[at-l] hiking poles' efficiency...

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 12:29 PM 11/15/2003 -0500, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
clip...
>        It is simple scientific fact that a solid mass, like a layer of
>undisturbed soil, will be more likely to erode if it is broken up or 
>poked. The
>simple equation is: without Leki tip disturbance the soil base in and 
>around the
>trailbed will remain in its current state. ...clip...

Not true. Erosion occurs even where hikers never set foot. I have photos of 
Mt. Colden taken from Marcy Dam over the years and the increase in bare 
rock faces is plainly evident. These slides are not the result of hiker 
activity as they are no where near any trail and in places where only the 
most masochistic bushwhacker would ever go. Soil simply does not remain 
unchanged over time when no one passes of it with hiking poles. In 40+ 
years of tramping I cannot think of a single place I've been that hasn't 
changed. Whether for better or worse depends on your point of view.

>         As an AT trail maintainer I can attest that Lekis are a slow and
>silent contributor to trail erosion. Anywhere you can see a Leki poke, you 
>are
>seeing slow trail damage. How much of a percentage of total trail damage 
>this is,
>I'm not sure, but, if you can see it, it is doing damage.
>
>        All you have to think of to understand this is lugged sole damage. 
> Try
>to think of where you saw serious immediate damage caused by lugged soles.
>The most you will see is a deep footprint or kick-up of dirt. Those 
>footprints
>also fill-in eventually as well. However, an honest observer would admit that
>those same treadways where they were observing the lugged sole damage were
>virgin tracks not that long ago. Tracks that were barely a nice rut in the 
>grass
>or mountainside duff. Some of them are nearly 6 feet deep now. The standard
>holds.

6 feet? I've seen trails eroded to 2?/3 feet but 6? Where is this section 
of trail? Why was it neglected by maintainers so long?

>...clip...
>
>          For example, when I visited Mt Rogers Highlands in 2000 I was
>shocked by the white scratches all over the rocks in the trailbed. I 
>attributed it
>to winter hiking and its crampons. I knew those scratches were not there in
>1986 on my through-hike. It took a while to settle in on me that the 
>scratches
>were Leki marks.

Did you take a Leki and try making one of those marks or simply decide to 
blame Leki's? I have a Komperdel pole with a carbide tip. FWIW I keep a 
rubber tip on it most of the time because I like that better but I tried 
several years ago, when one of these debates was going on, to see if I 
could duplicate those scratches. I found that the tip did not slip on the 
rock and if it did it din't duplicate the scratches because my whole body 
weight was not on the pole. In fact as soon as it began to slip I would 
take my weight off the pole. Therefore I concluded that the marks I saw on 
rocks (the vast majority at least) were from crampons where the whole weigh 
of the hiker is on the crampon every time a foot is planted.


>       The argument that the majority of Leki hits are outside the 
> trailbed is
>wrong. Go to Mt Rogers and see in stone where those hits occur. This premise
>comes mostly from the environmental excuse making reflex I noted and nothing
>else. The way the trailbed works is that it will erode from inside out. If
>increased soil poking occurs on its fringes, the trail will only widen 
>with time.
>On the same scale as the lugged soles -only in Leki terms. Certainly, it is
>impossible to argue that *no* difference occurs with so much visible evidence
>available -let alone scientific...

My somewhat scientific conclusions are based on personal observations of my 
own use of my one pole and observations of others use of poles. I tend to 
plant my pole deliberately on firm spots, i.e. rocks, fallen tree trunks, 
etc. I try to avoid planting it on soft soil for the same reason I choose 
packed trail over mud holes of unknown depth to place my feet. I have 
observed that others hiking in my vicinity, passing me or being passed by 
me seem to do the same. Trail widening has occurred for decades, long 
before Lekis came into use. Do they contribute to trail erosion? Logically 
I have to agree that they do contribute but also logically, I believe that 
the anti-Leki side is overstating the case by several orders of magnitude.

>      As with lugged sole damage, level, hardened spots will tend to resist
>this type of erosion. You will always be able to find nearly-uneroded 
>sections
>of AT in the right places.
>
>        The long term answer to this is that the AT will probably have to be
>rebuilt, graded, and hardened in erosion-vulnerable places. This will have to
>happen over the long-life of the Trail...

So you are you saying that if everyone simply stopped using Lekis the AT 
would never require rebuilding, grading and hardening in erosion vulnerable 
places? Trail rebuilding, etc. will *undoubtedly* have to be done in the 
future, Lekis or no Lekis. Any trail that gets used requires maintenance. 
Lekis haven't changed that. Granted that lug soles and Lekis may increase 
the need somewhat over smooth leather sole and no poles but they are 
valuable tools for hikers who wish to minimize falls and damage to their 
bodies from those falls. I think this whole Leki damage argument has taken 
a "Chicken Little" quality.