owls head trail distruction by ranger.

[David Metsky]

I disagree and am so glad I hiked it last weekend before the sign went up. (Did they really put it at the bottom of the Owls Head path? in Wilderness? I still find it slightly hard to believe.)

I'm pretty sure the sign would go at the entrance to the Wilderness Area, out near Franconia Falls. No one has proposed putting anything inside the Wilderness Area. I think you may be railing against something that no one has even considered.

As to the tree being cut down, I would like to hear a little more about who did it and why before I jump to any conclusions.

-dave-

 

[David Metsky]

Ah, I see, my bad. Carry on.

-dave-

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

The sign is about 100 feet or so up the Owl's Head Path. It isn't visible from the Lincoln Brook Trail and it would be easy to miss if you hike up the slide looking at your feet like I do.

 

[arghman]

let cooler heads prevail

Late last night something finally clicked & I think I finally understood what some people here have been saying (see Periwinkle's post, for instance), which I guess is that there is no such thing as an officially sanctioned herd path. A trail is either an official trail, or it's not a trail at all, in which case signs/blazes/etc. are not allowed.... Just thinking of it from a landowner point of view (imagine if someone were maintaining a trail on your property without your permission, in a way you had no control over) I would think safety/liability are the driving reasons here more than just trying to enforce an abstract law. In that light, the USFS actions in the Owls Head case seem somewhat reasonable, even the sign and its wording. (Though perhaps they should have gone about it more tactfully or in a way that would make the public more aware of the issues. AND THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST USED SOME LOWERCASE LETTERS IN THE SIGN, IMHO. [caps for parody, not for emphasis])

The Wilderness issue is probably more of a red herring; I could see USFS doing the exact same thing in a non-Wilderness area of the WMNF. (Are there any other famous herd paths or is Owls Head the only major one?) I guess it is a sticky situation given that the herd path has existed for so long, is so heavily used, and it leads to a 4K peak. Plus Wilderness regs are there lurking in the background.

anyway I just hope that a dialogue can start, and maybe it will end with this becoming an official trail... otherwise this just seems like a source of never-ending conflict.

 

[John H Swanson]

(Are there any other famous herd paths or is Owls Head the only major one?) I guess it is a sticky situation given that the herd path has existed for so long, is so heavily used, and it leads to a 4K peak.

Interestingly enough, I have heard that it is against wilderness rules to remove any antiques or historical relics. Just what makes something an antique or historical relic. To this point, the rangers in baxter have removed very old canisters as litter. Would you not consider a 25 year old canister an antique? (okay a little off the thread) If the heard path existed for so long would it not have historical significance? If a 40 year old trail does not have historical significance, they why should I not consider some 100 year old logging debris litter ... and I'm a big proponent of carrying out litter.

 

[sierra]

double standard

Earlier in this thread I got into a 2 way exchange with forestnome and the last few post will help illustrtae apoint I tried to make unsuccessfully,I might add. I stated I had little reservation about Making a cairn regardless of the Wilderness regulations, yes that is against the law, admittedly,BUT the forest service has no quams about going in there and CUTTING DOWN a tree to remove a blaze from the wilderness? MY method was intended to keep people flowing in the right direction, therefore causing an impact but a minimal one at that, I mean, you cant where blinders here, people are going to go in there and impact the enviorment for sure, do you sacrafice wilderness reg, make a cairn and mimimize impact, or adhere to a strict interpetation of the law and risk more impact? Back to my point, while the forest service has authority over the juristiction, are they not obligated to adhere to the same regulations that we are? We cant mark a path, but they can cut down a tree. Whos breaking the law now?

 

[David Metsky]

Aside from cutting down the tree (more on that later) I see nothing wrong with the FS actions. Cairns, signs, and blazes are simply not allowed on unofficial trails, Wilderness or not. People were quite upset about the bootleg trail that was cut to the Peak above the Nubble and most people here are strongly against leaving flagging up on bushwacks. The rangers are simply following the rules that were set above them. Putting up the sign about not doing unauthorized trailwork is common sense and the FS has done it elsewhere. It sounds like standard policy and I don't find it intrusive in the least. There's a link somewhere to the WODC page where a similar sign was posted near Whiteface.

Now you can argue about why now, or the enthusiasm in which they take their jobs, or priorities based on other needs in the forest, or the heavy use of the herd paths, but I find it difficult to fault the rangers for doing their jobs. Argue higher up, and work on getting the Owls Head path made official and this issue will go away. Antagonizing the rangers seems counter-productive, we could be building a nice alliance here. By all means, make yourself heard but please try to keep this in context.

It's hard to tell from the photo where or why the tree (was there more than one?) got cut down. I find it hard to come up with a valid reason, but I'd like to hear more about it before deciding that it's a huge deal. There's no problem cutting down trees in the Wilderness Area, it's done for trail work. Since this isn't a trail, I'm at a loss as to why any trees needed to be cut. While a bit ugly, I have no problems with scraping the blazes off the trees. I've done it when closing old trails, the trees seem to recover just fine.

