More blazes removed in Pemi??

[DougPaul]

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

The AT has specified blazing standards.

Personally, I don't generally use blazes as my primary navigational cues, but they are certainly useful for confirmation.

Situations where they can be particularly useful:
* fresh snow on the ground
* when leaves cover the tredway in open woods
* trail vs old trail, herd path, animal path, old logging road, etc
* night
* non-obvious changes in the trail

Perhaps blazes should be there perhaps not, but actively removing them is, IMO, poor use of scarce resources.

It seems rather inconsistent--Pemi track sets Lincoln Woods Tr (still Wilderness trail to some of us...), but also seems obsessed with removing trail markings on trails. Neither is how I want my parking fee spent...

Doug

 

[JNewell]

On the impact of removing them, when done carefully, it should have no significant effect on the tree. I have seen cases recently, however, where USFS personnel have removed not only the outer portion of the bark but gone all the way through the bark, so damage is a practical issue.

On yea/nay, I agree with DougPaul. In particular, there are trails in the WMNF that are official trails in non-wilderness areas that are relatively infrequently used. Having occasional confirmation that you are, in fact, on the trail is useful. If I wanted to bushwack, I'd do that instead. Winter is another useful occasion.

 

[MadRiver]

I’m curious, why is it that some people with overly pronounced personalities who reach a certain level of proficiency in a given sport or activity come to believe that their level of proficiency must now become the standard by which all others are judged?

I personally do not rely on blazing the way I once did. However, there have been times, especially in the winter, where I have thanked God that I was able to find a blaze. I have hiked with a few people from this board, who shall remain nameless, that were also quite thankful that a blaze was forthcoming. As much as I rely less and less on blazing and other permanent navigational aids, I am not so smug to demand that others must follow my lead.

The forest has thousands of visitors a year; some are extremely experienced hikers, while others are families who just want a fun day of hiking. Both groups have a right to enjoy the forest. If WMNF wants to remove all navigational aids from their trails, they at least have the responsibility to inform the general public of their intentions, and not just do it so the next time a family of newbie hikers head out into the wilderness they suddenly find themselves without any blazing.

 

[GNR]

Yeah...

what MadRiver said.

I like the Blazes to confirm what I may already know(I'm headed in the right direction), or to help show me that I am headed in the wrong direction. I've certainly felt and gotten lost before, as I'm sure all of us have, despite the urges not to admit it. Finding that Blaze is a good feeling when you're lost.

 

[Dennis C.]

The "A.T.", "winter", and "blazes" have just been just mentioned here (though not in the same post). There are areas along the A.T. in winter that are quite open (forest), the treadway fills in, and the white blazes blend in with the snow. It's then that they (blazes) are nearly useless. That's also when I'm happy to have a map and compass along.

 

[the starchild]

Perhaps blazes should be there perhaps not, but actively removing them is, IMO, poor use of scarce resources.
Doug

to blaze or not to blaze is a debate unto itself. however, the money and manpower being used to take down cairns and remove blazes seems like a waste. I imagine that time and money could be much better spent, especially since there doesn't appear to be a surplus of funds.

Scraping off tree bark or any part of a tree to remove a blaze to preserve the wilderness seems completely idiotic. So, now instead of a blaze fading away and getting reclaimed by mother nature, we have made a new blaze by cutting into a tree all in the name of protecting the wilderness???

to be fair though, on the franconia brook trail, blazes are not needed. lots of trails do not need blazes as the trail is pretty obvious. i know, that's another debate

hmmmmm.....maybe all the idiot rangers taking apart the owl's head cairn should freakin' do some hard work and remove the railroad ties on the wilderness trail. this would make hiking easier AND, i guess most importantly of all, return the area to wilderness

(please read, the rangers i am calling idiots are the ones removing that dang cairn) cuz really now, if its really about removing human stuff and wilderness, then get those railroad ties OUTTA THERE!!!!

otherwise seems like they are just looking for trouble and a fight.

 

[erugs]

MadRiver -- I agree with you completely. I've been reading the comments and wondered why my ideas were so far away from some of the people posting to this thread. I don't usually follow blazes because I'm too busy looking at my feet on the trail. I have to keep reminding myself to look up and around because I've knocked myself silly on so many trees that one friend has gotten into the habit of calling out "TREE" to me. I don't think that trails need to be marked much better than they are now, but I'm experienced at finding my way -- I've hiked with many novices who haven't developed trail "sense" yet and I'd hate to see these nice people get lost for lack of an identifiable trail. However, I'd also like to see more trails cut we could all have more to explore, which would give us all more to write about, wouldn't it?

