What in Blazes?

[sierra]

I have no problem with any org. doing what they can to put wilderness area's back to thier original state, if that means removing blazes I think thats a great idea and I support it. Think of it this way, they could go the other way, blaze,cairn, brush and some would question how thats preserving wilderness. There are not enough wilderness areas or even close to it in the east, Im for making the ones we do have wilderness as they where intended.
The few repercussions ie. lost hikers, is worth it to me, not to sound calious but there are many well blazed areas for hikers who desire a well cut and blazed trail, many more options then those who seek wilderness, to say otherwise is selfish imo.
P.S. I would even go a step further and begin the process of letting the trails "go" many would relish trailless wilderness and that includes me.

 

[TCD]

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

Sorry! I was pulling a NY subject into the NE board. In the Giant Mountain "Wilderness" in NY, our DEC has banned fixed climbing anchors, but in the same wilderness management plan has announced plans to cut a new trail to Iron Mountain, complete with information kiosk, etc. Also recently in the same wildernes unit, DEC "upgraded" the Baxter mtn trail. Small sections of the trail were eroded, and needed stone steps or another similar remedy. The upgrade involved the cutting of new, lengthy switchbacks right through the woods. The upgrade is muddy, sidehill, and many trees were cut (I know; it's in my back yard).

Now that there's another "wilderness" thread over on General Backcountry, I can go over there to complain, and stop trying to confuse people in NE.



TCD

 

[sleeping bear]

TCD, that's interesting about NY. That's the DEC though, not the Forest Service. I'd be interested to know how their laws and regs work and/or how different they are from the feds.


As far as "forcing manmade wilderness where wilderness was 300 years ago", it's really the same story everywhere. It's the difference between preservation and conservation. If you don't make wilderness in the Whites where else are you going to do it East of the Mississippi? I think the FS would do well to have the ROS displayed at all trailheads, or have some sort of key that let visitors know more specifically the designation of the area they are entering and what they can expect in the way of facilities. I know they do this in some visitor centers and in various publications, but at trailheads would be more visible.

People are always against wilderness everywhere for one reason or another. Up here folks get all bent out of shape because wilderness is a waste of resources (ie. trees) that should be used to help the economy (ie. logging).

I think it helps to think of a National Forest as a large public garden. Some areas have corn, some peas, and some carrots. Everyone has different tastes, if you don't like corn then don't pick the corn! Somebody else loves corn and will be more than happy to have it.

I doubt removing the blazes will result in any large number of rescues being needed. People will simply realize they can't find the trail and turn around. If there are no blazes to follow in the winter, well then you'll just have to figure out how to navigate without them. At least in the winter you aren't going to trample vegetation and cause erosion (for the most part) and you can always follow your track back if you get lost.

 

[dr_wu002]

The big issue here is that there are 4000'ers in some of the Wilderness areas and taking away the blazes is going to make it more difficult for people to get their patches. Nobody is really complaining about the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness area because there ain't any 4k's there.

The thing is, look at the map -- the Pemi and the Great Gulf are such tiny areas. Just blips really. What, 10-15 miles end-to-end? The real issue here is access to 4000'ers.

-Dr. Wu

 

[albee]

The big issue here is that there are 4000'ers in some of the Wilderness areas and taking away the blazes is going to make it more difficult for people to get their patches. Nobody is really complaining about the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness area because there ain't any 4k's there.

The thing is, look at the map -- the Pemi and the Great Gulf are such tiny areas. Just blips really. What, 10-15 miles end-to-end? The real issue here is access to 4000'ers.

-Dr. Wu

Call me elitist, but maybe it should take more than people just following the blazes along the "yellow brick road" to get their patches. Maybe people would form a new respect and appreciation for the more undeveloped and "natural" areas of the mountains in order to climb the 48.

I didn't like it at first, but after a while I came to appreciate the fact that to be a 46r one would have to navigate to a number of trail-less peaks. It will never come to that in the Whites, but I personally feel that if you can't read a map and figure out how to get yourself to the more remote peaks in a wilderness area, then maybe you don't deserve to say you're such an experienced hiker, which climbing the 48 should infer.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I didn't like it at first, but after a while I came to appreciate the fact that to be a 46r one would have to navigate to a number of trail-less peaks.

