View Full Version : Trekking poles vs the Trail
hammock engineer
02-03-2006, 10:56
I recently got my Leki's that I plan to use this summer. After a couple of day hikes I am noticing all the small holes that are left in their wake.
I know that these are probibly on par with footprints made on a muddy day. But I would rather not dug up the trail if I do not have to. I have seen the rubber ends that can be put onto the bottoms. Are these practical for trail hiking, or only paved roads?
Any suggestions? I really like using them, so I would rather not start an argument of trekking poles vs walking sticks or nothing.
dje97001
02-03-2006, 11:10
The fairly standard rubber tips (round) work pretty well except on snow/ice. We've had no problems with them on the trail... even on rocks they grip pretty well (and leave no scratches behind). I've also seen those "running-shoe-like" rubber tips... very odd. I thnk they are made for speed walking on pavement.. but I could be wrong--never tried those.
I saw several people using rubber tips on their trekking poles. The only complaint I heard was that sometimes they they would stick in between rocks consequently getting pulled off the pole. Might want to put an extra set in your bounce box...Good luck!
But in soft ground wouldn't the rubber tips just make even wider holes? Aside from not scratching rocks, how well have those who used them found the rubber tips at reducing those tip prints along the trail?
When trecking poles first became popular 6 or 8 years ago. A lot of negitive posts were made. A lot of folks felt that they were doing excessive dammage to the trail. This was also true when hikeing boots with heavy lugges soals started to be used.
In my estimation neither of these items had done any lasting damage to the trail way. I now observe that the small holes, along the side of the trail, left by trecking poles now support new grouth of grass like plants. These plants take root in the ground and further keep the trail from erodeing.:)
dje97001
02-03-2006, 11:40
I'm sure you could argue that rubber tips will still make impressions in soft soil, but it the soil is that soft then chances are your boots will make a far more pronounced impact. People on this site have already argued extensively (both ways) about the potential for trail erosion etc. and I don't know anything about that. I do know that rubber tips prevent scratch marks on the rocks. Personally, that makes it valuable enough for me to use them.
QHShowoman
02-03-2006, 12:15
I am no botany expert, but I would think that the trekking pole tips might actually help increase soil aeration and therefore, new growth.
I recently got my Leki's that I plan to use this summer. After a couple of day hikes I am noticing all the small holes that are left in their wake.
I know that these are probibly on par with footprints made on a muddy day. But I would rather not dug up the trail if I do not have to. I have seen the rubber ends that can be put onto the bottoms. Are these practical for trail hiking, or only paved roads?
Any suggestions? I really like using them, so I would rather not start an argument of trekking poles vs walking sticks or nothing.
I don't use commercial poles, but I've experimented with them. I find that a rubber crutch tip on my wooden hiking staff grips better on rocks than the sharp pointed tips of Lekis.
Weary
MacGyver2005
02-03-2006, 13:03
...In my estimation neither of these items had done any lasting damage to the trail way...
The carbide tips scar rocks, which is a lasting impression, and very ugly in my opinion. I don't so much have an issue with the tips putting holes in the dirt, but the (relatively) permanent damage of the carbide tips on hard surfaces (rock) is an issue to me. I used rubber tips on my Leki's for my entire thru-hike last year. I actually do not recommend the Leki brand, as I lost many more of those than I did the Comperdell (sp?) tips; they fit much better and help much tighter.
Regards,
-MacGyver
GA-->ME
Doppleganger
02-03-2006, 13:13
Hammock, the trail is really just a huge scar across the landscape , anyway. When people talk about preserving the trail, they mean the land around it. If anything, the poles with help keep the trail perminent
If you check with Leiki the rubber tips are for use in an indoor envirroment only and not designed for the trail. Not knowing any better I tried to use them on my thru hike and slipped and took three falls when the rubber "skidded" on mud near the Nantahala Outdoor Center. I also hike and snowshoe alot in Maine and rubber tips are useless on ice. Use them if you want to hike or exercise in a gym or shopping center but when you hit the trail use the carbide tips intended for hiking. I agree with Weary that a rubber tip on a hiking stick is helpful but a hiking stick and tracking poles are used differently. When decending a steep trail you should set your trecking pole before each step and sooner or later the rubber tip will let you down, perhaps with a muddy crash.
[giggle] Even the metal ones do that from time to time. I bent three pole sections and gathered my share of mud from falls.
:banana
[giggle] Even the metal ones do that from time to time. I bent three pole sections and gathered my share of mud from falls.
:banana
I have very rarely fallen while walking since about the age of two, nearly three-quarters of a century ago, with or without treking poles or hiking staffs. .
I can only remember two falls on the AT, one just after buying new boots that had unexpectedly slippery soles, the second after tripping on a root.
I suspect the falls, protection from falls and near falls that I read about from treking pole users on this and other sites stems from reliance on poles as a way of hiking faster.
Place your Lekis or wooden staffs carefully or choose your footing carefully and you will rarely if ever fall. Using the sharp tips of Lekis as an easy way of avoiding such care is bound to produce falls and near falls, since using mechanical things to grab rocks and mud can never be a sure substitute for being aware of your path and the hazards it contains.
AS a result of my practices I always seemed to arrive in towns later than others. And only rarely had stories to tell of my exciting falls or near falls while chatting over beers or in shelters and at campsites.
