Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[David Metsky]

I'm not sure where the idea of liability comes into this. It wasn't mentioned in the article, and I've never heard it mentioned by the USFS. Certainly there are vast areas of Wilderness out west and I've never heard of lawsuits due to failure to maintain trails or blazes. Is this a real issue or just speculation?

 

[sardog1]

I'm not sure where the idea of liability comes into this. It wasn't mentioned in the article, and I've never heard it mentioned by the USFS. Certainly there are vast areas of Wilderness out west and I've never heard of lawsuits due to failure to maintain trails or blazes. Is this a real issue or just speculation?

EDIT: It's a real issue to the Forest Service. Once you start marking trails, you (may) incur the obligation to do it continuously and consistently. Here's how it bit the Forest Service in a case involving snowmobiling: Oberson et al. v. United States of America Dep't of Agriculture.

The Forest Service was also involved several years ago in Alaska in a suit alleging failure to post a sign warning of the hazards of falling ice at a glacier face near a roadside. Plaintiff was the surviving husband of the decedent; he sent her over to stand for a picture next to the face. The feds settled before trial for something around $200K as I recall.

 

[MichaelJ]

I suspect that case may have been weighed that way because it was a roadside. The FS won outright a lawsuit filed when an unprepared hiker ended up sliding down Washington into the Tucks crevasse behind the snow arch a few years back (ref: "Not Without Peril").

 

[sardog1]

I suspect that case may have been weighed that way because it was a roadside. The FS won outright a lawsuit filed when an unprepared hiker ended up sliding down Washington into the Tucks crevasse behind the snow arch a few years back (ref: "Not Without Peril").

The difference in the Mt. Washington case is that the Forest Service had made a policy-based decision NOT to post warnings. When they undertake to start doing it, the legal landscape changes. See the Oberson opinion for an explanation.

As for why the feds folded in AK before trial, I speculate that things were just unsettled enough at the time that they chose the devil they knew in paying. Or maybe there were warning signs in other places that worried them.

 

[David Metsky]

I understand that it's a potential issue, just not that there's any evidence that this decision was made with that in mind. I've never heard the FS mention this as an issue.

Keep in mind the the USFS doesn't maintain all the trails in the Wilderness Areas. The WODC covers a lot of the trails in the Sandwich Range, as does the WV Trails Association. They're not going to stop maintaining trails regardless of whether they are blazed. I don't think there's any real evidence that trails are going to stop being maintained. This is all very cyclical, trail maintenance budgets wax and wane over the years. I see no real evidence that any major trails will be dropped any time soon. It's possible, but I don't think this is related to the blazes removal.

 

[forestgnome]

Keep in mind the the USFS doesn't maintain all the trails in the Wilderness Areas. The WODC covers a lot of the trails in the Sandwich Range, as does the WV Trails Association. They're not going to stop maintaining trails regardless of whether they are blazed. I don't think there's any real evidence that trails are going to stop being maintained.

Admittedly, I have not read the entire document, and I thought that trail maintenance was slated to stop as well as blazing. Thanks for clarification. Blowdown removal is most critical for mitigating herd paths. I vehemently oppose blaze removal, but it's a done deal until the next plan review. I predict that by then the volume of documented rescue missions, where lack of blazes was a factor, will result in reblazing. It must be cheaper in the long run, despite partial volunteer SAR involvment.

Happy Trails

 

[Maddy]

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."

Dave...I think they are planning on cutting back at least on trail maintenance.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/REPOSITORY/707170371
Correction on my previous post: The budget was cut by $.5 mil not $4mil leading to the reduction in force.
I am reading this as a possible "warning" to hikers.
My other thought is that I doubt they would print a statement saying something like "we are wiping out the blazes because we don't want any liability".
Why else would they use their diminishing funds to eradicate blazes that would just fade out on their own.
It makes no sense. If you can't complete the work on a bridge, why are you wasting time removing blazes?
I really hope that unknowing people don't wander on these "would be trails" in the winter and have a really bad outcome, but in any case I think the FS is going with the only option they feel they have at this time.
As Forestgnome indicated in his last post.... only time will tell what the result of all this will be.
This certainly has been fuel for an interesting discussion and I think the best is yet to come.

