View Full Version : Cutting across switchbacks
This poll asks if you cut accross switchbacks. Be honest.
Lone Wolf
09-20-2007, 19:12
nope. never
saimyoji
09-20-2007, 19:15
Totally a-hole thing to do. Damages the trail system, adds to erosion, and just plain lazy. I've seen "purists" do it though. :rolleyes:
Jack Tarlin
09-20-2007, 19:15
Me neither.
shelterbuilder
09-20-2007, 19:17
Never. Switchbacks are there for a reason - erosion control.
I'm inclined to say I never cut switchbacks, but when the treadway is under feet of snow, there have been times when I wandered off the trail.
Nope - spend too much time trying to build 'em to defeat other people's efforts.
the goat
09-20-2007, 19:20
never. only as$holes do that.
Rarely is there a trail here in the PNW that doesn't have switchbacks. My husband, being an East Coast native was shocked at the pointless switches always encountered. About the only time you don't have them is on very old "fisherman" trails or abandoned trails. The ones where they got going and got there fast.
Having said that, there are a number of areas where between the switches they don't remove Poison Oak ;) A good reminder to be careful ;)
Skidsteer
09-20-2007, 19:49
Nope. Can't recall ever doing that.
When you live in Maine, you come to love switchbacks, there are not very many in Maine, so when I encounter one I enjoy it quite a bit.
Protect the trail, stay on it.
Kirby
Appalachian Tater
09-20-2007, 19:51
No and it really burns me up to see where people cut them to save ten seconds.
Just a Hiker
09-20-2007, 20:04
I would never cut across one...they are my friend!
Jim
Jeez, it's hard enough getting up and down hills with the switchbacks. I'm not so much opposed to the idea as I am too lazy to make it any steeper than it need be.
Like, what are you, late for work or something? seriously, what's the hurry?
Finally something on which 100% (so far) of White Blazers agree.
Frickin' miracle!
Kerosene
09-20-2007, 22:01
Not me, even when I'm in a hurry.
never have and it ticks me off when I see folks do that
Hikerhead
09-20-2007, 22:04
Switchbacks are my friend. That's where I stop, rest and ponder.
Nightwalker
09-20-2007, 22:16
Never, ever.
Just a Hiker
09-20-2007, 22:22
Like, what are you, late for work or something? seriously, what's the hurry?
Good point....I also wonder about the people who feel they need a camp stove that boils water in 2 minutes.
Just Jim
Jim Adams
09-20-2007, 23:50
never! lots of switchbacks out west...useless switchbacks. I would rather go straight up the hill. was on a switch that went 3 1/2 miles out and back to lose 100 feet and one with a blowdown that the easiest way around the tree was to climb 6 feet up the hill to the last switch and walk around the tree and then drop 6 feet back to the lower path.
Total bull*****t.
geek
warraghiyagey
09-21-2007, 01:19
Can't think of any good reason to short cut a switch back. Can think of plenty why not to. Of all the things I've seen folks do on the trail, that's not one of them.
Dirtygaiters
09-21-2007, 01:52
never! lots of switchbacks out west...useless switchbacks. I would rather go straight up the hill. was on a switch that went 3 1/2 miles out and back to lose 100 feet and one with a blowdown that the easiest way around the tree was to climb 6 feet up the hill to the last switch and walk around the tree and then drop 6 feet back to the lower path.
Total bull*****t.
geek
Yes, this sort of thing annoys me too. Generally, I don't cut across switchbacks, but when the ground is in no danger of eroding, and when I can see the trail 10 feet above me or below me, but the trail I'm on takes a ridiculously long way up a switchback to get there, I do occasionally cut across switchbacks. It's no worse than the damage my feet do to the Earth when I'm bushwacking. You're walking off a trail either way. I think so many people are so deeply ingrained with this idea that we have to "follow the rules" that they forget that there are no rules in the wilderness and even if there are, there's no one around to enforce them. Friggin relax with the rule following for chrissake.
Not me, it is damaging to the non-trail area.
Once I learned that switchbacks were to protect the trail, not to make it easier for people, I have stopped taking shortcuts.
Appalachian Tater
09-21-2007, 07:34
Yes, this sort of thing annoys me too. Generally, I don't cut across switchbacks, but when the ground is in no danger of eroding, and when I can see the trail 10 feet above me or below me, but the trail I'm on takes a ridiculously long way up a switchback to get there, I do occasionally cut across switchbacks. It's no worse than the damage my feet do to the Earth when I'm bushwacking. You're walking off a trail either way. I think so many people are so deeply ingrained with this idea that we have to "follow the rules" that they forget that there are no rules in the wilderness and even if there are, there's no one around to enforce them. Friggin relax with the rule following for chrissake.
