The status of blazing?

[ImYourHuckleberry]

I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?

 

[Barkingcat]

I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?

A New Hampshire Fish and Game officer I spoke with several years ago said that small reflective blazes on some trails are very helpful for route-finding -- and possible hiker rescue -- in the dark.

 

[ImYourHuckleberry]

A New Hampshire Fish and Game officer I spoke with several years ago said that small reflective blazes on some trails are very helpful for route-finding -- and possible hiker rescue -- in the dark.

Yeah I have no doubt it's helpful. Paving the trail would also be helpful.

 

[DayTrip]

I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?

I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.

 

[sierra]

Yeah I have no doubt it's helpful. Paving the trail would also be helpful.

I see the point you are trying to make and that could be a healthy (or not) debate on its own as to whether we should mark trails at all. Personally, I think if you're going to cut a trail through the woods with the intent on it being used for travel, you need to maintain it and mark it for effective travel or why bother at all? If someone is coming off a high peak in the winter and they got caught on a long day, a blaze or two could make the difference between getting out or not. Not to mention that if you want to navigate without trails or well-marked trails, there is 800,000 acres out there for you to bushwhack through to your hearts content. I have been hiking for over 45 years, my route-finding skills are not good, they are fantastic. That doesn't mean I want to stop once an hour to pull out my map and check to see where I am going on a winter trail, in the summer, most trails are easy to follow, although at junctions, river crossings, natural obstacles, blazes can really keep you on track and keep you moving making for a more enjoyable hike, imo. With the influx of hikers everywhere and the growing of the sport in general, it makes sense to keep trails followable, I'm sure SAR would probably sign off on that concept. Just my opinion of course.

 

[helmethiker]

Actually the main rain forest "trails" in Puerto Rico (I forget the name of the park) are paved. I asked a ranger there and he said that there was enough foot traffic that paving was the only way it could maintained properly.

I have spent most of the last 2 summers hiking the Maine 4000 foot peaks and some of the Adirondacks 4000 foot peaks, and not a lot in the White Mountains. I do not recall whether I saw blazes in the White Mountains when I did a lot of hiking there 2.5 and 3.5 years ago, when I was hiking the remaining 4000 foot peaks that I had not done in the 1970s.

But on the Signal Ridge trail to Carrigain I followed an old section, not the new rerouted section, because the reroute followed the Carrigain Notch trail at an old junction, turning left a few hundred feet later instead of going straight, and my old map did not have the reroute and there were no blazes or signs, just a tree that looked like possible unmaintained blowdown. And in the Adirondacks on the Blueberry trail (as named by openStreetMaps; ADK labels this as Ward Brook Truck Road) going west from the Calkins Brook Truck Road to the Coreys/Ampersand Road parking lot, you get to a rock about 8 feet tall and an obvious path goes straight, but the trail goes left with no marking at all. I went straight on 2 successive days, the first day walking onward to the trail again which involved a 50 foot bushwhack at the end and the second time my alltrails told me I was off route and I found the error and placed a large-looking but lightweight branch across the wrong many-footprinted path. And wrote the DEC a few days later. If you want to have people follow the new trail and not the old trail, make the new trail more obvious than the old. Trees that might be mistaken for blowdown might not be sufficient. This is also true for junctions with old woods roads or old unmaintained trails to somewhere else or cross country ski trails. You put all that effort into making the trail, why not make it more obvious than the previous?

Like Sierra, my route-finding skills are not good. Unlike Sierra, they are only fair. Fortunately they have been adequate every time to get me out of the woods that I get into. I have had to leave out a destination because I made a route-finding error and took too much time recovering. But going back to Abraham in Maine on a glorious sunny day a few weeks later using Fire Wardens was my only day ever (with the exception of sunset hikes to Ascutney and Okemo observation/fire towers after car hillclimb days, but those were not day hikes) in the mountains where I saw nobody on the trail or peak or parking lot at all.

 

[John H Swanson]

I see the point you are trying to make and that could be a healthy (or not) debate on its own as to whether we should mark trails at all. Personally, I think if you're going to cut a trail through the woods with the intent on it being used for travel, you need to maintain it and mark it for effective travel or why bother at all? If someone is coming off a high peak in the winter and they got caught on a long day, a blaze or two could make the difference between getting out or not. Not to mention that if you want to navigate without trails or well-marked trails, there is 800,000 acres out there for you to bushwhack through to your hearts content. I have been hiking for over 45 years, my route-finding skills are not good, they are fantastic. That doesn't mean I want to stop once an hour to pull out my map and check to see where I am going on a winter trail, in the summer, most trails are easy to follow, although at junctions, river crossings, natural obstacles, blazes can really keep you on track and keep you moving making for a more enjoyable hike, imo. With the influx of hikers everywhere and the growing of the sport in general, it makes sense to keep trails followable, I'm sure SAR would probably sign off on that concept. Just my opinion of course.

