psmart
Active member
RoySwkr said:
For a high-use area like Mt. Chocorua, the "Scenic Area" designation is an excellent solution. This area would be a poor Wilderness candidate, and I don't think anyone has suggested that it be Wilderness.
Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness
- Thread starter RoySwkr
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
For a high-use area like Mt. Chocorua, the "Scenic Area" designation is an excellent solution. This area would be a poor Wilderness candidate, and I don't think anyone has suggested that it be Wilderness.
psmart
Active member
True, Wilderness designation generally means the removal of shelters and other structures. But the possible "dissappearance of some trails around the time of the Great Gulf Wilderness" (30+ years ago) is hardly evidence of a policy of trail closures. We now have five additional Wilderness areas in the WMNF, and no trail closures that I'm aware of. If you read the management policy, trail closure just isn't there. Sure, trails could be closed for safety or environmental reasons (like the Adams Slide Trail, I believe), but not because of Wilderness designation alone.RoySwkr said:
Mats Roing
New member
Just wanted to add my 5 cents here:
* Blazes on established trails is a safety factor especially when it comes to winterhiking. When you can't see the trail because of virgin snow, you rely on trying to figure out the "corridor" in the woods and the blazes on the trees. The "corridor" is not always obvious and the blazes come in real handy here. Maybe there are not enough hikers getting lost in the woods yet - let's try to hide the official trails by removing blazes. Blazes are there to help people stay on the trail! If you don't like blazes......stay off the trail! Blazes preserves the wilderness from countless unnecessary herdpaths.
* Should we then also remove the cairns above timberline to enhance the wilderness experience?
* What about if people feel the bog boards/planks and trail signs are compromising their wilderness experience.....removing them also?
Come on.......
* Blazes on established trails is a safety factor especially when it comes to winterhiking. When you can't see the trail because of virgin snow, you rely on trying to figure out the "corridor" in the woods and the blazes on the trees. The "corridor" is not always obvious and the blazes come in real handy here. Maybe there are not enough hikers getting lost in the woods yet - let's try to hide the official trails by removing blazes. Blazes are there to help people stay on the trail! If you don't like blazes......stay off the trail! Blazes preserves the wilderness from countless unnecessary herdpaths.
* Should we then also remove the cairns above timberline to enhance the wilderness experience?
* What about if people feel the bog boards/planks and trail signs are compromising their wilderness experience.....removing them also?
* Who's to say what speed in the woods is enjoyable?psmart said:
Come on.......
albee
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 637
- Reaction score
- 122
Mats Roing said:
Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't a Wilderness area have to be wooded? I didn't think areas above treeline could be designated as Wilderness. (Slides don't count as "above treeline", either.) If you look at the maps, almost every place you would need a cairn above treeline is not in a Wilderness area... the trail might abut Wilderness, but they could always say the cairn is on the side of the ridge or trail that isn't Wilderness.
Mats Roing
New member
You are probably right Al about the definition. I was trying to make a point about the safety issue at hand.....albee said:
psmart
Active member
albee said:
I believe above-treeline areas could be designated as Wilderness (Congress can designate anything it chooses). But as a practical matter, the high usage of these areas makes them less suitable for Wilderness designation, so the boundaries tend to avoid them.
But I think you're right about the end result: There aren't many above-treeline cairns in WMNF Wilderness areas, so Wilderness management won't effect most cairns.
HuiYeng
Active member
albee said:
You are wrong
. Well, not sure about the written Wilderness rules and regulations, But a section of Davis Path approaching Glen Boulder trail junction is within the Dry River Wilderness and is above treeline.Exhibit A.
D
dvbl
Guest
7summits said:You are wrong
Exhibit A.
ummm...also Bondcliff?
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
(emphasis added by me)
That quote is from Chris Conrod , in the document "TRAIL TENDING A Guide for WODC Trail Volunteers", circa 1998.
Nice to see a smidgen of sane thinking amongst the "pencil-pushers"
albee
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 637
- Reaction score
- 122
7summits said:
dvbl said:
I stand corrected.
There does seem to be minimal cairns in these areas, though, right? I haven't been to that part of the Davis Path before so I can't comment on that, but I don't recall seeing too many cairns between Bondcliff and Bond.
HAMTERO
Active member
I didn't have internet for a week and when I got back on this thread is still live.
HAMTERO said:I didn't have internet for a week and when I got back on this thread is still live.
This is the 10th most-viewed thread in the Q&A forum. Most of the top view getters revolve around wilderness or rescues.
Tim
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
There are any number of Wilderness areas in Western states above treeline, and much of the upper Great Gulf Wilderness is above treeline. As psmart says, the major trails (Crawford Path, Gulfside) are fortunately managed for safe hiking not Wilderness.albee said:
andrewb
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 10
I feel the need to revive this old thread because it was so much fun to read. Maybe we can get some more, new opinions here. I encountered so many good viewpoints from reading all of this and it made me think about wilderness and what it really means.
