Sustainable Hiking

[JAK]

In general, most days spent hiking probably reduce our impact on the environment compared to our everday lives, but I'm wondering if we can do better than that while hiking. I am not a big advocate of 'leave-no-trace' except in more sensitive areas. I think 'sustainability' should be the overall focus, and 'leave-no-trace' a means of practicing 'sustainability' in more sensitive eco-systems.

What leave-no-trace doesn't cover is the energy and resources used in our clothing and gear and transportation to and from the trail heads. How might these be improved. What are some better choices for gear, and clothing, and food, and fuel, and transportation, from the point of view of sustainability?

"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.

I don't think there are single answers. Some solutions are better in some situations than in others. But what are some good ideas or observations, and is it enough that we do better when we are hiking than in our everyday living, or should we try and set a higher standard for ourselves when hiking?

[JAK]

I'll go first. I use alot of plastic bags when hiking. I am not sure that all plastic bags should be eliminated, but I have never really tried to come up with better alternatives. Also, I've re-used some plastic bags, but not as much as I would like. I used to always carry a big orange garbage bag for my sleeping bag, and just use it as a garbage bag when I got home, which works great, but I'm thinking the real value in reducing plastic use when hiking is that it forces us to look for alternatives. Re-using from and to our daily lives is legitimate, but a bit of a cop out if it keeps us from thinking and learning. I just wrap my sleeping bag in my bivy now, and inside my Jam2 pack that seems to be enough, as it is pretty waterproof. Of course nylon and polyester fleece are plastics too, but its not that I am against plastics completely, just when there might be better alternatives. We have to start paying per bag next year for garbage disposal. That should really get me thinking. I go through an aweful lot of clothes. Mostly they just pile up but they will all end up in a landfill eventually, even if they go to goodwill first, and even if they came from there.

[JAK]

It is somewhat ironic when we say "Take only photos. Leave only Footprints."

The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. It would be interesting to measure how large of a footprint is taken up off the trail, from our hiking activities, for each footprint we leave on the trail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

[JAK]

Thought I would try some numbers.
It takes about 5,000,000 footsteps to hike the trail.
Each footstep is about 0.03 square meters.

So we leave about 15 hectares in footprints, about 6 acres.

In North America our ecological footprint is about 10 hectares per person. So if we hike the AT in 6 months, and reduce our ecological by 50% while hiking, we are walking 6 footprints on the trail for each footprint we are taking up off the trail. If we were to reduce our ecological footprint to the world average while hiking, 2 hectares per person, we would be able to leave 15 footprints on the trail for every footprint we are taking up off the trail.

Not sure what our biggest impact is while hiking. If we still have a house, and a car, but burn less fuel and use less electricity in them while hiking, its hard to measure. The food we eat in North America, because of the way we produce it, is 20% of our carbon footprint. Perhaps the biggest contribution we can make while hiking is in the food we purchase when we resupply. Some food has a much smaller footprint than others.

[The Weasel]

Since moving to California, I've found that it is easier to recycle things. Here, there are separte household cans for garbage, recyclables (all kinds except plastic bags) and yard waste. Bottles/cans can be returned, and bags go back to the grocery (bins there). So as for recycling/minimizing other things, there are some decent choices here.

So far as lowering impact on the trail, "pack it in/out" is the best. A few other things can be using alternatives to TP (reducing use), minimizing using foods that come with packaging (i.e. use fresh and dry at home, etc).

Hitching is essentially carpooling, which helps instead of shuttles. Major benefit there, I would think.

Care in selecting new campsites to avoid creating overuse helps.

TW

[Pedaling Fool]

I think the biggest impact is from slackpacking. The appalachian mountains will one day be gone and the footprint is a negligible factor in their erosion. Mother Nature is destroying the appalachians, not us.

You know the appalachians are a very old mountain chain and was once grander than the himilayas (sp?), however the himilayas are still growing.

[Pedaling Fool]

Since moving to California, I've found that it is easier to recycle things. Here, there are separte household cans for garbage, recyclables (all kinds except plastic bags) and yard waste. Bottles/cans can be returned, and bags go back to the grocery (bins there). So as for recycling/minimizing other things, there are some decent choices here.

