Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[TCD]

The discussion seems to be coming back around to what I said earlier: "Removing blazes is ignorant. We need trails, or no trails. We do not need half assed poorly maintained trails."

Stan, I think the "good thing" about not maintaining trails is that you can lay off the trail crew next year (like in NY), and keep the money for graft or whatever it goes for. Follow the money (and the votes). It's a win for a politician sitting on his fat butt in a capitol. He can parade his wilderness ethic for the cognoscenti in the city, save money for his own uses, and not have to do a darn thing that's useful or difficult.

 

[David Metsky]

The discussion seems to be coming back around to what I said earlier: "Removing blazes is ignorant. We need trails, or no trails. We do not need half assed poorly maintained trails."

Let's just agree to disagree on this point. I have no problems with varying standards of maintenance for trails in different areas. What you think of as "half-assed" others think of as "refreshingly primitive".

 

[forestgnome]

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.

I agree in general that lost hiker potential should not justify increased artificial navigational aides in wilderness, but adding a cell-tower to a presently beautiful summit is a huge change to that area, while a little paint blaze on a tree along a well-beaten trail is not. I'm all for removal of bridges and shelters and such, but the blazes are tiny things which provide tremendous benefit to hikers and flora. Blazes protect the environment; it's the hiker's sense of "protected wilderness" that they offend.

Perhaps hikers should consider the difference between wilderness and non-wilderness when planning a hike, but lets deal in reality. Absolutely noone cares. Wilderness presents no problem at all for hikers at our level, and newbies do not think "oh my gosh, I don't dare venture into the wilderness". Hikers consider things like views, distance, gain, and difficulty. Noone cares at all if the hike goes through wilderness or not. We all see clueless hikers everywhere.

Happy well-blazed Trails

 

[dvbl]

...Perhaps hikers should consider the difference between wilderness and non-wilderness when planning a hike, but lets deal in reality. Absolutely noone cares. Wilderness presents no problem at all for hikers at our level, and newbies do not think "oh my gosh, I don't dare venture into the wilderness". Hikers consider things like views, distance, gain, and difficulty. Noone cares at all if the hike goes through wilderness or not. We all see clueless hikers everywhere...

Just want to share a tale. One day, we had a little time to squeeze in a hike, so we took a quick trip into Great Gulf Wilderness. On the way back, we approached a couple, who were reading the "You are now entering the Great Gulf Wilderness blah blah blah" sign, and they didn't look too happy. I said hello, nice day, nice trail, etc. The man said his girlfriend/wife was reluctant to go further because she heard there are bears in wilderness areas in the Whites. I did my best to tell her what's what and reduce her fears, but as we walked away and I looked back for the last time, they were still standing there staring at the sign.

So, there's at least one hiker out there who DOES think, "oh my gosh, I don't dare venture into the wilderness".

 

[TCD]

OK, David, we can agree to disagree. To your point, I would not want to see the trails paved, as in some wilderness areas. (I was really surprised when I hiked up from Paradise towards Muir on Mt. Rainier a few years ago, and found the trail to be paved with blacktop. I asked my local friend, and he explained that with a big city like Seattle close by, the land managers had two choices: restrict access, or pave the trail. They chose to pave.)

Maddy,

There's something else I forgot to mention, which supports the idea the the land managers in the Whites may be getting ready to "close" these trails. Recently, I was part of a crew removing blazes on a section of a trail. This activity was ordered by land managers because the trail was going to be closed, and they wanted to avoid liability (as in "I followed your blazes, and I got hurt..."). So the removal of blazes may be a strong indication that a trail is about to be "closed" by land management.

TCD

 

[Tim Seaver]

Your tax dollars, hard at work

I don't see how removing blazes from trails is going to accomplish much of anything beyond giving the SAR people lots to do, particularly in winter. Perhaps when the bodies start piling up they will reconsider the wisdom of this decision.

And all it will take to undo all their hard work will be a few pissed off hikers with paintbrushes or paintball guns. Really dumb idea, IMHO.

 

[albee]

I don't see how removing blazes from trails is going to accomplish much of anything beyond giving the SAR people lots to do, particularly in winter.

Particularly in winter, when it is so terribly difficult to turn around and follow your own tracks back to where you came?

I've been staying out of this debate, but I've finally decided to comment.... We can all only control ourselves and our personal hiking comfort level and decisions. If the FS has decided that this is the best way to handle this, I will abide by their decision. It is not worth MY time and energy to worry about such a small percentage of time and tax dollars spent on blaze removal. I will hike where I am comfortable hiking. Other people will try and hike where they are comfortable hiking. If they get lost because they were unprepared for hiking where there are no blazes, then that's their problem - stick to maintained and blazed trails if that's what you need.

I don't see people complaining that bushwhack routes aren't blazed. What's the difference between a Wilderness Area that has had trails in the past and is being returned to a more natural state, and a Wilderness Area that never had trails and has always been natural. Either adapt to the new situation or don't - the choice is yours.