Everything you say here is wrong on several levels. I am willing to bet that this sort of thinking has caused no ends of problems for you in all aspects of your life.
Jim Adams
09-21-2007, 08:58
From my entry previously I'm sure that everyone knows that I don't like switchbacks but I do understand why they are important and NO!, I don't cut them. I was also on a few out west that were only 15' turn, 15'turn, 15' turn...I did like those.
geek
whitefoot_hp
09-21-2007, 09:45
if you dont like the switchbacks, cut them... HYOH
(just kidding, trying to stir controversy)
since most switchbacks are located in practical circumstances, usually cutting them out in large is not even possible. its always that last ten feet when some moron sees that its about to turn, and he sees the trail downhill of him and hes five feet away from it, and hes like, im fat and retarted, ill just cut down hill...
There are switchbacks out East ?!?!!!?!? :p
Nope, do not cut switchbacks..unless you count skiing over them when they are under 3+ feet of snow.
never! lots of switchbacks out west...useless switchbacks. I would rather go straight up the hill. was on a switch that went 3 1/2 miles out and back to lose 100 feet and one with a blowdown that the easiest way around the tree was to climb 6 feet up the hill to the last switch and walk around the tree and then drop 6 feet back to the lower path.
Total bull*****t.
geek
I agree with you on the ones out west. We were climbing towards Kearsarge Pass from Onion Valley. That switchback went on forever each direction. If the trail had just went straight up I would have been to the pass in no time
SGT Rock
09-21-2007, 10:24
Like, what are you, late for work or something? seriously, what's the hurry?
Good point....I also wonder about the people who feel they need a camp stove that boils water in 2 minutes.
Just Jim
If you are in a hurry why are you walking?:rolleyes:
Gray Blazer
09-21-2007, 10:45
When I was a little kid I used to because I didn't know any better. I know the eco reasons for not doing it. It also seems like a good way to break a leg or otherwise hurt yourself.
RadioFreq
09-21-2007, 10:50
Nope....never.
I'd feel way too guilty. I have seen where others have done it and to be honest, I was tempted a couple of times, but only for a split second. I know people have worked long and hard on switchbacks to not only make the hiking easier, but to save the trail from eroding as well. To me, cutting a switchback is like slapping a maintainer in the face. Not something I would ever do.
Dirtygaiters
09-21-2007, 19:49
Everything you say here is wrong on several levels. I am willing to bet that this sort of thinking has caused no ends of problems for you in all aspects of your life.
Farbeit from me to not thank you for foretelling my doom, or for assessing my life story from a single post I made, but I believe you're wrong to say that everything I said is wrong. However, I'd like you to prove to me that you're right. Certainly you should be able to do this. You seem to have full confidence in your ability to tell my the story of my own life, and I don't believe at all (given the earnestness and sensitivity of your post) that you would say something you can't back up 100%. Why not take your head out of the clouds a few miles and speak on a rational level that us Earthly beings can understand?
There are switchbacks out East ?!?!!!?!? :p
Exactly what I say when I encounter one.:D
Cutting across switchbacks is both selfish and senseless. So it should be no surprise that more than just a few hikers do it.
If you ever walked up and down the multi use (horses and hikers) sections in the GSMNP where they make them straight up and down (for the horseys) after or during a heavy rain you know why we have switchbacks (personally I don't care to walk in a muddy ditch full of horse poo) and if you ever put in the time to build or maintain them you'd understand why sensible hikers don't shortcut them.
If you ever walked up and down the multi use (horses and hikers) sections in the GSMNP where they make them straight up and down (for the horseys) after or during a heavy rain you know why we have switchbacks (personally I don't care to walk in a muddy ditch full of horse poo) and if you ever put in the time to build or maintain them you'd understand why sensible hikers don't shortcut them.
I'm not sure I understand why they'd build a horse/hiker trail "straight up and down (for the horseys)" rather than switchbacked, as it's more prone to erosion. Are these old sections of trail?
7Sisters
09-22-2007, 09:11
The only time I would consider it is with a hazard or major obstacle blocking the trail or serious winter conditios where you're walking from blaze to blaze and may not recognize a switchback. Outside of that it's really a poor habit or use of the trail.
<I'm not sure I understand why they'd build a horse/hiker trail "straight up and down (for the horseys)" rather than switchbacked, as it's more prone to erosion. Are these old sections of trail?>
__________________
Perhaps they are old sections but last time I walked in the GSMNP (2000) I endured several miles where the treadway was about six feet wide and nary a switchback in sight. If you think about it horses can navigate this kind of trail without much problem. I know it is more erosion prone but that along with the obvious poo in the path (or ditch as it were) is the beef I have with that particular use combination.
