Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[jjmcgo]

But won't those trails disappear in about 10 years due to lack of maintenance, along with the Black Angel Trail and other important trails?

 

[psmart]

But won't those trails disappear in about 10 years due to lack of maintenance, along with the Black Angel Trail and other important trails?

I should really let this thread die, but this misunderstanding keeps coming up....

Trails in Wilderness ARE maintained, it's just that the focus shifts a bit from hiker convenience (such as blazing) to resource protection (such as water bars and erosion control). Unless they are officially closed, all Wilderness trails will continue to be maintained. For example, most of the WODC's trail budget goes towards maintaining Wilderness trails.

However, you can expect to encounter a more "primitive" trail in Wilderness areas: Rather than clearing all the blowdowns with a chain saw, larger trees that you can easily step over may be left in place. (If the tree is larger, causing herd paths and trail widening, it should be removed.) You can also expect the corridor and treadway to be a bit narrower - Wide enough for easy passage, but no more. Of course, this will vary depending on the level of use that a trail gets.

Sure, Wilderness trails are a compromise. Their continued existence is an acknowledgement of the historic use of these areas, and the fact that herd paths and bootleg trails would be rampant if any attempt were made to close popular trails. This all goes back to the Eastern Wilderness act of 1975, which was enacted for the specific purpose of establishing Wilderness areas in parts of the country that didn't have any untouched areas left. Without this act, every acre of the WMNF could be targeted for resource extraction or development of some kind. These are the only areas that stand any chance of being the same in 100 years.

 

[arghman]

These are the only areas that stand any chance of being the same in 100 years.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Without this act, every acre of the WMNF could be targeted for resource extraction or development of some kind.

That's true, but incredibly unlikely. I suppose the Alpine Garden could be mined for gravel to be sold to the Auto Road; it's only in a Research Natural Area and not in a designated Wilderness area.

I agree with the rest of your statement. BTW, WODC does a great job & I was impressed by the quality of the Wilderness trails around Whiteface & Passaconaway; the signage is present but minimal, and in contrast w/ the Pemi area when I went to Owls Head where on the maintained trails it looked like USFS wanted there to be no signs or blazes at all.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Without this act, every acre of the WMNF could be targeted for resource extraction or development of some kind.

Given this statement, what protection, if any, does the designation "National Forrest" give the land? Sounds like none. I know Waterville Valley has expanded in recent years, developing over some really nice XC trails .

Tim

 

[psmart]

Given this statement, what protection, if any, does the designation "National Forrest" give the land? Sounds like none. I know Waterville Valley has expanded in recent years, developing over some really nice XC trails .

Tim

Excellent point. The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act basically manadates that national forests be "used". This means that many forms of "development" are possible, including more logging, huts, hiking trails, snowmobile trails, ATV trails, groomed ski trails, ski areas, bicycle trails, wider roads, cell towers, rest areas, toilets, nature trails, etc. These pressures become apparent when you sit though an 8-year planning process. There are LOTS of businesses, organizations, and individuals who want something from National Forest Lands. For the most part, I think the USFS did a creditable job of resisting these pressures and coming up with a final Plan that tends to preserve the traditional values and uses of the WMNF. However, the pressures will continue to mount, and it will be increasingly difficult to maintain the Forest that we currently enjoy. Things will continue to change, if only because of the increasing number of people who want to recreate in the WMNF. And Wilderness designation is the only long-term tool we have to ensure that some areas will remain the same.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Things will continue to change, if only because of the increasing number of people who want to recreate in the WMNF. And Wilderness designation is the only long-term tool we have to ensure that some areas will remain the same.

There are two issues here - Wilderness Protection and Blaze Removal.
I think most people want Wilderness areas to be off-limits to resource extraction, but suddenly ( and yes, it has been sudden in some areas) removing blazes does absolutely nothing to add to that protection, and may indeed have the opposite effect. The point that more than a few people are attempting to make is that you won't have to officially close trails to spur the creation of herd paths, the removal of blazes will be all that it takes. So if we want things to "stay the same" ( i.e. no herd paths), perhaps active removal of blazes is not in the best interest of Wilderness protection.

 

[psmart]

So if we want things to "stay the same" ( i.e. no herd paths), perhaps active removal of blazes is not in the best interest of Wilderness protection.

Sudden changes certainly carry that risk, which is why I voted to "let them fade". And any removal certainly needs to be done with an eye towards any negative consequences, such as herd paths.

Frankly, the USFS should have conducted a public "scoping" on this project, rather than just announcing it. This would have revealed the strong views on this issue, which could have been accomodated in some manner. (Either by revising the project, by better public information, or both.)

 

[arghman]

And Wilderness designation is the only long-term tool we have to ensure that some areas will remain the same.

Maybe that fact / perception is the problem. (What about conservation easements?)