And so what if 10 cents out of all my tax dollars are funding a blaze removal project, or if $1 out of my $20 annual parking pass fee is going to blaze removal? I get WAY more than $20 worth of recreation value per year from the WMNF - and if you refuse to pay for the permit then you are taking the lion's share of the wonderful work that USFS does for granted, and I personally don't find that very respectful.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Particularly in winter, when it is so terribly difficult to turn around and follow your own tracks back to where you came?

I suppose if there is no blowing snow filling in your tracks. Good thing that doesn't happen too often in winter in the White Mountains.

If they get lost because they were unprepared for hiking where there are no blazes, then that's their problem.

When they become lost and a rescue is initiated, the problem extends beyond just the party lost, to rescuers and taxpayers. I have a feeling we will be hearing from both of those parties before too long on this matter

 

[sli74]

I have stayed out of this till now and will continue to mostly stay out of it except to make the following observation:

An unblazed trail is VERY different from a bushwhack route in one BIG way and that is there is no marked route shown on a map for a bushwhack that could mislead a new hiker into thinking there is a "trail" to follow. I think the biggest problem will be that people looking at an AMC map or other white mountain map and seeing a designated trail will begin a hike expecting blazes (not everyone is as well informed about wilderness policy as us VFTTers). If they remove the blazes they need to remove the trails from the maps or else they are setting themselves up for lawsuits . . . just my very humble opinion . . . and I will leave you to further discussion.

sli74

 

[Paradox]

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?

Maybe I am not a wilderness purist, but the GPS is part of my enjoyment of hiking. I can see a future where most everyone has a GPS suitable for hiking and trails are reported as gps tracks, rendering blazes (and removal of same) quaint. Much in the same way that we no longer can find hitching posts for our horses. At that point in time, folks will have the option of selecting the technology level they want to employ when entering wilderness areas.

 

[imarchant]

I have stayed out of this till now and will continue to mostly stay out of it except to make the following observation:

An unblazed trail is VERY different from a bushwhack route in one BIG way and that is there is no marked route shown on a map for a bushwhack that could mislead a new hiker into thinking there is a "trail" to follow. I think the biggest problem will be that people looking at an AMC map or other white mountain map and seeing a designated trail will begin a hike expecting blazes (not everyone is as well informed about wilderness policy as us VFTTers). If they remove the blazes they need to remove the trails from the maps or else they are setting themselves up for lawsuits . . . just my very humble opinion . . . and I will leave you to further discussion.

sli74

Good point, I had the same thoughts. However, the Forest Service is reducing their liability. It's not their problem if the AMC or anyones else's maps are incorrect after they close the trails.

 

[Motabobo]

I believe they should let them fade away...unless they pay ME to go remove them

 

[albee]

the Forest Service is reducing their liability

And there you have it!

As soon as you cross the bridge at the end of the Wilderness Trail (or into any designated Wilderness Area), you will read a sign and see that you are responsible for yourself should you get lost. (What a novel concept!) If SAR is called in, guess who is paying for it? You are! I don't recall what the exact wording of the law is, but it says something to the effect that if SAR is needed because of an avoidable mistake that YOU made, you are responsible for the cost of the rescue.

And Tim - if someone goes tracking through unbroken powder deep in the forest in blowing snow conditions, don't you think by then they would be responsible enough to figure out where they are and find the trail again? This is silly.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Here's a related direction for this thread. How will removal of blazes affect folks bagging the NH48? I.e., what peaks will the less-experienced peakbaggers find more difficult and/or find themselves likelier to get lost on?

And can someone please clarify (cite a reference somewhere I can go look) that they are only removing blazes? I think I understand that they are also doing less maintenance -- is it less or none, i.e., will these trails cease to exist as trails? psmart and others indicate they are maintained, just to a different standard.

I scanned http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi...st_plan_revision/pdf_documents/PDF_Index.html, section "E - Wilderness Management Plan" but did not find the word blaze or mark(er).

Tim

 

[Tim Horn]

