PDA

View Full Version : impact of trekking poles



kt_lyn
09-22-2003, 12:28
i've been looking into trekking poles lately because i've been talking with people who swear by them for reducing the strain on your legs- but i remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that there was some question as to the negative impact that the poles have on the terrain. does anyone have more information about this or know where i might find some?

JimSproul
09-22-2003, 12:56
I have heard that mumbled before. If anything using poles should help break up the compaction caused by hikers!

It is similar to the discussions that went around about the impact of waffle stomper soles on the environment. The basis of those talks was a report that was very specific in that it looked at the impact of lugged sole boots on alpine meadows. Zellots just extended the discussion to all back country terrain without much thought or data.

attroll
09-22-2003, 13:17
I don't know about anyone else. But when I hike with my poles. I don't plant them in the ground. So I don't create holes. The only time they get planted in the ground is when I lose my balance and and then I plant them to prevert a fall. When I walk with them I just set the tips on the ground. I find that they also help me with my walking rythm.

2Ply
09-22-2003, 13:21
With the rubber tip in place the poles do little or no damage to the trail edges. If anything it helps to flatten the soil that is left punctured by the points of other hikers. Here in Georgia the edges of the AT and other trails look as if they have been aerated each spring. This seems to cause some erosion of the surrounding soil when there is a heavy rain.

Hikerhead
09-22-2003, 13:24
Poles causing damage? I don't think so..... With rubber tips you won't hardly stirr up the dirt.

Without rubber tips you might create a little hole that goes away when it rains.

Damage? What do you call that 2,100 mile brown line across the mtns?
It wasn't there before we started walking on it so it's not natural.

I just get tired of hearing about poles causing damage.

MOWGLI
09-23-2003, 06:29
I recall one day in Maine when about 4 of us were making some time. Some folks atop a ridge could hear us coming (click, click, click) for quite some distance. After they mentioned that. I became much more conscious about the amount of noise I made with my poles.

Poles doing damage? In the Bigelows, I came across a father & son near one of the peaks (forget which one). The father was exhausted, and he was bulldozing a thick carpet of moss alongside the trail with his hiking poles with every step. He was doing MAJOR damage to the trail in a beautiful area, and was completely oblivious. I was tempted to say something, but didn't want to make him look bad in front of his kid. I think I missed an opportunity...

chris
09-23-2003, 08:34
Trekking poles without tips cause some short term, eye-sore type damage to trails, but I do not know of any credible study that indicates that they cause long term damage, such as erosion, etc. Trails like the AT that get a lot of use will be most effected. I imagine the John Muir trail has similar problems.

On a personal note, I find poles highly annoying, as the click-clack of the poles against rocks and roots disturbs my zen on the trail and gives wildlife an advance warning of my arrival. Some certainly need and benefit from poles, but I would guess that many people probably do not need the poles; they are fashionable these days.

jlb2012
09-23-2003, 09:07
The noise bothered me a bit also so I just super-glued on the rubber tips - much nicer. If I need to change back to the carbide tips for winter ice I just knock off the entire tip and replace with the carbide tips.

Colter
09-23-2003, 11:08
I agree with many points already made. I don't like the clicking of poles, nor the little holes made by sharp tips, so I too super-glued rubber tips on. This helps dramatically.

There is no doubt that simply hiking the trail causes some damage too it. There is also no doubt that hiking poles cause some damage. Billions of little holes in the trail definitely kill lots of plant life along the edges which clearly has to increase erosion. To what degree, I don't know.

For me, a good compromise was the rubber tips. Quieter and easier on the environment!

Don
09-23-2003, 11:25
An article on the impacts of Trekking Poles

Trekking Poles: Can You Save Your Knees—and the Environment?
By Jeffrey L. Marion, Teresa A. Martinez, and Robert D. Proudman
From the Register, Spring, 2001. Published by Appalachian Trial Conference

In his 1968 classic, The Complete Walker, Colin Fletcher heaped accolades on his trusted walking staff, noting that it transformed him “from an insecure biped into a confident triped.” He used his staff for balance and assistance in walking, as something to lean on during breaks, as a way of checking for rattlesnakes, as a fishing rod, and to knock rainwater from overhanging branches.

Today, technologically advanced trekking poles are replacing such traditional hiking sticks, and their use has dramatically expanded. Our informal polling (pun intended) within the Appalachian Trail community suggests that trekking poles are used by 90 to 95 percent of thru-hikers, 30 to 50 percent of short-term backpackers, and 10 to 15 percent of day-hikers.

A growing number of letters to editors and e-mail traffic within the A.T. community suggests that as more people use trekking poles, more people worry about their environmental and social impacts. Should they worry? So far, those impacts have not been documented or described in the scientific literature. But, to keep the dialogue going, it is worth reviewing some of the arguments about the pros and cons of trekking poles.

The main advantage of trekking poles is stability—particularly in difficult terrain and stream crossings. One study found that balance was enhanced significantly by their use, so poles could help avoid injuries from falls. Some weight is transferred from users’ legs to the poles, relieving stress and possible injury to the lower back, knees, and ankles. They are a particular aid when climbing and descending hills. For example, another study reported, a typical hiker would transfer 13 tons per hour with two poles in flat terrain, 28 tons when ascending, and 34 tons when descending. Trekking poles may be viewed as essential by older hikers or those with weaker knees or other health limitations. For visitors in good health and condition, trekking poles can provide greater stability and safety in rough terrain, permit longer hikes, or reduce strain and soreness of the lower extremities. Poles also allowed backpackers to adopt more normal walking postures and stride lengths. However, hikers do not expend less energy when they use trekking poles. A treadmill study showed that metabolic energy expenditures were shifted from leg to arm muscles, with no net change over all. Cardiovascular demands increased, but subjects perceived their level of exertion to be lower. Among the disadvantages of poles are cost (from $40 to $250 per pair), inconvenience when hikers need to use their hands, added weight when not in use, and the vigilance needed to guard against theft. Despite thorough searches of the scientific 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.

Impact on Vegetation—Trailside vegetation can be damaged from the swinging action of trekking poles, particularly from contact with the baskets, which can get caught in lowgrowing plants. One North Carolina hiker noted in an e-mail to ATC that “the ground was becoming torn up by spiked walking poles. On the uphill side of the trail, moss and wild flowers were torn from their bedding. On the downside of the trail, parts of the trail were also torn away.” The potential consequences of such damage include a reduction or loss of vegetation cover, change in vegetation composition, and trail widening.

