Trail maintenance etiquette

[rocket21]

I think it's very important to note that there are folks who have ad hoc agreements with various organizations. For instance, there is one NETC/VFTT poster who regularly does axe blowdown removal throughout the WMNF and has received an award from the WMNF for his hard work.

 

[dug]

I'm in favor of coming up with a method of trailhead signs or similar to educate people. I can guarantee someone who doesn't hike often (and this is probably not geared toward anyone on here) doesn't realize there are trail maintainers, other than "the AMC". And, they surely wouldn't think they are doing any harm and just "helping out".

 

[peakbagger]

I guess I must use a lot more obscure trails without formal or active maintainers but I frequently run into trails that have had little of no maintenance for years. I realize that the FS has significant limitations on trails within Wilderness areas but the reality is that many trails haven't been touched by trained folks for years. I on occasion will bring my brush ax or saw usually in the early season on these non wilderness trails and end up removing more than few blowdowns. My brush ax is limited to about 6" diameter so if its a big tree, I end up cutting the branches off to make it easier to go over when its across the trail and throwing the cut off into the inevitable herd path that forms to go around the obstacle.

Part of the reason I do this is I feel that the FS has a long term agenda to shed trails if at all possible and one self fulfilling prophecy is that if a trail is poorly/unmaintained, fewer folks will use it and that will lead to it being more obscure ultimately giving the FS a justification to discontinue it at a later date. I see frequent commentary from redliners on the abysmal condition of various trails in the Maine portion of the NF, these are difficult to get to from the boston/ southern NH area an in general don't seem to get much attention at all.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

peakbagger,
I take the view that if the USFS has that agenda they will never admit it, rather it is for the hiking community to assume that that is their agenda based on their choices. With that as our given, what is to be done? I offer the idea that more assertive recruiting of hikers (by trailside signs and other means) may result in more volunteers. Some will want to personally adopt a trail, but others do not want the time commitment. If we institute a level 1 trail recovery crew that goes out on a set schedule to any trail in need of being restored to normal guidelines of brushing, blazing, and cleaning existing drains, we keep the trail open and buy time, and those trails are also available for adoption by individuals who then only have to tend a trail that was in good condition when they got there. Win-win-win all around.

 

[Ken MacGray]

I think it's very important to note that there are folks who have ad hoc agreements with various organizations. For instance, there is one NETC/VFTT poster who regularly does axe blowdown removal throughout the WMNF and has received an award from the WMNF for his hard work.

Because I don't know the answer to this, should such individuals also coordinate / communicate with the regular maintainers of trails they do this work on (if there is one), or do these agreements override that? I would probably be pretty annoyed to find out after the fact that someone has an agreement with the WMNF that allows them to go out and do work on the trail that I signed up to volunteer for.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

What we don't need here is a failure to communicate...

Because I don't know the answer to this, should such individuals also coordinate / communicate with the regular maintainers of trails they do this work on (if there is one), or do these agreements override that? I would probably be pretty annoyed to find out after the fact that someone has an agreement with the WMNF that allows them to go out and do work on the trail that I signed up to volunteer for.

If such a person is not yet required to inform the adopter beforehand, and likewise report work done afterwards, then they ought to be. Having an agreed SOP and following it eliminates much confusion and resentment. Such should be set up by the regional supervisors or some higher authority if needed.

 

[TJsName]

I guess I must use a lot more obscure trails without formal or active maintainers but I frequently run into trails that have had little of no maintenance for years. I realize that the FS has significant limitations on trails within Wilderness areas but the reality is that many trails haven't been touched by trained folks for years. I on occasion will bring my brush ax or saw usually in the early season on these non wilderness trails and end up removing more than few blowdowns. My brush ax is limited to about 6" diameter so if its a big tree, I end up cutting the branches off to make it easier to go over when its across the trail and throwing the cut off into the inevitable herd path that forms to go around the obstacle.

Part of the reason I do this is I feel that the FS has a long term agenda to shed trails if at all possible and one self fulfilling prophecy is that if a trail is poorly/unmaintained, fewer folks will use it and that will lead to it being more obscure ultimately giving the FS a justification to discontinue it at a later date. I see frequent commentary from redliners on the abysmal condition of various trails in the Maine portion of the NF, these are difficult to get to from the boston/ southern NH area an in general don't seem to get much attention at all.

After I become an adopter I did check with the FS to see if performing some brushing/clearing on orphaned trails was OK, and I got an 'of course it is' kind of response. It's nice to hear that others take this approach as well, but in reality the biggest thing that makes a trail suck is prolonged wet areas, and fixing that usually requires a plan (bog bridges, stepping stones, re-route, etc) that I doubt anyone is doing ad hoc. To me the best thing is for the trails to get adopted and large issues to be reported to the FS. I'm guessing that they have a gigantic list of needs, and I totally understand prioritizing more popular trails - it's about the most bang for the buck.

