Nature Highlights

Environment
- Packing Out Waste: You Can Take It With You
Plants
- Danger Signs: Painful Plants
Threats
- Danger Signs: Painful Plants
Weather
- Cascades Meltdown
Wildlife
- Phenomenon: Wildlife Crossings

Share your tales of travel & adventure with our step-by-step guide. Upload trail descriptions, photos, video, and more.

Backpacker Magazine – October 2007

Is Heli-Hiking Bad for the Wilderness?

A for and against look at heli-hiking

by: Julie Cederborg

Photo by Skip Brown

Q: Is heli-hiking bad for the wilderness?
For 30 years, Alberta-based Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) has led heli-hiking tours of the Canadian Rockies, landing clients on alpine ridges that are difficult or impossible to access on foot. Proponents say it allows people who are time-strapped, older, or less fit to enjoy stunning natural places. Skeptics claim it threatens fragile locations and stresses wildlife. Currently, heli-hiking is offered only in western Canada and Alaska, but some environmental groups worry that shrinking ski seasons and the growing market for helicopter-based recreation will encourage Lower 48 heli-ski outfits to petition public agencies to fly their birds in summer.

A: Yes No matter how it's justified, heli-hiking ruins the quiet and isolated spaces it seeks to make accessible. Transporting hundreds of people to places previously visited by a handful of hardy hikers irrevocably alters the alpine terrain, as it has in Alberta. Plus, multiple studies indicate that frequent helicopter noise harms wildlife by inducing panic and causing reproductive stress. Grand Canyon backpackers already know how the constant buzzing degrades the outdoor experience. Just because people can pay thousands of dollars to fly into the backcountry doesn't make it a good idea. After all, preserving peaks that are difficult to reach is what makes hiking into those places so rewarding.
Grady Semmens
Executive Board Member,Sierra Club of Canada, Chinook Chapter

A: NO Preserving alpine ecosystems is as important for CMH customers as it is for backpackers. As a result, we don't land near wilderness zones, places with noise restrictions, or popular hiking routes. We hire professional pilots and mountain guides to ensure our clients act responsibly, and we conduct research to avoid known wildlife habitats. Some people claim hikers need to suffer and sweat to access remote places. But the natural world shouldn't be an exclusionary club. Many of our clients would never be able to traverse an alpine ridge without the convenience of our helicopters. At the end of the day, they enjoy the mountains as much as the people who decide to walk up them.
Dave Butler
Forester, biologist, and CMH Director of Land Resources

Subscribe to Backpacker magazine

PRINT THIS PAGE EMAIL THIS PAGE RSS FEED

Your rating:

Reader Rating: -

Digg Delicious Yahoo Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Google Newsvine Facebook

READERS COMMENTS

I have been working as a Heli hiking guide for the last eleven years. Mr Semmens knee jerk comments on this activity are way off the mark. Since we are in a helicopter, we can generally land as far away from people, so we rarely disturb anyone's backpacking trip. By its very nature, heli hiking is done in an area that allows aircraft. This means people also fly in to hunt every year.
As for the poor flora and fauna, I can assure you that the impact from heli hiking, which is spread out over many miles, in a different place every day, is far less than the most remote trail creates.
I can also testify that the animals I see every year are not suffering from "reproductive stress" and continue to live well, in the same places they always have. Here in Alaska, aviation is a common means of wilderness access, with a long history.
The biggest impact I have noticed is a habituation of animals, similar to what happens within the national park.
As for noise pollution, it is a factor. Heli hiking is much less than flight seeing however, since the aircraft only flies into an area twice a day instead of hourly flights. For this reason, and the fact that the flights are shorter we use less fuel as well.
People go on this activity for many reasons; physical ability, time considerations, and the fact that it is a tour, with a naturalist guide. I am obviously biased, but luckily others also see the value in my services.
Mr. Semmens I am sure would like to eliminate all flight seeing, and hunting as well. When that is accomplished, then the debate over heli hiking might make some sense.

Posted: Jul 19, 2008 Jeffrey Ottmers

Well for starters there are wilderness areas in Alaska that see maybe 20 people a year...and that includes the area where the oil company's want to start drilling in, and it's the same wilderness that the "tree huggers" are trying to save. I doubt even these people, while their intentions are good, have never seen. Why? Because this land is very hard to reach unless you use a helicopter or plane to reach it. So I think helicopter or plane to reach these destination is a good thing. The helo is only there for a few minutes or maybe 30 min tops. It's not like the helo is running 24/7, so to say it's going to scare the wildlife, yes it might do that but it's only for a short while and they tend to go back to what they were doing prior to the helo arriving. I have been in the military and have worked around helicopters and the wind from the rotors is not a big deal and doesn't "cause" any more erosion then a big wind storm, I would be more concerned with the skids the helo sits on when it lands, but I feel that God put us down here to enjoy the world and if it takes you a week to get somewhere and you don't have that much time to spend doing it then take a short cut. I think it's a good way to explore the world. If you don't like the noise then put ear plugs in.
Posted: May 30, 2008 Orion

Andrew bender says, Why is it that we spend so much preciouse resource to educate people on why it's important not to consume so much preciouse resource. We are deffinately in a pickel here.
Posted: Apr 26, 2008 Soldiertraveler on myspace