PDA

View Full Version : Do blazes hurt trees?



Frosty
06-12-2007, 18:12
What in Blazes?

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/conditions/index.php/#blazes



Blazes, those paint marks on trees and rocks that help you stay on a trail, are being removed by Forest Service trail crews in Wilderness areas of the White Mountain National Forest. Last year, blazes were removed from the Great Gulf Wilderness, and this year crews are working in the Caribou-Speckled Wilderness in Maine.
Where necessary at critical points like stream crossings, stone cairns may be constructed, but the removing of blazes is in keeping with protecting the character of Wilderness, which should show minimal signs of human presence. It is critical that all hikers be sure they have the necessary equipment and navigational skills before traveling in a designated Wilderness area, and this is especially true in winter when the trail tread is usually not visible.

general
06-12-2007, 18:18
take them all off, back to the old map and compass. that should make things more interesting. get rid of the shelters too, and the bridges, and then call it a wilderness experience.

emerald
06-12-2007, 18:20
I doubt that blazes hurt trees, but signs fastened to trees do. Signs should be attached to posts.

Toolshed
06-12-2007, 18:25
How do you define "hurt"???

emerald
06-12-2007, 18:31
take them all off, back to the old map and compass. that should make things more interesting. get rid of the shelters too, and the bridges, and then call it a wilderness experience.

Depends upon how many people use the resource. Where the number of users is high, removing shelters, bridges and blazes could do more harm to the resource than good.

That might be many places east of the Mississippi River. :-? Is there a real wilderness experience to be had there?

Do trails have a place in a wilderness experience? Is the concept of the A.T. compatible with real wilderness?

How can an area with existing trails revert to wilderness -- whatever that is -- when people insist upon using those trails?

Just a few points to ponder for those who like to think.;)

emerald
06-12-2007, 18:34
How do you define "hurt"???

Me, anyone or someone else?

Edit: If you were asking me, what I meant was harm as in diminish their value as timber, disfigure them, create a point for insects or disease to gain entry for starters. If the fasteners aren't loosened later and periodically, the sign will be ruined too due to secondary growth of the tree.

1n the Sun
06-12-2007, 18:59
I think many trees are suffereing from something in the paint. Dragons' tooth, in Roanoke County VA has a "new" access trail form a new parking lot. This path is about 7 years old, yet the painted trees show scarring and some are dead. I have no idea why, but I think we can stop blazing trails, especially when the parks serv ice conditions them to be 4 foot wide and smooth as silk on glass...and the AT is becomign the appalachian trench!

Frosty
06-12-2007, 19:02
How do you define "hurt"???A dull throb felt as a band of pain around the forehead/temple or in the back of the head caused by listening to pointless yapping. Why???

Frosty
06-12-2007, 19:08
I wonder if they are considering a return to the old way of blazing a trail:

http://trailjournals.com/photos.cfm?trailname=1650

emerald
06-12-2007, 19:25
I think many trees are suffereing from something in the paint. Dragons' tooth, in Roanoke County VA has a "new" access trail form a new parking lot. This path is about 7 years old, yet the painted trees show scarring and some are dead. I have no idea why, but I think we can stop blazing trails, especially when the parks serv ice conditions them to be 4 foot wide and smooth as silk on glass...and the AT is becomign the appalachian trench!

:-? Correlation or causation? If what you're describing is in fact due to blazing the trees, it could have far more to do with how the surface was prepared prior to painting, than the paint itself.

Trees have been blazed and reblazed for more than 7 years with no apparent ill effects elsewhere. Doesn't that tell you something?

Does hiking on the A.T. cause it to become the Appalachian Trench? Could this phenomenon not be related to soil compaction, loss of vegetation and water collecting on the A.T. and being transported by it due to a lack of proper structures to retain the soil and route the water off the A.T.?

Are you advocating eliminating the A.T. as a means to disperse those impacts? Wouldn't there be consequences to that course of action? Would the result be better or worse?

