My take on wilderness regulations and their recent enforcements

[Periwinkle]

A few specific comments:

• Signs: I think Pete's got the idea. Although I didn't specifically ask, I assume the sign in question will be posted at the trailheads. As one of those "What's Going on Here" deals.
• Cairns Above Treeline: These will not be removed as they are considered necessary for safety (as navigational aids).
• Cairn Removal on OHP: Just to clarify -- I believe these cairns are not being removed because of specific Wilderness regulations, but are considered violations of more general forest regulations.
• Links: Nice fiinds, Brownie. I originally tried to find the information I got online, but got impatient, bailed, and made a phone call. Definately links worth saving for future input!

Overall, I think this is a tough call. When it comes to Owl's Head, we're talking about a viewless peak that generally is of interest only to peakbaggers. What would happen to that trail/glorified herd path if the USGS scaled it back to say, 3999'?

I look at this from two points of view: 1) I'm thankful for what trail there is to Owl's Head. (And was seriously amused by whomever had taken the time to spell out "OWL" in white stones at the trail junction last September.) 2) I've seen more than enough real "bootleg" trails to get a little annoyed. Those are two extremes for sure. Owl's Head is a "destination". Cutting your own bootleg trail just because you feel like it is another issue entirely. But, under the current regulations, they really are one in the same. The question really is, where do we draw the line?

 

[Arthur Dent]

Yesterday I had a 45 minute meeting at the Pemi Ranger District office in Holderness discussing things like Owl's Head, Wilderness, and geocaching in the White's, and will fill you more in after I get some sleep. It definitely was the USFS Pemi staff that removed the summit sign, the cairn, and the nearby geocache from Owl's Head. After some suggestions I had they are going to see if there is some way they can post on VFFT and other sites about what they are doing that would affect hikers so there isn't this confussion and finger pointing. Understand that they need approval (blessing) from the regional office in Laconia to make this happen. They seemed genuinely interested in doing this. Right now they do monitor this and some other sites. Where I had worked for the USFS years ago it may have helped that I talked to them. I will keep you updated.

 

[Neil]

"When it comes to Owl's Head, we're talking about a viewless peak that generally is of interest only to peakbaggers."

Question:
Is "wilderness" a playground or a living museum?

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Question:
Is "wilderness" a playground or a living museum?

neither. These are creations for man's entertainment.

 

[Variocana]

Right now they do monitor this and some other sites.

So does that mean the know about "pschyo Ranger Dick"?

as always,
Vario

 

[VFTTop'r]

Should tthere be anywhere on earth where there is SERIOUS protection of wilderness, or should everything be a 'wild park' for recreation? We don't want to protect it if it interferes with what we want to do with it, right? I mean at least we're not drilling for oil



No no... incrementalism is what is destroying wilderness. Technology marches on and is destroying what little bit of wilderness ramains. Some are just trying to protect that little bit. Cell phones, GPS, high-tech gear, natural resource shortages, suburban living,... They're all destroying wilderness (small "W", Dave) little by little. And when it's gone, it doesn't really come back.

Take a bit for oil, take a bit for wood. Have trails and cell phone coverage everywhere, after all, we want to be safe, right? GPS, to make it easy for everyone to reach places they couldn't before, and high-tech clothing to protect them while doing it.

Wilderness is going, bit by bit.

News from Everest climbers used to take weeks to reach us. Now, we have live video and blogs. What happened to the wilderness.

Is what remains worth protecting?

Do you want wilderness, or do you want a wild playground?

If the last mountain on your xxx list had no route except through some rare vegetation, what would you do? Is your list more importatn than some rare plants. After all, you'll only kill a few of them.

Me? I don't know if its even worth protecting what we have. I like to think it is, but it's a loosing battle. Fighting to protect wilderness is only delaying the inevitable. It's going.

"You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.
They paved paradice and put up a parking lot."

Let's face it the prevailing philosophy of our time is based on evolution, moral relativism and a no absolute truth mindset, that's a fact. Evolution's primary idea is survival of the fittest. If that is true, then if we find oil or whatever we need or want to live then evolution would say go for it. We can say we should/shouldn't do this or that but who says so? Who decides? The majority? How do you know stripping the land is bad or good?

 

[Puck]

Let's face it the prevailing philosophy of our time is based on evolution, moral relativism and a no absolute truth mindset, that's a fact. Evolution's primary idea is survival of the fittest. If that is true, then if we find oil or whatever we need or want to live then evolution would say go for it. We can say we should/shouldn't do this or that but who says so? Who decides? The majority? How do you know stripping the land is bad or good?