So far as lowering impact on the trail, "pack it in/out" is the best. A few other things can be using alternatives to TP (reducing use), minimizing using foods that come with packaging (i.e. use fresh and dry at home, etc).

Hitching is essentially carpooling, which helps instead of shuttles. Major benefit there, I would think.

Care in selecting new campsites to avoid creating overuse helps.

TW

It's pretty easy to recycle just about anywhere nowadays. We here in Florida also have special containers provided by the city for recycling.

[jersey joe]

It's pretty easy to recycle just about anywhere nowadays. We here in Florida also have special containers provided by the city for recycling.

In NJ Recycling is mandatory. I get fined if I put a can or bottle in my trash and they catch me. Seems the "blue" states are more progressive with recycling. I don't recall recycling very much of my garbage on the trail. Maybe there should be more trailside recycling recepticals.

As mentioned, Slackpacking is much worse than hiking thru because of the car emissions. Also, when you do go to and from trail heads, carpooling helps.

[JAK]

I've heard that works. I try to reduce portion size at supper time. Wife's a good cook though. The rest of the day I seem to get by best with just one meal, so far anyways, day 3. I put off breakfast as long as I can and then have my oatmeal and currants. Eventually I should try and reduce my stomach size, which is another benefit of portion control, because you feel less hunger if your stomach is smaller. I understand it actually needs to atrophy some. I think a little fasting now and then is probably ok. I might try fasting once a week, just to see if I can do it.

[JAK]

oops wrong thread. lol

[4eyedbuzzard]

As you noted there is the "footprint" left by
Manufacturers of hiking gear, clothing, food, insecticide, batteries, etc.; and transportation.

But also consider the "footprints" left by:
Rangers, NPS, USFS, etc, trail maintainers, caretakers, ridgerunners, etc
The ATC and regional trail organizations.
All the labor hours worked that fulfill the tax appropriations that pay for the trail.

[Vagrant Squirrel]

I read somewhere that something like 3700 people attempt to thru-hike every year, but only about 10% make it the entire way. And of these 3700 people, 90% of them are starting in Springer. It isn't hard to see that there is a lot of overcrowding in the south and that the beginning areas of the trail may see far more impact than the latter. I do think that we should try to eliminate or minimize our footprint, but the real issue becomes one of sustainability as you mentioned. Leaving behind things isn't a real issue as long as they are biodegradeable. Sure, animals might dig up your cat holes and there will be TP strewn throughout the woods... But the majority of hiking is done in the warmer months and from one season to the next all of that TP will have broken down and nature will be as it was before. So year after year, leaving TP behind isn't really having any effect on the sustainability of nature. However, overcrowding in the south may lead to erosion of the soil, which isn't something that can easily be undone. And for all of those people who are really into the "Leave No Trace" ideology, even to the point of preaching to others, I believe the best thing you could do to try to eliminate your footprint is to hike SOBO.

[JAK]

I was mixing metaphors somewhat.

Real human footprints on AT are good, and we should maximize those.
Maybe add more trails also, to spread people out more.

Its the ecological footprint per hiking footprint that I wish to minimize.

[JAK]

As you noted there is the "footprint" left by
Manufacturers of hiking gear, clothing, food, insecticide, batteries, etc.; and transportation.

But also consider the "footprints" left by:
Rangers, NPS, USFS, etc, trail maintainers, caretakers, ridgerunners, etc
The ATC and regional trail organizations.
All the labor hours worked that fulfill the tax appropriations that pay for the trail.

Good points. That stuff probably adds up also.

Food produced inefficiently is probably the biggest environmental footprint directly associated with hiking the AT. I suppose better food choices might be the biggest impact we could make.

Secondly perhaps, the fossil fuels used to transport people to and from the trail for hiking and maintaining. If those vehicles could simply have less horsepower, they would be more efficient. Perhaps more passengers per vehicle also, or fewer vehicle miles to and from the trail. Inefficient use of fossil fuels is probably is probably just as big an impact as inefficient food choices, and probably has just as much room for improvement. Perhaps more trails connecting residential communities with hiking trails, and more natural habitat in residential communities is the best long term solution.

Thirdly, the amount of clothing and gear we buy per mile hiked could be greatly improved. We should wear stuff out before buying more. Perhaps the best and easiest way to do that is by hiking more.