Hmmm ... this is a bit off-topic, but my experiences in the ADK's re: "trail-less" 4K' peaks is different. I was prepared for bushwhacks, but found they were anything but. Don't wish to appear argumentative, but the only thing I found difficult was which of the many paths to take until I discovered that usually after 100 yards or so they all converged on a single well-beaten trail anyway.

Your post does raise the dilemma raised by herdpaths vs. trails. Herdpaths tend to be direct routes, without regard to erosion control, views, etc, whereas trails take the longterm view and these factors are taken into consideration. So - which is the best longterm approach for frequently climbed mountains in wilderness areas? Personally, I don't see a clear-cut solution to this dilemma.

 

[albee]

Good point, Kevin... your response was exactly what I expected. They have herdpaths, but you were -prepared- to bushwhack. This is key. If you are -prepared- to hike without blazes then there is no problem. But this still self-selects in that people not comfortable or experienced enough to find their way up the trail-less ADK peaks don't go for them unless they are in a group with more experienced hikers, or until they feel they are prepared for the challenge. Even if you come upon a distinct herdpath, you still need to know where you are going and how to find your way back... with no blazes.

I specifically said it will never come to needing to bushwhack the 4k peaks in the Whites (yes, even Owl's Head) because the trails will still be easily defined and routed to prevent most erosion issues. They might not be blazed or brushed-out as well as we have been accustomed to, but I expect these routes to always be easily recognizable unless travel on them becomes officially discouraged at some point.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

The issue is that this is much more difficult to make it work, particularly in winter. There are many places in the NF where trails used to follow RRs or woods roads and have ben partially relocated to avoid mudholes, without blazes or an arrow to mark the turn people will continue on the old route. I am particularly reminded of the situation a few years ago where a teenager missed such a turn on the Franconia Brook Trail, got lost in a beaver swamp, and died.

And I never understood why people think a cairn is less obtrusive than a paint blaze, to me it is far more obtrusive. A paint blaze is 2" by 6", does not damage the tree, and takes maybe a minute. A good cairn will take several minutes to build, removing and piling the rocks affect the microclimate, and the finished structure occupies maybe 1000 times the space of a blaze.

This is reflected in the latest 10-year WMNF Plan, which was completed in 2005 after eight years of public participation.

Yes, but it was such a massive document that nobody had time to figure out what it said, for instance that Mt Isolation is now officially a bushwhack with a suggested maximum group size of 4.

[paging arghman] I think that most people support Wilderness because it will prevent logging and ski areas, not because they want all trails to vanish. If these Wilderness guidelines were put up for a separate public hearing, they would fail. The Forest Service will not submit the closing of the Owls Head path for public comment or explain in writing why they closed it but only in person. Note that in VT it is OK to have shelters in Wilderness because there the FS listens to the public.

 

[RoySwkr]

The big issue here is that there are 4000'ers in some of the Wilderness areas and taking away the blazes is going to make it more difficult for people to get their patches. Nobody is really complaining about the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness area because there ain't any 4k's there.

I think you feel that way because you mostly know peakbaggers. Caribou-Speckled is popular with family groups who may find it too tough now, and arghman already complained on behalf of the new Wild River.

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.

Gene Daniell maintained that on behalf of the 4k club during the 80s but had to give it up. As you say, is it better to retain trails that are over 100 years old or better to have fewer trails?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Note that in VT it is OK to have shelters in Wilderness because there the FS listens to the public.

Roy raises a good point here - how the USFS chooses to implement 'wilderness' varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some places in the west I've seen where stock grazing is permitted in wilderness areas (should note that in the west the BLM is often the custodian rather than the USFS), and I've also seen active commercial logging occurring in wilderness areas, notably in the State of Washington.

Perhaps this variation is a good thing - just wanted to make the point that rangers are not scrubbing the paint blazes off trees all across the US!

