Poll: Blaze Removal in Wilderness

[psmart]

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)

Mmm. Quite right - couldn't find it in Appendix E either. I'll have to look further...

However, the "Framework for WMNF Wilderness management" dated 11/17/88 and included in the subsequent management plan for each Wilderness area, reads in part:

-Blazes will not be routinely used. They should provide for user safety not user convenience. More blazes may be necessary for winter use.
-Only paint blazes will be used in Wilderness. No axe blazes will be used.
-Excess blazes will be obliterated.

I don't know if this has been ammended in the current plan, but I'll see what I can find out....

 

[forestgnome]

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.

I think you missed my point. I understand that there is no effort to eliminate trails.

Your point has not been proven at all; blazes have not at all been proven to effect the human experience on the trail, because the trail is already an obvious sign of HOM. It may be the opinion of a small minority, but it has not at all been proven in any way.

Your assumption that those who favor blazing also want "developed recreation" is baseless. Many here have stated that the blazes are acceptable without supporting huts, platforms, bridges, new trails, etc. So, I don't know what you mean by "developed recreation". My recreation involves finding and enjoying places where only creatures reside. But the trail is a human construct. A little blaze within the trail can't possibly make any difference.

I know of some moose trails that are obvious trails. They happen due to the lay of the land and local flora. They actually have erosion and bare roots! Now, that is a trail that would be changed by the addition of blazes. But a human trail? Come on...

 

[psmart]

Your point has not been proven at all; blazes have not at all been proven to effect the human experience on the trail, because the trail is already an obvious sign of HOM.

When 50% of the folks say "Hey, we need the blazes, keep them there", it's pretty clear that they're aware of the blazes, and that they're looking for that man-made assurance that they're still on the trail. Therefore the blazes are effecting their Wilderness experience. I understand they may want that assurance, but that's a separate issue. I'm just making the point that those little splotches of paint do affect the human experience. And if the absense of blazing makes some folks a little less secure, hasn't it had the intened effect of providing a wilder experience? Of pushing folks - just a little - to be more self reliant, rather than blindly following a trail of breadcrumbs through the forrest?

Your assumption that those who favor blazing also want "developed recreation" is baseless. Many here have stated that the blazes are acceptable without supporting huts, platforms, bridges, new trails, etc

I'm not saying that those who want blazes are asking for anything more. I'm just commenting that blazing is a form of "development": Modification of the environment for human use. Sure, the trail and signs are also forms of development, but I feel they can generally be justified/rationalized in the interests of resource protection. The goal in Wilderness is to keep those developments to an absoulute minimum, while not loosing sight of safety issues and traditional uses.

PS: You may be amused to know that I personally blazed many of the WODC trails 10 years ago (and we did a dammed fine job, too!) And it's taken a long time for me to come around to "letting the blazes fade". It's not easy to let go of the tradition, or the comfort factor, but I've come to belive that we have enough safe, marked paths to follow in this world, and that we really need are a few more places that will let us explore just a bit beyond our comfort level.

 

[HH1]

More Food For Thought

In response to a blaze removal question I sent to the WMNF, here's the heart of the reply I received from the WMNF's Recreation Program Manager, Marianne Leberman, that sheds additional light on the subject:

The Wilderness Act calls for “outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The challenge for us is
to provide recreational opportunities while keeping Wilderness “without
permanent improvement or human habitation, an area…where man himself is
a visitor who does not remain”.

Trail systems are managed for the purposes of recreation and wilderness
protection. Most of the trails on the White Mountain National Forest
predate the Wilderness designation. Although the trails already
existed, those in the Wildernesses are maintained at a lower level of
development to keep with the Wilderness character (Our Forest Service
Handbook has five different levels of maintenance standards. Wilderness
trails are managed at level 1 & 2). For many, signs and blazes detract
from the Wilderness character and make the imprint of man and management
more noticeable. One of the standards in our Forest Plan states
“Cairns, limited scree walls, blazing and directional arrow signs must
be used only when the summer trail tread in not easily discernible, for
resource protection, or to mitigate an unusual or extraordinary public
safety hazard. Cairns and limited scree walls should be used in
preference to blazing.” Under the Forest Plan a standard is something
we must follow, so in keeping with the standard if the summer tread is
discernible and there are no resource or safety concerns we do not want
to have blazes. In the case of the Wild River Wilderness, these trails
were managed to a different standard prior to its designation. Now that
it is Wilderness we will remove blazes if they are not necessary for any
of the above reasons. Field staff do not go out with the single
objective of removing blazes but rather incorporate the task with the
wide variety of duties for which they are responsible on a day-to-day
basis (contacting visitors, replacing signs, maintaining
trails/campsites, etc).