1n the Sun
06-12-2007, 19:33
I think the konnarock conference of the AT is doing a great job rebuilding degraded parts of the trail. We have plenty of wilderness areas for backcountry experiences here in Virginia, some within the view of my front porch, but Mt. Roger is over 2 hours form my home. Too much of the AT follows the Blue Ridge Park way, btu hey, I didn't design this trail, so who am I to complain?

I am concerned about what is in the blue blazes of the new trail at dragon's tooth, I've never seen so much damage from a bit of paint on trees before...ashes, maples, pines, and cherries, all looking sorry around the painted blaze...weird, huh?

c.coyle
06-12-2007, 20:08
The article cited in post #1 doesn't say they're removing them because of harm to trees.

Real basic question: Do they blaze trees with oil based or water based paint?

White latex paint is used in orchards to help prevent splitting and cracking, and to reflect light and heat from the tree trunk. Latex paint forms a semi-breathable skin. I suppose painting too large an area can cause rot and decay when moisture is trapped under the film, but blazes are only 2"x6", aren't they?

Just because two things happen close together doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other.

The Old Fhart
06-12-2007, 20:34
It seems people are getting Wilderness and wilderness confused. The area Frosty was talking about is Federally Designated Wilderness with a capital W which is something different than just being out in the woods, which most people call 'wilderness'. The current usage rules for Federally Designated Wilderness in the WMNF required that a highly used social trail, or herd path, that some people had unofficially blazed with paint, and cairns, be removed from Owl's Head in the Pemi Wilderness area as well. This is in keeping with the current WMNF regulations and affects little of the trail.

Alligator
06-12-2007, 20:47
The blazes are being removed to lessen the visual impact, not because they are hurting the trees.



Where necessary at critical points like stream crossings, stone cairns may be constructed, but the removing of blazes is in keeping with protecting the character of Wilderness, which should show minimal signs of human presence.

Frosty
06-12-2007, 20:56
It seems people are getting Wilderness and wilderness confused. The area Frosty was talking about is Federally Designated Wilderness with a capital W which is something different than just being out in the woods, which most people call 'wilderness'. The current usage rules for Federally Designated Wilderness in the WMNF required that a highly used social trail, or herd path, that some people had unofficially blazed with paint, and cairns, be removed from Owl's Head in the Pemi Wilderness area as well. This is in keeping with the current WMNF regulations and affects little of the trail.It was my fault. My title was flippant. I had assumed that by reading the link or the body of my post, it would be easy to see exactly what you are saying: the purpose of removing the blazes is to return the Wilderness area to wilderness. Or at least the legal definition of Wilderness.

I did, however, get the idea from reading the WMNF site
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/conditions/index.php
that it wasn't just herd paths but all trails within the Wilderness that were being cleansed of blazes.

This seems consistent with other Wilderness areas, such as Dolly Sods:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/sp/dolly_sods_wilderness.htm
Dolly Sods Wilderness is 10,215 acres in size. Trails do not have blazes and may or may not have signs. Most signs are expected to disappear over time as they are damaged and not replaced. Large rock cairns will mark major trail junctions, and smaller cairns may mark areas where the trail location is confusing. Deadfall trees will be made so that they are reasonably passable, but will not be completely cleared. This will help retain some of the naturalness of the area. No bridges are provided over streams.

Frosty
06-12-2007, 21:00
The blazes are being removed to lessen the visual impact, not because they are hurting the trees.Yes, my error in titling the thread. The is a fine line between being funny and being a pain in the ass. Apparently I am still trying to find that line. As old as I am now, I don't hold out much hope any more.

emerald
06-12-2007, 21:01
I believe Frosty's title was meant to be facetious. It worked for me. You've pointed out what posted before my post before. Now, I look for humor in your posts and often find it.

mweinstone
06-12-2007, 21:11
im not ready. will you do the laundry to help me?

mweinstone
06-12-2007, 21:12
meaningless post provided by shell oil. shell oil, making blazepaint poisonness for fifty years!

smokymtnsteve
06-12-2007, 22:11
psuedo-wilderness

to boldy go where others with really cool gear have gone before...

don't forget your guidebook!

