Trail blazing ... OK for me but not for you

[Puma concolor]

OK, I'm not looking to start an argument here, but sure wouldn't mind a good natured debate.

Basically, I just got done reading a story in 'Adirondack Peeks' by a former 46R president essentially decrying the unauthorized blazing of herd paths with orange survey tape. Nothing new on that front ... in fact this forum has featured similar discussions on the topic in the past.

What struck me about the story, however, was that within the same article was an in-depth explanation about when and why the 46Rs - as a club - blaze paths to summits in exactly the same way. To me, the whole thing just seemed wildly contradictory and as a longtime 46R, I was somewhat surprised to see that the Club sanctions such blazing in any shape or form.

How can 46Rs decry the use of orange blazing on one hand while doing it themselves? I thought 46Rs were supposed to be all about leading by example. I won't get into the specifics of the story, but it was one of the oddest articles I've seen in 10 years of reading 'Peeks."

Did anyone else have the same reaction?

 

[rhihn]

OK, I'm not looking to start an argument here, but sure wouldn't mind a good natured debate.

Basically, I just got done reading a story in 'Adirondack Peeks' by a former 46R president essentially decrying the unauthorized blazing of herd paths with orange survey tape. Nothing new on that front ... in fact this forum has featured similar discussions on the topic in the past.

What struck me about the story, however, was that within the same article was an in-depth explanation about when and why the 46Rs - as a club - blaze paths to summits in exactly the same way. To me, the whole thing just seemed wildly contradictory and as a longtime 46R, I was somewhat surprised to see that the Club sanctions such blazing in any shape or form.

How can 46Rs decry the use of orange blazing on one hand while doing it themselves? I thought 46Rs were supposed to be all about leading by example. I won't get into the specifics of the story, but it was one of the oddest articles I've seen in 10 years of reading 'Peeks."

Did anyone else have the same reaction?

I am new to the 46ers, and so I may not understand all facets of these arguments. Although I understand your point and agree with you about individual flagging, the article did include an explanation of the authorized use of flagging by the 46ers: "Trailmasters flag proposed reroutes, then must wait for DEC approval to cut wilderness paths. After approval and rerouting, trail crews will leave flagging for about a year until the path becomes obvious. The beginning and end of each new reroute is marked: '46er Trail Crew; Do Not Remove.'" I suppose one could argue the point about whether or not a "reroute" is appropriate, but it seems to me that the 46er's use of flagging for the purpose of establishing a new trail is legitimate and quite different from flagging done by an individual who is afraid of being lost in the woods.

 

[forestgnome]

I remove them whenever I find them in the WMNF, although I think they are left by hunters. I consider them trash.

 

[Sherpa John]

A Cairn or stick piles are much more appealing than ORANGE TAPE

 

[Pete_Hickey]

What struck me about the story, however, was that within the same article was an in-depth explanation about when and why the 46Rs - as a club - blaze paths to summits in exactly the same way. To me, the whole thing just seemed wildly contradictory and as a longtime 46R, I was somewhat surprised to see that the Club sanctions such blazing in any shape or form.

First of all, we don't blaze paths as you imply. We are agents of the states, and maintain paths on the "trailless" peaks.

When the state put together its unit management plan, which was done with public input, particular attention was paid to the trailless peaks. There were those who wanted these peaks to become trailed peaks, while others wanted them to remain trailless. With the amount of use they have, they will never be trailless.

There are several problems with the herd paths on these peaks. In many cases, there are multiple paths. It is best if there is a single path. In many cases, the herd path follows a very poor route (environmentally)

The state's Unit Management Plan called for doing minimal maintenence no the herd paths, so that there would be a single, satble path leading to the summit. The first one we did, was Tabletop. It was done first because it was easy and short, and would be easy to see the results. When we did it, our crew consisted of 46ers, ADK, and the DEC.

The next peak we tackled was Street & Nye. We did this at the DEC's urging, because of the numerous paths which regularly 'ate up' hikers. Indeed, Street & Nye were the peaks with the largest number of Search & rescus missions, and by changing the multiple paths to a single path, we almost eliminated them, as well as providing a more environmentally sound route to the summit.

I imagine, now that you are talking about the trail we laid out on Cliff and/or Macomb. In the case of Macomb, there was a section of the path which went through the stream. The DEC wanted us to move it out of the stream, onto solid stable ground. We laid out a route, then went in with the DEC for aproval, and will now be cutting that path, and removing the flagging.

In the case of Cliff, the existing herd path went through a half mile of mud, then climbed up steep cliffs, where hikers have been uprouting trees as they clmibed the cliffs. What used to be a narrow path, is now a 40 foot wide rock cliff, which widens each year. The DEC wanted us to find a more environmentally friendly route to the summit. We did this, flagged it, and will be heading in there this summer with a team from the DEC. If we obtain aproval, this will become the new route up cliff.

