Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[Gris]

Intresting, I don't understand the tank analogy. Seems to me the issue is whether you let mother nature take her own course and time to reclaim manmade intrusions (in "Wilderness" areas) or let the gvt remove the signs of man as restoration. Seems to be no different than a bridge or shelter. However, I do agree whole-heartedly with the logic of the argument that there are so many blazes that it is different (and thus a waste of resources) from shleters and bridges for the simple reason of sheer numbers and time to remediate. OTOH, an argument could be made that blazes are very intrusive due to their effect (channeling people into areas)...

 

[darren]

Intresting, I don't understand the tank analogy.

I'm just saying that "peanuts as a percentage" is no defense to wasted resources. (no pun intended on "defense").

- darren

 

[darren]

In this case, the WMNF has a Wilderness management plan that specifies no blazing in Wilderness.

True, and that is why I originally very clearly stated that to blaze or not to blaze is a seperate discussion. The policy is there and whether or not to change it (the safety vs.. wilderness debate) is a whole seperate discussion.

My beef is that while the policy is pretty clear on what to do with an existing structure, there is no wording that I know of that says govt workers shall go in and remove existing blazing. I can think of better things they can do with my money.

- darren

 

[Maddy]

It might if you get yourself lost on an unblazed trail up there. In fact it could be "the hike of a lifetime". One you would not soon, if ever, forget!
Once they remove all the blazes, they could put nice signs
up at the trail heads.
"Hiker Beware"
You are entering unblazed territory. Your tax $$$$ at work!
Hike at your own risk. We charge for rescues!
The use of "bear bells" on your pack are prohibited in wilderness area. $100 fine!!! (noise pollution)

 

[psmart]

I can think of better things they can do with my money.

I would rather let them fade away, and give folks plenty of time to adjust to the change. But someone already pointed out that impartial or missing blazes could be even more problematic than removing them completely.

This discussion ceratinly points out that the FS should have provided more notice and involvement on this specific action. Unlike most trail projects, I don't believe there was a public scoping process.

 

[Gris]

I'm just saying that "peanuts as a percentage" is no defense to wasted resources. (no pun intended on "defense").

Gotcha (as in - i understand)

I can think of better things they can do with my money.

Agree completely w/ ya there.

 

[forestgnome]

Is this 'twilight zone'?!!! How does any rational person consider a well-beaten human trail with little paint blazes to be any different, in any way, from a well-beaten human trail without blazes? This is stunning.

I'm starting to lose my taste for Wilderness designation.

 

[Tuco]

Will there be trees planted in the middle of the trails ?

 

[TCD]

Removing blazes is ignorant. We need trails, or no trails. We do not need half assed poorly maintained trails. This applies equally in the Adirondacks.

 

[SherpaKroto]

I can never understand what the fuss is all about. Personally, I could care less about seeing a blaze - or not. Yeah, it really takes away from my Wilderness experience . Seems to bother the animals too! Darn, I can't remember the last time I saw one out there! My take is that the average weekend warrior looking for a wilderness experience appreciates having the blazes there. Those who find them so offensive likely walk off trail to explore a bit. So what's the problem? What are they planning to do about AT blazes (or any other long trail?) that pass through Wilderness areas?

One other thought: if blazes and signs are so offensive in the wilderness, why are they such hot items when they go up for auction? Hmmm... maybe this is a sinister revenue raising plot: remove the signs and blazes, auction the signs, change the policy, replace the signs... for 20 times the original cost. That would give us more money to put up solar powered composting toilets in the visitor centers at the entrances to the Wilderness areas and additional staffing to rescue the poor hapless souls foolish enough to venture into this wild uncharted land when they are not arresting unsuspecting hikers from peeing in the bushes!

 

[smitty77]

I would rather let them fade away, and give folks plenty of time to adjust to the change. But someone already pointed out that impartial or missing blazes could be even more problematic than removing them completely.

There's a nice 18 mile loop trail down here in Central MA that sees very sporadic maintenance and is often relocated as portions of it cross private land. As such the blazes range from freshly painted to barely discernable, and the trail-bed is usually just as obvious as the rest of the forest floor due to a low "traffic count". I ran into a situation (literally) where I was running down the trail with the dog which was a nicely defined cart path, following semi-faded blazes, not knowing I had missed a turn-off for a relocated section of trail. (This relocation ducked into the woods at a junction with three cart paths, quite confusing!) I quickly realized my error when I came upon a sign a half mile later at the edge of someone's back yard that warned "Beware of attack dogs."

I don't know if there were actually any such dogs ahead, but this could have been more than "problematic". I vote to keep blazing, but if they're intent on keeping true to their philosophy I'd rather see them removed altogether.

 

[Bobby]

What are they planning to do about AT blazes (or any other long trail?) that pass through Wilderness areas?

According to the new WMG, the Madison Gulf Trail portion of the AT in the Great Gulf Wilderness is not blazed in accordance with Wilderness policies. I'm not sure where else the AT passes through WMNF Wilderness areas.

