Where We Draw The Line On Hiking Guides

Every time we publish an article about hiking, trails or outdoor spots, we get some version of the same feedback: Are we contributing to overcrowding by sharing these places with a large audience?

It came up again after our recent guide to lesser-known larch hikes, so I wanted to share a real response I sent to a reader who raised the concern. It explains where we draw the line, why some hikes make it into Bow Valley Insider and why others absolutely don’t.

You’ll notice we’ve blacked out a few sections below where I mention specific locations. That’s intentional. They’re exactly the kinds of places we don’t want to blow up.

Hey ——,

Ben here. I wanted to follow up properly because this is something we think about a lot.

Every time we publish a hike, trail or outdoor spot, we get some version of this feedback. And I understand the concern. We live in a place where increased visitation can have real impacts, so we're pretty careful about what we choose to put in front of a large audience.

If you look at the eight spots we included in this particular article, none of them are secret or truly unknown places. You can find every one of them pretty easily through a Google search, and most appear prominently in existing hiking guides and articles.

When we called them "lesser known," we meant relative to places like Pocaterra, Arethusa and Ptarmigan Cirque. Those trails can basically turn into Disneyland during larch season, with huge numbers of people and cars along the Highwood.

The places we included aren't at that level, but they're also not hidden backcountry spots that we're suddenly exposing to thousands of people.

And I can probably explain our thinking better with a couple of personal examples.

I was camping Wednesday night and Thursday this week and hiked about 38 kilometres with 1,800 metres of elevation gain into a basin that I know has larches. I've travelled to 46 countries, and this is genuinely one of the most beautiful places I've ever been.

I'm not telling anyone where it is.

You won't find it on AllTrails. It's not something that comes up on the first page of Google. I found it because I spend 4X per week hiking and exploring the backcountry. There's no way in hell I'd publish that location to our audience. I barely tell my friends about places like that.

Another example is ——. Last larch season, there were literally thousands of cars around Pocaterra and Ptarmigan Cirque. Drive ——— and you reach the ———. ——- and absolutely not something I'd recommend to inexperienced hikers, but ——- beautiful larches.

We went in there and basically had the place to ourselves while thousands of people were ——-.

We didn't publish that location either.

That's the distinction we're trying to make editorially. There are still places where people who love exploring can do their own research, zig when everyone else zags and find something special. We don't want to be the publication that blows those places up.

At the same time, we do want people who live in Canmore and Banff to get outside and enjoy their own backyard. I actually think there's value in connecting locals with the natural environment around them. The more people experience these places, the more likely they are to care about them, advocate for them and want to protect them.

So there's a balance.

We're going to continue publishing outdoor coverage because it's an important part of living here, but we're also going to continue being selective about what we publish. If something is genuinely under the radar, we're not going to blast its location to 25,000+ people just because it would make a good story.

I'm always open to feedback and disagreement on where that line should be drawn. I mostly just wanted you to know that we don't throw these lists together without thinking about the potential impact. There's quite a bit of consideration behind which hikes make the cut and which ones absolutely don't.

Really appreciate you reaching out about it, ——-.

Cheers,

Ben