More blazes removed in Pemi??

[KayakDan]

I don't often rely on the blazes,except at trail intersections from time to time. They do come in pretty handy if you do a little used trail in winter,and you are breaking a foot of fresh snow.
I'm not sure that removing blazes anywhere besides the Pemi is going to give anybody a "wilderness" experience.

I'll just get tired of answering "is this the trail?" every 10 minutes!

 

[arghman]

I agree with many people who've stated blazes have an important function.

I rely on blazes the way I rely on my map & compass when I'm hiking on-trail: that is, I hardly ever use them, but they're there, and occasionally when Doubt or Circumstance come into play (and they do), they are an important part of making sure I am where I think I am.

Here are some of my "look-for-the-blazes experiences" this year:
(1) Hiking up/down the Success Trail with Double Bow, where a logging road crossed the trail at a very acute angle, and the blazes pointed out the trail moving away from the logging road. Given a choice between a sign with letters, and blazes, I'll pick blazes.
(2) Hiking up the ledges on South Baldface last month with a friend. I'd been on the trail before, but this was the first time I'd been a hike leader rather than a follower. The blazes there are rather sparse. While you will probably end up in the right place if you head uphill & find the easiest places to climb, the trail meanders around, and seeing those blazes from time to time gives valuable feedback to make sure you're not on your way to head off a cliff.
(3) Hiking Mt Cabot. Got started on what I thought was a trail, but it was actually an old logging road. Blazes distinguish official trails from non-trails.
(4) Hiking w/ spencer and another co-leader up Puzzle Mtn. We were talking and thought we might have veered off the trail onto a woods road or herd path or something.

I do admit that en route to Owl's Head it was an interesting and not unwelcome change to hike on a trail without any blazes (Franconia Brook Trail, I think), but that was in the best of circumstances -- if there really is a no-blaze policy, then there should be a sign at the Wilderness boundary warning people that the trails are unblazed and they should prepare accordingly. IMHO Wilderness policy taken to this extent starts to make those who venture there unwelcome. I prefer the atmosphere in the Sandwich Wilderness near Whiteface/Passaconaway (edit: where there are blazes and signs but both to a lesser degree than in non-Wilderness).

 

[the starchild]

quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Seaver
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dug
But, what would ever happen to whiteblaze.net??

just wanna confirm, y'all were joking right? seemed like a few people responded serious to these posts, but i thought they were funny and meant to be comically sarcastic.


i think we all want whats best for the forest and for scarce funding not to be wasted. this seems universal.

I also think that any new policy of removing cairns or blazes should be posted clearly as people expect things that have been there... to well....be there. this too seems universal.

the forest should be accessible to all, blazes are helpful, but i certainly do not think all trails should have blazes. i also believe people wanting to spend time in the woods have a resonsibility to learn a few things. i agree that hikers should be always paying attention to the trail...not just the blazes.

part of the wilderness experience, and i guess the reality of wilderness, is not everyone can go anywhere. we all have physical, skill level, weather and other limitations. I do not think all trails should be marked so nobody can get lost. some areas should be left for those who have more experience. this is not conceit or elitism. this is the outdoors! there are animals, falling trees, rivers, slippery rocks, cliffs and lots of other things that can hurt or kill you. if you are not comfortable being in an area with no blazes for ANY reason from night hiking to getting lost to whatever...then you should probably not be there! go someplace safer for your ability. the wilderness is not a place where anyone should feel like anyone should be able to go and just be safe. its real. it can be dangerous. responsible people should stay in their comfort zone/skill level.

example: i am just learning skiing, but i know not to ski the lip of tucks or venture into backcountry territory that may be hazardous due to avalanches and other dangers that i have not learned to properly recognize. i do not feel like there needs to be any signs telling my inexperienced self where to ski and not to ski. ITS THE BACKCOUNTRY!!!! i feel like it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to recognize my skill levels and make good decisions. it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to find people to ski with who know more. MY RESPONSIBILITY to take courses, read books and learn. I don't know all about the dangers. does this make me stupid? no. does this make me think all the others out there skiing and having a great time are better than me? no. it makes me want to learn more and progress towards feeling confident,comfortable and safe about skiing in the backcountry.

 

[sierra]

First cairns, now blazes, why after all these years is the forest service reinventing the wheel here? If you ask me its that dam parking pass, maybe now with all that money theyve raked off us twice they need to find things to keep them busy,the forest service used to do important things, enforce regulations that mattered ie camping and such now there quickly becoming a pain in the but if you ask me. Last week I was messing around on the Kanc on a rest day, I was asked to move twice in one hour, once from Blackberry campground ( where I was resting and changing, I had been there for 10 minutes!!!) and once from the bridge over the swift ( a no parking zone!) this was during a weekday there was hardly anyone around, I mean these guys are just bored to death if you ask me.