Impact on Soil—In wet or loose soils, pole tips can penetrate up to two inches and leave holes one-half inch in diameter. These holes are often V-shaped, wider at the top due to the swing of the upper pole once the tip is embedded in soil. Under some conditions, we have also seen soil lifted by pole tips and dropped on the ground surface. In a letter to the Appalachian Trailway News (ATN), a Virginia hiker observed, “These things are tearing up the trail on each side of the footpath. Some places look like they have been freshly plowed.” Such disturbance could cause the loss of organic litter, expose soil, and increase erosion and muddiness. Research is needed to document if, and to what extent, pole use can increase rates of erosion. When surface water runoff after rainfall fills the holes created by pole tips, to what extent does it cause muddiness? Does increased water and soil contact in areas with high densities of holes turn turn trailsides to mud, as often occurs on horse trails when water fills hoof prints? Trails that are outsloped for water drainage would not prevent such muddiness; water bars and drainage dips would prevent muddiness only on the downhill sides of trails. Significant impacts from heavy pole use could even make the trail more difficult to use or increase maintenance work and costs.

Impact on Rocks— The carbide tips on trekking poles leave visually obvious white scratch marks on rock surfaces and also damage lichens. A hiker in Maine related in an ATN letter that “the scratching is so pronounced on granite surfaces that it is sometimes easier to follow where the poles have been than to locate a white blaze.” In a letter to Backpacker magazine’s Web site, a hiker in the Adirondacks wrote, “I was upset to see all the rocks had little white marks on them. Not just a rock here or there, but all the rocks on the trail were chipped by hundreds of people.... It got to the point where I could not concentrate on anything else but these thousands of little white gashes in the rocks I was stepping on. It really left a bad taste in my mouth and a grim look to the future.”

Social and Aesthetic Impacts— The audible scraping noises that trekking poles make when used on hard surfaces can also be an irritant to fellow hikers. One Internet “newsgroup” correspondent likened the sound to “‘fingernails on a chalkboard’ when crossing rock surfaces.” For some hikers, visual impact “takes away from my experience because I feel like someone just walked by there a few minutes ago…bye-bye wilderness.” Collectively, those impacts have the potential to trigger conflict between trail users, much the same as conflicts between hikers and horseback riders or mountain bike riders.

Some amount of resource impact is an inevitable consequence of nearly every form of recreational activity, including hiking without poles. Writing about a growing and popular practice may simply stimulate controversy. However, a problem must be identified before it can be resolved, better understood, and mitigated. Until some authoritative studies are available to substantiate the reported problems and clearly identify which ones need serious attention, what can hikers, maintainers, and managers do? Trekking-pole users can help minimize resource and social impacts by considering the Leave No Trace (LNT) pole-use practices we suggest in the adjacent box. Hikers may find trekking poles to be indispensable for some hikes, or portions of hikes, but consider stowing them in flat terrain or when their use causes obvious environmental impacts. Removing baskets and using blunt rubber tips could substantially reduce the tearing and digging of the poles. Although rubber tips will wear off and may become trail litter, we consider this an acceptable cost. Pole manufacturers could investigate and design “environment-friendly” models with blunted tips. Since many poles are already sold with rubber tips attached and baskets unattached, product literature should stress that basket use is optional and rubber tips are recommended for standard use. Tip wear should be monitored so they can be replaced before falling off in use. Finally, we need to recognize that pole use is—like choosing hiking boots—important to a hiker’s comfort and safety and is, therefore, a personal choice. But, it is a choice with consequences that we should recognize and acknowledge in our ethical use of the backcountry.

Jeff Marion, Ph.D., is a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey who studies visitor impacts to national parks and other protected areas. Teresa Martinez is an associate regional representative with the Appalachian Trail Conference. Bob Proudman is the Conference’s director of trail management programs.

Lone Wolf
09-23-2003, 11:49
Leki is making a massive killing on the sale of thier overpriced sticks. It's amazing how marketing makes you think you gotta have something.

tlbj6142
09-23-2003, 13:30
They are definately overpriced. The "same" poles can be had at Wal-Mart for $10 each.

I've been doing my best to wean myself of their use (for one thing they are too damn heavy). Unfortunately, I have discovered that I end up with very sore shoulders if do NOT use them. Seems as though I lean forward more without them (as mentioned above) and my arms tend to just hang there pulling down on my shoulders.

Dispite the pain, I still try not to use them as often as possible (I carry them in one hand). In just 2-3 trips without using them, I have already noticed "stronger" knees.

Colter
09-23-2003, 13:39
I believe most folks who use hiking poles do so for very practical reasons. I first started using a single pole while hunting in Alaska, and found it worked great.

I once thought that people who used poles were just trying to look cool. I've changed my mind.

I think light, inexpensive poles without shock springs, with baskets removed, and with rubber tips are the way to go on the AT.

chris
09-23-2003, 14:16
Because many people show up at Springer not really in hiking shape, and Georgia has a lot of downs, they end up with a lot of knee problems early on. So, they get poles and things feel better. They keep using them even though they would probably do fine without them after toughenning up their bodies. I don't use them because they wouldn't add anything to my hike: My knees and ankles don't hurt and my balance is pretty good. Also, I like to scratch myself and pick my nose while I hitch, and carrying poles makes those tasks tough to do at the same time.

Despite what I sometimes say, poles are not just for cripples. Afterall, Flyin' Brian used them on the calendar triple crown and Wall, who set the PCT speed record this year, used them also.

tlbj6142
09-23-2003, 14:56
Originally posted by chris
Despite what I sometimes say, poles are not just for cripples. Afterall, Flyin' Brian used them on the calendar triple crown and Wall, who set the PCT speed record this year, used them also. I think they really help get you into a rhythm, which is important if you are trying to "go for records".

Kerosene
09-23-2003, 16:40
I used poles for the first time last year (even though I'm not usually a late adopter!). I wasn't convinced of their value until about 3 days in when I got the rhythm down and had to crank out a 21-miler. I like the added stability, especially on descents, as I seem to have become more cautious in my "old" age. They seem to help a lot on the ascents, but only if I use the carbide tips. I don't like the way my palms tend to sweat in muggy weather, but I tend to hike in the fall. What I don't understand is why hikers insist on using them on rock. I quickly learned that they didn't add any value, and in some cases skittered over the rock causing me to lose my rhythm, or worse, my balance. I just hold them in my hand during longer rock jaunts.

I recall a similar argument regarding the impact on a trail of lugged Vibram soles when they first came out 30+ years ago.