I feel civilzation and wilderness were created by man. If we were hunter gathers we would have a social structure but no permited civilization. We would be in a sate of nature for our welfare. However we live in towns and cities with a support infrastructure. Wilderness is the opposite of that. We have approached wilderness as Mr Hickey pointed out as if it was a playground or living meusem..That is to say it exists for us and not for its own sake. However scientific studies are showing wild areas are far more important to the health of the planet then we have realized. In light of a greater understanding evolution would not dictate that we would exploit these areas for resources at the peril of the planet.

There is a great article in the most resent Audubon magazine about the Boreal forests withe a focus on Canadian policy. This is forest is being harvested at a rate of five acres a minute. It has huge chunks taken out of it the size of some states. Timber is not the only culprit as there is a great amount of fragmentation occurring by the fuel industry. The forest is needed to ofset carbon from hot house gases. Fortunatly there is a huge effort to protect up to 50% of the area.

But VFTTer you raise a great point. Are these areas there for us to decimate for resources or are they there for us to preserve? Can we share the planet with other forms of life and act like a steward? The Artic Wilderness drilling issue is coming up for a vote later in Sept. How will that vote go in the aftermath of Katrina and our current energy situation? It is time to change our ways, to conserve and find alternative sources. Evolution is change to meet survival demands. If we don't change....well I am just being an enivronmental alarmist...
Worrying about a cairn or a sign is petty micromanagement.

 

[arghman]

Got back from an Owls Head on Saturday, have had some time to think about all this. Some brief notes from this hike & other experiences which may be relevant, to me at least:

Owls Head Path (Pemi Wilderness): There was a large (2-3') cairn at the jct w/ Lincoln Brook Tr. A few small cairns going up the slide. Upper part of the path had blue blazes on fir trees, but these have recently been scraped off (blue paint flakes on ground, so I assume within the last year or two), showing a light-brown blaze-shaped scar. Which stands out more, the original blazes, or the attempt to obliterate them? Cairn at summit clearing seems to be spontaneously reassembling. No signs.

Lincoln Brook Trail (Pemi Wilderness): No blazes, no signs, no cairns -- nothing but a path through the woods. Are we on the trail? I guess so, it looks like a trail.

8/27/05: Blueberry Ledge Trail up to Mt Whiteface (Sandwich Wilderness): Blue blazes. Signs austere (no mileage stats, just trail names), in good condition & on that weird wilderness pentagon shape. (Right out of WODC's Trail Tending Guide see p. 23 of the PDF) I seem to remember the rest of the loop (Rollins Trail and Diceys Mill Trail) being similar.

9/5/05: Two hikes in Goffstown on land owned by the Town or by a conservation organization. No signs, no blazes. Trails are leftover woods roads. Some areas over a mile from the nearest road. Seldom used except by locals. Sometimes it feels like wilderness (small W), esp. when I don't see anyone else for a few hours.

Summer 2004: A drive up to Pittsburg, NH for the 7th year in a row, especially the last strip on Rt 3 from First Connecticut Lake northward (the state owns a strip of land on both sides of the road, as a park). The "911" rules for emergency services have forced putting up a number road signs on private lanes leading from Rt 3 between First and Second Connecticut Lake, inside the state park, where there were no road signs before. They stick out like a sore thumb, IMHO. The stretch of highway between Second Lake and the Canadian border is the last stand of "highway wilderness" or whatever you want to call it. Just a road through the Great North Woods. What few signs are there are mainly international highway signs (no words, just curved arrows).

Spring 2005: NH Department of Transportation starts putting up mileage marker signs on I-93, I-89, I-293, and I-393. Signs are relatively large, are every 0.2 miles, contain unused white space, and repeatedly announce the highway number and direction. Purpose is allegedly for driver safety (perhaps for those drivers who have cell phones, do not know where they are, and are in a condition to go look for the nearest mileage marker). Total cost is at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. FYI the mileage markers on the Garden State Parkway in NJ have been up for years, are much smaller, every 0.1 mile, and show only numbers.


So when do we need signs and blazes and cairns, and when do we need them gone? Beats me. I personally would pick a bare minimum of signage/blazing/cairns to fulfill minimal safety and "hiker morale" (boy is it good not to feel lost sometimes) requirements in all four seasons. Interview a bunch of hikers and find out the minimum level of navigational aids that they can all accept. I don't really see much difference between Wilderness and non-Wilderness hiking in that regard; a far bigger difference would be when a trail is used more by inexperienced tourists than experienced hikers, and/or if there are confusing navigational situations.

Just my 2c.