It seems to me that there's a strong need to decouple the prohibition-of-development-or-resource-extraction (PDRX) aspect of Wilderness from the aesthetic-related restrictions of Wilderness. Because I think you will find overwhelming support for PDRX (count me in on that one), but a lot of disagreement about aesthetics, and to some people, applying Wilderness in the Northeast to areas with pre-existing uses, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[TCD]

Right, arghman! There is often a strong need for decoupling lots of things in these discussions. It usually helps break down problems into separate pieces. Artifically linking things together, or worse, rolling lots of small problems into one big one, stymies progress. Good point!

 

[psmart]

It seems to me that there's a strong need to decouple the prohibition-of-development-or-resource-extraction (PDRX) aspect of Wilderness from the aesthetic-related restrictions of Wilderness. Because I think you will find overwhelming support for PDRX (count me in on that one), but a lot of disagreement about aesthetics, and to some people, applying Wilderness in the Northeast to areas with pre-existing uses, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The problem is that blazing IS a form of development. You may see it as very different from logging or ATV's, but I think it's the same issue and just a matter of where we draw the line. And the congressional goal of Wilderness is to minimize all development and human impact. The Act allows for "primitive recreation", but not the developed recreation that the "reblaze" voters seem to be looking for.

While some will see this as overly restrictive, the end product of Wilderness designation is that these areas will still be available for primitive recreation in 100 years, and not subject to the ongoing development pressure that afflicts other public lands. We need to look at the long term benefits, and not just our immediate wants and satisfaction.

PS: Conservation easements are great, but they often allow for continued logging, motorized use, etc., so they don't meet the same objectives that I think most of us are looking for.

 

[RoySwkr]

And Wilderness designation is the only long-term tool we have to ensure that some areas will remain the same.

Unfortunately there is some truth to this, the WMNF proposed skidding logs across the Appalachian Trail and using part of the corridor for a log yard where skidders meet trucks even though motorized use of the corridor is against guidelines. They wouldn't have dared to do this in designated Wilderness because of the huge Washington Wilderness lobby who may not care about the ground itself but would strongly oppose any desecration of the Wilderness concept.

Maybe that fact / perception is the problem....
It seems to me that there's a strong need to decouple the prohibition-of-development-or-resource-extraction (PDRX) aspect of Wilderness from the aesthetic-related restrictions of Wilderness.

Some areas such as Mt Chocorua, the Presidentials, and the Franconias are so over-run with hikers that the FS can't designate them as Wilderness although in effect they will never be logged either. I agree that much of the present Wilderness is more of a recreation area which should be optimized for hiking rather than wild creatures but should nevertheless be permanently protected from development.

My major objection to the Wilderness concept is not philosophical but political: Congress may make rules covering all Wilderness which may be inconsistent with local good management, anything from removing all trails to making all trails handicap-accessible so that everyone can visit Wilderness. There is also a problem that environmental groups often lie in the service of Wilderness. There is a long article in the current Appalachia about how the original Sandwich Range Wilderness boundary was a compromise between various user groups so the recent extensions are a renege on that agreement. Similarly, there was an agreement that the Pemi would become Wilderness while Wild River would remain open to snowmobiles which agreement has also been broken. Once the Wilderness system becomes too overextended it is inevitable that Wilderness boundaries will start being rolled back (just as some National Park boundaries has been shrunken). That would indicate that once a tipping point is reached, even designated Wilderness is not safe.

 

[forestgnome]

The Act allows for "primitive recreation", but not the developed recreation that the "reblaze" voters seem to be looking for

What an excellent thread!!!

Psmart, all of your informed input is appreciated, but I have to disagree with your assessment of the desires of those who favor blazing. I am probably not alone being in favor of blazes, but nothing else like new trails, huts, platforms, bridges, etc. And, I spend an aweful lot of time off-trail where it is most like wilderness. I enjoy the trails, and sometimes I hike them to get into the heart of a Wilderness area, then leave the trail. This a allows a good, long day-hike or over-nighter, far from any HOM sign, even trails.

I just think the blazes do way more good than harm to the wilderness.

Happy Trails

 

[Pig Pen]

8 pages on whether or not there are paint marks on trees in the woods.

I voted "This is a silly question" and I stand by my vote.

My only thought is this: The only purpose and the only effect of blazes is to facilitate human travel in the woods. So I have to ask; What is the goal of those who seek to remove these blazes?

 

[psmart]

Some areas such as Mt Chocorua, the Presidentials, and the Franconias are so over-run with hikers that the FS can't designate them as Wilderness although in effect they will never be logged either.

Absoulutely. High-use areas like Mt Chocorua are inherently unsuited for Wilderness designation, that's why there is a Mt. Chocorua Scenic Area, which focuses on recreation, complete with good blazing, shelters, and wide trails, and even a snowmobile trail to Liberty Cabin! That's also why the Wilderness boundaries avoid the huts and most of the AT.

