Reddit reviews Forest & Crag: A History of Hiking, Trail Blazing, and Adventure in the Northeast Mountains

I'm currying studying to get my master's degree in recreation management, with a focus on recreation ecology (the study of how outdoor recreation affects and impacts ecological processes). My master's thesis work is in monitoring of campsite impacts specifically. My BS is also in recreation management. I also have 6 seasons of experience as a backcountry ranger, and several seasons of experience both on a trail crew and as a wilderness trip leader for a youth program that strictly adhered to the Leave No Trace Principles.

It's a pretty common misconception among many in the outdoor recreation community that Leave No Trace equates simply to "carrying all of your trash out with you." In reality, proper waste disposal is only 1 of the 7 LNT Principles (and carrying your trash out is only one aspect of how to apply that principle to backcountry behavior). A lot of public land management agencies are actually even starting to distance themselves from the "Take only pictures, leave only footprints" message that /u/payasopeludo mentioned- both due to the singular nature of the message that over simplifies the complexities of impact and LNT, and the fact that even footprints alone can contribute to high levels of impact in some circumstances (such as when you have high levels of use in sensitive ecosystems with easily damaged soils). The fact is that, as hikers and campers, our relationship with the environment is much more complex, and out ability to impact it much more significant, than we usually realize.

A lot of people in the hiking and backpacking community today are pretty young, and don't know just how bad things got in a lot of backcountry areas in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, prior to the introduction not just of modern minimum impact ethics but also increased regulations governing where it was OK to camp and what behaviors were permitted while doing so. The fragile alpine summits of mountains in the Northeastern US in particular were subjected to a lot of impact (destruction, really- some mountain summits lost nearly all of their soil and vegetation) as a result of the post-war boom in outdoor recreation as a hobby. Prior to the existence of anything like LNT, far lower levels of use than we see today lead to extreme high levels of impact. It has been through hard work and stewardship of management agencies and volunteer groups that many of these areas have been restored to the condition that they are in today (in the case of alpine summits, though, full recovery is expected to take decades or even centuries). With every increasing visitation rates in most backcountry areas, adoption of minimum impact ethics becomes even more and more important if we are to continue to protect these areas.

(Side note: Anyone who is interested about the historic context of the high levels of recreation impact that occurred in the northeast that lead to more regulations as well as the development of minimum impact ethics, should read Forest and Crag, by Laura and Guy Waterman.)

These impacts can be (and often are) significant. We've all heard about contaminated water sources due to improper human waste disposal. Modification of animal behavior patterns has repeatedly been another significant issue that has lead to bear canister requirements in many areas. Harassment (even unintended) of wildlife by hikers has been known to cause animal drownings and miscarriage. High levels of impact both at campsites and on trails can lead (and has lead) to significant soil erosion. As part of my master's thesis research, I conducted surveys of illegally felled trees at campsites, and found that some campsites had as many as 100 stumps within 50 meters of the site center (one site had over 200!). In some areas, illegal tree cutting has been such a continual problem that campfires have been banned entirely.

It can be argued that construction of structures/monuments might not have much of a physical impact (although this is debatable- collection of wood at heavily used campsites in general is known to cause devegetation and soil compaction in increasingly wider patterns around campsites as campers spread out further and further to gather an ever dwindling supply of fuelwood). Nevertheless, these still constitute a social impact in that their presence not only visually detracts from the "wild" nature of an area, they also measurably lower the trip satisfaction felt by many subsequent visitors hoping to experience destinations in as natural a state possible. Obviously, there is value in artistic and creative expression, and I think that can certainly be incorporated into backpacking and hiking in some way... but LNT would call for, at the very least, a structure like that shown in the post linked to by the OP to be dismantled when a group vacates a site (and certainly only dead and downed wood should be used in its construction).

Certainly, we are all going to leave some level of impact- the only way to eliminate it entirely would be to stay out of the woods. But that doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) work to minimize them to a reasonable extent. In fact, one of the most frequently used frameworks for managing recreation resources, the [Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Framework](http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/lac_system_for_wilderness_planning_1985_GTR_INT_176.pdf0], is founded on this very idea: it sets reasonable limits of impact for an area and then facilitates management of that area so that the impacts do not exceed those limits. We minimize these impacts not only for the protection of wild areas so that future visitors can enjoy them just as much (if not more) than we do, but also because we have decided, as a society, that some ecosystems in some areas (in Wilderness Areas in particular) have an inherent right unto themselves not only to exist but to flourish without being impeded by human influence.

(As another interesting side note, there are areas in Russia, the Zapovedniks, where protection of resources is so highly prioritized that even public access is often restricted.)

There is a small but sometimes vocal "Anti-LNT" minority (as exemplified by a few comments in this thread). It's really unfortunate that attitudes like these exist, because inevitably, these attitudes risk ruining things for everyone. When educational outreach programs (like LNT) fail to prevent impacts from exceeding maximum allowable levels, management agencies often have little choice but to take a regulatory approach to meeting management objectives. And that means things like campsite and trail closures, increased regulations, increased law enforcement patrols, etc- all unpopular management techniques that lessen the quality of the experience for everyone, yet sometimes are necessary if backcountry resources are to be protected. And some of the claims made by "Anti-LNT" folks are just plain absurd. I've seen posts on reddit claiming that "LNT insulates us from our relationship with the environment and how we impact it." Nothing could be further from the truth- LNT seeks to promote education and understanding about how our behaviors impact the environment, so that we can make educated decisions for ourselves about how to go about lessening those impacts.

I think it's also important to mention that I think the vast majority of hikers and campers, even experienced ones, tend to over-estimate just how well they adhere to minimum impact ethics. Within the outdoor recreation community, there is often a disparity between being able to say "I value minimum impact ethics" and actually having the experience necessary to apply those ethics towards actual behaviors in the backcountry. Feats of physical fitness, like thru-hiking the AT or climbing an entire list of peaks if a geographic region are impressive and worthy of praise, yet they don't always inherently translate into also having an educated minimum impact ethic as many suggest. With regards to educational outreach, I see a lot of experienced hikers in particular fall into the trap of thinking "Oh, that message applies to beginner hikers, so it doesn't apply to me," when in reality, even they would be wise to consider and heed whatever message is being shared. I don't say this to be disparaging or elitist, but to suggest that everyone, regardless of experience, has a responsibility to continually seek out information about minimum impact ethics, so that they can further refine their techniques and make even better choices about how to protect backcountry resources in the future.

I think that /u/cleverbullshit really hit the nail on the head when they stated "if we all did this would we still want to go to the woods? If the answer is no then why is it ok if it's just one person?" To me, this is the core of LNT. In choosing how to behave in the backcountry, I always ask myself, "If everyone who visited here did this, what would the impacts be? And am I OK with that?" The fact is that if you aren't willing to go that extra mile to minimize your impact, then you are just as guilty as everyone else making that same choice that contributes to undue levels of impact in the backcountry, no matter how small each individual contribution to that cumulative impact may be.