 

[sleeping bear]

Roy raises a good point here - how the USFS chooses to implement 'wilderness' varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some places in the west I've seen where stock grazing is permitted in wilderness areas (should note that in the west the BLM is often the custodian rather than the USFS), and I've also seen active commercial logging occurring in wilderness areas, notably in the State of Washington.

Perhaps this variation is a good thing - just wanted to make the point that rangers are not scrubbing the paint blazes off trees all across the US!

I seriously doubt that logging was taking place in current federally designated wilderness areas. They don't even allow logging directly adjacent to those areas, a buffer is required.

However, the management of individual wilderness areas is a little different by region and forest. Here there is a wilderness with maintained campsites, stocked lakes and is regularly patrolled by a ranger. The FS is considering going to a permit system there because it is so heavily used.

Dr. Wu and Albee have it right I think. Maybe there should be new patches made 48AB (after blazes) to distinguish those more hardcore hikers who had to navigate without the convenience of paint marks. There would have to be another for those hearty souls who somehow managed to find their way up in the winter without blazes.

 

[grouseking]

As long as hiking the 4000 footers in NH remains popular, I don't think finding/following the trails are going to be too much of a problem, especially in summer. THough I don't have any data to back this up, but I have a hunch that 4k footer hiking is becoming more popular year after year....so I really don't think following the trails is going to be a problem.

I, for one don't have a problem removing blazes, though maybe keeping one on here and there would keep your confidence level high, especially if you're on something like the Lincoln Brook trail past the turnoff for the Owls Head path. I haven't read thru the links that were posted earlier on the site but it sounds like they are trying to return this area into a more wilderness like experience. In the Pemi, I notice the difference as soon as I cross the boundry. There is less trail maintenance and sometimes the trail is a bit more difficult to follow, and their actions will only add to the experience. But like I said earlier, chances are enough people will hike the 4ks to keep the trails easy enough to follow. I have yet to get lost on any 4k trail, they are like superhighways. And that includes winter... Even some of the less visited smaller mountains are generally easy to follow as long as you a) have a good sense of direction and b)have a map, study it, and keep your eyes open

I guess I really didn't add to much to this very interesting thread with lots of great points....

grouseking

 

[jrbren]

I guess I would vote against removing navigational aids unless you plan on limiting the number of travelers in the area, with guards or snipers at the trail heads. I do not see why there won't be several paths where there was once one. Even with blazes on trees I could not follow the Airline trail a couple of years ago after an October wind storm created much blow down. This is one of many examples. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I would find many of the trails hard to follow in winter and even in summer after false paths have been started by others. I think the ADK "trailless" (really non maintained trails) peaks are a good example to look at as to why you should have the blazes. I think they have started to mark some of these unmaintained heard paths to try to consolidate the plethora of paths into one and to keep hikers off of private property. In an alpine zone I would think keeping people on the trail would be of utmost importance to protect the fragile alpine vegetation. Mt. Mansfield's summit ridge is flagged to the point of almost being an eye sore. Hence I suspect this is the reason 4K peaks may be more discussed then other areas, in my mind. I have completed the ADK 46 and NH 4000ers many years ago and never received a patch. I suppose I could buy one, but I could have done that whether I climbed them or not. So I miss the peak bagger reference too. Without the blazes I will be fine, but I do not think removing them is a good idea or does anything to "restore wilderness". My 2 cents. Happy hiking hiking everyone.

 

[NewHampshire]

The problem I have is the picking and choosing that goes on with the Forest Service and such. When I did Owl's Head last year, the big controversy was a certain "Ranger Dick" who kept knocking down the cairn for the Slide turn off. This same Ranger apparently went out of his way to remove the sign atop OH. Ok, fine, he is trying to hold to the Wilderness rules as he interperts them. Yet.......YET, on the trip I saw not one, not TWO, but THREE signs nailed to trees along the trail signifying "no camping".

And lets not overlook the AMC's part, or lack thereof, in all this. They got a bunch in their panties when the wilderness act was first proposed. The onyl way they would support it was if their tensites in the Pemi were allowed to stay (13 Falls and Guyot.) This is why they are still there and operating. God fobid the AMC have to remove one of their moneymakers. They could have easily looked at Congress and the lobbiers and said "well, we want to make a few suggestions..." like allowing the OH slide to be considered an "official trail" allowing for maintinance, and at least the idea of keeping blazes. But......there is no money in that. Giggy once told me "go look at the board of directors for the AMC...they are all Boston businessmen". That explains to me why THEY got to picking and choosing.

