Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[David Metsky]

In general, I like the idea that Wilderness areas should be maintained differently from regular National Forest. I like the change that happens when you cross into the Pemi Wilderness going past Franconia Falls; the trails become less defined, the trailwork less extensive, and fewer amenities. I can live without blazes as well, it's part of what makes these areas different. If the only difference between regular WMNF and Wilderness is there is no logging, it's not worth it IMO.

As to letting blazes fade vs removing them, or the time table for this, I could go either way. I've removed blazes from old trails when doing relos and it's not that much work. Cairns above treeline are needed to define the trail, so I would be very surprised if they were effected. The AT is administered by the USPS, not the USFS, so I'm sure they negotiated it to keep the blazes.

I don't worry about rescues very much as the main trails in the Wilderness Areas are well defined. I like that there are trails out there that are not trivial to follow.

-dave-

 

[jjo]

To me, it is obvious that blazes are a necessary "good thing" mostly for safety and preventing wandering off the trail. To spend $ to actually "remove" them seems even dumber. Even us experienced hikers occassionally make a mistake and end up off trail. A blaze is welcomed signal that we are back on track. Altho I love bushwacking, blazes IMHO have their place!!!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Cairns above treeline are needed to define the trail, so I would be very surprised if they were effected.

Why? If you remove tree blazes, scatter Owl's Head slide cairns, etc., why aren't they eliminated above treeline? They serve the exact same purpose as the blazes, do they not?

(this is a devil's advocate question, of course, but I am interested in the official answer)

Tim

 

[Bobby]

True, Wilderness legislation is always pretty general in nature, and doesn't get into details like blazing.

Appendix E, Wilderness Management Plan, doesn't mention the removal of blazes. It does call for the return to a natural state in the Wilderness areas.

As far as blazing or not blazing, it should be taken into consideration that millions of people are within a six hour drive of the WMNF. Again, someone looks at a map and sees a marked trail and hikes it, only to get lost because they don't understand what the Wilderness designation means.

 

[David Metsky]

Why? If you remove tree blazes, scatter Owl's Head slide cairns, etc., why aren't they eliminated above treeline? They serve the exact same purpose as the blazes, do they not?

The Owlshead stuff was because they weren't official trails. On official trails above treeline there are provisions for cairns for safety and navigation. Below treeline the trails are defined by the trailbed and regular (if less extensive) trail maintenance, so theoretically cairns and blazes aren't essential for navigation. Fewer bridges as well, so stream crossings will be more of a challenge.

Will there be people lost due to lack of blazes? Probably some, but you could use that argument to put cell towers in the back country. People get lost right now, and we could make things safer. The question is just how much civilization belongs in Wilderness and people have well argued positions that put the line in different places. I like the idea that there are areas without as many amenities as others. Just like you wouldn't advise a complete newbie to hike up Huntington or travel long distances above treeline, a trip into the Wilderness Areas could/should be a more advanced trip. Education of the general public is essential, plus weighing what is appropriate of trails so close to major population centers.

You can make compelling cases on a trail-by-trail basis for keeping blazes and I can appreciate that. But in general, I think this is a good idea. We'll see how the implementation goes; the devil is in the details.

-dave-

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The Owlshead stuff was because they weren't official trails.

OK, I knew and I can accept that. I thought the NH 48 4Ks were supposed to require no bushwacks... Perhaps it's splitting hairs.

On official trails above treeline there are provisions for cairns for safety and navigation. Below treeline the trails are defined by the trailbed and regular (if less extensive) trail maintenance, so theoretically cairns and blazes aren't essential for navigation.

What about winter? Can't see the trail bed nearly as well. I don't see the difference yet myself. Why have signs? Are the all-wood engraved signs really any more natural then brown with light-olive/yellow paint? I don't think so.

the devil is in the details

Always is. As the devil's advocate, I agree.