A lot of people seem to see the wilderness as an inconvenience, a barrier to their quest for the 48. Others fear wilderness trail maintenance standards slows down their attempt at setting a new Pemi loop lap record or something like that. I am sorry they feel this way. I wish more people realized that nature does not exist solely to be dominated by human kind. We should not be sad because some areas will be harder to navigate. We should be glad that active steps are being taken to preserve places for future generations to enjoy.
It is not our god given right to have the easiest route possible through the mountains. I agree that the management decisions of wilderness can appear to be arbitrary, but realize that no decision is easy. The pros of Wilderness far outweighs the cons in my opinion. If removing the blazes speeds the process of changing how people interact with the wilderness, keep removing them. However, since the wilderness discussion is really about long-term preservation and blazes do not last forever, it makes more sense to allow them to fade and focus on more pressing management decisions.
A lot of people seem to see the wilderness as an inconvenience, a barrier to their quest for the 48. Others fear wilderness trail maintenance standards slows down their attempt at setting a new Pemi loop lap record or something like that. I am sorry they feel this way. I wish more people realized that nature does not exist solely to be dominated by human kind. We should not be sad because some areas will be harder to navigate. We should be glad that active steps are being taken to preserve places for future generations to enjoy.
It is not our god given right to have the easiest route possible through the mountains. I agree that the management decisions of wilderness can appear to be arbitrary, but realize that no decision is easy. The pros of Wilderness far outweighs the cons in my opinion. If removing the blazes speeds the process of changing how people interact with the wilderness, keep removing them. However, since the wilderness discussion is really about long-term preservation and blazes do not last forever, it makes more sense to allow them to fade and focus on more pressing management decisions.
Keep minimal blazes. But what about bridges? We are so used to Route 16 and I-93 that we think we have a God given right to travel as unimpeded by nature as possible. Our itinerary and our precious time away from work is the most important thing. Take out bridges. Otherwise, wilderness is only a sentimental theory.
arghman
New member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reaction score
- 153
I think there'd be very wide acceptance for Wilderness preservation of undeveloped lands that have been undeveloped -- where undeveloped means no houses, no roads, no signs, no trails, or any other sign of human occupation, and where "have been undeveloped" means either never developed or development has lapsed many years ago.
I wish we could just all accept that there are cost/benefits for handling this tension between recently existing human uses, and the need to preserve nature in its "pristine" state -- and that it would make sense to evaluate those cost/benefits individually rather than taking ideological approaches to solving the problem.
A blaze on a tree is not going to affect deer or moose or lynx from their daily means of survival. A timbering operation or a parking lot would. Those of us who have been utilizing trails for their recreational value place a very minimal human presence on a landscape that has been receiving that very minimal human presence for years and is likely to continue doing so. Let it continue. Instead, let's spend our effort protecting lands that are under a real threat of losing significant ecological value through the "progress" of modern society.
I wish we could just all accept that there are cost/benefits for handling this tension between recently existing human uses, and the need to preserve nature in its "pristine" state -- and that it would make sense to evaluate those cost/benefits individually rather than taking ideological approaches to solving the problem.
A blaze on a tree is not going to affect deer or moose or lynx from their daily means of survival. A timbering operation or a parking lot would. Those of us who have been utilizing trails for their recreational value place a very minimal human presence on a landscape that has been receiving that very minimal human presence for years and is likely to continue doing so. Let it continue. Instead, let's spend our effort protecting lands that are under a real threat of losing significant ecological value through the "progress" of modern society.
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
And some see "The Wilderness" as their puritanical stomping ground ( i.e., an opportunity to take a gratuitous swipe at some user group they don't like such as trail runners). Probably some of these folks could use a trip to Denali or some other place where Wilderness doesn't have to be referenced in scare quotes. Then perhaps they would have a different view of the absurdity of what they are asking for.
A footpath through the woods is not "wilderness" - it's a man-made path through the "wilderness". It's my feeling that people that have moral issues with man-made things should stick to bushwhacking if they want a true "wilderness experience", instead of forcing their rather bizarre version of "wilderness" onto the trail system itself where something as passive as a faded blue blaze on a tree gets their panties up in a wad ( whilst ignoring the bridge they just crossed or the stone staircase they just climbed )
If you are so offended at man made things, get off the trail - there are hundreds of acres just waiting. Having a graded footpath and bridges are not god-given things, ya know!