Probably the biggest challenge we all face is how to keep the “wildness”
in Wilderness and still make it available for the public to visit and
enjoy. The demands on the Wilderness resource will intensify over time.
There will be requests for uses of Wilderness that cannot even be
envisioned now, but they will come. When we as managers decide what to
approve and what to deny, we must keep foremost the protection of the
Wilderness resource itself. The Wilderness resource is fragile and can
be lost through the erosion of seemingly inconsequential decisions. It
may seem a small thing to have blazes on a trail but by doing this we
diminish the challenge for those wanting the primitive recreation
experience.

If you would like more information on how we manage wilderness here on
the WMNF you can look at our Land and Resource Management Plan
(Wilderness is management area 5.1) and also look at our Wilderness
Management Plan (Appendix E in the Forest Plan). These can be found at
our website under “Quick Picks”, 2005 Forest Plan. Another great
website to visit is www.wilderness.net, you can get more information
about Wilderness than you probably ever thought you’d want.

 

[Tim Seaver]

"It may seem a small thing to have blazes on a trail but by doing this we
diminish the challenge for those wanting the primitive recreation
experience."

That is such a crock. Anyone who wants a "primitive recreation(al) experience" just has to grab a map and head into the woods, they certainly don't need a "wilderness trail". Removing blazes doesn't protect a damn thing except the egos of people who are too fearful to have a REAL wilderness experience, without ANY trail. All the hand wringing about "resource protection" rings pretty hollow, IMHO.

On the upside, at least when a good maze of herd paths gets established, the folks from the ADK will feel right at home.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The challenge for us is
to provide recreational opportunities while keeping Wilderness “without
permanent improvement or human habitation, an area…where man himself is
a visitor who does not remain”

“Cairns, limited scree walls, blazing and directional arrow signs must
be used only when the summer trail tread in not easily discernible, for
resource protection, or to mitigate an unusual or extraordinary public
safety hazard.

I read this as "When the going gets rough (aka primitive), help the tough out with cairns, scree walls, blazing and directional arrow signs".

Seems, well, kind of, um, bass ackwards? Or contradictory?

One positive thing I took away from the note was that they aren't paying folks specifically to remove blazes.

Tim

 

[arghman]

Anyone who wants a "primitive recreation(al) experience" just has to grab a map and head into the woods, they certainly don't need a "wilderness trail". Removing blazes doesn't protect a damn thing except the egos of people who are too fearful to have a REAL wilderness experience, without ANY trail. All the hand wringing about "resource protection" rings pretty hollow, IMHO.

I would tend to agree (I find more opportunities for solitude bushwhacking within some 200-500 acre parcels in southern NH than I do on the more commonly-used Wilderness trails in the Whites)... but please let's keep this civil. The last thing that helps people understand each other's point of view is to get angry with each other.

 

[jjmcgo]

Blowing smoke

I love this piece of gibberish:
"The Wilderness resource is fragile and can
be lost through the erosion of seemingly inconsequential decisions."

So, a lumbering area, complete with sawmills and railroads, restored itself in less than a century into land that could qualify as wilderness, yet, it's fragile?
Please!

"erosion of seemingly inconsequential decisions" is marketing jargon I wish I dreamed up.

 

[Mark Driscoll]

Pete,

First of all I should state that I do all of my hiking in New York. You make a number of good points and I know you have stated that you favor letting the blazes fade, but if this is how the FS is removing blazes (http://www.vftt.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1203) I would think the “Friends of Sandwich Range & Wild River” and other groups that wanted limited development (limited human input) would be very upset. These debarked areas standout much more than letting the blazes fade. If this is acceptable to the FS and the groups that wanted the blazes removed than we should replace the blazes with bark scraping.

Pete, this is not an attack on you or the “Friends of Sandwich Range & Wild River” you do a great service for the community. I just feel that some people get blinders on and do not see the consequences of their actions (see photo). Thank you for all your hard work.

Mark

 

[psmart]

These debarked areas standout much more than letting the blazes fade.

Agreed. Very badly done, and we should all complain to the FS about it. I've never seen blazes removed in this manner before. Usually it is done with light brushing and/or scraping, and if necessary, some paint matched to the tree bark. When done properly, it is very hard to detect.

 

[RoySwkr]

One positive thing I took away from the note was that they aren't paying folks specifically to remove blazes.