[JAK]

Also, if we use clothing and gear that serves everyday purposes, as well as hiking and other recreational purposes, we would be getting real multi-use out of our gear. The best way to do that might be to make our everyday lives more like out hiking lives. Hike to work, and of course, wear a wool sweater and shorts.

[4eyedbuzzard]

I read somewhere that something like 3700 people attempt to thru-hike every year, but only about 10% make it the entire way. And of these 3700 people, 90% of them are starting in Springer. It isn't hard to see that there is a lot of overcrowding in the south and that the beginning areas of the trail may see far more impact than the latter. I do think that we should try to eliminate or minimize our footprint, but the real issue becomes one of sustainability as you mentioned. Leaving behind things isn't a real issue as long as they are biodegradeable. Sure, animals might dig up your cat holes and there will be TP strewn throughout the woods... But the majority of hiking is done in the warmer months and from one season to the next all of that TP will have broken down and nature will be as it was before. So year after year, leaving TP behind isn't really having any effect on the sustainability of nature. However, overcrowding in the south may lead to erosion of the soil, which isn't something that can easily be undone. And for all of those people who are really into the "Leave No Trace" ideology, even to the point of preaching to others, I believe the best thing you could do to try to eliminate your footprint is to hike SOBO.

ATC lists a bunch of suggested alternate "2000 miler" itineraries for many of the reasons you mention. But aside from the logistical problems of flip flopping or others, many don't consider such hikes as having the same feel, continuity, or even merit(whatever that means). I have to agree with some who don't like such alternate itineraries in that there is an allure in "walking with spring" that is stronger than the opposite "walking with fall" for a SOBO, and even more so than breaking the trail up into three or more sections. That said I think the cool breeze itinerary is a very interesting option.

[emerald]

The appalachian mountains will one day be gone and the footprint is a negligible factor in their erosion. Mother Nature is destroying the appalachians, not us.

Appalachia is more than rocks. It's a renewable and sustainable living entity which is constantly changing and influenced by man including A.T. hikers.

[theinfamousj]

I try to use biodegradable paper bags wherever possible in place of plastic ziploc. I was all about some freezer bag cooking, until I realized that I could boil up water in my pot, pour some into my cup so I could have a hot drink and then dump the contents of what is normally in the freezer bag into my cookpot and cook there. Then, it was easy to switch over to paper lunch sacks (which can burn in a fire if need be or I can bring them home and toss them in the compost bin).

Sure, it takes me a few more minutes to clean my pot then it would to just toss a freezer bag into my garbage sack, but in some small way I feel like I'm helping the Earth by choosing a bag made from a renewable resource (wood) rather than one made from petrochemicals.

(And Sarbar, your recipes are still a god-send!)

[Vagrant Squirrel]

ATC lists a bunch of suggested alternate "2000 miler" itineraries for many of the reasons you mention. But aside from the logistical problems of flip flopping or others, many don't consider such hikes as having the same feel, continuity, or even merit(whatever that means). I have to agree with some who don't like such alternate itineraries in that there is an allure in "walking with spring" that is stronger than the opposite "walking with fall" for a SOBO, and even more so than breaking the trail up into three or more sections. That said I think the cool breeze itinerary is a very interesting option.

I just think that above all else, if we could get it closer to a 50/50 split between Nobos and Sobos, this would provide the best ecological balance across the entire trail. And it is true that most people don't want to walk Sobo, but if one feels that adamantly about the trace they'll leave behind, than it's fairly clear that Sobo is the only answer, yet many still ignore this answer. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, as I am sure the Earth will be around long after we die out as a race. But I do appreciate it's beauty so I'll try not to do any serious damage while I'm out there, but if anyone thinks I'm packing crap covered toilet paper into a ziplock bag they've got another thing coming.

[JAK]

I like the idea of SOBO because I would be walking away from home, being from the North.
I like the idea of ending at the Big K though, but I might do the IAT first, at least from New Brunswick.

I like the idea of brown paper bags, and using a mug or pot or bowl.
It might be nice to make a bowl or mug from natural materials also, like birch bark.
I also use the packaging the food comes in, but buy food with the least packaging.