sensitive areas

[FIGHT ON]

Where are these areas?
I get the impression that it's off limits to venture into them.
One place I can think of that sounds like a sensitive location is the endangered species closure area in the vicinity of Cooper Canyon but that's because of a frog.
Another is the Crystal Lake area but these two are posted off limits.
Is it any area off any trail?
99.9% of the time I say right on the trails. The .1% when I'm off them, (when I get lost, lose the trail or have to go around because of some snow) I wonder if I'm stepping on sensitive areas and I'm not supposed to be there.
I see it mentioned every once in a while in posts and wondered if anyone can define it.

[Hikin_Jim]

FO, certain areas, like the frog closure area in the San Gabs, are designated as "off limits" to protect sensitive habitat or endangered species.

Other areas can be closed due to fire (e.g. the recent Piute Fire closure area).

Still others are closed for renovation and renewal, such as Crystal Lake. Crystal Lake is an overused area. They've closed it a while to let plants regrow, and to fix up and/or change the way things are laid out for better preservation.

All other areas are generally open, trail or no trail, BUT generally a responsible hiker would avoid hiking on meadows, through wetlands, or any other fragile environment. Tread lightly.

[FIGHT ON]

FO, certain areas, like the frog closure area in the San Gabs, are designated as "off limits" to protect sensitive habitat or endangered species.

Other areas can be closed due to fire (e.g. the recent Piute Fire closure area).

Still others are closed for renovation and renewal, such as Crystal Lake. Crystal Lake is an overused area. They've closed it a while to let plants regrow, and to fix up and/or change the way things are laid out for better preservation.

All other areas are generally open, trail or no trail, BUT generally a responsible hiker would avoid hiking on meadows, through wetlands, or any other fragile environment. Tread lightly.

Ok. That's good to know. So it sounds like when off trails the idea is to walk on rocks and dead stuff avoiding plants and natural features. Can't help leaving footprints unless you dragged a tree branch and swished them as you go. Wouldn't get very far. But still even when being very careful off trail there is a negative impact right? The idea is to minimize it as much as possible reasonably.
The more people stay on trails the less impact obviously.
What's a guess of the % of people who go into the mountains intend to stay on trails?
Of those what % get off trail unintentionally?

[Hikin_Jim]

Ok. That's good to know. So it sounds like when off trails the idea is to walk on rocks and dead stuff avoiding plants and natural features.

When off the trails, it's best to stick to durable surfaces (snow, rock, etc.) if you can, but frequently there's no way to avoid going through plants. Of course stay out of fragile places like meadows and such, but some trampling on plants may be inevitable. More on this later.

Can't help leaving footprints unless you dragged a tree branch and swished them as you go. Wouldn't get very far.

You know the saying, "take only pictures; leave only footprints." Follow that, and you'll do well.

But still even when being very careful off trail there is a negative impact right? The idea is to minimize it as much as possible reasonably.

There's not much impact if you're away from any maintained trails and it's not a heavy use area. In heavy use areas, say near the tram in Long Valley, people really need to stay on the trails and avoid going off trail.

The more people stay on trails the less impact obviously.

Well, not neccessarily. In many places in the Sierra, there is so much traffic that some trails become wide avenues which can lead to erosion and degradation of the area immediately along the trail. Many people jokingly refer to the John Muir Trail as the John Muir Freeway because it's so wide in spots. It really detracts from the beauty of certain stretches of the trail. If people were to hike in a more dispersed fashion, perhaps there would be less impact, not more in such cases.

What's a guess of the % of people who go into the mountains intend to stay on trails?

I don't really know what the percentage would be. Off trail XC hikers are a small portion of the total hiker population generally, but a lot of people who aren't really into XC hiking will go off trail to bag a nearby peak or to get to a climbing spot. When I'm out doing true XC, well away from any trails, I seldom see a soul.

Of those what % get off trail unintentionally?

I have no idea. Better to ask a SAR guy.

[FIGHT ON]

Hey Hikin_Jim, why did you advise friend owl and his 4 year old daughter to go camp in the Crystal Lake area?