 

[JNewell]

We hiked Owls Head on Sunday, 9/4. When we arrived, there was a cairn at the base of the slide but before we began our ascent a USFS ranger had begun to hurl the rocks in every direction. On our way up, we noted the freshly-shaved blue blazes. I should note that in several places the bark had been shaved clear through to the wood, which is likely to harm the tree. There was a cairn at the "traditional" summit, but the sign had been removed, though the holes in the tree were visible.

My take on this? I think this is a very ill-conceived policy (if it really is USFS policy rather than a ranger free-lancing). Why?

1. The "wilderness" here is one in name (and law) only. This area has been logged, burned, logged and burned again during the past century. Please, USFS, note that most of the trail to the slide trail lies on logging railroad beds. In many places the ties are still exposed! I should note that the "herd path" to the summit of Owls Head is actually in a better state of maintenance than some "official trails" in the WMNF.

2. Destruction of cairns and blazes for the slide trail increases the likelihood that hikers will increase local damage from use (such as erosion). The current policy is contrary to every principle of good management, and the USFS should know this.

3. Destruction of the cairns at the base of the slide increases the risk that hikers -- who will not stop coming just because the USFS destroys trail markers -- will become lost, benighted or otherwise reach out to draw upon S&R resources. This could be much reduced by recognizing the situation as it currently exists and managing around it, rather than taking action that will not change the frequency of use but will affect how the trail and surrounding area are used.

It is important to consider that this trail is widely publicized, both in print and on internet websites of various kinds. While some are cautious about the markers (IIRC, the AMC WMG says the slide trail head is "occasionally" marked by a cairn), most are not. Most hikers who come to Owls Head are expecting to find a cairn.

I should point out that when we returned to the base of the slide, a group of hikers approached from the north, having missed the cairn that they expected to find. (Why they drew no conclusions from the several piles of packs left at the side of the trail is a different question. ) This seems like a very concrete illustration of the futility of continually trying to destroy the trail markers here. It will not change the frequency of use, but it is likely to cause more trail damage and to lead to some -- unnecessary, I suggest -- calls for assistance from hikers who probably would not have called for assistance if the markers were left intact.

In a nutshell, the current USFS actions seem to me to be poor management, and worth giving serious reconsideration. That's my $0.02.

 

[AntlerPeak]

Very interesting and worthwhile thread and many thoughtful posts here. Congrats to all for each contibution has merit. Neil pointed out some interesting contrast in the way the WMNF approaches things versus the Adirondacks. One interesting point is and I cannot recall the specific title. In one of his books Robert Marshall discussed why he while working for the Forest Service believed New York would be better served in protecting the Adirondacks through their own efforts. Marshall pointed out the forest service is not about preserving wilderness. The forest service manages the land to promote timber sales, grazing etc. To increase sales it builds extensive road networks to encourage the harvesting of forest and wild lands products. in Marshall's view this was not protecting wilderness.

This conflict is illustrated by two interesting positions taken by the WMNF. ( 1 ) The seemingly militant approach to the removal of rock carns and signs, Owls Head, the Bonds. I say militant approach based upon descriptions presented on this forum. This is done presumably in the name of wilderness. At least someone's idea of wilderness is a rock cairn, sign, paint blaze or bridge does not conform to a wilderness and is a blight to be expunged. At the same time the forest service turns a blind eye to this philosophy through a conflicting action more detrimental to wilderness than those offensive items we need protection from. Consider this other action that occurs concurrently with the one above.

( 2 ) The Zealand Road, oh yes they are closing this to build a heavy duty bridge when the present one is not in need of repair. Again this statement is from information presented on this site. Why the heavy duty bridge? To enable logging trucks access to the wilderness to cut down trees the service sold to commercial timber companies. It seems to me this is sufficient to prove Robert Marshall's concerns of almost three quarters of a century ago.

In the Adirondacks the approach has been preservation. The DEC and APA are not about to let anyone cut anything in the park even if they own it. Again as I see it Marshall was right about the protection issue. There is in the Adirondacks more than one level of wilderness. The Wild Forest designation for some areas is more relaxed than what is considered wilderness. But even areas called wild forest are not overrun with development. One can certainly enjoy the back country in those areas as well.

A concern mentioned here is knocking down shelters, bridges etc, whether or not these things are wilderness. I have to agree with the DEC/APA policy of leaving present structures and doing minimal maintainence and not building new things. There are instances where this policy has been selectively ignored based upon who made the specific decision. But for the most part that is the approach.

