Hiking Poles vs Hiking Staff [Archive]

View Full Version : Hiking Poles vs Hiking Staff

lucky_cowboy

01-02-2005, 17:48

I've read about some hikers using hiking staffs, but have heard little about why use a staff instead of hiking poles. Has anyone had experience with both? What are the pros and cons of each?

orangebug

01-02-2005, 19:12

Trekking poles have a different function than a hiking staff. Trekking poles are metal and fairly devoid of nostalgia and such. Hiking poles are frequently carved and decorated by the user. Hiking poles help with balance, but are otherwise little use, unless you manage to attach a screw to let it serve as monopod for your camera. Trekking poles help you walk by assisting the balance and efficiency of walking. They can also help support your tent/tarp or other shelter.

I've used both. I like trekking poles for long term hikes.

Chip

01-02-2005, 19:38

I use both from time to time. Depends on the hike. I have used my Leki poles for multi day section hikes. These help with balance either going up or down hill. These are light weight can telescope to the desired length for walking or to a short length for storage or strapping on your pack when not needed. Make a good tent/tarp pole if needed too. Before I got my Leki poles I used my staff( 57"long) and another walking stick (44" long). My staff is heavier than a Leki.This would be a draw back along with the length. Most hiking sticks are long, you can not shorten them to strap to a backpack if you wanted to. On the plus side, a staff this length is great for going down hill. You can place the tip down the trail alittle farther down the trail for better "braking". A staff or stick is great for crossing creeks or a river as you wade or rock hop and need the reach downward into the water as you step across the top of the rocks. Sometimes hiking polls are too short for this. I enjoy using either. My stick is a good conversation piece somtetimes as folks ask me where I got it. It was a small sapling that had a vine grow around and up which formed a spiral or flute like shape right into the small tree. I made a hiking stick out of it. Thus my trail name "Twisted Walkingstick". Basically it just depends on what you like to use when you are hiking. Both are good, helps maintain balance and save those knees.

Happy Trails,
Chip :)

Tha Wookie

01-03-2005, 01:03

Sticks (staffs) are far more connecting to the wilderness experience, but I think most people are too concerned with efficiency and mechanic technology to take the time to craft a nice staff.

Other than the fact that poles sqeak like a mattress and tear up the trail surface, I really don't care what other people carry, but I prefer the natural alternative.

If you decide you don't need a stick, then just leave it there for the next guy or gal -you don't need an insurance policy on it.

Anyone short on trail cash has no excuse buying poles. Look around -staffs are everywhere!

Jaybird

01-03-2005, 06:33

I've read about some hikers using hiking staffs, but have heard little about why use a staff instead of hiking poles. Has anyone had experience with both? What are the pros and cons of each?

the difference: about $130!
hehehehehehehe! :D

you had to see that coming!

i've hiked with both. On shorter hikes a hikin' stick (or staff) will do...but for the week long hikes (or longer) i always take my LEKIs. (and i highly recommend 2 poles)

ffstenger

01-03-2005, 07:09

I've used both. I'm a bit uncoordinated with two poles. I've heard that two
poles benefit your knees (good news on long hikes). I am, however hopelessly
attachted to my hand carved medallion covered pole that has been with me on
nearly every one of hundreds on miles I've hiked! BTW it has a blunt end with a soft metal ring to decrease damage to the trail. Showme

rickb

01-03-2005, 10:00

neo

01-03-2005, 10:03

i prefer treking poles,they are more multi use,like seting up my tarp or tent
i love my treking poles:sun neo

lucky_cowboy

01-03-2005, 11:28

Thanks to all for your comments. I am glad to hear that some favor the staff. I am drawn to the idea of a staff but figure the light weight and versatility of poles make more sense. So as it usually goes with me, my head points me in one direction and my heart in another!

freewheelinmilo

01-03-2005, 13:15

i am opinionated on this subject. it is easy to set up a tarp with a stick. very easy. how do poles give balance and sticks not? that makes no sense. two sticks will give you balance, two sticks will take stress away from your knees. oh, alas, you can not telescope them or whatever to stow neatly in your pack, but you can just chuck them in the woods, or leave them at the trailhead (isnt that the best, to find some sticks leaning against the sign at the start of a hike?) and then find a couple more. find some big meaty ones for a steep downhill, some thin light ones for a cruise, and on and on. your stick is a part of the enviornment you walk through, and that is nice.

trekking poles are the best example of effective advertising, just like a detergent can give you joy, these can make you a more efficient walker. its baloney. two sticks work just as well.

told you i was opinionated. love to all.

Lone Wolf

01-03-2005, 13:18

I agree with milo. Lekis are overpriced and overrated.

Peter Mossberg

01-03-2005, 14:20

A hiking staff is handy when you need poles but forgot them.

I generally hike with neither in the summer, but use poles in the winter.

$130 dollars for poles ?!^$# I just use an old set of ski poles

Blue Jay

01-03-2005, 14:38

$130 dollars for poles ?!^$# I just use an old set of ski poles

You guys just don't get it. You can't just be walking around with sticks or old ski poles. Remember, you are a representative of the entire trail community. You have to look respectable and carry status symbols. Not only must you have Lekis, it is important to walk around like you have one stuck up your blank.

gravityman

01-03-2005, 15:13

Use whatever you want, but in my opinion, low swing weight, comfortable handles, and a wrist strap are important. The wrist strap especially. It lets you loosely hold the pole and the wrist takes the weight.

Gravity

hikerjohnd

01-03-2005, 15:52

Most of my hiking experience is in Florida and I bought a pair of Leki poles thinking they would be nice. I never got the hang of them over the course of a two week trip and they sat in my closet for years. Then ebay came along and I got most of my money back! I prefer a staff, even in the mountains. I guess I'm not enough of an ultralighter to appreciate a tent supported by treking poles. Maybe you could borrow a set for a hike and try them out?

I just love the bananna! :banana

swamp dawg

01-03-2005, 16:26

I used a staff back in the day but since I have aged I now use hiking sticks. The hiking poles have saved me from falling countless times as I work my way up the trail over the years. I suppose if you have great balance and are well coordinated you may not need anything. HYOH
Life is good on the trail........Swamp Dawg

Footslogger

01-03-2005, 16:37

I'm a bit of an old timer and hiked for many years with a piece of dogwood that was carved, varnished and given to me as a gift. Back in the 80's I began seeing more and more hikers with the trekking poles. I didn't poo-poo them per se but I was just reluctant to give up my trusty old staff.

When I got serious in the 90's and began to get ready for my thru-hike I started to ask hikers I saw with the trekking poles just what they thought the advantages were. Without exception, they all said that the trekking poles took a signifint load off your knees on downhills. That got my attention and I decided to try a pair.

I've never hiked without them again. I think in retrospect, my attachment to the old dogwood staff was mostly sentimental and not functional. Yes, I could stop, grab it with both hands at chin level and take a rest. But that was about it. I would go so far as to say that a properly adjusted and correctly used set of trekking poles is a must on a distance hike, if you are interested in protecting your knees. They provide and extra source of balance on uneven ground or rock and can be used to nudge an occasional rattle snake off the trail. Added to that ...many of the modern tents can be pitched using one or both of your trekking poles, giving them more of a multi-purpose appeal and allowing you to leave the extra factory pole at home.

