PDA

View Full Version : Blazes removed from*Dugger Mountain and Cheaha Wilderness*



Matt65
03-07-2015, 22:06
I wanted to share it here as well. Based on what I have read this will apply to the Wilderness Areas only. I believe the numbers below are correct.

Cheaha
Pinhoti Section 6, mile 67.9-77.8

Dugger Mountain
Pinhoti Section 11, mile 136.2-144.8



http://www.pinhotitrailalliance.org/turkey-track-~-2-19.html

"One of the things that we are trying to accomplish in our Wilderness Areas is to leave them as natural as possible, for the appearance of being part of the wilderness area setting, to meet the scenic integrity objectives established for wilderness areas and to protect the wilderness character of the area.


In keeping with this theme, we are going to be removing the blazing *from the Pinhoti Trail sections that cross through both Dugger Mountain and Cheaha Wilderness Areas.* Forest Service policy states that there will be no blazing in wilderness areas, not even if it is a National Scenic Trail. These should not be there, the trail is well defined in most areas, in the rock outcrop areas we will leave the blazes until we can either put directional signs where needed or the preferred, build up one side with a rock ledge leading through these areas.


I know we have a lot of volunteers who love to get out and do projects for us, if you would like to help with this, please let me know, our Wild South Volunteer Wilderness Rangers will also be working on this …thanks for all that you do for the National Forests to make it a nicer place for visitors, please help spread the word …thanks Mary

Mary Humphries*
Wilderness, Special Uses, Lands Technician
Forest Service*
Talladega National Forest, Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts
p: 256-463-2272 x109*
c: 256-761-7600*
f: 256-463-5385*
[email protected]
45 Highway 281
Heflin, AL 36264
www.fs.fed.us*"

TNhiker
03-07-2015, 22:58
wonder how they will remove the blazes?

as i would think that with any removal, there would still be evidence of a blaze.......

i would prefer instead of removing them, not to repaint them in the future and let nature slowly fade away...........

which also leads me to a question-----ive never been on this trail so i would like to know how hard is it to follow, especially in the wilderness areas that it passes through?

if the trail is well defined and easily followed, then blazes arent as necessary as if the trail is in a place where it is hard to follow..............

MuddyWaters
03-07-2015, 23:33
Blazes are largely unneccessary. Even in places with obscure trail, with experience you develop a sense for where the trail goes, based on visual cues.

Jake2c
03-07-2015, 23:43
I take it that means all blazes. If so and you hit an area where say a blue trail goes one way and the white another, what is the plan, flip a coin?

Starchild
03-08-2015, 07:34
When I was working in GSMNP I had many questions about why there were so few blazes on the trails and couldn't they spare some paint cans and brushes. Visitors, mostly day hikers didn't like the system where only the junctions were signed. Well at least the ones who commented didn't like the system. I directed many to the Avenza app where they could download the park map to see what trail they were on (which more and more hikers are using anyway), so technology is filling when blazes are removed. Sort of ironic, removing blazes to keep the place more of a wilderness now requires use of a GPS app for many.

I'm not sure I agree with the practice, especially a time when many more people are entering hiking, it does take time to get your 'trail senses' to know where the trail is without the blazes, but at the same time understand that some people use nature to find themselves and signs of civilization could interfere with that.

10-K
03-08-2015, 08:29
I take it that means all blazes. If so and you hit an area where say a blue trail goes one way and the white another, what is the plan, flip a coin?

Maybe a map?

Lyle
03-08-2015, 08:55
I've never really understood how a trail sign at junctions was any more "natural" than an occasional blaze... Oh well, - Government Policy.

MuddyWaters
03-08-2015, 10:45
The PCT isnt blazed. Many western trails are not.
Blazing is purely comforting, not necessary in the least on well defined trails, which most are.

small signs at intersections (which obviously shouldnt be trusted), are all thats necessary. Verify your location and trail choice at intersections and you learn not to worry.

I use a watchband compass for this, if a trail enters from the NW and agrees with the map, I know where I am.

The absolute worst that can happen, is someone goes a few miles the wrong way. They do that anyway even with blazes, because they dont pay attention. I actually miss a lot of trail intersections, walk right by them somehow,usually becuase they put the sign up on a tree, instead of down low. Havent gotten lost badly yet.

gubbool
03-08-2015, 21:16
as i would think that with any removal, there would still be evidence of a blaze........