First off, I didn't see that in the note, and secondly apparently they are if you read about some of the scratched-off blazes.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

One never knows the real reason for anything, but comparing a detailed map of the trails in the Great Gulf from 1960 with 2007 will show a lot of trails being moved around with less total mileage. The most obvious missing trail is Adams Slide which was probably not totally because of Wilderness but that might have been the final kicker. The one that annoys me the most is that there used to be parallel trails across the brook in the middle section and they closed the one that was better walking.

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,

As you know perfectly well, Wilderness is designated by Congress, who are more interested in what voters/contributors want than by any rational management. (Part of the original boundary of the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness was apparently an arbitrary line drawn on a map and last I heard the FS hadn't yet figured out how to mark it.) The Forest Plan is drafted with input from interest groups with the knowledge that Congress will ignore any part of the plan that isn't politically feasible.

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.

Do you know if there is a breakdown of trail mileage by Management Area classification? The reason I ask is that if Wilderness is to mean poorly-marked trails with no facilities for use by experienced hikers only, I believe there is less demand for this type of area than for non-motorized semi-primitive recreation and I'd be interested in seeing how the mileage compares.

In contrast, 40% of the WMNF is allocated for timber management.

\
That is probably outdated wishful thinking. With the moratorium on new road building (which also bans reopening old roads) much of that land is unavailable for harvest. At one time much of the timber strategy of the WMNF was based on high-quality sawtimber on a long rotation, but if the FS can't reopen fallow roads and the public doesn't want large trees cut this land won't be part of the timber base. In fact, it probably makes more sense to turn these nearly-untouched lands into Wilderness instead of lands with high recreation pressure.

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... And that's why the US population continues to support new Wilderness designations.

I thought about splitting this out into a separate note but really it's part of the same question as to whether Wilderness trails should be blazed. In Vermont, several of the original and proposed Wilderness areas were areas with no hiking trails or facilities. The Long Trail was deliberately excluded from Wilderness because it was deemed more important to retain the historic long-distance hiking trail than to add Wilderness. Substantial sections of the Long Trail are now in Wilderness with the understanding that the blazes will remain if fewer and shelters will be rebuilt as necessary - the GMNF plans to rebuild one lost to arson. By contrast, the WMNF takes all its Wilderness from the hiking base and now plans to drastically reduce the level of maintenance.

Many "Wilderness" supporters give no thought to what it actually means because they never expect to visit it. Others who never expect to visit would be happy to have no trails and turn it all back to animals. And some people may like fainter trails (roughly half according to this poll). But to me it makes very little sense to destroy a well-maintained trail system just to add acres of Wilderness when those acres could instead come from areas that didn't have trails to begin with.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

I agree, his having to be a real live trail maintainer under these rules adds a lot of credibility to me. (When I chose a trail to adopt, I deliberately chose one out of Wilderness - it may be more physical work but it would be too much mental stress to figure out how to do a less-good job.) Thanks for your comments and your trail work, PS.

Anybody here read the series of essays on Wilderness philosophy by Phil Levin in Appalachia a while back? One of his goals was a "concentric" Wilderness in which you shouldn't just step into Wilderness but should progress into gradually wilder terrain. I think it's this aspect of Wilderness that some of the Sandwich Range extensions fail.

 

[psmart]

Do you know if there is a breakdown of trail mileage by Management Area classification? The reason I ask is that if Wilderness is to mean poorly-marked trails with no facilities for use by experienced hikers only, I believe there is less demand for this type of area than for non-motorized semi-primitive recreation and I'd be interested in seeing how the mileage compares.

Of the 1400 miles of hiking trails in the WMNF, I would guess that about 150 miles are in Wilderness, so it's somewhat less than the 18% Wilderness acreage figure. (I would need to do some research to get an accurate number.)

At one time much of the timber strategy of the WMNF was based on high-quality sawtimber on a long rotation, but if the FS can't reopen fallow roads and the public doesn't want large trees cut this land won't be part of the timber base. In fact, it probably makes more sense to turn these nearly-untouched lands into Wilderness instead of lands with high recreation pressure.

Because of objections to the construction of permanent roads, the USFS is doing more logging with temporary skid roads and over frozen ground. There is also new logging equipment that can operate on soft ground in confined quarters, so I don't see the reduction of new roads having any real effect on the timber harvest. As for large trees, there are plenty of "legacy trees" that are likely to be harvested in the upcoming "Kanc-7" project. Stay tuned...

But to me it makes very little sense to destroy a well-maintained trail system just to add acres of Wilderness when those acres could instead come from areas that didn't have trails to begin with.

The removal of blazes on a few trails may change their character, but I don't see how it will "destroy a well-maintained trail system."