 

[David Metsky]

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

Not Moosilauke, it's private land and we build what we want and blaze where we want.

-dave-

 

[Gris]

i STRONGLY disagree w/ the Wu-view. it's myopic & selfish for us more experienced hikers to want blazes removed from ALL trails. those who say it will lead to tragedy are correct. someone - regardless of their experience level - will get lost or hurt (try coming down falling waters in the dark sometime). what's next? remove all cairns on the rockpile???

 

[Tuggy]

I've always liked a well marked, well maintained trail. It lets me go along and enjoy the scenery without constantly having to check my bearings. Then when I take a break I can pull out my map and see exactly where I am.

 

[RoySwkr]

to be fair though, on the franconia brook trail, blazes are not needed.

If you don't blaze obvious trails, how will you recognize when the trail leaves the obvious route?

Several years ago a developmentally-disabled teenager missed the place where the Franconia Brook Trail turns off the railroad grade, continued into the swamp, and died. He was camped at 13 Falls with friends but happened to be walking alone in the middle of the group on the way back. There are more blazes and more logs across the old trail there now, or has Fearless Fosdick removed them

If you think the kid should not have been allowed to be walking alone in the backcountry, you aren't a civil rights lawyer

I think it would be interesting to have a large area with no trails, maybe a jamming signal could be broadcast over the area to block GPS and how about a roof to block navigation by sun & stars But removing existing trails is not what people expected when they supported Wilderness designation for the WMNF and if that is how the rangers intend to administer it maybe it's time to un-designate some Wilderness and maybe make it a scenic area like Chocorua.

 

[grouseking]

Im so confused with all the wilderness regulations. It seems like ripping off blazes is somewhat destructive, which creates more debate, more hikers checkin out the trails, and less "wilderness feel". I think it is counterproductive. Why don't they just let it be and let the blazes fade and never paint them again? I pretty sure that when the bridges fall in the designated wilderness they won't replace them, so why not do the same thing with the blazes?

But on a side note, I do think that trails should be brushed up every once in awhile though, even wilderness trails. It helps to know if you are actually on a trail so that part of maintanence is helpful. As far as cairns, again it seems like it is more counterproductive than helpful to remove them. Let a snow storm knock them over and don't rebuild, I don't know? maybe i contradicted myself, but oh well

This might be a ramble.... but I suppose we have to realize that no matter how much we'd like to get back to a wilderness type setting, as long as people go hiking in these spectacular regions, there is going to be human evidence, like trails, cairns, blazes, shelters, bridges etc. So as long as we continue hiking in the Whites, the region can never revert back to its old state. Too much has happened in the Whites history because of humans to ever really consider the region wilderness, but I do like the idea of the wilderness areas to protect land. Which is why they should just let things be until there is little or no evidence left of the blazes or cairns. I think most people could buy into that. See why I'm confused?

 

[forestgnome]

I'd like to see all trails, in wilderness and non-wilderness areas, of the WMNF well blazed, freshened up frequently. The inexperienced hiker with poor skills should be able to know at ALL TIMES that they are indeed on the trail. The inexperienced hiker level should be the standard, not our level of skill.

Reality is that people of all levels are out there. Will it deminish the feeling of wilderness to see a blaze when you are already on a well-troden path? Most hikers do not ever want to be off-trail. That's a good thing, it's safer. Inexperienced people are going to hike; it's extremely fashionable, that's just reality. Let's keep them on the trail.

There are many places on these trails where only a blaze or a sign ensures a hiker where the trail goes. My skills are as good as anyones', and I've been places where a blaze is needed. Maybe some people here only hike the list peaks, so they wouldn't understand because those trails could be hiked in the dark.

We all know that if we want solitude and wilderness, all we need do is step off-trail. The trail is but a thin ribbon through a miles-wide forest. There are countless places for us to hike in solitude.

Keep the hords on the trail and our esteemed SAR off-duty.

 

[the starchild]

QUOTE=RoySwkr]If you don't blaze obvious trails, how will you recognize when the trail leaves the obvious route?.[/QUOTE]

well, usually the obvious route IS the trail i think most trails i have been on are pretty obvious. Lincoln Brook Trail, my first winter backpack, wasn't well marked and we lost the trail .....ALOT! It was still lots of fun though. we had a map and know that pretty much we just followed the river and so we were never really worried.

several years ago a developmentally-disabled teenager missed the place where the Franconia Brook Trail turns off the railroad grade, continued into the swamp, and died. He was camped at 13 Falls with friends but happened to be walking alone in the middle of the group on the way back. There are more blazes and more logs across the old trail there now, or has Fearless Fosdick removed them .

