Leave No Trace and Drawing the Line

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Spun over from the PETA thread the question of whether or not a buffet approach to LNT was scout like and I answer yes, it is.

 

The way I understand it, LNT mean many things to many people. I beleive we should all adhere to the LNT principles whenever possible but there are some LNT concepts that I don't follow. I will hike down the center of the trail when its raining and muddy so as not to widen a trail by stepping in the "clean grass border" but I will wear fluorescent orange clothing so the youth can spot me if they are lost, or so I can be spotted if I am lost (it could happen. Judy Tenuta). The tents I use are bought based on qulity, use and price: color is secondary although I know darker green would be preferred.

 

I am not necessarily concerned if the youth make a lot of noise during daylight hours holding dark for quiet, I know some would say to avoid loud noises at all times. We were talking about cat holes and tent depressions, in the true spirit of leave no trace we should be packing out fecal material and the subsequently used paper as is required in Denali.

 

To me the absolutes are take nothing but pictures, do not molest, hinder, annoy pester or otherwise harm wildlife, when leaving a campsite be sure all trach is with you or disposed properly

 

What are your LNT absolutes and where do you "Cheat" and why?

[Fishsqueezer 10]

To me leave no trace is leaving no obvious physical evidence that I was in the area (past tense). Just the fact that you are in an area is a trace. People can see or hear you and your camp. Once you leave, it should be very difficult for someone to detect that you were ever there. If you were to talk to the famous tracker Tom Brown I suspect he would tell you that it is impossible to really leave no trace.

 

As for your absolutes of not molesting, hindering or annoying wildlife, I guess you do no outdoor activities with your troop or on your own. The mere presence of a human will alter or hinder an animals behavior. They will know you are there and alter their behavior whether you know they are there or not - that is hindering and annoying. Just leaving a scent trail will alter behavior. Preventing a squirrel from foraging can be considered molesting. You have an impact.

 

LNT is the attempt to minimize the impact of people on other users of the resource. The basis is to make it so another human will not be able to tell you were there. This is a human standard designed to increase human enjoyment of the resource.

 

[cajuncody 10]

"Take only Photos, Leave only Footprints" (really tiny, faint, barely there footprints)

Kristi

[GernBlansten 10]

To me LNT tells us to make no intentional impact on the environment. Be aware of the consiquences of our activities and minimize or eliminate the ones we can. Of course unintentional and accidental incidents will happen, but if we all make an effort to change our behavior to minimize the intentional ones, we are following the spirit of LNT.

[Beavah 205]

Nah, LNT is a private and federal education progam. While it does promote a general ethic, there are clearly some "wrong" ways to do things, and some "better" ways to do things in different areas, based on sound environmental science among other things.

 

It's like da BSA guidelines booklets, eh? Not absolute, but a good scout or scouter should have a sound basis before choosing not to be loyal or obedient.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Following up on Beavah's post, all of us who care about LNT can probably create a prioritized list of behaviors based on our memories of past 'traces' we've seen left by others. My list would start, for example, with:

Don't cut down trees or kill wildlife.

And somewhere way down the list:

Be absolutely quiet.

 

For me, in addition to OGE's thoughts, if I know a particular trail has received excessive wear, I plan a different route so that my impact, at least, can be spread out and perhaps in that manner, lessened.

[Fishsqueezer 10]

I'm not sure spreading it out is the best thing. As an extreme example - one major paved road through the mountains has much less impact than 100 4-wheeler trails. Logically, if you move your impact to a new or recovering trail you are leaving more trace than if you had kept to the well worn trail. The well worn trail is already there and likely will be for decades. By moving you are adding another well worn trail.

 

I'll assume your kill wildlife comment is meant as out of season, without a license, and as wasting game where you would be absolutely correct. I would hope you haven't run across a lot of killed wildlife in your travels. In all my years in the field it has been an extremely rare occurrence.

[GernBlansten 10]

You are spot on Fishsqueezer. We need to minimize the number of trails, not the overuse of the existing ones. In the case of an overused trail, the best thing is to mitigate the issues, not use an alternate route. In Colorado, we have clubs that dedicate their time to build catwalks over wetlands, retaining walls for wash outs and drainage systems to help with erosion. Our OA chapter also helps out.