I imagine that the painted blazes will simply disappear over the years as the paint fades and the trees fall down. There are still quite a few of the metal blazes.. Those need to be collected and given to a group that can use them for fund raising.


===============
Edit to include the following reply from Mary Humphries
===============
l
Thank you all for your concerns, I know that there are a couple of areas (the rock outcrops) along the Pinhoti Trail in the Cheaha Wilderness that it is hard to define the trail, this is the areas that we intend to leave the blue blazes until we can build up or use rock cairns to define the trail. We are in the process of replacing the signs in the interior of the Cheaha Wilderness (thanks to Van Phillips for constructing these), these will be located at intersections of trails, in rare cases we install signs to try to keep visitors on the trail, these should be temporary, until user made trails are naturalized, we do have a problem with a few user made trails. We have been working very hard on obliterating user made trails in the Cheaha Wilderness, which, since they are not official trails, not on maps, causes visitors to get lost off of the main trail.

In a recent meeting with the Clay County Sheriff’s office to renew our Memorandum of Understanding for the Search and Rescue that they perform for us in Clay County, which the Cheaha Wilderness falls in, they informed us that they only had two search and rescue’s in the Wilderness this past year, this is way down, I hope due to information and maps that we post at trailheads, information and maps that Cheaha State Park hands out to wilderness trail users. We also have our Wild South Volunteer Wilderness Ranger program that are out there at high use times on the weekends to meet and assist if needed. The Clay County Sheriff’s Office also informed us that because of the fact that people have cell phones with GPS devices, they can locate them very fast now.

Prior to us removing blazes (this will be done by scraping on trees that will allow and spray paint on others, mostly hardwoods that would leave a scar), we will have information at the trailheads notifying visitors about the changes they will see in the Wilderness areas. We have been working very hard on this because the safety of our visitors is very important to us. I feel very confident that what we are trying to achieve in these Wilderness areas will make it a better Wilderness experience for everyone, and that we will be helping to restore the Wilderness Character in these areas.

The messages of concern that I have received does let me know that we need to do more Wilderness education, we never said that it will be easier or convenient in Wilderness areas, the users will find it to be more difficult and challenging. Wilderness is managed to protect the resource, provide opportunities of solitude, wilderness recreation does include inherent risks. Trails are present in wilderness, but they should lay light on the land, they should have minimum directional signing and it should blend in with the natural surroundings. Visitors will be physically challenged as they ford streams and climb over downed trees.

We hope to be having a volunteers trail meeting in the near future, I hope everyone will be able to attend and help us to address the problems that different ones have brought to our attention all along the Pinhoti Trail. As you know we depend on volunteers to be our eyes out on the trails, so we hope everyone will want to help with being a part of the solution to make the trails in Alabama some of the best.






https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6b018943a4&view=fimg&th=14c0ee33065f6b99&attid=0.1&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ8Jm_ySxm9XhcgUdImOmOLvuJULGlhZncqRBQ2 AxfWR9717VI4eg7HIFrz3KtJiaugXspPCpbbjpXD_ro2MxCo-woEwrhmslKS2FoY193N7F26ce714VsuJAnY&sz=w172-h162&ats=1426182035476&rm=14c0ee33065f6b99&zw&atsh=1



Mary Humphries
Wilderness, Special Uses, Lands Technician



Forest Service
Talladega National Forest, Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts



p: 256-463-2272 x109
c: 256-761-7600
f: 256-463-5385
[email protected]