If you think the kid should not have been allowed to be walking alone in the backcountry, you aren't a civil rights lawyer .

This is very very sad. i wish it didn't happen, but blaming a lack of blazes seems totally unjustified. If this teenager was capable of walking into a swamp and killing himself, his friends should have been keeping a much closer eye on him. I find it hard to believe that better trail markings would have saved him if he was in a state in which he would just try and walk through a swamp.

I am a bit of a liberal lefty though and most definitely believe he has a right to be in the forest, but he needed to be responsibly cared for and very unfortunately that did not happen.

I also don't think a fence should be erected along the bondcliffs after someone falls down them

as i said in an earlier post, the wilderness is a dangerous place and needs to be treated as such.

a non hiking friend of mine, G-money, came over to a small BBQ i was having for another friend (gepetto) who was about to hike the AT. well greg starts on this long rant questioning why we want to spend time in the woods cuz, "nature hates you and wants to kill you." he then proceeded to talk about storms, floods, animals, falling trees and while he was actually serious (trust me y'all, he does have lots of other redeeming qualities), gepetto and i could only laugh and reach for another beer

i think we all want (NEED!!) our natural resources protected, not see our money wasted and we all want to enjoy the outdoors, we can all agree on that i am sure

I feel like the wilderness is somewhat wild and i like it that way. It would be sad to me to see the backcountry disneyfied or suburbanized, meaning sanitizing it to make it overly safe, secure and of course.....well-lit trails! it can be a dangerous place, but certainly a pretty safe one with responsible actions...

On that note, i hope to see lots of smiles in the snow this weekend!! woooo-haaaa!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RoySwkr]

well, usually the obvious route IS the trail i think most trails i have been on are pretty obvious.

I guess it depends on what trails

A common place for people to get lost is where the trail follows a woods road for awhile and then turns off, if the woods road section is not blazed you don't notice you missed the turn because the blazes stopped

And after the FS spends $$ building bypass routes around mudholes to protect wetlands why is it suddenly OK if people miss the bypass and go the old way?

Suppose that the FS was to remove all signs because with GPS hikers should know where they are. Would having fewer signs but people staring at GPS screens instead of their surroundings be a better or worse Wilderness?

 

[forestgnome]

One particular place I remember having a hard time keeping the trail was the AT between Mizpah Hut and MT Jackson, last winter. I tried really hard to stay on the unbroken trail, but it was impossible to distiguish in many places. I had to zig-zag alot and it broke my heart to step on top of stunted spruces, breaking branches the whole time. The trail would be an obvious tunnel for a stretch and then break into an area where it was impossible to know where the trail went next. Many blazes were right at snow level, many were below.

I'd much prefer to not have to step on top of those ridge-dwelling spruces.

 

[dug]

Posted by Starchild:

"just wanna confirm, y'all were joking right?" re: the whiteblaze.net comment.

Yes, no harm intended. Mostly just reading the thread and learning different views. Interesting. Thought I'd try to throw some levity

 

[Quietman]

A recent experience: While hiking the Sosman trail on Tecumseh this Friday, there were numerous downed trees and no obvious foot bed under 2-3 feet of untracked snow. I lost the trail twice and was seriously considering turning back and hiking down the Tecumseh trail with a seriously sore knee(caused by climbing over blow downs with snowshoes) instead of an much easier ski run down. Was I in any real danger, not unless you count me being late and screwing up my wife's plans for the evening. With the state of my knee, the trip down would have been a long one indeed, but I had a head lamp and lots of warm clothes. That said, I was REALLY glad to see the small, almost invisible yellow spot of blaze on the tree just as I was ready to give up and go back. Should there be blazes everywhere? Probably not. On non-wilderness trails, I think you can tell what I think at this point.

Interesting side point: There were lots of rabbit tracks in this area, and almost always, the majority of the tracks followed the trail even through very thick blow downs. That was how I found the blaze, by following their tracks. Apparently they don't need blazes to follow the trail.

 

[RGF1]

