Owl's Head cairns and signs removed

[adamiata]

This is the problem, though. Its not the USFS fault. They are FEDERALLY MANDATED to consern themselves with this petty problem. Do you honestly believe the Rangers set out every so oftne thinking "HA, I love showing these peakbaggers whos the boss around here!"? Perhaps some do, but I think most believe that what they are doing is indeed a waste of time. But orders are orders, and while these rules may have been ignored in the past by previous FS service personell, that still does not make it right.

You are indeed correct that Wilderness can not be defined by bureaucrats, but we have shown on this site that those who use the forest themselves can not define it. We all have our own views on what consitutes "Wilderness" and no surprise they do not always match up even remotely closely. So for now, all we can do is abide by the rules as made until the voice of the many overrides the status quo.

Brian

I do honestly believe that have far better things to do that are also FEDERALLY MANDATED. If they're like every other agency that considers itself underfunded then some administrator is choosing what to prioritize.

A few tiny piles of rocks and a sign in the middle of the woods hurt nothing.

They apparently have the resources to have someone scrape blazes off trees that would eventually disappear on their own, but let's see how long it takes them to respond to the recent red blazes on the Black Pond "Bushwhack"

 

[NewHampshire]

I do honestly believe that have far better things to do that are also FEDERALLY MANDATED. If they're like every other agency that considers itself underfunded then some administrator is choosing what to prioritize.

A few tiny piles of rocks and a sign in the middle of the woods hurt nothing.

They appently have the resources to have someone scrape blazes off trees that would eventually disappear on their own, but let's see how long it takes them to respond to the recent red blazes on the Black Pond "Bushwhack"

I agree that tiny piles of rocks hurt nothing. Same for a sign. But again, rules are rules. I think its stupid, but then again I could ramble on about a number of Federal laws that hurt no one but are a waste of time and money.

And as a side note I just read somewhere (not sure if it was here or ROT) that the illegal Black Pond bushwack blazes have indeed been delt with already.

Brian

*EDIT*HERE is a post from Madriver on ROT that says the illegal Black Pond bushwack blazes have been removed.

 

[NewHampshire]

the sign will be back up this sunday--oh btw it's not SJ???

My money is on Giggy....you know how that guy adores those wooded peaks! I bet he has been on Owl's Head 30 times...more than Washington!!!!!

.....Sorry, its tough to type that with a serious face

B.

 

[Mad Townie]

In all this let's not lose sight of the fact (for fact it is) that the whole wilderness designation thing exists primarily to protect the interests of people like us, people who like to get out in the woods and have woods to look at, not condos. Some of those "pencil-pushing bureaucrats" do have their hearts in the right place. Why, I'm willing to bet that some of them even climb mountains!

For some bizarre reason, even people who seem to have the same goals as I have fail to understand that the only reasonable way to reach those goals is to take the actions I know to be the right ones.

 

[bigmoose]

Let 'em take the signs, the jars, and the canisters, kick down the cairns, confiscate the flagging and obliterate the blazes, if it makes 'em happy.

If they start taking down the mountains, that would be cause for alarm.

 

[giggy]

My money is on Giggy....you know how that guy adores those wooded peaks! I bet he has been on Owl's Head 30 times...more than Washington!!!!!

.....Sorry, its tough to type that with a serious face

B.

ummm - no. would never put a sign anywhere in the hills, or anything like that. not my style at all.

 

[NewHampshire]

ummm - no. would never put a sign anywhere in the hills, or anything like that. not my style at all.

Not even a neon sign that said "Line for BBQ starts here"?

Brian

P.S. I know, I know, we are getting into fluff material now!

 

[dr_wu002]

Lame

My money is on Giggy....you know how that guy adores those wooded peaks! I bet he has been on Owl's Head 30 times...more than Washington!!!!!

.....Sorry, its tough to type that with a serious face

B.

It's not Giggy, it's... someone else and someone else. You know, who cares if there's a sign or not on Owl's Head? I don't. But if they keep taking it down and these same people keep putting it up, doesn't that tell you something? All it does is end up drawing tons of negative attention and suddenly all the weeners who think they're "exercising their right to public disobedience" are going to run up and put more signs up and more cairns and it becomes a big joke.

Actually, I'd prefer a sign up there. But if the forest service is going to take them down, putting them back up is not an act of "civil disobedience" -- it's just childish chest-thumping.

-Dr. Wu

 

[David Metsky]

P.S. I know, I know, we are getting into fluff material now!

Yes, yes we are. Please rein it in a bit folks.

-dave-

 

[NewHampshire]

But if they keep taking it down and these same people keep putting it up, doesn't that tell you something? All it does is end up drawing tons of negative attention and suddenly all the weeners who think they're "exercising their right to public disobedience" are going to run up and put more signs up and more cairns and it becomes a big joke.