Now, if you equate that, with a single hiker flagging his/her route, I can't say much more. Since we are working as agents of the state (we are actually considered unpayed employees of the DEC when we do this work... at least that's what the lawyers tell us), you may also have the argument that the state does not have the right to make paths either. Again, if that's the way you feel, there is nothing else I can say.

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

I've found some of the more popular bushwhack routes in the Whites marked with the orange and sometimes pink tape. Some of the trailless peaks have been marked to excess.

 

[Peakbagr]

I'm with Pete.

The "trailless" peaks had so many confusing routes and false starts, that the mountains were a maze of paths with the confused following the unenlightened. The false herd paths were blocked off and one "official" herd path was established. Not to help the hikers, but to save the mountain. The idea was to send everyone on one established, and hopefully, sounder path.
Everyone follows the tape, and before you know it, the multiple feet establish a new, sounder route and the marks come down.

 

[mavs00]

I'm with Pete, and Peak........... There are some that would blame the 46ers for "dumbing down" trailess peaks by "shaping" the trails of the trailless ones (sounds odd, huh). The truth is USAGE HAS GONE THOUGH THE ROOF. For years people just went in willy nilly and caused so much damage that it couldn;t be ignored.

I think this "response" is not only appropriete, but probably past due. Good foresight by the DEC to see it and good for the 46ers to assist them.

 

[forestgnome]

Sounds like what Pete, 46rs, DEC are doing is good for the mountains of NY.

If the same thing were happening on a mountain in WMNF, I suppose it would be a good idea to make an official trail, and there probably are a few such mountains. (Nancy?).

I'm just reluctant to have more trails in the forest, but I suppose if there's going to be a certain volume of traffic, it's a lesser negative, and better for the land. I'd like to preserve trailless areas, but I'm also a realist.

I'm alway's going to remove the tape left by people to simply find their way back to some place. I consider it trash.

 

[Grumpy]

I'm alway's going to remove the tape left by people to simply find their way back to some place. I consider it trash.

Please don't.

The explanation Pete H has provided, above, should be fairly well known to anyone who has been participating in VFTT discussions for a few recent years. But the story is worth bringing up for a rehash every now and then.

The 46ers, DEC and ADK efforts in creating “designated herd paths” for the so-called “trailless” Adirondack High Peaks should be applauded.

I share the frequently expressed sentiment that colored flagging in the woods diminishes the sense of wildness that many of us go there to seek and enjoy. I am well aware, too, that flagging may be put up by those flawed lesser mortals who see it as useful for finding their way back home via a bushwhack route they have taken. Oh, shame on them and a pox on their houses! But I also am aware that flagging has many legitimate purposes.

Even if it’s done with the purest of intentions, removing legitimately placed flagging is vandalism.

Being short on psychic powers, usually I don’t know for sure who tied up any particular piece or line of flagging or for what purpose it is there. So I am loathe to remove it on my own initiative. Perhaps others among us have superior tea leaves or crystal balls to consult. If the flagging is a matter of concern, I report it to the appropriate authorities and leave it at that.

As for the proliferation of trails in our woods and mountains? Well, such developments are more or less inevitable with the proliferation of hikers and peakbaggers. So it makes sense to manage the situation, as the 46ers, DEC and ADK have collaborated to do. No doubt the truly adventurous among us have sufficient imagination and still have expansive opportunity to find and explore essentially untrammeled routes to obscure places in the Adirondacks and elsewhere in the NE.

G.

 

[Rik]

In that same issue of Peeks there is a story of someone climbing Street and Nye before the path was worked on. They thought they were going up Nye and got to the cannister to find they were on Street. I had a similiar experience in 1993 on these peaks. There was a maze of herd paths in there and I certainly walked on more of those mountains than I needed to. I think the designating of a single path on these peaks was inevitable. As far as flagging I'm with Grumpy. I hate seeing it but never know if it belongs there for some reason I'm unaware of.

 

[Puma concolor]

I'm not even saying that establishing one route up a trailless peak is a bad thing. I'm just pointing out what I view as a contradiction. By flagging routes - whether with the approval of the DEC or not - the 46Rs are essentially training hikers to follow blazing ... even if the flagging is eventually removed. The Club is also teaching aspirants how to do it.

In this light, it seems to me that the Club has lost its pulpit of moral superiority at least on this issue.

I would also predict that this will not eliminate the problem of multiple herd paths in the Dacks. 15 years down the road I forsee the problem of multiple paths on the ADK Highest Hundred and trail erosion on the 'trailless' 46R peaks.

It's certainly not an easy issue in any way but when I hear of individuals taking it upon themselves to flag routes, I see this an an unintended consequence of the new 46R/DEC policy on trailless peaks. 10 - 12 years ago when I was doing the 46Rs, I hardly ran into any tape at all ... when I did it was only for short stretches.

 

[percious]

Just because a route is flagged, doesn't mean you have to go that way.

