Maintainers Reducing SAR

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

I have not read the article about Nh F&G's money woes from SAR. Here I speak mainly to my fellow trail maintainers:
A found tourist is a tourist who is not lost and will not call 911 for that reason. We can reduce SAR expenses by making sure the trails we tend are blazed and signed enough that a tourist who has never been there before, either scorns the use of maps or had not the chance to buy one at the trailhead, and does not keep track of where they are if they do have one, can at least navigate from blaze to blaze in dim light. It is a fine line we walk between overblazing enough to be obnoxious and underblazing to the point where the trail is easily lost in less than perfect conditions of weather. I figure that where the trail corridor is through open woods or above treeline, the safety of a followable trail outranks the aesthetics of not too many blazes. When someone says we overblaze, my reply is, "Are you volunteering to join the search team when people are lost up here?" That usually ends the conversation...
I welcome replies.
Creag Nan Drochaid

 

[cooperhill]

Craig,

Sometimes we (maintainers) are restricted from blazing by trail managers especially above treeline. FS wants cairns to be built but that is way above my skill level and available time. Also, in my case there is no blazing on my trail for a significant portion of the trail (trail is very wide and very obvious).

On Chocorua, where most people have gotten "lost" is the intersection of Piper and Champney (folks go down the wrong way) - that intersection is well signed.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Sometimes we (maintainers) are restricted from blazing by trail managers especially above treeline.

Also, of course, in wilderness areas, where reduced brushing leads to further difficulties. Almost every winter some "smart" hiker looks at the map and comes up with a loop, going up Pierce or Eisenhower from the west and planning to return by the Dry River Trail.

 

[peakbagger]

Do note that the forest service has standards on blazing and especially in wilderness areas, the blazing standard requires a very light approach that to many non hiking folks would look like underblazing. Its been long time since I got trained to blaze to USFS standards, but I seem to remember, "If you can see more than one blaze from any point on the trail, its overblazed, and as long as the trail is relatively straight, there is no need for a blaze until the trail deviates significantly or encounters an obstacle. These standards are not optional if the trail someone maintains in on USFS property.

 

[Chip]

Not that this will EVER happen there, but I do like the reflective markers they use in the Catskills. They are more easily spotted during the day and are able to be spotted at night.

 

[John H Swanson]

I have much hiking experience in state parks and forests near NYC and in the northcountry of NY and New England. In the area local to NYC (Harriman State Park, etc) the trails are have much better blazing than the trails "up north." It is common to be on a trail and be able to see the next blaze when standing next to a blaze. In fact, this is the goal. As visibility varies with tree cover, it is a challenge to have only one blaze visible at a time for all the seasons. So in winter when snow obscures the treadway, one can easily follow the trail. With this regard, the NYNJ Trail Conference (the local overseeing trail maintnenace organization down here) does a kick ass job.

By comparison, the blazing is so sparce on trails in the north country that even a very expereinced person can have difficulty in following a snow covered trail. This is exascerbated by trails that are not frequently clipped or not clipped for winter conditions. Personally, when I'm not looking for this type of expereince, I find it quite frustrating.

So, in some ways, the cause of a SAR event can be directly attributed to the lack of trail maintenance (lack of blazes and lack of clipping ) If you don't want to see many blazes, at least clip the treadway to 10ft height so the trail can be followed.

 

[cooperhill]

So, in some ways, the cause of a SAR event can be directly attributed to the lack of trail maintenance (lack of blazes and lack of clipping ) If you don't want to see many blazes, at least clip the treadway to 10ft height so the trail can be followed.

Again, maintainers, in most cases, are restricted from going beyond FS guidelines. A trail not clipped to 10 feet high doesn't mean it isn't being maintained. We are told that the priority is to clear drainages and keep the trail cleared (including brushing to standards). I personally spend the most time on drainages - my trail has 90+ and is very prone to erosion. I believe regular trail corridor height is supposed to be 8' high, 6' wide. Wilderness clearing is even less - I can't recall the dimensions (6' and 4'?). I have heard of volunteer maintainers being scolded for wilderness clearing that is wider than regulations.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/fspubs/07232806/page07.htm#clea

 

[bikehikeskifish]

An interesting question. Are there any statistics or even anecdotal evidence that failure to (be able to) follow a trail is a primary cause for SAR? A lack of a map may cause ambiguity in which trail to follow, but during "tourist" hiking season, I can't think of many trails that are difficult to follow, even in dim light. Can a lack of a flashlight/headlamp be the cause in this case?