Weary
The Solemates
02-03-2006, 16:28
leki's do tear up the soil and scar rocks bigtime on the trail. if youve ever been to GA in the late spring after the crowd has been through, you would be amazed.
if you are a leki user, please be responsible and put the rubber tips on your poles.
trippclark
02-03-2006, 16:37
I have used the Leki rubber tips (Leki Item # 8-815-003) on my poles for the past three years, probably putting about 400 miles or so on them. I have had one tip come off one time in mud. I noticed it within a few steps and amazingly found the tip and put it back on. I have not experienced any slipping, but when on ice I use the carbide tips and take the rubber tips off. On the contrary, I find that it seems that on rocky surfaces the rubber tips slip less than the carbide tips. On other surfaces this may be different.
i dont believe trekking poles are a problem,i never hike without them:cool: neo
hammock engineer
02-03-2006, 16:47
Thanks for all the input. It sounds like I need to get some rubber tips and do some testing (what I like to refer to my hikes as).
I am not the most graceful person out there, so falls are something to consider. I also like the fact that they lessen the strain on your body. There are also not a lot of hikers in my area. The holes my poles made were the first time I saw any. So I would rather not be the one to start a trend.
longshank
02-03-2006, 16:48
I find that the rubber tips work well on the rocks, especially when it's wet out. As for damage to trail from carbide tips, I don't see that as being any big deal.
RedneckRye
02-03-2006, 16:57
leki's do tear up the soil and scar rocks bigtime on the trail. if youve ever been to GA in the late spring after the crowd has been through, you would be amazed.
if you are a leki user, please be responsible and put the rubber tips on your poles.
Any evidence of pole damage in GA in mid-summer? Perhaps the damage is more a "scab" than a "scar".
I suspect the falls, protection from falls and near falls that I read about from treking pole users on this and other sites stems from reliance on poles as a way of hiking faster.
Actually no, most of my falls had to do more with steep frosty or water-covered slopes. Hiking faster, with or without ploes, was never something I excelled in. Going downhill is particularly treacherous, particularly with bad knees. Speed has nothing to do with it.
Almost There
02-03-2006, 17:22
Seeing as I am here in Georgia the trail looks pretty beat up by the end of March, but by July it doesn't even look like the same trail with all of the over growth...and ta da, no noticeable marks on the rocks. Besides a rocks purpose is to break down eventually...and the carbide tips scratch briefly...and after the initial walk through of hikers there are very few people walking the trail with poles. What's next? First "Save the Whales", next, "Save the Rocks". The other thing is no two people walk over large rocks the same way.
Rubber tips were invented by The American Medical Association so the young interns that work in emergency rooms could get more practice setting broken bones.
gargamel
02-03-2006, 17:38
What's next? First "Save the Whales", next, "Save the Rocks".
The only way to exercise 100% LNT is to stay at home. At the end they want to regulate deep breathing on the trail as it damages natural oxygen ressources.
I use rubber tips because they are quieter. Best way to keep them on - superglue them on (I have Leki brand poles). For winter have a separate set of carbide tips and whack off the ones with the glued-on rubber tips and put on the carbide tips without the rubber tips - this is easy using a smooth jawed adjustable wrench to slide down the pole and impact the tip while the pole is held in a vice - to put the replacement tip back on just push it on and then jam the pole tip first into a block of wood a few times.
Kerosene
02-03-2006, 18:46
I jettisoned the rubber tips after a shakedown hike -- the only place they "work" is on level ground, and I don't need the poles there.
However, I never use my poles when I'm walking on rock slabs. The carbide tips are worthless on that surface, so I just hold them up as I pass over, or make sure that I'm "poling" into dirt.
Worrying about what hiking poles do to the trail is like telling everyone to stop wearing lugged soles.
Worrying about what hiking poles do to the trail is like telling everyone to stop wearing lugged soles.
We tried to do that decades ago when the damage from lug soles became obvious, but only a few of us listened. The result has been severely eroded trails. Sharp-pointed treking poles are now adding to the erosion problem and again only a few of us are listening.
We all profess to love the trail, but anything that costs us or inconveniences us for the most part is either ignored or denied, regardless of the damage or regardless of the illogic of the denial of damage.
Weary
Normal errosion will smooth out and eventually erase scarring on rocks made by trekking poles. Unless you're using your pole tips to carve "Billy Bob wuz here" on a rock face, I think the scarring is being blown way out of proportion.
The fatality rate for people who use rubber tips is 100%. Every one of them will eventually die.
Alligator
02-03-2006, 21:39
...
Sharp-pointed treking poles are now adding to the erosion problem and again only a few of us are listening.
...Weary
Have you gotten any solid evidence on this yet Weary? A real study, you know what I'm talking about. You are back to making the same claim without any proof.
Normal errosion will smooth out and eventually erase scarring on rocks made by trekking poles. Unless you're using your pole tips to carve "Billy Bob wuz here" on a rock face, I think the scarring is being blown way out of proportion.
The scarring of rocks is certainly the least important, though most visible, damage caused by the mass movement of hikers to lekis and Leki competitors.
Lump76 is certainly accurate. Over an millenium or two, normal erosion will certainly eliminate the scars. Rocks are hard. Rocks erode only slowly, even under the best of assaults. In the meantime the damage is only aesthetic, and after a generation or so, most hikers will think those strange markings on rocks are the result of some strange and ancient force of no particular concern to them. The important damage, if course is not readily visible, and therefore totally ignored.
It is seen only by those particularly observant hikers, who frequent a trail, month after month, year after year. -- and by the trail maintainers who will see a gradual deepening of the ruts that lug soles have produced; the increasing need for the construction of bog bridges, and the growing siltation of water sources.
Casual hikers with no knowledge of the science of soil erosion will rarely observe anything, other than the holes poles make in the soil of trails and the disappearance of those holes s few weeks later. From this they conclude that the problem is transient and therefore unimportant.
If they knew how erosion works they would recognize that this pattern is not evidence of no damage, but evidence of immense damage.