Tim

 

[forestgnome]

Blazes are useless in summer, but can be helpful during Fall and essentials in winter time.

Strongly disagree. Most trails are crossed by other trails, old trails, ancient logging roads and railroads, etc. These confuse hikers of all levels.

Without blazes and signs, I guarantee you could not hike from Bear Notch Road to Owl's Cliff without losing the trail. Downes Brook Trail crosses the brook about 11 times. Try that without blazes and signs without ever losing the trail. There are so many herd paths along that brook bed that they confuse all hikers. Most trails have at least some of these trouble points.

Before you say "learn to read a map", are you aware of all the trails that are not on any trail maps? So when you come to a trail junction and don't see it on your map, then what? Are you aware of the fact that trail maps do not show all brooks, and some feeder streams appear as large as the brooks they feed. This easily confuses anyone.

Blazes are not at all useless. I hike about 100 day-hikes per year, and often need to look for a blaze to confirm that the trail I'm on is not a heard path. I don't believe anyone is clever enough to never be fooled by herd paths.

What about above treeline? Staying on the trailbed is critical for protecting alpine flora.

The benefit of blazes is obvious. The problem they cause is not.

 

[Grumpy]

... The benefit of blazes is obvious. The problem they cause is not.

This is a great summation of the issue. (And a great summation of the case against removing blazes.)

G.

 

[David Metsky]

I thought the NH 48 4Ks were supposed to require no bushwacks... Perhaps it's splitting hairs.

Nope, no one ever said that. Owlshead has never had an official trail. Technically, Isolation also has no trail for the last 200 feet, but I'm not sure when that spur trail was declared a "non-trail".

What about winter? Can't see the trail bed nearly as well. I don't see the difference yet myself. Why have signs? Are the all-wood engraved signs really any more natural then brown with light-olive/yellow paint? I don't think so.

Yes, lack of blazes makes things more difficult in winter. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Lack of blazes makes things more difficult in summer as well, just not nearly as bad. The question becomes "Is making the trails more difficult to follow in the Wilderness Areas a bad thing?" I'm not convinced that it is. Minimal signs, without mileage markers, seems fairly non-obtrusive and gives some feedback for navigation. I like them more then you apparently. Clearly, some people want more, other less. I think it's possible in the WMNF to have areas that meet both groups' needs.[/QUOTE]

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Actually, Dave, I don't have a strong opinion on the blazes one way or the other. I would prefer to have them there, actually. What I really don't like is paying people to remove them.

I also prefer adequate signage. And if you are going to have signage, why not put distances? It might help someone decide which is the shorter way out, or if they need to find a road, in case of bad weather or an accident, etc.

If you're going to call a trail a trail, then I think it needs to have the attributes we associate with a trail.

What I still haven't gotten from this, and not to single you out, Dave, other than you posted it, is "Why are blazes bad but cairns OK?"

Tim

 

[MichaelJ]

The question becomes "Is making the trails more difficult to follow in the Wilderness Areas a bad thing?"

I think the question is "Why are they making these policy changes NOW when the Pemi became a designated Wilderness in 1984?"

 

[giggy]

I think the question is "Why are they making these policy changes NOW when the Pemi became a designated Wilderness in 1984?"

Has to be a "make work" project for someone.

Tho - a better "make work" project in my book would be deal with the scumbag vandals at the parking lots. Much better use of user fees/taxpayer dollars.

 

[erugs]

The Concord Monitor today has a story about budget cuts in the WMNF. It says:

"Many seasonal employees are college students studying for conservation or forestry degrees who work clearing and marking the forest's 1,200 miles of trails, fixing signs and rebuilding downed bridges and washed-out roads. When the combined recreation and trails budgets were announced in March to be roughly $2.5 million, down from $2.9 million, the Forest Service had to reduce the number it would hire..."What that means is the potential for people to get lost is higher," retired forester Dave Govatski said. "I'm not saying that will happen, but it increases the potential."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/REPOSITORY/707170371

I agree that a trail should have the attributes of a trail, as stated above, but don't want them to look like tourist travel areas. I'm always surprised when I come upon a beautifully constructed stone staircase in the forest and am amazed that so much effort has been put into the trail.

