View Full Version : First AT SOBO Wilderness area - No Blazes
peakbagger
06-20-2016, 08:28
While hiking in the Great Gulf Wilderness in NH this past weekend we encountered a somewhat upset SOBO thru hiker who had just rejoined the trail after an unplanned one hour detour up the Great Gulf trail. He was bit upset and was muttering that the AMC was too cheap to put up white blazes. He calmed down a bit when we explained the Federally Designated Wilderness Rules that precluded any substantial blazing and allowed only minimal signage.
I realized that for SOBO folks, this is the first Wilderness area they encounter on their way south and expect that just following the white blazes is pretty well routine after a month or so on the trail. The area he had gotten confused is easy place to get off track as even the minimal signage is confusing. The AT goes over a slight rise and follows a well established route up the gulf past a signed intersection where the AT diverges steeply downhill and about 160 degrees from the direction of travel. I expect the hiker may have missed the signage and just went along the path of least resistance. There are no AT logos on the signs but the there are usually (but not always) spelled out APPALACHIAN TRAIL with an arrow in the right direction. The AT rapidly crosses a suspension bridge and then ends up at another trail junction for Madison Gulf Trail, it is signed DIRECT ROUTE TO MADISON HUT and does not have Appalachian trail with an arrow but does have Osgood trail with an arrow. (Madison Gulf trail skips a section of the AT, is not blazed and is not recommended for hikers with backpacks). The trail then has to cross another significant stream without a bridge before coming to another intersection where the AT is not the obvious route. This is all blazes free and I expect for most folks a map is essential.
He calmed down a bit and we asked him his planned end point (it was around 9:30 AM). He was hoping for Mitzpah Spring Hut but would settle for Lake of the Crowds (still a bit of a hike). I mentioned the Jewell Trail site as an option and then wished him well on his hike.
MuddyWaters
06-20-2016, 21:30
Did the hiker have a ........map?
They can be handy in the Whites.
Due to limited field of vision on my right side, I have occassionally walked past intersections, signs, etc while watching where I step. I try to make it a point to be aware of my position to upcoming intersections and be looking for them. When I do miss something, Im usually like "How the F did I miss that, its plain as day"
peakbagger
06-21-2016, 06:20
No idea if he had one, few folks including myself use them actively while hiking, they pull them out when they need them usually at intersections. The rest of the time they use the blazes and trail bed. On the same trip my friend and I managed to miss a turn in the trail and ended up wandering around in the woods for a bit.
The area where he missed the intersection is fairly dense softwoods. Its quite dark, the obvious route is straight forward towards an open area along side a river which is brighter. The trail junction is still in the dark woods and the AT drops down a hill into darker woods. Unlike the normal AMC signage north of this point in the Mahoosucs and the Carter Wildcat range which use a white background with contrasting green letters, the signage used in the designated forest areas are unpainted Douglas Fir that has faded to gray with occasional patches of moss. Depending on the location, a flashlight is almost needed to read them even on a sunny day as the sun really doesn't get down into the Great Gulf in the dense softwood.
Ultimately all he lost was time. At some point he realized his error and corrected it. Others have been less lucky.
Lone Wolf
06-21-2016, 06:23
doubt he had a map.
Slo-go'en
06-21-2016, 09:13
That might be how the group which had to get rescued last week off the Madison Gulf trail got there. The report didn't say if they intended to go that way or took the wrong trail.
Starchild
06-21-2016, 09:45
... The are no AT logos on the signs but the there are usually (but not always) spelled out APPALACHIAN TRAIL with an arrow in the right direction.....
As I recall the AT is usually unofficially carved into these signs by hikers, making up for a obviously deficient sign system.
MuddyWaters
06-21-2016, 11:24
Its should be well known and understood the AT travels a bunch of pre-existing trails that may be known by their historical names. I know AWOL cautions about this.
"The other name may be the one you see on signs"
When people only know how to follow blazes, its not a good thing. It works 99% of time unfortunately.
Not the sign system thats deficient......
greentick
06-21-2016, 13:32
Wow. One hour delay on a 3-4mo hike? Sounds like a first world problem. Hope he found a safe space.
daddytwosticks
06-21-2016, 14:12
Wow. One hour delay on a 3-4mo hike? Sounds like a first world problem. Hope he found a safe space.
...now, now! Sounds like you are engaged in some micro aggression! No trophy for you. :) :)
Off topic here. I got confused going down mahoosuc arm. Thought I had missed the AT up at speck pond. I hiked back up the arm just to find that I was still on the AT. I thought there couldve been a couple more blazes. I had maps too.
Rain Man
06-21-2016, 16:32
As I recall the AT is usually unofficially carved into these signs by hikers, making up for a obviously deficient sign system.
I agree. The sign system up there is obviously deficient. I hiked the AT through NH. When AT hikers have to rely on each other to scratch names on old, old, old signs, that's evidence enough for me. Way too much provincialism and snobbery up there when it comes to trails and signs. IMHO.
