Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[psmart]

Sandwich Range Blazing

For the record, there have been discussions between the WODC and the USFS (Saco District) regarding the status of blazes in the Sandwich Range Wilderness, and the consensus is to "let them fade". Blazes will not be refreshed, nor will they be abruptly removed, as occurred in the Great Gulf.

As the blazes fade, appropriate treadway definition, such as the subtle placement of a fallen log, will be used anywhere the trail location cannot be readily discerned without blazes. This will minimize the trampling and heard paths that can easily occur whenever the route of the trail is unclear.

Good brushing also makes a big difference. When done properly it's hardly noticed, but it makes a trail much easier to follow.

Trail signs will continue to be maintained at junctions. As with treadway definition, this helps to keep folks on the trail and minimize overall impact.

 

[griffin]

I find that a little confusing.

Why are brushing out, placing logs, and maintaining trail signs ok, but blazes not? I"m not arguing one way or the other, I just don't get the distinction

 

[Puck]

I find that a little confusing.

Why are brushing out, placing logs, and maintaining trail signs ok, but blazes not? I"m not arguing one way or the other, I just don't get the distinction

Blazing is using paint that would not be there otherwise. The materials PSmart listed for brushing, trail definition etc. are already there in the surroundings. When trail work is done properly it is hardly noticed by most people. It is the illusion of pristine wilderness that is the goal. Like Tim Seaver said if you really want pristine get up early and go bush wacking

 

[RoySwkr]

A lot of people seem to see the wilderness as an inconvenience, a barrier to their quest for the 48. ...
It is not our god given right to have the easiest route possible through the mountains.

My objection is not to the concept of Wilderness but the poor selection of location. Why not designate some truly pristine land without developed trails and historic railroad grades? The answer is that the special interest groups try to preserve areas that people have heard of rather than the truly wild.

The current furor over Roadless Areas is similar, those in NH all have old roads and some even have new roads. At one time, one of the forestry concepts for the WMNF was to grow mature sawtimber on long rotation which the private sector avoids due to the long time before any return. That means the area is left alone for awhile and becomes a candidate for Roadless designation and removal from the timber base So the activists are hurting not just recreation but good forest management.

 

[jjmcgo]

We lost

The radicals won and the rest of us can lump it.

Generations of good stewardship wiped out by the current activists, some of whom saw their abutting property values enhanced.

Wild River Wilderness is next to the lightly used Caribou-Speckled Mtn. wilderness so there was no need to expand the wilderness.

The elitists made things better for themselves and worse for the vast majority who want safe experiences deep in the woods.

The Forest Service website says two Wild River shelters will be removed this summer, instead of being allowed to wear down.

Once again: Dear Lord, please protect me from reformers.

 

[andrewb]

This is a strong statement. Can you back it up?

Good point, I cannot back it up. I should have said over the years many people I have met have complained about the rules encountered in wildernesses. They think it is a silly notion and that the rules are inconvenient. I personally like the idea of a lower standard of trail maintenance and limits on use because overuse diminishes areas.

We should set up more wilderness areas in undeveloped areas; for a variety of reasons this really does make more sense. These could actually be called "wilderness" areas. However, I do think we need to set up some other kind of special protection for areas in the WMNF that are developed but also kind of low-key, like the Pemi, Sandwich, or Dry River. Foremost we need to keep logging out and I am all for the no shelters and primitive paths only. I appreciate limits on hiking parties as well. I prefer to hike alone or in a group of up to 3 or 4.

Essentially, this new designation is wilderness with a different name. I do think that taking the name "wilderness" out of an area that really isn't wilderness would make it more believable. Once again, I think it is important to protect as much natural land as we can in a more primitive state. Once you have as many trails as Appalachia does and also a proliferation of huts, cabins, etc littering the landside, the land will never be the same. We already have enough overdeveloped areas of the WMNF, lets keep some the way it is.

 

[cushetunk]

if you really want pristine get up early and go bush wacking

If you really want to see pristine landscapes when you hike in the east, never learn to recognize the myriad signs of human disturbance on the landscape.

But just because we have very little pristine land doesn't mean that our arbitrary definitions of "the wilderness" (in scare quotes!) can't serve a useful purpose.

 

[RoySwkr]

However, I do think we need to set up some other kind of special protection for areas in the WMNF that are developed but also kind of low-key, like the Pemi, Sandwich, or Dry River. Foremost we need to keep logging out and I am all for the no shelters and primitive paths only. I appreciate limits on hiking parties as well. I prefer to hike alone or in a group of up to 3 or 4.

These areas already exist, such as the special management area for the Appalachian Trail and the Mount Chocorua Scenic Area, they are managed for recreation not animals.

There are plenty of areas without shelters, so it burns me up when they specifically choose areas with shelters for Wilderness then remove them, with no funds to build replacement shelters elsewhere.

On the one hand, the WMNF supports HikeSafe which suggests a minimum group size of 4, then tries to make that the maximum size in the most remote and dangerous areas. If you ever try to visit Owls Head or Isolation after a snowstorm, you'll be glad for more companions

 

[psmart]

These areas already exist, such as the special management area for the Appalachian Trail and the Mount Chocorua Scenic Area, they are managed for recreation not animals.

The Scenic Area designation is great, but its generally used to protect high-use areas with more facilities, such as shelters, higher-grade trails, and other amenities.

Wilderness designation, on the other hand, is intended to provide a more primitive experience with fewer amenities and more opportunies for solitude.

That's why Mt Chocorua was protected as a Scenic Area rather than part of the Sandwich Range Wilderness. They are different designations with different goals.

 

[RoySwkr]

The Scenic Area designation is great, but its generally used to protect high-use areas with more facilities, such as shelters, higher-grade trails, and other amenities.

Yup, and that's why I think areas such as the Pemi, Wild River, and Ferncroft should have become Scenic Areas not Wilderness - they had shelters and high-grade trails

There is nothing that says the WODC needs to maintain their shelters in a Scenic Area, but if a future generation of WODC (like many past generations) wishes to have shelters again it will be tough to do it in Wilderness.