45 Highway 281
Heflin, AL 36264
www.fs.fed.us (http://www.fs.fed.us/)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6b018943a4&view=fimg&th=14c0ee33065f6b99&attid=0.2&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ-VmDJkqpSb6E_gjjvOKV-6bxPGAUZeBGerzzjGreMKloBp_sGR71cdt49Ry09fwwT9wTkPf cmLtl3BwwXst1IoEBtfGfZecr21wM9Sv7gHqe2Ya7NMesoGde8&sz=w50-h36&ats=1426182035478&rm=14c0ee33065f6b99&zw&atsh=1 (http://usda.gov/)https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6b018943a4&view=fimg&th=14c0ee33065f6b99&attid=0.3&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ80QHTyCVp41GkidScpXt0dSM6iaEjyoOAMCII v8AWuIbmeHm-p2tdNLDijzSXf-X_Gfxqk7HgYdPZrBJf-FfzKV1ssRwdZMKo7gQQ0psH1W1uOOWvXUfVuVj8&sz=w48-h40&ats=1426182035478&rm=14c0ee33065f6b99&zw&atsh=1 (https://twitter.com/forestservice)https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6b018943a4&view=fimg&th=14c0ee33065f6b99&attid=0.4&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ8XJlW8JmbGViflVFjkmyF-GAMCL-rFLL14dJV43-HYy1txqfiNpISwWMzYzHYpA_fVrjNu1wAilihL3MkrnZIKUPMO u0SYrTHhPGVo7CJhIPgQun96y0_GVJU&sz=w40-h40&ats=1426182035478&rm=14c0ee33065f6b99&zw&atsh=1 (http://facebook.com/USDA)



Caring for the land and serving people

Tundracamper
03-08-2015, 21:45
The government has gone mad. Pretty soon, humans will not be allowed to walk in these areas to prevent damaging the pine straw. It amazes me how people worship nature. Anyone ever notice how nature seems to undo what we do pretty quickly? Are a few painted markings really that big of a deal? Once somebody gets lost and has to be rescued, it will just give them more reason to shut the whole thing down. Ia slippery slope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Starchild
03-09-2015, 07:45
I imagine that the painted blazes will simply disappear over the years as the paint fades and the trees fall down. There are still quite a few of the metal blazes.. Those need to be collected and given to a group that can use them for fund raising.

A lot of times they are painted over with tree color paint, then allowed to 'fade away'

swisscross
03-09-2015, 09:57
Not sure how I feel about this.
I have become disoriented in both areas even with the blazes.
The Pinhoti does not get the foot traffic to keep the trail visible during the fall /winter.

Strange how it says they will leave the blazes in the rock outcropped areas.

schlanky
03-09-2015, 11:33
Blazing is purely comforting, not necessary in the least on well defined trails, which most are.

True, but in this particular instance, we're talking about two specific sections of the Pinhoti trail and some side trails in the Cheaha area. There are spots on these sections where the trail is very definitely not well defined. The maintainers have their work cut out for them. As swisscross pointed out, fall and winter are going to become tricky in spots. All those old forest roads the trail crosses will compound the problem. The Cheaha area in particular gets a lot of novice hikers. I have a feeling there will soon be a lot more searches for missing hikers.

marti038
03-09-2015, 14:26
My primary question is what are the blazes hurting?

There are plenty of examples that come to mind that make the use of blazes worthwhile, but the only reason I can think of to eliminate them is that they aren’t very pretty.
I also find it a little hypocritical to state, “One of the things that we are trying to accomplish in our Wilderness Areas is to leave them as natural as possible,” while also maintaining a network of roads (many of which have very unnatural gates, culverts, etc.) in the same “wilderness areas”. There are far more roads in the national forests than trails.
For the record, the roads don’t bother me. It’s finding ways to use federally funded budgets to do useless things like remove blazes that bugs me. In a few years the same people will probably request a beefier budget to paint blazes for the sake of public safety.

TNhiker
03-09-2015, 15:07
There are far more roads in the national forests than trails.



that is true except for national forests and wilderness areas are two separate entities.....

while wilderness areas are in national forests, there's separate rules between wilderness areas and national forests....

cant build roads in wilderness areas and the roads that were there when the area became wilderness are not being maintained and trying to get back to a natural state...........

swisscross
03-09-2015, 15:58
No man made structure shall be permitted in a Wilderness Area either.

I remember hiking the Odum Scout trail in Cheaha (as a scout) and being caught in a freezing rain storm.
We slept in a shelter at the interception of the Pinhoti/Odum/Silent trail. Woke up the next morning ice everywhere.
Bottom half of my sleeping bag frozen solid.

That being said, the shelter has been relocated outside of the Cheaha Wildernes Area to the C. Silent trial upon it being designated as a wilderness area.