Congress may make rules covering all Wilderness which may be inconsistent with local good management, anything from removing all trails to making all trails handicap-accessible so that everyone can visit Wilderness.

I'm not aware that Congress has done those things. The legislation provides a lot of flexibility to accomodate local issues. The final managment policies and decisions are up to the applicable managment agency, such as the USFS, and I'm not aware of any trails closures in the WMNF due to Wilderness designation.

...the original Sandwich Range Wilderness boundary was a compromise between various user groups so the recent extensions are a renege on that agreement. Similarly, there was an agreement that the Pemi would become Wilderness while Wild River would remain open to snowmobiles which agreement has also been broken.

I don't see any "agreement" having been broken. The new WMNF plan entailed a complete evaluation of the entire forest, and as a result, the USFS made many changes, including recreation, timber, and Wilderness recommendations. The same groups are still at the table today, and they expressed wide support for the new Wilderness designations. The realities and needs have changed in 22 years, and this is reflected in the new Forest Plan and Wilderness designations.

BTW: We should probably have moved this to a new thread. This is an important topic - and it's not just about blaze removal.

 

[psmart]

I enjoy the trails, and sometimes I hike them to get into the heart of a Wilderness area, then leave the trail. This allows a good, long day-hike or over-nighter, far from any HOM sign, even trails.

I just think the blazes do way more good than harm to the wilderness.

Happy Trails

No one (including me) has suggested the elimination of trails. And I realize that many folks want blazes. I appreciate that.

But the strength of the pro-blazing sentiment expressed in this thread really proves my point: That blazes DO effect the human experience in Wilderness, and are therefore at odds with the goal of providing "primitive" recreation. Folks that want the reassurance of blazes are free to use the more developed trails in non-Wilderness areas. But having some trails that are blaze-free enahnces the range of recreational opportunites that are available in the WMNF.

 

[arghman]

sorry if this is hairsplitting; I don't mean these posts as an argument, but rather to understand where the commonalities/differences are on the Wilderness issue. I wish there were some understanding about Wilderness on which areas there's strong agreement about & which areas there will never be agreement about -- then we (society, not just VFTT) should put those aside and concentrate our energy on discussing the gray areas in between.

The problem is that blazing IS a form of development. You may see it as very different from logging or ATV's, but I think it's the same issue and just a matter of where we draw the line.

I can agree with that (and that there is disagreement between different people about where the line is). Then trails & signage are also a form of development...

And the congressional goal of Wilderness is to minimize all development and human impact. The Act allows for "primitive recreation", but not the developed recreation that the "reblaze" voters seem to be looking for.

If by "congressional goal" you mean the Wilderness Act of 1964, sure, it does state fairly clearly its objectives. Whether or not reblazing is within the confines of "primitive recreation" would be determined by the administrative agency, hopefully with sufficient public input. I couldn't find it in the Forest Plan (I looked in Appendix E) so I guess it is a matter of unwritten policy. If there is somewhere where it's written down that blazes in Wilderness shall be removed, maybe someone could post a link/reference? (sorry if this is already somewhere in this thread)

While some will see this as overly restrictive, the end product of Wilderness designation is that these areas will still be available for primitive recreation in 100 years, and not subject to the ongoing development pressure that afflicts other public lands. We need to look at the long term benefits, and not just our immediate wants and satisfaction.

PS: Conservation easements are great, but they often allow for continued logging, motorized use, etc., so they don't meet the same objectives that I think most of us are looking for.

Conservation easements are tailored on a case-by-case basis. They are a recorded legal document, with an agency/organization other than the landowner acting as the easement enforcer. At the time the easement is created, if it is desired that a particular area have prohibitions on logging, motorized use, etc., then that will be written into the easement. If there is clear consensus on what specific restrictions are appropriate for a given area, then some sort of wording could be worked out for an appropriate easement. If there isn't clear consensus on specific restrictions, then (IMHO) Congressionally-designated Wilderness is inappropriate.

The terms "necessary" and "sufficient" seem to be relevant here... if Wilderness designation is being applied, because there is agreement that it is the only method that provides "sufficient" long-term protection, but there is disagreement that this level of protection is "necessary", then *why* is it the only method available? Why can't we all get together and come up with some different levels of protection that would be appropriate for the different areas in the forest? If there are completely wild areas of public land (no trails, no shelters, no roads) which there's agreement about keeping that way, let's apply the strongest Wilderness protection to those. But please don't apply the same level of protection to areas with pre-existing uses.

Anyway, I'd rather be outside hiking than sitting here on my computer so I'm taking a break from this discussion for a while...