I agree. The sign system up there is obviously deficient. I hiked the AT through NH. When AT hikers have to rely on each other to scratch names on old, old, old signs, that's evidence enough for me. Way too much provincialism and snobbery up there when it comes to trails and signs. IMHO.
I think it's more a matter that AT thru hikers just don't get any special consideration. These woods are filled with peakbaggers, clueless weekenders, backpackers of all kinds, many of whom have no idea at all or are barely aware of this thing called the Appalachian Trail. I know, amazing, huh? SMH.
I hike frequently with one of those people. This spring as we descended Kinsman in the snow, she asked me, "So, is this Cascade Brook Trail, or is it the AT?" I had to explain that it was both, and that "Cascade Brook Trail" came first. The AT just hijacked it. Locals still refer to the local names. Thru hikers can adapt or complain, it's all the same to us. ;)
I was surprised to discover that there are stretches on the Presidential ridge where the AT is blazed in yellow.
Met a thru hiker up there last fall, livid with rage over this. It caused him to miss a bit of the trail and compromised his purity which he'd managed to maintain up until that particular "error." He was clearly having a very bad day. Not a happy camper.
It was explained to me that yellow blazes are easier to spot in snow, than white ones. That made sense. Yeah, people hike up here all year round. Crazy!
peakbagger
06-21-2016, 19:16
Yellow paint is based on lead chromate, about the longest lasting paint I have seen. I don't think they have blazed the AT in yellow for years on the Crawford path and the Gulf side it just lasts quite awhile far longer than the water based paint they use today.
As an aside, on of the local scouts needed an Eagle project years ago and ended up being in charging the last major trail in the whites, the Kilkenny Ridge Trail. We had a three day backpack and had to lug all the paint. We went to pick up the paint and it was lead chromate yellow. The FS ranger was real excited as they had found what he thought was the last case of this type of paint in the Whites. Unfortunately the darn cans seemed to be made to survive an air drop, they were two or three times heavier empty than standard cans. We got it done but it was grunt.
I think it's more a matter that AT thru hikers just don't get any special consideration. These woods are filled with peakbaggers, clueless weekenders, backpackers of all kinds, many of whom have no idea at all or are barely aware of this thing called the Appalachian Trail. I know, amazing, huh? SMH.
equally true to this statement is the fact that no matter how hard you try you will NEVER convince an "AT Hiker" of this. i guess "we" just arent a very observant bunch, or maybe we're clique-ish, but if you walk into any of the huts or campsistes or anywhere there are hikers gathered and start talking to them about the "AT" you will overwhelmingly be met by blank stares. they mostly have no clue the AT is even there. you could remove it and it'd barely be a blip on the radar. yet AT hikers always seem to not notice this.
Many people say that in the Whites the AT is less well marked in the SOBO direction. JPF lost an hour on her record hike when she went off trail near the Mizpah hut.
Many people say that in the Whites the AT is less well marked in the SOBO direction. JPF lost an hour on her record hike when she went off trail near the Mizpah hut.
many AT hikers say this, i have little doubt. many people? naah, i'm sure the overwhelming majority of people who have hiked in the white mountains have not put forth any opinion on the subject.
many AT hikers say this, i have little doubt. many people? naah, i'm sure the overwhelming majority of people who have hiked in the white mountains have not put forth any opinion on the subject.
Most of us bring a map and hike the trails we want without a thought to the AT.
sethd513
06-23-2016, 16:39
Off topic. Trip planning for tm. Does anyone have any info on how well the great gulf wilderness is marked out. Tm is suppose to be beautiful. I'm thinking of parking at Pinkham notch and summiting. Then heading tward osgood. Either camp in the wilderness since it looks like that trail follows water the whole way or at the end if I can't find a suitable spot. Thank you and sorry again for being off topic. Just hoping this will attract more attention then in the other subforums
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JumpMaster Blaster
06-23-2016, 18:13
I think it's more a matter that AT thru hikers just don't get any special consideration. These woods are filled with peakbaggers, clueless weekenders, backpackers of all kinds, many of whom have no idea at all or are barely aware of this thing called the Appalachian Trail. I know, amazing, huh? SMH.
I hike frequently with one of those people. This spring as we descended Kinsman in the snow, she asked me, "So, is this Cascade Brook Trail, or is it the AT?" I had to explain that it was both, and that "Cascade Brook Trail" came first. The AT just hijacked it. Locals still refer to the local names. Thru hikers can adapt or complain, it's all the same to us. ;)
This sounds just like a thru hiker who, on his blog, about complaining several times to the GSMNP personnel about the "unacceptable thru hiker experience". I actually laughed out loud when I read that statement.
More than 77,000 overnight hikers utilized the backcountry sites in 2013. Let's say that all 3,000 aspiring thru hikers actually made it that far and spent a total of 6 nights in the park. Those 18,000 "camper nights" PALE in comparison to the number of non-thru hiker camper nights. Yet many thrus like to complain about it.
I used to be opposed to the shelter rule in the Smokies, but now I realize why that is, and that for all my love of the AT, it only comprises 12% of all the trails in the park.