The idea of wilderness varies upon who's eyes are viewing a specific issue. The cairn on Owls Head is one, the "trail-less ADK peaks is another. Decisions are controversial and that is not likely to change. There are plenty of contradictions in the process as one simple illustration will serve as an example. That is the emotional battle over the cannisters that graced the 21 trail-less peaks for more than a generation. It was decided these small cannisters did not conform to a wilderness and these offenders were purged. For those of you who take this view answer then how a brown and yellow board sign that is larger than the cannister it replaced is conforming?

As I began great thread many thoughful comments and ideas, but alas no clear answers.

 

[AMF]

At risk of dragging this discussion further, I seem to recall from hiking in wilderness areas out west that any trail signs were generally being removed or else not maintained in wilderness areas as part of FS policy. You were responsible for your own navigation. Maybe some folks who have hiked in the Wind River area recently can chime in on this... Anyhow, this seems to be the motiviation behind actions in the Pemi (tho' as was noted, the Pemi seems far from the traditional concept of "wilderness"!)

 

[arghman]

What's confusing is the policy seems to differ between the Pemi Wilderness (or at least Lincoln Brook Trail + Owls Head Path, I've not been to the other trails inside Wilderness-land there) which appears to be anti-sign/cairn/blaze, and the Sandwich Wilderness, which seems to allow signs/blazes. Not sure what the policy actually is.

I don't remember exactly whether there's blazes within the trails at Caribou/Speckled Mountain Wilderness. On Caribou there are signs and scree walls to protect alpine/subalpine vegetation; those should definitely stay as their need would override any psychological Wilderness benefits, IMHO.

I've never had any confusion on the structures policy (e.g. removal of shelters/bridges when they are in need of significant repair), so I have nothing to gripe about to USFS so far about their implementation of that policy (though I will say that I don't like the policy itself).

 

[Pete_Hickey]

It was decided these small cannisters did not conform to a wilderness and these offenders were purged. For those of you who take this view answer then how a brown and yellow board sign that is larger than the cannister it replaced is conforming?

That is very easy to answer.

There was public consultation as the UMP was being written. Conforming and non-corming items were listed. When canisters were listed as non-conforming, there was no outcry. Had there been, they may very well have stayed, as they did in the Catskills.

In ther ADKs, conforming and non-conforming is not determined by logic. It was determined by committees and compormises.


If you care about things, read and comment when things are being discussed and planned. Don't bitch when things are implemented. BTW, the DEC asked for input in the bear canister thing in the high peaks. Input received was overwhelmingly in favor. Watch for the complainers next year, when its implementation really starts.

 

[David Metsky]

which appears to be anti-sign/cairn/blaze, and the Sandwich Wilderness, which seems to allow signs/blazes. Not sure what the policy actually is.

I don't remember exactly whether there's blazes within the trails at Caribou/Speckled Mountain Wilderness. On Caribou there are signs and scree walls to protect alpine/subalpine vegetation; those should definitely stay as their need would override any psychological Wilderness benefits, IMHO.

AFAIK, the only blazes being removed are those on unofficial trails (Owl's Head slide), the only sign removed was on the Owl's Head summit (summits don't generally have signs in the Wilderness) and the only cairns being removed are on obvious summits (West Bond) or on unmaintained trails. Since the summit cairn on Sandwich Dome was removed years ago, I don't see any differing rules in that respect. Have any blazes or signs or navigational cairns on official trails been removed?

There are different rules in the Great Gulf and Dry River Wildernesses relating to fires, but I think each Wilderness Area has its own management plan. There can be different rules, but right now I don't see any related to signs/cairns/blazes

 

[Neil]

Wilderness "feel". There are several sub-themes interwoven in this thread. I see that the Owl's Head discussion is the meat of it.
These days, when I hike I think about this slippery question most of the time. I hiked past Marcy Dam on Sunday just before 6am and onwards to Marcy in thick mist and drizzle. There wasn't a sound other than a few birds. I left my son as he went to climb Table top and hiked very, very slowly to within 1.2 miles of Marcy. Believe me, I had a true wilderness experience while on the heaviest travelled trail in all the ADK High peaks region. Why? Because I was all alone. (I posted on another thread that I felt "outside" of the wilderness, looking in, while on a trail) So, possibility for solitude and quiet are 2 big components of a wilderness experience for me. Trails, markers, LT's, bridges, privies and the like don't bother me as long as mechanized propulsion is excluded.

 

[Periwinkle]

It's Not Only a Wilderness Issue

Just to clarify, since I keep reading comments referring to the Owl's Head Path and Wilderness regulations.