Lone Wolf
02-01-2008, 10:09
Leki is making a massive killing on the sale of thier overpriced sticks. It's amazing how marketing makes you think you gotta have something.

plus they scar the trail. bad sticks

Critterman
02-01-2008, 11:18
I think more damage is done the trail when hikers go around a muddy spot making the trail wider and eventually making the muddy spot worse.

Freeleo
02-01-2008, 11:20
ive always been under the impression that soil aeration is a good thing.....lots worse things are happening to terrain and soil and the environment in general

dessertrat
02-01-2008, 11:24
i've been looking into trekking poles lately because i've been talking with people who swear by them for reducing the strain on your legs- but i remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that there was some question as to the negative impact that the poles have on the terrain. does anyone have more information about this or know where i might find some?

I decided not to get involved in this argument. I am pro pole.

camojack
02-01-2008, 11:25
plus they scar the trail. bad sticks
Are you bored today, you virtual trash-picker, you? :confused:

You can take my Lekis when you pry 'em outta my cold, dead hands... :eek:

mystic
02-01-2008, 11:40
Poles saved me quite a few times from nasty falls. For those that think the rubber baskets help, glue them on. I found at least one every 20 miles along the trail. I'd rather sidestep a little erosion than be carrying these things to the trash.

weary
02-01-2008, 11:47
DessertRat: "why only a few holes? They go away fast."
They go away fast because the disturbed soil quickly erodes away. Yes, there are other things that happen on the trail that are even more damaging. But despite the near universal belief to the contrary, that is not a logical argument for allowing more damage.

It's as illogical as those who insist that because the trail goes through towns and past houses in the south, it is okay to put 40 story industrial power turbines next to one of the wildest sections of the trail in Maine.

Pole damage is a relatively minor problem in rocky Maine. I spend most of my energies fighting development now that most of the land adjacent to the corridor has been sold to developers.

But I don't use a hiking stick with a sharp point because I like to minimize my impact on the earth.

Weary www.matlt.org

tlbj6142
02-01-2008, 16:13
It's amazing how marketing makes you think you gotta have something.I don't think trekking poles took off because of marketing. It is from word-of-mouth. If it was from marketing, I'd have far fewer casual hikers asking what the heck are those poles? Or for that mater, having no idea why folks use them.

If it were marketing they'd know and there would be more people using them. If you exclude thru-hikers, trekking pole usage has to be less than 30%. Probably less than 10%.

How many folks use Nalgenes? Water filters? Stupid thick air pads? Tents? Jetboil?

It could also be an outcome of a lazy society. Unknowingly folks start hiking with bad knees (typically from weak quads) and start looking for answers. Poles help relieve pressure from the quads. Making knees less sore. Eventually their quads get stronger, but they are afraid to give up the poles. They tell their grand-children, who get poles, and soon the Rockies are nothing but a small mound and LA, AL and TX get a bit more shoreline.

Appalachian Tater
02-01-2008, 16:25
If you're worried about pole impact, use rubber tips. Certainly your feet do worse damage. Cutting a couple of switchbacks does more damage than miles & miles of pole use.

I have seen plants growing in soil "tilled" by poles that probably wouldn't have been growing there otherwise.

rafe
02-01-2008, 16:27
It could also be an outcome of a lazy society.

Or maybe it's that a lot of middle-aged folks are hiking, when by rights they should be enjoying more "sedate" pastimes. ;)

I hiked for 30 years without poles (and with heavy packs). These days I prefer to hike with poles (and light packs). It's not for weak knees. It's a matter of comfort and security. Poles minimize the negative consequences of small mis-steps.

jessicacomp
02-01-2008, 22:56
[quote=tlbj6142;19280]They are definately overpriced. The "same" poles can be had at Wal-Mart for $10 each.
quote]

I would never buy anything from walmart, not matter how damn cheap it was.

I bought poles recently, more for snowshoeing than hiking. I got kids poles cause Im not that big, and they were only $30. I like them. I might take them thru hiking, but I kind of like just using a stick if I need any extra support.

take-a-knee
02-01-2008, 23:11
I believe most folks who use hiking poles do so for very practical reasons. I first started using a single pole while hunting in Alaska, and found it worked great.

I once thought that people who used poles were just trying to look cool. I've changed my mind.

I think light, inexpensive poles without shock springs, with baskets removed, and with rubber tips are the way to go on the AT.

Did you ever try shooting off of poles?

Montego
02-01-2008, 23:31
I use a single hiking staff with rubber tip. Helps with this old farts knees and balance but causes little eco-damage.

atraildreamer
02-02-2008, 13:06
[quote=tlbj6142;19280]They are definately overpriced. The "same" poles can be had at Wal-Mart for $10 each.
quote]

I would never buy anything from walmart, not matter how damn cheap it was.


If you live in New England, or New York.check out the Ocean State Job Lot chain of stores.

http://www.oceanstatejoblot.com/osjlprod/locate/default.aspx

They carry a hiking pole for $9.99 (often on sale for $6.67) The poles are adjustable length, with a shock absorber feature that can be turned off. They have the carbide tips, a removable bail, and rubber protective tips.

atraildreamer
02-02-2008, 13:06
[quote=tlbj6142;19280]They are definately overpriced. The "same" poles can be had at Wal-Mart for $10 each.
quote]

I would never buy anything from walmart, not matter how damn cheap it was.


If you live in New England, or New York, check out the Ocean State Job Lot chain of stores.

http://www.oceanstatejoblot.com/osjlprod/locate/default.aspx

They carry a hiking pole for $9.99 (often on sale for $6.67) The poles are adjustable length, with a shock absorber feature that can be turned off. They have the carbide tips, a removable bail, and rubber protective tips.

ScottP
02-02-2008, 13:32
Stop it!

FeO2
02-02-2008, 14:21
I'm a pole hiker!!
I see the scratched up rocks on the trails and it does look ugly... but then again so does the foot trodden path. I make a conscious attempt to not purposefully beat up rocks.

The poles are awesome for "powering up" mountains. I set the rhythm and hammer out the climb.

I don't use them much descending though. I find I need them adjusted a little longer for going down than going up.

I hate to keep adjusting especially if the terrain is “up-down-up-down…” (Which is 90% of NH hiking). When I do the down part of the “up-down-up-down…” they become something to carry except if the down part of the “up-down-up-down…” is extreme.
;)

atraildreamer
03-15-2008, 14:32
Went by Wally World the other day. They now sell the Swiss Gear Ergonomic plastic-handled hiking poles as a 2 pack for $14.94. But...best of all...the little compasses are back on top of the handles! :banana:banana

dessertrat
03-15-2008, 14:42
Or maybe it's that a lot of middle-aged folks are hiking, when by rights they should be enjoying more "sedate" pastimes. ;)

I hiked for 30 years without poles (and with heavy packs). These days I prefer to hike with poles (and light packs). It's not for weak knees. It's a matter of comfort and security. Poles minimize the negative consequences of small mis-steps.

