More blazes removed in Pemi??

carole · Oct 25, 2005

“Lower trails in fair shape except Twin Brook Train and Franconia Brook trails. These trails are no longer maintained and the blazes have been carved out!”

This is posted in the NH Trail Conditions by Roy J. Coleman.

Has anyone else seen this? Are more blazes being removed beyond just the unofficial Owl’s Head path? If this is so, how far will they go? Why?

post'r boy · Oct 25, 2005

there are lots of wilderness areas in the northeast in very popular places that have stopped blazing and maintaining the trails. i personally like it. i say keep it up.

pull out the bridges,no more paint,stop brushing the trail,yippeeee!
anybody wanna go whackin'?
p.s. and i don't think the place will be overrun with hurd paths/human zones.
i've heard alot of people talking about how ridiculous it was to put a wheelchair ramp at the galehead hut,well why do we need blazes and well marked trails?

p.s. the sky is not falling!

MadRiver · Oct 25, 2005

Last year when I walked the trail that I maintain with my Region Leader he mentioned that he attended a meeting with a WMNF supervisor who was advocating removing “all” blazes in the WMNF. Not just unmaintained trails, but all trails. I’m not suggesting that this is what is happening, but I do find it odd that they seem to be removing long standing blazes. I do not know of the procedure that the WMNF uses to change existing rules or regulations that govern trail blazing, but I do hope that it is not left up to one idiot who believes that all blazes should be removed. I can only guess at the lawsuits that would result from this misguided policy.

hikerfast · Oct 25, 2005

removing blazes from trails is pure idiocy

HockeyPuck · Oct 25, 2005

I don't see the long term reasoning for removing and scraping the paint blazes off the trees. I understand that the area is designated as wilderness and should be considered natural and I'm not trying to unravel that string and re-open the debate. but...

My point is that if I'm following a trail with blue blazes trees and suddenly they are replaced by trees with scraped blazes, I'll now start following the scraped blazes instead of the blue blazes.

Would it be better to stop maintaining trails and naturally let nature take it's course. I would think paint fading off a rock / tree will occur faster than a tree recovering from a bark scraping. As anyone done any research as to which is quicker?

dr_wu002 · Oct 25, 2005

Remove 'em

I say remove them. Or don't repaint them. I hate seeing them. I don't think they're needed and actually lead to hikers depending on them when most of the time they should use their own route-finding skills. Most trails in the WMNF are obvious... but you should be able to recognize what constitutes a trail with foot travel etc. and not need to rely on something painted on a tree.

Look at the map before hand; know where you're going and what to expect.

-Dr. Wu

sierra · Oct 25, 2005

I just dont see the point here. The Whites are trailed out, they see alot of traffic, your not going to bring them back to wilderness anytime soon. ITs kind of like trying to bring Yosemite Valley back to wilderness. One thing to consider while the topic is open to disscission, Its obvious by using this board that there is alot of inexperienced hikers out there, by removing blazes, imo your just making it easier for newbies to get lost, IM not saying all of them but it wont help them by removing trail markers, blazes, cairns and such, is it really worth it. For myself I could care less.

adamiata · Oct 25, 2005

Isn't carving them out just the same as replacing them with axe blazes?

Dennis C. · Oct 25, 2005

I have maintained a section of a very popular and well used trail for the AMC for 13 years. Believe it or not, I have never once brought their paint kit out there to blaze the trail .... but I've never heard any complaints from anyone either. My belief is to (try to) maintain a very high standard of trail work (well brushed out), and there's no need to have blazes on the trees.

hikerfast · Oct 25, 2005

when some family with kids gets lost and something real bad happens, they will want blazes back. most people here are fine, but a lot of newer people follow the trails and in places it is not obvious where they go without the blazes. I don't want sar money spent looking for people, or hear about some kid (or adult)freezing out there. just my two cents.

WhiteMTHike · Oct 25, 2005

I don't think they should be removed because I find them helpful. I don't depend on them entirely though. I always have a trail map, GPS, compass and I have enough land navigation skills to follow a trail. However,the blazes are another tool and a reassuring one at that. For the newer and inexperienced hikers the blazes are the most needed. As long as they are painted sparingly and in accordance to AMC standards then I see no harm in keeping them.

Just my $.01 after taxes.

dr_wu002 · Oct 25, 2005

Dennis C. said:
I have maintained a section of a very popular and well used trail for the AMC for 13 years. Believe it or not, I have never once brought their paint kit out there to blaze the trail .... but I've never heard any complaints from anyone either. My belief is to (try to) maintain a very high standard of trail work (well brushed out), and there's no need to have blazes on the trees.

