Bushwalk Australia

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10- ... y/10385936

Interesting article in news today.
Personally not a fan of random cairns other than official ones, or direction markers. They irk me as my opinion is that mother nature is the best artist so these human attempts at art detract from the natural beauty.

What are other opinions?

Id like to know what others think, why do people make them? Do you like them?

Likewise - I would knock them down if I came across them!

Small navigational or summit cairns where necessary - fine. Rock stacking because you're bored poo... and/or can't cope with unaltered nature - get out and don't come back until you've learnt the principles of MIB and LNT.

It's not just the visual intrusion; by moving rocks to create cairns or stacks, you disturb the vegetative growths on and around them (mosses, lichens etc) and remove shelter from small reptiles and invertebrates that live under the rocks.

When it's clear they are an "artistic statement" (-someone said that to me once), I push them over, scatter them carefully.
They are often the bush equivalent of the city "tag".

Lamont wrote:When it's clear they are an "artistic statement" (-someone said that to me once), I push them over, scatter them carefully.
They are often the bush equivalent of the city "tag".

I know some used to put a bottle of port in them. Be a shame to smash that.
I believe they now bury the port to ensure its survival.

I have found some cairns in WA quite handy .. when I could see them above the grass.

I'd say in Europe most cairns are very well done. In the Alps, I've never come accross a series of cairns that weren't appropriate (IE led safely to something interesting). But in the US I found it's a mess. It seems that they're done by hikers, not rangers, so you can see some just where a view is good, or some are just 3 rocks, that get confused with natural stacks of rocks... If you're gonna do a cairn, make it big enough and make it visible. In Lake Louise, Wyoming, I saw some rocks which I assumed would lead me to a nice view. It turns out the view was just from the end of the lake, you can't go further, but there were natural stacks of rocks that made me think they were continuing the cairns while they were not. In Sequoia National Park in California, I also saw cairns near the edge of the water at a waterfall. I didn't know if they meant "hey nice view" or "don't go further it's dangerous" but they had no real use.

north-north-west wrote:
It's not just the visual intrusion; by moving rocks to create cairns or stacks, you disturb the vegetative growths on and around them (mosses, lichens etc) and remove shelter from small reptiles and invertebrates that live under the rocks.

NNW, I had heard that some people were concerned at this level of detail, but, how do you reconcile this sentence with your actions as an off track walker, peak bagger, and gardener of necessity in pursuit of the afore mentioned activities. it's easier for me, because cairns don't bother me - at all!

kitty wrote:Id like to know what others think, why do people make them? Do you like them?

This:

north-north-west wrote:Small navigational or summit cairns where necessary - fine. Rock stacking because you're bored poo... and/or can't cope with unaltered nature - get out and don't come back until you've learnt the principles of MIB and LNT.

It's not just the visual intrusion; by moving rocks to create cairns or stacks, you disturb the vegetative growths on and around them (mosses, lichens etc) and remove shelter from small reptiles and invertebrates that live under the rocks.

Duplicate post. Not a cairn

Cairns everywhere on the Viking circuit. Many are no longer there. Each trip I continue to remove them. It is an irrelevant and unrequired imposition on the nature of 'wilderness areas' in particular. Like pink tape and blazes on trees. Dont do it. I will continue to remove tape and cairns, you may keep you map and compass however.

In general I'm in the "don't" camp. There are exceptions, I don't mind seeing them say in a river bed near a campground if the water is low, as the river will remove them, or I know of a few places where its part of a tradition to carry a rock from the bottom of the hill to the top, and its okay with the land owner. But apart from that, its best not to disturb the rocks. .

Heremeahappy1 wrote:Cairns everywhere on the Viking circuit. Many are no longer there. Each trip I continue to remove them. It is an irrelevant and unrequired imposition on the nature of 'wilderness areas' in particular. Like pink tape and blazes on trees. Dont do it. I will continue to remove tape and cairns, you may keep you map and compass however.

1. "Everywhere on the Viking."
2. "Many are no longer there." I can't quite reconcile 1. and 2.
3. "Like pink tape and blazes on trees." Conceptually, perhaps. But I doubt the accuracy of your statement.
4. "You may keep you map and compass." I'm so glad about that. Otherwise I might be tempted to cairnonise.

I am also in the "don't" camp but would suggest not removing cairns that are important markers known and used by many walkers or written about in route descriptions - eg when to turn to find a narrow pass though a cliff line.

When we apply individual discretion as to the importance of a cairn, we arrive back to the initial idea that some like cairns for art and others for direction, warning, notifying. It is opinion whether a cairn is important for direction and opionions are like handkerchiefs - everyone has one. Some are of the opinion navigation is an art.

geoskid wrote:

north-north-west wrote:It's not just the visual intrusion; by moving rocks to create cairns or stacks, you disturb the vegetative growths on and around them (mosses, lichens etc) and remove shelter from small reptiles and invertebrates that live under the rocks.

NNW, I had heard that some people were concerned at this level of detail, but, how do you reconcile this sentence with your actions as an off track walker, peak bagger, and gardener of necessity in pursuit of the afore mentioned activities. it's easier for me, because cairns don't bother me - at all!

Well, my walking helps keep my mental state a little less unbalanced, which means it helps keep me alive. But I make a point of trying not to inflict any more damage than absolutely essential in order to get where I'm going.
Our whole lives hurt our natural environment, from our homes, our lust for energy, our food sources, travel, everything we do. The human species is destructive, and our modern society especially so. All we can do as individuals is minimise the damage as much as possible. So don't try to guilt me, through an implied perception of hypocrisy, into accepting any and every impost upon our natural world that some ignorant entitled twit doesn't care about, because it doesn't work.

