Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   General Adirondack Discussion (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Snowshoe regulations (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19835)

l'oiseau 02-27-2014 12:21 PM

Snowshoe regulations
 
http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=24189

Pretty hot debate at the high peak forum. I'm a tried and true supporter of it but I go to the eastern high peaks maybe once a year... I think the issue extends to the rest of the park. I rarely see postholed trails in the park, but that is not the case in the rest of the state.

Do you think it should be an enforced law in the rest of the park? I doubt there would be many tickets issued, but as an ethical responsibility to others and the trails?

redhawk 02-27-2014 04:49 PM

If people cannot be responsible, respectful of other people, or just use commonsense, thenmandates have to be enacted.

I just checked and there is nothing at all in the constitution that forbids mandating behavior when it is necessary

Justin 02-27-2014 05:59 PM

I didn't vote, but if you are punching through 8" or more, or let's say up to your shins or knees, then you should be wearing snowshoes or skis for safety sake if nothing else. If you make it a regulation, then you may also want to make foot traction devices a regulation for when there's only a couple inches of ice on the trails, or for wearing some kind of footwear when fording rivers, or for ropes & helmets when climbing.....all have potential to cause serious injury to yourself and/or others. Unfortunately being uneducated, or stupid and ignorant of others is not a violation, but it definitely should be. In areas of high use, you tend to see more of these type of people, so if the shoe fits...so to speak.

yellowcanoe 02-27-2014 07:00 PM

I voted for, not because people ought to be punished, but to raise awareness that snowshoes make trails a bit safer for other users and also for the user themselves.

l'oiseau 02-27-2014 07:54 PM

It's OK to be unbiased to whether there is a regulation or not.

I agree, adding rules opens up Pandora's box. For me, I'd rather see the regulation at my local park than in the ADKs, but that is just because people destroy the trails even though safety isn't much of concern.

Also if you are bushwhacking out in the middle of Silver Lakes Wilderness and you don't have snowshoes on, and there is 8" of snow, who is really going to enforce it? Same with traction devices or helmets, etc.

Just because there is a law doesn't mean that people will obey it. Some may disobey it just out spite for a rule being in place.

I think these type of rules are more about not raining on someone else's parade and sharing the trails responsibly.

Justin 02-27-2014 08:18 PM

Once upon a time, snowshoes were only required to go somewhere that other people don't.;)

yellowcanoe 02-27-2014 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin (Post 214184)
Once upon a time, snowshoes were only required to go somewhere that other people don't.;)


Once upon a time if anyone wanted to go anywhere in winter by foot they went by snowshoe. And they made them!:)

wiiawiwb 02-27-2014 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214166)
If people cannot be responsible, respectful of other people, or just use commonsense, thenmandates have to be enacted.

I just checked and there is nothing at all in the constitution that forbids mandating behavior when it is necessary

I don't have a dog in this particular race but, in general, the rub is who is it that gets to determine when behavior should be mandatory? You might like this one enactment and be utterly appalled by the next believing your liberties are being stripped away. It depends on who's ox is being gored.

If you live by that sword, be prepared to die by it too.

wxwing 02-27-2014 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l'oiseau (Post 214181)
Also if you are bushwhacking out in the middle of Silver Lakes Wilderness and you don't have snowshoes on, and there is 8" of snow, who is really going to enforce it?

I've done this :D On trails that lead essentially nowhere, in the middle of nowhere, and you're basically just grateful that you're leaving some sort of a trail behind you so you can find your way back, I don't think the regulations SHOULD be enforced at all, regardless of whether they COULD be or not.

On more popular trails, yeah, I can support this being enforced in conditions where each bare boot step you take goes at least 8 inches down into the snow pack. That's unsafe for the current hiker (soaking wet boots and pants = no bueno) and of course for future hikers.

Justin 02-27-2014 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowcanoe (Post 214186)
Once upon a time if anyone wanted to go anywhere in winter by foot they went by snowshoe. And they made them!:)

I'd love that reg. :thumbs: :D

yellowcanoe 02-27-2014 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin (Post 214191)
I love that reg. :thumbs:

You and I both know no reg was required!

trent 02-28-2014 08:58 AM

I'd be more interested in writing the rule in a way that makes it a violation/fine to disrupt clearly packed snowshoe or ski trails by postholeing in them.

Wording it this way instead of broadly requiring skiis/snowshoes does a couple things:
1.) In cases where there is more than 8" snow by you can still safely walk on a trail without postholeing, you don't get bitten by some overly broad rule that really isn't fair to apply in that situation. We know there can be some really packed down trails or icy trail in popular areas where snowshoes are overkill.