I think this is a really good point. I would add too that the blazes causes a lazy reliance in the mind. 'Look for the blaze -- not the trail', right? I find that once you forget about the yellow paint you start to notice that, yeah, this is the trail -- no, this is an old logging road that crosses the trail (Follow it!!! See where it goes!!!!!

) do not follow it fer now... When you learn route finding your eye becomes sharp at not only finding the trail in difficult situations but also scoping out other interesting stuff like logging roads, moosie paths, rail spurs and whatnot. IMO, blazes in the long run are more a danger to hiker safety than no blazes at all.

Save the paint fer yer house!!

-Dr. Wu

WhiteMTHike · Oct 25, 2005

dr_wu002 said:
I think this is a really good point. I would add too that the blazes causes a lazy reliance in the mind. 'Look for the blaze -- not the trail', right? I find that once you forget about the yellow paint you start to notice that, yeah, this is the trail -- no, this is an old logging road that crosses the trail (Follow it!!! See where it goes!!!!! ) do not follow it fer now... When you learn route finding your eye becomes sharp at not only finding the trail in difficult situations but also scoping out other interesting stuff like logging roads, moosie paths, rail spurs and whatnot. IMO, blazes in the long run are more a danger to hiker safety than no blazes at all.

Save the paint fer yer house!!

-Dr. Wu

Thanks but I have vinyl siding.

While I certainly agree that all hikers should learn and practice land navigation skills which include but are not limited to trail finding, I also believe that removing trail blazes could discourage any potential new hikers out there. Let's face it we all had to start somewhere, following blazes is a good beginning to learning the more important land navigational skills.

Just my $.01 after taxes.

dr_wu002 · Oct 25, 2005

hikerfast said:
when some family with kids gets lost and something real bad happens, they will want blazes back. most people here are fine, but a lot of newer people follow the trails and in places it is not obvious where they go without the blazes. I don't want sar money spent looking for people, or hear about some kid (or adult)freezing out there. just my two cents.

I think the problem is that it is not universal. If there are no blazes, people will have to learn a lot faster to be reliant on themselves and what is a trail, what is not and also how to turn back if they're not sure.

If there are blazes on some trails and not others suddenly a person has their guide removed and they don't know where they're going. This is when people start to get lost. I'm going to stick by my original stance on common sense and good judgement.

-Dr. Wu

Tuco · Oct 25, 2005

The issue to me is is it really worth the effort to remove blazes that are already there? Is that what our tax dollars will go for?

We can discuss all day the value of blazes, but I don't believe they are such a hindrance that there should be time spent removing them. If you want to have new trails without them, fine- but unless you can communicate to the general public that previsouly blazed trails are no longer blazed, there seems to be the potential for increasing the liklihood a "newbie" could get lost.

gaiagirl · Oct 25, 2005

I am not exactly a newbie, not by a long-shot, but there are trails where blazes are more than helpful for me, particularly in places that have been rerouted and such, but on others as well depending upon trail usage and other factors. And the point about money and time being spent to purposefully remove them is still the most important one, I think. I just doesn't make any sense at all.

poison ivy · Oct 25, 2005

dr_wu002 said:
I would add too that the blazes causes a lazy reliance in the mind. 'Look for the blaze -- not the trail', right?

I would disagree with this... at least in my own experience hiking the AT. I look at the ground and the trail a lot more often than at the blazes. (I know this because I have gotten off trail following herd paths and the like rather than the direction of the blazes on occaision.)

I frankly don't much care about what is and what is not blazed... I certainly don't need to see them every 10 feet... but I'll admit I do like seeing them at intersections or confusing spots. That said, I don't understand the need for someone to go around scraping them off. It seems to me that there's better use of both money and staff time than worrying about paint on trees.

-Ivy

dug · Oct 25, 2005

But, what would ever happen to whiteblaze.net??

MichaelJ · Oct 25, 2005

So the question is ...

Is this someone's misguided supposition based on what they saw, or is it true? It could just be vandals, not the USFS, doing this...

sierra · Oct 25, 2005

I agree blazes shouldnt make or break you finding a trail, but I was thinking that in the winter on an untracked trail, they have been a help to me in the past in the Whites.

More blazes removed in Pemi??

Help Support vftt.org:

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!