What in Blazes?

[TDawg]

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.

Well yea I do, wouldn't anyone?

When I see one's that look like they are actually marking something I leave them. Maybe I over exaggerated when I said "every time." I don't bushwhack too too much so the only ones I really see are adjacent to trails, or on an easily discernible herd path like S. Crocker to Redington. Don't get the image of a guy (me) making a real effort to get every single one out in the middle of the woods.

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.

I was trying to say that this would be a better task for a ranger than scraping blazes or knocking cairns. Had I had a bigger pack, I would have a least entertained the thought of carrying the soaked trash. The said gear was in tatters and was mentioned in a post for Owls Head from weeks earlier. But I understand your point that you shouldn't just pack up and haul out gear you happen upon in the woods!! Imagine coming back to camp to find you gear has vanished? Pretty lame...

 

[DougPaul]

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).

Don't forget winter--a nice coat of fresh snow hides lots of clues about where a trail goes.

Doug

 

[Pete_Hickey]

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!

As the re-router of that trail, I blame myself, not the person who removed the tape. There is no way the remover could have known. Usually, when we ark a re-route, we do not flag the beginning/end...where it meets the other path.. so the tape is not visible to hikers passing by. Additionally, we are looking into getting our tape printed with an "Official use by ADK46ers, do not remove" or something like that.

 

[chinooktrail]

Hum, so 'they' are attempting to turn the 'wilderness' areas back to wilderness and attempting to make them be 'unmarked', and leaving the trail markers/signs/cairns on the trails in the 'Forest' sections. Is this right?

PSmart said this has been going on for ten years or so, is this something that was passed in Federal Court in the late 90's? To make the 'wilderness' areas more of a 'wilderness' experience? Do hikers get chared for rescue in these areas?

What is the distinction between a 'wilderness' area and the National or State Forest? I know it is outlined on the maps, but I mean which governing body determins it, or is it decided by some other means, say by who donated the land for the area, etc...

I have hiked on a number of the trails listed as soon to be 'marker free', which will soon be 'trail free' as well. I suppose I understand the logic, to leave some land completely untouched so that you can use you own navigation skills and so on, but I also think that getting as many people out into the woods to get out of the daily grind or to experience nature or so on is important also.

I believe that far too many people stop at the scenic pull outs or wander 20 feet from the road, on a paved path, and feel that they are experiencing nature, and perhaps for them, it is as close as they will ever get to it. I for one would like to see more people on the trails, because I believe that will be more people who will fight to keep the earth a healthy place to be.

Just my .02.

 

[peakn]

I for one would like to see more people on the trails, because I believe that will be more people who will fight to keep the earth a healthy place to be.

Amen!!
Not to speak of the wasted resources searching for lost hikers, and possibly lives lost.

 

[David Metsky]

"Wilderness" areas are designated by the US Congress as part of the National Forests. There are different rules for usage, trail building and maintenance in Wilderness areas. From there, the USFS handles regulations based on the act of Congress. There have been court cases based on interpretations of the law, but things like trail maintenance guidelines are pretty much under the USFS's control.

 

[MichaelJ]

For what it's worth, the USFS has been doing this work and posting it on their web site since at least 2003 (Google took me to a post over on whiteblaze.net).

That does not change the fact I disagree with it; I believe it's poor land use management. These are indeed designated, official trails, and they should be maintained, albeit minimally. It's a recreational wilderness and it's far better to consolidate the majority of the hiking activity than to have herd paths start eroding everywhere.

For that matter, any trail is not going to be a "totally wild" experience; it's a trail. That's why rules like the off-trail camping distance exist.

If they remove all the blazes, then in certain areas, and especially in winter, the FS will be unable to claim your little campsite is less than 200' off the trail!

 

[dr_wu002]

I think that you don't understand the definition of wilderness and that Lindsay (Sleeping Bear) does.

-Dr. Wu

That does not change the fact I disagree with it; I believe it's poor land use management. These are indeed designated, official trails, and they should be maintained, albeit minimally. It's a recreational wilderness and it's far better to consolidate the majority of the hiking activity than to have herd paths start eroding everywhere.

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".