Weary
Rocks defaced to a point of nonrecognition, step threads torn apart, and the trail turned to mush by the carbide tips on the high dollar poles. Those with the steel tips consider the noise from the scratching of rocks as music to hike by. They will no more be convinced to change than those who carry their dogs on the trail, for which a lot of hikers see as a trail nuisance.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:QHtQ9OOKEfsJ:www.appalachiantrail.o rg/atf/cf/%257BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%257D/RGsprg01.pdf+hiking+carbide+tips+soil+erosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
Alligator
02-03-2006, 22:40
Rocks defaced to a point of nonrecognition, step threads torn apart, and the trail turned to mush by the carbide tips on the high dollar poles. Those with the steel tips consider the noise from the scratching of rocks as music to hike by. They will no more be convinced to change than those who carry their dogs on the trail, for which a lot of hikers see as a trail nuisance.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:QHtQ9OOKEfsJ:www.appalachiantrail.o rg/atf/cf/%257BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%257D/RGsprg01.pdf+hiking+carbide+tips+soil+erosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
The only dude I ever saw carry his dog was Bramble. Otherwise, spare us your incessant dog rant, you really need a biscuit.
That is not a scientific study. Anecdotes, extrapolations, and speculation. Try again.
p1 c2 p4
Should they worry? So far, those impact have not been documented or described in the scientific literature.
p10. c1 p3
Despite thorough searches of the scientfic literature and internet web sites, we were unable to locate any research that has investigated the environmental and social impacts of trekking poles. What follows then, are based on personal observations, extrapolations from other visitor impact studies, and speculation regarding the potential impacts of trekking pole use.
mweinstone
02-03-2006, 22:43
ive been holding my toung . dont people walk normal any more? dont you know what using poles does? it lessens your hands abillity to move quick to adjust balance and takes part of the workload off the arms upper larger muscles and transfers that work to the smaller muscles in the hands.and they create a tripping hazard. as for harming the trail , this is tru on any trail but dead packed ,trampled earth witch is airated and helped by the tip holes. and if the major majority of the trail needs airation, then they actually are great for the trail. but just plain wrong as far as a walking aid.and they make you look handicapped.sorry.just my dumb oppinion. definatly not based on any real info.more old outdated matlogic im sure.matthewski out.
You hikers don't need to try and defend using steel tips, we know you're not going to stop using them. I've seen what they have done to the trails. Ask a trail maintenance person, other than myself. You can claim they do the trail good, meanwhile, maintenance crews are replacing stair threads, repairing holes created by hundreds of these holes thats turned the soil to mush. Nothing we can do about all the rocks scratched and chipped beyond recognition. The noise pollution of the sticks on the rocks is just an added bonus. So, just keep on defacing the trail and stop trying to convince everybody otherwise.
Alligator
02-03-2006, 23:33
You hikers don't need to try and defend using steel tips, we know you're not going to stop using them. ...
I'm asking you for some hard evidence not the world according to Ridge.
But since you are so sure folks are not going to stop using them you could shut up now. Or are you trying to break your dog record? Twenty-two more in a row to go:rolleyes: .
Almost There
02-03-2006, 23:50
Blah, Blah, Blah-Look I don't put my poles down going over rock, what's the point. Also while we're at it why don't we have a lottery to limit the number of hikers on the trail, which by the way I know there are some of you who would advocate in order to lessen the burden on the "Holy Trail". Look we all love the trail, but some of us use poles for a particular reason. For me it is to lessen the burden on my knees as some people I have hiked with have actually commented, "You actually really use your poles." Meaning for me they have purpose on uphills and downhills. Could I go without them...I suppose so, but why? Oh yeah, because some claim that it's bad for the trail...no, people are bad for the trail, but we are the main ones who use it, so there ya' go. Erosion on the trail becomes an issue after years, and it has more to do with the people, poles or no poles who walk the same path year after year wearing it down. For the most part the trees and brush keep the erosion from getting bad. By July down here in Georgia at least there is no sign that over a thousand hikers passed through earlier in the year. I have actually looked for it. I know from now on I'll hike in my Happy Hippie Hiker suit....barefoot with only a haversack slung over my shoulder. We all try to do our best to minimize our impact, but if it's about HYOH then you hike your way...and I'll hike mine! If ever there is a report put out stating of the impending doom of our trail due to Lekis then at that time I will give it serious thought and consideration, but until that time...
But in soft ground wouldn't the rubber tips just make even wider holes? Aside from not scratching rocks, how well have those who used them found the rubber tips at reducing those tip prints along the trail?
The rubber tips reduce ground pressure by spreading out the weight over a larger area. Most times there is not enough pressure to make any noticable marks on the soil. Only when you come to really soft soil like mud would you notice anything.
Rubber tips also reduce the noise when walking across rocks. I can't stand that tapping noise that the carbide tips make.
Panzer
The carbide tips cause a vibration that warns rattlesnakes a hiker is coming. Hikers with rubber tips will supprise snakes and sooner or later get snakebit. The rubber tip can then be used to suck the venom out. Also lets asume the rubber tips weigh one ounce each. Figuring a thru hiker takes 10 million steps to reach Katahdin that is 20 million unnecessary ounces he or she must carry and chances are they will be too exausted to fight off bears or black flies if attacked.
Have you gotten any solid evidence on this yet Weary? A real study, you know what I'm talking about. You are back to making the same claim without any proof.
There was all kinds of well publicized and documented research on lugged boots. The research of decades past demonstrated conclusively that what was then a new boot sole was causing serious damage. It was ignored by 95 percent of hikers and boot manufacturers.
Why? As I said, we all profess to love the trail, but anything that costs us or inconveniences us for the most part is either ignored or denied, regardless of the damage or regardless of the illogic of the denial of damage.