True, many thru-hikers go all the way to Katahdin without them, but they tend to be the younger (relatively speaking) crowd. The advantages of trekking poles far outweight the disadvantages (if there are any) that you might identify. A hiking staff is nice complement to a short walk in the woods but a set of trekking poles is basic equipment on a thru-hike.

'Slogger
AT 22003

weary

01-03-2005, 16:55

I think poles might be like trifocals-- great when and if you get used to them. I never have. Perhaps I just have a hiker's version of A.D.D. I switch things around a lot-- left hand, right hand, horizontal. I feel a bit locked in with two poles. But at a loss with none. Even one pole helps the knees quite a bit when going down hill. One will certainly help you keep balance crossing streams and on bog bridges and such. One is good enough for dogs. .... My pole of choice is a single non-nostalgic Kompersomething, though I do have another that I picked up on the porch of Roaring Brook's CG ranger station that got to Georgia. How long till we see Weary post about his Alder stick? Rick B
Well, I was resisting, but since you ask!

I'm not sure what the difference is between a stick, a staff and a pole. All can be light or heavy, whatever you want. All can have wrist straps. All help balance and knees. I understand $130 one are adjustable. I've never bought one, but I've experimented with Lekis. Like Rick, I find two poles, sticks, whatever, cumbersome. But then I like to look around, take a lot of photos of salamanders, bugs, frogs, flowers, pretty mosses and the such. I need one hand free.

Yeah, my original alder walking stick was found in the woods, left by a trail crew that helped build the side trail to the base of Dunn Notch Falls in 1991. It got me from Springer to Katahdin two years later, though it missed a few miles in southern New England through no fault of its own. I retired it a few years ago. I was worried it might break and someone my age shouldn't cry.

The replacement is also alder, cut from a live alder sapling, also found, like most alder, in the woods. Well, to be truthful, we call them "alder swamps." Actually, I have several now, as I experiment with how light I can make them. The best so far weighs 7 ounces, complete with adjustable wrist strap and a rubber crutch tip.

My favorite weighs about 10 ounces. It has a Komperdell top, complete with adjustable strap and built in compass. That's the monopod, Orange Bug "praised." It's really simple to convert most sticks to a monopod. Just drill a 7/16th hole, an inch deep into the top. Buy a 1/4-20 hexhead screw 1.5 inches long. Add enough 1/4-20 nuts to leave a half inch protuding, and epoxy the whole thing into the hole you drilled. The extra nuts just provide more for the epoxy to grip to. But if you use good quality two part epoxy the screw attachment becomes stronger than the pole.

You can use a wooden drawer pull to cover the screw when the camera isn't attached. Again drill a 7/16th hole in the drawer pull, insert a couple of nuts attached to a screw. When the epoxy sets, back out the screw and use it for your second camera monopod, or whatever..

Or you can buy commercial tops and straps from internet Komperdell retailers, 2 for around $14. Maine hardware stores sell crutch tips for less than a buck. Medical supply places cost more but their tips tend to have more bounce, which helps when one gets bored on the trail. You can practice how high you can make your stick bounce.

Weary

freewheelinmilo

01-03-2005, 16:58

well, slogger summed up the benefits of sticks, only he was talking about trekking poles, but what are they anyway but a couple sticks with wrist straps, right? i only changed a couple words[]:

"They provide and extra source of balance on uneven ground or rock and can be used to nudge an occasional rattle snake off the trail. Added to that ...many of the modern tents can be pitches using one or both of your [sticks], giving them more of a multi-purpose appeal and allowing you to leave the extra factory pole at home."

rickb

01-03-2005, 17:28

Footslogger

01-03-2005, 17:48

What I cant figure out is why you burn more calories walking with poles. Some have said 20% more. More callories burned means more work expended.

Perhaps that is why Ray Jardine isn't a fan of poles.

Just causing trouble, but its hard to argue with the math.

Rick B==========================
Rick ...it's gotta be all that back and forth arm motion. I notice a huge difference in my arms, especially the triceps, when I hike with treking poles as opposed to walking with my arms at my sides. As an aside ...one thing I noticed was that on the more flat stretches of trail the poles allow me to develop a good hiking rythm and the miles just seem to melt away !!

'Slogger
AT 2003

weary

01-03-2005, 19:52

==========================
Rick ...it's gotta be all that back and forth arm motion. I notice a huge difference in my arms, especially the triceps, when I hike with treking poles as opposed to walking with my arms at my sides. .... 'Slogger
AT 2003
Think weight. Think about the energy that would be expended walking with 10# weights held a foot or so from your body. You would burn more calories, obviously, than if you weren't carrying anything. Now reduce that weight to 9 ounces, which is what the last Leki I weighed, weighed.

Fewer calories, but still more than carrying nothing. The benefit of poles, sticks and staffs, at least those we are discussing in this thread, is that they help your balance and take some weight off your knees and places it on your arms.

In the interest of efficiency, balance and economics I carry one 10 ounce staff most of the time. If I were thru hiking I would still carry just one staff, but it would weigh only 7 ounces, because I would only rarely be bushwhacking, which is the primary benefit of carrying a heavier walking stick; you can whack branches and stuff out of the way with a heavy staff.

I don't have a clue about the breaking point of a 7 ounce wooden staff, since I've never had a wooden staff break in the last 60 years. But I hear stories all the time about how great Lekis are because there are a lot of places along the trail that will repair them, often for free.

It's a psychological thing with me. Perhaps OB can explain because he works in that field. But I find it hard to believe that my 7 ounce wooden staff that cost nothing is stronger than $130 lekis, so I carry a heavier version when I need a trail clearing tool.

Weary

orangebug

01-03-2005, 23:29

lostjohn

01-04-2005, 00:26

I have a couple of homemade wooden 'staffs' 'sticks' one made from a shovel handle.
They are in the corner now. Keepsakes of times past.

It took some effort to learn to use the new tech things. I have found out that the straps are so much nicer than having to grasp the handle all day. Although you can't see the wood grain, and they look a little techie, the $130 Lekis are cheaper than new knees.

Walk nice

lostjohn

weary

01-04-2005, 00:37

First, I am unsure how trekking poles have become $130 items. One doesn't have to buy a Hummer to get to work.

Second, trekking poles aren't carried. One leans into the wrist straps, putting your weight into the poles. As you walk past the pole, your thumb, forefinger and wrist sling it ahead for the next plant.

If you choose to misrepresent a resource, you can easily make it very unattractive. I won't comment on any potential psychological thing with Weary. It really speaks for itself.
Well, I can't defend the $130. I never bought one. My source is comments made on this list. JUst change my prior comments from $130 to "whatever they cost." The meaning is the same.

But I will defend the carried part. Somehow hiking sticks manage to get up and down mountains, swinging from the wrists of hikers, even my homemade alder hiking staff. If hikers don't manage to provide the motive power, I'm curious what force keeps 'em just coming along.

I've tried Lekis a few times, courtesy of Leki, who had given some samples to a hostel in Maine that I visit occasionally, those certainly didn't travel by themselves.

