Cairned Approaches.....was TR: Upper Gravel and Cowboy Canyons

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "canyoncrazy" <canyoncrazy@...> wrote: > Cowboy canyon was very fun and extremely photogenic. The trail to the canyon, after the road stops, is a little more easy to find. We noticed in places people had lost the trail and wondered, so we placed some more rock cairns and hopefully that helps to keep everyone on one trail.

What do folks think of this? Good idea? Is it klegal to put in cairned routes?

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "adkramoo" <adkramoo@...> wrote:
--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "canyoncrazy" <canyoncrazy@> wrote:
Cowboy canyon was very fun and extremely photogenic. The trail to the canyon, after the road stops, is a little more easy to find. We noticed in places people had lost the trail and wondered, so we placed some more rock cairns and hopefully that helps to keep everyone on one trail.
What do folks think of this? Good idea? Is it klegal to put in cairned routes? >

Not a legal issue from what I understand. There is some debate in the LNT community above wether it is better for the environment and/or experience or worse. Opinion seems to vary among instructors.

Phillip

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "restrac2000" <Happyfeet00@...> wrote: > Not a legal issue from what I understand. There is some debate in the LNT community above wether it is better for the environment and/or experience or worse. Opinion seems to vary among instructors. > Phillip

Who is the LNT community? What are the differing views on the issue pro and con? R

NLT - Leave No Trace. Depends on what you are after... If part of the adventure is the route finding, well then no cairns. Cairns provide the means for easily getting from point A to point B, a lot more people can do this, thus a bit harder on the environment. Cairns keep the people on the same route, less tromping in the crypto and such, this a little easier on the environment.

Cairns can be misleading. Sometimes they mark the path of 'confused' hikers and lead off to no where - or mark some awesome crack to downclimb that may spell trouble for some.

Cairns can be lifesaving. People wander off, get lost, run into some cairns and bingo they are back before the rescue team has to be sent out.

Personally, for other than published right off the road stuff I'd prefer not to see cairns.

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "adkramoo" <adkramoo@...> wrote:
--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "restrac2000" <Happyfeet00@> wrote:
Not a legal issue from what I understand. There is some debate in the LNT community above wether it is better for the environment and/or experience or worse. Opinion seems to vary among instructors.
Phillip
Who is the LNT community? What are the differing views on the issue pro and con? > R >

"What are the differing views on the issue pro and con?"   Pro:  If the hike/canyon becomes popular and has much traffic, a cairned route will help eliminate multiple trailing and concentrate use rather than have it speadout due to multiple user-made trails.   Con:  In remote areas, you want to spread out use rather than concentrate it because if there are only a few footprints they would disappear faster if spread out.   According to LNT (leave no trace) ethics (at least the ones we were eductated in when I used to lead the scouts on hikes), it depends on the situation and usage numbers.   Of course, when a canyon switches from remote to popular is debatable.      

We added to the few we saw for a number of reasons: 1. This canyon is published and is seeing, and will see A LOT more traffic. 2. To keep people on one trail, rather than seeing more small hiker trails as this canyon's popularity increases. 3. The foot paths we found are numerous and often over crypto soil. 4. The "trail" is a well used cow path and LNT does not apply to cows. . .

. . . And now a small rant about LNT and cows: BLM, FS and the NPS all preach LNT as well as don't crush the crust, camp 100 yards or up to 1 mile away from water sources, burry your. . . well you know and pack out your trash. All cows can't do. Countless times we find springs craped in, everything trampled and crypto soil demolished. Does anyone know how to get cows off our public lands? We all pay taxes on the land, the ranchers pay a small lease and are a minority. There are 1000:1 taxpayers to ranchers in az, where can we get our voices heard? Does anyone elce feel the same as we do, wanting the cows off our public lands?

5. Rock carins,according to local FS, "are acceptable and do don't contradict LNT ethics. They are not permanent, can be removed, help eliminate multiple use trails and limit the damage to the sensitive soil."