I would also like to see more trails constructed, to scatter the users about and so I would have more areas to explore without bushwacking.

 

[David Metsky]

I also prefer adequate signage. And if you are going to have signage, why not put distances? It might help someone decide which is the shorter way out, or if they need to find a road, in case of bad weather or an accident, etc.

I would argue that in a Wilderness Area, they should know these things and be able to read the map. Certainly this is true in Western Wilderness Areas. A lot of people make the argument that here in the East things are fundamentally different, and we can't have true Wilderness. Frankly, I think this is true, but it doesn't mean we can't have it as a goal.

If you're going to call a trail a trail, then I think it needs to have the attributes we associate with a trail.

What are the fundamental attributes of a trail? Is Huntington Ravine a trail? How about North Tripyramid Slide? I disagree with you on what is required for there to be a trail.

What I still haven't gotten from this, and not to single you out, Dave, other than you posted it, is "Why are blazes bad but cairns OK?"

I have no idea if these are the official reasons but:
- Travel above treeline is different then travel in the trees. You can establish a trailbed in the woods, it's much harder above tree line.
- There is a great desire to keep people on hardened areas to avoid trampling alpine tundra, this is not the case below tree line
- Safety is more of a concern above tree line, navigation is significantly harder
- There is very little above tree line terrain in the Wilderness Areas

I think it boils down to what people's expectations and desires for the Wilderness are. It's a balancing act to meet everyone's needs. There are well established, blazed, and signed trails elsewhere in the Whites, do those standards need to apply to the entire WMNF?

 

[Paradox]

I have not been up Owl's head in over a year. Last April I noticed that the paint blazes had been scratched out leaving neat little 2" x 8" rectangles in the tree bark. I am now wondering how these look after a year or so.
It seems to me that this "trail-like" thing up the side of Owl's head is going to see increasing hiker traffic in the coming years. I believe it would be better if the mass of huminity was crapping up this limited area, rather than multiple randomly chosen parts of the mountainside.

 

[Tuco]

IMO….White Mountains Wilderness is designated as such, but isn’t and can’t be. The areas are too small and can be accessed fairly easily (walk up the great gulf trail from RT 16 and you hit wilderness in no time). NH is a big state with tons of forested areas, many of which you could drive down the road, walk in the woods and not hear or see anybody all day. Those areas are no more Wilderness that the Whites Wilderness areas. Again IMO- the only point of naming these regions Wilderness is to save the areas from future development in case anybody gets any crazy ideas.- (The Mall @ White Mountains”) I’ve oversimplified it, but calling this Wilderness to the degree that we scrape little spots of point off trees to enhance the experience is silly. The blazing we have now is fine and the signage is also fine. Little tweaks here and there are OK but any drastic changes to any of this are a wasted effort, IMO. If one extra person gets out in the Wilderness as a result of the blazes, cairns, signs and bridges, then I think that’s the important point.

We should encourage in any way possible respectful visitation of our forests, mountains and Wilderness.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks for the clarification, Dave. I'm convinced it is really just arbitrary at this point, perhaps as a result of law and/or policy makers not having ventured out to see this "wilderness" for themselves. I haven't hiked a lot above tree line, really, as I am still quite new at this and certainly value the opinions of folks like yourself.

It appears that we are nearly evenly split between "let them fade" and "paint them for safety" (slight lead). As with any poll, it's all in the wording. I chose "let them fade" more for monetary reasons. If there were only two choices: Let them fade -or- Re-paint them, it would be interesting to see if thing swung one way (eliminating the monetary slant of paying folks to scrape paint off of trees.) I'd much prefer my tax dollars went to pay the same people to maintain the blazes, rather than scrape them off.