There is no incentive for trail organizations to pay for new studies on pole use. They know that my statement above is true and from past experience with lug soled hiking boots they know that no one will pay any attention anyway, so why pay for research that they know will only piss off the hikers they need for members and donations.
For similar reasons, grad students and their advisors also have few if any incentives for such studies. Such a study won't earn anyone a PHD. People have known for decades, probably centuries, that disturbed soil erodes more readily than undisturbed soil. And that the more you disturb soil the more erosion will occur.
I'm not on a crusade. I know that no one is going to pass a regulation banning such devices. And I know from long observation that hikers are not going to quit using their metal sticks voluntarily. Eventually, I suspect, the fact that poles increase the energy demands of a long distance hike will sink in and use will decrease, just as lug sole use is gradually decreasing as hikers switch to light weight boots.
I comment only when someone says something particularly silly, or untrue, and often not even then. My sense of balance began to deteriorate 10 or 15 years ago, so I now carry a lightweight, wooden walking staff while in the woods on rough terrain.
I've experimented with Lekis. If they worked better than my lone wooden rubber tipped staff I might even use them. In fact, I've found they don't work better, but, rather, significantly worse, so I've never had to make that decision.
WEary
hammock engineer
02-04-2006, 01:33
I think this is why I usually only read the first page or so of a thread. They start out with good points and advice, then turn into an argument or debate.
Thanks for all the input. I am going to give them a try. If I can do something to help protect the trail (be it for real or just in my head), then I am going to give it a try.
I'll have to rank this up with water treatment, down/syn, trail runners/boots. and hammock/tent.
The carbide tips cause a vibration that warns rattlesnakes a hiker is coming. Hikers with rubber tips will supprise snakes and sooner or later get snakebit. The rubber tip can then be used to suck the venom out. Also lets asume the rubber tips weigh one ounce each. Figuring a thru hiker takes 10 million steps to reach Katahdin that is 20 million unnecessary ounces he or she must carry and chances are they will be too exausted to fight off bears or black flies if attacked.
Can that be proven?
Panzer
Big Dawg
02-04-2006, 08:48
C'mon people,,,, we've carved out (cut, pruned, dug, rearranged rocks/logs, built, etc) a trail in the woods. To discuss the effects of what lugged boots or carbide tips on hiking poles make to the trail makes me laugh. Granted, I'm not a 50 year veteran of trail building/maintaining, but it seems like we're splitting hairs to me. I'm not going barefoot, & I personally think 4 "legs" are better than 2 when scaling the sides of mountains.
It is amazing how folks lose perspective on this subject. Here we are taling about a Trail? A wilderness Trail? Pehaps most of the folks getting excited about this issue and the AT have never actually been in the wilderness. There are only a few sections of the AT that are really like being in the wilderness, but then you look around and what do you see? A great BIG Trail. Hmmm..wilderness?
The AT is one of the greatest parks we have managed to establish over the years. I would love it if we could create a few more of them. But this agrument about poles is silly and, ultimately, self defeating. Just like many of the other issues that turn off and chase away potential users of the outdoors.
The biggest problem we have in preserving, creating, protecting (pick your favorite phrase) parks like the AT, wilderness areas, or anyplace wild is that a great many folks who are very motivated by such things are such elitist's. When we take attitudes that chase away those who would be our natural allies by our arrogant pushiness to get everyone to abide by our narrow interpretation of what is right we end up with no critical mass of participants on our side of the agrument.
If we want to have more trails, wilderness areas and to protect what wild areas we have left in this world we need to strongly encourage everyone to get out there are experience them and learn to love them. The more people who do that the greater your political power will be. Someone is always arguing for some approach to "proper" hiking etiquite that the end result is chasing more people away from using the AT rather than finding a way to get more people out there. For instance, Bill Bryson's book and the resulting large number of inexperienced hikers that decided to try it out. This was one of the best things that ever happened to the AT community. The AT would be better off if there were 2 times as many thru hikers, or 5 times as many. This creates an army of supporters. Over time those folks help maintain and create more of the same. IF the number of folks who use parks like the AT continue to dwindle, so will the amounts of land that are maintained as parks and wildernesses. Think how different arguments about things like drilling in the ANWAR would be if a half a million more Americans actually had a real feel for wilderness and nature.
Hiking pole impact on the AT? 2174 miles of cleared forest, switchbakcs cut into mountains (arn't those called roads in some circles?), tens of thousands of chainsawed blowdowns, tens of thousands of rock steps that have been built, 200+ house's (oops shelters), 200+ outhouses, piped springs, fire pits galor, bridges, wodden planks, PAINTED trees!!...I am getting tired.
Hiking poles are enormously helpful to almost all older hikers (yes me) and are, in general, very useful to most. People have used them since the time of the caveman, they were not invented by Lecki. I never used them when I was young and fast. And I fell down on occassion. No big deal when you are young in general, but as you age this gets to be more common and much more dangerous. Since I started using them about 5 years ago I think that I have only fallen about 2 times and both times were on slopes in the winter. For an older persons knees they are a life saver and allow many more people to hike than could otherwise (hmm back to that issue again).
Well, I am off to the REI store (probably some part of the evil empire I know)
I guess I am kind of frisky today. Wyo
Wyoming: I agree totally that the more people we can get to use the outdoors and who make the outdoors an important part of their lives the better. That's why I argue at every trail meeting and every land trust meeting with those who want to limit use of trails and preserves to protect the "environment."
But I see no evidence that these recurring arguments over the use of sharp pointed walking sticks is deterring anyone. Has anyone really decided against a thru hike because a handful of us suggest from time to time that there are less damaging, but equally beneficial alternatives to leki poles?
Somehow, I doubt it.