The best solution, IMO, would be to work with the 4000'er Committee, the AMC, and the WMNF folks to come up with a maintainence plan for this route/trail and help self-police the hiking community. Putting up signs, cairns, and blazes, while making people feel good in the short term, will not help lead to a long term solution that makes everyone happy.

OK, that's a bit long winded and preachy, so I'll go think about hiking for a bit.

-dave-

 

[PerksGTI]

From what we have all heard by second hand reports about this "Ranger Dick", it seems like he is in the wrong by cutting down trees and placing signs about not placing signs. However, going out there with the mindset of, "I'll show him...this trail will be more blazed than it ever was before he started messing with it!" does nothing to help your cause. In fact all it does is make you exactly like him...you have become "Hiker Dick".

When you encounter people like this, there is only one way to attack the issue and have any chance of getting it solved. You have to go over his head.

If you are truly concerned with what is going on here, I would suggest calling the Pemigewasset Ranger District and talking to whomever is in charge. Ask them what they know about what is going on on Owl's Head, and if there is anything more that you know than they do, inform them. Tell them what you feel should be done about the situation, and ask what they feel should be done about it. If you feel this should be made an official trail, ask how to go about making that so. Be calm and courteous, and chances are the issue will get solved.

The only thing that reconstructing cairns and blazes will accomplish is either an endless battle of "build it and knock it down" with Ranger Dick, or in the extreme case, the mountain will be closed to hikers.

Here's the contact information you should need to get started:

Pemigewasset Ranger District

Plymouth Office
1171 NH Rt 175
Holderness, NH 03245
(603) 536-1315

Bethlehem Office
660 Trudeau Rd
Bethlehem, NH 03574
(603) 869-2626

White Mountain National Forest Supervisor's Office

719 Main Street
Laconia, NH 03246
(603) 528-8721

 

[Puma concolor]

Brownie -

If you re-read Artex's post (#61), I think it's pretty clear that it is one Ranger that is being talked about. Unless I'm reading it wrong, Artex stated that word had gotten back to the Ranger in question that he was being called 'Ranger Dick.' I'd also add that there is little doubt that other Rangers working in the WMNF will back 'Ranger Dick' in both word and action while dealing with the public (as shown by Artex's conversation). Behind closed doors could be a different matter altogether.

 

[Mr. X]

Wow! 6 pages...The troll has succeeded.

 

[Tim Horn]

Hard to believe there is so much angst and agony over a ranger actually doing his job as defined by the park rules. If I did not know better I would think that Owls Head was not in the middle of a wilderness area. While I do not care for the abuse of the woodlands I can see no objection to the removal of all signs, cairns, arrows and hoodads from the wilderness. I do not care to see anyones shoe laces, plastic tape, paint or signs when I am in the one tiny tract of "wilderness" that we have left. I would advocate removing all signage, established campsites, bridges and anything man made from the wilderness area. If we want/need signs and blazes to find our way in the woods it would seem that we are not really interested in being in the wilderness but rather in sometype of hiking theme park. That experience is readily available all around the outside of the Pemi. Perhaps the best thing that could happen is we discover that Owls Head is only 3,999 ft and it were eliminated from the 48 K's list. That would put and end to the vast majority of visits(which by reading trail reports we find that many do not care for this experience anyway.) Fewer people mean fewer paths and less impact. It would also mean walking a peak in the center of a wilderness area and it would feel a little bit like being in the wilderness rather than walking on an interpretive trail.
Finally, I am glad that someone is using their head and marking where jerks camp illegally. I am much more bothered by peoples trash and fires than I am by the removal of illegal signage and markings from a non-official trail in the middle of a prime wilderness area.
To each their own I guess.
Peace All

 

[RoySwkr]

And what's this about no car-camping at trailheads? Do you mean I shouldn't be sleeping in my car the night before a hike?

There was long thread on this earlier, and yes it's illegal although like many illegal activities you can often get away with it. I know people who have been awakened and forced to leave (not ticketed) in both Franconia Notch and the Kancamagus.

 

[forestgnome]

Dave Metsky is making sense here, especially the point about the 4k club people. They are the popularizers of the 4K List, which brings a large % of those who hike to the summit. Without the list, very few would bother hiking to Owl's Head. I'm not saying that they are responsible, or that noone would hike there if not for the list, but very few would. But I think it would be reasonable for them to act on this situation, and use their collective efforts to get the trail officially designated.

 

[Periwinkle]

It's good to see so much polite back and forth on this issue. And that the hiking community (as represented on VFTT) is being heard. Should we try to do something truly constructive? An opportunity seems to be here.

In general, I probably come off as being a major play-by-the-rules girl. And I do try. To me, knowing the rules means realizing the intent of the regulations. If I have to make a decision to do something else, at least I know what I'm supposed to be doing. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to say is that I want to understand why I'm expected to do certain things. To see the big picture. There are reasons for all of this.