I say let them fade but if you have someone walking that beat then why not have them scrape the blazes off? Folks don't seem to realize that part of the rangers job includes hiking to various places and just seeing what is going on. It is not a waste of money to send them out on the trails. It is by definition a part of their jobs. The very idea that the Forest Service is a slush pot for lazy pols is laughable. In reality for Rangers, the pay and benefits stink. They are always short of funds be it for trails, signs or parking areas and in general lack the funding to accomplish there stated goals. I for one would prefer my wilderness to be wilderness. Stop blazing, stop brushing, let the small section of woods return to as natural a state as is possible. For those who want blazes and trails and huts and tent sites there is the vast majority of the White mountains acreage for them to hike and camp.
IMO if you need to be rescued, no matter the reason, you should pay for those costs as an individual. Nobody forces us to go into the woods and take risks and we in turn should not force others to pay for our screw ups when we take risks.
How will removal of blazes affect folks bagging the NH48? I.e., what peaks will the less-experienced peakbaggers find more difficult and/or find themselves likelier to get lost on?
I think that we will have fewer people getting lost in Wilderness areas as the uninitiated will read that there are no trails and no blazes and stay away from these areas. Most likely a person working on the 48 would probably start with trails to peaks outside of the wilderness. By the time they get around to the "wild" peaks they would have a reasonable amount of experience under their belts. For the experienced hiker the lack of blazes should not have a great effect. Yes, you may have to work on your route finding skills and may not be able to cover quite as much ground in a day but isn't route finding and woods skills what we are all about?
It seems that if the FS can cater a user group that wants and gets huts and well kept trails, then the FS can also cater to another user group that wants none of those things. That should mean more resources for those areas that will be maintained therefore enhancing the experience of all those who want/need well defined trails and blazes. Anyway, its time to go fishing. Peace to All.

 

[Quietman]

I’m thinking that this is part of a conspiracy by the manufacturers of GPS devices to increase their sales.

On the Wapack Trail going up S. Pack there are 2 colors of blazes covering the rocks and trees, and at just about any point, I could see at least 3-4 and sometimes many more. I have nothing against blazes, but…..

As for the wilderness areas, an occasional trail marker never lessened my enjoyment of the outdoors. Just wish I could get there more often.

 

[Quietman]

Maybe this will help define a few things. Starting on Page 27 of this document Appendix E Wilderness Management Plan it describes 4 levels of zones in wilderness areas. These relate to the maps starting at page 33 of the document.

Trails colored in light blue on the maps (Zone B) carry this warning

"Visitors should plan ahead and be well prepared for challenging travel
and primitive recreation opportunities with a high level of risk. Self-reliance
and proficient navigation skills may be needed to facilitate travel on
minimally maintained trails. These paths may be exceptionally hard to
follow under winter conditions."

These trails may be the ones that could possibly be "de-blazed". Just an assumption on my part. I have no first hand knowledge.

Hope this helps.

Edit: Sorry Bobby, didn't see your previous post and no, it dosen't actually mention the removal of blazes.

 

[Neil]

How will removal of blazes affect folks bagging the NH48? I.e., what peaks will the less-experienced peakbaggers find more difficult and/or find themselves likelier to get lost on?
I think that we will have fewer people getting lost in Wilderness areas as the uninitiated will read that there are no trails and no blazes and stay away from these areas. Most likely a person working on the 48 would probably start with trails to peaks outside of the wilderness. By the time they get around to the "wild" peaks they would have a reasonable amount of experience under their belts. For the experienced hiker the lack of blazes should not have a great effect. Yes, you may have to work on your route finding skills and may not be able to cover quite as much ground in a day but isn't route finding and woods skills what we are all about?

In the ADK's the peaks that are on the 46 list all have well developed herd paths that are usually very plain to see and easy to follow. They tend to follow natural handrails and many have become messy, muddy and braided. Whenever there is fresh blowdown a new herd trail forms around the obstacle. They now receive minimum maintenance in order to protect the environment.

In winter, after a fresh snowfall, some of the herd paths are very difficult to follow. Even in autumn with enough leaf litter they can be hard to follow. I find bushwhacking with map & compass easier than staying on a buried herd path, even with a gps and a tracklog. At least the gps will tell you if the trail is to the left or right.

 

[Tim Seaver]

And Tim - if someone goes tracking through unbroken powder deep in the forest in blowing snow conditions, don't you think by then they would be responsible enough to figure out where they are and find the trail again? This is silly.

You are assuming they set out in the same crappy conditions, which isn't necessarily the case. Even on a perfectly nice day with a good forecast and good visibility, blowing snow conditions can occur that completely fill tracks quite quickly. I seem to recall more than a few times where I have been quite happy to find a blaze confirming that I am indeed on the trail in these kinds of conditions, even on peaks that I know well. Just my 2 cents.

 

[forestgnome]

Stop blazing, stop brushing, let the small section of woods return to as natural a state as is possible. For those who want blazes and trails and huts and tent sites there is the vast majority of the White mountains acreage for them to hike and camp.

Ceasing to blaze and brush will never result in a return to what you term a "natural state". People will not stop hiking the trails!!! The lack of blazes and maintenance will result in lots of herd paths, which are generaly considered undesirable for forest protection. Lots of herd paths looks less natural than a single path, don't you think? Expecting people to all just know where the trail is when there are numerous herd paths and crossing trails and ski trails and logging roads is unrealistic. Reality is that herd paths will result from lack of blazes and blowdown removal.

Don't assume that those who want blazes also want huts. And, if you want to completely kill public support for wilderness designation, just eliminate hiking trails.