Neil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,434
- Reaction score
- 487
This is a strong statement. Can you back it up?
averagejoe
New member
Hi All,
I have been playing in the outdoors since I was five. I am a newbie to hiking & backpacking (2 years). BUT, and bear with me here before you go to defcon 5 on me. I have been a mountain biker for 9 years. I have been doing trail mantinence with the New England Mountain Bike Association for 8 years, and have been trained by them as well as the International Mountain Bike Association. I RIDE ON TRAIL just the same as I hike on trail. Be it a foot or a tyre, we do damage if we go where we want. Trails are generally built as a maintainable path to take a person through the woods so they can appreciate nature, whether they are running, hiking, biking, whatever.
I DO NOT want this to become about Mtb-ing. I only said it to show my background.
The easy answer to this question is, we should just make these areas off limits to everyone. If you take out blazes people will stray from these trails. The trails will not be maintained and become harder and harder to follow. Eventually there will be ten foot wide swaths of destruction where trails used to be. I have seen this on both Mtb & hiking trails, and it bothers me a lot. I have never led a hike, but when I led rides I would try to educate newbies on why they should never cut corners/switchbacks, ride off trail or skid their tyres.
I voted this is silly, (the policy), not the poll. What good is Wilderness if access or maintinence policy could lead to trampling rare plants when a newbie, or someone not familiar with the trail system, goes for a stroll.
I guess that those areas would not be used enough to see that type of traffic, unless at some point Wilderness are the only forests left.
Joe
I have been playing in the outdoors since I was five. I am a newbie to hiking & backpacking (2 years). BUT, and bear with me here before you go to defcon 5 on me. I have been a mountain biker for 9 years. I have been doing trail mantinence with the New England Mountain Bike Association for 8 years, and have been trained by them as well as the International Mountain Bike Association. I RIDE ON TRAIL just the same as I hike on trail. Be it a foot or a tyre, we do damage if we go where we want. Trails are generally built as a maintainable path to take a person through the woods so they can appreciate nature, whether they are running, hiking, biking, whatever.
I DO NOT want this to become about Mtb-ing. I only said it to show my background.
The easy answer to this question is, we should just make these areas off limits to everyone. If you take out blazes people will stray from these trails. The trails will not be maintained and become harder and harder to follow. Eventually there will be ten foot wide swaths of destruction where trails used to be. I have seen this on both Mtb & hiking trails, and it bothers me a lot. I have never led a hike, but when I led rides I would try to educate newbies on why they should never cut corners/switchbacks, ride off trail or skid their tyres.
I voted this is silly, (the policy), not the poll. What good is Wilderness if access or maintinence policy could lead to trampling rare plants when a newbie, or someone not familiar with the trail system, goes for a stroll.
I guess that those areas would not be used enough to see that type of traffic, unless at some point Wilderness are the only forests left.
Joe
MTNRUNR
Active member
Peak Baggers for instance...
People working on a "list". I'm quite sure 1 or 2 of these folks aren't very familiar with the Great Outdoors. I know I wasn't when I started in 1975.
It was a challenge and healthy fun to figure out where these places were and to find a way to get there.
Most of the Peak Baggers in the New England area are working on the NH 4K's all season.
If a peak is in a Wilderness area, it doesn't matter...they "HAVE TO GET THERE". I'll bet a few of you know 1 or 2 of these people
I'm quite sure all of these trails were there before some recieved Wilderness status.
In my opinion all these trails should be blazed and helpful signs(that have also been there BWD!*) maintained at intersections and at summits. Besides(as someone pointed out) look at all the money these old signs bring in when new ones replace them.
This is very helpful for the folks that WILL COME that couldn't find their way out of a parking lot without a sign.
You know they shouldn't be there but...you know they will be! The primary thing is these folks safety. By maintaining EXISTING trails, BLAZES, SIGNS...it will cut down on folks getting lost...by wandering off a trail or wandering around wondering if they are at the "true summit".
THEN...think what will happen to these same folks if they should try for a winter list
* Before Wilderness Designation
People working on a "list". I'm quite sure 1 or 2 of these folks aren't very familiar with the Great Outdoors. I know I wasn't when I started in 1975.
It was a challenge and healthy fun to figure out where these places were and to find a way to get there.
Most of the Peak Baggers in the New England area are working on the NH 4K's all season.
If a peak is in a Wilderness area, it doesn't matter...they "HAVE TO GET THERE".
I'll bet a few of you know 1 or 2 of these people I'm quite sure all of these trails were there before some recieved Wilderness status.
In my opinion all these trails should be blazed and helpful signs(that have also been there BWD!*) maintained at intersections and at summits. Besides(as someone pointed out) look at all the money these old signs bring in when new ones replace them.
This is very helpful for the folks that WILL COME that couldn't find their way out of a parking lot without a sign.
You know they shouldn't be there but...you know they will be! The primary thing is these folks safety. By maintaining EXISTING trails, BLAZES, SIGNS...it will cut down on folks getting lost...by wandering off a trail or wandering around wondering if they are at the "true summit".
THEN...think what will happen to these same folks if they should try for a winter list
* Before Wilderness Designation