Which of course was all I was saying in my prior message. Someone questioned whether walking sticks save calories, or require their carriers to expend more calories. I continue to believe the latter.

But it's been a few years since I switched from engineering to journalism. Are there new rules of physics these days? I certainly don't want to misrepresent a resource.

Weary

Ramble~On

01-04-2005, 08:43

Hmmm.

I never got used to the Leki type ski poles but have always had a wooden staff, stick or broom handle. A couple of years ago I got a "Tracs" "Sherlock" staff.
It telescopes and suits me fine. I like it for up and down hill, extra balance for stream crossing, bashing briars and for bashing dogs over the head. The dogs really seem to enjoy this. I also find it perfect for my tent cause I can telescope it out or in to suit the tent. It collapses down short enough to fit on my pack for when I don't feel like dealing with it....which is rare.

NICKTHEGREEK

01-04-2005, 09:22

I was a long time fan of the "deadfall hiking staff" scouring the woods for a suitable dry tulip poplar branch when I hit the trail. A staff always seemed to help with the miles if you used it to push off with every other stride and gave you a mini woodshop project to play with around the campsite.
I tried a pair of Komperdell ultra lights on a trip to Arizona a few years back and fell in love with them. Never had a problem with bending or breaking and I clean the innards from time to time to keep the twist locks working well. They add a few miles per day on the level trails where your arms and the poles do some of the work propelling you along. On the uphill/down hill slogs they add some extra stability.
Not to throw gas on a blazing fire, but the only shortfall to the 2 pole approach is how to handle the leash when you take the dog along. (Remember Whiteblaze.net touts itself as a Community of Appalachian Trail ENTHUSIASTS, not just ultra-light thruhikers)

Alligator

01-04-2005, 09:43

...
Not to throw gas on a blazing fire, but the only shortfall to the 2 pole approach is how to handle the leash when you take the dog along. (Remember Whiteblaze.net touts itself as a Community of Appalachian Trail ENTHUSIASTS, not just ultra-light thruhikers)Retractable leash attached to hip belt through leash handle. Add another locking web loop if you do not wish to detach your hip belt.

Cleaning the innards is also a good practice for Lekis, it will restore grip.

treetrunks

01-04-2005, 09:47

Blue Jay

01-04-2005, 09:54

Why couldn't a staff be used to set up a tent or any other multi-purpose use that hiking poles can do?

It just does not look like you spent $130 dollars. Remember it's better to look good than to feel good (Fernando).

NICKTHEGREEK

01-04-2005, 10:15

Alligator

01-04-2005, 10:33

Think weight. Think about the energy that would be expended walking with 10# weights held a foot or so from your body. You would burn more calories, obviously, than if you weren't carrying anything. Now reduce that weight to 9 ounces, which is what the last Leki I weighed, weighed.

Fewer calories, but still more than carrying nothing. The benefit of poles, sticks and staffs, at least those we are discussing in this thread, is that they help your balance and take some weight off your knees and places it on your arms.

...
Weary
The above thought that carrying the poles results in increased calorie usage is speculative. There is the issue of efficiency. I once saw a tv special about women in Africa who carry large large loads of water and firewood. These women walk differently than most other people. There was interest in teaching this to the military. However, the instruction was lengthy, needing at least several months to properly adjust to the new walk. The point is, there may be greater efficiency when two poles are utilized. I would be interested in seeing real data from a study examining both walking with 1, 2, and no poles. If anyone has a link or a reference, please post.

Treetrunks, you are probably very used to (30 years) the rhythm of one stick. I was too, but gradually developed greater maneuverability with trekking poles.

Unless you are gifted with a very long pole;) , it takes two trekking poles to set up my Megamid. Finding a pair of branches to do the job would be a PITA. You could do it with one, but I think it would be too long to hike with. In general, you could certainly find sticks and branches to do the job for tarps and such, but personally, I prefer to have all my shelter pieces with me for quick set-up. I don't want to be mucking around in the rain looking for the right stick.

Did anyone ever have an old tent with multiple, separate poles? Ever lose one piece and try to use a stick? I always found this to be a PITA too.

weary

01-04-2005, 10:45

I had a knee problem all of last summer, and was crippled up until surgery fixed it. I bought a pair of leki poles because they are supposed to be better for your knees. I have been out backpacking again since September with the poles, but I don't like them. I had been hiking with a long staff for 30 years and I took it hiking again over the New Years weekend. I was only doing day hikes but I couldn't beleve how much I had missed the staff. It's a long heavy piece of hornbeam, but I like it.
Why couldn't a staff be used to set up a tent or any other multi-purpose use that hiking poles can do?
A hornbeam staff certainly should never break. It's the toughest wood I know. Old timers used it for homemade ax handles and such. Hornbeam can sometimes be found with interesting twists and turns that makes for a more interesting hiking staff.

I've used several kinds of wood: oak (strong, but heavy), red maple (light but a bit too springy), rock maple (also called Sugar maple, very strong, but a bit heavy), and my favorite, alder, which is very light when peeled and dried, and strong enough for everything I subjected it to so far.

Actually, most any wood will work -- and work as well as a manufactured pole on most trail soils, and in my experience when equipped with a rubber crutch tip better than commercial poles on rocks. In addition to chewing up trail side soils, I think sharp pointed pole tips tend to slip more than rubber on smooth rocks.

The only real draw back to wood? Unless you select your sapling carefully it will be heavier than a comparable commercial pole. And of course, a wooden pole can't be adjusted for traveling to and from a trail.

The natural variations of a natural sapling wood staff, however, offers numerous grasping points, and needs no complicated adjustments as the trail terrain changes.

For those who want to use a staff in the manner that OB considers the "right way," the simple solution is to drill a hole through the staff at about the point your hand would reach when your forearm is held at right angles to the body. Thread the hole with a piece of raw hide or flexible leather. And tie or tack it to the pole so you can put your hand up through the loop and hold the pole with just your thumb and fore finger. Done right the pole should swing from your wrist when you lift it off the ground.

I'll let you decide whether this lifting and swinging consumes a calorie or two or some portion thereof with each step.

Weary

Alligator

01-04-2005, 10:57

Two poles at $17.90=$35.80

http://www.tadspoles.com/customer/product.php?productid=6400936&partner=froogle

Lekis at northernmountain.com, $45 and $59.
http://www.northernmountain.com/brands/LEKI
Lekis at EMS, under $20, but sold out.
http://www.ems.com/products/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=84552444213 2089&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302336221&emssrcid=111&emssrclnk=01

A basic pair of ski poles will run $20, just change the baskets.

Froogle trekking poles and you can find a pair for under $30.00.

Alligator

01-04-2005, 11:07

...
In addition to chewing up trail side soils, ...

WearyThis is anecdotal. If you have data from the scientific literature, please share.

Footslogger

01-04-2005, 11:08

Why couldn't a staff be used to set up a tent or any other multi-purpose use that hiking poles can do?==================================
Probably could if it was the right length ...

The trekking poles are adjustable which is why they work so well.