 

[Maddy]

I think the AMC may have answered my question regarding specific trails. It's a vast area that they are planning to "deblaze". I just spoke to two of the staff at Pinkham and they are very upset about this. Both expressed concerns to me about hikers getting lost and the need for more rescues by the FS. One of them recommended that I contact the forest service directly with my question and concerns. Much like myself, she is very experienced and does not hike on unblazed trails.
If all the VFTT members who are concerned about this call, we might get their attention.
603-745-3816 (Gateway office)
I had to leave a message and ask for my call to be returned. I plan on calling every day until I here back from them.

 

[Tom Rankin]

According to the new WMG, the Madison Gulf Trail portion of the AT in the Great Gulf Wilderness is not blazed in accordance with Wilderness policies. I'm not sure where else the AT passes through WMNF Wilderness areas.

Is this going to apply to above tree line travel? Are they going to destroy cairns and/or remove paint from the rocks too?

 

[onestep]

Amen

... the religious insanity of many environmentalists... lobbying efforts of some high-minded do-gooders.

I use to chuckle at those "ban W" stickers. Now I want one! (W for wilderness zealots)
Removing blazing to create an illusion is insanity.

oop's , sorry, my PC muzzle is back on

 

[Gris]

Blaze removal on well-beaten human trails for the sake of creating the illusion of a human-free zone is indicative of the religious insanity of many environmentalists. Those people would be happy if humans were completely banned from the wilderness. It is their lobbying influence that results in this type of foolishness.

Huh, what?

 

[imarchant]

.............Inexperienced people don't have much business in a wilderness area where the risks and demands likely exceed their skill level (ie. getting lost). It's like the freeway anaolgy. A fifteen year old learning to drive shouldn't take their first drive on a freeway. It's something you work up to........

I have to take exception with you on this. Why does an inexperienced person have any less right to public land use than an experienced hiker. The only way an inexperienced person can become experienced is through experience. You may have meant unprepared instead of inexperienced.


I have no experience in the WMNF so I based my vote on others well thought out opinions. I voted that the blazes should be left to fade. This was based on the policy of the land use. However the policy may be flawed. The policy should be modified to allow for re-blazing.

 

[DougG]

According to Webster's: Trail - "A beaten track or blazed path, as through wilderness"
Okay.......so it must be the upper-case W that makes blazing a no-no.

 

[timmus]

I'm sorry if I repeat something that have been said previously in this thread, but here's my opinion :

Blazes does not look good, I prefer not seeing any. I like the idea of removing them in the Wilderness areas, but yeah, they will fade anyhow so no, nobody should be paid for doing that job.

Blazes are useless in summer, but can be helpful during Fall and essentials in winter time. It's all relative.

Finally, choose the trails/paths that fits your skills and let the others do the same.

 

[jmegillon149]

Right on Bob.

I realize that "wilderness" means no trail maintenance. So that mean when the blazes fade they do not get repainted. However it also means that, like shelters, they are allowed to exist until they fade (or fall into disrepair). The policy, as I understand it, is that existing structures are not removed just for removal sake. They are allowed to exist but can not be repaired. So blazes should remain but be allowed to fade.

</rant hat off>

- darren

actually, wilderness trails are maintained, they are just done so to a different standard. I think that this different standard is what is causing all these issues. For example at my trail adopters workshop, some of my classmates had trails that were in a wilderness area. They covered brushing to maintain the "wilderness feel". Basically, they are instructed to provide a thinner corridor, but a corridor nonetheless. So in that regard, one can argue that "wilderness" is more defined than a regular trail.

Basically they need to do one of two things: eliminate trails or treat it like most other land in the forest. Trails that exist, but are hard to follow can cause problems, as many will lose the trail, especially in winter. If the trail is not there, people who go there will all be bushwhacking, and most likely be those who are competant at off trail travel.

As a younger, yet experienced, person who very active is in an age defined hiking club, I see a lot of people who are new to hiking and this area. Despite this lack of experience, many of these younger people are in very good shape, and can more easily handle things like high mileage, even though navigation and incident handling skills may be lacking.

I was personally much faster and could carry heavier loads when I hiked twice a year than I am now, when I do it at least twice a month, because I was a college athlete at the time, and therefore in better overall shape. Back then I went on more ambitious hikes because I physically could. yet at the same time, I twice lost a trail (in the Dry River Wilderness, and in VT) at that time in my life.

Some of the people who have been hiking for a long time, and only hike with others who are very experienced may be losing sight of this. Others are just hiking snobs. A compromise could be different indicators on trail maps to truly direct people on where to hike.

Personally, being in the woods on a trail that is kind of wide and has some blazes does not exactly make me feel like I am walking through NYC. If there are trees, and I can't see roads or buildings 90% of the time - thats woods to me! People are definately nit-picking here!