As I was told, the issue with the Owl's Head Path is not that it does not conform to Wilderness regulations. The maintenance, etc. of the unofficial path is in violation of more general regulations that apply to many federal lands, including the WMNF. The specific regulation quoted is CFR 261.10a. I can't quickly find a link to that, but a good discussion of the issue is on the WODC's web page: http://www.wodc.org/bootleg.htm This describes a bootleg trail to Passaconaway. The same regulation applies to Owl's Head, or any other unofficial trail in the WMNF.

As Dave mentioned, the sign at the summit itself could be considered non-conforming to Wilderness regulations.

I don't mean to be pedantic. I just want to make sure that we have our stories straight. To top it off, I'm not even completely thrilled about the enforcement of this regulation to this extent. Call me a tree hugger, but it bothers me that permanent damage would be done trees along the Owl's Head Path by scrapping off blazes, amongst other seemingly heavy handed tactics. But, I'll leave the rest of my rant out of this....

 

[sapblatt]

CFR section

The CFR section Periwinkle mentions can be found here.

 

[jjmcgo]

Condensing thread to a sentence

Nice job, Periwinkle. Your gift of concision brought the whole thread down to a single sentence:
"Call me a tree hugger, but it bothers me that permanent damage would be done trees along the Owl's Head Path by scrapping off blazes, amongst other seemingly heavy handed tactics."
Many of the hikers on the site have a great reverence for all things found in the woods and seek a sanctuary where the hand of man is not evident.
The Forest Service has no such goal, just a mandate to preserve forests in the event that it is decided to reap the resources. Another poster mentioned the possibility that the Wilderness could be discarded by politicians if valuable resources are discovered there.
So, damaging a tree or several trees is not as important to the Forest Service employee as is forcing everyone to comply with the rules. Rules rule, not trees.
As stated by others, different people and organizations have different, sometimes competing, goals regarding these forests.
I like having these large, government-owned preserves but I don't think I want to see a lot more of them. When land is in private hands, it can get raped but as we've seen in Zealand Notch, nature heals itself.
When government controls land, it just seems to get farther and farther out of the control of the people who live around it. "Hi, we're from Washington and we're not here to help you."
That's part of my objection to the roadless rules. In practice, people who live in the territory are being barred from getting to their property or being forced to go ridiculous distances to enter by alternate routes.
There's good reasons for wanting limits on government.

 

[Jasonst]

Many of the hikers on the site have a great reverence for all things found in the woods and seek a sanctuary where the hand of man is not evident.

Interesting sentence. Probably best describes a lot of the friction on this board over issues such as these.

 

[arghman]

Many of the hikers on the site have a great reverence for all things found in the woods and seek a sanctuary where the hand of man is not evident.

I agree, it gets complicated though, since theoretically you don't find such a place unless you bushwhack away from the structures and litter and signs and cairns and trails and herd paths, and if enough people go to the same place you have a herd path or litter or crowds or noise. You could have a very loud group of 10 people hiking Owls Head, not violating any laws as far as I know, and it would be far more of a disruption to that feeling of "sanctuary" than cairns.

(I vote we encourage everyone else to hike Washington and Monadnock and maybe Lafayette and a few other places, so the peace and quiet is preserved for the rest of us who go elsewhere. )

I like having these large, government-owned preserves but I don't think I want to see a lot more of them. When land is in private hands, it can get raped but as we've seen in Zealand Notch, nature heals itself.
When government controls land, it just seems to get farther and farther out of the control of the people who live around it. "Hi, we're from Washington and we're not here to help you."

I don't care who owns the land as long as there's public access, it doesn't get subdivided, there aren't ski condos splattered around, and there's still a large portion of it at any given time where people can enjoy the woods without going through timbering areas if they don't want to. Private ownership of the North Woods lately seems to encourage subdivision and residential development.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK, the only blazes being removed are those on unofficial trails (Owl's Head slide), the only sign removed was on the Owl's Head summit (summits don't generally have signs in the Wilderness) and the only cairns being removed are on obvious summits (West Bond) or on unmaintained trails. Since the summit cairn on Sandwich Dome was removed years ago, I don't see any differing rules in that respect. Have any blazes or signs or navigational cairns on official trails been removed?

True. I guess I meant it more as a comparison of the status quo rather than changes. There's a wooden sign that says "VIEW" leading to a path on the north side of Passaconaway in the Sandwich Wilderness, and most trails in the area seem to be blazed. It just surprised me when hiking it that Lincoln Brook Tr didn't have any blazes.

re: tree "damage":
From what I saw of the blaze removal on Owls Head path (and I can post some pictures), the damage to the bark is only on the very outer portion and is extremely unlikely to hurt the trees involved.