This sounds just like a thru hiker who, on his blog, about complaining several times to the GSMNP personnel about the "unacceptable thru hiker experience". I actually laughed out loud when I read that statement.
More than 77,000 overnight hikers utilized the backcountry sites in 2013. Let's say that all 3,000 aspiring thru hikers actually made it that far and spent a total of 6 nights in the park. Those 18,000 "camper nights" PALE in comparison to the number of non-thru hiker camper nights. Yet many thrus like to complain about it.
I used to be opposed to the shelter rule in the Smokies, but now I realize why that is, and that for all my love of the AT, it only comprises 12% of all the trails in the park.
I'm continually amazed by the numbers of hikers I encounter in the White Mountains, pretty much any time of year. That's a good thing. So, much as I gripe about the heavy-handed management, I don't resist it. It more or less has to be that way, given the hiker traffic. The forest and the facilities are in pretty good shape, all things considered.
If you want anything like a relaxed camping atmosphere up there it helps to get off the AT.
Maybe of interest, for the die-hards: show up in winter, with deep snow covering the ground, and a lot of the no-camping rules are suspended. There was a small tent city set up near Greenleaf hut. Apparently, all legal. (The hut itself was unmanned and boarded up.)
I got lost there this morning. Nobo from Mt Madison. I had a map. Ended up in some Camp ground. They have no white blazes and no AT signs. I ended up on a ski trail. AMC is a joke
The OP's comment here and their comments to the SOBO hiker are quite ignorant. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of trail signs and markings in various wilderness areas. I seriously doubt there is anything stopping WMNF from painting a blaze here and there in the White Mountain wilderness areas. They already have those godawful giant cairns (I realize they're necessary given the weather and visibility up their, but their still ugly as f***). Would white blazes, even just at trail junctions, really take away from the wilderness experience?
The OP's comment here and their comments to the SOBO hiker are quite ignorant. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of trail signs and markings in various wilderness areas.
no you havent. you also havent seen blazes on most of the trails in the whites that arent the AT.... oh wait, nm, you never go on those.
the WMNF and or AMC has no motivation what so ever to treat the AT as a special trail. it really doesnt even exist to them hardly, and whats absolutely fine.
no you havent. you also havent seen blazes on most of the trails in the whites that arent the AT.... oh wait, nm, you never go on those.
the WMNF and or AMC has no motivation what so ever to treat the AT as a special trail. it really doesnt even exist to them hardly, and whats absolutely fine.
What? That made zero sense. Except for the part about WMNF and AMC ignoring the AT. Judging from the terrible erosion on the AT in most of the Whites and southern Maine, that's definitely true.
What? That made zero sense. Except for the part about WMNF and AMC ignoring the AT. Judging from the terrible erosion on the AT in most of the Whites and southern Maine, that's definitely true.
you havent seen hundreds of signs in wilderness areas.
all trails in the white mountains, which are many many many more than just the AT which really isnt even a trail unto itself, receive the exact same treatment, which largely does not include any blazing of any kind. why should the AT be blazed in aa place where hundreds of other trails are not? cause its special? it aint. not one teeny bit.
I got lost there this morning. Nobo from Mt Madison. I had a map. Ended up in some Camp ground. They have no white blazes and no AT signs. I ended up on a ski trail. AMC is a joke
Were you using an AMC map of Mt. Madison? There are literally dozens of trails heading to the summit. Don't forget, "nobo" from Madison, on the AT, is actually heading south. The AT does a big u-turn at the top of Madison, and heads mostly south for several miles getting to Pinkham.
I'll bet they did that just to mess with the thru hikers. ;)
I agree, a white blaze here and there would be useful.
equally true to this statement is the fact that no matter how hard you try you will NEVER convince an "AT Hiker" of this. i guess "we" just arent a very observant bunch, or maybe we're clique-ish, but if you walk into any of the huts or campsistes or anywhere there are hikers gathered and start talking to them about the "AT" you will overwhelmingly be met by blank stares. they mostly have no clue the AT is even there. you could remove it and it'd barely be a blip on the radar. yet AT hikers always seem to not notice this.
I had an eye-opening experience a couple summers ago. I was speaking to a woman at a booth for NY/NJTC at a folk music festival on the Hudson. (NY/NJTC = NY/NJ Trail Conference.) I was gushing about how I loved the AT in New Jersey, and I mostly got a blank stare. But then I realized, from her POV, the AT was just one of hundreds of trails within that club's domain. Yes, we do think of ourselves as special.
MuddyWaters
06-23-2016, 20:24
you havent seen hundreds of signs in wilderness areas.
all trails in the white mountains, which are many many many more than just the AT which really isnt even a trail unto itself, receive the exact same treatment, which largely does not include any blazing of any kind. why should the AT be blazed in aa place where hundreds of other trails are not? cause its special? it aint. not one teeny bit.
Most western trails arent blazed at all.
you havent seen hundreds of signs in wilderness areas.
Um, and you were there alongside me when I hiked the CDT and PCT and all those other miles of trails? Arrogant, much? Ever hiked outside of New Jersey? What a ridiculous statement.
