[at-l] Trail Etiquette

[yumitori@montana.com (Ron Martino)]

> As to privacy:
> I don't believe it's so much a "Privacy" issue as it is a way of spreading
> the amount of "potential damage" over a wider area.  Put X amount of people
> in an area, say, 10 feet square, and you get X amount of damage.  Put X + X
> amount of people in the same area, and you're liable to get not just X+X
> amount of damage but X+X+Y -- sort of a synergestic effect.  Put X at one
> site and the 2nd X at a site farther down the trail, and you only get 2 X
> damage.  

	But then you get twice as many sites with moderate damage (or wear and
tear, if you prefer) instead of one with heavy damage. Wouldn't it be
better to limit impact to fewer sites?


> Also, spreading the people out over an section of the trail gives a
> campsite time to recover.  

> William the Turtle

	This is the other side of the debate - if a region can recover from X
amount of damage (to use your 'figures'), then spreading out makes sense
- two sites each with X amount will recover each year, where a single
site with twice the damage won't. But if a region can only handle some
amount of use less than that X level of use, then doubling the number of
sites to spread out the effect of use will only double the number of
sites becoming increasingly worn out.

	There's no simple answer. A lot of regions aren't as capable of
recovery as much of the Appalachian Trail is. Even moderate use here in
the northern Rockies takes years to repair. But the AT doesn't receive
moderate use - it's much more popular than that. One reason the area
around shelters tend to be so worn is that they naturally concentrate
use. You end up with sacrificial sites that take a lot of abuse, leaving
the rest of the trail relatively pristine.

	It's not the only way to handle use heavier than a region can recover
from annually, but it's commonly used because it's relatively easy to
implement.

	Ron
-- 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com