'Slogger
AT 2003

weary

01-04-2005, 11:37

This is anecdotal. If you have data from the scientific literature, please share.
This is silly. I don't need to check the scientific literature for things I can see with my own eyes. The scientific question is not whether poles poke holes in soils, or that many hikers with poles poke many holes, i.e. "chew up the soil," the scientific question is whether this is damaging to the trail environment.

I don't know of any scientific studies that have been done analyzing the long range impact of sharp pointed hiking poles. But that doesn't mean damage doesn't occur, only that no scientist has bothered to study the obvious, as yet.

However, other kinds of soil disturbances have frequently been documented as causing soil erosion and I can think of no logical reason why the same principal wouldn't apply to hiking pole disturbance. Can you?

Perhaps the best evidence that poles cause damage is the lock step response by leki users whenever the possibility of damage is hinted. It reminds me of the response of niccotine addicts when someone suggests they may be killing themselves. Tobacco addicts are publicly in denial, but I suspect in their secret moments they know the truth.

Weary

Alligator

01-04-2005, 12:15

This is silly. I don't need to check the scientific literature for things I can see with my own eyes. Great scientific method Weary. Why, I can see that the sun moves cross the sky, the earth must be the center of the universe.

The scientific question is not whether poles poke holes in soils, or that many hikers with poles poke many holes, i.e. "chew up the soil," the scientific question is whether this is damaging to the trail environment.

I don't know of any scientific studies that have been done analyzing the long range impact of sharp pointed hiking poles. But that doesn't mean damage doesn't occur, only that no scientist has bothered to study the obvious, as yet.So you have no data for your hypothesis.

However, other kinds of soil disturbances have frequently been documented as causing soil erosion and I can think of no logical reason why the same principal wouldn't apply to hiking pole disturbance. Can you?Why yes Weary, unlike you, I have actually studied soil properties.

Soil compaction is a major problem along the treadway. Hiking poles create small holes which aerate the soil, reducing overall compaction while allowing increased water infiltration. This increased filtration reduces the total amount of sheet flow, reducing soil erosion. Increased soil moisture will also increase the amount of soil subject to freeze thaw periods, which will also reduce compaction. While there may be some initial trail widening, once the additional width needed to accomodate the very slight needed width for a trekking pole user is achieved, there is not likely to be any additional widening. This is a small price (as yet unquantified) to pay for allowing those users with disabilities (poor knees) to continue a pursuit they love.

Let us know if you find some rigorous quantification of the amount of damage you perceive. Otherwise, we've heard your opinion.

weary

01-04-2005, 12:48

Great scientific method Weary. Why, I can see that the sun moves cross the sky, the earth must be the center of the universe.

So you have no data for your hypothesis.

Why yes Weary, unlike you, I have actually studied soil properties.

Soil compaction is a major problem along the treadway. Hiking poles create small holes which aerate the soil, reducing overall compaction while allowing increased water infiltration. This increased filtration reduces the total amount of sheet flow, reducing soil erosion. Increased soil moisture will also increase the amount of soil subject to freeze thaw periods, which will also reduce compaction. While there may be some initial trail widening, once the additional width needed to accomodate the very slight needed width for a trekking pole user is achieved, there is not likely to be any additional widening. This is a small price (as yet unquantified) to pay for allowing those users with disabilities (poor knees) to continue a pursuit they love.

Let us know if you find some rigorous quantification of the amount of damage you perceive. Otherwise, we've heard your opinion.
Many thanks for an interesting analysis, though I'm not sure how widening the trail by poking holes outside the footpath, alleviates the compaction of the footpath. Perhaps you can explain.

As for my unscientific methods, I'm not sure an analysis of the sun and the earth movements relates directly as to whether I can see holes created by poking a stick into the earth. It strikes me as easy to be confused by the movement of heavenly bodies, but hard to be confused by at least the fact of soil disturbance, if not the results of that disturbance. Are you suggesting that when I chop weeds in my garden that I should have a scientist check in order to know for sure if the weeds have been really chopped.

Farmers use no till planting methods in part to reduce the erosion of top soil. I have seen trail sides in the south that look somewhat like my garden looks after I've tilled it in the spring. Can you show me some scientific research that explains why soil tilled with a tiller differs from soil tilled by sharp pointed hiking poles?

Until we have some scientific research that demonstrates that tilling of trail sides with sharp pointed sticks is beneficial to the trails, I prefer to stay with rubber-tipped poles, since rubber tipped poles provide good traction on soils and better traction than Lekis on rocks, thus are probably equally valuable at protecting knees.

The latter observation is anecdotal. But while I was experimenting with Lekis, once a Leki slipped on a rock as I was attempting to cross a beaver flowage. I observed I was dripping with water as I climbed back on the rock. I took that to mean I had fallen in. Though admittedly there was no scientist available to verify the observation.

Weary

treetrunks

01-04-2005, 13:36

You guys are pretty serious about this subject. I'm going to use what I like and not defend it. As for damaging the trail, it is the multitudes that are walking on them, not the kind of support they want to use. Sorry, but I'm going to continue to walk on the trails as well.

Alligator

01-04-2005, 14:11

Many thanks for an interesting analysis, though I'm not sure how widening the trail by poking holes outside the footpath, alleviates the compaction of the footpath. Perhaps you can explain.
Quite easily Weary, but first, we have not established that the holes are widening the trail. Perhaps you have noticed the additional footprints next to the trail? They are much larger than the little poke holes from poles. There is compaction not only in the trail bed but also right next to the trail. I would hazard an unsupported guess that compaction may also be reduced here by aeration as I have hypothesized it does inside the footpath.

As for my unscientific methods, I'm not sure an analysis of the sun and the earth movements relates directly as to whether I can see holes created by poking a stick into the earth. It strikes me as easy to be confused by the movement of heavenly bodies, but hard to be confused by at least the fact of soil disturbance, if not the results of that disturbance. Are you suggesting that when I chop weeds in my garden that I should have a scientist check in order to know for sure if the weeds have been really chopped.
Well, just like the heavenly bodies, the weeds have little bearing on the trekking pole holes. That said, you may see that they are being chopped, but you may not be having any effect. If you prune a tree correctly it will be more productive. Why, fisherman used to chop starfish into small pieces and toss them back into the ocean, hoping to increase the catch by reducing starfish numbers. You might want to check with a botanist to see what species you are dealing with. Perhaps your work is for naught.

Farmers use no till planting methods in part to reduce the erosion of top soil. I have seen trail sides in the south that look somewhat like my garden looks after I've tilled it in the spring. Can you show me some scientific research that explains why soil tilled with a tiller differs from soil tilled by sharp pointed hiking poles?
I reject wholeheartedly that humans poking a stick in the ground, even repeatedly, in any way, shape, or form, mimics agricultural tilling. This is pure exaggeration. (Weary, exaggerate :rolleyes: ). Let's all get our Lekis out this spring and till our gardens. Let's see, do you till with a roto-tiller? Maybe a pitchfork and shovel? Or maybe a tractor like our farmer? Down to how far a depth? Maybe you double dig your garden? Well, maybe there are some parallels. Tilling is done to aerate the soil by reducing compaction, which is exactly what I have postulated.

