrailcahllenge.html

McPil

[caveman]

I do think that you shouldn’t advertise some special places. I think it has affected a lot of areas. I think that if you find a place that is amazing and you know not many people make it there, than keep it to your self. I am always looking for the big fish and on occasion I will run into some nice size trout. You just don’t want to tell anyone because your secret spot will no longer be secret because the next time you go back to catch those big ones or to see that amazing place. It will either be fished out or trashed becasue people don’t have the respect for the backcountry like I do.

Caveman

[giantbrookie]

Here’s a little perspective from the California backcountry. Here too it seems that the real backpacking peak was in the 70’s. Most or all of the increase in fishing pressure in the recent decades has been at those waters reached by roads. The areas along major trails within 5 miles or so of the trailheads are crowded, but it doesn’t appear to me that they are any more crowded than I remember 30+ years ago. Off trail hiking has decreased dramatically in the Sierras and Klamaths over the past few decades–off trail hiking clearly peaked in the ’70’s here. Many former use trails along off trail routes have faded or been overgrown. Most backcountry hikers in the ’70s could read a topo map, whereas the vast majority today cannot and will not venture off a trail (and they shouldn’t if they can’t read a topo–GPS can give them location but it won’t evaluate the topographic feasibility of a route!) There has been a decrease in fish size at a number of high lakes but the biggest culprit appears to be population density increases in lakes rather than fishing pressure. The increases in population density appear to be a product of too efficient natural reproduction, overly generous fingerling allotments, or sometimes a combination of both. Of course, many blame this decline in fish size on fishing pressure, but a thorough look at the locations of lakes and progression of maximum fish sizes through time indicates otherwise. As for degradation of formerly nice spots from a non-fishing standpoint (litter, etc.), I don’t necessarily think there are any more places that are trashed in the backcountry than 30 years ago for the reasons given above. There may have been some shifting of use over the years (some areas see heavier use than before whereas others see less), and some of this may be due to publicity given in magazine articles, guidebooks, or websites, but some of it may also be due to changes in wilderness management policy, such as changes in wilderness permit quota amounts or quota seasons.

As someone who has maintained a small website that highlights California high lake fishing I do have guidelines I follow about what I feel are the lakes that should or should not be publicized. Here are mine:
1. Lakes that I might publicize:
(a) Any lake receiving moderate to heavy use. The tiny number of people who chance upon my site who decide, based on what they read, to visit the lake will be an insignificant fraction of the visitors to the lake. There may be special fishing spots along the shorelines of such lakes. I will not divulge any info on these. Nor will I share any secrets of neglected hideaway campsites at such lakes.
(b) Lakes that are exceptionally hard to get to–ALL of these are off trail and the off trail hiking is extended and more than rough enough to make the destinations off limits to pack animals. These are listed only if they are already mentioned or listed in at least one book. The number of people who would even consider going to such lakes are vanishingly small and the number of folks who happen to decide on such a place after seeing it mentioned on my site can probably be numbered on one hand (and zero would probably be the most common number). Inaccessible lakes in category 2(b) below will NOT be publicized however.

2. Lakes that I won’t publicize.
(a)Any lake that is not in category 1(b), has good fishing for fish of size, and is not moderately to heavily used. This category can include off trail lakes, especially if the off trail hiking is not rough and can be accomplished on horseback, or if the off trail lakes are fairly close to a trailhead (ie within day hiking range). Most “hidden gems” and “secret spots” fall into this category. I’d count lightly-used 4WD lakes in this category, too.
(b) Any lake that has whose fish population may be sensitive. This includes a number of lakes in NPs that have very low spawning potential (and none of the lakes in our NPs are air dropped). A small increase in fishing pressure at such a lake may indeed wipe out the fishery.

[brownster145]

As one who used to spend a lot of time seeking out off-trail apline fishing destinations and now spends even more time in search of secluded stretches on steelhead rivers, I can say that I wholeheartedly discourage the publicizing of any off-the-beaten-path gems, be they lakes, creeks, or river valleys.

These places have been discovered as a matter of tradition by those willing to do the work (or at least those with friends who were), and I’m not too keen on the idea that the advent of the internet will one day reveal all of these places to anybody with a computer.

I think the one thing we can rely on is that even though folks are indeed getting more savvy about finding information on and directions to these places, the growing laziness of the population will protect the true gems–the ones that require work to reach. 🙂

Andrew

[Author]

Posts