On the PCT, I actually lost my maps on the JMT (this was in a wilderness area), and I can remember being very glad to see signs at several junctions telling me which way to go to stay on the JMT. I could give you about 100 additional example of good signage I've seen in wilderness areas (plus some bad signage here and there, too). But the point is: there is absolutely nothing stopping WMNF from putting up signs saying where the AT is in the Whites. If WMNF or anyone else is saying that wilderness regulations prohibit blazes or signage, they're lying.
There are already plenty of signs in the Whites. Most of them just don't list the AT for whatever reason.
peakbagger
06-23-2016, 20:36
Oh I forgot that the wonderful Doctor Burger is here to describe the facts as he understands them which must be true. I dont know where he came up with the justification for using the term ignorant. I happened to be with a long term maintainer of a major trail in an officially designated WMNF wilderness area who has been trained in the WMNF rules for trails in wilderness areas. He actually had to sign an adopters contract with the WMNF agreeing that he would follow the rules. The current management approach in the WMNF is no new blazing in wilderness areas and minimal signs at trail junctions. In my obviously inferior level of experience to the great one, Dr Burger, I too have seen varying approaches to blazing in other officially designated areas elsewhere but apparently every forest manager appears to have some latitude in how the local wilderness areas are maintained. AMC has nothing to do with it as the WMNF sets the rules. In some wilderness areas where maintainers did blaze, the WMNF has actually painted over blazes.
The southbounder was on a approximately 3 foot wide well established path with a obvious sight line along a well established trail. No need for blazes. The hiker walked past a sign post with two signs at probably shoulder to eye height. The only real blaze that might have helped would be a double white blaze or possibly the double with the tilted blaze.
Sure sounds to me that Dr Burgers post might be considered ignorant by some, but maybe misinformed with an overly large sense of self importance may be more appropriate.
Um, and you were there alongside me when I hiked the CDT and PCT and all those other miles of trails? Arrogant, much? Ever hiked outside of New Jersey? What a ridiculous statement.
no, i just know that for purposes of this discussion "wilderness" is a federal land designation that carries rules with it, not the dictionary word that can be used to describe almost anywhere thats a bit "wild."
There are already plenty of signs in the Whites. Most of them just don't list the AT for whatever reason.
i want you to have a think on that and see if you can come up with why. hint- i already told you why.
This thread is a bit amusing. I've complained about blazing on the AT in the past, and greeted with sneers, eg. "Waddya want, billboards? Neon lights?"
Suffice to say... if it seems like it's been a while since you've seen a blaze, maybe time to stop and check the map.
From my experience, most trails in the White Mtns. are blazed. Maybe not with the regularity we come to expect on the AT, but still.
If you're doing it right, you'll anticipate the trail junctions instead of being surprised by them.
Oh I forgot that the wonderful Doctor Burger is here to describe the facts as he understands them which must be true. I dont know where he came up with the justification for using the term ignorant. I happened to be with a long term maintainer of a major trail in an officially designated WMNF wilderness area who has been trained in the WMNF rules for trails in wilderness areas. He actually had to sign an adopters contract with the WMNF agreeing that he would follow the rules. The current management approach in the WMNF is no new blazing in wilderness areas and minimal signs at trail junctions. In my obviously inferior level of experience to the great one, Dr Burger, I too have seen varying approaches to blazing in other officially designated areas elsewhere but apparently every forest manager appears to have some latitude in how the local wilderness areas are maintained. AMC has nothing to do with it as the WMNF sets the rules. In some wilderness areas where maintainers did blaze, the WMNF has actually painted over blazes.
The southbounder was on a approximately 3 foot wide well established path with a obvious sight line along a well established trail. No need for blazes. The hiker walked past a sign post with two signs at probably shoulder to eye height. The only real blaze that might have helped would be a double white blaze or possibly the double with the tilted blaze.
Sure sounds to me that Dr Burgers post might be considered ignorant by some, but maybe misinformed with an overly large sense of self importance may be more appropriate.
I'd like to see these regulations. I just looked over the national USFS regulations, and they clearly allow signage in Wilderness. Also, no one said there had to be a White Blaze every 100 feet, but minimal signage could easily include a small AT symbol and an arrow at junctions, much as they have the USFS trail names on signs at many junctions inside and outside of wilderness.
Also, I know you're jealous of my Ph.D. Just go to grad school for 6 years, too, and I'll happily call you Dr. Peakbagger (btw, you should use the period with "Dr." Looks kind of dumb without it).
no, i just know that for purposes of this discussion "wilderness" is a federal land designation that carries rules with it, not the dictionary word that can be used to describe almost anywhere thats a bit "wild."
I know exactly what federal wilderness is. I've probably spent more time in federal wilderness than anyone else who has posted on this thread (though not as much as other people on this site I'm sure).
BTW, I would just add that the PCT is signed, along with local trail names, in many, many wilderness areas without somehow ruining the integrity of the wilderness. The CDT is not signed so much, but that's true inside and outside of wilderness. Also, the CDT is a newer and less-established trail. I'm sure that over time, CDT signs will appear in more places, too.