2.) If you would be posthoeling in a snowshoe/ski trail and to be in compliance with the law you need to instead walk alongside the already broken trail through fresh power that may force the individual to then want to use skiis/snowshoes and leads to more people using them.

Uncle Alvah 03-02-2014 09:44 AM

Quote:

who is really going to enforce it?
Exactly.
Perhaps they can pull people from the vast roaming squads that enforce the law for "Handicapped Parking Only" spots in the cities?

redhawk 03-03-2014 01:46 PM

Most laws that are made are not enforced. How many actual speeders are caught and ticketed? How many Jaywalkers?
How many burglaries are unsolved?

So, the answer is to just not have the regulations?

Those of us who have been on this forum for a while know of at least one person who was in fact ticketed for not having their snowshoes where required.

l'oiseau 03-03-2014 02:10 PM

I like to pick on my wife because she is an easy target, and fits the bill here:

Her being relatively new to winter hiking the snowshoe/ski law makes perfect sense to her. Given her relative lack of knowledge of these types of matters for her to put snowshoes on because it is the law in the EHP was an act of education. If the law had not existed, she would have never thought to have snowshoes or skis, regardless of whether she may of actually NEEDED them trying to summit a peak.

I know my case is anecdotal, but it truly did work for her. Before being accustomed to having to wear snowshoes in that area, she would walk in the parks in Rochester bare booted. Now she thinks it is ridiculous and rude and would never do such a thing.

Despite my self statement of having winter camping experience, I never used to wear snowshoes until I went to high peaks in the winter for the first time. I did however wear skis quite often but I also barebooted. I too, now refuse to hike in snow without snowshoes or skis for the same reasons. So she really didn't learn the necessity of snowshoes from me, but more from the regulation that existed. I did as well, although I knew enough that I'd want them to climb peaks... but even that was not a necessity, I'd climbed some small and larger mountains outside of the EHP, in the winter or early spring barebooted... now I think that insane!

Justin 03-03-2014 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214360)
Those of us who have been on this forum for a while know of at least one person who was in fact ticketed for not having their snowshoes where required.

The same person who copped an attitude when questioned by the powers that be, instead of being understanding and respectful. The same person who got himself banned from the very internet forum that he created, because of the same reasons. The same person who didn't even bother to be friendly and stop to say hello when I passed him on the trail that one time, yet everyone else in his party did.
It is rare, and it's hard to regulate those with ignorant and arrogant behavior, but every once in a while you catch one. ;)

redhawk 03-03-2014 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin (Post 214402)
The same person who copped an attitude when questioned by the powers that be, instead of being understanding and respectful. The same person who got himself banned from the very internet forum that he created, because of the same reasons. The same person who didn't even bother to be friendly and stop to say hello when I passed him on the trail that one time, yet everyone else in his party did.
It is rare, and it's hard to regulate those with ignorant and arrogant behavior, but every once in a while you catch one. ;)

"I feel your anger Luke"

The point is, the regulation was enforced and it had nothing to do with his personality.

And since you went on a rant, the same person that created this forum which you enjoy participating in.

And not everyone agreed with his being banned, nor with the banning of your father.

And it's very distasteful and rude to bash someone who is not in a position to defend themselves.

I remember when you copped an attitude because you assumed you were not invited to a forum gathering although there was no reason to make such an assumption. I have known the individual since the beginning of the forum and he is far from ignorant and I would not classify him as arrogant. stubborn perhaps and passionate about his beliefs.

I also never knew him to trash anyone who was not in a position to defend themselves.

There is an old Lakota proverb which says that when you point a finger at someone, you have three more pointing back at yourself.

Justin 03-04-2014 06:02 AM

Yeah, clearly I tend to have the same problem of not being able to keep my mouth shut.
:)

EveryTripAnExpedition 03-04-2014 08:19 AM

Snowshoe Ambassador
 
1 Attachment(s)
Hello Guys:
Don't you think the ethic of wearing snowshoes is more a matter of
backcountry education/training? Like the "Leave No Trace" ethic which took maybe a decade to catch on. I push snowshoes on all my outdoor friends whenever I can- and even have an extra pair to drag them out on! Being a snowshoe ambassador with subtle persuasion can be rather effective.

geogymn 03-04-2014 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EveryTripAnExpedition (Post 214413)
Hello Guys:
Don't you think the ethic of wearing snowshoes is more a matter of
backcountry education/training? Like the "Leave No Trace" ethic which took maybe a decade to catch on. I push snowshoes on all my outdoor friends whenever I can- and even have an extra pair to drag them out on! Being a snowshoe ambassador with subtle persuasion can be rather effective.

Now there is a voice of gentle reason! Kudos!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.