Today it's the young folks who are lazy, and the middle aged ones who are exercising.

Sly
03-15-2008, 14:57
Leki is making a massive killing on the sale of thier overpriced sticks. It's amazing how marketing makes you think you gotta have something.

It's not the marketing it's the knees. Leki has rebuilt my poles at least 3 times. They have 10,000 miles on them. They shipped parts overnight! All repairs for free. That's a penny a mile and they'e still going! :p

Mrs Baggins
03-15-2008, 15:28
Are you bored today, you virtual trash-picker, you? :confused:

You can take my Lekis when you pry 'em outta my cold, dead hands... :eek:


:D You beat me to it!! That's EXACTLY what I would tell anyone that tried to tell me poles are bad. I used to think they were just stupid looking but then I bought a set - - they get me up those "ups" when I don't think I can drag myself another step and they keep me from doing headers on the steep "downs." They support my knees, keep my fingers from swelling because my hands are always parallel to the ground instead of just hanging down, give me something to lean on when I just need to stop for a breather. If it's snake country I can tap on rocks and logs or probe under them to see if there are any critters before I sit down on them. I use Komperdell Titanium poles for women, super super lightweight and extremely strong. Worth every single penny of the $100 bucks I paid for them.

weary
03-15-2008, 15:47
Poles causing damage? I don't think so..... With rubber tips you won't hardly stirr up the dirt.

Without rubber tips you might create a little hole that goes away when it rains.

Damage? What do you call that 2,100 mile brown line across the mtns?
It wasn't there before we started walking on it so it's not natural.

I just get tired of hearing about poles causing damage.
The little holes that go away when it rains have eroded away. Wise farmers switched to "no till" planting methods decades ago to keep their soil from eroding away. Just as tilling wheat fields causes soil to wash away, tilling the sides of trails with sharp pointed hiking poles causes the soil to wash away.

Rubber tips eliminate most of the problem, but not more than one hiker in 50 uses rubber tips.

The same is true when hard rubber lugged boots are used on trails, though hiking pole damage is much more severe.

Of course the 2,100 mile trail crossing the mountains of the eastern seaboard also is unnatural. But it is damage that can't be avoided if hiking is to continue.

Poles and lug boots add to the damage. They are reprehensible because their use can be easily eliminated. Thousands of hikers used the trail before lugged boots and sharp pointed poles were invented. I haven't bought a pair of lugged boots in decades. My hiking staff has an inch diameter rubber pad on the bottom.

I use a staff for balance. My homemade and harmless staff works. I fell just twice while walking from Georga to Maine. Once was the result of carelessness. The second was caused by new new boots with soles unexpectedly more slippery than the boots I had been using for 600 miles.

Yes. I've heard the tales of people falling on the trail and how Lekis prevented even more falls. I'm sure people believe what they are reporting. But if they would analyze their use of poles, I suspect they would realize that Lekis and their ilk cause far more falls than they prevent.

When I've experimented with Lekis, I've found that the sharp points overall provide less traction than a rubber crutch tip -- especially on rocks, where a stabilizing pole is most needed.

I've walked thouands of miles before thru hiking, while thru hiking, and after the trail. I can't remember the last time I've fallen. I walk 30-35 miles a week, spring, summer, and autumn. I rarely fall.

Weary

Hikerhead
03-15-2008, 17:46
I still think rubber tipped poles cause very minimmal damage to the trail.

But hey, I like what you do and what you stand for....so if you say they still cause damage,well then that's good enough for me.

Rubber tipped hiking poles causes trail damage.

The lugged soles I don't even want to get into.

The Weasel
03-15-2008, 17:55
Weary --

I share with you a high support for any LNT action, but trekking poles do a few things that your homemade staff doesn't, which are anywhere from extremely useful to essential for some of us.

One is that they really do take a tremendous amount of strain off of knee and hip joints (and, I think, to some extent ankles as well), and when you hit 50, that matters. They also make it possible for many of us to move a bit faster, which reduces trail fatigue, too.

The dispute about "trail damage" from poles has been going on for at least the 10 years I've been involved at Trailplace or here, and while the dispute continues, as I walk trails, I don't see evidence of it that lasts much past one or two rainstorms or, in terms of "scratching" of rocks, a month or two. And a lot more people use rubber tips than some might think; since I do, I notice that others do as well.

They're a good thing.

TW

Skyline
03-15-2008, 18:13
Trekking poles--they don't have to be Lekis--are like 4-wheel drive for your legs going uphill, and like super duty dual disc brakes going downhill. I'm so addicted, I miss them when walking through the mall.

As someone who has maintained a trail or two, I don't see significant damage from trekking poles. I see more damage from waterbars and checkdams that have not been cleaned out enough. That will definitely cause erosion. (Of course, trail sections where these erosion control devices haven't even been installed sometimes fare the worst.)

As Spring turns to Summer, trail maintainers often play a losing game of catch-up to keep weedy vegetation in check on the sides of their trail. If trekking poles inadvertently help this process along, that's a good thing, right?

weary
03-15-2008, 18:15
...trekking poles do a few things that your homemade staff doesn't, which are anywhere from extremely useful to essential for some of us.

One is that they really do take a tremendous amount of strain off of knee and hip joints (and, I think, to some extent ankles as well), and when you hit 50 ....

The dispute about "trail damage" from poles has been going on for at least the 10 years I've been involved at Trailplace or here, and while the dispute continues, as I walk trails, I don't see evidence of it that lasts much past one or two rainstorms .....TW
Actually the visible damage doesn't last past the first heavy rain. The soil washes away and the evidence can't be seen. That's the nature of soil erosion. 65 years ago when I "picked" potatoes one fall at a northern Maine farm, the owner complained about the frost pushing a big rock into his potato field. Even at 15 I suspected that it wasn't frost, but the slow, but inexorable, erosion of his soil.

Years of observation have done nothing to defuse me of that belief.

Weary, approaching 50 plus 30.

vonfrick
03-15-2008, 18:43
i am the clumsiest person alive. by using my poles i suppose i am guilty of marring trails. without them i would likely leave behind, not only the occassional hole, but bits of bloody bone. i don't use them so much for support, but keep them at the ready for when those trail gremlins try to trip me.

