NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/backcoun/10588

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.5 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!rpi!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!emr1!jagrant
From: [e-mail] (John Grant)
Subject: how do you feel about large groups (was Re: Redwood National Park)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:09:48 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (timothy shimeall) writes:
>I am considering Redwood National Park (Northern coast of California)
>as a location for a backpack trip this summer.  Our group consists of
>approximately 20 youth (7th-12th grade) and adults (30s-40s).  We're

I don't want to focus on this individual or his plans, but
I'd like to bring up another subject for discussion here
if I may...

How do you feel about large groups (i.e. > 5 people) in the
backcountry?

Personally, I feel that there should be a limit in the size
of groups, perhaps no more than 5 (10 at the most).  Yes,
the group and/or the group leader may be quite skilled.
They may also be reasonably quiet.  Perhaps they possess
and use low-impact camping skills.  In short, they can do everything
'right', according to the books, but they are still very
visible as a large group.

...and it still doesn't change the fact that there is a group
of people all tramping around the same camping area and
generally injecting a high density of people per unit area
into the backcountry.  I think 3 groups of 15 people can
have a greater impact on the ecosystem than 9 groups of 5.
Perhaps those numbers aren't good examples, but you
get the general idea.

For groups like Scouts and other clubs, I think it would
be better for the ecosystem, better for the people who
encounter them along the way and better for the members of
the group itself, if they split up into several smaller
groups and went their separate ways.  Perhaps it will
require more trip leaders, but don't you think the experience
of a smaller and quieter group would be more worthwhile?

When I talk about noise and quiet, I'm not talking about
rowdy groups - it goes without saying that they have no
business in the backcountry and should stay home.  Instead
I am talking about just the general hubbub that surrounds
a large group of people, talking etc.  A smaller group
would listen and hear more things and would have more time
and fewer distractions so they could see and understand
more of their surroundings.

In the Adirondacks, the limit is now 10 per group (I think)
and a large group of 30 can't just split up into 3 groups
of 10 and walk 10 minutes apart on the trail and camp
within a few metres of each other at the campsite
    "but we are 3 *separate* groups!"
I believe they have to camp a few km apart, as well.
This is a very good system, and I know from personal
contact with the rangers there that they keep a close eye
on these groups (when they make their rounds, those 3 groups
of 10 better not be anywhere near each other).  Although
I approve of this, I still think the group size is too
large and should be limited to 5.

So, what do you think?  Should group size be limited?  What
should the limit be?  What should the limits be on a large
group that has fulfilled the technical obligations by
splitting into several smaller groups?

--
John A. Grant                        [e-mail]
Airborne Geophysics
Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa