[lookout bob]

We spent another night as hosts at Red Top lookout. I spent an hour or so picking up trash ( another rant.... ) and destroying traces of a 'social' trail cutting off a long switchback between the outhouse and the lookout. I don't really understand the mentality of going up very steeply to avoid a sixty foot walk on an easy switchback. I used lots of deadfall, an old grounding wire from the lookout that was lying around anyway, and lots of ankle turning gravel and rocks to hide where the social trail had developed. I just don't understand the thinking of switchback cutters....

[neek]

Tragedy of the commons. I also prefer going straight up/down, but was taught not to (and most importantly, why not to) from an early age. I've seen people cut switchbacks for a variety of reasons: 1. they're kids an don't know any better, 2. they're adults who think only of themselves, and 3. they've convinced themselves they can do it without impact. I get your point about the shortcut sometimes being less efficient, but often it isn't. Think of humans as ants - fairly mindless and random, but in sufficient numbers, able to find optimal (in terms of energy expenditure) routes.

[awilsondc]

[huron]

Another way to ask your question is, why do folks build trails where no one wants to walk?

[BigBrunyon]

If i see u cutting 'backs ill say something!!!!! If u need to cut 'backs to rack up a kill count you're not legit! Disqualified! I can win a hike easily without cutting 'backs!!!

[Washakie]

Why does a dog lick it's ass? .........because it can.

[HitTheTrail]

In the situation of a short trail to the outhouse you have a very valid point. However, when general trail maintenance stopped I think people often feel the authority to enforce switchback rules was also forfeited. If someone sees a long switchback ahead clogged with downfall that would be extremely difficult to navigate while at the same time seeing a nice open clear shortcut to the trail above/below what do you think a rational person would do? I make an effort to stay on trails but if it is nearly impossible i may seek a more efficient route. Sad but true.

[Tom]

On some sections of the PCT it's just a healthy indicator they aren't suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

[MtnGoat]

Yup. I've seen cases where the grade barely misses itself vertically after a long stretch in each direction.

[olderthanIusedtobe]

I can definitely relate to the PCT comments. Climbing 1200 ft. from Deep Lake to Cathedral Pass without actually feeling like I was going uphill was a strange experience. I didn't cut any corners but I thought several times the trail in that section was ridiculous.

[Mikey]

Some trails have many switchbacks because of the low or very low % grade. USDA Forest Service Trail Difficult Ratings Hiking Trail Grades: Easy 20%, Moderate 30%, Difficult 30% or more. Horse Riding Trail Grades: Easy 15%, Moderate 25%, Difficult 30% or more. % grade = [(Vertical Rise)(100)]/[Horizontal Run] I have been told that some of the low % grade trails built long ago were for use by USFS horse packers carrying supplies to USFS fire lookouts. I can recall talking to an USFS horse packer and he was a USFS Federal Govt employee. More recently (about 3-5 years ago), I was told by an USFS trail design person that a trail in the Snoqualmie Pass area was being designed with a low % grade so that the trail could be used by people of many hiking abilities. As I recall, this relocated trail design includes barriers (ie fences) to reduce cutting of the switch backs.

[AlpineRose]

Endless low-grade switchbacks on hiking trails have their purpose. They're much better for stock and easier for those of us with aging, creaky joints. However, you ain't seen nuthin' 'til you've hiked mountain bike trails, the champions of low-grade switchbacks. Merely an observation, folks, not a complaint. Cutting switchbacks damages the trail and causes erosion. On steep, exposed slopes it creates a real hazard as erosion combines with multiple switchback cutters to destroy the trail bed. The trail to Sauk Mt. is the perfect example. As well, it increases trail maintenance costs when trail crews have to - once again - repair the damage. If you see something, say something. Politely of course.

[gb]

Some folks doubtless cut switchbacks to try to get home quicker....to have a faster elapsed time by not walking the full distance. Me, nowadays, I kind of realize more time spent out of doors is better than less time spent outdoors. I'm also cognizant of responsibility in minimizing impact and erosion.

[texasbb]

It's no mystery why people cut switchbacks. I could list a paragraph full of reasons, but they mostly amount to convenience. If hikers can see that a trail goes 30 yards that way just to double back and lower them just a few feet, nobody should be surprised when cutting happens. The trail should've been routed more steeply to avoid the appearance of wasting steps. It's unrealistic to expect education and shaming to correct the problem; centuries of experience tell us too-close switchbacks will get cut. So 98% of the time I blame the trail designer. I don't care what the trail standards say, if following them would create a switchback that looks easier to cut than not, violate the standards for a little distance (e.g., go a little steeper or cut some steps) and don't create that kind of switchback. Shoot, some cuts are created by wildlife that are smart enough not to walk way over there and back for no good reason. The other 2% of the time the designer has no choice. The subject trail to the outhouse is probably one of those. I have no general answer for these. Disclaimers: I never cut switchbacks unless the switchback itself is blocked. I teach others not to cut switchbacks. Percentages above are completely meaningless apart from their intended hyperbole. I hate "well graded" trails.

[Chief Joseph]

Because they are there.