The switchbacks, rock steps, massive water bars and other modern trail construction techniques are not an excuse for further damage. They are there mostly to alleviate past hiker damage.
This discussion involves far more than hiker etiquette. Though I agree that Lekis will continue to be used by most hikers and no words of mine will ever convince them otherwise -- at least until the next fad comes along.
My current practice is to argue that alternatives provide equal protection of knees and better protection against falls. I mention trail damage only after someone proudly proclaims that he "knows" that there is no damage.
I think it remains important to keep these debates factually honest.
Weary
Alligator
02-04-2006, 11:23
...
I think it remains important to keep these debates factually honest.
Weary
I do to. That's why I ask for solid proof and steer away from the rhetoric.
mweinstone
02-04-2006, 15:47
their are sooooooooo many reasons why their bad for you,the trail and the wildlife its just a moot point and shut up ,.......now.lol
Programbo
02-04-2006, 16:06
Trekking poles????..What`s the deal with these things?..I never saw anyone use them in all my hiking days or ask about them in my 11 years of selling backpacking equipment..Last week I drove past Hapers Ferry and in 5 minutes saw 5 people with them..What brought this on all the sudden?...Forgive my ignorance as I`ve been living in a hut deep in the jungles of Vietnam for the past few decades :cool:
Lone Wolf
02-04-2006, 16:07
They're just a fad. An expensive one at that.
Tha Wookie
02-04-2006, 16:32
I use rubber tips because they are quieter. Best way to keep them on - superglue them on (I have Leki brand poles). For winter have a separate set of carbide tips and whack off the ones with the glued-on rubber tips and put on the carbide tips without the rubber tips - this is easy using a smooth jawed adjustable wrench to slide down the pole and impact the tip while the pole is held in a vice - to put the replacement tip back on just push it on and then jam the pole tip first into a block of wood a few times.
Ecellent post and excellent technique!
I hope everyone who uses the factory made poles follows your lead.
While there have been no peer-reviewed studies on the subject, a tiny unfunded study done by Recreation Ecologist Jeffrey Marion reported that rubber tips are the way to go to reduce unneeded trail markings, both in dirt and on rocks. He recommended that the #1 way to reduce environmental impact is to use the rubber tips.
I would like to add that if you need poles, sticks STILL work! They were made for it! With a blunt edge, they leave very little impact.
Plus, they don't squeak like an old truck!
Come to think of it, a little WD-40 in your bounce box wouldn't hurt either if you have the factory poles! :D
mweinstone
02-04-2006, 16:36
hes alone,but hes right. get it?...........a lone?somewhere in some hiking store there must be some salesman freak who tells first timers,..."oh yeah! cant go out without poles.no way. cant be done. nope.that'l be 130 plus tax sir."
Lone Wolf
02-04-2006, 17:18
Dat's right!:jump
Figuring a thru hiker takes 10 million steps to reach Katahdin that is 20 million unnecessary ounces he or she must carry and chances are they will be too exausted to fight off bears or black flies if attacked.
I thought it was supposed to be 5 million steps.
Panzer
Trekking poles????..What`s the deal with these things?..I never saw anyone use them in all my hiking days or ask about them in my 11 years of selling backpacking equipment..Last week I drove past Hapers Ferry and in 5 minutes saw 5 people with them..What brought this on all the sudden?...Forgive my ignorance as I`ve been living in a hut deep in the jungles of Vietnam for the past few decades :cool:
Don't know. But, trekking poles certainly are popular. Even most ultra-lighters use them. Must be a good reason why.
I thought it was supposed to be 5 million steps.
Panzer
Do the math. Just multiply 2,175 miles times 5,280 feet per mile times 12 inches in a foot and divide the answer by the length of your typical stride in inches.
Five million is in the ball park. Moxie is an internexaggerator.
Weary
I thought it was supposed to be 5 million steps.
Panzer
They yo-yo'ed.
Do the math. Just multiply 2,175 miles times 5,280 feet per mile times 12 inches in a foot and divide the answer by the length of your typical stride in inches.
Five million is in the ball park. Moxie is an internexaggerator.
Weary
7,253,052 steps.
7,253,052 steps.
But if you count extra steps around camp, difficult spots on the trail, steps going into and around town, 10 million is probably not much of an exaggeration.
I thought it was supposed to be 5 million steps.
Panzer
A little over 7 million steps on the actual trail, I counted. Three million on side trips to shelters, town, peeing at night, getting lost, hiking in the wrong direction for water or a camping area, walking all the way to the Carrabasset Brewery from Bigelow for a cold beer, that sort of thing. On the question of can I prove the vibration fron carbide tips prevents snake bites, That is simple to prove. I hike with carbide tips and have never been snake bit. 100% if people bitten by snakes in the US last year were not using carbide tios when bitten. Very strong proof.
Also, chances are the rubber in the rubber tips came from a rubber plantation in a southeast asian communist country. Using them is un-American. Support the American Carbide miners and manufactures and hike with carbide tips.:bse
7,253,052 steps.
Well what if you take bigger steps?
Panzer
Well what if you take bigger steps?
Panzer
I do. I can do the trail in just 4,523,333 steps -- not counting side trips for beer and AYCE salad bars.
Weary
....I ask for solid proof and steer away from the rhetoric.
Thru hiker Hawk Metheny ran a workshop on trekking pole damage to trails at AMC's annual meeting last month. His conclusions include:
Poles increase width of hiker impact on trails, churn up soil, snag vegetation, thus increasing erosion and damaging plants
Poles also scratch rocks and are noisy- (aesthetic impacts)
But they reduce strain on your knees and back and provide stability
What to do?