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I'd like to emphasize what DougPaul said re: blazes and winter hiking. What can seem like an obvious trail in summer (with blazes) can be difficult to follow in winter. I suspect that some of the posters who imply that blazes are for wimps don't do much winter hiking.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

They took all the trees
Put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see em

Dont it always seem to go
That you dont know what youve got
Till its gone

(Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi, just in case you don't recognize it.)

Tim

 

[sleeping bear]

The Forest Service maintains land for "many uses", which in turn makes different designations and different management practices.
Wilderness is always very controversial because people have a hard time underdstanding why you wouldn't do ANYTHING to a tract of land.

There are people who wish to enter into woods that are not maintained in anyway (and there are plenty of people on this site who spend a fair amount of time bsuhwhacking). I've heard these people called "snobs", "elistist" whatever, but the bottom line is they want a different experience. Would you call someone an elitist or a snob because they wanted to stay at a hut and have someone else cook dinner for them? No, it's just different experiences. Since federal land is owned by all of this, the gov tries to provide areas that meet all desired experiences; hence what is known as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Look it up.
Briefly, what the ROS does is designate areas for different types of use on a "spectrum".

Urban
Rural
Roaded natural
Semi-primitive motorized
Semi-primitive non-motorized
Primitive

Primitive is where you find wilderness and Urban would have paved trails, real flush toilets, a ranger station, gift shop etc. Everything else falls somewhere in between. If you look at maps of national forests you will see these distrintions marked right on the map. The problem is that the gov doesn't do a very good job of conveying these practices to the public. If everyone understood the ROS there'd be a lot less confusion about removing shelters and trail maintenance.

Venturing into true wilderness areas should command a different attitude and respect than your normal jaunt down a well marked trail. If you can't handle it don't go there. It's not a personal rip on "wimps" or "non-elitists", it's just common sense.

 

[psmart]

"Wilderness" areas are designated by the US Congress as part of the National Forests. There are different rules for usage, trail building and maintenance in Wilderness areas. From there, the USFS handles regulations based on the act of Congress. There have been court cases based on interpretations of the law, but things like trail maintenance guidelines are pretty much under the USFS's control.

Federal Wilderness areas are authorized under the Wilderness Act of 1964, and extended to our neck of the woods by the Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975.

Additional areas are periodicaly added to the Wilderness system by act of Congress, such as the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 1984 (which established the Pemi and Sandwich Range Wilderness) and the New England Wilderness Act of 2006 which expanded the Sandwich Range Wilderness and created the new Wild River Wilderness.

This Wilderness legislation is used by each Federal agency to develop it's own guidelines and management plans. This is reflected in the latest 10-year WMNF Plan, which was completed in 2005 after eight years of public participation. Appendix E contains the Wilderness Management Plan for the WMNF. This is the immediate authorization for all current Wilderness management activities.

 

[chinooktrail]

So Dave, if I am understanding this correctly, if we do not wish to see blazes removed, we would need to lobby Congress to have the laws governing the wilderness areas changed, or perhaps better defined so that it is not up to individuals working for the NFS to make the decisions?

 

[chinooktrail]

oh, sorry, guess we were all replying at the same time, I will read through the other replies soon.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... Appendix E contains the Wilderness Management Plan for the WMNF. This is the immediate authorization for all current Wilderness management activities.

Thanks for posting this link - interesting document and I found the appendices particularly useful, as they illustrate the 'degree of wildness' the USFS plans to restore to sections of various trails.

As far as removing blazes and their impact on winter hiking (assuming global warming doesn't make that activity a distant memory) - in looking at the maps in NH and the 4K peaks within them - I don't think people will have much problem with Carrigain, so long as they have some familiarity with the route, and the same is true of Owls Head (despite all the bruhaha over the removal of cairns). The route that I think will cause folks the most problems will be the Bonds from the south. As those familiar with it know, after leaving the Wilderness trail and turning left, it heads up a rather steep bank before turning right and roughly following a coutour. Then, it does a rather strange dippy-si-do down and around an old washout before turning left again up a steep, and rather fine bit of stone stair work. I think this mile or two will present some particular navigational issues for winter hikers after a fresh snowfall.