Jason of the Woods
03-15-2008, 19:46
I am just disabled. Without them I couldn't hike. Now that wouldn't be fair now would it?;) The Gremlins get me too.

sheepdog
03-15-2008, 19:52
If people really want leave no trace, no hiking pole holes, no clickity clackity of poles going by. Go to the wilderness. Go to a place where there are no trails and no people. The AT as beautiful and precious as it is, it's basically a recreational area.

weary
03-15-2008, 21:03
If people really want leave no trace, no hiking pole holes, no clickity clackity of poles going by. Go to the wilderness. Go to a place where there are no trails and no people. The AT as beautiful and precious as it is, it's basically a recreational area.
Sure. Of course. But while we are enjoying non wilderness trails, there is no real reason that I can think of that suggests we should not protect such trails, at least as much as is conveniently possible. Especially, since all the evidence suggests that the desire to go fast and damage things, also damages the person who practices that behavior.

Weary

sheepdog
03-15-2008, 21:13
Sure. Of course. But while we are enjoying non wilderness trails, there is no real reason that I can think of that suggests we should not protect such trails, at least as much as is conveniently possible.
Weary
I agree.

highway
03-15-2008, 21:15
ive always been under the impression that soil aeration is a good thing.....lots worse things are happening to terrain and soil and the environment in general

Ponder that a moment. Do you have any idea just how many years it will take the soil in the area above tree line to repair itself from just the stab of a single hole from a trekking pole punched into it? Now imagine millions of them

sheepdog
03-15-2008, 21:23
It is kind of sad that so many people worry about the impact of a trekking pole when in many places in GSMNP you don't have to look for a rock to sit on. You can just sit on the side of the trail because you are walking in a rut a foot deep.

Flush2wice
03-15-2008, 21:27
Here is a photo of erosion caused by store-bought hiking poles.
3604

sheepdog
03-15-2008, 21:29
Here is a photo of erosion caused by store-bought hiking poles.
3604
You win. I will burn my poles and switch to an alcohol stove. I will also purge my gear of all sythetics.:D

Dogwood
03-15-2008, 22:02
Trekking poles have their good and bad pts. If they help U, great. R they necessary for everyone - NO! Do they significantly add to trail erosion - I don't believe so. I will say this- I see MUCH LESS wildlife while using trekking poles!!!

weary
03-15-2008, 22:05
You win. I will burn my poles and switch to an alcohol stove. I will also purge my gear of all sythetics.:D
No fair lying.

hopefulhiker
03-15-2008, 22:07
As long as you stay on the trail I think that poles are Ok. They add safety and you can use them to put up tents...

CaseyB
03-16-2008, 02:39
Funny how groups can justify their behavior to themselves. Anyone who has ever hiked on a trail where poles are used knows that they chew up the ground. Face it, boys & girls, you won't admit to trail damage from poles for the simple reason that you intend to keep using poles.

I use poles, too, I just don't try to pretend I'm not pok'n holes in the ground.
If you really want to 'leave no trace', stay home. ha!:D

JAK
03-16-2008, 02:51
I say use 'em if you gotta use 'em and don't use 'em if you don't.

I agree with Wolf that we do and buy a lot of stuff we don't need because of Marketing and just who we are as a species, but I think people should use sticks when they need them, because that is who we are also. It seems they are overdone and overpriced though, like many other things, like tents, and bottled water, and houses, and almost stuff made of plastic and metal. The leki poles themselves don't bother me so much any more. It's more the whole package, but it's my problem really as much as theirs.

Pole don't bug people. People bug people.

sheepdog
03-16-2008, 08:56
Funny how groups can justify their behavior to themselves. Anyone who has ever hiked on a trail where poles are used knows that they chew up the ground. Face it, boys & girls, you won't admit to trail damage from poles for the simple reason that you intend to keep using poles.

I use poles, too, I just don't try to pretend I'm not pok'n holes in the ground.
If you really want to 'leave no trace', stay home. ha!:D

I agree. Anyone who is on the trail chews up the ground, polls or not.

Maybe we should astro turff the trail. We could start selling a whole new kind of hiking shoe.
Turf cleats for the AT, Springer sprinters, Katahdin Klimbers,....Talk about an economic stimulis package. We could snatch up homeless hiker trash and have them work for a nights stay. Little shops spaced out every 20 miles on the trail or so. :D:D:D

dessertrat
03-16-2008, 12:24
Funny how groups can justify their behavior to themselves. Anyone who has ever hiked on a trail where poles are used knows that they chew up the ground. Face it, boys & girls, you won't admit to trail damage from poles for the simple reason that you intend to keep using poles.

I use poles, too, I just don't try to pretend I'm not pok'n holes in the ground.
If you really want to 'leave no trace', stay home. ha!:D

I use poles, and I admit that have some impact. Just not that much. The impact of trekking poles is minimal compared to what hikers' boots, dogs, bears, boar (in the South) and moose (in the North) do. As for the last two, you may argue that it it their home-- true, but they sure do tear it up.

Frosty
03-16-2008, 13:55
If using poles is eroding the sides of the trail, why is it that the center of the treadway isn't higher than the sides? Why is it that the trail is a long furrow in the ground where boots walked. I see evidence of footwear, not pole wear.

Anyone who thinks that having a third or fourth support leg will cause more falls needs to cut a leg or two off of a table or chair and stand it up.

Anyone who thinks that poles are the main cause of soil eroding away should ride through Franconia Notch and look at all the old landslide scars, massive eroding caused without benefit of poles.

For that matter, look at the notch itself. How did glaciers ever carve it without the aid of hiking poles.

It is good to think of the environment. It is not good to be peny wise and pound foolish. If you want to be contrary, expound of the damage that poles do to the environment. If you want to make a difference, focus your energy in other areas. Every bit of effort spent on things that just don't matter is effort not spent where it could do the most good.

weary
03-16-2008, 17:27
I use poles, and I admit that have some impact. Just not that much. The impact of trekking poles is minimal compared to what hikers' boots, dogs, bears, boar (in the South) and moose (in the North) do. As for the last two, you may argue that it it their home-- true, but they sure do tear it up.
Dogs and boars are both human imports to the woods. Maine has more bears and moose than any other state in the east. I have yet to see much trail damage from them -- or from dogs for that matter, aside from an occasional pile of poop.

What I object to mostly is the claim that poles are harmless, or that since other things do more harm, their use doesn't matter. The theory that damage is okay as long as something else is more damaging is both illogical and destructive.

It's the theory that most every litterer uses. "It's already dirty so a little more won't hurt."

Use poles if you want. There's no law against them. But all of us with a modicom of ability to observe recognize the obvious damage.

The deniers fundamentally can't bring themselves to recognize the obvious, if doing so threatens their experience.