 

[psmart]

Why can't we all get together and come up with some different levels of protection that would be appropriate for the different areas in the forest?

The rest of the WMNF (outside Wilderness) is managed according to a plan that is revised every 10-15 years. This includes designations such as timber management areas, scenic areas (like Mt. Chocorua) and many others. However, these are administrative decisions that are subject to chage with each Plan revision. They are not permanent, and are subject to change as hikers, loggers, mt bikers, snowmobilers, ATV riders, and others decide they want to expand their preferred activity in the WMNF. (They/we all make the same argument: It's a National Forest, and I want my share!)

But Wilderness designation is a congressional act, not subject to ongoing revision. Although it could be revised by act of congress, support for Wilderness has been remarkably steadfast for over 40 years, making it the most permanent form of protection we have for federal lands.

Conservation easements are certainly an option for private land, but I don't think they can (or have) been applied to public land. (BTW, most of the conservation easements in NH allow timber harvesting. Their main purpose is to preserve green space by preventing subdivision and home construction, while reducing the tax burden.)

Another approach that is applicable to federal lands is a National Park. Franky, I suspect this would offer the type of management that many VFTT members would prefer, with an emphasis on recreation and wildlife without timber harvesting. Of course, this has been proposed and went nowhere, because too many groups would lose their traditional share of the pie. So it will remain a National Forest, with the current set of management and planning tools.

 

[RoySwkr]

I'm not aware of any trails closures in the WMNF due to Wilderness designation.

A number of trails vanished in the Great Gulf when they got serious about "Wilderness" and removed the leantos. There is sort of a general guideline of 1 mi trail/sq mi or less which you can probably find somewhere.

The same groups are still at the table today, and they expressed wide support for the new Wilderness designations.

Sure, the environmental groups reneged on their previous deal, and the snowmobile/ATV groups didn't have the clout they used to and couldn't stop it.

Feel free to tell me that it is acceptable to welsh on past deals to save the environment, but don't try to tell me it wasn't done.

But Wilderness designation is a congressional act, not subject to ongoing revision. Although it could be revised by act of congress...

I asked in the previous Forest Plan update why there were Wilderness Study Areas but not Wilderness un-Study Areas and was told that wasn't a requirement. But as Wilderness becomes a plurality of National Forest land, sooner or later there will be pressure to re-study that designation due to as you say "realities and needs have changed in 22 years". THe more land that is casually designated Wilderness without good reason, the sooner that will happen.

 

[psmart]

A number of trails vanished in the Great Gulf when they got serious about "Wilderness" and removed the leantos. There is sort of a general guideline of 1 mi trail/sq mi or less which you can probably find somewhere.

Sure, the environmental groups reneged on their previous deal, and the snowmobile/ATV groups didn't have the clout they used to and couldn't stop it.

Feel free to tell me that it is acceptable to welsh on past deals to save the environment, but don't try to tell me it wasn't done.

I asked in the previous Forest Plan update why there were Wilderness Study Areas but not Wilderness un-Study Areas and was told that wasn't a requirement. But as Wilderness becomes a plurality of National Forest land, sooner or later there will be pressure to re-study that designation due to as you say "realities and needs have changed in 22 years". THe more land that is casually designated Wilderness without good reason, the sooner that will happen.

I really hate to draw this out, but we should at least have the facts straight:

1) There may have been a trail closed or discontinued in the Great Gulf for saftey or environmental reasons, but I don't believe it was strictly because of Wilderness. This happens in non-Wilderness areas as well. But Wilderness designation has not been a significant factor (if at all) in the closure of trails in the WMNF.

2) The forest plan is not a "deal" between interest groups. It is an administrative decision made by the USFS based on public input and other factors, and they have the authority to make changes, especially during the Plan revision process. And believe me, the snowmobile interests continue to be well represented and had a significant effect on the outcome. In fact, there might have been another Wilderness area if not for their continued involvement, so they still have plenty of clout.

3) Wilderness, a plurality of public land? No way. The 2006 Wilderness Act increased the amount of Wilderness in the WMNF to 18%, up from 15% since 1984. In contrast, 40% of the WMNF is allocated for timber management.

Of all the Federal Wilderness in the United States, less than 5% lies east of the Mississippi, and only 0.2% is in the Northeast, home to nearly a quarter of the US population. Doesn't sound like too much to me. And that's why the US population continues to support new Wilderness designations.

 

[albee]

I think we should all take the time to thank Pete Smart for making himself available and openly discussing this situation in these forums. Personally, I understand and appreciate that he sees things from a different perspective and I especially appreciate his willingness to share his knowledge about Wilderness Areas. It must be difficult to stay so focused and positive when the USFS's policies are being criticized from so many angles in this thread.

Thank you for sharing your opinions and perspective with us, Pete. I, for one, appreciate the work you do.