Don H
03-09-2015, 16:09
wonder how they will remove the blazes?

It's the Forrest Service, they'll just cut the trees down, No more blazes, problem solved!

marti038
03-09-2015, 17:35
that is true except for national forests and wilderness areas are two separate entities.....

while wilderness areas are in national forests, there's separate rules between wilderness areas and national forests....

cant build roads in wilderness areas and the roads that were there when the area became wilderness are not being maintained and trying to get back to a natural state...........

This is an important distinction that I had overlooked. Thanks for the comment.

Matt65
03-09-2015, 21:14
Lots of interesting discussion. It looks like some of the Dugger Wilderness extends beyond the National Forest (which I never noticed before).

Here are a few maps of the area.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/09/bcf1d3082bc9ccfaac25c34c82ec2f64.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/09/0b57faba5f8970b8dc5778048ccf6cbc.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/09/0c786d1e35993cf2ff17972db33a391b.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/09/0c4fe1022a139f6fa936ceb0ab57f7e4.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/09/8156d18775ccf81246faa312c0dbe926.jpg

SteveJ
03-09-2015, 21:37
This is nothing new.....I was planning a Boy Scout hiking trip on the Odom/Pinhoti about 10 years ago, and called the ranger station to propose a scout project of refreshing the blazes while we hiked. I was told then that they did not plan to renew the blazes, and that anyone in the back country should be able to find his/her way through the wilderness with a map and no blazes....

Deacon
03-10-2015, 09:21
No man made structure shall be permitted in a Wilderness Area either.


Don't say this too loud. The next thing you know the NPS Service in the Smoky's will be removing all the new privys they just installed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TNhiker
03-10-2015, 11:53
The next thing you know the NPS Service in the Smoky's will be removing all the new privys they just installed.



the Park isnt a wilderness area per se..........

in some regards, they treat it as a wilderness area but the rules and regulations are different with a national park...........

Matt65
03-28-2015, 13:55
A lot of times they are painted over with tree color paint, then allowed to 'fade away'
As mentioned, this is what we saw from High Falls to Nubbin TH.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/28/90bdceb303e0bcdbb18828a35e0f48a1.jpg

billnchristy
05-22-2015, 12:29
That's way better. :rolleyes:

Another Kevin
05-22-2015, 12:49
Wow. Even the Adirondack Park Authority hasn't gone quite that overboard.

They allow man-made structures where necessary for resource protection or user safety (for instance, a bog bridge that protects marsh vegetation, a fixed cable on an otherwise deadly rock slab, or a suspension bridge to protect the 'ice meadow' ecosystem of the river bank). Lean-to's actually have a variance owing to their historical importance to the Adirondacks.

The trails are typically cut, brushed out, and have a blaze about every quarter mile. It's not like the A-T, where you're almost never out of sight of a blaze, but just enough to offer reassurance that you haven't gone miles down the wrong trail. And a lot of the trails aren't all that well maintained. You do expect that you will occasionally lose one and need to do some map and compass work until you pick it up again.

Then again, it's an area where bushwhacking is lawful and expected.

Going overboard on the protection backfires. If you protect the wilderness to the point that only a few humans actually have either the wealth or the determination and fitness to be able to visit it, you do away with the next generation of people who would protect it, because they never get to discover it.. Protecting it to death is just as bad as selling it off (http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-nationa-1696862450). Alas, it appears that in our dysfunctional government, those are the only two options.

Astro
05-22-2015, 14:16
Wow. Even the Adirondack Park Authority hasn't gone quite that overboard.

They allow man-made structures where necessary for resource protection or user safety (for instance, a bog bridge that protects marsh vegetation, a fixed cable on an otherwise deadly rock slab, or a suspension bridge to protect the 'ice meadow' ecosystem of the river bank). Lean-to's actually have a variance owing to their historical importance to the Adirondacks.

The trails are typically cut, brushed out, and have a blaze about every quarter mile. It's not like the A-T, where you're almost never out of sight of a blaze, but just enough to offer reassurance that you haven't gone miles down the wrong trail. And a lot of the trails aren't all that well maintained. You do expect that you will occasionally lose one and need to do some map and compass work until you pick it up again.