IF the canyon was not becoming so popular, we would have not put up any carins. In canyons that are still not in a book, that remain "secret" and are only known by word-of-mouth, no I don't think carins are needed. In those cases, the canyon is not visited that often and if the crust gets crushed, it usually has a chance to recover and high traffic trails are not really an issue. Just my 2 cents- Sara

I think cairns here are a good idea. When we went, the road was barely a road and perhaps room for 2 cars at the end. I bet that is changing. Your right, will be popular. Recommend folks stay in the water course and avoid the temptation to use the bypasses. They are harder, uglier and more impactful. One drop appears anchorless. A big bulge of rock makes a nice bollard. Rap one person down and have them be the anchor from below. Works like a charm and ghosts the spot.

--- In Yahoo Canyons Group, "canyoncrazy" <canyoncrazy@...> wrote:
We added to the few we saw for a number of reasons: > 1. This canyon is published and is seeing, and will see A LOT more traffic. > 2. To keep people on one trail, rather than seeing more small hiker trails as this canyon's popularity increases. > 3. The foot paths we found are numerous and often over crypto soil. > 4. The "trail" is a well used cow path and LNT does not apply to cows. . .
> . . . And now a small rant about LNT and cows: BLM, FS and the NPS all preach LNT as well as don't crush the crust, camp 100 yards or up to 1 mile away from water sources, burry your. . . well you know and pack out your trash. All cows can't do. Countless times we find springs craped in, everything trampled and crypto soil demolished. > Does anyone know how to get cows off our public lands? We all pay taxes on the land, the ranchers pay a small lease and are a minority. There are 1000:1 taxpayers to ranchers in az, where can we get our voices heard? Does anyone elce feel the same as we do, wanting the cows off our public lands?
5. Rock carins,according to local FS, "are acceptable and do don't contradict LNT ethics. They are not permanent, can be removed, help eliminate multiple use trails and limit the damage to the sensitive soil."
IF the canyon was not becoming so popular, we would have not put up any carins. > In canyons that are still not in a book, that remain "secret" and are only known by word-of-mouth, no I don't think carins are needed. In those cases, the canyon is not visited that often and if the crust gets crushed, it usually has a chance to recover and high traffic trails are not really an issue. > Just my 2 cents- > Sara >

the obvious way to remove cows from the public lands is to increase the $1.00 per head to something more reasonable. While at Bryce I had a few discussions with park workers who were also ranchers and they said that anything more than what they were currently paying and with the cost of raising the animals would be too prohibitive. Same thing for mining which is even more a cash 'cow' (sorry) for the mining industry. So, I guess than answer lies in getting the law changed. While that may not remove all animals it might help!

bruce from bryce

On 6/17/09, canyoncrazy canyoncrazy@commspeed.net> wrote:

We added to the few we saw for a number of reasons: > 1. This canyon is published and is seeing, and will see A LOT more traffic. > 2. To keep people on one trail, rather than seeing more small hiker trails > as this canyon's popularity increases. > 3. The foot paths we found are numerous and often over crypto soil. > 4. The "trail" is a well used cow path and LNT does not apply to cows. . .
. . . And now a small rant about LNT and cows: BLM, FS and the NPS all > preach LNT as well as don't crush the crust, camp 100 yards or up to 1 mile > away from water sources, burry your. . . well you know and pack out your > trash. All cows can't do. Countless times we find springs craped in, > everything trampled and crypto soil demolished. > Does anyone know how to get cows off our public lands? We all pay taxes on > the land, the ranchers pay a small lease and are a minority. There are > 1000:1 taxpayers to ranchers in az, where can we get our voices heard? Does > anyone elce feel the same as we do, wanting the cows off our public lands?
5. Rock carins,according to local FS, "are acceptable and do don't > contradict LNT ethics. They are not permanent, can be removed, help > eliminate multiple use trails and limit the damage to the sensitive soil."
IF the canyon was not becoming so popular, we would have not put up any > carins. > In canyons that are still not in a book, that remain "secret" and are only > known by word-of-mouth, no I don't think carins are needed. In those cases, > the canyon is not visited that often and if the crust gets crushed, it > usually has a chance to recover and high traffic trails are not really an > issue. > Just my 2 cents- > Sara
>