Trail Tending: Tradition, Ethics, and Esthetics, Nat Scrimshaw
Sandwich Range Journal, Summer 1991

In 1921 the New England Trail Conference published a small pamphlet that included an essay by Nathaniel Goodrich and Paul Jenks entitled Standards of Trail Construction and Maintenance. For a trail tender of the 1990's, the essay appears curiously incomplete, for it deals exclusively with clearing, marking and signing-nowhere is there any mention of erosion control construction. Even more curious, the essay takes pains to make a distinction between trail and path:

A: Trail For the United States as a whole a trail is a route made passable for foot or horse travel, but not for wheels. For the White Mountain region, a trail is a route made a passable for foot travel only, without labor on the footway [my emphasis].

B. Path. In the White Mountain region a path is a route for foot travel only, with more or less labor on the footway [my emphasis].

According to these definitions, the essential difference between a trail and path in the White Mountains relates to whether there is or is not 1abor on the footway. While the sort of 'labor' is not specified in the essay, we can guess that it would have involved some sort of tread work, making for an easier walking surface. A trail is clearly meant to be a primitive route, while a path is a more civilized affair. The clubs in the Sandwich Range, which were all established in the period between the 1870's and 1920's, are trail clubs. Their tradition lies in clearing, marking and signing relatively primitive routes. This tradition associates labor on the footway with the intrusion of civilization.

Simply by walking a trail repeatedly a recognizable tread appears. However, if left to itself for even a short period, a lightly traveled footway disappears under autumn's deposit of leaves or is blocked by winter's blowdowns. The old trail tenders made it their task to clear, mark and sign the trails in order to insure that enough people could follow the route to keep its delicate footway apparent.

The Modern Onslaught

The turn of the century trail tenders could hardly have imagined the effect of a high volume of human traffic on the footway. Hardly a trail in the White Mountains escapes the effects of trampling. The simple formula that modem trail tenders observe: 1) trampling compacts soil (soil becomes dense and loses its absorbancy) and destroys vegetation; 2) compacted soil channels, diverts, and accelerates rain and snow-melt runoff; 3) accelerated water erodes soil. The result is that many old trails appear to be gullied streambeds.

Herein lies the dilemma for a trail culture based on turn of the century traditions: trails now require 'labor on the footway' (in the form of erosion control construction), and this smacks of civilizing. It would appear that our beloved primitive trails are becoming civilized paths. More than once while building a waterbar or soil retainer I have over heard the disparaging comment, 'they'll be paving the trail next!'

A New Trail Tending Ethic

The old trail tending ethic is based on a love of the primitive and a desire to protect places from human 'improvement:' A new trail tending ethic can be based on the same love and desire, but with a greater ecological awareness. The ecological question is not so much human improvement as human impact. While a waterbar, soil retainer, scree wall, or piled brush is artifice (and therefore 'artificial'), its purpose is to protect the vegetation, soils, and streams from the devastating effects of trampling, erosion and siltation. Our choice is not between the civilized and the wild, but between a widely disrupted and damaged environment or consciously minimized human influence. A waterbar above preserves the trail below. Soil retainers replace deep gullies and hold in th soil. On the other side of a scree wall we protect beautiful and delicate flora. Brush piled at strategic locations helps stop the zone of human impact from ever-expanding.

Esthetics

A new ethic requires a new esthetic. The old esthetic saw any sign of trail work beyond clearing, marking and signing as ugly human intrusion. A new esthetic sees trail work a part of a human relationship with an ecology, and work is judged accordingly. A waterbar that is well constructed an visibly doing its job of shunting water off the trail can be beautiful. The gullied trail without erosion contro contruction, or the trail whose waterbars have not bee! cleaned for many years, represents the ugliness of humal indifference to the natural world. The rock scree around in a fragile island of soil cradles the loveliness of a tiny mountain sandwort. We must learn to see what we have not seen before.

While many of us schooled in the old tradition (as I am) will still prefer the pristine vista without any signs of human engineering, a trail by its very nature invites. With tha invitation comes a responsibility, which as trail tenders we must accept. It is my hope that the clubs in the Sandwich Range can lead the way with new trail-tending ethics, esthetics and, most importantly, practices. We can take the best from our tradition of the love of the primitive while adapting to the environmental challenge of our times.

introduction

Welch Mountain Summit Steward, Dick Fortin, Summer 1991

Wilderness: What it is and How to Keep it, George Zink, Summer 1991

Trail Tending: Tradition, Ethics and Esthetics, Nat Scrimshaw, Summer 1991