Then again, it's an area where bushwhacking is lawful and expected.

Going overboard on the protection backfires. If you protect the wilderness to the point that only a few humans actually have either the wealth or the determination and fitness to be able to visit it, you do away with the next generation of people who would protect it, because they never get to discover it.. Protecting it to death is just as bad as selling it off (http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-nationa-1696862450). Alas, it appears that in our dysfunctional government, those are the only two options.

Excellent Point AK!

billnchristy
05-22-2015, 16:55
Great points. Luckily, our daughter has been the one who drove us to our hobbies (obsessions?). She wanted to learn to shoot so we bought guns, she wanted to climb a mountain and camp, so we started hiking. She's not your typical kid in that she has a love for things before even doing them, but I know that she would be passionate about saving nature either way. If she has kids she will take them and they will experience the same.

Government is like school (well, duh, it's government), there is no grey, just black and white, good and bad, no consequences, just reasons for more restrictions.

SouthMark
05-22-2015, 17:44
Having done both of these sections multiple times I never saw the need for the blazes anyway. It would be extremely difficult to get lost.

Drybones
05-22-2015, 22:18
A lot of times they are painted over with tree color paint, then allowed to 'fade away'

I hear they painted over them with brown...therefore...brown is now the blaze color.

golfjhm
05-23-2015, 08:29
Wonder what they did on the grey trees and rocks?

LuckyMan
05-24-2015, 14:23
Then why don't bureaucrats practice what they preach? I recently hiked the Benton Mackaye Trail and couldn't help but notice loads of government "bear sanctuary" signs posted along the trail along the N.C./Tenn. state line in the wilderness area north of the Cherohala Skyway. Delicate geniuses can't stand to set their eyes on those awful blazes, but these more-intrusive signs are OK? Also noticed plenty of recent car tire tracks along this route - must've been government vehicles, no public vehicles allowed behind the locked gate. (And too bad the bears can't read those signs to tell if they're in their sanctuary or not.)

AL canyonman
05-28-2015, 12:04
A lot of the comments in this thread indicate a lack of understanding of how NF lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System are managed with different priorities than other lands in the National Forest System. The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1975 are the basis for the designation of these wilderness areas and are the foundation for the guidance by which these areas are managed.

Wilderness trail markers are intended to serve one function only -- resource protection by keeping visitors on the trail where it is indistinct. In wilderness, we don't manage for convenience or even visitor safety (for natural hazards).

Those who criticize wilderness management decisions as bureaucratic bumbling are obviously not familiar with the challenge of balancing the mandate to provide wilderness visitors with "unique opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation" with the impacts that such recreation has on wilderness character. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center have done an outstanding job, in my opinion, of providing wilderness management guidance based on inter-agency strategies and rooted in the law. Wilderness management decisions are rarely black and white and require a lot of consideration of many diverse factors.

kenbrenner
06-27-2015, 23:07
RE: Removing blazes in the Wilderness Areas.
I lived in the Birmingham area in the 1990's.
I recall how nice the trail system was in the Cheaha area was (Nubbin Creek, Cave Creek, Pinhoti, etc.).
All were nicely but not overly marked.
Then, the wilderness areas happened.
Then, the Forest Service grossly mis-interpreted the Wilderness Act and made it harder to find the route of the trails.
I am a lifetime hiker, and have hiked the first 800 miles of the Appalachian Trail (AT).
The AT goes through MANY wilderness areas and the Forest Service in those areas still allow the trail to be blazed, signed, and have shelters.
The Pinhoti should be no difference, and is no different.
The real difference is the Forest in which the Pinhoti and its side trails run.
It's a really sad thing the way this once fine trail system is being treated.
It almost appears this Forest Service office does not want people going into their Wilderness areas...
I actually really appreciate the US Forest Service and it's fine, dedicated employees.
But, this is one situation where something has gone very wrong, and the hiking community of Alabama is paying the price.