Rubber tips do not provide better traction on rocks. The carbide tip is smaller than the rubber tips and fits much better into dimples on and cracks in rocks. Oh, and the rubber ones just make bigger holes. They also wear off leaving petrochemicals along the trail. Of course, that's my opinion.

There is no question that emerging wet, you must have fallen in, just as there is no question that the holes are created by the poles. The next step after observing these cause and effects is to assess the damage. Which you have not done in any credible way regarding the trekking pole holes. You just say the disturbance is bad. I feel that it is negligible.

Show me the money Weary. Any studies backing up your claims?

ga>me>ak

01-04-2005, 16:41

I have my 2 old staffs(20+ yrs). However, just bought a pair of Komp's for 50 bucks last week at Sierria trading post. I'l get back with ya at the end of the year and let you have an opinion then :D

weary

01-05-2005, 00:10

....Show me the money Weary. Any studies backing up your claims?
The Following is an article published in the Register, an ATC publication for trail maintainers:

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.

Alligator

01-05-2005, 02:33

Keep trying Weary, this is chump change. I have already read this one (and I knew you would find it).

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. Right here is where the author should stop, write a study plan, collect some data, and then make recommendations based on real science. A brand new, open field of inquiry with a clear call from constituents.

What follows, then, are based on personal observations, extrapolations from other visitor-impact studies, and speculation regarding the potential impacts of trekking pole use.Personal observations, extrapolations, and speculation. Sounds like a blog. This article would never make it into a peer-reviewed journal. (It's obvious the authors are aware of this). A few angry quotes, speculations on impacts, and a study where the people used poles on a treadmill (I'm sure that mimics real conditions:-? ).

While there's some useful information, the impacts are not quantified in any way, the suggestion about removing baskets is ill-thought, and the most important suggestion is left out. That being, keep your poles planted inside the treadway.

I look forward to reading future scientific studies where the true impacts are rigorously analyzed. Until then,
... 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. And when these folks get around to seriously considering this problem, we will be able to estimate the true consequences.

Puck

01-05-2005, 11:10

Why yes Weary, unlike you, I have actually studied soil properties.

Alligator- You have presented an interesting theory. However, you have fallen on your own sword....where is your data? What were your methods? Was it a lit search? If so what are your citations.

I am not just busting your chops. This is an important topic and if there is actual data out there please share.

Alligator

01-05-2005, 12:45

No Puck, I have presented interesting, alternative hypotheses. Weary asked if I could think of some alternatives. I realize that I did not state that explicitly in post 38, but I do clearly state that I am hypothesizing in post 41. These hypotheses are drawn from the very basic soil science concept that sheet flow, aka surface runoff, causes erosion. Here's a link to the scientific method.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

One does not need a literature review to formulate a hypothesis, but it will certainly help in formulating a good one, and prevent repetitive research. In this particular case, from comments I have read, there does not appear to have been any previous research in this area. As for methods and results, these follow after hypothesis generation.

I would not in any way suggest that these are anything other than hypotheses. They are completely unsupported and I am not concluding that trekking poles do or do not cause significant trail damage. Data would need to be collected and analyzed before conclusions are reached. However, these quotes are from Weary, who is saying the poles cause damage.

But that doesn't mean damage doesn't occur, only that no scientist has bothered to study the obvious, as yet.

Perhaps the best evidence that poles cause damage is the lock step response by leki users whenever the possibility of damage is hinted.
Check these posts also.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=60662&highlight=erosion#post60662

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=39045&highlight=erosion#post39045

I just felt it was time for him to back up his claims.

weary

01-05-2005, 12:56

Alligator:

You should have stopped long ago, while you were ahead. Your first post suggested some real knowledge about soils. Your subsequent posts make it clear you know nothing significant that you are willing to post, anyway.

I posted the piece from the Register, even though it was written in classic bureaucratese designed to offend nobody, mostly because it reported observations of others that parallel my observations. I especially liked the comment about the sides of trails after 3,000 thru hike wannabes had passed by looked remarkably like they had been plowed.

Your comments disparaging the comparison of hiking stick damage to a tilled field suggests either a lack of knowledge of how erosion occurs in the real world or deliberate distortion.

The erosion of farm fields occurs a grain of soil at a time. Each falling rain drop dislodges a partical of soil and when it falls back it falls a tiny bit down the slope. It is not something dramatic but after many storms and billions of rain drops and many months and years the tilled soil gradually concentrates at the bottom of a slope.

This has been documented in scores of scientific studies of tilled farm fields. Since it is only the surface layer of soil that is moved by rain drops, it does not matter how deep the soil is tilled. The up to two inches reported in the Register report will erode as readily as deeply tilled farm fields, or my little garden plot where over the past 40 years most of the top soil has migrated to the lower end.

Because most hikers, like the rest of society, find it difficult to accept blame for damaging things that would impact on their comfort, the best way to change habits is to point out alternatives that won't reduce comfort.

Thus, the REgisters, "Removing baskets and using blunt rubber tips could substantially reduce the tearing and digging of the poles....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. ..."

I have experimented and it's clear to me that good rubber crutch tips provide more traction on rocks than a sharp pointed tip. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to present it. But your simple claim that the sharp point catches imperfections in the rock demonstrates nothing. Of course tips do that. Otherwise they would never work.

But a good rubber tip doesn't rely on the accident of finding an imperfection in the rock surface. It works by friction and there is always friction between the rock surface and a good crutch tip.

I know, Alligator, you don't trust anecdotes. But I'm going to offer one anyway. I read all the time on this and other lists and in trail journals about hikers falling.

Well with only my 9 ounce alder pole, complete with a found crutch tip, I only fell twice on my 2,000 mile walk north from Springer. Neither time was I using my walking staff. In the 11 years since I've walked with a wooden staff and crutch tip several miles most days, up and down hills on rough wooded and rocky trails and I can't remember ever falling, despite an obvious and progressive decrease in my sense of balance.

Weary

rickb

01-05-2005, 14:25

Alligator

01-05-2005, 14:29

Alligator:

You should have stopped long ago, while you were ahead. Your first post suggested some real knowledge about soils. Your subsequent posts make it clear you know nothing significant that you are willing to post, anyway.Really Weary? You have not once demonstrated that you have any knowledge of soils other than farming. Feel free to discuss any of the five soil forming factors in depth. Parent Material is quite easy. I do have some knowledge of soils, it is a little weathered though. (Weathering+Parent Material=?)

I posted the piece from the Register, even though it was written in classic bureaucratese designed to offend nobody, mostly because it reported observations of others that parallel my observations. I especially liked the comment about the sides of trails after 3,000 thru hike wannabes had passed by looked remarkably like they had been plowed.Let's be honest. You posted it because it was all you could find and you liked that one other person amongst an unknown sample size agreed with you. You are also exaggerating again. 3000 thru hiker wannabees in VA? I don't know about that many...

Your comments disparaging the comparison of hiking stick damage to a tilled field suggests either a lack of knowledge of how erosion occurs in the real world or deliberate distortion.

The erosion of farm fields occurs a grain of soil at a time. Each falling rain drop dislodges a partical of soil and when it falls back it falls a tiny bit down the slope. It is not something dramatic but after many storms and billions of rain drops and many months and years the tilled soil gradually concentrates at the bottom of a slope. No distortion, I simply do not feel that mechanized tilling, involving complete tearing and ripping of the soil, compares well with poking holes in the ground with trekking poles. Apples and oranges.