Another prediction - the seldom-used section of the Davis Path between Stairs and Isolation has grown-over more than once during its long history, and a recently as 5 or 6 years ago was rather difficult to follow until a real effort was made to brush it out. My hunch is that in 10-15 years it will become one of the 'lost trails' given it's current designation. Depending upon your orientation (pun intended) that may or may not be a good thing.

 

[TCD]

sleeping bear is right when saying: "The problem is that the gov doesn't do a very good job of conveying these practices to the public." In fact, they do a terrible job. Usually such changes are not conveyed at all, or are conveyed only through late and selective enforcement. (Here, I don't blame the local individuals, but the governments that routingely understaff and underbudget them.)

Two other problems:

Trying to "force fit" an area into a "desgnation," because some yahoo in an office drew a line on a map. This leads to actions like burning down shelters and not replacing bridges, trying to turn a non-wilderness area into a "man made wilderness" (whatever that is), simply because it was once a wilderness 300 years ago.

Selective actions that don't make sense. For example, banning and removing a tiny 3/8" bolt, while a mile away in the same "wilderness," the same agency is cutting down hundreds of trees to make a new trail.

Unfortunately, these are symptoms of an overall system that's lacking in leadership, funding, and common sense. We all have to do the best we can with it, within our own volunteer organizations.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...This Wilderness legislation is used by each Federal agency to develop it's own guidelines and management plans. This is reflected in the latest 10-year WMNF Plan, which was completed in 2005 after eight years of public participation.

While it's a time-honored right in our society to 'bitch' (or the polite term - dissent) --- to suggest that the current WMNF Wilderness plan was developed without public input is inaccurate. Until psmart reminded me in his post, I'd forgotten that this plan was developed in a highly public manner, and during the process I'd received many emails re: hearings and seen other references to it in the media. At the time I choose not to participate, but it wasn't because the opportunity wasn't made available.

Do I feel now that I have the right to complain about the plan itself or how the USFS is implementing it? Yes, to a point, but as a responsible citizen I think we have to be careful about using insulting language, or suggesting the system is broken, or denigrating USFS who are doing their best to do a difficult job with inadequate resources. The system isn't broken - might not be perfect, but it's the best one we've been able to figure out to this point.

Personally, I think we do a great disservice when sweeping statements are made of public servants. Look at teachers - on the one hand we want the best people teaching our kinds, but look how often they are maligned. How many really good potential teachers do we scare off because of these attitudes? The same is true of rangers or another other public servant who takes a high-profile job.

/soapbox off

 

[psmart]

Selective actions that don't make sense. For example, banning and removing a tiny 3/8" bolt, while a mile away in the same "wilderness," the same agency is cutting down hundreds of trees to make a new trail.

There are no new trails being built in WMNF Wilderness areas, let alone "hundreds of trees" being cut down to make them.

 

[trailbiscuit]

trying to turn a non-wilderness area into a "man made wilderness" (whatever that is), simply because it was once a wilderness 300 years ago.

This reminds me of a section in "Wandering Home" by Bill McKibben. (An excellent read from an excellent author. I really have no right trying to use his points here as he is far smarter than I, but I'll do my best.) In this section he writes about the lament people have for the loss of Vermont farmland to development and their efforts to protect them because of the bird species and flora that will be affected or lost. Yet, he astutely points out that prior to the farmland, which has now stood for hundreds of years, the land was once forest. And that forest contained an entirely different ecosystem. So, in keeping the land from being developed was it better to preserve the farmland as farmland or preserve it so it could return to forest? An interesting question.

So, here's my point in relation to this thread: As I understand it, the Wilderness designation is designed to protect the land. In the WMNF, the USFS is trying to protect the land. I don't really see the point in actively removing blazes versus just letting them fade away, since that time could be better spent on other areas of trail maintenance. But, at least the government has an eye to protect these lands. So, just as with the farmland, whether it remains farmland or returns to forest, at least it is being protected whether it be as a true wilderness or a heavily blazed and sheltered wilderness. I think we can all agree we much rather be arguing about the removal of bridges and shelters rather than the introduction of roads, housing developments and strip malls.

 

[rocket21]

What a waste of time and money - what's worse for the land, a 1X3" strip of paint every so often or having a search & rescue operation going all over the place/having people create paths from getting lost?