 

[RoySwkr]

>Of the 1400 miles of hiking trails in the WMNF, I would guess that
>about 150 miles are in Wilderness, so it's somewhat less than the 18%
>Wilderness acreage figure. (I would need to do some research to get
>an accurate number.)

I was hoping you knew where to find a more detailed breakdown, just W/nW
might be easy enough to figure but it would be tougher to break out the
other classifications. I would have said fewer total miles/more in
Wilderness.

>I don't see the reduction of new roads
>having any real effect on the timber harvest.

Let me give you an example. The Mill Brook drainage in Thornton has a
mostly second home development lower down and mature forest in the WMNF
higher up. Unlike say Waterville Valley or Wonalancet these people don't
have or want a trail system and they don't want it to be logged either.
The town has voted not to allow log trucks on Mill Brook Road and while I
believe this to be illegal the Forest Service will not contest it. They
proposed to rebuild/improve a road connection to Tripoli Road instead
which has been put on hold by the roadbuilding rule. Realistically you
can't skid logs from there to Triploi Road, log with blimps, etc. the
value just isn't there and with the leftists not wanting logging period
and the rightists not wanting below-cost timber sales this area may never
be cut. Making this a trailless Wilderness would be ideal as there would
be little traffic up the valley and the area will start of less disturbed
than most current Wilderness.

> As for large trees,
>there are plenty of "legacy trees" that are likely to be harvested in
>the upcoming "Kanc-7" project. Stay tuned...

It is interesting to climb a peak and see all the clearcuts on the back
side of ridges so they can't be seen from roads. I'm just unhappy that
some groups feel that the only way to stop logging is to create
Wilderness which makes the land unsuitable for other purposes.

>The removal of blazes on a few trails may change their character, but
>I don't see how it will "destroy a well-maintained trail system."

It's the "weakest link" theory. For example right now the 30-mile Pemi
Loop is a favorite of conditioned trail runners because it can be done
with one car with a bailout halfway. Only a quarter of the loop is
Wilderness but most of the bailout is. If the trail in Wilderness becomes
so hard to find that it slows the runners down or if it becomes so
overgrown that it is unpleasant to travel in shorts, that makes the whole
trip less desirable. I used to hike the White Mountains when most trails
were marked with axe blazes and users would add survey flagging in
obscure spots. I can see this happening again as the trails get harder to
find.

 

[psmart]

right now the 30-mile Pemi Loop is a favorite of conditioned trail runners because it can be done with one car with a bailout halfway. Only a quarter of the loop is Wilderness but most of the bailout is. If the trail in Wilderness becomes so hard to find that it slows the runners down or if it becomes so overgrown that it is unpleasant to travel in shorts, that makes the whole trip less desirable.

If the Wilderness designation and associated trail standards has that effect, then it seems to be working as intended. Runners will just have to slow down and and enjoy the forest at a more moderate pace, like the rest of us.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

If the Wilderness designation and associated trail standards has that effect, then it seems to be working as intended. .

IT always comes back to the question.

"Do you want wilderness, or do you want an 'extreme' playground."

The answer to that question is what draws sides.

 

[arghman]

IT always comes back to the question.

"Do you want wilderness, or do you want an 'extreme' playground."

The answer to that question is what draws sides.

sigh, I just don't understand why it's an either/or question. (e.g. "Do you want wilderness, or do you want logging?" or "Do you want wilderness, or do you want gravel/coal/etc. mining?") Framing it in that regard, either explicitly (which fortunately few groups seem to do) or by implication, is just unfair.

(Pete H: not sure whether you're making an opinionated statement or just pointing out a source of friction)

 

[jjmcgo]

It really is about some people making more people behave the way they want them to.
There's a lot of that in America today.

 

[Tim Seaver]

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.

The effect of blazes on a user's "wilderness experience" are decidedly minor compared to the ease of access that a footway constructed with hundreds of man-hours of labor provides. Merely using developed trails, blazed or not, is where the "assurance" lies. So once again, if you want a authentic wilderness experience, without the assurance of a man-made footbed to keep you safe, get off the trail, where none of those nasty blazes will ruin your "wilderness" experience.

I just don't understand why it's an either/or question. (e.g. "Do you want wilderness, or do you want logging?" or "Do you want wilderness, or do you want gravel/coal/etc. mining?") Framing it in that regard, either explicitly (which fortunately few groups seem to do) or by implication, is just unfair.

Yes, that is quite annoying. The two tactics seem to be to either to characterize ( pro-blaze) people as some kind of babe-in-the-woods who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, or create a false association with huts, paving the trail, etc.