The erosion of farm fields also results from sheet erosion. This occurs when water is unable to infiltrate the field due to soil saturation. Unable to infiltrate, the water flows downhill, carrying soil particles. Depending on the conditions, sheet flow may be the worse erosion agent. It's not the rain impact moving the grains on steep slopes, its the sheet flow. Hence the need for terracing. Also, an important aspect to no till farming is that the stubs of plants reduce the water's velocity.

This has been documented in scores of scientific studies of tilled farm fields. Since it is only the surface layer of soil that is moved by rain drops, it does not matter how deep the soil is tilled. The up to two inches reported in the Register report will erode as readily as deeply tilled farm fields, or my little garden plot where over the past 40 years most of the top soil has migrated to the lower end. ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM [last sentence in preceding paragraph]. Run this by the editor of Soil Science.

Because most hikers, like the rest of society, find it difficult to accept blame for damaging things that would impact on their comfort, the best way to change habits is to point out alternatives that won't reduce comfort.

Thus, the REgisters, "Removing baskets and using blunt rubber tips could substantially reduce the tearing and digging of the poles....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. The pros outweight the cons IMO. I don't agree with your assumptions about damage. I also do not think that taking off the baskets is a smart idea. The poles will go deeper. That's why there are baskets on ski poles.

I have experimented and it's clear to me that good rubber crutch tips provide more traction on rocks than a sharp pointed tip. If you have evidence to the contrary feel free to present it. But your simple claim that the sharp point catches imperfections in the rock demonstrates nothing. Of course tips do that. Otherwise they would never work.Just personal evidence, like you. I have a very nice hickory staff that I cherish because my father gave it to me. It's much nicer than my chipped up Lekis, but the staff stays home.

But a good rubber tip doesn't rely on the accident of finding an imperfection in the rock surface. It works by friction and there is always friction between the rock surface and a good crutch tip.

Rocks are very imperfect surfaces Weary, and I find that there is always friction between between the rock surface and my good trusty Lekis.

[QUOTE=weary]I know, Alligator, you don't trust anecdotes. But I'm going to offer one anyway. I read all the time on this and other lists and in trail journals about hikers falling.For every anecdote you present someone else will have another one. It's a slow measure for getting results and highly biased.

If you happen to find any studies on the topic of trekking pole effects on hiking trails, I would be happy to discuss. Just to help you out, the good ones usually have an introduction, methods, results and discussion, conclusion, and reference sections:bse .

P.S. Hope your blood's not boiling too much there Weary;) . I especially liked the colon
Alligator: If it makes you feel any better (or worse), I often agree with your viewpoint. But don't mess with my Lekis...

weary

01-05-2005, 15:49

I often agree with your viewpoint. But don't mess with my Lekis...
Ah, at last we've gotten to the root of the matter.

Weary

Blue Jay

01-05-2005, 16:06

weary

01-05-2005, 16:24

Weary--

I think a better question woud be whether or not such additional errosion matters. I am not so sure it does. First off, how would we define "good" and "bad" when it comes to errosion? Does the 'bad' go beyond aesthetic considerations? Seriously. Because if it does not, then ALL that matters is hikers' experiences. If that's true, then the best study might not be found at one's feet, but rather asking people if they care. Rick B
Well, us environmental LNT types think any unnecessary damage is bad. But I see more "damage" in the deep soils of Georgia and North Carolina than in bony New England.

I've told the story of the potato farmer in Aroostook County who claimed the frost was pushing giant boulders into his fields. But even as a student earning a few bucks picking potatoes I knew it was erosion -- and almost certainly of the kind I described in the post you responded to. Despite the comments of Leki-loving Alligator I don't know of any evidence that the same thing won't occur on the trails.

I guess the seriousness depends on how long one expects the Appalachian Trail to last. Multiply a quarter inch times the number of years you expect people will want to use a long distance trail -- 10 years more, 20, a century, two centuries?

I know, Alligator, you think a quarter inch is an exaggeration. You may be right. No one has done the scientific study needed to find out. Nor are they likely. Trails people hired studies on the impact of lug soles when they became popular back in the 60s. The studies showed considerable damage. But almost no one changed their boot selection as a result -- at least not until the ultralight craze shifted the boot of choice back to sneakers. Of course the switch was made easier because sneakers had progressed to costing $100+ a pair.

I see a business opportunity here. If we can get some one to make an environmentally friendly $10 hiking staff and sell it for a hundred bucks backpackers are more likely to make the switch.

The arguments over lug-soled boots were the same. Safety and the well-being of hikers made lug boots mandatory, regardless of any damage. The cry then was "don't mess with my lug soles...."

Given the lack of studies, the only thing I'm positive of in this long discussion is that a rubber crutch tip does less damage than a pointed stick, gives adequate traction on soils -- and is better than a pointed stick on rocks.

Lug boot damage was even more obvious than that caused by sharp pointed hiking sticks. My wife always pointed out the top soil on the kitchen floor every time I came in from the garden.

Weary

JoeHiker

01-05-2005, 17:33

Personally, I don't use my Lekis in any attempt to save energy or be more or less efficient. The energy costs don't really matter at all. I use them because they allow me to walk more securely by virtue of having two more limbs that can support my weight and help me maintain my balance. I've lost count of the number of times I've slipped a bit while on the trail only to catch myself with one of my poles. Since I know I can do this, I feel far more confident and can walk as fast as I want. Coming down a hill, they help alleviate the pounding on my knees.

As for the "damage" issue, we're talking about a small footpath in the middle of miles and miles of woods. A few feet across. What is the scope of adding a few inches width on either side compared to the miles around you? If the poles make it a foot wider, so what? It's not as if the trail is going to get wider and wider every year. The average human armspan isn't going to be getting any larger.

We're talking about hiking path used by thousands of people. The very fact that people walk on it and therefore kill any vegetation that would otherwise grow on it does the damage.

Personally, I saw enough damage on the edge of the trail just from people's feet -- people walking there in damp conditions in order to avoid the puddles and streams right in the center of it. And what caused the depression in the center that allowed the puddles to form? Why, people walking on it, of course.

Alligator

01-05-2005, 18:12

[Joehiker beat me to some of this]

It is my hypothesis that on a well-used trail such as the AT, the major erosion is caused by surface runoff. The trail has been compacted by many feet, increasing soil bulk density. Water infiltration rates are lowered, so water runs across the surface, with increased erosion. Additionally, in most places, no plants grow in the trail. They are trampled, plus even roots will die underneath if compacted too much. Vegetation also slows down water flow. I think the reduction of velocity is the purpose of water bars, along with a redirection of flow? For a trail like the AT, with high use rates, the problem that needs addressing IMO is compaction, not what footware people are using or walking aid. On compacted soils, these may be negligible.

Anyway, that's why I think that by keeping the poles planted within the trail, there may be a some benefit achieved. Additionally, my thoughts are that weight is spread by in effect having one or two additional legs, potentially reducing compaction.