Ask if you really NEED to use them all the time
Use rubber ends over carbide tips in non-winter (Prevents rock scratching, reduces noise, and decreases erosion)
Other partial solutions:
Buy rubber ends with metal disc on inside of bottom to prevent carbide tip from puncturing through
Secure rubber ends with hose clamp.
Remove baskets in summer- less likely to snag vegetation
A small committee formed to look into hiker education. Suggestions included posting trekking pole fact sheet/info at Pinkham etc, and at trail heads
Also it was recommended that AMC and hikers push manufacturers to make it easier to remove baskets, put on rubber tips, increase life of rubber tips, beef up mechanism to secure rubber tips.
Hawk was hut master at Carter Notch when I visited there for several winters in the 1990s. I think he now manages AMC campsites in the Whites.
Weary
Lumberjack
02-05-2006, 12:05
Pros.
1- prevents face plants.
2- protects knees
Cons.
1. noise - Dont hike so close to me, nuff said.
2. trail erosion. - true in part. walking packs the soil and prevents plants from growing in and holding the soil in place. I cant say if the holes aerate the soil and encourage new growth or just digs the soil up and speeds the erosion up. I do know that as long as people walk single file over the same ground there will be erosion.
3. Damage to rocks - Must be some pretty soft rocks out there if a leki can make more then a minor surface scratch. Try it some time on an out of the way rock. Most of the scratching was later blamed on crampon usage in the north.
4. damage to other. - None Ive seen from normal usage, perhaps youve encountered delibarate damage?
/ sarcasm = on / seems like the best way to avoid the crowds is to get a cell phone,leki's,an external pack and a dog. :-?
3. Damage to rocks - Must be some pretty soft rocks out there if a leki can make more then a minor surface scratch. Try it some time on an out of the way rock. Most of the scratching was later blamed on crampon usage in the north. And some of the damage blamed on crampons was actually done while logging. Scratches made on rock "steps" are often made by trailmaintainers moving the rock into position with tools. Not complaining - I fully appreciate rocks steps being built, iron rungs drilled into cliff faces, ladders, etc - just noting that traces of their being built exist.
Mostly trekking poles don't scratch, anyway. They touch down and move on. They don't actually stab into the rock like King Arthur's sword. The only scratches come from when it slips (the pole, not King Arthur's sword). To keep it in perspective, the glaciers carved deep notches in tall mountain ranges, scouring away mega-tons of rock.
/ sarcasm = on / seems like the best way to avoid the crowds is to get a cell phone,leki's,an external pack and a dog. :-?Well, you could use the cell phone in a shelter while your dog sitcks its nose into everyone's pack and then takes a dump in front of the picnic table, but using treking poles in inexcusable!
Alligator
02-05-2006, 12:51
More anecdotes Weary. Ask him to quantify his results and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. After all, if it is such a pressing problem, with such serious and far reaching effects, it should be a relevant and timely article and will likely be fast-tracked to publication.
Lumberjack
02-05-2006, 13:02
.
Well, you could use the cell phone in a shelter while your dog sitcks its nose into everyone's pack and then takes a dump in front of the picnic table, but using treking poles in inexcusable!
Actually I do worse.... I hike with :eek: Children :eek:
More anecdotes Weary. Ask him to quantify his results and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. After all, if it is such a pressing problem, with such serious and far reaching effects, it should be a relevant and timely article and will likely be fast-tracked to publication.
Or, how about a peer reviewed journal article proving treking poles are harmless. You know. The FDA approach. Make the manufacturer prove efficacy and safety.
Somethings don't require a great deal of science, just a bit of common sense. Those of us who have spent years building trails, maintaining trails and using trails tend to develop an ability to evaluate those things we see.
When one sees increasing use of devices that poke holes in the soil of trails and at the same time increasing trail erosion, we kind of put two and two together and see a link.
Our observations and conclusions are backed, perhaps, by previous research on lug soled boots that showed the soil disrupted by the lugs eroded more than undisturbed soil.
And of course the new tendency of farmers to avoid conventional tilling because they observed that "no till" farming methods prevented the lost of as much topsoil from erosion, sort of makes us think our conclusions are accurate.
What evidence to you have Alligator that poking holes in trails is harmless?
Alligator
02-05-2006, 14:08
Or, how about a peer reviewed journal article proving treking poles are harmless. You know. The FDA approach. Make the manufacturer prove efficacy and safety.
Somethings don't require a great deal of science, just a bit of common sense. Those of us who have spent years building trails, maintaining trails and using trails tend to develop an ability to evaluate those things we see.
When one sees increasing use of devices that poke holes in the soil of trails and at the same time increasing trail erosion, we kind of put two and two together and see a link.
And of course the new tendency of farmers to avoid conventional tilling because they observed that "no till" farming methods prevented the lost of as much topsoil from erosion, sort of makes us think our conclusions are accurate.
What evidence to you have Alligator that poking holes in trails is harmless?
I'll take the justice system approach. Innocent until proven guilty.
You keep introducing lug soles and no-till farming. There are multiple reasons why those results don't translate to trekking poles. You can't even produce a decent scientific article about trekking poles, yet you wish to correlate the effects of lug soles and farming. Your obervations are not backed, in any way, shape, or form. That's laughable Weary. Maybe I'll try that in my next pub, just for grins and giggles.
Let me explain something to you Weary. Every time an environmentalist stands up and cries the sky is falling or "Wolf" and it is unproven or worse proven false, credibility suffers. If there really is a problem get the research done, quantify the effects, and have two solid legs to stand on. Or four.
You have nothing new to offer here Weary.
