What in Blazes?

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

From the WMNF site

Blazes, those paint marks on trees and rocks that help you stay on a trail, are being removed by Forest Service trail crews in Wilderness areas of the White Mountain National Forest. Last year, blazes were removed from the Great Gulf Wilderness, and this year crews are working in the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness in Maine.

At least now we have an explanation as to why the blazes have been disappearing in the Pemi.

Related Thread

I hope that what happened on the Owl's Head Path doesn't happen everywhere.

 

[cbcbd]

Yeeees... help people lose the trail more often because a few trees can't handle some paint. So much for sticking to the trail to prevent erosion - I guess they just want us to "blaze" our own trails from now on. Only direct lines for me now!

 

[RoySwkr]

At least now we have an explanation as to why the blazes have been disappearing in the Pemi.

Anybody remember a public hearing on this, or did they just decide to do it?

Back in the '70s there were very few paint blazes in the WMNF. If you were a Boston AMC (then just "AMC") leader of a winter hike, you were expected to scout the trail in the fall and put up survey tape so you could find it that winter. Most of this was not removed (leaving it was considered sort of a public service) and of course it became an eyesore. Looks like this may happen again.

 

[WalksWithBlackflies]

I can understand trying to keep with the wilderness character. But why not just have tan, brown, or gray blazes... something that you wouldn't notice unless you're looking for them. Like Roy mentioned... there will now be "wild survey tape" on the trails.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

Does anyone have an example of some specific trails that will or won't be effected by this?

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

Does anyone have an example of some specific trails that will or won't be effected by this?

Here is a list of trails inside the Great Gulf and Pemi Wilderness areas that will be effected according to the WMNF statement.
Great Gulf Wilderness
Great Gulf Tr.
Madison Gulf Tr.
Osgood Cutoff
Chandler Brook Tr.
Wamsutta Tr.
Sphinx Tr.
Six Husbands Tr.
Buttress Tr.

Pemi Wilderness
Lincoln Brook Tr.
Franconia Brook Tr.
Twin Brook Tr.
Bondcliff Tr.
East Side Tr.
Cedar Brook Tr.
Wilderness Tr.
Thoreau Falls Tr.
Shoal Pond Tr.
Zeacliff Tr.
Desolation Tr.
Nancy Pond Tr.
Hancock Loop Tr.
Carrigain Notch Tr.

There are other Wilderness areas that will likely be effected such as the Sandwich and Dry River Wilderness areas.

 

[bintrepidhiker]

Granted some of these trails are easy to follow without the need for blazes, doesn't this sound just a bit dangerous? I mean we all read about people getting lost already and this is only going to compound the issue. I could be wrong because there are a fair amount trails listed that I personally haven't been on so I don't know how easy they are to follow without blaze assistance. Can't say this is a good idea at all.

 

[dvbl]

I'm imagining one of many possible future conversations between a new hiker and a forest service worker...

HIKER: "Hi"
WORKER: "Hi"
HIKER: "Whatcha doin'?"
WORKER: "Removing the paint from this tree."
HIKER: "Good idea. How come it was there in the first place?"
WORKER: "So hikers wouldn't get lost."
HIKER: (pregnant pause) "So how come you're removing it?"
...

(Insert flashing WARNING sing here)...This was a small attempt at humor. Please fight with all your heart any urge to parse the above statements.

 

[Tom Rankin]

It really seems dumb to me. It's even more odd that they are actually removing paint, (won't that leave an obvious scar on the tree for some time?! ) instead of just letting it fade away.

 

[TCD]

Maybe some of WMNF employees that are spending their time vandalizing the trail markers in NH could do something useful, and come over here to NY and fix the bridge over John's Brook instead?


This is another case of aesthetics trumping common sense. Why not go all the way and just eliminate the trails? Fill them with brush, and announce that the areas are trailless. I don't hike in NH too often, but I'd like to understand what WMNF is trynig to do here.

 

[psmart]

This transition has actually been going on for 10+ years, with very little new blazing done in WMNF Wilderness areas during that time. Fortunately, many trails are clear enough without blazes, such as those through dense spruce or hemlock. In other places the alignment of the trail, or a judiciously placed log, can be used to make the trail more apparent. Or in the most difficult cases, a rock cairn.

It's even more odd that they are actually removing paint, (won't that leave an obvious scar on the tree for some time?! ) instead of just letting it fade away.

Removing blazes is tricky. If done too aggressively it can definitely be worse than just letting the old blaze fade away. Loose paint can be removed with a wire brush, while anything more solid is generally covered with custom color designed to match the tree bark, rock, etc.

WODC had taken the approach of letting the old paint fade away, while keeping an eye out for situations where other (more natural) trail-definition measures may be required. Abrupt removal of the blazes on certain trails could definitely be a problem.

 

[dirt]

Seems to me some people might get the idea to keep blazes up by painting them themselves, similar to the story of "unsupervised" trail maintenance. I have a hard time believing there will be bare trees for long stretches on some trails.

I personally don't mind not seeing blazes. I have a decent sense of where I'm going or where I need to be (not including winter). But as was mentioned earlier there may be a significant increase in lost or missing people due to either the current trail condition or snow cover.

To wait and see...

 

[TDawg]

If you were a Boston AMC (then just "AMC") leader of a winter hike, you were expected to scout the trail in the fall and put up survey tape so you could find it that winter. Most of this was not removed (leaving it was considered sort of a public service) and of course it became an eyesore. Looks like this may happen again.

I can't stand fluorescent survey tape in the woods!! I take it down whenever it is within arms length, it is an eyesore to me.