Funny thing I manged to solo Denali on the Cassin , Granite Peak in MT and Gannett peak in WY and most Elk and San Juan 14 k peaks with out a single blaze or cairn If you want pure wilderness you would want to do away with blazes and cairns right?
I cannot imagine a person not being able to follow a trail in the NE sure some intersections can be confusing . It would be difficult to get around with out a 10 ft wide trail that is groomed and brushed out due to the very thick growth. In fact it is why I do not bushack in the NE it is not fun making your way through the dense growth.
Of course in some places it makes good sense to have a defined trail to protect the fragile rare tundra in the NE. I never really noticed them much untill some earlier post brought them up.
What about being dependant on blazes and cairns instead of route finding skills how does that promote learing to be self reliant and learing to use a map and compass or at least a GPS , they are not all that bad and help many a disabled person get out and about .
Getting lost in the NE is not necessarly a bad thing it can be a valuble lesson. Genarally not much wil happen to you other than a unpleasnt night out in the forest. Unless ofcourse it is in very bad weather and the party not prepared for it but they most likely will live and not repeat their mistake
Before some one flames, I am not in favor of SAR fees unless the person is deliberatly reckless I E intoxicated, not having any equipemnt at all as any one can make a mistake and get in a bad situation. FWIW I have been on SAR teams in CO and WY on Mountians that make anything here look like a walk in the park
But if people need blazes and cairns and it saves taxpayer money they are not a bad thing . Though I would hate to see them out west and am glad they are not so prevelent there .

 

[GeorgeFitch]

Trails becoming Streams becoming "Trails"

I agree that blazes on well trodden trails below treeline in the summertime don't always seem to be necessary.

Roy's mention of the James Foley fatality in the Pemi is a good example of how one can unknowingly get off the trail when the trail coincides with another feature and then diverges from it.

As a teen I was descending the Great Gulf trail in a very heavy rain. The trail became a roaring stream. So I was following the stream/trail. At some point the stream diverged from the trail but this point was easily missed since the trail was just wet rocks that looked like all the other wet rocks. I followed the stream, not knowing it was no longer the trail. Eventually I came to the top of a waterfall. I thought, man, this trail is steep! I let myself down the waterfall by holding onto roots along the side of it. At the base of the falls the "trail" just flowed and disappeared beneath a thick wall of bushes. Okay, so I'm not on the trail. Where is it? Turning around I looked back at the headwall. It was just a big, wet, gray mass of steep ledges and waterfalls. I was a little nervous. I climbed back up the waterfall which gushed into the neck and sleeve openings of my raincoat. So now I'm drenched to the bone on the Great Gulf headwall without a trail. Then I spotted a yellow blaze on the rocks way above me. It was a good feeling. I climbed back up to it and then it became clear where I had made my mistake. It can happen.

 

[Warren]

The inexperienced hiker with poor skills should be able to know at ALL TIMES that they are indeed on the trail. The inexperienced hiker level should be the standard, not our level of skill.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Should scrambly trails be rerouted to accommodate such a standard?

Blazes or not people will get lost. If concern over SAR time and resources becomes the prime determinant of backcountry management decisions we would have very different wilderness out there.

I have no major problem with blaze removal or non removal. In fact I think it could be nice that some areas have less trail infrastructure than others. I do think we should be careful about holding up a begining standard as the rule as it can be carried too far.

 

[Mattl]

I am coming back to the forum after being gone for a year working on my book coming out..I am fully supportive of them not removing blazes but letting things get rough and worn away. The wilderness areas expecially the pemi should be difficult to follow and give a sense of its true feeling. The pemi and a few others in Maine and New Hampshire are all we have of wilderness or large roadless areas left in New England, it should retain its wildness. Places in the eastern pemi see few if any people, there epecially I think the FS is doing a good job keeping it rustic. They seem like now they are working on the western part. I would also love to see the bridges go away and force people to cross the east branch and others, that would bring more appeal back also. No one is ever going to agree with all of this, but there is plenty of the white's that is very well maintained. -Matt L

 

[RGF1]

I am coming back to the forum after being gone for a year working on my book coming out..I am fully supportive of them not removing blazes but letting things get rough and worn away. The wilderness areas expecially the pemi should be difficult to follow and give a sense of its true feeling. The pemi and a few others in Maine and New Hampshire are all we have of wilderness or large roadless areas left in New England, it should retain its wildness. Places in the eastern pemi see few if any people, there epecially I think the FS is doing a good job keeping it rustic. They seem like now they are working on the western part. I would also love to see the bridges go away and force people to cross the east branch and others, that would bring more appeal back also. No one is ever going to agree with all of this, but there is plenty of the white's that is very well maintained. -Matt L

Matt I compleatly agree with you . The Pemi is one of the very large in eastern standaerds that is roadless and undevloped . Even in Maine you will find what seems to be vast wilderness actaully criss crossed with roads of all sorts . I would love to see the bridges gone in the widlerness area. it would be one of the very few crossing that comes close ot what i have expeinced out west . I jve to say tha removing blazes is well a waste of our taxpayer money. I think the USFS can find more important things to do . than send out rangers to remove blazes. But then As I freind who once worked for the federal government u says there are three ways of doing things the right way the wrong way and the govenrment way. Of course the Govnement way never makes sense to any one at all . With all the budget problesm the USFS has I think that they WMNF can find better ways to use thier man power .