Traveler
06-28-2015, 06:34
Then why don't bureaucrats practice what they preach? I recently hiked the Benton Mackaye Trail and couldn't help but notice loads of government "bear sanctuary" signs posted along the trail along the N.C./Tenn. state line in the wilderness area north of the Cherohala Skyway. Delicate geniuses can't stand to set their eyes on those awful blazes, but these more-intrusive signs are OK? Also noticed plenty of recent car tire tracks along this route - must've been government vehicles, no public vehicles allowed behind the locked gate. (And too bad the bears can't read those signs to tell if they're in their sanctuary or not.)

Having posted property in Maine, it has been my experience that hunters suffer from lack of literacy if they believe there is game on the property. Posting sanctuary signs are not all that attractive, but necessary to provide the legal platform to prosecute those who ignore, or are unable to read the warnings.

golfjhm
06-28-2015, 20:22
Forest service wants to remove blazes from Dugger and Cheaha but is all for fracking in the Talladega NF. Go figure a blaze is worse than mining equipment.

Traveler
06-29-2015, 07:24
Forest service wants to remove blazes from Dugger and Cheaha but is all for fracking in the Talladega NF. Go figure a blaze is worse than mining equipment.

There is a difference between a wilderness area and a national forest. The difference being, a National Forest is still a "working" forest and can issue leases for timber, minerals, and obviously fracking. However, there is some real danger for all public lands, including wilderness areas in a bill (HR 2728) that would insure fracking on public lands would never be regulated.

Oy...

MuddyWaters
06-29-2015, 07:55
Reminds me of when a friends child had lightly highlighted their hair during summer, she was banned from school until it was dyed to close to natural color when school started, because dyed hair wasnt allowed.

flemdawg1
07-30-2015, 16:44
In Cheaha Wilderness this shouldn't be much of an issue, its well traveled enough that blazing is nearly unnecessary. In the Dugger Wilderness, however, its so lightly used that this might be a safety issue. But when I hiked that section last year there were very few blazes there already

Another Kevin
07-30-2015, 18:07
A lot of the comments in this thread indicate a lack of understanding of how NF lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System are managed with different priorities than other lands in the National Forest System. The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1975 are the basis for the designation of these wilderness areas and are the foundation for the guidance by which these areas are managed.

Wilderness trail markers are intended to serve one function only -- resource protection by keeping visitors on the trail where it is indistinct. In wilderness, we don't manage for convenience or even visitor safety (for natural hazards).

Those who criticize wilderness management decisions as bureaucratic bumbling are obviously not familiar with the challenge of balancing the mandate to provide wilderness visitors with "unique opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation" with the impacts that such recreation has on wilderness character. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center have done an outstanding job, in my opinion, of providing wilderness management guidance based on inter-agency strategies and rooted in the law. Wilderness management decisions are rarely black and white and require a lot of consideration of many diverse factors.

I hope I don't seem quite that ignorant. I'm fine with mostly or entirely unblazed trail.

Sometimes blazing is resource protection, particularly if lack of blazing will cause a maze of social trails to spring up, or tempt users to do their own marking with flagging tape, inappropriate paint or cairns, or even such destructive practices as hatchet blazing.

And sometimes nonconformant practices have multiple reasons for them. There are some splendid suspension bridges in the Adirondacks, for which since the 1970's, the practice has been to let them fall to ruin (not remove them, which would be even more destructive, but not authorize work to preserve them either). In the last ten years or so, the opinion has gradually reversed, recognizing that the bridges have historic and archaeologic value, offer significant benefits for visitor safety, and (perhaps most important) protect the "ice meadow" environment on the riverbank the feet of hikers fording the rivers. The riverbank is a unique island ecosystem, where all vegetation beyond a certain size is swept clean by frazil ice annually. It harbors species found nowhere else. There's also a recognized space for nonconformant bridges where visitors would otherwise be forced to swim or packraft rivers of significant size, although this is usually handled by labeling a corridor along the river as "primitive area" or "canoe area", paying lip service to an eventual transition to "wilderness" while actually looking at the practicalities and maintaining the nonconformant use.

