ImYourHuckleberry
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2023
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 47
I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?
A New Hampshire Fish and Game officer I spoke with several years ago said that small reflective blazes on some trails are very helpful for route-finding -- and possible hiker rescue -- in the dark.I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?
Yeah I have no doubt it's helpful. Paving the trail would also be helpful.A New Hampshire Fish and Game officer I spoke with several years ago said that small reflective blazes on some trails are very helpful for route-finding -- and possible hiker rescue -- in the dark.
I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.I really hate the idea of reflective blazes. At some point if people are so worried about safety and convenience, shouldn't they just stay home?
I see the point you are trying to make and that could be a healthy (or not) debate on its own as to whether we should mark trails at all. Personally, I think if you're going to cut a trail through the woods with the intent on it being used for travel, you need to maintain it and mark it for effective travel or why bother at all? If someone is coming off a high peak in the winter and they got caught on a long day, a blaze or two could make the difference between getting out or not. Not to mention that if you want to navigate without trails or well-marked trails, there is 800,000 acres out there for you to bushwhack through to your hearts content. I have been hiking for over 45 years, my route-finding skills are not good, they are fantastic. That doesn't mean I want to stop once an hour to pull out my map and check to see where I am going on a winter trail, in the summer, most trails are easy to follow, although at junctions, river crossings, natural obstacles, blazes can really keep you on track and keep you moving making for a more enjoyable hike, imo. With the influx of hikers everywhere and the growing of the sport in general, it makes sense to keep trails followable, I'm sure SAR would probably sign off on that concept. Just my opinion of course.Yeah I have no doubt it's helpful. Paving the trail would also be helpful.
I think one point mentioned here that I agree on is that the trails are not there for just the experienced people. For some of us, we don't need no stinking blazes, but that's not the case for all.I see the point you are trying to make and that could be a healthy (or not) debate on its own as to whether we should mark trails at all. Personally, I think if you're going to cut a trail through the woods with the intent on it being used for travel, you need to maintain it and mark it for effective travel or why bother at all? If someone is coming off a high peak in the winter and they got caught on a long day, a blaze or two could make the difference between getting out or not. Not to mention that if you want to navigate without trails or well-marked trails, there is 800,000 acres out there for you to bushwhack through to your hearts content. I have been hiking for over 45 years, my route-finding skills are not good, they are fantastic. That doesn't mean I want to stop once an hour to pull out my map and check to see where I am going on a winter trail, in the summer, most trails are easy to follow, although at junctions, river crossings, natural obstacles, blazes can really keep you on track and keep you moving making for a more enjoyable hike, imo. With the influx of hikers everywhere and the growing of the sport in general, it makes sense to keep trails followable, I'm sure SAR would probably sign off on that concept. Just my opinion of course.
...
Remember the 6 P's: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Mostly on routes without blazes.
...
I think one point mentioned here that I agree on is that the trails are not there for just the experienced people. For some of us, we don't need no stinking blazes, but that's not the case for all.
That is an excellent point about spacing and junking things up. Also when things hit the fan and one finds themselves in need of help it assists the very worthy Professional and Volunteer Rescuers finding your arse.I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.
I disagree. Comparing Blazing to Bolting is a poor analogy and grasping at straws to make your point. Your are maybe in the same Circus but in a different ring.This is probably the point I disagree with the most. I don't think the trails need to be maintained for the least common denominator. Inexperienced people will gain experience by being tested. I also reject the premise that I should just bushwhack. I find this this argument akin to rock climbing arguments about fixed pro. I like my routes with a minimal amount of fixed pro, but I have no interest in always soloing. And speaking of technical climbing, I believe that many of the climbers in the S&R community (which also provide hiker rescue) have argued against and chopped excessive bolts in New Hampshire. I'm guessing these same people would not agree with excessive trail markings and reflective blazes, so I don't think the way it's been presented in this thread (i.e. - S&R obvious prefer more trail markings) is necessarily true.
I don't think I can add much more without just being repetitive, so I'll just say that I appreciate the differing and various views, and hope that views more akin to mine win out over time -- although it doesn't seem likely.
Many years ago I there was a story in PEEKS, the magazine of the 46ers, about a family that was doing a winter hike in the Dix Range. They were descending the Lillian Brook herd path and were planning on intercepting the main trail out to the parking lot at Elk Lake. It was late and they pretty much lost the herd path as darkness descended. They had a couple of kids with them as I recall. They were really getting worried when they suddenly spotted a reflective marker on the red trail back to the parking lot.I find the reflective blazes very useful and at least in the places I've seen it you can get by with fewer blazes because they are easier to spot from a distance, especially in the dark. So overall it junks up the trail less and is an improvement over paint and or plastic. If you're going to blaze the trail at all I'd say use the reflective ones.
Oooo Spot on. And further to this point, when discussing blaze frequency with a fellow (more experienced) blaze installer, he told be that he blazes his trails differently by location. Meaning there is a demographic that will only go 1/2 to 1 mile from the road. These people often need better visible blazing. So he blazes more frequently close to the road and less so further out. Similarly with those easy trails and the more challenging ones.Whether you are talking about hiking or climbing (or skiing, for that matter), the important thing for land managers is to understand the REAL user population. Not some fantasy population imagined in a unit management plan, or some fantasy based on a government designation of what the "land classification" might be. Or some fantasy that you can somehow "change" the user population into something different from reality.
If you understand who the actual users are, then you can manage the resource (how to blaze the trails, for example) appropriately, based on reality. If you are working based on fantasy, you will end up fighting with purists about "too many blazes" or on the other hand whining about how much more money you need for SAR.
7 years ago on Oct 22 a friend and I hiked the Tripyramids, going up Pine Bend and down Sabbaday Brook. Half the descent was done in the dark, and the blazing was just horrible. Once we rounded The Fool Killer it got so bad, with no blazes or cairns visible at any of the brook crossings, that we just bushwhacked back to the Kanc, going in a generally northerly direction and keeping close enough to the brook to hear it. When trails in more open hardwood forests get covered ankle deep with newly-fallen leaves, following the trail itself is a lot harder. Blazes should be visible from each other in both directions, at a consistent height if on trees, and in colors and shapes not seen in nature. An irregular splash of white paint on a tree can be hard to distinguish from lichen by headlamp.
Enter your email address to join: