Cairns and LNT?

[Nick Gatel]

…Trail Guides, Backpacker Magazine, detailed Trip Reports in sensitive areas, and GPS Way Point files on the Internet :(

---

These things drive people to places they would not find on their own, and it puts unneeded pressure on the wilderness.

I agree with Art, not a simple cut and dry solutions.

Generally I leave them be, but in some instances I knock them down or even do more creative things with them.

Sometimes I follow faint Indian trails that have cairns on them. I don't need the cairns to prevent getting lost — I know where I am going, but they sometimes help me walk the easiest routes. I often hike in trail-less areas, and it is not uncommon to come across many, many cairns; many which end up in places that cannot be easily navigated, or is a much more difficult route. Be skeptical of them.

An example was a trip I did last year. I wanted to hike to a summit and there were no trails on my map. I found a ridgeline that looked promising. When I got near it, there was a sign that warned, "use trail not maintained" at the mouth of a canyon. The trail went up the canyon and there were plenty of cairns. But the route looked too difficult versus climbing out of the canyon to the ridgeline. So after about a 1/2 mile of canyon and boulder work, following cairns, I climbed up to the ridge and found an easy trail with zero cairns on it and was able to get to the summit.

For the most part, I don't mind cairns marking old and rarely used trails. I object to new trails being made, and cairns creating additional foot traffic that results in a new trail.

Interestingly that Steve Roper, in "The Sierra High Route" says, "I recommend that High Route backpackers dismantle ducks wherever they are found — unless there's a very good reason for them." The point is that the areas of the route that are cross country should remain cross country routes, and no defined trail should be constructed either by plan or heavy use. This enables each hiker to hike his or her own route and overall there is less impact. And Roper's suggestion will hopefully minimize any impact due to his publication of the book. I guess that is LNT or walking softly.

Earlier, someone mentioned Carey's Castle in the vein of should we destroy this man made rock house? The answer is no, it is 80 years old. But here is the rest of that story… little is known about Carey. He dug a mine in that area of Joshua Tree National Park and it is now part of a designated wilderness. Not easy to find. About 30 years ago I was doing a lot of hiking in the area, learning and seeing as much of this small mountain range as I could. I stumbled across Carey's Castle by accident; it was not a publicly known place at the time. Occasionally in the JTNP backcountry I would run into a ranger who pretty much had the same ideas as to what wilderness should be, as I have. I asked him about the rock house. He said it was called Carey's Castle and was only known to a few park employees. A few years later a picture of it was included in a trail guide, but no directions or even the area of its location was revealed. It became sort of a needle in the haystack search for some people… they didn't even know where to start if they wanted to find it. Then came Trail Guides and Internet postings with fairly explicit instructions on how to get there. What has happened in the 30 years since I ran across it? Many of the artifacts inside the house are gone – stolen. Many Indian artifacts, including arrowheads, that could be found near the house are gone – stolen. So when I am in this area, I either relocate the ducks or disassemble them into arrows pointing the wrong way. If you want to visit Carey's Castle, then get a friggn' topo map and figure it out. If you can't navigate there by yourself, you shouldn't be hiking there.

Last month I led a group of BPLers on a hike in Anza Borrego. A small section of this route is across a faintly marked Indian trail, hard to follow and the cairns help — but you do not need them. I would not knock these down. The trail is almost impossible to find. Now if someone built cairns in the area at the beginning of the trail to tell people there is a trail up there, I would knock them down in a heartbeat. If you want to hike the area, get a friggn' topo map like I did. If you can't navigate without the cairns, you shouldn't be hiking there.

In other areas I am familiar with, I do not knock down new cairns the first time I see them. Someone may be relying on them to get back. However on subsequent trips I might take them down, and if I see a trail is developing along the new cairns, I will definitely take them down.

Is this right or wrong? Each person must decide for themselves.

[Martin Rye]

Chris Townsend is entitled to his views. His old TGO Editor use to write about this subject. McNiesh linked destroying cairns as if expelling demons in his writings.

In places they seem wrong. But many in the UK are historical now and have been there way before McNiesh preached his gospel. The one Roger shows in his photo is one of many on Cross Fell. There are some summits in the Dales, and north Pennines with rows of them.

But to say they detract and are wrong makes little sense when you see a foot deep, and four foot wide path blazing across the hills. Maybe people would like to kick all the paths in that cross wilderness as they are man made?.

In the Lake District some paths are now raised up cycle tracks with switchbacks. A blot on the landscape far worse than any cairn. Mike mentions Ben Nevis. It sadly is a mountain with a high death rate. Years back the Local Mountain Rescue Team fixed two posts are set points to mark the distance between bearings to help people know when to change bearings, and miss a gully that has seen too many come to a terrible end.

Yet some decided this was wrong to do and ruined the landscape. Regardless that it could help others, and save the MRT team being called out to recover bodies. Yet on the summit there are large ruins, old shelters and the like all erected by someone. Cairns in many places are fine with me these days. The argument they detract when so many other things like building, old tracks remain in Scotland is so flawed. I don't see no one demolishing them.

I have attached a Ben Nevis summit scene.

How can large walls be any worse than cairns. Yet I don't see them being knocked down.

[Dave T]

"Interestingly that Steve Roper, in "The Sierra High Route" says, "I recommend that High Route backpackers dismantle ducks wherever they are found — unless there's a very good reason for them." The point is that the areas of the route that are cross country should remain cross country routes, and no defined trail should be constructed either by plan or heavy use. This enables each hiker to hike his or her own route and overall there is less impact. And Roper's suggestion will hopefully minimize any impact due to his publication of the book. I guess that is LNT or walking softly."

Since I do most of my hiking above timberline in the High Sierra, I take the Roper approach and dismantle them almost always, unless they are at the beginning of an entrance to a complicated cliff/ledge ascent/descent or similar ACTUAL navigational aid. Typically they are like what is encounted on the way to the top of Mt. Langley: an endless series of cairns scattered all over the broad, sandy ascent to the summit (as if there is any possible way to get lost on the way up or down!). So they get the boot and get scattered.

[EndoftheTrail]

"The point is that the areas of the route that are cross country should remain cross country routes, and no defined trail should be constructed either by plan or heavy use."

But if there exists 'heavy use' — as in the quote above — can one argue that a trail in this case could at least save a wide stretch from regular trampling? Or is it better to have "even wear" so certain hikers can still pretend they are walking across wilderness country?

For me, I am less concerned with cairns built along regularly used trails and routes. If you want the feel of 100% unspoiled wilderness, then hike off trail. Cairns should not be built outside of trails/routes. Those who don't feel comfortable should just stick to trails and not build cairns. I think this is a viable middle ground.

[Brian UL]

I leave stuff like that for the park/forest service. Only they could really know if something was out of place or was put there for a reason.

[EndoftheTrail]

Brian:

I thought about that too. A cairn at a particular trail might make perfect sense to me but a totally unnecessary eye sore for you. So why not just have official cairns and markers? No hiker should tear them down and no hiker should add new ones.

But then, given years of budget cuts and all, there really are places where a new cairn or marker can be helpful! Yes, it takes judgment and we can never have full agreement. But I do have trouble with some hikers who take the extreme of dismantling every cairn he sees because they detract from his 'wilderness' experience. But on a trail? An eye sore is bad. But dismantling and potentially causing less experienced hikers to get lost is a lot worse. Something about the "me" attitude that makes it hard to cultivate an overall "live and let live" attitude. Obviously, not referring to anyone specifically, but making a general statement.

[Nick Gatel]

Ben,

Most of the High Sierra Route, or the places I often hike do not see heavy use… unless all the hikers travel the same exact track… which cairns might encourage.

[Nick Gatel]

"But dismantling and potentially causing less experienced hikers to get lost is a lot worse."

Maybe they should improve their navigation skills before attempting those places?

[EndoftheTrail]

Nick:

Per the quote used, I was talking about 'heavy use'.

As for experience, again as written above, I would expect off trail hikers to have more experience. Experience levels of trail hikers tend to be much more varied.

To me, the entire trail is one big marker already — although folks can still get lost, what with poorly marked or wash-out sections and all. For a trail hiker to kick away any and all cairns that he sees — so he can feel the wilderness better — can be pretentious. It's not the worst sin, but causing dangers to others can be.

[David Ure]

Without cairns in use in many backcountry areas in Banff and Jasper you could get lost within minutes because of the heavy tree cover at lower elevations.

[Dave T]

"Maybe they should improve their navigation skills before attempting those places?"

How exclusionary. :)

If someone makes an endless string of cairns leading across an open granite bowl above timberline in the High Sierra, I will reserve the right to disperse them wherever I find them. If someone else wants to leave them up, that's up to them.

[EndoftheTrail]

"If someone makes an endless string of cairns…".

Yep, THAT would be pretty unreasonable — almost like littering.

[David Thomas]

During full-on winter travel, cairns don't help anyone, but it can be impressive how 2 inches of late Spring or early Fall snow can obscure a trail. A trail that was so very clear when someone came through in summer removing cairns because only an idiot would seem to need them.