Weary

Jail Break
03-16-2008, 18:17
The damage is negligible compared to a 200 lb guy with a 50 lb pack in aggressively soled boots.

Hey, when I set up my tent, the little ends of the poles that stick through the grommets pierce the ground... and sometimes even scrape around a little if it's really windy or if I move around alot at night.... and the ground underneath me gets compressed a little from laying on it, perhaps an insect or two get crushed to death... if I make a fire, I'm releasing carbon into the air and increasing the greenhouse effect.... and when I poop, I damage the ground when I dig a cathole.... when I pee, I'm sure some minute forms of plantlife do not survive the toxic shock. And if I fall on the trail, I'm sure to mess up the ground due to facial impact.

My next hike, I'm not bringing poles, I'm not sleeping, I'm not having a fire, I won't poop, I won't pee, and I sure as heck won't fall down.

I don't litter and I don't carve anything into shelters or trees. I pick up trash that I see, even if it's not mine. That's the best I can do.

Seriously... If you're worried about a pinhole in the dirt from a trekking pole, your time would be better spent picking that new 8-lane highway they're plowing down millions of trees and blasting mountain sides away for. I'm not ripping on anyone in particular, it just seems silly compared to EVERYTHING else.

weary
03-16-2008, 18:27
... if I make a fire, I'm releasing carbon into the air and increasing the greenhouse effect.... ....
You are not contributing to the greenhouse effect. Burning wood is a zero sum game. The wood took carbon dioxide out of the air. You are simply putting it back, and the seedling that will grow in place of the wood you burned will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. If you had just left the wood laying on the ground it would have soon decayed, releasing identical carbon dioxide into the air as your burning.

BTW. The rest of your post was equally nonsensical.

Weary

Jail Break
03-16-2008, 18:31
BTW. The rest of your post was equally nonsensical.

Weary

Thanks... that was my point.

dessertrat
03-16-2008, 22:24
You are not contributing to the greenhouse effect. Burning wood is a zero sum game. The wood took carbon dioxide out of the air. You are simply putting it back, and the seedling that will grow in place of the wood you burned will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. If you had just left the wood laying on the ground it would have soon decayed, releasing identical carbon dioxide into the air as your burning.

BTW. The rest of your post was equally nonsensical.

Weary

So burning fossil fuels is the same? Oil is just carbon dioxide taken out of the air millions of years ago, and we are simply putting it back into the air? Nice to know, from a guy who talks about nonsense.

vonfrick
03-16-2008, 22:27
yes, i too blame the dinosaurs.

they HAD to use trekking poles because of those tiny, silly little arms.

(uh oh, i'm in trouble now...)

weary
03-16-2008, 22:40
So burning fossil fuels is the same? Oil is just carbon dioxide taken out of the air millions of years ago, and we are simply putting it back into the air? Nice to know, from a guy who talks about nonsense.
Jesus. Don't you understand the most basic science. Global warming is caused by burning a billion year accumulation of fossil fuels in two centuries.

Weary

vonfrick
03-16-2008, 22:50
no, i only 'get' really complicated science generally.

because i'm generally stupid.

Jail Break
03-16-2008, 22:53
Jesus. Don't you understand the most basic science. Global warming is caused by burning a billion year accumulation of fossil fuels in two centuries.

Weary

SO... then burning wood would follow the same lines... the tree takes the carbon dioxide out of the air over many, sometimes hundreds of years of its life, and by burning it, it is released back into the air at a much faster rate, and therefore increasing the greenhouse effect. ...And its not just carbon dioxide, but also carbon (visible smoke?). This is on a smaller scale than your fossil fuel scenario, but on the same level. Thank you for rebutting yourself for me.

weary
03-16-2008, 23:19
SO... then burning wood would follow the same lines... the tree takes the carbon dioxide out of the air over many, sometimes hundreds of years of its life, and by burning it, it is released back into the air at a much faster rate, and therefore increasing the greenhouse effect. ...And its not just carbon dioxide, but also carbon (visible smoke?). This is on a smaller scale than your fossil fuel scenario, but on the same level. Thank you for rebutting yourself for me.
Well, with a little thinking you would realize that your comment is silly. But to save you the trouble, the wood hikers burn rarely comes from wood that has been growing for 100s of years.

We mostly pick up branches and stuff blown down in storms. But even if it did come from trees growing for centuries it would have negligible impact on global warming.

This will take a little imagination on your part. But try to picture in your mind the difference between a century or two compared with a billion years or two.

Now think about how burning an occasional branch from a 200-year-old tree might differ from buning a two billion year accumulation of carbon during the lifetime of that tree.

Burning the tree, especially, if it comes from a forest where a new tree can grow that would quickly use the carbon dioxide released by burning, would have an infinitesimal impact on the heat trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Yes. burning a two billion year accumulation of carbon would eventually have the same impact -- but it would take two billion years for the balance to be struck. In the meantime the climate would be getting warmer and warmer, perhaps even too warm for humans to survive.

Weary

GGS2
03-17-2008, 00:06
They're trolling you, Weary.

dessertrat
03-17-2008, 00:20
Jesus. Don't you understand the most basic science. Global warming is caused by burning a billion year accumulation of fossil fuels in two centuries.

Weary

Forget it. He isn't going to learn anything at his age. You'd think he was a Harvard man or something, with how obstinately he ensconces himself in a comforting bed of ignorance.

chief
03-17-2008, 00:39
Forget it. He isn't going to learn anything at his age. You'd think he was a Harvard man or something, with how obstinately he ensconces himself in a comforting bed of ignorance.Well Jesus, I think you've got him pegged!

dessertrat
03-17-2008, 00:40
Well Jesus, I think you've got him pegged!

And now you're BOTH calling me Jesus!

Montego
03-17-2008, 02:31
And what the heck does any of this have to do with trecking poles? :mad:

curtisb
03-17-2008, 04:40
Pro Pole. Love my knees. Period.

Jail Break
03-17-2008, 08:31
Well, with a little thinking you would realize that your comment is silly.

... Just as silly as say.... this entire dispute over the CO2 released from burning things in a thread about trekking poles?

Some people make it too easy.

I feel too guilty to even keep it going.

weary
03-17-2008, 09:06
... Just as silly as say.... this entire dispute over the CO2 released from burning things in a thread about trekking poles?

Some people make it too easy.

I feel too guilty to even keep it going.
All true. But the basic fact is loosening soil on a steep mountain slope, means that soil washes down hill as soon as a little rain falls to provide a lubricant. I know, you think this is just a theory. But it's a long standing scientific theory, known as gravity.

