Question for Landscape Photographers/Hikers

[timbernet]

I see photos all of the time that are in the middle of some field or on the side of a mountain, a lot of interesting locations. It has been my experience with the wilderness trails of Oregon that you can’t always get the “killer shot” from the trail. While I want to get some really cool shots I have always followed the “stay on the trail” rule of hiking.

What do you do? Do you stay on the trail, or do you wander off the trail a bit to get the shot?

[pagnamenta]

It really depends where you are. If I see a shot worth getting I'll go off trial to get it. If it seems like there is little danger and no authorities around, why not? I try to be as professional and non damaging as possible. I believe in bending the rules and going places until I'm told not to. Most of the time, people don't mind.

[KirkHMB]

Some places have a strict "on the trail" policy, often for a reason, like habitat restoration. I respect those, whether authorities are around or not.

Other places use the stay on the trail to prevent the need for the above. I may wander a little bit here, but try to pick the lowest impact way to get where I want to go.

Best bet is to go with someone who knows the place, like a seasoned naturalist / photographer, who knows where the best places to shoot are, and how to get them without impact. Then return often afterward.

[lungdoc]

I believe it would depend not only on the rules but also on the traffic in the area concerned. One rule to judge the correctness of your actions is "what if everybody did it?" If you're in a remote area where the trail is to keep you from getting lost or hurt (like say a lot of the Appalachian trail) then if you go off it you only really are risking yourself. If you're on a trail with hundreds of people in a sensitive desert or nature area it's a different thing.

[timbernet]

I believe it would depend not only on the rules but also on the traffic in the area concerned. One rule to judge the correctness of your actions is "what if everybody did it?" If you're in a remote area where the trail is to keep you from getting lost or hurt (like say a lot of the Appalachian trail) then if you go off it you only really are risking yourself. If you're on a trail with hundreds of people in a sensitive desert or nature area it's a different thing.

That is why I have never gone off-trail. I think to myself "what makes me so "special" that I can go off the beaten path? hmmm, nothing!" But then again, if you "leave no trace" then your impact isn't too much....

From the US Forest Service website they mention:

In popular areas:
Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.


keyword: concentrate
Not "you must only use existing trails or else you will be fined"

[aussieskier]

I think that when I am out in the middle of no where... I am not going to worry to much about stepping off the trail. I do sometime wonder about doing it in more popular places where people are like sheep.

[howzitboy]

i think its all those hikers who "went off the trail" who get lost or killed that we hear bout on the news.
if u off the trail, your odds on someone finding u are reallly slim.

[The_Camera_Poser]

If you go off the trail, you may run into a diseased local, just like in Cabin Fever.....

[Mark_Cohran]

If you know what you're doing, minimize your impact to the flora and fauna, and break no laws or regulations, I see nothing wrong with going "off trail" to get a scenic shot. I must, however, empasize the "know what you're doing part." My son is a Paramedic with a "Life Flight" type of air ambulance company and used to be part of the Oregon National Guard's MedEvac squadron. He's told me altogether too many stories of the stupid things people have done "off trail" for me to advise just anyone to do this.

Mark

[SOE digital]

I do everything I can NOT to stay on the trail. All the best photos are off trail, IMO.
Having said that; I've got quite a bit of experience in land navigation and various methods of survival and I usually keep important items on my person incase something does happen.
Just use commen sense, pay attention to the laws of the area. You may not be allowed off track in some locations because of flora fauna rehabilitation for example. These are rules that should never be broken.

[DrPablo]

There are some places where going off trail can be exceedingly damaging.

The two places I can think of are 1) above treeline in the White Mountains in New Hampshire, and 2) in the desert Southwest. In the former case it's because there are some species of flower there that don't live anywhere else in the world, just on a few mountains, and others whose nearest brethren live in the sub-Arctic regions of Labrador. Walking off trail destroys them.

In the case of the desert, it's because the growth of any and all plants depends on this macrobiota called cryptogam, which as I understand is a crust of lichen and bacteria. It takes decades to replenish itself if its been walked on, because water is so scarce. And higher plants like grasses, shrubs, and cacti can't grow at all unless the cryptogam is intact.

So walking off trail can do a lot of harm to the environment that you 'think' you're paying homage to when you wander off the path. It can certainly be worse than littering.

[303villain]

If you go off the trail, you may run into a diseased local, just like in Cabin Fever.....

To hell with that! Im stayin on the trail!

[The_Camera_Poser]

pancakes......paaaaaaaaaancaaaaaaakes...........

[GregH]

I think the decision about "on or off" the trail is situational, and highly dependent on the impact on the environment at the time.

For instance, if I was on a rocky formation with delicate lichen growing off the trail, I would NOT step off the trail because it would clearly damage the environment. Ditto for other types of fragile flora, like alpine flowers and the like.

However, if going off the trail is not going to damage the surrounding environment (and I wasn't endangering my safety), I could imagine doing a little off-trail excursion to get the right angle.

As a pretty avid hiker, being careful to "leave no trace" is extremely important and trumps a great shot, in my mind. However, I'm also not capturing images to feed my family, either... :)

[Pauls9]

In the UK there are few places where the flora can be damaged by wandering off the trail; such areas are usually well signed. In fact, in Scotland the "right to roam" was enshrined in law just a few years back.

However I'm careful to take note when the local bird population starts wheeling overhead, since that means they've got nests on the ground nearby. And for personal safety, I either stay within sight of the track or within earshot of my wife, who'll be on the track herself.

Often the good shots can only be found by wandering off aways. Fortunately I rarely shoot movies, so the frequent calls of "Be careful. Don't go near the edge!" don't get recorded. :)

[The_Camera_Poser]

So much of it depends on the kind of environment you're hiking on. I do a lot of hiking in Alpine areas, and the snow grass fields are extremely tough (though difficult to walk on), whereas the low scrub that grows there is less so, but still pretty tough. From memory, desert is the most fragile ecosystem.

Have you all seen those tree books by the guy who goes around the world photographic huge or notable trees? In one of his books, he has snuck under a fence to get a pic with a huge tree in NZ I think, quite smugly describing how he waited for no rangers to be around. Considering that it was fenced off, you'd bloody well think he'd know better! I refused to buy any of his stuff after that!

[timbernet]

So much of it depends on the kind of environment you're hiking on. I do a lot of hiking in Alpine areas, and the snow grass fields are extremely tough (though difficult to walk on), whereas the low scrub that grows there is less so, but still pretty tough. From memory, desert is the most fragile ecosystem.

Have you all seen those tree books by the guy who goes around the world photographic huge or notable trees? In one of his books, he has snuck under a fence to get a pic with a huge tree in NZ I think, quite smugly describing how he waited for no rangers to be around. Considering that it was fenced off, you'd bloody well think he'd know better! I refused to buy any of his stuff after that!

Crossing fences is way over the line!
I wouldn't plan on wandering too far away - maybe 100' off the path and only if it looked okay to do.

Sometimes I see little animal trails - not quite beaten enough for normal human traffic, but no vegetation on the path to worry about.