Every time an environmentalist stands up and cries the sky is falling or "Wolf" and it is unproven or worse proven false, credibility suffers.There are often ways to rectify such errors. For instance, if the environmentalists are right and we are creating a "greenhouse planet" where temps are rising dangerously, we have only to start a nuclear war. Normally, this would plunge the planet into a "nuclear winter," but the greenhouse effect and the nuclear winter would cancel each other out, thereby eliminating the problem.
See, all it takes is for environmentalists and the military to work together. Synergistic problem solving at its best!
I'll take the justice system approach. Innocent until proven guilty.
Well, that's certainly the present political approach to most environmental issues. Though not even thousands of peer reviewed articles seem to outweigh a few political pieces by "experts" when dealing with global warming.
You keep introducing lug soles and no-till farming. There are multiple reasons why those results don't translate to trekking poles.
You keep making the claim, but have yet to post a single reason.
You can't even produce a decent scientific article about trekking poles, .....
Probably because none has ever been published. The damage is so obvious among those not in denial, that probably anyone who tried would be laughed out of their universities.
I have quoted people who have dedicated their lives to trails and protecting trails. Do you also have multiple reasons why such folks would be so mistaken by the evidence of their eyes?
Weary
Quote "I agree totally that the more people we can get to use the outdoors and who make the outdoors an important part of their lives the better. That's why I argue at every trail meeting and every land trust meeting with those who want to limit use of trails and preserves to protect the "environment."
But then you take an attitude that is going to be considered hostile by many of the potential users...how exactly is that prmoting use of the outdoors??..hmm seems like you will be generating annoyance and less of an inclination to consider any other arguments you might have and potentially chasing off users of the AT...accept all reasonable users and you have more allies don't and you eventually will have none.
Quote The switchbacks, rock steps, massive water bars and other modern trail construction techniques are not an excuse for further damage. They are there mostly to alleviate past hiker damage.
This is nonsense to me... the minor damage that might be inflicted (and we are talking a few holes poked in the ground and some scratches on some rocks??) are not of significance. The AT is a ROAD for gods sake. One mile of the At has more modifications of nature than 100 years of pole scrathes. The argument is silly.
Quote I think it remains important to keep these debates factually honest.
I agree, that is exactly why I get irate when this issue keeps getting the attention some give it. It just does not merit much consideration. There are much more meaningful places to spends ones energy.
Wyo
Alligator
02-05-2006, 21:26
Well, that's certainly the present political approach to most environmental issues. Though not even thousands of peer reviewed articles seem to outweigh a few political pieces by "experts" when dealing with global warming.
Now you are flailing about and throwing in global warming too. It's good to see that you feel that peer review is important.
You keep making the claim, but have yet to post a single reason.
Actually I discussed no-till farming previously. Go find it.
I'll humor you some though. A boot is an object that is driven by one's foot. A pole is operated by the arms. While both could be driven up one's "posterior", given the size of the boot's "footprint" (roughly 100X larger than a pole tip) I suspect different results. An experiment could be in order. Since I am much better versed in experimental design, I'll be the experimenter, and you serve as the subject. We can throw in your alder staff as a control. Then, since you are so loose with conclusions, we'll translate that to the trail. Game:banana ?
Alternatively, if the FDA were evaluating your statements, they would say that in order for you to compare the impacts of trekking poles, lug soles, and no-till farming on a trail, they would all need to be studied under similar experimental conditions. A control would also help. If you give me a reference, I will read it and comment. This procedure is usually how they compare new drugs. Otherwise, there is no basis to claim that the effects are in any way similar:clap .
Probably because none has ever been published. The damage is so obvious among those not in denial, that probably anyone who tried would be laughed out of their universities.The extent of any damage has not been established. It's not a matter of denial, it's a matter of correct application of scientific results. To discuss further, a Ph.D. in the sciences is required to produce a body of new work related to their field of study. They first take a significant number of courses related to their field, almost always including some statistics. Along the way, they create a study plan, which is submitted to the student's committee. This committee is composed of faculty and occasionally outside professionals. The research is conducted under the auspices of the committee, culminating in the dissertation, which needs a defense. Afterwards, the work done by the student is expected to be disseminated. It would be highly unusual for the work to go to a non-peer reviewed journal. So, Ph.Ds in general do not make silly statements like "I saw some holes in the ground. Trekking poles are creating significant erosion" without the data to back them up. Having been grilled on their stats, they are profoundly aware what it means to use the word significant and intensely aware of what is appropriate language. Thus, like Marion et al., they would use words like anecdotes, extrapolation, and speculation.
I have quoted people who have dedicated their lives to trails and protecting trails. Do you also have multiple reasons why such folks would be so mistaken by the evidence of their eyes?
Just one is necessary. The opinions you have presented to date are not supported with any serious scientific research and are thus merely opinions on the matter.
This is all old stuff though Weary, haven't you had some time to at least brush up on your science? I'm just looking for the basics here.
I'm not on a crusade.What are you after then, Ridge's record? Come to think of it, I'll bet you have him beat somewhere.
Weary
Quote "I agree totally that the more people we can get to use the outdoors and who make the outdoors an important part of their lives the better. That's why I argue at every trail meeting and every land trust meeting with those who want to limit use of trails and preserves to protect the "environment."
But then you take an attitude that is going to be considered hostile by many of the potential users...how exactly is that prmoting use of the outdoors??..hmm seems like you will be generating annoyance and less of an inclination to consider any other arguments you might have and potentially chasing off users of the AT...accept all reasonable users and you have more allies don't and you eventually will have none.
Quote The switchbacks, rock steps, massive water bars and other modern trail construction techniques are not an excuse for further damage. They are there mostly to alleviate past hiker damage.
This is nonsense to me... the minor damage that might be inflicted (and we are talking a few holes poked in the ground and some scratches on some rocks??) are not of significance. The AT is a ROAD for gods sake. One mile of the At has more modifications of nature than 100 years of pole scrathes. The argument is silly.