You want a challenge? Go up Cliff via flowed lands (the winter route) in Summer. You will be happy when you get to the top that there is a trail back down on the other side.

-percious

 

[Puck]

Please don't.

.....But I also am aware that flagging has many legitimate purposes.

Even if it’s done with the purest of intentions, removing legitimately placed flagging is vandalism.
G.

I will side with Forestnome on this one. The Waterman's also termed these strips of plastic as litter and a violation of Wilderness Ethics.

I wonder how many of these tags are placed with legitimate reasons. (whatever that is?) Not very many.Therfor I think most are litter and removing them is not vandalism but an act of stewardship. (legaly one can get charged under another law...see McRats thread of a few days ago.)

 

[DougPaul]

I'm not even saying that establishing one route up a trailless peak is a bad thing. I'm just pointing out what I view as a contradiction. By flagging routes - whether with the approval of the DEC or not - the 46Rs are essentially training hikers to follow blazing ... even if the flagging is eventually removed. The Club is also teaching aspirants how to do it.

In this light, it seems to me that the Club has lost its pulpit of moral superiority at least on this issue.

IMO, once there is a herd path (good, bad, or otherwise) the peak is no longer trailless. People hear about or read about the path and follow it rather than do their own navigation. Even if the natural terrain leads a "true" bushwacker onto a herd path, the challange and enjoyment of doing one's own navigation is diminished.

Herd paths are, in part, a consequence of peak lists.

Doug

 

[KayakDan]

I may flag a "departure point" to an off trail tent site,to make it easier to find if I return near dusk. I will pull the flag as I return
What am I gonna do if you took my flag?

Flags should only be temporary markers(at least for hikers)
Surveys etc are a different story.

 

[Neil]

In the Sewards somebody flagged the crossover route from the Calkins truck trail to Calkins Brook. They simply used blue plastic that they tore into strips and placed every 10 feet or so which suggests an individual effort. Now why would they do that? I thought maybe they wanted to ensure that everybody took the exact same route. We simply followed the flagging and in so doing contributed to the herd trail is now visible over most of the route. What's best, a)spreading the footfalls around hoping that the amount people going that way is not enough to make a widespread mess or b)keeping everyone on the same trail? Personally, the presence of a herd trail in that particular area dosn't bother me but others may feel differently.

 

[RGF1]

I will side with Forestnome on this one. The Waterman's also termed these strips of plastic as litter and a violation of Wilderness Ethics.

I wonder how many of these tags are placed with legitimate reasons. (whatever that is?) Not very many.Therfor I think most are litter and removing them is not vandalism but an act of stewardship. (legaly one can get charged under another law...see McRats thread of a few days ago.)

Puck the few legit reasons for flaging are in no particualr order, Surveying for say a wilderness boundry, or maybe a plot to study a area for something such as plants or wild life in the area , Planning to reroute a trail. or marking a timber sale . Therr might be a few others . On my last hike up Laffeyette last October i saw two guys flaging near the general direction of the Linclons Throat Bushwack / Climb . I was curious if there was a trail being planned to diveret traffic off OBP So i aksed a State Park Ranger he told me noi and that the flagging was not legal in the park . I imagine they were removed.
But I would not remove a flagging if only because there might be a legit reason for it being there. Some times UNH and PSC have study plots in the WMNF I remember one in the Great Gulf what a way to get credit for a colleg course!
If you od remove a legit flagging it could land you in a bit of truoble if you were to get caught. Yopur best bet if you are concerened is to ask the Forest Service or State Park Personel.
On another Note I volunteer I even get to stay at a USFS campground sans fee. Every summer for the Colorado 14nrs initaitive and we knocked over and spread out a whoile bunch of unoffical cairns on South Maroon's South ridge route a few years ago as they often lead well off route or evn to a dangerous place causing needless . SARS . This isa good reason not to leave flagging . If you do flag a route it is good ethics to remove them on your way back.

 

[Puck]

RGF I have seen tagging done by surveying teams. They usually drive stakes with measurments and readings on them. I don't think that they would tie them to trees.
I have seen a forresters mark of a spot of spray paint on the trunk of tree that is to be cut. To me that is not as ugly a plastic strip.
I once tied up a strip to mark the site of a thrush site during a nesting study. Yes it was ugly and I took it down. I then landmarked from the trail and paced off the distance so I could easily find it again.

 

[DougPaul]

What's best, a)spreading the footfalls around hoping that the amount people going that way is not enough to make a widespread mess or b)keeping everyone on the same trail? Personally, the presence of a herd trail in that particular area dosn't bother me but others may feel differently.

The advice that I have seen is to take different paths in areas with very little traffic or very slow recovery (eg the desert). If high traffic, then take the same route (ie make a trail/herd path) and concentrate the damage to save the rest of the area.

Obviously, if all traces of your/your party's passage disappear before the next traveler/party comes by, it doesn't matter.

Seems to make sense, at least on paper...

Doug