 

[David Metsky]

So, now instead of a blaze fading away and getting reclaimed by mother nature, we have made a new blaze by cutting into a tree all in the name of protecting the wilderness???

No, removing blazes leaves very little trace after a year or two, certainly not a new blaze. You don't cut into a tree to remove the blaze, just scrape off some outer bark that will weather and fade.

I could possibly see the point of removing blazes (or letting them fade away) in the Wilderness Areas. I would be extremely suprised if any ranger suggested removing them from all of the WMNF trails. In general, I like the idea of making the Wilderness Areas more remote and less easy to use, but I think a recognition of the history of Eastern Wilderness is appropriate as well.

-dave-

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

I’m curious, why is it that some people with overly pronounced personalities who reach a certain level of proficiency in a given sport or activity come to believe that their level of proficiency must now become the standard by which all others are judged?

I personally do not rely on blazing the way I once did. However, there have been times, especially in the winter, where I have thanked God that I was able to find a blaze. I have hiked with a few people from this board, who shall remain nameless, that were also quite thankful that a blaze was forthcoming. As much as I rely less and less on blazing and other permanent navigational aids, I am not so smug to demand that others must follow my lead.

The forest has thousands of visitors a year; some are extremely experienced hikers, while others are families who just want a fun day of hiking. Both groups have a right to enjoy the forest. If WMNF wants to remove all navigational aids from their trails, they at least have the responsibility to inform the general public of their intentions, and not just do it so the next time a family of newbie hikers head out into the wilderness they suddenly find themselves without any blazing.

That says it perfectly...especially that last paragraph

 

[RoySwkr]

Back in the '70s there were very few paint blazes in the Whites, when you talked about blazes you meant axe blazes which were still often visible although nobody had used them in a couple decades. AMC Boston winter leaders were expected to make fall hikes to their winter routes to memorize the trail and put up orange survey tape so it could be followed in the winter. Of course nobody ever removed this tape so it was present in decaying form for many years. Somehow I think paint blazes are more attractive.

Right now the "official" trail standards in the NF are very silly and depend only on the category of land the trail is on and not on expected use - that would be like having all roads in Iowa 4-lane divided and all roads in Montana single-track dirt. In years past Forest officials were wise enough to ignore these standards and somewhat do maintenance based on use, but it appears that reason has left the Pemi District at least.

My complaint with present FS actions are that they are being done without an official public comment period and without public notice. If the public feels that trails in Wilderness should not be blazed or should not even exist, I am prepared to accept that but only if there are large notices posted at trailheads and on their web site so hikers will know what to expect.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Trails Gone Wild

I’m curious, why is it that some people with overly pronounced personalities who reach a certain level of proficiency in a given sport or activity come to believe that their level of proficiency must now become the standard by which all others are judged?

Good question.

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.

"Turning back" would present a bit of a problem for somebody attempting to exit the mountains after a long day of hiking on well blazed trails who suddenly finds themselves on a section without blazing late in the day, particularly if turning around means re-ascending a peak in the dark.

To undertake this kind of artificial "re-wilding" of certain areas without public input or notification is idiocy, in my opinion.

 

[post'r boy]

more overreaction i.m.h.o.

families set out on the long trail walk through wilderness areas and are not "lost" on an annual basis.
some things to remember.
be prepared
carry a map
a guide book if need be
don't panic
be aware of your surroundings
if you don't see a blaze turn around and head in the direction you came from
if you're that inexperienced start out small and build your confidence
you must not rely on blazeing even if the whole forest is painted for you.
i agree there should be warnings that the removal of blazes is being done so as not to lead someone into a false sense of security. it's too bad people talk about lawsuits. it's not up to anyone but yourself to get your arse and your families arses in and out of the woods safely.

 

[JNewell]

how to turn back if they're not sure

I am going to indulge in a well-meaning giggle here. If they got lost going where they were intending to go, how will they find their way back?

I think I know what's going on here. In an era of declining federal budget support for wilderness, the USFS is trying to bolster the need for continuing allocations by (1) putting personnel hours into blaze removal, which will then require (2) putting additional personnel hours into search and rescue! [need a smiley with tongue in cheek]

 

[funkyfreddy]

No need for blazes?

Just wanted to add a comment here....... Who's kidding who?

Has anyone here ever night hiked or come out of the woods after dark, especially on a steep eroded trail with a lot of twists and turns?