Quote I think it remains important to keep these debates factually honest.
I agree, that is exactly why I get irate when this issue keeps getting the attention some give it. It just does not merit much consideration. There are much more meaningful places to spends ones energy.
Wyo
The casual, first time user is unlikely to ever see these trekking pole discussions. Those who by happenstance do will evaluate the multiple positions and make a judgment, whether to carry, or not to carry.
Remember, thousands hiked for thousands of years without Lekis. If anything trail use has subsided since Leki use became virtually universal. I suspect the reason has more to do with the increased energy use, such devices require, than with discussion over trail damage.
BTW you misread my comments on the need for elaborate trail construction techniques. In any fair ranking of hiker impacts, Lekis damage remains relatively small.
The most serious is simply increasing useage over many decades. Lug soled boots probably rank second. Then the use of Lekis and other sharp-pointed hiking sticks.
The elaborate and expensive trail reconstruction of recent years stems mostly from past trail damage, not the recent fad of trekking poles. But that is not an excuse to add even more trail damage.
Weary
..... Those of us who have spent years building trails, maintaining trails and using trails tend to develop an ability to evaluate those things we see....
Weary, you are probably debating with someone who has only seen the AT on a Map. Most of these guys hike from a computer and not from experience. I've been hiking for 30+ yrs and trail maintaining for 19 yrs. and have seen first hand what the trail looked like before carbide tips and after carbide tips. Damage is done, no doubt. Have them get a trail maintenance club to endorse using these tips. A lot of organizations get perks from these walking stick companies. You want find any articles supporting there use in Backpacker Magazine, nor any articles against. Money (ads) talks. It's all politics. What needs to happen, and I hear of talk, is a permit fee to hike thru GSMNP similar to a lot of NPS parks already have. These fees will help pay for all types of stuff including damage to the trails for what ever reason. Too bad a fee for all areas of the AT can't be imposed.
Forget GA. you should see Mt. washington.......
....The opinions you have presented to date are not supported with any serious scientific research and are thus merely opinions on the matter. .
Well, I've told you several times that as far as I know there is no scientific research on either side of this issue. I assume that's why you have not offered any. I know it is why I haven't done so.
I have offered the observations of trained trail people and experienced trail people and maintainers. You have offered nothing remotely factual, scientific or logical, just an endless repetition of unsupported opinion.
Therefore, I'm declaring victory and leaving.
Weary
Big Dawg
02-06-2006, 11:12
.... Too bad a fee for all areas of the AT can't be imposed.
oh Wow? :confused: you're kiddin, right???
orangebug
02-06-2006, 13:08
...Therefore, I'm declaring victory and leaving.That is probably the best thing yet to come of this thread.
This is one of those "debates" that yield nothing of any value to newbies or veteran hikers. As with most everything I've encountered, there are Pros and Cons with every bit of technology and gear we encounter. The trekking pole has become a "fad" with very long legs. I use them primarily to help on the downhils and to help support a tent. They make excellent splints for first aid management of fractures.
If the noise of Lekis is sufficient to ruin someone's day, they probably are carrying around a pretty heavy attitude burden from the git-go.
I do not expect we will ever see the study proving damage from trekking poles, for the same reason we will never see the study showing lack of benefit from water treatment - there is no money in it for anyone. We might as well agree to disagree folks.
JoeHiker
02-06-2006, 13:13
We all profess to love the trail, but anything that costs us or inconveniences us for the most part is either ignored or denied, regardless of the damage or regardless of the illogic of the denial of damage.
Weary
I don't profess to to love the trail. I love the woods that the trail takes me through and allows me to see. The trail is a big man-made scar on the land. Necessarily so. It is being worn down and will continue to be worn down, poles, lugged soles or no. As long as I keep my wear and tear to the few feet of its width and not beyond, I'm doing my part.
hammock engineer
02-06-2006, 13:52
I think I figured a way to solve this problem.
1 hiker will hike the trail barefoot/no poles (as a control to get a baseline)
1 hiker will hike in trail runners/no poles
1 hiker will hike in deep soles boots/no poles
1 hiker will hike barefoot/poles without tips
1 hiker will hike barefoot/poles with tips
Someone will follow each hiker and observe and document the effects on the trail.
Someone will then walk that path in 1 week intervals to obverse the long term effects.
Short of someting like this, it will be hard to convince everyone of anything. Looking at the facts and people's posts, I think there is some effect on the trail. I think it would be irresponsible of me not to try to protect the trail from these effects.
Amazed guys hiked so long with rubber tips. Mine did not even last a day. Lost one without seeing it go, the other split open. The only thing that ever bothered me about pole use was seeing a wooden bridge filled with pole holes. It is inexcuseable to leave pole indentations on a flat wide wooden bridge. Marke on granite do not bother me, crampons do the same, but holes in wood....laziness....and thoughtlessness.
Almost There
02-06-2006, 15:12
Well said Orangebug! Xmas tree water is my favorite!!!:D
Most cases of severe trail erosion that I have seen are a product of poor trail routes coupled with overuse. Anyone who has been to Carvers Gap going Northbound has seen just how terrible it can get. (there was a recent change in the route up Round Bald that has made a world of difference.) Fact of the matter is some trails are just plain overburdened for the routes they follow. I'm not siding with either extreme in this arguement, but the fact that a footpath is a scar itself is a valid point. By the way, I have nothing but respect for trail maintainers.:sun
Alligator
02-06-2006, 22:51
...
Therefore, I'm declaring victory and leaving.
Weary
OK GW, let the folks on the USS Lincoln know we appreciate their service and we'd like the flight suit back.