There is absolutely nothing stopping WMNF from acknowledging the AT except their own intransigence.
MuddyWaters
06-23-2016, 23:17
There is absolutely nothing stopping WMNF from acknowledging the AT except their own intransigence.
Live free or die
There is nothing wrong with buying and using a map, either. Why the dependence on white paint?
but minimal signage could easily include a small AT symbol and an arrow at junctions, much as they have the USFS trail names on signs at many junctions inside and outside of wilderness.
Agreed.
The decision not to include reference to the AT strikes me as a parochial decision driven by an old guard (old fart fud) mentality.
In my town we allow "Boston Post Road East" to be signed as "Route 20" not because don't appreciate the history behind the original name, but rather because every sane person recognizes that the purpose of a sign is to effectively inform.
I could actually understand if wilderness managers elected to remove the signposts altogether, but that is a different argument.
Here is a question I think I know the answer to, but am not 100% sure. I am hoping Peakbagger might weigh in on this.
Is it possible the sign we are discussing now (and others in the immediate vicinity at that odd confluence of trails) are the ONLY signs in the entire WMNF that are located on the AT within a wilderness area?
And here is another:
Is it possible that all (100%) of the white blazing in the WMNF south of Osgood tent site actually lies outside of all the Wilderness areas the AT skirts-- if only by a few feet or yards?
From my experience, most trails in the White Mtns. are blazed. Maybe not with the regularity we come to expect on the AT, but still.
they are? what color blaze is the crawford path when its not part of the AT? the old bridal path? falling waters trail? flume slide?
The decision not to include reference to the AT strikes me as a parochial decision driven by an old guard (old fart fud) mentality.
or maybe the AT just isnt that important to them and they treat it just like they do all of their other trails?
they are? what color blaze is the crawford path when its not part of the AT? the old bridal path? falling waters trail? flume slide?
Honestly don't know, and can't say. Bridle Path, Falling Waters, Liberty Springs -- I've done those so often that I don't really need or notice the blazes. I assume Liberty Springs is blazed in white, just like the rest of the AT. The ridgeline most definitely is. The others, probably blue or orange or yellow.
Flume Slide, I did once, eons ago. Once was enough. The specific area that we're discussing in this thread, I haven't hiked in ages.
Cascade Brook trail definitely had white blazes. (Did that a couple months back.) As is the AT over Moosiluake.
Page x (in the section titled "Following Trails") of the AMC's White Mountain Guide (I have 27th edition) discusses blazing. "Most hiking trails are marked with paint on trees or rocks." and "Side trails off the AT are usually marked with blue paint."
It's worth noting that trail(s) called the AT in White Moutians connects all 8 of the AMC huts.
In cooperation with the WMNF, the AMC also concentrate caretakers at another 9 or so campsites along the trail(s) called the AT in the White Mountains.
It is important to "them".
Reviewing photos of recent hikes. I've got a clear shot of my hiking partner Julie standing next to a blue blaze on the Webster-Jackson Trail on April 17, 2016. A clear yellow blaze on one of the (non-AT) trails between Lafayette Place and Lonesome Lake on May 16, 2016.
I thought the whites were confusing. There was definitely grumbling about the signage- and not just by thru-hikers. I took a picture of each map at the first hut and used them frequently, since I didn't bring maps with me. They helped at the intersections with all of the different trail names that did not include AT. If I go through the Whites again I will bring maps. I would love to explore some to the other trails.
It's worth noting that trail(s) called the AT in White Moutians connects all 8 of the AMC huts.
also, perhaps more so, worth noting is that 98% of the hut patrons have no clue the AT is there at all and could care not a lick either way.
I just found this "Trail Adopter's Guide" published by AMC.
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/AMCadopt.pdf
Here's a brief excerpt from P. 22:
The colors to be used on trails in the White Mountain National Forest are listed below. TheCamp Dodge Coordinator will insure that you receive the correct color. There have been examples of
trails blazed with an improper color which then require corrective action. A blaze-color map is available
in the tool shed at Camp Dodge as well. Please confirm the blaze color for your trail during your next
visit.
Colors for Trails
Designated Wilderness areas and above treeline – NO BLAZES!
Appalachian Trail - White
Trails connecting directly with the Appalachian Trail - Blue
All other trails – Yellow
No blazing on rock!
lonehiker
06-24-2016, 09:09
Signage in wilderness basically comes down to what administration is in power and their philosophy. I have a guidebook for the CDT in the Wind River range and it specifically mentions signs at a few key junctions yet when I hiked that section several years ago these junctions were not signed. I was able to talk with a ranger shortly after this trip and he confirmed that the current thought was to have minimum signage throughout the wilderness. Another factor is that many areas were signed prior to their designation as wilderness. As these signs are falling down, fading, etc., they may not be replaced. My own personal take on the debate is that designated wilderness areas should be a little more "difficult", for lack of a better term, even if said wilderness is part of a larger trail system.