I happen to think that the Wilderness Act and related legislation places too little value on history and archaeology. It leads to intentional destruction of archaeologic sites such as abandoned ranger stations, camps and fire towers, and worse, archaeologic remnants of the First Peoples, for not having the wilderness character. It similarly assigns too little value on diversity of land use, with its emphasis that all "wild forest," "canoe area," and "primitive area" lands should eventually be upgraded to "wilderness." Not all seekers of solitude are athletic and experienced wilderness travelers, and there is a place for more accessible, and yet wild-seeming, lands. Nevertheless, the legislative intent of the Act was clear and so this is the affair of the politicians, not of those who are tasked with implementing the Act as written.

kenbrenner
10-24-2015, 23:31
A classic example of government bureaucracy.
In the 1990s, I hiked the entire Pinhoti Trail in Alabama (as much as existed up to 02-10-1999).
At one time, it was a great trail system, fairly well marked.
It was Alabama's version of the AT!
Now, the powers that be have decided to change all of that.
I now live in north Georgia and have hiked the Appalachian Trail (AT) from the southern terminus to the 800-mile point.
The AT goes through many wilderness area, and is blazed as it is outside of the wilderness areas.
It's a shame the government agencies and their leaders lose track of who they work for.
The destruction of the Pinhoti Trail system does not stop with the Cheaha area. Now, they want to ruin the hiking experience on Dugger Mountain.
This also goes for the other trails that form loops with the Pinhoti (Skyway Loop, Chinabee Silent Trail, Cave Creek, Odum Scout Trail).
And I ask this question, what could offer less distraction than a simple paint blaze. Certainly their famous "signs at trail intersections" look more man-made that the occasional paint blaze.
What a shame, no one seems to care, and the bureaucrats are going to have their way again.

Don H
10-25-2015, 08:16
Forest Service policy states that there will be no blazing in wilderness areas, not even if it is a National Scenic Trail

So the blazes will be removed from the AT where it crosses Wilderness Areas too?

Pedaling Fool
10-25-2015, 08:50
The problem here seems to be one of interpretation, if in fact what we are talking about is The Wilderness Act of 1964 http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm

If you read thru there, there is nothing wrong with blazing, at least in my interpretation; however, my opinion doesn't count, it's left up to some bureaucrat.

This really is exactly like the debates we have here on what constitutes a Thru-hiker.

This really goes way beyond blazes, because if you read the above link you could easily interpret it as saying that bridges are not permitted in designated Wilderness areas, or even those cables and hand-holds, like what you see in the White Mountain National Forest, not to mention privies and shelters.

Then again there are sentences that allow one to interpret those things as perfectly allowable...The problem is when you get purists reading and interpreting the act. It's always them damn purists screwing things up:eek::D

dhagan
11-30-2015, 16:15
Such a bad idea. Blazes will keep people safer. During the fall, with new leaves on the ground, trails are very difficult to follow. Not to mention the "rock gardens"...

swjohnsey
11-30-2015, 16:20
Another solution looking for a problem.

perdidochas
11-30-2015, 17:03
A lot of times they are painted over with tree color paint, then allowed to 'fade away'

I can understand letting blazes fade away, but it's just plain stupid, IMHO, to paint over the blaze. What's the point?

Matt65
11-30-2015, 19:09
The Dugger Wilderness was still blazed this weekend - Hopefully no one with Brown paint reads this.

The more I talk to people about this it seems almost all are frustrated with the removal. I have seen several side trails pop up since the blaze removal along some sections. This is a problem. I think in time we will see the blazes return.

Tundracamper
11-30-2015, 23:12
I hiked the Pinhoti two weekends ago from Adams Gap to the Chinabee trail. Luckily, I had the trail and map loaded onto Gaia GPS on my phone. I got "off trail" at least twice. There was a small sign I missed where the trail turns off a logging road. The sign is hidden behind a bush. I went about 200 yards too far before realizing I was off trail. The second time was on the rocky hill leading up to the overlook (stairway to heaven?). After getting back on trail, I decided to stop at each marker and search for the next faded marker. It was a slow and tedious process. In a few months, it will not be possible to see the trail route in that area.

To be honest, if we are that concerned about trail markings ruining the wilderness, the trail needs to be closed in that area. Someone hiking in the fall of after dark will get lost. We can take that money from the park service personnel that are reassigned to another area and spend it on other things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pedaling Fool
12-01-2015, 07:23
I find a lot of funny little things about LNT, but another one is this issue of carrying a map/compass to preclude the need to not blaze trails. I always carry a map and compass, but has nothing to do with blazes. What's funny is that another of their principles are to stay on established trails, so as to not negatively impact non-trail areas. https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles

Excerpt:

Use a map and compass to eliminate the use of marking paint, rock cairns or flagging.

Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or muddy.

- See more at: https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles#sthash.szrwoudU.dpuf

However, you can not stay on a trail using a map/compass, unless of course there are tons of reference marks, which of course that's crazy. Map and compass is for getting you from point A to B, not keeping you on a narrow path.

Bottom line, if you want people to use maps and compass as normal means of traveling thru the wilderness there will not be one trail.

Matt65
12-01-2015, 07:39
I can understand letting blazes fade away, but it's just plain stupid, IMHO, to paint over the blaze. What's the point?
Exactly, heres another example from my Cave Creek, Nubin, Pinhoti loop hike last week.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/01/1846be761842469031d45d5950d13f3d.jpg

Majortrauma
12-01-2015, 09:11
Tundracamper is so right. This is beyond silly and what a gross waste of time and resources.

MuddyWaters
12-01-2015, 09:27
youd think the forest service would know that really only pine and cedar and fir trees are brown barked, basically softwoods.
The typical hardwoods are more gray/white with brown underside/inside/edges to bark.
They have brown blazed the trail now.
Yep, its stupid

to fix this they should probably cut down all blazed trees and remediate the areas.

cmoulder
12-01-2015, 09:34
All this hubbub about a freakin' rectangle of paint on a tree every 1/4 mile because it's "ruining" some Generation Snowflake's "wilderness experience". Wait'll they get a lawsuit from some yuppies because their iPhone battery died and they couldn't find their way back to their Range Rover.

Your government doing what it does best.

Tundracamper
12-01-2015, 22:18
I find it amusing that I was expecting the Skyway Trail on my loop hike to be the hardest to follow. After getting lost on the Pinhoti twice, the well-marked Skyway was great. Plus, that trail is mostly cut into a hill and easier to see.

I agree that hiking with a map is not practical if you are supposed to stay on the trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Christoph
12-08-2015, 16:25
One would think to leave the blazes alone so a hiker doesn't wander off trail and create damage. It's a small painted blaze, not an added reflective sign pointing in the correct direction. Now that would be a true distraction.

bemental
12-08-2015, 16:51
Does this mean we're brown blazing now?

Don Newcomb
12-11-2015, 09:36
I just returned form a two-night hike there. IMHO, it's a ridiculous policy. The leaves had recently fallen and covered the trail in many places. Going up the Pinhoti from Adams Gap we missed where the trail turns off an old logging road and had to backtrack. Fortunately I had a GPS and we were able to bushwack back to the trail. On the way back down Chinnabee the way was just as obscured in many places. However, the cell phone service is pretty good. I suppose that the Forrest Service won't mind the calls to come rescue lost newbs.

Traveler
12-11-2015, 10:17
Given what I can find on this issue, it appears wilderness areas can be managed differently in various states, but do have a common floor when it comes to rules, regulations, and philosophy. From what I can see, or extrapolate from the vague information I can find, blazes may be akin or considered to be akin to "signs" (the administrating agency would make that call I presume), which are typically frowned upon much like mechanical vehicles or equipment. The best "sort of" definition I can find is this.

"Like other evidence of modern life, signs detract from the wilderness experience. Map reading, compass, and orienteering skills promote a closer relationship to the land. There should be no mileage markers, interpretive signs or place name signs within wilderness. Signs may be a management necessity at some trail junctions, and some temporary signs may be necessary to change damaging use patterns. Necessary signs should be constructed to blend with the landscape."

I do tend to agree that wilderness should mean wilderness. No guide posts, no mile markers, etc., however there are legitimate arguments for the use of blazes or signs at critical junctions for example. Beyond that, a map and compass/GPS probably should be in play. However this is just my opinion. Some people would prefer a blaze that can be seen from the previous blaze point and mileage notations in wilderness areas. The balance point perhaps being the worn treadway with some obscuring during leaf drop and snow cover during parts of the year.

Matt65
12-14-2015, 01:05
I found the link to the GPS tracks that I use on the Pinhoti. It has been helpful a few times already.

http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/53