As to why it is or was done that way, you'd need to consult someone more knowledgable of horses than me. I only offered that analogy because when I asked why the ranger at the Gatlinburg Information Station told me it was to accomodate the horse traffic.
I seem to recall one place where there was the "option" for a "Z" instead of the "double S". I opted for the Z. Otherwise the switchbacks are easier on my knees AND the trail.
Nope, and invoking the impact one makes when bushwhacking to justify doing so is lazy as hell as well as wrong. Wanna bushwhack? Go all the way, not several feet at a time.:rolleyes:
Glo-Worm
09-26-2007, 16:37
Tater must be busy, so I decided to pinch hit. Hope you don't mind Tater.
1) "Yes, this sort of thing annoys me too."
Well this is your personal opinion and not an outrageous one. Have to give this point to Gaiter.
2) "Generally, I don't cut across switchbacks,"
A statement of fact that is not easily provable, but since this was freely admitted we should accept it as given. Gaiter 2 Tater 0.
3) "but when the ground is in no danger of eroding,"
This is where the potato begins to gain ground. This statement assumes you can properly gauge the errosion risk; actually it assumes you are a better judge to gauge this risk than the trail maintainers and land managers who expended the energy to make that switchback. There is a specific name for ground in no immediate danger of eroding; its called rock. Gaiter 2 Tater 1
4) "It's no worse than the damage my feet do to the Earth when I'm bushwacking. You're walking off a trail either way."
Here you are wrong on one of those levels Tater was talking about. While the specific damage you do is the same, you are damaging the ground at a location where it will likely be damaged again. It is this cumulative damage that can be devastating to a trail or a camp location. Gaiter 2 Tater 2
5) "I think so many people are so deeply ingrained with this idea that we have to "follow the rules" "
Sadly, no. Must people take short cuts whenever the opportunity arises regardless of the cost to others. This doesn't make them rebels, just lazy and jerks. Gaiter 2 Tater 3
6) "that they forget that there are no rules in the wilderness"
This statement is just absurd. Rules are the very thing that protect the wilderness from destoyed. They keep companies from dumping their industrial waste into the water and the government from selling the land or trees off to logging companies. You may choose to disregard them, but the rules remain. Gaiter 2 Tater 4
7) "and even if there are, there's no one around to enforce them."
Of all your mistakes, this is the most disturbing. Your conscience should be enforcement enough. But, for every piece of garbage on the trail their is someone who disagrees with me. Gaiter 2 Tater 5
Glo-Worm
Dirtygaiters
09-26-2007, 19:30
Glo-worm,
Good points. In response to your point #3...
There is a difference between switchbacks that are there to prevent erosion and switchbacks that are there to make a hike more scenic or otherwise make an ascent needlessly easy. This is a point that I believe you and Appalacian Tater are missing. In an oak-hickory forest with a medium understory, a solid groundcover of 1-3 year old leaves, and a slope (which the switchback traverses) of no more than 45 degrees, walking off trail is going to disturb the top layer of leaves, but not the soil beneath, as long as one doesn't trudge through the leaves. Thus, this type of switchback cutting would not encourage erosion. Most switchbacks aren't like this, imo. Mostly, the groundcover around switchbacks is thin or it's bare soil, like in mountainous or arid terrain.
I was thinking more of the rules which state parks, national parks and other natural regulatory agencies try to impose on individuals who are in the wilderness for recreational purposes when I said that. A law against cliff diving is there supposedly for my protection because I'm too stupid to know how to judge the water level right? A law against campfires is there (usually) because I'm too stupid to know how to build a no trace fire and to douse it completely with water before burying it, right? A law against tresspassing in a state park where the trail has been damaged by a tornado is there to prevent me from beign injured from a falling branch or from getting lost, because I'm too stupid to mind my surroundings right? You caught me, Glo-worm, there are laws in the wilderness, but most of the time, we ourselves are their only enforcers.
Glo-Worm
09-27-2007, 02:53
Point taken. I'm sure we have all been on switchbacks that are unnecessary, and I agree that they can sometimes be annoying. I guess my primary concern is that even if you are careful, simply stirring up the leaves will give the next guy "permission" to take the same route. It doesn't take too long for this to become a problem. I would venture that you, and pretty much anyone else who takes the time to read a site like WB, are more knowledgeable and consciencious than most. I'm more concerned about the next guy, and his friends, and his kids, and his dog, ect.
Glo-Worm
ATSeamstress
09-27-2007, 06:42
Only once . . . when a huge rattler was coiled up at the side of the trail. He was on my right and I was a few feet from my left turn, so up I went, less than 10 feet. Otherwise, no, my feet stay right on the trail.