Weary

Jail Break
03-17-2008, 09:41
All true. But the basic fact is loosening soil on a steep mountain slope, means that soil washes down hill as soon as a little rain falls to provide a lubricant. I know, you think this is just a theory. But it's a long standing scientific theory, known as gravity.

Weary

Gravity? WOW! See? Why the cynicism? You talk to people like they're 3 years old, and you're gonna get people who then decide to refute you, even just for fun.

And yeah, when you loosen the soil on a steep mountain slope, it tends to wash away... JUST LIKE WHEN A PAIR OF BOOTS FULL OF 200 POUNDS WORTH OF PERSON STEPS ON IT! You're telling me a trekking pole disturbs the dirt more than walking on it? Gimme a break. If you want to use trekking poles, use them, if not, don't. Don't perpetuate some sinister bad-for-the-environment hokey BS to make people buy into doing things your way.

And rain doesn't act like a lubricant so much as it does an invasive fluidic medium.

mudhead
03-17-2008, 11:51
And rain doesn't act like a lubricant so much as it does an invasive fluidic medium.

That geek speak makes me warm.

weary
03-17-2008, 13:03
....You're telling me a trekking pole disturbs the dirt more than walking on it? Gimme a break. .....
I've never even hinted at such a thing. I have said, and continue to believe, that a trekking pole disturbs dirt and causes erosion in addition to the disturbance and erosion caused by boots.

Weary

Tin Man
03-17-2008, 13:52
I've never even hinted at such a thing. I have said, and continue to believe, that a trekking pole disturbs dirt and causes erosion in addition to the disturbance and erosion caused by boots.

Weary

Boots should be banned.

jersey joe
03-17-2008, 14:00
The damage that hiking poles do is so minimal that it shouldn't even be an issue.

weary
03-17-2008, 14:10
Boots should be banned.
Use them or not, whichever you choose. But recognize things like boots and poles, useful as they are, also cause harm. Responsible people will use them in ways that minimize their impact.

My choice is to avoid lugged soles on my boots and to keep a broad rubber crutch tip on my hiking staff.

Weary

bailcor
03-17-2008, 14:17
Didn't use them when young, now find them necessary when old. Use them, broken bones serve as a harsh reminder that you should have.

Slimer
03-17-2008, 14:36
Scientific and computerized lab analysis has shown that the dreaded Leki pole(lekus-killis-thelandus) is responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Appalachian Trail.
The only logical solution is to have the government immediately shut down the entire trail to human traffic for five(5) years. This will enable plant growth to regenerate, thus preventing erosion caused by the evil leki pole. After five(5) years has expired, the AT will be once again be opened to human traffic. Human traffic will then be allowed for a period of two(2) years and then closed again for five(5)... and the cycle will continue.
In the meantime, the government has proposed a Leki pole buyback program similar to that of the popular gun buyback program. The government is confident that this program will cleanse our society of this notorious device.

Flush2wice
03-17-2008, 14:40
Trail maintainers do a lot of damage with their shovels and picks. Maybe they should put rubber tips on their pulaskis.

Tin Man
03-17-2008, 14:41
Didn't use them when young, now find them necessary when old. Use them, broken bones serve as a harsh reminder that you should have.

I left my Leki's home recently and still have the black and blues on both legs. My knee is still a little shaky - hope it is nothing permanent.

A little extra erosion is a small price to pay for healthy knees and legs.

Dances with Mice
03-17-2008, 15:00
So erosion damage caused by hiking poles would cause the edges of the trail to erode at a faster rate than the footpath. Is that the concern?

highway
03-17-2008, 15:19
One obvious effect is that those millions of tiny holes punched into the ground by sharp hiking poles alongside the ugly scar of the trail would only serve to widen that ugly scar even more. But if those poles had rubber tips there would be less impact from the use of the poles. Why is that so hard for so many to see?

Dances with Mice
03-17-2008, 15:38
I think the on-topic portions of this thread make an interesting discussion.

I look at a lot of well-used trail and certainly see the holes but I don't see erosion on the edges of the trail that I can correlate with hiking pole holes and haven't noticed any significant widening of the Trail as a result of hiking pole use.

What else should I be seeing besides potential trail widening ? Maybe I'm looking at a problem and not recognizing it.

weary
03-17-2008, 15:41
Scientific and computerized lab analysis has shown that the dreaded Leki pole(lekus-killis-thelandus) is responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Appalachian Trail.
The only logical solution is to have the government immediately shut down the entire trail to human traffic for five(5) years. This will enable plant growth to regenerate, thus preventing erosion caused by the evil leki pole. After five(5) years has expired, the AT will be once again be opened to human traffic. Human traffic will then be allowed for a period of two(2) years and then closed again for five(5)... and the cycle will continue.
In the meantime, the government has proposed a Leki pole buyback program similar to that of the popular gun buyback program. The government is confident that this program will cleanse our society of this notorious device.
Sorry. Your plan fails to recognize the size of the problem. The problem is not the loss of trailside vegetation, but the loss of the soil itself. Soil is formed from the gradual deterioration of rocks and vegetation. It takes nature thousands of years to recover an inch of eroded soil. In northern Maine only about six inches of soil has returned since the erosion caused by the last ice age that ended around 12,000 years ago.

That's why knowledgeable people try to protect soil from loss in the first place. Practically speaking, closing a trail to allow it to "recover" serves no purpose, since recovery would take longer than civilization has existed on this planet.

Weary

Montego
03-17-2008, 15:47
Hmmm - After reading this thread, it sounds more like a poster (nope, not naming names) may have mistepped while hiking causing one of their poles to stab the top of their foot with the little sharp thingy on the end :rolleyes:.

If so, then maybe this thread should be more about coordination erosion :D

Jail Break
03-17-2008, 16:59
Sorry. Your plan fails to recognize the size of the problem. The problem is not the loss of trailside vegetation, but the loss of the soil itself. Soil is formed from the gradual deterioration of rocks and vegetation. It takes nature thousands of years to recover an inch of eroded soil. In northern Maine only about six inches of soil has returned since the erosion caused by the last ice age that ended around 12,000 years ago.

That's why knowledgeable people try to protect soil from loss in the first place. Practically speaking, closing a trail to allow it to "recover" serves no purpose, since recovery would take longer than civilization has existed on this planet.