 

[DougPaul]

It makes no sense. If you can't complete the work on a bridge, why are you wasting time removing blazes?

Don't forget how organizational budgets work: salaries are likely to be allocated already (removing blazes is just staff time) and bridge repair is outside purchase money.

If you don't have enough money to cover both, which are you going to fund?

Bridge repair also takes time if it requires outside contractors--you have to get bids, etc.

Doug

 

[Maddy]

Don't forget how organizational budgets work: salaries are likely to be allocated already (removing blazes is just staff time) and bridge repair is outside purchase money.

If you don't have enough money to cover both, which are you going to fund?

Bridge repair also takes time if it requires outside contractors--you have to get bids, etc.

Doug

Very good point, Doug.
I guess it would be a good idea to remove the blazes anyway if you can't maintain the trails which could result in hiker injury.

 

[psmart]

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-

Well said, Dave.

 

[psmart]

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

Actually, the policy hasn't changed. It's been "no blazes in Wilderness" all along. The FS has just taken a while to implement this, as well as allowing time for the public to get used to the change before it is fully implemented.

 

[MichaelJ]

Actually, the policy hasn't changed. It's been "no blazes in Wilderness" all along. The FS has just taken a while to implement this, as well as allowing time for the public to get used to the change before it is fully implemented.

Actually, what I meant was not the "no blazing" but after 23 years why the sudden active removal of existing blazes.

Methinks this is related to the popularity of Owl's Head...

And of course the axe blazes are still there, right? They're not cutting down trees to "remove" those markings, are they?

 

[Bobby]

Actually, what I meant was not the "no blazing" but after 23 years why the sudden active removal of existing blazes.

Methinks this is related to the popularity of Owl's Head...

Excellent point. Wilderness policies state that ultimate goal is a greater opportunity for solitude in the Wilderness. With the popularity of hiking the NH 4K's, solitude in that area of the Pemi are diminished.

The no blazing seems to have begun a few years ago with rangers de-blazing the Owl's Head Trail, then knocking down cairns at the beginning of the "unofficial" trail and the summit. IIRC, the summit sign disappears at times also. It reminds of a line from the original Star Wars movie..."the tighter you hold on, the more that slips through your hands."

 

[DougPaul]

Actually, what I meant was not the "no blazing" but after 23 years why the sudden active removal of existing blazes.

Methinks this is related to the popularity of Owl's Head...

Might also be a result of a change in personel or a directive from someone higher up the managment chain.

And of course the axe blazes are still there, right? They're not cutting down trees to "remove" those markings, are they?

There was a report of tree with a paint blaze (on Owls Head) being cut down. IIRC, the poster thought it was to remove the trail markings.

If that is the logic, then the next step might be to remove the cut stumps...

Doug

 

[HH1]

If USFS actions such as blaze removal ultimately, among other things, reduce hiker volumes in the designated Wilderness areas, which in turn SHOULD reduce trail maintenance costs, then I'm 110% for it as it relieves the pressure to implement funding alternatives such as onerous backcountry user fees, something I think the majority of VFTT's readership is against.

 

[Tim Seaver]

And of course the axe blazes are still there, right? They're not cutting down trees to "remove" those markings, are they?

I believe the infamous "Ranger Dick" of Owl's Head fame pioneered the "clear cut" approach to de-blazing. Attractive method, no? After all, that blaze didn't conform.

http://www.vftt.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1204

More on that sorry episode here and here.

Herd paths, here we come!

 

[TCD]

I was thinking about this thread this weekend. I went on two day hikes in the Adirondacks. One was on a heavily travelled trail; the other was a bushwhack. I had a couple thoughts on the issues in this thread:

Opportunities for solitude abound everywhere. Looking for solitude on a trail, regardless of how rustic the trail might be, is silly. All trails are very skinny lines in a vast area. The area of "trail" is probably about 0.1% of the total area (based a network of trails about one mile apart, and trails being 5 feet wide; in reality it's probably less). Almost all traffic is concentrated in this tiny area. It is obviously silly to look for solitude in the one/thousandth of the total area where the traffic is concentrated. Beyond that, most of the traffic is on the most popular trails.

