[strider]

Prior to the internet and before the popularity of hiking based websites like NWH, I think many (perhaps most) hikers had a relatively small group of regular hiking partners. When hiking-themed web sites were "new", one of the big attractions was the ease with which one could connect with fellow hikers. It appears to me that the hiking community has really embraced that element of hiking web sites. It's a great way to meet other hikers, and solid friendships with nice people often result. Sites like NWH attract / create groups of like-minded hikers, often large groups. Group outings and hikes occur regularly, and often consist of many individuals. There are numerous trip reports on NWH (and on many other sites) that attest to this reality. Question: Should there be more care given to managing the size of these group outings, especially when the destination is a fragile locale? On another site (I am not promoting or advocating the site but it is thebackpacker.com if you want to check my count), the "trips page" includes a list of hikers "signed up" for each trip. Many of the hikes identify very large lists of participants. I just checked a few while writing this entry, and there is one trip over there that has 30 participants!! There are several with 15 or more, and I only looked at about 7 or 8 of the long list of trips….. Do you ever place a limit (other than the limit of 12 when heading in to National Parks) on the number of participants when you propose a website-group hike? If you do place a limit, what criteria do you use to decide on a number? How do you enforce the limit? For that matter, do you think the NPS "12 in the backcountry" limits are adequate, and adequately followed? I recall one time up the Elwha, we were overrun by 2 "groups" of 12 scouts that had merged into one rather obnoxious group. They were 24 strong (and loud, and rude) for the last 45 miles of the 50 miler. No ranger about, and scoutmasters who just didn't care, all combined to make that particular nights' camp No Fun At All.

[MCaver]

I can't imagine hiking with that many people. Might as well hike around downtown if that's the case. Hiking for me is as much about solitude as anything else.

[Allison]

I have a personal practice of keeping party size down to probably six maximum. Usually I'm traveling with one or two people. At least in the past, the NWH campout things have been a car camping thing with people breaking off into smaller groups to dayhike. I hope it continues to be that way. Besides impact issues, I think when people hike in large groups it's easy to get lost in it all and not be especially aware of one's surroundings, and that's an easy way to get in some kind of trouble. Just my $.02

[Andrew]

I've never hiked with more than two other people. A total party of four might be my limit. After that, the wilderness experience is disrupted and logistics are altered.

[Hiker Boy]

Well strider, I think the most people I have ever actually hiked with at one time was our 12 people and a dog on the Loowit trail trip back in 1999. I have definitely group camped with more (19 people I knew on one trip). Lot to be said about the close bond formed between a small group of travellers and I generally like to keep the party size small and intimate. It's just easier to make decisions with a few people. However I am a social animal and love those occasional trips where I get to see all my buds at one time.

[Magellan]

There are relatively few regulations in our backcountry. Because of this, I would hope we can respect the few that exist. I think group size is perhaps number one on the list. I took nine people up Hidden Lakes Peak last year. It was a concerted effort to show people a special place. That said two or three or occasionally four is usually all I travel with. I was out sunday by myself. There is a lot to be said for complete solitude. I could imagine ten people snowshoeing through deep powder with a new leader every five minutes.

[Bryan K]

I thought the FS recommends groups of no more than 12. I could be wrong. Personally I couldn't hike or snowshoe with that many people. Too many people that could slow a group down. I remember a TR that Opus posted referring that their large group size partly contributed the their not making a summit. On a longer trail I prefer to keep the group size below 6 or even 4 or less.

[mtnmitch]

I would say between 4-6 is a good limit. If you are with a bigger group you should split into smaller groups to hike and then when camping spread out the camps in order to lessen impact on one area. They don't have to be out of range of the other camps but as long as they are not all in the same 100 square foot area, which would cause definite impact on an area in a surprisingly short period of time.

[Quark]

The hikes on this site aren't sponsored by the site, so monitoring a signup list isn't something the site would ever do. Personally, though, it depends on the trip. It's fun to have lots of folks on snow trips - there's no impact. 3 or 4 in a group is usually all I hike with - not consciously, but the freinds I have feel the same way, so hoardes aren't invited in the first place. But won't say no to an invitation to join a larger group if it's a good group o' folks (5 or 6). They'd have to be folks I already know, too - I don't want anyone invading my space, or crapping up a trip. The more you're out with folks you don't know, the more chances are you'll have a crappy attituded person that ruins it. I would not enjoy 30 people on a trip and can't imagine ever being in a group that large, not on purpose. The only issue we had on this site was went we went to drop some of Ed off atop Big Snow. We were worried about capping the Wilderness limit of 12 - but that was a special occasion hike, and 12 was both expected and welcomed. I don't think anyone on this site really likes to deal with more than a few partners.

[Hiker Mama]

I've just revisited this thread, because I have been mulling this issue over. I have a hike planned for Friday the 16th and I already have 3 women coming plus children, and I haven't even sent out emails to everyone yet. My last hike had 6 moms and 8 kids, and it was hard to keep everyone together. Plus you couldn't have great conversations because there were too many people. I went on one to Franklin Falls last summer where there were even more moms and kids, and the group naturally split into 2 based on ages of the kids and hiking speed. Even then it was too hard to keep track of everyone, and I felt somewhat responsible as the organizer of the trip. Now I'm thinking I should be setting a limit for my hikes. I never had this problem before; I was always practically begging people to come with me, but now I guess I have a large enough network of potential partners that I have to think about it. What do you think, should I limit the number of moms who come along (say, 4?) or should I count the total number of people, including babes in packs? I hate saying no to moms who want to get their kids out in nature, but I guess they can organize hikes, too, with the people who want to come but didn't get to. Just thinking "out loud" here. I spose it is a good problem to have...