More blazes removed in Pemi??

[BrentD22]

Surprised by this thread?

It's really amazing how people can just say "I want or think it should be this way, make it so" without thought put into why it is so in the first place. Blazes on trails are needed more now than ever before. There is a much higher amount of non-experianced peak baggers out there these days vs. 10 or so years ago. There have been many posts on this board about the unexperianced hikers they encounter out there. I'm not saying we should cater to the unexperianced or encourage more unexperianced hikers to go out in the woods, but we have to be more realistic and be sure that the woods/trails are safe for all not just the privelaged experianced ones.

Now that I've said that I do agree that there is room for unmarked, unbridged, and less maintained trails out there. For WMNF workers to go out to remove the blazes seems over kill. Why not just allow the blazes to naturally go away and instead save that money to go toward more trail head patrols (car break-ins), fix erosion issues, or better up keep of WMNF campgrounds.

Another great thing the WMNF could spend money on would be FREE hiker/backpacker beginner courses or even advanced courses. It would help to educate the ever growing issue of unexperianced hikers out there all for free to all tax payers could enjoy the woods!

 

[BrentD22]

Trail Work

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.

When I was trained for trail crew with the WODC we where told a sign of good trail work is a well maintained trail that had no obvious signs that trail work was done.

 

[RGF1]

Another great thing the WMNF could spend money on would be FREE hiker/backpacker beginner courses or even advanced courses. It would help to educate the ever growing issue of unexperianced hikers out there all for free to all tax payers could enjoy the woods!

Hey Brent have you been in my med cabinet !? You mean we should not have to pay twice for something ? Now we are about to fund the raping of the ANWAR . Yet we cannot fund something such as you propose ? We asked for it and we got it though we have no one but our selves to blame we bought up the BS like a trout going after a fly !
And if you think it is bad here take a low altituted flight over the mountan west anmd the oil fields or gas lines and see carcasses o nfwild life this what . we are paying for it will bring tears to all but Greedy offnesive peoples eyes. Thereis free stuff for the right types

 

[forestgnome]

Something is curious with some posts on this thread. To those who want the wilderness areas to be without blazes on trails, why hike on the trail? If the little blazes ruin your feeling of being in wilderness, what about the trailbed? These trails will never go away because hiking is now pop-culture. If you already have a trail, what difference does a blaze make?

I find more solitude in some non-wilderness areas of the WMNF than in the Pemigawassett Wilderness. I can hike all day in WMNF without ever crossing a trail or any other sign of human activity.

If you want a wilderness feeling while hiking, why are you hiking on a trail? How is an unblazed trail "wilderness", but a blazed trail something else? Only on an obvious trail will you see a blaze. Why are you there?

I do like the idea of removing bridges in wilderness areas, and I would never want more trails. I understand and share the desire for wilderness areas, but the trails exist for keeps. That's just reality. They certainly won't disappear from trail maps.

 

[redcloud]

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

I couldn't disagree with this arrogant statement any more.
Excuse me, but maybe not everyone who likes to hike is an expert in route finding. When my kids were young and we used to hike the trails in the Whites, we were not at the level of expertise that many people here are. I showed them the blazes, and explained to them what they mean. I am still not an expert, and I appreciate the blazes for why they are there.
By the way, I recently hiked Saddle Ball Mtn, which is part of the AT, and with all the leaves down, it was a bit tricky in a few places to follow, which is when you need to rely on the markings along the way for guidance.
Again, I am not a frequent hiker, and hiking is not all that I do, so pardon me for not being at your level of experience.

 

[Mattl]

Maybe instead of taking all of the blazes off or letting them fade everywhere, lets focus primarilly on the more remote areas as well as desigated wilderness. There is so much of the White Mountains that is family oriented and so well marked. I hiked Hedgehog the other day and the trail took forever getting to the summit because it was following the simple flattest way to get to it. Most of the trails are relitively easy and easy to find. I think the only people that should venture into places like the eastern pemi, shoal pond trail for instance, should be experienced hikers who are looking to go somewhere rough and wild. We cant hold everyones hand through things. In this day in age when everyone is focused on safetly and welfare, I think its nice to have a few areas that are nothing like that at all. Leave the rest of the whites outside these areas the way they are and make them oriented towards every level of difficulty. I think there is an imporant need for some areas just left alone, and wild. There isnt very much of that left. -Matt

 

[erugs]

Licensing?

So, MattL, are you (and some others before you) suggesting that people perhaps get licensed to allow them to hike on certain trails? Could their licenses be revoked? Or, are trails going to be marked at the trailhead in a way similar to how ski areas denote the difficulty or ease of their trails? Should beginners be required to have guides? How preposterous! Common sense says that trails should have a standard that is followed for maintenance and demarcation. Since early history and even pre-history, I'd venture, "trails" have been marked.

 

[Stan]

... Since early history and even pre-history, I'd venture, "trails" have been marked.

You mean like our tom cat marks his trails?

 

[the starchild]

So, MattL, are you (and some others before you) suggesting that people perhaps get licensed to allow them to hike on certain trails? Could their licenses be revoked? Or, are trails going to be marked at the trailhead in a way similar to how ski areas denote the difficulty or ease of their trails? Should beginners be required to have guides? How preposterous!

uhhhhh, mmmmmm....
eruggles, i think you are the ONLY one suggesting licenses and guides. i haven't seen a single post suggesting this....except yours!!

and yes, i agree; your suggestion of needing licences and guides is preposterous!!

and i believe the NPS marks their trails at the trailhead with a rating about how strenuous the trail is. sounds like a good idea to ensure people don't get in over their head.

