Having done lots of trailwork in the past, scraping paint blazes off trees in the forests of New Hampshire doesn't do any long term damage. If it were that easy to kill trees there would be a lot more dead trees. It may look ugly for a while, but the scars will heal. If someone had put up flagging to mark the unofficial trail, I don't think many here would object to removing it. This certainly has more impact, but I'm not particularly worried about it.
The FS balances many different directives. Harvesting timber is certainly an important one, but recreation and wildlife protection are pretty high on the list as well. Many areas of the Whites are off limits to timber harvesting, and recreation use feeds into an awful lot of the decisions. A lot of money and time goes into recreation facilities of all types (wilderness hiking trails, wayside picnic areas, nature trails, handicapped access, trailhead privies, etc) They are trying to strike a balance, and of course, are going to piss off a lot of people in the process.
IMO, the National Forests do tend to take on the character of the locale. The WMNF is managed differently than the GMNF as it should be. The lands out west seem to be managed very differently as well. I agree that it is good to be vigilant about how the forests are managed, but I'm not convinced that private ownership holds any great benefits over public ownership (state or federal) in the long run. The sale of the paper company lands in ME and NH to developers makes it pretty clear that no single path holds all the answers.
Just some thoughts.
-dave-
The FS balances many different directives. Harvesting timber is certainly an important one, but recreation and wildlife protection are pretty high on the list as well. Many areas of the Whites are off limits to timber harvesting, and recreation use feeds into an awful lot of the decisions. A lot of money and time goes into recreation facilities of all types (wilderness hiking trails, wayside picnic areas, nature trails, handicapped access, trailhead privies, etc) They are trying to strike a balance, and of course, are going to piss off a lot of people in the process.
IMO, the National Forests do tend to take on the character of the locale. The WMNF is managed differently than the GMNF as it should be. The lands out west seem to be managed very differently as well. I agree that it is good to be vigilant about how the forests are managed, but I'm not convinced that private ownership holds any great benefits over public ownership (state or federal) in the long run. The sale of the paper company lands in ME and NH to developers makes it pretty clear that no single path holds all the answers.
Just some thoughts.
-dave-
No one here seems to have the "do not enter" attitude. The rules allow you to look and touch, but leave no permanent sign of your passage.