[packsaddle 753]

If an existing trail is not worn to the point that the cover has been killed, sometimes the case in these parts, then additional sublethal wear can still allow it to recover quickly. As you say, a heavily worn trail will take years to recover once traffic is rerouted. However, if I take a group over a rutted, muddy trail with grassy banks, even if I doggedly slog through the muck, I expect others in the party will opt for the more pleasant option. Result: greater damage.

To make an analogy to access roads, vehicle traffic may have small impact on grass-covered lanes up to some threshold of wear. Beyond that threshold, the resulting erosion of the soil is intensified considerably by continued use. Much worse than spreading it out either in space or time.

The simple answer to trail conditions is to limit numbers of feet and keep their impact to a level that allows quick recovery.

 

When I speak of wildlife, I speak of everything including non-game species such as salamanders, snails, crayfish, etc. The chance that one of the boys is going to stab a deer or turkey with his pocketknife is slim. I also like to see the mosses, lichens, mushrooms, and understory plant species left intact. LNT

[le Voyageur 72]

There are so few places left that have not been impacted by humans. LNT today, suburban sprawl tomorrow. My absoultes to travel the common places with groups. And keep the secret places that I enjoy secret.

 

 

[dan 10]

I cheat on the fluffing up the grass where your tent was pitched. I have tried to do this and watched others do this. After doing this I see the grass ripped out of the ground or broken off. It seems to me that it is better to let the grass come back on its own, rather than trying to fluff it up, so that the next hikers cannot see where you tent was pitched.

 

This topic seems a little mild for this forum.

[Rooster7 11]

If you ask me, LNT is a crock. The lengths to which folks will go to prove how much more "they care about nature and the environment" verses the next guy is ridiculous. Im waiting for someone on this forum to declare that they refuse to fart in the woods. A path through the words is just that, its not a scar. Get a life.

 

Sorry - but really, you guys go much too far.

[BrentAllen 10]

Rooster,

Come on, now. We all know the correct time to fart - as soon as you get some newbie to pull your finger...

 

LNT is definitely not a crock. (I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist, BTW)

LNT simply says you are trying to leave an area as if you had not been there. Do some take it to extremes? Yes, but when has that surprised anyone?

Do you like visiting campgrounds where there is nothing but bare dirt ground and erosion everywhere? Trails that are eroded, and big enough to drive a semi through? Camping in areas that are devoid of all wild life because it has been chased away by previous campers? I certainly don't. I think the BSA did the right thing by adopting a scaled down set of guidelines that match our program. Don't pooh-pooh it just because some environmentalists take it to be their bible.

[GernBlansten 10]

Rooster's comments reminds of a campout last year where we took our first year scouts on a patrol campout. Surely there are a lot of people who think LNT is a crock and this campout was evidence of it. We went into the Colorado Pike National Forest and took a small 4WD trail off the main forest road. Drove about one mile in and found a nice flat spot to setup camp. There was a fire ring, overflowing with burnt beer cans and half burned ashes. Around the site where cut down trees and make shift benches out of the chopped trees. There was an old microwave oven that someone had used for target practice. Broken glass was everywhere. Just outside the parimeter of the campsite where thousands (literally) of beer cans, cigarette butts and trash from previous visitors. Hacked trees and bullet ridden stumps. Even found a couple of condoms (used of course). This is what people who think LNT is a crock do to a forest. It was late and the sun was setting so we decided to camp there. That evening, we had our LNT training. It was the best LNT training I had ever attended. I think it left an impression on the young scouts.

[Rooster7 11]

GB,

 

Your straw man argument is also ridiculous. There's a huge gap between treating national parks and forests like a junk yard, and trying to remove all trace of a human presence like combing the grass and treating it like a hair restoration project. That is what I clearly meant, but I know how some folks like to create their own reality. So if you think the opposite of LNT is to scatter condoms all over the place, I guess there's no changing your mind.

 

Brent

 

I understand your point. But I hope you see a little of what I'm referring to. For some folks, scouting is a religion and LNT is its cultic equivalent (i.e. those who dont believe in LNT condone dumping trash everywhere).

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)