I think your on to something. I think thats why we got the ugly blue "OWSHEAD" signs that just got taken down. I don't know. Honestly, I think it now has gotten past "civial disobediance" and we have now moved on to childish cat and mouse games with the FS.

But to each his own I guess.

Brian

 

[Paradox]

Yes, yes we are. Please rein it in a bit folks.
-dave-

It sounds like everyone here can make it up and down that mountain without much external help. How do we create a situation whereby the rest of the hiking public will find it unnecessary or gouche to mark up the wilderness we enjoy so much?

 

[dr_wu002]

I think your on to something. I think thats why we got the ugly blue "OWSHEAD" signs that just got taken down. I don't know. Honestly, I think it now has gotten past "civial disobediance" and we have now moved on to childish cat and mouse games with the FS.

But to each his own I guess.

Brian

If people really have an affinity for signs, why not put them on peaks that nobody is going to remove them from. Make a sign that says "North East Carragain" and put it on that hump NE of Carragain Summit. Or better yet, name it after yourself or after some folk hero of the White Mountains like Gary Moody. The thing is, if you're "sign-bagging" it'll be much cooler to find one in out-of-the-way places than one that already has a trail.

It's nice that Owl's Head had a sign -- I liked it -- but the Forest Service keeps taking them down. And my God you're not Rosa Parks for putting it back up... more like Steve Erkel.

Also, considering the sign on Owl's Head was in the wrong place for 20 or 30 years, I'd say that just because you're standing under any sign doesn't mean you're actually there.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Artex]

I had a very enlightening conversation with a ranger about two years ago on this topic. The simple solution is just designate the route up to the top as a trail. I forget exactly how to do this, but remember it not sounding all that hard. Until then, the rangers will just keeping knocking down the cairns and removing the signs no matter how much people whine about it, so why waste the energy on that and simply take the steps to make it legit? Am I missing something?! I'd do it myself, but frankly, I have bigger fish to fry.

 

[David Metsky]

The simple solution is just designate the route up to the top as a trail. I forget exactly how to do this, but remember it not sounding all that hard.

Actually, getting new trails designated in the Wilderness Area is not an easy process. It could take years if it ever happens. However, I agree that if people feel that would be the best solution then they should be working towards that end. Building cairns and placing signs only serves to antagonize the rangers and administrators when we (the hiking/peakbagging community) should be working with them.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The Folly of Staying the Course

Building cairns and placing signs only serves to antagonize the rangers and administrators when we (the hiking/peakbagging community) should be working with them.

My guess is that many people see Owl's Head on the map, and simply go up it without any knowledge of this tempest-in-a-teapot, and may place a rock cairn or two just for a tiny piece of mind for their return trip. Not all hikers view this forum, which I think we tend to overlook when discussing this.

So we have a few rangers who have limited time, against an army of "insurgent hikers" who are not necessarily connected, who can show up at any time of day or night.

I really don't see how the USFS is going to "win" this one. But it appears the battle is on!

 

[RoySwkr]

Just remove the "wilderness" designation.
End of issue.

I don't believe this has ever happened as there are national groups who believe every acre is sacrosanct and will fight to the bitter end. But there may be a crack in the dam - a community of Native Alaskans claim they were not consulted about an adjacent Wilderness designation and want to build a road to the nearest hospital across it. They have offered to contribute over 10 times the land they are affecting as new Wilderness. The national groups are of course fighting it so we'll have to see who wins.

Interestingly, when the first WMNF Wilderness was designated that included a 4000-footer (Isolation), the 4k club got a letter that it should be removed from the list because Wilderness values were incompatible with peakbagging. It's apparent that some people's values are.

 

[Mike P.]

The ADK's I thought handled their herdpaths well (I don't think the Dix wilderness area is federally designated but could be wrong.

A small cairn & a tastefully made, small sign I would think would be better. Forest Service could design it. Couldn't the ranger be doing some more productive with the salary our tax $$$ provide.

 

[ctsparrow]

With OH an obvious destination of peakbaggers, in guides etc, my concern of the stripping of helpful, non-neon markers is the hikers who will seek it only to become lost...and we all know this will happen!!!! Will the forest service not charge for search and rescue efforts? This would be a major contention for campaigning for trail status. Since the main trail leading into this zone is a 'road trail' used by many for many different purposes, i can 'see' the headlines now of lost hikers looking for a commonly climbed but UNMARKED summit and trail. Considering also the terrain in other directions off OH, you get unfamiliar hikers in poor visibility and now the fun begins. It's too bad the park service doesn't have a foresight vs. hindsight clause in their regulations.
JMHO ctsparrow

 

[forestgnome]

I find the reasons for insisting on a summit sign in the middle of wilderness to be quite weak.

Yes, the USFS definitely does have better things to do than constantly cleaning up after a group who should be more respectful.

 

[David Metsky]

The Forest Service doesn't handle S&R, although they are often involved. NH Fish and Game is responsible for S&R. The USPS isn't involved in any way; the Forest Service and the Park Service are under different federal departments.