Keep in mind that in the Whites the AT only passes through a Wilderness Area for a few miles (just trail north of Osgood tentsite)
If I am correct, the AT is sited just outside of any adjacent Wilderness Area for virtually the entire distance it runs in the Whites-- including every above tree line mile.
In otherwords, apart from the intersection mentioned by the OP and a couple others that are very close to it, Wilderness Area protocols simply do not apply.
No?
Why do people from massachessetts always want to put up signs in the backcountry?
Why do people from massachessetts always want to put up signs in the backcountry?
I dare say, that's a rather sloppy generalization.
I shouldnt have said always.
imscotty
06-24-2016, 15:10
Why do people from massachessetts always want to put up signs in the backcountry?
Maybe because we are still pissed off that the Feds renamed most of Rt. 128
Maybe because we are still pissed off that the Feds renamed most of Rt. 128
With a single sentence you have forced me to reconsider everything I have believed for decades with absolute moral certainty regarding trail naming conventions in the Whites. I am not happy.
With a single sentence you have forced me to reconsider everything I have believed for decades with absolute moral certainty regarding trail naming conventions in the Whites. I am not happy.
Yeah it was a nice even power of two and they had to f it all up.
peakbagger
06-24-2016, 18:24
I believe folks are correct that the AT skips the vast majority of the wilderness areas in the WMNF. It gets darn close in several locations and its obvious that the wilderness boundaries were modified to allow existing structures and facilities, Guyot shelter being the most obvious. Unfortunately I would speculate that the Great Gulf being the first of the wilderness areas was not very well planned tor the eventuality of conflict between the AT and the wilderness area rules. One of the unfortunate side effects is the AT crosses into the wilderness area from the AutoRoad to the Osgood trail. The junction in question is second of four in the Great Gulf, the first one is a spur to Lowes Bald spot, then the one in question, the next one AT south is a T junction where the AT turns right and the Madison Gulf trail turns left. The third junction AT south is a T junction where the southbounder comes up a hill and continues on via the Osgood cutoff and has the option to turn right the Great Gulf Trail. Right at the wilderness boundary, there is another confusing junction which some north bounder hikers miss, they continue on via the Osgood trail instead of turning onto the Osgood cutoff. This junction is just outside the wilderness area. I had to edit it few times to get it right and its heck of a lot easier with a map.
At one point the Great Glen private inholding was much larger and I believe it butted up directly to the Great Gulf Wilderness area. Therefore there was not an option to reroute the AT. There was a large land sale to the WMNF at one point and the vast majority of a potential reroute could be on WMNF land outside the wilderness area with the exception of a small strip of the auto road private land. The AT already crosses the road higher up the mountain.
This isn't the only wilderness areas the AT crosses in new England, I can quickly find at least two in VT and believe there are more.
I will note that the WMNF had a very laid back management approach to the wilderness areas for quite a few years but it has been ramping up in the last fifteen years particularly in the Pemi culminating in the removal of a bridge a few years ago. This has been particularly noticeable on the maintenance of trails and more than a few folks including myself have gotten lost as the trails slowly grow in and degrade.
The problem with the Wilderness Act and its subsequent revisions is that it sets the overall concept but there is years of case law and administrative law that actually define what can and cant be done. There currently is another bridge in the Pemi wilderness area slated for removal and the WMNF has used the wilderness act as justification to remove it rather than replace it. Unfortunately for the WMNF there is a provision that structures required for public safety can be allowed. The WMNF is desperately trying to justify that the bridge is not needed for safety. Due to public input they are now going back to the drawing boards and will have to research all alternatives including replacement. If someone could make the argument that white blazes are for safety they may have a case but I expect it would be major battle. NH F&G enforced a policy that all hikers need the ten essentials and one of these essentials is a map. I expect that thru hiker arguing that the trail should be marked to avoid the need for map would also have rough run getting that approved.
The WMNF is desperately trying to justify that the bridge is not needed for safety. Due to public input they are now going back to the drawing boards and will have to research all alternatives including replacement.
That is very good to hear!
As a fan of flat trails in the Whites, that one should be a keeper. While the water is low in this shot, I definitely get why thinking people see it as needed for safety.
35305
Mountain Mike
06-24-2016, 19:44
Somewhere in my memorbilia I have two metal PCT markers. On my LASH that include OR & WA at the time a ranger said they were removing them from wilderness areas & if we wanted one, feel free to take it. One was even an old evergreen one.
In 2008 I planned a trip with my nephew on the JMT. I'd heard the bit about the removal of trail markers and that had me worried, so I spent about $300 at REI on a DeLorme GPS (PN-20). It just wouldn't be cool to get lost in the Sierras with my sister's kid.
It turned out to be quite unnecessary, on that trip or any other. I never used it. But all was not lost, I finally sold it at a yard sale for $20 a few weeks ago. :cool:
Lone Wolf
06-24-2016, 20:01
i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve
Mountain Mike
06-24-2016, 20:11
i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve
Yes , but people who get called in for a rescue don't. Risking injury to a rescue worker paid or volunteer because your battery died or phone broke is negligent in my thinking.
I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.
So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.
I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.
So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.
its been awhile since ive been on the AT in the whites, but i dont recall there being a prevalence of signs marking the AT that dont have the AT notated on it somewhere.
Yes , but people who get called in for a rescue don't. Risking injury to a rescue worker paid or volunteer because your battery died or phone broke is negligent in my thinking.
I'm not suggesting anyone hike without a map. On the other hand, lack-of-map is not the sole cause of rescues in the White Mountains.
Mountain Mike
06-24-2016, 21:24
I'm not suggesting anyone hike without a map. On the other hand, lack-of-map is not the sole cause of rescues in the White Mountains.
It wasn't in reference to your post. Just seeing it as a trend now. "You don't need maps to hike the AT! Just follow the white blazes." Get so & so app. etc. And now becoming more prevelant on PCT. People think if the app fails they can just call 911 or hit help on their Spot. This puts a lot of people in danger. Even a simple rescue can result in a slip leading to a broken bone putting rescuer out of work for week/months. HYOH is fine untill someone is unprepared for conditions. THe current wave of UL hikers with 0 experience scares me. Watching youtube videos doesn't count. I believe we all need to have the experience to self rescue.
New_2_Hikin'
06-24-2016, 21:48
I'd like to see these regulations. I just looked over the national USFS regulations, and they clearly allow signage in Wilderness. Also, no one said there had to be a White Blaze every 100 feet, but minimal signage could easily include a small AT symbol and an arrow at junctions, much as they have the USFS trail names on signs at many junctions inside and outside of wilderness.
Also, I know you're jealous of my Ph.D. Just go to grad school for 6 years, too, and I'll happily call you Dr. Peakbagger (btw, you should use the period with "Dr." Looks kind of dumb without it).
Doesn't look nearly as dumb as someone flaunting his PhD (sans periods) who incorrectly uses "their" not once but twice in the same sentence:
...given the weather and visibility up their, but their still ugly as f***). Would white blazes, even just at trail junctions, really take away from the wilderness experience?
Nice job, Dr................................................ ............................................
rocketsocks
06-24-2016, 21:56
Doesn't look nearly as dumb as someone flaunting his PhD (sans periods) who incorrectly uses "their" not once but twice in the same sentence:
Nice job, Dr................................................ ............................................hehehe hehehe :banana
rocketsocks
06-24-2016, 21:56
That's a burn!
I have a number on my house so guests and tradesmen can find it easier -- common courtesy.
So long as a trail sign exists, there is no good reason not to have an AT symbol on it -- common sense.
I agree. Maybe chalk it up to New England provincialism. Found this on Google Images, at least one sign that's pretty explicit. Found many others with no "AT" designation at all.
35307
A few more, from Google... three say AT explicitly. One does not.
I agree. Maybe chalk it up to New England provincialism. Found this on Google Images, at least one sign that's pretty explicit. Found many others with no "AT" designation at all.
35307
Yea, but was that one located in the National Forest, or a State Park?
Yea, but was that one located in the National Forest, or a State Park?
You tell me, I don't pay much attention to that stuff. It was 100 feet from Lonesome Lake Hut. Says so on the sign. ;)
A few more, from Google... three say AT explicitly. One does not.
The first one is also in the State Park (I think) but the second one is the most interesting.
35313
The Franconia Ridge Trail is marked as the AT on the Top sign, but the Garfield Ridge trail is not.
What's up with that? I won't quibble with the lack of AT on on the Liberty Spring line.
Edit: And pictures 3 and 4 look to be of the same sign post (Lafayette).
No ambiguity, really. Or, there shouldn't be. You know you're on the summit of Lafayette. You know you're traveling the ridge toward Garfield (nobo) or Mt. Liberty (sobo.) The third sign (which can't be read in that photo) obviously points down, off the ridge.
Yes, I'm assuming here that a thru hiker would have checked their maps have an idea of names of summits, side-trails, shelters and campsites they might be encountering on any given day. That's common sense, too.
Approximately zero weekenders and day hikers will be heading to or from Garfield at that point. Only thru hikers go that way. Seriously. There are plenty of easier ways to get to Garfield summit...
Approximately zero weekenders and day hikers will be heading to or from Garfield at that point. Only thru hikers go that way. Seriously. There are plenty of easier ways to get to Garfield summit...
We made a nice loop going that way starting in Lincoln Woods once.
Yes, I'm assuming here that a thru hiker would have checked their maps have an idea of names of summits, side-trails, shelters and campsites they might be encountering on any given day. That's common sense, too.
i would hope they would, but lets be for real, a lot of them, especially the people who complain about having trouble following the trail, clearly are not. theres maybe 2 spots i can think of in the whites where even with a map and an awareness of where you're going and what to look for that someone might get confused if they dont take the time to think about it. anyone who gets confused at the sign in this picture because it doesnt say AT as clearly as it might isnt prepared to hike in the whites, its really that simple.
i would hope they would, but lets be for real, a lot of them, especially the people who complain about having trouble following the trail, clearly are not. theres maybe 2 spots i can think of in the whites where even with a map and an awareness of where you're going and what to look for that someone might get confused if they dont take the time to think about it. anyone who gets confused at the sign in this picture because it doesnt say AT as clearly as it might isnt prepared to hike in the whites, its really that simple.