I'd be curious what the thoughts on people who have been hiking for 30+ years think about the relative condition of trails (are they improving, eroding, pretty much the same)?

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

TJ, You are very right that draining and hardening a wet trail does require a bit of scouting around to derive a specific plan for that particular problem. Once that plan is in place, most of the work can be done by a crew of people with level 1 skills, such as a level 1 trail recovery crew I mention in # 24.

 

[rocket21]

Because I don't know the answer to this, should such individuals also coordinate / communicate with the regular maintainers of trails they do this work on (if there is one), or do these agreements override that? I would probably be pretty annoyed to find out after the fact that someone has an agreement with the WMNF that allows them to go out and do work on the trail that I signed up to volunteer for.

In theory, WMNF volunteers are only asked to work on their trail two days per year, which means a blowdown could sit there for a very, very long time if no one else touches it, resulting in trail creep, herd paths, etc. Removing blowdowns is just one of many duties volunteer maintainers have; there's plenty of other work to do, such as cleaning waterbars, brushing, and blazing. If someone does all of those tasks without the adopter knowing, then I could see reason to be annoyed.

In my opinion, the sooner someone properly removes a blowdown, the better. I appreciate the heads up when folks post about blowdowns or blowdown removal in the Trail Maintenance notes on NETC reports, as it saves me a lot of time and hassle (e.g. knowing how big of a blowdown and where, or knowing a previously reported blowdown is now gone).

 

[Stan]

I think it is cool that people work for nothing ... but a good purpose. It is even cooler to coordinate with an official trail maintainer and that'll leverage that good purpose. ... don't tell anyone but I do occasionally clear a waterbar or clip an overgrowing branch without reporting it. As for overgrown seldom used trails ... jeese, just when I thought my bushwhacking skills are pretty good I learn they're seldom used overgrown trails.

 

[Raven]

In my opinion, the sooner someone properly removes a blowdown, the better.

I agree with this, regardless of who removes it. Pulling a tree out of the way or even cutting a blow down does little or no potential harm.

Good points in this thread. There are not enough people to keep the trails maintained fully, so the extra help is needed. Extra help by those who know how to properly do the work is beneficial to all.

I suppose this question ultimately comes down to whether the work being done by an untrained hiker causes more damage than doing nothing would. It's going to go both ways in some cases.

To another point above, the USFS has often done work on the trail I adopt that has been a surprise when I have arrived. In terms of the trail, that's good for it. And quite frankly, I have trouble keeping up with over 3 miles of heavily used trail and that's with 4-5 trips per year on average. It describes many of us. Extra help is appreciated if it actually helps. I'll be doing my first trip in a few weeks.

Good discussion either way.

....which reminds me....Bruce is going to yell at me if I don't get my annual paper work in!

 

[sierra]

After I become an adopter I did check with the FS to see if performing some brushing/clearing on orphaned trails was OK, and I got an 'of course it is' kind of response. It's nice to hear that others take this approach as well, but in reality the biggest thing that makes a trail suck is prolonged wet areas, and fixing that usually requires a plan (bog bridges, stepping stones, re-route, etc) that I doubt anyone is doing ad hoc. To me the best thing is for the trails to get adopted and large issues to be reported to the FS. I'm guessing that they have a gigantic list of needs, and I totally understand prioritizing more popular trails - it's about the most bang for the buck.

I'd be curious what the thoughts on people who have been hiking for 30+ years think about the relative condition of trails (are they improving, eroding, pretty much the same)?

I'm 52, But I'm closing in on 40 yrs. out there. I was lucky growing up, my family camped in the mountains every summer. I'd plot 4k traverses and my parents would drop me off at a trailhead one day and pick me up a few day's later at another TH. Anywho, I gave some thought to your question and to be honest, I do not see a major difference in trail now verses then. The amount of foot traffic these trails see, just keeps them packed out so to speak. One difference that is really noticeable, is graffiti on trail signs. You really never saw that many years ago, but today it is quite common and it really irks me to know end. Some signs get marked when they are very new and we are forced to stare at the marks for years to come. Another major difference at least for me, is seeing AMC trail crews. Maybe it's just that I'm missing them and they are still out there, but I used to run into them every summer, now I rarely see them. The last crew I ran into was on Avalon a few years back ( maybe within 2 years). Lastly, I have noticed some of the very old rockwork is failing. The mini gateway on the Edmunds path comes to mind right off, it was much bigger just in my lifetime. The cairn at TJ has shrunk considerably. One more thing, area's of great sensitivity are now walled off in a obtrusive and ugly way. They used to be lined with one row of rocks, now you'll see high walls and the rocks used leave ugly holes in the vicinity that is very un-natural. I suspect that this generation needs higher walls rather then a subtle hint that an area is off limits. Back in the day, you'd see people like on Quincy jumping from rock to rock to avoid tundra, it was just what you did all the time. Now I see people like on Pierce, IKE, Jeff, just trashing the tundra with their feet like they just have no clue it's off limits. I saw a group on the Southern peaks literally having lunch on a patch of tundra. I rarely approach people, but in this case I said something. They looked at me like I was insane. One guy was laying in it, when I said they were killing plants that were very rare, they looked at me like these? Anyway, hope my rambling at least touched on what you where looking for.