I think one point mentioned here that I agree on is that the trails are not there for just the experienced people. For some of us, we don't need no stinking blazes, but that's not the case for all.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

It is fair to say this: if you are going to open and maintain trails at all, then keeping them marked so the inexperienced can follow them is as much a part of your job as raking drains clean of leaves at least once a year, after snowmelt (we try for twice a year including in November, but that is another thread entirely).

However, in the 1990s I had a job that had enough annual leave that I took 3 weeks in May for hillwalking in Scotland. As one man told me in the public bar of the Clachaig Inn, treeline is at sea level in the Highlands save for forestry plantations. There are still very few waymarked ways in the country, but there are Roman roads, drove paths, medieval tracks, military roads, statute roads, stalkers' paths, and thousands of miles of hill tracks of no such definite origins. Since 1845, the Scottish Rights of Way Society has got on with publicizing, signposting, and at times suing for landowner and Government acknowledgement of the public nature of these routes. The devolved Scottish Parliament of 1999 did in 2006 pass the Right to Roam law, recognizing public access rights in statute. We hillwalkers still ought to follow the Countryside Code so as to avoid conflict with people who live and work there.

Hillwalking is therefore much like hiking in the American West, but at lower elevations and in a land of excellent pubs and dozens of distilleries making the world's best drams. We are largely on our own, and our land navigation and related skills have to be up to the test.
Using Ordnance Survey maps, giving a grid reference, using a compass especially in mist, ferocious weather like in our mountains,
these factors and others separate hillwalkers from tourists. We embrace such challenges, and learn. Remember the 6 P's: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Mostly on routes without blazes.

In our region we have the 100 Highest. There they have 277 Munros +3000', 221 Corbetts +2500', etc. Many climbs start at sea level.
We pay attention, turn back when needed, and live to enjoy the freedom of the hills.

 

[Lone Stranger]

...

Remember the 6 P's: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Mostly on routes without blazes.

...

Is the lack of a sixth P an ominous warning about not planning enough? Missing and presumed dead?

 

[ImYourHuckleberry]

I think one point mentioned here that I agree on is that the trails are not there for just the experienced people. For some of us, we don't need no stinking blazes, but that's not the case for all.

This is probably the point I disagree with the most. I don't think the trails need to be maintained for the least common denominator. Inexperienced people will gain experience by being tested. I also reject the premise that I should just bushwhack. I find this this argument akin to rock climbing arguments about fixed pro. I like my routes with a minimal amount of fixed pro, but I have no interest in always soloing. And speaking of technical climbing, I believe that many of the climbers in the S&R community (which also provide hiker rescue) have argued against and chopped excessive bolts in New Hampshire. I'm guessing these same people would not agree with excessive trail markings and reflective blazes, so I don't think the way it's been presented in this thread (i.e. - S&R obvious prefer more trail markings) is necessarily true.

I don't think I can add much more without just being repetitive, so I'll just say that I appreciate the differing and various views, and hope that views more akin to mine win out over time -- although it doesn't seem likely.

 

[skiguy]

I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.

That is an excellent point about spacing and junking things up. Also when things hit the fan and one finds themselves in need of help it assists the very worthy Professional and Volunteer Rescuers finding your arse.

 

[skiguy]

This is probably the point I disagree with the most. I don't think the trails need to be maintained for the least common denominator. Inexperienced people will gain experience by being tested. I also reject the premise that I should just bushwhack. I find this this argument akin to rock climbing arguments about fixed pro. I like my routes with a minimal amount of fixed pro, but I have no interest in always soloing. And speaking of technical climbing, I believe that many of the climbers in the S&R community (which also provide hiker rescue) have argued against and chopped excessive bolts in New Hampshire. I'm guessing these same people would not agree with excessive trail markings and reflective blazes, so I don't think the way it's been presented in this thread (i.e. - S&R obvious prefer more trail markings) is necessarily true.

I don't think I can add much more without just being repetitive, so I'll just say that I appreciate the differing and various views, and hope that views more akin to mine win out over time -- although it doesn't seem likely.