Case in point: On our bushwhack, we hiked in the middle of a sunny weekend afternoon up to the somewhat popular Cathedral Rocks and Bear Run in the AMR. The trail finishes on State Land. We took a bushwhack route approximately North to hit the W.A. White trail, and descended back to our starting point. We did not see a soul on the whole route. If we had established a camp midway along our bushwhack route, and brought enough supplies to stay for a month, I doubt we would have seen anyone. So I guess I don't know why we would deblaze or close those trails, for example, to provide an opportunity for solitude. We had plenty of it.

On our other trip, along the Great Range, we saw many people on the popular trail. It would be silly of me to expect not to see them, or to be upset by their presence. The trail is dark, muddy, rocky and obvious. The woods on either side are thick and virtually impenetrable. The area is designated as Wilderness. Looking at this, I realized something. One definition of Wilderness is an area where the works of man are not visible. A trail is a work of man. (As opposed to a usage path, which shows prior traffic, whether human or animal, but is not a conscious "work.") So any trail, regardless of whether it's well maintained or rustic, is not *part of* the Wilderness. It is instead *a way to get to* the Wilderness. Step off the trail a few feet, and you are in the Wilderness.

(David, I'm going to disagree with you again! Thanks for making me think!)

The point of all this rambling is that it will not be useful to struggle over how much or little maintenance a trail through the Wilderness should get. Any position will always be a judgment call, and there will be a wide range of conclusions, because any trail is basically incapable of "being Wilderness." But if we recognize that a trail is not, and cannot be by definition, part of the Wilderness, and accept it as a work of man that gives us access to the wilderness, then the judgment call goes away. In the Wilderness, all the best leave no trace pratices should be used. On the trail, good solid maintenance will support it's function, which is to allow us to get somewhere.

(Wow, that was too long.)

TCD

 

[Tim Seaver]

Great deconstruction of the oxymoron "Wilderness Trail", TCD, which seems to mean " a man made footpath in a place where there is no trace of the hand of man". You have to wonder if the people offended by tiny traces of paint feel the same about bridges and other "enhancements".

 

[jjmcgo]

Simply put, it's the Public Enjoyment Reduction Act of 2006, less fun for fewer people while the tax bite remains the same or increases.
Truly, how much did the public want this? Wasn't it really the USFS and a few activists who controlled the process?
The best part was the radicals, those who wanted drastic change that would negatively impact many, were able to negatively portray those who were happy with the status quo.

 

[arghman]

sigh. I have a number strong opinions on this subject, but it's not worth letting off much steam anymore. A few quick comments:

(1) This is one of the few discussions I've seen that really gets to the heart of the complexities of the Wilderness issue. Usually it's painted as a black/white argument (e.g. Wilderness protections vs. tree-cutting & ATV use). I really wish someone would alert some of the Powers that Be (USFS officials / Congressional reps) to this thread, so more people can understand that there are shades of gray.

(2) The difficulty I see in all this has been already expressed by Tuco and TCD, but I'll restate it anyway: there is conflict between Wilderness designation and "traditional" low-impact non-Wilderness uses (blazed trails, shelters, groups of more than 10 people, etc. etc.) within these areas that have existed prior to Wilderness designation. Unless USFS can completely obliterate the tradition of these uses, or wait until they die out, or the idea of designated Wilderness stops being so rigid and can bend to accomodate these uses, there will always be conflict.

(3) Please don't assume that Wilderness areas are composed solely of harsh, dangerous, hard-to-get-to places that should be accessible only by those with experienced navigational skills. Evans Notch has at least 2 easy hikes within the new Wild River Wilderness that in the past were often used by AMC Cold River Camp as easy family hikes: Moriah Gorge, and Basin Rim from the Wild River side.