Personally, I have never found it difficult to follow any trail(*). I've watched my kids, 7 and 10, hike now since they were each 3 and even if they go down a water bar, it never took them long to realize they were at a dead end. Sometimes, as a check, I blurt out "What color are the blazes?" My son, the more observant one, invariably knows.

(*)Exceptions in winter of course, but winter is not hiking season for tourists.

Tim

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Epidemiology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire, 1999–2001

Out of 321 people serviced by SAR only 88 were listed as being lost in this study. 27% of all SAR missions. 1).

What is not listed in this study is why or how they got lost. Just totally inexperienced, walked off the trail, missed a turn, arriving nightfall without lights, etc.

I find the trails in many areas to blazed far more than is actually needed. Especially if a map and compass is available. In many areas I find it difficult to even leave the trail at all and in many areas the trail is completely self evident. It is possible to take a wrong turn at an intersection but is that really lost? Shouldn't someone be able to figure that out by having even the slightest amount of situational awareness? Especially with a map and compass? I am not sure what more we can do to correct this problem. More signage at the entrances at trails? I doubt it. There is a certain portion of the population that we will not reach regardless of what we do.

Keith


Source:
1). Epidemiology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire, 1999–2001
Gretchen K. Ela, MD

 

[TCD]

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35732&highlight=lost+hiker

see posts 12 and 14. It appears that inadequate blazing at a point where the trail leaves the stream contributed directly to this incident, and that even people who successfully navigated that trail made note of the inadequate blazing.

 

[Taconic]

If people get lost because of inadequate blazing, I'm not sure that anything short of blazing every other tree is going to help. The footbed is generally pretty obvious on most trails at all times but winter. If you wind up on a herd path or in a drainage and surmise that you're off the trail, then the most reasonable thing to do is to simply backtrack to the point where you lost sight of the blazes.

I've done it many times. It's basically common sense. If people going into the woods lack that, I'm not sure that more paint is going to fix the problem.

 

[Elizabeth]

I disagree that the footbed of the trail is nearly always clear unless snow-covered. Perhaps true on heavily-used trails; but not so on many. In spring there may be quite a bit of blowdown and in fall dry leaves can obscure a trail. I've never been badly lost; but have gotten inadvertently off-trail for a while in various places where marking was sparse. This past spring it happened to me twice when navigating around blowdowns. (No problem, I re-found the trail again without much difficulty; but a "tourist" might not.) In poor visibility or on leaf-covered trails I will admit to having occassionally relied on my dogs to sniff out the trail.

 

[DougPaul]

I disagree that the footbed of the trail is nearly always clear unless snow-covered. Perhaps true on heavily-used trails; but not so on many.

And people wandering around can leave multiple paths which might be mistaken for the correct path.


I was just on a WM trail (Zeacliff) this weekend on which I saw less than 10 blazes in its 1.2 mile length*. There were also a couple of spots where multiple tredways headed off in different directions...

* I wasn't actively looking for the blazes, so I might have missed a few.

Doug

 

[Stash]

It's been covered in other threads but I'm still trying to understand the whole problem with blazes ruining the whole "experience". Should you be able to navigate without them? Absolutely. But will a dab of paint on a tree every once in a while to make things a bit easier cause me to think I'm in the middle of New York City? Not really.

If we really want that natural experience should we go full tilt and ban any commercially made fibers and objects? Only clothing made from animal skins or natural fibers woven by hand. If your vest is down you have to pluck the bird. No fancy tents and stoves because that's not natural. For an overnight you have to fashion a tarp out of branches and leaves or whatever you find laying around and cook on a fire made from local materials.

All or nothing, right?