If you haven't then let me assure you that blazes and bright colored trail markers are most helpful under these circumstances!

 

[dr_wu002]

Just wanted to add a comment here....... Who's kidding who?

Has anyone here ever night hiked or come out of the woods after dark, especially on a steep eroded trail with a lot of twists and turns?

If you haven't then let me assure you that blazes and bright colored trail markers are most helpful under these circumstances!

FF, They are helpful at night and I agree with you. Although I've hiked plenty of trails at night that had no blazes -- some of these trails were fairly confusing too so I think it's prudent at least not to learn to rely on finding a blaze. They're simply not always there and sometimes a blazed trail won't have enough blazes in a tricky location which could lead to trouble.

I realize that a lot of people are inexperienced (inexperienced does not mean stupid though!!) and some people don't necessarily know what they're doing and they don't deserve to get lost. However, even if there is blazing it seems like the woods have an endless supply of criss-crossing logging roads, old trails, moose paths, herd paths to trip up the unsuspecting hiker. You should have some idea of navigation. It's a lot like driving a car in Boston sometimes, except there is no traffic.

-Dr. Wu

 

[funkyfreddy]

It's very hard to read a map and compass coming down a steep twisted trail after dark, especially with a full pack giving you balance issues and the darkness affecting your depth perception! It's also much easier to get confused and to lose your sense of direction at night. I've had these experiences twice again in the past few months and both times breathed a sigh of relief once I hit a blazed trail..... Things can happen on long hikes in the woods and sometimes don't always go as planned...... in both cases events conspired to slow us down and we got out after dark. I wouldn't say I RELY on blazes but I certainly appreciate them from time to time!

I've found them to be very helpful in the Hudson Highlands and Harriman St. Park, both are places where old woods roads and ski trails often criss cross and parallel each other for miles. I was thinking that blazes also might have been a help to some of us on Mt. Washington? There are a lot of trails up there...

 

[Tim Seaver]

Silly Cairns

Maybe while they are at it, they can remove all the cairns above treeline in the Prezzies, Moosilauke, and elsewhere.

I mean, if you can't negotiate your way above treeline in a 60 mph whiteout without such excessive handholding, do you really belong in the mountains?

( yes, I am being sarcastic)

 

[dr_wu002]

Maybe while they are at it, they can remove all the cairns above treeline in the Prezzies, Moosilauke, and elsewhere.

I mean, if you can't negotiate your way above treeline in a 60 mph whiteout without such excessive handholding, do you really belong in the mountains?

Good Point Although in the winter, when those cairns are burried...

I think the rock formations are a little different than lines painted on a tree -- even if sometimes the top rock on a cairn is painted. The cairns will oftentimes define the path entirely... without them, you have no direction. The blazes in the woods are different because you still have a trail to follow.

-Dr. Wu

 

[MichaelJ]

However, even if there is blazing it seems like the woods have an endless supply of criss-crossing logging roads, old trails, moose paths, herd paths to trip up the unsuspecting hiker. You should have some idea of navigation. It's a lot like driving a car in Boston sometimes, except there is no traffic.

Except that in Boston, those roads show up on a map. No matter how good your map and compass skills are, when you're entirely in the trees and come upon an unmarked junction, how do you know if it's the one shown on your map or another one?

Excessive blazing is silly, I agree. However, there's little to point to actually naming a route and calling it a trail without actually marking it now and then. Especially right now, with the first unbroken snowfall out there (or any snowfall, really) ... you can't really follow the treadway.

I once had to follow a trail in the spring based solely on the fact that there seemed to be a slight pattern of a few more crushed leaves on top of the snow that could be followed. A blaze here or there would have really put my mind at ease.

 

[erugs]

Good Point Although in the winter, when those cairns are burried...

I think the rock formations are a little different than lines painted on a tree -- even if sometimes the top rock on a cairn is painted. The cairns will oftentimes define the path entirely... without them, you have no direction. The blazes in the woods are different because you still have a trail to follow.

-Dr. Wu

What about the little rocks that line many of the trails above tree line to keep people off fragile ground cover? What about stone steps or stepping stones placed in wet areas that help protect people and the terrain? Trail signs, blazes, demarcations, bridges, are all important and reasonable. Where is the reasonable and responsible thinking on this post for this issue? These areas are available for recreation and people have different levels of abilities. Most of us don't come into an activity at the highest level. Those who are opting for removal of blazes and cairns are being selfish/thoughtless in my opinion. Inclusiveness and empathy make this world we share a happier place, in my experience.