Us environmental science graduates were taught that no matter what your heart feels, you're going to need solid, rock-steady facts to get your point across.

Leki loving Alligator out.

weary

01-05-2005, 19:35

....Personally, I saw enough damage on the edge of the trail just from people's feet -- people walking there in damp conditions in order to avoid the puddles and streams right in the center of it. And what caused the depression in the center that allowed the puddles to form? Why, people walking on it, of course.
Given the lack of studies, the only thing I'm positive of in this long discussion is that a rubber crutch tip does less damage than a pointed stick, gives adequate traction on soils -- and is better than a pointed stick on rocks.

Weary

orangebug

01-05-2005, 23:16

Weary, you may be positive of it, but it is still only an anecdotal obserbation and not a proof.

There are benefits to trekking poles, regardless of price, as well as benefits with hiking staffs or the use of nothing. I'm even confused with what you consider the difference between lug soled boots and the trail runners that you refer to as "sneakers."

I haven't suggested that there is a "right way" to hike, in spite of your trolling. I have suggested that the use of trekking poles (or other tools) is a personal decision that deserves consideration. No one wishes to diminish the size, girth and firmness of your fine alder staff. I am certain that it helps you compensate for something less impressive.

weary

01-06-2005, 00:03

Tha Wookie

01-06-2005, 00:41

Great scientific method Weary. Why, I can see that the sun moves cross the sky, the earth must be the center of the universe.

So you have no data for your hypothesis.

Soil compaction is a major problem along the treadway. Hiking poles create small holes which aerate the soil, reducing overall compaction while allowing increased water infiltration. This increased filtration reduces the total amount of sheet flow, reducing soil erosion. Increased soil moisture will also increase the amount of soil subject to freeze thaw periods, which will also reduce compaction. While there may be some initial trail widening, once the additional width needed to accomodate the very slight needed width for a trekking pole user is achieved, there is not likely to be any additional widening. This is a small price (as yet unquantified) to pay for allowing those users with disabilities (poor knees) to continue a pursuit they love.

Let us know if you find some rigorous quantification of the amount of damage you perceive. Otherwise, we've heard your opinion.Actually, alligator, you're doing exactly what you just accused of Weary.

There have been no studies measuring impact of poles on sheet flow, or any other related aspect that you mention above. Not only are your comments unsupported, but they conflict with the current body of recreation ecology research. Most of what I just read above sounds like hearsay, which needs to be cleared up.

I know this, because I have a master's degree in recreation ecology and I make my modest yet worthy living doing such studies, researching literature, and writing for management reports of the National Park Service and NOLS international site studies.

To briefly break it down:

1) Erosion, not compaction, was listed as the #1 managerial concern by NPS land managers (Roggenbuck & Marion, 2001?). Trail widening is generally considered the 2nd major concern in all of the studies I have seen. In the tread studies I have been a part of, compaction hasn't even been listed as an indicator of study.

2) Increased soil moisture is closely linked to muddy problems, thus the primary related event with the trail widening you mentioned earlier. It is not clear how poles impact trail widening on a general basis, but they undoubtedly create a new area of impact, based on my trail experiences. I never had heard the freeze/compaction theory. Where's that from? I never heard of that study. Sounds interesting. Please share.

3) You are correct in the fact that research shows a curvilinear relationship with trails and impact, where most of the impact occurs in the first stages. That is why proper planning and understanding of impact processes are critically important.

4) You are probably right that the impact level might be negligible in relation to its benefits. As recreation ecologist Jeff Marion (my mentor and boss; see full article on his work in previous ATN) stated in an ATN issue several years ago, at this point the best thing to do is 1)use rubber tips and 2)do not use the baskets in vegetated areas. Although I would have added 3) what's wrong with a blunt stick?

There. Now those college loans have finally paid off.;)

Alligator

01-06-2005, 15:37

Actually, alligator, you're doing exactly what you just accused of Weary.

There have been no studies measuring impact of poles on sheet flow, or any other related aspect that you mention above. I explained this in post #46, I am aware of the lack of research. Both you and Weary are confirming this.

Not only are your comments unsupported, but they conflict with the current body of recreation ecology research. Most of what I just read above sounds like hearsay, which needs to be cleared up.How can my comments "or any other related aspect" [of them] conflict with the current body of recreation research if there are no studies similar to my hypotheses above. They are just hypotheses which need evidence (data) to either lend them support or refute them.

I know who you are, I saw ya in the NY Times. I think I had to cross-reference to match you with your trail name, but I knew it was you because you had mentioned your hike.

To briefly break it down:

1) Erosion, not compaction, was listed as the #1 managerial concern by NPS land managers (Roggenbuck & Marion, 2001?). Trail widening is generally considered the 2nd major concern in all of the studies I have seen. In the tread studies I have been a part of, compaction hasn't even been listed as an indicator of study.1. Couldn't find the reference, but it's Roggenbuck, J. W and J. L. Marion. 2001? It wasn't listed on their faculty pages, perhaps a third author? I'll take your word for it though that erosion is #1 and I agree with it anyway. What causes erosion? One cause is surface runoff, comprised of sheet flow and rill flow. If the soil is compacted there will be less infiltration, and more water will go to sheet flow and rill flow, potentially increasing erosion. Just because you have not studied something, it does not discount in any way it as a potential factor. It just means that you don't have any data for it. However, again, it is just a hypothesis. I won't get bent out of shape if it is supported or unsupported. One just revises the hypothesis and moves on. I don't know what you are studying, but if you provide a reference, or even a finished study plan, I would be happy to read it.

2) Increased soil moisture is closely linked to muddy problems, thus the primary related event with the trail widening you mentioned earlier. It is not clear how poles impact trail widening on a general basis, but they undoubtedly create a new area of impact, based on my trail experiences. I never had heard the freeze/compaction theory. Where's that from? I never heard of that study. Sounds interesting. Please share.2. Mud puddles-Yes walk through them not around them because widening occurs at those edges. That's still the accepted cause right? You're lukewarm on the idea that poles widen the trail. You'd like evidence of freeze compaction. Like I said in #46, (again, this is not a theory) that was a hypothesis. The next step would be data collection. Then analysis...

But, I will describe my thoughts on it. When the water at the surface of the soil freezes, it pushes small soil particles up, you may have seen a picture somewhere in a soils class. The particle looks sort of balanced on the tip of the ice spike. Very small, fine, needles. A picture would be better. Anyway, the particle ends pushed up. Also, ice expands when frozen. So, I considered freeze/thaw as a method to change volume, thus density, and a potential player in reducing compaction. If I had to pick, my number one question would be: Do the trekking poles increase infiltration thereby reducing surface runoff? But I don't have to share anything here, it's just a hypothesis. I'm not the one telling people that what they are doing is causing damage and that they need to modify their behavior.

3) You are correct in the fact that research shows a curvilinear relationship with trails and impact, where most of the impact occurs in the first stages. That is why proper planning and understanding of impact processes are critically important.3. Thank you for the information about the relationship, its interesting to note that. I think it is very important that if it is felt that something is creating a problem it should be investigated fully, across scenarios.