I've been on non-maintained trails and gotten a little downslope or upslope of the optimal and struggled on a scree or over-steep slope. It is perhaps in that middle ground – hardly seldom traveled wilderness but not a maintained trail either, where cairns add the most value, at least to me. The're a long, tough traverse I love to do except everyone takes a different route down from the last peak. There are a multitude of options to endlessly thrash through the alders instead of a single route which would be improved by each person's passage. I'd like to see a few cairns along that tricky route.

Sometimes I'll set up a few rocks to temporarily mark a food or water cache, but it is subtle, just for my use, and I scatter them later.

[Inaki Diaz de Etura]

Climate, topography and others, cairn utility depends on several factors and it may be difficult to assess correctly. Some locales may benefit from cairns more than others. It's common that a passage through rocks is very difficult to identify even if you know there is one and a cairn makes a difference. In some places, getting disoriented is more potentially dangerous than in others: cliffs, thick bush where progression may be difficult, rocky terrain where one can get stranded…

Sometimes a route may be obvious one way but not so much the other way. Conditions will vary and an apparently useless cairn may mean a lot in fog or snow covered ground, as already commented.

The moral issue, I understand both sides. Sometimes, it comes down to expectations: if you expect a marked route, you'll be deceived to not find so and it may compromise your plan. If you expect the navigation to be part of the trip, you'll be deceived to have that part stolen. In some regions, marking-free ground may get uncomfortably scarce.

About the issue with bringing more people in, I think publishing a route in a map and/or guidebook makes a lot more to attract people than setting up cairns. People plan routes from home and you can't see the cairns from home. What I mean is a route that's marked just on the ground and not anywhere else won't usually see much use.

[Travis Leanna]

I did a section of the Grand Enchantment Trail through the Superstition Mountain area. Many of the trails are not maintained and often there are long stretches where there is no "trail," just rocky ground. The terrain obscures routes very easily, and finding the trail across a dry wash can be difficult.

Cairns saved my a$$ on several occasions.

[Christopher Heine]

They are also beneficial for keeping people on the trail and not tromping all over fragile vegetation. Especially in a place like the southwest where even the soil is 'alive' with cyanobacteria and the extra footprints will destroy it. I also wouldn't wish for someone to get lost in an area with no available water so just leave the cairns alone unless there is a really good reason to get rid of it.

[Tim Zen]

Excessive.

[EndoftheTrail]

Somewhere between people piling up a small mountain — versus people who will kick away even two small rocks one on top of the other alongside a trail… lies common sense and tolerance!

[Travis Leanna]

Boulder Peak, GNP

[EndoftheTrail]

"Just Say No"

— Nancy Reagan —

[Travis Leanna]

Its a good thing I didn't propose to Nancy.

[EndoftheTrail]

Good come back. :)

[James holden]

i will repeat it … if you decide to do whatever with cairns in yr own area, go right ahead .. but do not come here and destroy them … as david said, in the canadian rockies and bc they can mark the start and descents of climbs or branch trails for climbing approaches … destroying them puts other parties in danger IMO

and please dont think you can judge quickly what a cairn marks if you dont know, and thus destroy it because you dont feel it has any relevance … if you arent local, how are you going to know …. leave the cairns or their destruction for the locals here

[Travis Leanna]

I'm with eric. Leave 'em be. I could see if people were stacking pizza boxes, but they're often just a few rocks.

How bad would you feel if you discarded some cairns that Roger C temporarily put up to mark his return home?

[Dean F.]

I think that clearly some judgment is needed. Yes, it may be arrogant to go about scattering cairns. But it is also arrogant to fill an entire bowl with them because everyone has their favorite route, or just thought they knew best, or in fact were idiots, or whatever. When I find several cairned routes all leading to the same place, yes, I'll start knocking over the more asinine ones. There are areas crisscrossed with social trails because some idiot cairned them, when everyone should have just stuck to the main trail. And stacks of rocks every 10 feet is simply another manifestation of the preponderance of morons in our society. If you really think that knocking over such excessive cairns is wrong then, heck, let's just pave the damned trails.

I'm not going to go about knocking over obviously important cairns. In particular, if someone built a 6-foor cairn I'd be likely to assume that there was a good reason the spot needed marked. Or at a junction, or trailhead, or climb start. But I'll also fight idiocy by destroying the work of idiots, picking up their garbage, etc. Because excessive cairns are just another form of littering, really- almost the equivalent of scratching messages into trees or rock faces. A lot of people don't do them to mark a route- they do them to leave a mark. And I'm smart enough to take seasonal trail conditions into account.

So, both extreme positions are asinine. Unfortunately, most other people lack judgment as good as mine. ;)

[Author]

Posts