FYI the AMC white mountain guide also notes difficult trails and safety concerns due to ice or wet rock.

 

[Mattl]

No not at all for licensing or guides. An inexperienced person can do whatever they want as well as experienced. They just need to be ready for a different sort of trail all together. Going into a remote place shouldnt be easy. Hikers should be expecting a challenge and if they dont want to go there, then dont. There are so many easy trails. -Matt L

 

[Hillwalker]

Guides

I spent a couple of weeks in Newfoundland this summer and was surprised to discover that while fishing you are not allowed more than a Klick away from the road without a licenced guide. I understand why, but still don't like it. I never broached the subject of hiking away from the road so I wouldn't hear the answer, what ever it is. I shudder to think that this could come to pass in the NE or anywhere else in the lower 48. Do you know that Idaho has more Designated Wilderness than the rest of the lower 48 put together? I moved back East from Idaho two summers ago.

 

[arghman]

nobody's suggesting all trails should be easy to traverse, but many of us (myself included) think that all trails, whether easy or difficult, wilderness or not, should conform to some minimum standard of navigation. The 2"x6" blaze seems to have become standard pretty much everywhere (except for odd blazes like the shapes at Monadnock or the White Dot Trail in Goffstown). I don't know what USFS's standards are, but you can read the WODC Trail Tending Guide (see p. 20-22 of the PDF), from which I quote:

<begin quote>

THE RULES OF BLAZING
Trees are not always willing to grow where a blaze is needed so we must use a little latitude when practicing the art of blazing, but let's proceed on the assumption of at least a near perfect scenario.

At the trailhead and at any intersection, the first blaze should be prominently positioned far enough along the trail to provide a definite sense of direction yet close enough to be readily visible. Twenty to thirty feet would be the optimum range. Subsequent blazes should be positioned so that as you pass the previous blaze the next blaze becomes visible after traveling just a few feet along the trail. In theory, you should be able to see no more than one blaze at a time.

Different situations will certainly call for bending this rule. For example, in open hardwood forests it may be impossible to adequately blaze the trail without having more than one blaze visible from some points. Add a few inches of snow cover to an area like this and it becomes imperative that the blazes form a continuous line. Sudden changes in trail direction are another reason to add a blaze or two.

On the other hand, there are many places where the trail is so obvious, such as in dense spruce, that the blazes may seem unnecessary. While it is definitely allowable to space them as much as 300 feet apart, they should not be entirely omitted. A hiker in unfamiliar territory derives a sense of security from seeing the occasional blaze.

...

There are a few other considerations to keep in mind. Blazes should be at eye level or slightly higher. Above this they are apt to be obscured by branches and if they are much lower they can be covered by snow.

Blazing should be done in only one direction at a time. It is virtually impossible to do a decent job when travelling in the opposite direction. It is best to do the entire trail at one time, or at least complete a section between intersections. A sudden change in the blaze pattern or frequency can be confusing to the hiker.

Wilderness blazing can be a whole other can of worms. Paint on trees could be considered anathema to the wilderness spirit, but we owe it to the hikers to provide a well marked route. The best compromise is to use as few blazes as possible, while still allowing the alert hiker to stay on the trail.
<end quote> (my emphasis)

Let's put the burden on hikers to be alert, but give them the navigational aids, assuming they are alert, to stay on trail. If we can't do this, let's stop calling it a trail, and quit wasting time & money maintaining it.

 

[jmegillon149]

This weekend was a perfect example of why blazes ARE needed. I was hiking Webster, there was knee deep snow, and blowdowns galore. The blazes were pretty necessary for getting around, as it was the only evidence of a trail that existed.

 

[thuja]

Do you know that Idaho has more Designated Wilderness than the rest of the lower 48 put together? I moved back East from Idaho two summers ago.

Not even close. California alone has more than 3X as much designated wilderness as Idaho. Washington alone also has more, marginally.
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS

Now if you want to argue that Idaho has more wild federal land, whatever its ostensible status, I *might* agree with you. But I might not.

 

[thuja]

In other places there are no blazes

On most federal land in the West, official system trails do not have blazes. Blazes are only found on informal or illicit routes, which are often little more than lines of blazes or flagging. There are plenty of neophytes out here, too, and I very much doubt they get lost at higher rates than in the Whites.

So, in truth, I think this whole debate is somewhat mystifying. Blazes are, on the one hand, entirely dispensable; and, on the other, if there is a system trail already there, the blazes do not appreciably detract from wildness nor create more impact. They only do that if there is no trail there. If you want to have a real debate, I suggest the subject of engineered bridges in designated wilderness areas.

On the subject of the proper "management action" (FS jargon is really irritating) to take, I would say, do nothing. Let the blazes decay, but don't bother to obliterate them.

 

[Stan]

... in Newfoundland ... you are not allowed more than a Klick away from the road without a licenced guide. ... I shudder to think that this could come to pass in the NE or anywhere else in the lower 48.

I've known people who've hiked in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland, without a guide but they do require some safety orientation before starting, say, a traverse and I think they equip you with an emergency radio beacon. The requirements might be different than in the jurisdiction of the Province.

I hiked there many years ago on a tableland in the southern part of the island and was amazed at mud pits which seemed to be a least four feet deep and capable of ensnaring you in the muck ... but we needed no guide.

As for requiring guides in the lower 48 or especially in the backcountry of the Northeast, I doubt it ... the professional guide cartel just isn't that powerful.