4) You are probably right that the impact level might be negligible in relation to its benefits. As recreation ecologist Jeff Marion (my mentor and boss; see full article on his work in previous ATN) stated in an ATN issue several years ago, at this point the best thing to do is 1)use rubber tips and 2)do not use the baskets in vegetated areas. Although I would have added 3) what's wrong with a blunt stick?Thank you for your candor. I see the recommendations and will continue to consider them. I personally feel strongly that leaving the baskets off is a bad idea. I have domish shaped baskets, they don't really catch on the vegetation. My friend's snow basket one's do though. But these are just anecdotes;) . I believe that the poles will sink to a great depth in soft soils. I think they sell that way to increase profits (accessories now needed).

There. Now those college loans have finally paid off.;)You bet but are they paid off yet? Sucks...

Great conversation Wookie. Hope to see you out on the trails someday. Any articles regarding this issue or other AT related user impacts are welcome and will be read (maybe not immediately).

Alligator out.

weary

01-06-2005, 16:08

Tha Wookie

01-06-2005, 17:10

Alligator,

Thank you for your discussion points. Very interesting.:D

Now I'm going to reply just a little bit (have to go for a run & swim before sunset).

1) "How can my comments "or any other related aspect" [of them] conflict with the current body of recreation research if there are no studies similar to my hypotheses above. They are just hypotheses which need evidence (data) to either lend them support or refute them."

I tried to show you this by example, but what I meant is that trail erosion is well-studied, but your hypotheses conflict with past findings, such as mentioned below in my response to the infiltration issue.

2) "1. Couldn't find the reference, but it's Roggenbuck, J. W and J. L. Marion. 2001? It wasn't listed on their faculty pages, perhaps a third author? I'll take your word for it though that erosion is #1 and I agree with it anyway. What causes erosion? One cause is surface runoff, comprised of sheet flow and rill flow. If the soil is compacted there will be less infiltration, and more water will go to sheet flow and rill flow, potentially increasing erosion. Just because you have not studied something, it does not discount in any way it as a potential factor. It just means that you don't have any data for it. However, again, it is just a hypothesis. I won't get bent out of shape if it is supported or unsupported. One just revises the hypothesis and moves on. I don't know what you are studying, but if you provide a reference, or even a finished study plan, I would be happy to read it."

Actually, I looked it up and its a 1993 study. it could be outdated, but I don't think the nature of trail degredation has changed all that much, unless new behavioral patterns are present, like the use of metal poles. the reference is:

Roggenbuck, J. W., Williams, D. R., & Watson, A. E. (1993). Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management, 17(2), pp. 187-197.

To answer the pole infiltration point, I'd like to direct you to:

Summer, R. M. (1980). Impact of horse traffic on trails in Rocky Mountains National Park. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March-April, 85-87.

and...
Summer, R. M. (1986). Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41, (2), 126-128.
and...

Whinam, J., & Comfort, M. (1996). The impact of commercial horse riding on sub-alpine environments at Cradle Mountain, Tasmania, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 61-70.

In these and other studies, horse impact is seen as an entirely different form of impact process. I can't recall right now, but there is a study that talks about the process in detail in concern to erosion. The main point is that the "puncturing" of the soil by the cylindrical shape of the metal shoes tend to leave a space where soil is disrupted, some flung away, water collects in the hole, and soft semi-saturated soils are highly prone to muddiness and very high levels of erosion. I measured this as a part of my thesis actually.
Obviously I am suggesting that it is possible that this action is similar to other sharp and puncturing implements like you-know-what. Poles!

But as we've already discussed, the erosion amounts are relatively minor, and we know as foresters that this amount of erosion is hardly significant to the forest ecosystem. But what about a local trail ecosystem, or what about the diversity of plants usually found on disturbed corridors, and what about the overall erosion loss of a trail? The latter is very important to trail managers.

Yet here, we find ourselves faced with the other side of the impact -the social side. Clearly, pole impacts bother people. They might not bother everyone, but neither does litter, cell phones, or even human waste. I think a two-part hybrid study for this would be most appropriate, looking at both sides with a qualitative and quantitative microscope.

But so what? Is this at all relevant to the world? Who really cares?
I know that landmanagers do. I hear a lot of hikers who also claim to care deeply about pole damage. Moreover, the dual mandate of the NPS mandates that the natural resources have to be balanced with high-quality recreation experiences. In a wilderness, is it appropriate for management to allow excessive impact, which may be defined as impact other than a basic trail infrastructure?

It might not be the most dire issue, but I think there is merit to it being studied. Mr, Marion and I have already worked up a study design, but are waiting for right time and funding. If we ever move on it, I'll surely see what you have to say about it, with your background in experimental design. If you have the old ATN magazines, you can find the seed study that Marion talked about in the issue a couple years ago.

Ok, I lost my train of thought. I'm in the Caribean right now, where the sun sets an hour earlier. It's looking mighty fine out there now, and the computer will have to wait.

Alligator

01-06-2005, 19:23

Thanks Wookie, I will definitely give those a read as time permits. Looking at the horse damage is a good start and probably a great place to get an idea of the processes involved in having a disturbance agent on the trails. I have often wondered about the muddiness issue, our local state park has very muddy horse trails.

soft semi-saturated soils are highly prone to muddiness and very high levels of erosionI find this point interesting. If you can show that the holes increase muddiness this would be useful in the case against.

But what about a local trail ecosystem, or what about the diversity of plants usually found on disturbed corridors, and what about the overall erosion loss of a trail? The latter is very important to trail managers.All good questions that need study. I recognize that folks are trying to minimize impacts.

Yet here, we find ourselves faced with the other side of the impact -the social side. Clearly, pole impacts bother people. They might not bother everyone, but neither does litter, cell phones, or even human waste. I think a two-part hybrid study for this would be most appropriate, looking at both sides with a qualitative and quantitative microscope.I think you are saying you want to look at aesthetics and potential damage. Sounds good. In regard to aesthetics, I will be honest with you and say that I look at the pole holes like footprints and they occur together. But they are both on the trail, which is a big impact in itself. I know you see it differently.

But so what? Is this at all relevant to the world? Who really cares?
I know that landmanagers do. I hear a lot of hikers who also claim to care deeply about pole damage. Moreover, the dual mandate of the NPS mandates that the natural resources have to be balanced with high-quality recreation experiences. In a wilderness, is it appropriate for management to allow excessive impact, which may be defined as impact other than a basic trail infrastructure?Wilderness is different in terms of regulations. I think it is appropriate to have different regs for wilderness. I know that there are wilderness areas on the AT, but applying wilderness regs to the whole AT would be difficult. That is a broader philosophical argument.

It might not be the most dire issue, but I think there is merit to it being studied. Mr, Marion and I have already worked up a study design, but are waiting for right time and funding. If we ever move on it, I'll surely see what you have to say about it, with your background in experimental design. If you have the old ATN magazines, you can find the seed study that Marion talked about in the issue a couple years ago.If there is a big enough outcry, it may receive funding. Research is often customer driven. I don't know were it would rate priority wise in the list of issues for NPS. It seems to cause some controversary anyway. I hope you get a chance to consider it. It's too bad NPS does not get the funding that it needs.

Enjoy the sun.