When I did Redington in Maine this past August someone had flagged the entire route along the herd path from S. Crocker, including the way across the logged area. Now this herd path is not very hard to follow and flagging was very unnecessary. I felt like it kind of took something away from the hike because every time I would have had to use my head to find my way, boom, there was the ugly pink tape. (Which I know is why people use it but not everyone likes it!)

On removing blazes, I agree it is rather silly and why not just let them fade away? Maybe some ranger could go pick up the beat up old tent, sleeping pad, and bag just laying there just past the start of the Owls Slide instead. Something like that old gear, to me, ruins a wilderness experience more than a blaze every 50 feet. I also think thats a more useful job for a forest ranger, while he's there he could even dismantle the two cairns that were there two weeks ago, I know he/she would find that fun!

 

[SteveHiker]

I can't stand fluorescent survey tape in the woods!! I take it down whenever it is within arms length, it is an eyesore to me.

When I did Redington in Maine this past August someone had flagged the entire route along the herd path from S. Crocker, including the way across the logged area. Now this herd path is not very hard to follow and flagging was very unnecessary. I felt like it kind of took something away from the hike because every time I would have had to use my head to find my way, boom, there was the ugly pink tape. (Which I know is why people use it but not everyone likes it!)

did you ever stop to think that there might be other reasons for the survey tape? Like maybe someone was doing a survey? Unlikely sure, but neither one of us knows the reason it was put there. Seems like if you don't own the land you really shouldn't be removing the tape, since you don't know who put it there or for what purpose.

 

[HAMTERO]

Anyone can carry trash out of the woods. It doesn't take a ranger. However, someone may be using the beat equipment...so maybe leave it.

 

[Rob S]

did you ever stop to think that there might be other reasons for the survey tape? Like maybe someone was doing a survey? Unlikely sure, but neither one of us knows the reason it was put there. Seems like if you don't own the land you really shouldn't be removing the tape, since you don't know who put it there or for what purpose.

That's actually a good point. I recall a situation in the ADKs where a well-meaning individual had posted that he dutifully removed most of the unsightly survey tape during his hike. As it turned out, a trail crew had recently used survey tape to mark a partial reroute of that trail. D'oh!

Some of the ongoing enforcement of the wilderness rules in the WMNF and the ADKs seem to be a bit much. While few of us would disagree with the intent of those rules, it really does seem to be a waste of time for rangers to be scraping blazes off trees, or removing summit signs in the ADKs. It's really a shame in my opinion ........ I could care less either way about the blazes, but I enjoy seeing a beautifully hand-carved summit sign (or finding the occasional canister). How a paint blaze or wooden summit sign ruins the wilderness is beyond me.

I just hope the removing of the blazes in the WMNF doesn't lead to more rescues ..... while most of us reading this thread are unlikely to get lost due to lack of blazes, I cannot help but to think of the casual hiker, the first-time hiker (we all were newbies at one time), or even the experienced hiker who simply misses a turn or trail junction because he/she didn't read this thread and is hiking the same trail that just a year ago had blazes.

 

[NewHampshire]

did you ever stop to think that there might be other reasons for the survey tape? Like maybe someone was doing a survey? Unlikely sure, but neither one of us knows the reason it was put there. Seems like if you don't own the land you really shouldn't be removing the tape, since you don't know who put it there or for what purpose.

I was going to keep quiet, but have to agree whole heartedly. When we hiked the Belknap Range with Carole, there was a few places where flagging tape was sued. It served a purpose, it was private land we were on, and who knows who put it there. Lets face it, do you really think a serious hiker would bring this stuff to mark a trail? A new hiker would not even think of it. So perhaps someone put it there for a reason. Someone marking out a new loging cut, and landowner or survey crew marking a boundry. Any number of reasons could be thought of. If you think it was put there illegally or under improper authority, then perhaps it is best to notify someone in charge before taking it upon oneself to remove the stuff (if not for reasons like i12climbup just stated.)

Brian

 

[sleeping bear]

Removing the blazes looks like an attempt to 1- return the wilderness to its natural character, and 2- discourage use.

Nowhere in the Whites could realistically be called a wilderness in my book, there's just too many darn people. The areas are federally designated as wilderness, but everyone's definitions are different and do not always follow what the FS has in mind. Especially these days with the popularization of outdoor recreation and "wilderness" activities. Removing of the blazes is likely an attempt to reduce the number of visitors without initiating fees or permits. Maybe some people will get lost at first but then it will become common knowledge that those areas are hard to navigate and those less comfortable with it will go elsewhere. If you can't navigate without signs or blazes you don't belong in the "wilderness".


The whole issue of the definition of wilderness is super intriguing to me, I'm thinking about doing my masters thesis on it.

 

[psmart]

If you can't navigate without signs or blazes you don't belong in the "wilderness".

Hiking in designated Wilderness areas is intended to be more challenging than other places. The lack of blazing, minimal signage, no shelters, and other measures are all intended to promote self-reliance. If you want those ammenties you can find them in the other 80% of the WMNF.

No, these lands aren't "pure" wilderness, but they're the best we have east of the Mississippi, and the management goal is to make them as wild as practical, despite the heavy recreational use.

 

[jrichard]

It's pretty hard for an experienced hiker to (permanently) lose the trail just about anywhere in the Whites, even in the wilderness areas (IMHO). Maybe the point is to keep out the riff-raff?

But still, I can't see scraping off paint blazes. Perhaps the FS wants to replace paint with old-fashioned axe-like blazes? That wouldn't be too bad.

Also, some of those wilderness area trails are getting overgrown. It's still very obvious where the trail is, but the wet evergreens will soak you if there's any moisture in the air!