Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[RoySwkr]

Apparently they are/were doing this.

 

[Bobby]

I was in the Great Gulf with LarryD and Sapblatt on 7/1 and saw evidence of blaze removal. It looks like someone took a paint scraper and hacked at the blaze until it was gone. Now instead of a blaze, you see the scraped off paint area. We also saw a sign nailed to a tree in a wilderness revegetation area on the Madison Gulf Trail. Paint blazes not allowed, but nailing signs to trees is OK?

 

[skiguy]

I was in the Great Gulf with LarryD and Sapblatt on 7/1 and saw evidence of blaze removal. It looks like someone took a paint scraper and hacked at the blaze until it was gone. Now instead of a blaze, you see the scraped off paint area. We also saw a sign nailed to a tree in a wilderness revegetation area on the Madison Gulf Trail. Paint blazes not allowed, but nailing signs to trees is OK?

I agree...Right on Target!

 

[giggy]

some people have to much time on their hands if removing blazes is a priority.

 

[Bob]

Our parking pass fees at work

I knew something good would come from paying those fees...

 

[paul ron]

Removing the blazes is dangerous.

 

[Roxi]

I don't understand paying people to remove blazes so we can then spend even more money rescueing people who get lost.

 

[sapblatt]

I don't understand paying people to remove blazes so we can then spend even more money rescueing people who get lost.

Yeah - hard to believe an arm of our government would be involved in something so useless.
A lot of people need the blazes - many people hike occasionally - whether or not they are prepared - something as simple as blaze is really helpful. I guess I am experienced and should be OK either way, but I like them if for no other reason that they sometime confirm that I am going the way I want to be going...

 

[darren]

I knew something good would come from paying those fees...

Right on Bob.

Ugh...I thought I could stay out of it this time, but sometimes the fact that I run this site has to step aside and I just have to voice my real opinion.

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. This is current policy. The discussion of if they should be repainted - meaning safety vs. wilderness - is seperate from this discussion and is really a discussion about policy. Discussions can be made about the policy and actions can be taken to change current policy. However, the forest service workers are NOT in a position to MAKE policy. They are in a position to follow it and enforce it.

To pay people with my tax dollar to go remove existing blazes really frosts my butt. It goes against the current regulations and is not only outside of jurisdiction, but a waste of my tax dollar. It is the very reason why I will not pay for a parking pass. I will not give even more money to people who can not be trusted to use it wisely. As a civil servant myself, this issue sickens me. As a tax payer, it should sicken you as well.

</rant hat off>

- darren

 

[forestgnome]

The AMC makes every attempt to introduce people to the Whites. Some have problems finding their way on a marked trail.

Nice catch! We have some trying very hard to get more people into the wilderness while we make it more difficult for newbies to find their way. Brilliant!

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.

All trails have little herd paths which result from hikers unintentionally leaving the trail, often at sharp bends. They realize their mistake and turn around. Each time this happens the herd path becomes more defined, and thus more likely to fool hikers. Well-placed blazes help reduce accidental herd paths; removing them will result in more herd paths.

This is the Wilderness Trail, in the Pemigawasset Wilderness. This trash may not be removed and even if you move it you could be fined. You see, this is an historical artifact. There are old, rusty buckets and oil cans in the wilderness as well. Removal of this trash will result in a fine. Again, the result of the lobbying efforts of some high-minded do-gooders.

I'll never get lost for a lack of blazes, but I'll bet we have a few tragedies out there as a result of blaze removal.

Happy Trails

 

[McRat]

Through quick and lazy research, I gather the WMNF covers some 800,000 acres with 1200 miles of maintained trail. I recall hearing the amount of trail miles was closer to 2000, so I'll use that number instead.

800,000 acres = 34,848,000,000 sq ft

2000 miles of trail at 10 feet wide (again large estimate) = 105,600,000 sq ft

It would seem that trail space represents something under 0.303% of the WMNF. A wilderness experience is but a quick walk into the brush.

I will not even try to guestimate what percentage is used by blazing and shelters.

While I appreciate the efforts to protect these areas from logging or development, the decision to actively remove blazes on trails that WERE ALREADY THERE WHEN IT WAS DECLARED WILDERNESS is a threat to public safety and a pathetic use of public funds.

 

[Grumpy]

I was really on the fence as to whether my vote shoud be to let them fade, or to have them repainted.

In the end, my vote went to "let them fade," because that evidently fits in better with current wilderness philosophy and agency policy.

That does not mean I think wilderness trails should be unblazed. I think established wilderness trails should be adequately blazed and maintained. Good maintenance actually protects the environment. Trail structures such as bridges should be maintained, as well. These do no harm to the environment and improve visitor safety. Policy should be changed to reflect a far more commonsense approach to this whole business.

G.

 

[sleeping bear]

Holy crap, I thought this one was already beaten to death!

I like to kick dead horses, so...

How long do you think it would take for those blazes to fade away? 10 years, minimum? While I really don't think that blaze removal will ultimately result in lots of people getting lost, I do think the number of lost hikers would be much more if they let the blazes dissappear on their own. You would never know if they were totally gone yet or not. One might be gone here or there, some still visibile. It's much more consistent to just get rid of them all at once. I might have taken a guy or a two a day or two to get the job done. That's peanuts in the gov budget. I will say though, that letting a shelter fall down on its own sounds pretty dangerous as well.

I also thought we clarified that wilderness areas really weren't the kind of place that "newbies" (I hate that word) would go anyway. There are TONS of other places to go with lots of blazes, signs, and tent platforms. Don't tell me that's an elistist view because it isn't. Those are just the laws of nature. If you aren't up to the risks and challenge posed by a certain area, don't go there.