 

[David Metsky]

It's been covered in other threads but I'm still trying to understand the whole problem with blazes ruining the whole "experience". Should you be able to navigate without them? Absolutely. But will a dab of paint on a tree every once in a while to make things a bit easier cause me to think I'm in the middle of New York City? Not really.

It's a very common theme when soliciting feedback. The hiking public does notice and complain about over blazing. We should strive to have the minimum needed trail markings, but no less. As the original poster said, it's a balancing act that we all must keep in mind.

 

[--M.]

Zeacliff is an excellent example of different blazing on a different trail. The AT across Zealand Mountain is a six-lane monster, while the Zeacliff Trail becomes a grown-in country path (without saying whether one is 'good' or the other 'bad').

Also, directional ability is highly subjective, with some better than others at just having a clue about their surroundings. Appeals to common sense will either be lost on them or irrelevant.

I've also noticed a wide variety of blazing, especially being overdone unnecessarily and/or underdone when it could really help (i.e. an uncleared blowdown at a turn in the trail). The wet top end of the Moriah Brook Trail had me marveling at this phenomenon.

I've used the NY reflective blazes to guide myself and my kids out after an evening's fishing at the Hudson River Gorge. Without the discs shining in our flashlights, it would have been a longer evening fer shure!

And during winter, those white AT blazes seem particularly anachronistic, especially in difficult-to-follow areas where (moose) herd-paths could easily lead astray. The Ethan Pond Trail just east of Thoreau Falls comes to mind. We never got truly lost, but had to backtrack and play hide-&-seek with the snowy blazes.

 

[Taconic]

And during winter, those white AT blazes seem particularly anachronistic, especially in difficult-to-follow areas where (moose) herd-paths could easily lead astray. The Ethan Pond Trail just east of Thoreau Falls comes to mind. We never got truly lost, but had to backtrack and play hide-&-seek with the snowy blazes.

That raises a valid point.

People seem to question the frequency of blazing, but rarely bring up that the colors used are often not very effective at times of poor visibility.

I've lost unbroken out parts of the AT many times during the winter because it's easy to miss white blazes on snow covered trees.

Red blazes are pretty poor in low light conditions (which is when people would be most likely to lose the trail.) Though they are good during the day or in the snow.

I've even seen green ones on occasion. Those don't work too well unless they're surrounded by snow.

Blue seems to be the most effective of the commonly used colors. It provides contrast against the snow, is unnatural enough to be quickly spotted, and (assuming it's a light enough shade) can be seen in low light.


I suppose this then begs the question of why more eye-catching colors aren't used. And would having fewer day-glo blazes be preferable to having every other tree white blazed? I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand, day-glo orange blazes would be a bit jarring, but on the other it's not like anybody can claim that blue or white blazes are particularly natural either.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

"latex gloss enamel paint reflects"

Refering to post # 5, about reflective markers in New York State, for 25 years we on Mt Cardigan have used only latex gloss enamel for our blazes. Lasts 8 yrs in the woods and 4 yrs above treeline. Because it is a gloss paint with a shiny finish it shines right back at you if you brought a flashlight or headlamp... Creag nan drochaid

 

[peakbagger]

With regards to blazing for snow conditions, with a few rare exceptions (Lions Head winter route), the trail blazing and maintenance standards I have run into over the years are set up for conditions without snow. Using the 8 foot elevation clearing standard, makes many of the white mountain trails adequate for winter travel by folks who are crawling but definitely not an average height person walking. Granted I agree that white blazes arent the most visible in winter conditions but if they are covered with snow, I dont see how any one color is better than another. I just consider it an additional challenge inherent to winter hiking.

 

[RoySwkr]

I have heard of volunteer maintainers being scolded for wilderness clearing that is wider than regulations.

But another rule says branches are to be cut at the trunk not at the 4' mark.

A trail that is properly cleared needs fewer blazes than one that is grown in, but if there is no money for clearing there is probably no money for more blazes

The last time I looked at Wilderness trail standards, clearing was to be to 4 feet but less frequently, not 3 feet or 2 feet - I think this rule is generally ignored.