Heremeahappy1 wrote:When we apply individual discretion as to the importance of a cairn, we arrive back to the initial idea that some like cairns for art and others for direction, warning, notifying. It is opinion whether a cairn is important for direction and opionions are like handkerchiefs - everyone has one. Some are of the opinion navigation is an art.

I believe the idea that human constructed "art" has a place in wilderness is totally wrong as it serves no purpose other than to pamper the ego of the maker. Your destruction of cairns, apparently regardless of purpose or importance, is placing your views as the standard without any consideration of others. There have been several in the bushwalking fraternity, including some rather well known, over the past 50 years that have adopted a similar position. NSW Parks also held that position regarding historic huts but the issues of heritage and safety have moved them to a more tolerant position. For me cairns need to be very few in number but some are not intrinsically "bad", however they do need to have solid case for their existence.

Just for balance of discussion, I quite like cairns...
They are environmentally friendly options for wayside markers. Skinks love them...
Other seemingly well accepted options include the widely used reflector sticks...thisnthat thru to boardwalks and fully hardened tracks. There are many fascinating historic cairns about, look alot better than trig points.
It's true that people like to make their mark on things, human nature I guess, as is the desire to knock things down.
So on balance I favour natural markers "where needed".

". Your destruction of cairns, apparently regardless of purpose or importance, is placing your views as the standard without any consideration of others."
100% agree with you. I'm making the case that constructing a cairn is exactly the same, regardless of purpose.

I struggle to find enough time to go bushwalking in the first place. No way is something like a Cairn going to upset my mood.
For navigation, I think a well placed cairn actually is doing the environment a favour by helping avoid people stomping through the bush. And people getting lost isn't a good thing either.

If you can, take your frustration out on the "artistic" cairns and leave the navigational ones. The damage has already been done and nature has probably recolonized the cairn anyway.

Mark F wrote:I am also in the "don't" camp but would suggest not removing cairns that are important markers known and used by many walkers or written about in route descriptions...

Everyone who disapproves of the cairn can remove one stone as they pass. Everyone who wants the cairn can add one stone.

Democracy in action, and no sudden disappearance of cairns which might be relied on.

ribuck wrote:

Mark F wrote:I am also in the "don't" camp but would suggest not removing cairns that are important markers known and used by many walkers or written about in route descriptions...

Everyone who disapproves of the cairn can remove one stone as they pass. Everyone who wants the cairn can add one stone.
Democracy in action, and no sudden disappearance of cairns which might be relied on.

Being a lazy Ozie I don't care... so I mostly leave them alone.

I would prefer a cairn any day over the fishing floats and plastic crap that is hanging out of the trees and bushes everywhere along the South Coast Track and around the Cape.

The main problem with cairns, and other ad hoc track markers, is what are they actually marking? Following a bunch of cairns, or bits of pink tape, doesn't guarantee that you will get where you are trying to get to, because they have no other information attached.

I can probably live with the (very) odd cairn at key intersections, but otherwise, I’m firmly in the dismantle camp.

"But social media is influencing their use, with people making their own stacks for Instagram photos"
WT *$&#? Having said that I dont have a problem with cairns in appropriate locations. They are quite handy on rocky plateaus like at the grampians where tracks can be hard to establish.

ribuck wrote:

Mark F wrote:I am also in the "don't" camp but would suggest not removing cairns that are important markers known and used by many walkers or written about in route descriptions...

Everyone who disapproves of the cairn can remove one stone as they pass. Everyone who wants the cairn can add one stone.

Democracy in action, and no sudden disappearance of cairns which might be relied on.

The rules say that we have management authorities and (like it or not) generally do what they request for the greater good. The management authorities all have some form of minimal impact policy (perhaps besides Qld). 'Leave rocks and logs where they are', 'don't erect cairns or blaze trees'.. that sort of thing. It's interesting that we even think there is room for some sort of personal choice in this.

Nuts wrote:The management authorities all have some form of minimal impact policy (perhaps besides Qld). 'Leave rocks and logs where they are', 'don't erect cairns or blaze trees'.. that sort of thing. It's interesting that we even think there is room for some sort of personal choice in this.

There's no simple catch all answer. Eg the official Parks Vic description of pine mountain track includes, "Rock cairns mark the track as it traverses large, granite outcrops fringed with black cypress pine and other rare and interesting vegetation."

What about historical tracks that now have fire regrowth? Might there be a case for marking these tracks so that people can take a logical route? The alternative is that parties will spread out and have smaller more widespread impacts. Keeping the impact in one place may be the best or least worst option, with tracks sited to go around the more sensitive areas.

Nothing wrong with cairns or tags, just seem rather pointless unless they are placed in some sort of coordinated/controlled way. I picture a time when parks are adequately funded for their worth with teams of happy parkies out replacing tags and maybe tagging rock cairns in a proper review.

Like the rise of tattoos, the latest generations need to squiggle their mark on stuff. Probably a reaction to not having the same economic opportunities. I don't find either thing necessary, but nor does it bother me, insofar as they aren't destroying stuff or damming creeks.

Tekker76 wrote:Like the rise of tattoos, the latest generations need to squiggle their mark on stuff. Probably a reaction to not having the same economic opportunities. I don't find either thing necessary, but nor does it bother me, insofar as they aren't destroying stuff or damming creeks.

Human beings have been leaving their mark on things since day 1. Some aboriginal rock art near me has been there for 800 years.

I despise the "artistic" cairns that I find, and I dismantle them when I can. I appreciate small ones at track junctions and in places that help filter people in a particular way so they aren't bashing there way over sensitive areas. I cant stand that horrible pink marker tape that springs up everywhere now.