I still think that if you want wilderness, make it wilderness - remove structures, bridges, signs and cairns, in conjunction with blazes. Note that this is not my preference, but it seems inconsistent to me still. Heck, having to label it wilderness with a boundary and all seems almost to make a mockery of it.

Yes this has come up before, but it always generates a lot of activity. Clearly we all feel strongly about it. I'm just not sure how I feel.

In the interest of full disclosure:

Wilderness (7): Whiteface + Passaconaway, Tripyramids via slide loop, 3 Bonds

Non-wilderness (8): Tecumseh, Both Osceolas, Flume, Liberty, Lincoln, Lafayette, Moosilauke (Benton)

I didn't see a really big difference in the terrain. That Bondcliff trail has some really nice stone staircases, for example. I did see a difference in the attitudes of folks encountered in both areas. Well, I encountered some aloof hikers in the Bonds, who clearly resented the presence of others, or at least me who was obviously day hiking. OTOH, the Zealand Croo was out having lunch on Bondcliff and they were very nice. More than once, I met folks who had no map, no book, no idea where the summit was, how far they had come, or had to go. I think they all were in non-wilderness areas.

My first 4K was Moosilauke, with my mother-in-law's husband. I had no idea at all what to expect. I went with a sandwich and a camel back (a cycling one). No map, no book, no clue. I relied on Dana's experience with the national forest service but if something ever happened to him, I would have been in trouble.

Tim

 

[dvbl]

Prediction: Removing the paint from the trees will result in more paint on the trees. It's the Law of Unexpected Consequenses. Remove the paint blazes and people will start doing it themselves (or constructing ad hoc cairns, or tying ribbons on trees). And it will end up looking a whole lot less wildernessy than it does now. Hope I'm wrong on this, but I'm afraid I'm not.

This a coke v. pepsi issue for me...i just don't care either way if there are blazes in the designated wilderness areas or not. I look at a piece of real estate, assess my abilities, and decide if I belong in there or not. If I'm on a trail and the trail bed starts to get less and less obvious and there are no cairns or blazes, I can decide right then and there to turn around. Again, it's up to me and my abilities, blazes or not. I'm responsible for the consequences of my decisions.

However, paying people to remove fading blazes smells of classic make-work government boondoggle.

 

[RoySwkr]

That's what the forest service does, they manage lands for multiple uses, one of which is wilderness. Why is it so unreasonable to have some wilderness?

I believe that originally "multiple uses" meant that the same piece of land could serve multiple user types. Now the Forest Service seems to prefer to manage each tract for a single purpose, i.e. Wilderness cannot be logged while in other areas trails are being removed from areas where timber harvesting is allowed (Black Brook Trail on Cherry Mtn, S part of Black Mtn Trail, for example).

There is nothing wrong with having some Wilderness, the problem is that the FS picks land with heavy recreational use because that's where people have heard of. If on the one hand places like the Wilderness Trail and Wild River Trail are to be allowed to deteriorate and at the same time other old easy trails are converted to timber harvest only, where are newbies expected to hike?

 

[Stan]

One good thing about not having official trails and their related markings is that they can't be officially closed or even maintained I suppose. This policy, IMHO, is an invitation to bootleg maintenance and blazes, lost hikers no matter the navigational skill level and diversion of attention and resources from more important environmental and safety matters. I think this is one issue that wilderness purists should surrender principle to pragmatism.

To those that suggest hikers should possess navigational skills to traverse wilderness without blazes, I agree if trails were to be abandoned and it is to be considered bushwhacking. It would be self-regulating as only hikers with confidence in their navigation would attempt it. However, the wilderness areas in the Whites have had a long history of trails and to fail to mark them properly is an invitation to disaster as a few others have pointed out.

I challenge wilderness purists to leave their GPS at home when they enter the wilderness; doesn't such technology contradict their definition of a wilderness?