Weary

I can't tell if you're serious or not, and it's making my brain hurt. :confused:

If we could just stop manbearpig from using the trail, it would recover in no time. I believe the end of global warming would shortly follow, within at least 6 months. With the inevitable return of millions of acres of rainforest by the year 2011, the earth's atmosphere would become much more humid, promoting rainforest-like conditions along the southern 2/3s of the AT. All that precipitation would surely lubricate the steeper sections of trail, and trail days could be supplemented with a massive slip-n-slide tournament, perhaps being incorporated into an Olympic event, sponsored by Leki. Of course, this is all dependant upon the imminent disaster posed by the Cumbre Vieja. Porque estamos aqui mirando una cabra muerta? So what it comes down to, is stopping manbearpig.

dessertrat
03-17-2008, 17:13
The funny thing is, in a lot of these areas through which the AT passes, we are talking about a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a percent of the total acreage involved, and most of the land in some of these national forests is never touched by human foot or pole. There are far more important things to worry about.

weary
03-17-2008, 21:41
The funny thing is, in a lot of these areas through which the AT passes, we are talking about a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a percent of the total acreage involved, and most of the land in some of these national forests is never touched by human foot or pole. There are far more important things to worry about.
Many posts ago this thread began with a question: "i've been looking into trekking poles lately because i've been talking with people who swear by them for reducing the strain on your legs- but i remember reading somewhere a couple of years ago that there was some question as to the negative impact that the poles have on the terrain. does anyone have more information about this or know where i might find some?"

I offered my opinion as did several others. We are now at 95 posts and counting because a few people could not stand the thought that anyone could possibly believe that they were using something that might be harmful.

But you are absolutely right, DessertRat. Hiking poles do absolutely no harm in those portions of "national forests ... never touched by human foot or pole."

Weary

dessertrat
03-17-2008, 21:51
If we could just stop manbearpig from using the trail, it would recover in no time. I

So what it comes down to, is stopping manbearpig.

I am wondering if Attroll or Sgt. Rock could change my name to "manbearpig" here on Whiteblaze.

Appalachian Tater
03-17-2008, 21:52
Weary, I must say I did not believe that hiking poles did any real damage to the trail. But I respect your opinion and much greater experience and after this thread and others on the subject now agree that it would be truly foolish to claim that hiking poles do not damage the trail.

Tin Man
03-17-2008, 22:00
Weary, I must say I did not believe that hiking poles did any real damage to the trail. But I respect your opinion and much greater experience and after this thread and others on the subject now agree that it would be truly foolish to claim that hiking poles do not damage the trail.

plus they leave all those icky scratch marks on the rocks

dmax
03-17-2008, 22:09
everybody can send there leki poles to me.
no questions asked.

Tennessee Viking
03-18-2008, 00:10
Aerates the soil mainly.

I wouldn't be going around soft or wet ground without rubber tips.

Then you do not want to be driving your poles hard into the ground to keep them vertical.

bredler
03-18-2008, 02:04
Leki is making a massive killing on the sale of thier overpriced sticks. It's amazing how marketing makes you think you gotta have something.


I found a stick in the woods...works okay.

highway
03-18-2008, 03:13
I can't tell if you're serious or not, and it's making my brain hurt. :confused:

If we could just stop manbearpig from using the trail, it would recover in no time. I believe the end of global warming would shortly follow, within at least 6 months. With the inevitable return of millions of acres of rainforest by the year 2011, the earth's atmosphere would become much more humid, promoting rainforest-like conditions along the southern 2/3s of the AT. All that precipitation would surely lubricate the steeper sections of trail, and trail days could be supplemented with a massive slip-n-slide tournament, perhaps being incorporated into an Olympic event, sponsored by Leki. Of course, this is all dependant upon the imminent disaster posed by the Cumbre Vieja. Porque estamos aqui mirando una cabra muerta? So what it comes down to, is stopping manbearpig.

Pero que hacemos si la cabra muerta no huele?

zoidfu
03-18-2008, 03:20
Manbearpig is multiplying!

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p306/zoidfu2_bucket/manpg.jpg

bredler
03-18-2008, 04:31
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: There has GOT to be some kind of policy against that image.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

zoidfu
03-18-2008, 07:23
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: There has GOT to be some kind of policy against that image.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Nothing in the TOS about Manbearpig or Manbearpiglets. Besides, I'd rather see Manbearpig teet feeding in a mall than out destroying the trail.

mrc237
03-18-2008, 08:28
plus they scar the trail. bad sticks

The whole 2175 mile trail is a scar. ;)

Heater
03-18-2008, 08:41
All true. But the basic fact is loosening soil on a steep mountain slope, means that soil washes down hill as soon as a little rain falls to provide a lubricant. I know, you think this is just a theory. But it's a long standing scientific theory, known as gravity.

Weary

I think Anti-Gravity Gear needs to start making trekking poles.

weary
03-18-2008, 09:58
I found a stick in the woods...works okay.
Which essentially is what I use. I found my stick where it had been cut to make a trail to a waterfall. It helped keep my balance so well, while walking 300 miles in Maine with a 9-year-old, that I took it to Georgia two years later and walked home.

It still stands 15 years later in my back hall, all nine ounces of it, including the 69 cent rubber crutch tip that provides protection to the trail -- a reminder of a great and fun walk to Katahdin.

Weary

dessertrat
03-18-2008, 10:06
I'm going to use a helium balloon to make me weigh about ten pounds, then shove myself along the trail with just poles. That will minimize the impact of my boots.

tucker0104
03-26-2008, 13:34
I think we have other thing to worry about instead of whther we are poking to many holes in the ground. What about less driving or producing less waste? I think there are a lot bigger issues than holes in the ground if you are worried about environmental issues.

Appalachian Tater
03-26-2008, 13:38
I think we have other thing to worry about instead of whther we are poking to many holes in the ground. What about less driving or producing less waste? I think there are a lot bigger issues than holes in the ground if you are worried about environmental issues.I don't think anyone is making the case that this is a big environmental issue, just that it's bad for the physical trail itself. Even the trail is a just a tiny scratch along the east coast with a few small tumors (shelters and campsites). The environmental issues we face, from McMansions and SUVs to insectiside use, to damming of rivers, are much more troublesome.

weary
03-26-2008, 16:31
I don't think anyone is making the case that this is a big environmental issue, just that it's bad for the physical trail itself. Even the trail is a just a tiny scratch along the east coast with a few small tumors (shelters and campsites). The environmental issues we face, from McMansions and SUVs to insectiside use, to damming of rivers, are much more troublesome.

But just because some ills are more serious than trekking poles, that in no way excuses their irresponsible use. Spend a few bucks on rubber tips and the poles still work adequately on soils and function better on rocks.

Weary

chief
03-28-2008, 14:43
Using trekking poles without rubber tips "in no way" equals irresponsible and they still work just fine.