Last time my wife and I were at that sign some people coming up from the hut took out their cameras to film us-- they said they wanted footage to give to the media once we got in trouble.
It got so windy we litterly were on our hands and knees for a bit. Only two guys followed us to Garfield some hours later, one of whom lost his sleeping bag to the wind.
Point being, there are plenty of times when the map just isn't going to come out of your pack-- for any number of reasons. In a three way intersection like that it would be hard to get confused, but the picture is illustrative. Why not just add the AT symbol consistently? Most every hiker-- not just thrus-- are very familiar with the AT up there.
I hate graffiti but where hikers have felt compelled to add the AT symbol to a sign with a sharpie or pen knife, I am OK with that.
Most every hiker-- not just thrus-- are very familiar with the AT up there.
your point was valid until you said that. i'm sorry, ive said it many times in this thread and you obviously disagree, but that statement is flat out wrong. go to a crowded hut and talk to the other hikers (not just the thrus who might be there) there and see how many of them say anything about the AT. ive literally had many many many such people not even know the AT was anywhere near by when i mentioned i was hiking on the AT. if someone were to say to you "what trail did you take here?" if you were to answer "The AT" as opposed to something like "the crawford path" most likely the person you are talking wouldnt know what you were talking about. this is fact. this is true 100% and to deny it shows you are hopelessly out of touch with those around and you just stay within a very AT focused mindet. it is this mindset that makes AT hikers unable to follow the trail or to understand why it is marked or laid out the way it is.. its a much bigger world out there friend.
your point earlier about the AT "connecting" the huts illustrates this-
lonesome lake- started in 1876
greenleaf- 1930
galehead- 1931
zealand- 1932
mizpah- 1964
lakes of the clouds- 1901
madison spring 1888
carter notch- 1904
remind me what year the AT was built again?
you look at the whites and you see huts that were built along a trail that connects them, but that is not reality. the reality is the huts (And all of the trails) were already there and the people creating the AT decided to use the trails that went by the huts. look at it from that perspective instead of thinking its all about the AT and it suddenly makes a lot more sense.
One more, from a friend's hike yesterday... AT is cleary marked, where appropriate.
One Half
10-16-2016, 01:35
I just found this "Trail Adopter's Guide" published by AMC.
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/AMCadopt.pdf
Here's a brief excerpt from P. 22:
Thank you! We used to maintain the Osgood Cutoff when our son was young, maybe 12 years ago. We would drive up, sleep at Camp Dodge, hike in to Osgood Tent site, eat, and then maintain our section. Yes we blazed. Sometimes we would go out the way we came in, other times we would just go to the end of the cutoff, hang a left and then rejoin the trail we walked in on and head out from there. Sometimes we would stay the night at Osgood Tent Site. Before we had him we helped the maintainer who had the section from the Tent site up to the junction. I think it's a mile long? But at the time it had 97 water bars! Some were ones we added. No idea how many are there now as that would have been nearly 20 years ago. I didn't want to jump into this thread and say with certainty that blazing was still done in the WMNF but I know we did it when we maintained. And for those of you complaining about the blazing, adopt a section through AMC and take care of it. Here's a link to get you started. http://www.outdoors.org/volunteer/trails/adopt-a-trail.cfm
Just hiked up Madison from Valley Way yesterday. Because of this thread, I took special note of blazes on the Osgood Trail. Even the trail signs are marked with AT symbols on the short section that I hiked. Granted, it was only half mile, but the blazes and sign markers were there. Oddly enough, of the 15 or so hikers I ran into at Madison Spring hut, I was the only one to carry a map :rolleyes:
i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve
A valid argument can be made for 100% Analog hiking.
Wayne
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i walked the AT thru the whites at least 7 times. never got lost or sidetracked on another trail. i had a real map. always. still do when i walk in the woods. you folks that rely on gadgets get what you deserve
Map, what's that? I jus follow the white paint. I call it follow the popcorn hiking. Don't make things difficult. I want to turn my mind off and walk. In backpacking/hiking the less I have to think about things or be personally responsible for my hike the better the hike. ;) :D
And we wonder why the AT, PCT, and JMT are over run with the CDT sure soon to follow. Hey HYOH right. That's BS when personal accountability is excluded.
Map, what's that? I jus follow the white paint. I call it follow the popcorn hiking. Don't make things difficult. I want to turn my mind off and walk. In backpacking/hiking the less I have to think about things or be personally responsible for my hike the better the hike. ;) :D
And we wonder why the AT, PCT, and JMT are over run with the CDT sure soon to follow. Hey HYOH right. That's BS when personal accountability is excluded.
Do you hike? I know you haven't thru hiked the AT so that makes you a talking head :D