Take driving (or anything else) for example. You get your license, you get a car and suddently the roads are yours. Well, unless driving on the freeway scares the crap out of you. Then you might not go there, at least not yet. Hey, why don't they change the speed limits on freeways so more people will feel comfortable driving on them?? I mean, those are paid for by the government too, so shouldn't they accomodate everyone as well?

Finally, if you don't like the decisions being made by the forest service, you could also try ranting to them about, like during their public input sessions.

I just really don't understand why everyone gets so crazy about wilderness regulations. 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?

 

[paul ron]

Once the bull dozers come in and log that area, you won't need blazes.

 

[SkierSteve]

I'll take another kick at the deceased nag:

I just really don't understand why everyone gets so crazy about wilderness regulations. 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?[/QUOTE]

It's not about the Wilderness designation. It's about the policy being implemented being totally DUMB. Not to mention an awful waste of time and money. I took the time to speak at length with two FS employees. I came away thinking they know very little about forests and less about service. I walk through Wilderness areas and the problems that I see are illegal campsites everywhere with piles of TP and worse, trash along the trails, and severe erosion. Offensive trail blazes never really came to mind.

So my problem with the management of wilderness areas is what I consider to be bad decisions concerning what the real problems are. Just M2C.

 

[Bobby]

I also thought we clarified that wilderness areas really weren't the kind of place that "newbies" (I hate that word) would go anyway. There are TONS of other places to go with lots of blazes, signs, and tent platforms. Don't tell me that's an elistist view because it isn't. Those are just the laws of nature. If you aren't up to the risks and challenge posed by a certain area, don't go there.

That's all well and good, but how many people don't understand what Wilderness means? They look at a map and see a marked trail and decide "that looks like a nice place to hike" and go in, expecting to find a blazed trail. The expectation isn't a blaze on every tree, rather just enough so as to not be invasive, and keep inexperienced hikers from becoming completely lost.

 

[HuiYeng]

They look at a map and see a marked trail and decide "that looks like a nice place to hike" and go in, expecting to find a blazed trail.

That's a good point. Is AMC and other map printers going to remove the trails or marked it differently on the maps?

To paraphrase someone from a different thread on this same subject, removing the blazes is not going to enhance your "wilderness" experience in the Whites.

 

[sleeping bear]

I'll take another kick at the deceased nag:

I just really don't understand why everyone gets so crazy about wilderness regulations. 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?

It's not about the Wilderness designation. It's about the policy being implemented being totally DUMB. Not to mention an awful waste of time and money. I took the time to speak at length with two FS employees. I came away thinking they know very little about forests and less about service. I walk through Wilderness areas and the problems that I see are illegal campsites everywhere with piles of TP and worse, trash along the trails, and severe erosion. Offensive trail blazes never really came to mind.

So my problem with the management of wilderness areas is what I consider to be bad decisions concerning what the real problems are. Just M2C.

Well, it's likely "inexperienced" people who leave trash and piles of TP. If they want/need pit toilets and trash cans then they need to go somewhere else besides a wilderness area and learn about how to act. Removing the blazes is not the issue in total, I expect it has some to do with limiting use without imposing more fees or going to some sort of permit system as they do in other crowded areas. 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.

My favorite place in the whole world is a FS wilderness area up here. It is similar to the pemi as there is a lot of "historic trash". There are no maintained trails and just a sign at the trailhead. It is the most awesome place around. There are some trails, but none are marked and you have to be able to read a map to know where you are going. Finding the historic remains makes it feel like a ghost town that has been reclaimed by nature and makes for wonderful offtrail treasure hunting. Some complain that the FS should maintain the trails, but if they did that more people would go there and it would lose a lot of its charm. Sure, some inexperienced people go there, but they don't venture far, leaving the rest untouched.

 

[darren]

I might have taken a guy or a two a day or two to get the job done. That's peanuts in the gov budget.

A couple of people a couple of days for one trail. Times how many trails? Peanuts as a percentage does not matter when you are talking about govt workers doing work that they are not tasked to do. By tasking I mean that there is nothing in the wilderness wording that says blazes should be removed. It is a waste of resources. How would you like it of the Navy bought some tanks just because "tanks are cool"? When questioned, "hey, why did you buy those tanks, the army is supposed to have tanks" the Navy's reply was "well, it doesn't matter, a few tanks are peanuts in our budget." It is unsat.

- darren

 

[psmart]

...there is nothing in the wilderness wording that says blazes should be removed.

True, Wilderness legislation is always pretty general in nature, and doesn't get into details like blazing. But those policies are spelled out in the applicable management plan. In this case, the WMNF has a Wilderness management plan that specifies no blazing in Wilderness. That policy has been in place for over 20 years, and there have been many opportuinities for public input, including the lastest WMNF Plan revision.

While there may be other legitimate views on the topic, this is a well established policy, and not the knee jerk action that some have alledged. Unfortunately, most of the FS folks you see on the trail were not involved in the planning process (they're mostly seasonal employees), and may not know the complex history behind the tasks they have been sent to carry out.

BTW, Wilderness trails definitely ARE maintained. An enourmous amount of time and money are spent on errosion control measures, like steps and water barrs. The difference is that Wilderness trail maintenance always focuses on resource protection, rather than hiker convenience.

Fun fact: The WODC has the highest percentage of Wilderness trails of any trail maintenance organization, and an even higher fraction of the Club's resources go to Wilderness Trails.