Is that to say I've always followed the letter of the law? No. But, I try to keep within the meaning of what is expected. Yes, I've camped where I technically shouldn't have (by necessity mostly, including Owl's Head), amongst a few other minor breaches. I've enjoyed more than a few bootleg trails. But, would I cut my own trail or sign a peak knowing I shouldn't? No.

As for where the dollars should go (since it's come up), here's one other perspective when it come to trailhead toilets. As a USFS volunteer, I picked up more that my fair share of crap and toilet paper at my adopted trailhead. You've all seen this kind of mess if you've ever stepped away from a trailhead parking area. The surrounding area is basically used as a toilet. It's foul. It's an unfortunate fact that major trailheads need toilets, including the Lincoln Woods lot. And Welch/Dickey -- yikes! Would you want to volunteer to cat hole all the inconsiderate dumps and TP? It's gotta go somewhere. And someone's gotta do it. Better in a toilet than the surrounding woods.

I'll shut up now. 'Nuf of my rant for one night....

 

[jjmcgo]

It sometimes gets pointed out on this web site that the WMNF contains several areas with different designations. The Pemigewasset is a Wilderness, so Wilderness rules apply.
Some of us who predate the Wilderness designation are not thrilled about every bit of destruction of the work of prior stewards. Some people are not thrilled by the actions being undertaken by today's stewards.
One poster noted this is "one small" Wilderness area of the Whites. It is neither. It is of substantial size and not the only area coming under Wilderness designation.
My suggestion is that users accept what is and oppose further Wilderness designations. That way we get maintained shelters and the possibility of new trails in non-Wilderness areas and no shelters and no new trails in the Wilderness areas.
I don't think this is a radical post, unless maintaining the status quo is radical.

 

[Umsaskis]

There is an interesting comparison here that can be made among the White Mountain 4ks, the Adirondack 46, Catskill 35, and New England 100. While many of the peaks in the NE100, Adirondack 46 and Catskill 35 do not have official trails, Owl's Head is the only White Mountain 4k that falls into this category. As we know, the great majority of these "trailless" peaks have some form of "herd path" to the summit. Of note is that the herd paths in the Adirondacks are much more worn and busy than those in New England. This is because the most popular Adirondack guide book gives detailed descriptions of the herd paths and asks the hiker to use them, while the popular New England guide books do not. Each guide book takes its respective stance in order to prevent trampling and erosion: the Adirondack books seek to concentrate traffic in one area, thus protecting the rest of the mountain, while the New England books try to disperse traffic to prevent deep rutted trails. Which is better? Definitely what herd paths I found in New England were much more faint than those in the Adirondacks, but there were more of them.

Because the Adirondack guide book urged people not to go off the herd paths, I used them. In contrast, I hiked most of the Catskill 35 and NE 100 trailless peaks without using herd paths, which gave me a true bushwhack experience. If everyone who climbed a trailless peak really planned their own route with map and compass and bushwhacked, the number of people on the mountain would be far fewer, and their impact spread out to a minimal level. However, many modern peak-baggers want to complete a list withoug going through the effort of bushwhacking. They will seek herd paths. Should people who don't want to bushwhack climb an officially trailless peak? Should the list be for them? Whether or not, this is what happens.

I think, ideally, that if one wants to complete a list and there is no trail, there should remain no trail and the only option would be to bushwhack. The problem is that for many people today, the list is bigger than the experience. Thus, we have hundreds of people working on lists, seeking a predefined route up the mountain, and the current debate over Owl's Head. An ideal world does not exist; everyone in the surrounding 4 states wants to climb Owl's Head, and they will not be stopped. We need to protect the mountain to the extent that we can, and if that means making an official trail, then so be it.

 

[Blue]

The surrounding area is basically used as a toilet. It's foul. It's an unfortunate fact that major trailheads need toilets, including the Lincoln Woods lot.

Yikes, I will remember this when I step out of the car and think of peeing in the woods near the trailhead.

This thread reminds me a little of my experience in the Breadloaf Wilderness this summer on the Long Trail. There was plenty of notification (including a trailhead sign) that the B Wilderness was a wilderness area and unmarked. We heard and read this countless times and felt prepared, expecting to not see a blaze or sign for miles. The funny part - there were many signs - the funnier part: they would put the names and directions on the signs but never mileage. I had this day dream of someone sitting down in an office to make a sign and saying, "ok, we'll give them the sign... but nooooo mileage." </evil laugh>

So I'm hiking Owl's Head in the next month, will I be able to find the actual summit?

 

[David Metsky]

The funny part - there were many signs - the funnier part: they would put the names and directions on the signs but never mileage.

That's the way it is in the Wilderness Areas in the WMNF. Trailsigns are at trail junctions, not summits, and they don't have milage. I think that's pretty standard. It's a navigation aid, but no more than is necessary.

-dave-

 

[sierra]

outlaw

Dave M,
Man dude do you always live by "The Book", thers got to be a rebel in there somewhere.

 

[MrAmeche]

Dave M,
Man dude do you always live by "The Book", thers got to be a rebel in there somewhere.

Dave M. is the book! Or the website, as far as I'm concerned.