I don't know. Could I live without blazes? Sure. But I, like the vast majority here, are experienced enough to knwo what we are doing and where we are going. Its not you or I that I am worried about. Its those people who don't have the experience and don't know what they are getting into that I worry about. And don't say "those people should not be out there then." Thats unfair.

Hmmmm,this is actually kind of funny. WHo would have thought, 2"x6" paint blotches, accessability of "remote" places to less experienced people, and a whole host of inane things could get people so riled up!

Brian

 

[Pete_Hickey]

...... And don't say "those people should not be out there then." Thats unfair.

That's right! And the trails should be PAVED. So that people in their otorized wheelchairs can be out there. Unfair if that isn't the case........ Or is life unfair?

 

[NewHampshire]

That's right! And the trails should be PAVED. So that people in their otorized wheelchairs can be out there. Unfair if that isn't the case........ Or is life unfair?

I don't mean to sound like I am being overbearing on this subject. I guess the point I am trying to make (or possibly lacked making) is that the WMNF is a FEDERALLY funded and owned parcel of land*. That means taxpayers PAY for this lands continuous upkeep. Why should a hardworking person, who pays his taxes, be essentially refused the use of this land because their experience level discourages them. Its not like we are talking about a parcel of land that has never seen a blaze before. We are talking about land that has already been blazed (and has so for hundreds? of years before someone arbitrarily said "its time to revert it back to wilderness.) I dunno, Im just trying to make a point.

BTW, the Basin in Franconia Notch is now wheel chair accessable......aint life grand .

Brian

*but then again, I pay taxes that fund military bases that I am not allowed to step foot on as I so choose....so may this argument falls apart at this point

 

[David Metsky]

No one is being refused access to the land. Improvements (like bridges, blazes, shelters) are not required for recreation, and there are lots of folks who would love to have places like that in reach. Those folks pay taxes too, shouldn't they have some Wilderness?

The sign says "Land of Many Uses". One of them can be Wilderness along side other, more improved areas.

 

[forestgnome]

This is stunning. You have a well-defined foot path, an obvious sign of "hand-of-man"(HOM). You see a little blaze of paint and think "oh, that just kills my wilderness experience". You walk around the bend to a stretch of trail with no blaze visible on this WELL-BEATEN PATH and think "now, this is wonderful; I wonder if any human has ever been here before?!"

The path is HOM!!! What difference does a blaze of paint make on a well-beaten path? OMG

Happy Trails

 

[giggy]

so - what is the deal, people here think "other people" might get lost due to no blazes? Number #1 - who cares if they do?

NH, while I tend to agree with most of what you say - I can't buy the argument that someone is being refused anything based on skill level. There is a climb on cannon called the black dike, its above my skill level, I would love to do it, but I don't becuase I am not 100% confidant I could safely do it. I am not being refused anything. How is this different from somone doing owls head or jefferson via the sphinx trail with no blazes? If its a problem, don't do it until your ready.

I would venture a guess and say most folks w/o the skills don't venture deep into the bush and someone doing say owls head - you would think has done a few hikes and has a basic understaning how to read a map and route find - at least enough to get out of a pinch. If they don't and get lost due a blaze being removed - quite frankly, who cares? Its life.

basically - I don't care about this one way or another, I am just killing time right now until the baby wakes up!

 

[Andrew]

I feel bad for the NHF&G, UVWRT, NEK9 & AVSAR folks who might get more busy.

Monadnock blazed the Mossy Brook & Marian Trails due to the fact that so many people when lost wound up crossing over those trails unknowingly. No calls from this area since it was done.

Blazes should only be removed if hikers sign a waiver that they will not ask for help if lost! (Just toungue in cheek).

Baxter SP on the Traveler decided to officiate the trail due to the impact of spread out trails from keeping it "Wild".