I disagree. Comparing Blazing to Bolting is a poor analogy and grasping at straws to make your point. Your are maybe in the same Circus but in a different ring.

 

[maineguy]

I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.

Many years ago I there was a story in PEEKS, the magazine of the 46ers, about a family that was doing a winter hike in the Dix Range. They were descending the Lillian Brook herd path and were planning on intercepting the main trail out to the parking lot at Elk Lake. It was late and they pretty much lost the herd path as darkness descended. They had a couple of kids with them as I recall. They were really getting worried when they suddenly spotted a reflective marker on the red trail back to the parking lot.

 

[TCD]

Whether you are talking about hiking or climbing (or skiing, for that matter), the important thing for land managers is to understand the REAL user population. Not some fantasy population imagined in a unit management plan, or some fantasy based on a government designation of what the "land classification" might be. Or some fantasy that you can somehow "change" the user population into something different from reality.

If you understand who the actual users are, then you can manage the resource (how to blaze the trails, for example) appropriately, based on reality. If you are working based on fantasy, you will end up fighting with purists about "too many blazes" or on the other hand whining about how much more money you need for SAR.

 

[helmethiker]

In August 2022 I saw people in principle blazing either the Kilkenny Ridge Trail or the Unknown Pond Trail near Unknown Pond. They were actually talking to another hiker. So another datapoint saying that blazing does happen in the whites.

 

[JoshandBaron]

There is a trail in the southern Whites that had been neglected and then over blazed a few years back. I was happy to see many of the blazes had been removed not long after. I shouldn't see 8 blazes from a single spot. On a trip to NMW a couple weeks ago we went to see the Ghost Trains. The short access trail has a sloppy blaze on seemingly every tree despite most of it being puncheons.

 

[John H Swanson]

One point not mentioned is the how adequate blazing minimizes environmental impact. During covid, there was a huge influx of traffic on the hiking trails. Many of these people couldn't follow an unmarked treadway. So they wandered off the trail. Sometimes intentionally because the rocky trail was too difficult compared to the smooth terrain adjacent to the trail. Other times because they couldn't tell where the trail went. Blazing can help eliminate one of these causes.

 

[John H Swanson]

Whether you are talking about hiking or climbing (or skiing, for that matter), the important thing for land managers is to understand the REAL user population. Not some fantasy population imagined in a unit management plan, or some fantasy based on a government designation of what the "land classification" might be. Or some fantasy that you can somehow "change" the user population into something different from reality.

If you understand who the actual users are, then you can manage the resource (how to blaze the trails, for example) appropriately, based on reality. If you are working based on fantasy, you will end up fighting with purists about "too many blazes" or on the other hand whining about how much more money you need for SAR.

Oooo Spot on. And further to this point, when discussing blaze frequency with a fellow (more experienced) blaze installer, he told be that he blazes his trails differently by location. Meaning there is a demographic that will only go 1/2 to 1 mile from the road. These people often need better visible blazing. So he blazes more frequently close to the road and less so further out. Similarly with those easy trails and the more challenging ones.

 

[NH2112]

7 years ago on Oct 22 a friend and I hiked the Tripyramids, going up Pine Bend and down Sabbaday Brook. Half the descent was done in the dark, and the blazing was just horrible. Once we rounded The Fool Killer it got so bad, with no blazes or cairns visible at any of the brook crossings, that we just bushwhacked back to the Kanc, going in a generally northerly direction and keeping close enough to the brook to hear it. When trails in more open hardwood forests get covered ankle deep with newly-fallen leaves, following the trail itself is a lot harder. Blazes should be visible from each other in both directions, at a consistent height if on trees, and in colors and shapes not seen in nature. An irregular splash of white paint on a tree can be hard to distinguish from lichen by headlamp.

 

[JoshandBaron]

7 years ago on Oct 22 a friend and I hiked the Tripyramids, going up Pine Bend and down Sabbaday Brook. Half the descent was done in the dark, and the blazing was just horrible. Once we rounded The Fool Killer it got so bad, with no blazes or cairns visible at any of the brook crossings, that we just bushwhacked back to the Kanc, going in a generally northerly direction and keeping close enough to the brook to hear it. When trails in more open hardwood forests get covered ankle deep with newly-fallen leaves, following the trail itself is a lot harder. Blazes should be visible from each other in both directions, at a consistent height if on trees, and in colors and shapes not seen in nature. An irregular splash of white paint on a tree can be hard to distinguish from lichen by headlamp.

Most of that route is in designated Wilderness.