 

[Grey J]

When I see the kind of things that Sierra is talking about I often wonder . . . are people ignorant and clueless or just inconsiderate. Or is it the decline of Western Civilization as we know it? Its baffling how someone could hike 5 miles to a beautiful waterfall and leave trash behind but I see it. On a recent hike at the Savage Gulf Natural Area (it lives up to its name) a part of the South Cumberland State Park here in Tennessee, my wife and I hiked 6.5 miles along the rim of the Cumberland Plateau to find the remains of the old Stagecoach Road built in 1830s. There was a backcountry campground at the site, nicely maintained by park staff and Friends of the SCSP volunteers. We soon noticed a disturbing trend. Sections of downed pine logs, stripped of bark and left around the designated fire pits for rustic seating were all charred and partially burnt. My wife could not understand it. What's going on there? she asked. "Well, they are so stupid they are burning the furniture," I replied.

 

[peakbagger]

I observed some significant recent water bar work on my Bond traverse on Saturday from Zeacliff to past Bondcliff. I do get a chuckle at one of the waterbars just coming off the South Guyot pinnacle heading down to Guyot Shelter junction. There is a very well built water bar that is sloped back towards the trail from the woods. It was very well maintained but I always thought water bars were intended to direct water off the trail rather than back on it?. In order to make it functional would require significant excavation and lengthening of the trench.

 

[DayTrip]

I observed some significant recent water bar work on my Bond traverse on Saturday from Zeacliff to past Bondcliff. I do get a chuckle at one of the waterbars just coming off the South Guyot pinnacle heading down to Guyot Shelter junction. There is a very well built water bar that is sloped back towards the trail from the woods. It was very well maintained but I always thought water bars were intended to direct water off the trail rather than back on it?. In order to make it functional would require significant excavation and lengthening of the trench.

I did the Daniel Webster Scout Trail for the first time a few weeks ago and it also had some odd drainage structures that seemed counter productive. There were several that ran along the high side of the trail so as they filled they spilled over onto the trail and many that had gaps in the rocks that allowed the water to simply run out of it down the trail. There were several that pitched uphill too. Not surprisingly these areas were pretty wet and muddy despite generally dry conditions. Seems like a lot of work to build structures like that the wrong way. Thought it was odd.

 

[jniehof]

I don't know about your specific cases, but sometimes water has to be taken off the hillside and across the trail because otherwise it would seep/spill into the trail someplace further down, where it may not be as easy to put in a waterbar to finish pulling it off the hill. Local soil, materials availability, and basic terrain can make things sometimes very funky.

Back to the original question: talk to whomever you send work reports to! (I keep on forgetting to see who owns the trail.) They might have some idea of what happened, and regardless they should be informed, particularly if the maintenance wasn't to "code". At very least you'll have some commiseration.

 

[Ken MacGray]

Back to the original question: talk to whomever you send work reports to! (I keep on forgetting to see who owns the trail.) They might have some idea of what happened, and regardless they should be informed, particularly if the maintenance wasn't to "code". At very least you'll have some commiseration.

The trail in question isn't one that I maintain, but I know the folks that do. It was the report on this trail which brought up the question for me.

 

[cooperhill]

I will often get requests from my USFS trail manager (I'm a volunteer) to remove blowdowns that are on adopted or un-adopted trails. Frankly they are ones that are sizable and would require someone with axe or crosscut saw training. I dropped a hazard 2' diameter Hemlock blowdown near the basin trail for the CTA. https://twitter.com/cooperhill/status/652072766376701953

For USFS trails, it is a big help to them as their smaller crews need to focus on the large number of un-adopted trails and trail construction projects.

That said, I usually (read always) hike with my axe and if I come across a large (12"+) blowdown that is impeding access, I will usually take it out. The AMC pro trail crew does this type of patrolling on all AMC trails (to my knowledge). Ditto for the other clubs (RMC, WODC, CMC, CTA). Maintainers will sometimes ask for assistance on larger blowdowns on trails - this may come from USFS crews or volunteers like me.

Disclosure. I'm the guy that got the NH volunteer award for my axework/trailwork.

 

[wardsgirl]

Great work, cooperhill!

FWIW, the AMC Pro-Crew patrols and drops all the blowdowns during the first two weeks of June every year.

 

[Stan]

Disclosure. I'm the guy that got the NH volunteer award for my axework/trailwork.

Thanks so much! I enjoy bushwhacking but appeciate and admire a trail that is nicely maintained.