Alligator
06-12-2007, 22:20
Yes, my error in titling the thread. The is a fine line between being funny and being a pain in the ass. Apparently I am still trying to find that line. As old as I am now, I don't hold out much hope any more.OK.

I think somebody previously asked this question somewhere and I thought it had come up again as a serious question.

I like that they are letting them go.

mweinstone
06-12-2007, 22:53
would anyone like to pay a channeler to read a tree?we could just settel this right now. they read trees ya know.

Lone Wolf
06-13-2007, 01:57
hammocks hurt trees

RockStar
06-13-2007, 02:06
Hey, some trees don't know when to shut up...do you!? ;) I'll hang my hammock from two 2 of YOUR limbs buddy! ;)

smokymtnsteve
06-13-2007, 02:48
LW is correct...hanging hammocks can hurt trees....


so can tying animals to trees....

you can girdle trees by tying to them.

mweinstone
06-13-2007, 06:30
im hurting trees right now!

Toolshed
06-13-2007, 07:47
hammocks hurt trees
Tis far better for the tree if you could find two moose standing 14-18 feet apart and hang from them!!!!!!

chief
06-13-2007, 11:58
Hammocks hurt trees!

Appalachian Tater
06-13-2007, 12:51
Blazes and hammocks don't hurt trees, people hurt trees, using blazes and hammocks as weapons.

BlackCloud
06-13-2007, 15:21
This whole thread is giving me a headache...

STEVEM
06-13-2007, 16:55
In New York State most trails on public land are blazed by the NYDEC using colored plastic discs loosely nailed to trees using long galvanized steel roofing nails. On most trees this seems to cause no harm. I have seen however a lot of Beech Trees which have rotten spots where the blaze was nailed to the tree.

Uncle Silly
06-13-2007, 17:52
please please.... won't somebody think of the trees!

Peaks
06-13-2007, 18:11
I don't know if blazes hurt trees or not, but two points:

In Maine especially, there seem to be a tremendous amount of fallen over with white blazes on them.

The AT is way overblazed anyway.

Marta
06-13-2007, 18:36
I don't know if blazes hurt trees or not, but two points:

In Maine especially, there seem to be a tremendous amount of fallen over with white blazes on them.

The AT is way overblazed anyway.

The problem for me last year with the AMC territory was the tremendous number of alternate trails coupled with the weird inconsistency of the blazing. I was a poor, dumb SOBO who had gotten used to lolloping along in the woods seeing blazes fairly often. All of a sudden, I enter AMC territory and the rules have changed. I start to come to loads of unmarked or poorly marked intersections. (I admit it--I was slow on the uptake. The significance of the little (AT) next to the trail names escaped me at first. I hadn't thought it was necessary to call the AT by a whole series of other names. It's as bad as street names in Charlotte.) I'd get out my map, but the trails didn't necessarily correspond to what I was seeing on my AT map. It was quite aggravating.

Frankly I don't think a Wilderness you can walk through in less than an hour is enhanced by eradicating the blazes.

Marta/Five-Leaf

Two Speed
06-13-2007, 19:44
im hurting trees right now!Are you hurting the trees or are they hurting you?

It's always tough for me to tell which way Matty's going with something. :confused:

Nightwalker
06-13-2007, 21:24
im hurting trees right now!

That's one of your better photos. Wish I had one without the date stamp. :)

smokymtnsteve
06-13-2007, 21:29
CHAIN SAW MASSACRE,,,,

ifn I could find my camera's cord (it's somewhere between GA , AK, France and Slovakia) I'd download some shots of me really hurting some trees.

Uncle Silly
06-14-2007, 13:23
That's one of your better photos. Wish I had one without the date stamp. :)

i've noticed his date stamps are wrong. that pic was probably taken within the last two days. i bet he's lost his camera manual and can neither set the date correctly nor turn off the datestamp function. :D

The Weasel
06-14-2007, 13:33
Depends upon how many people use the resource. Where the number of users is high, removing shelters, bridges and blazes could do more harm to the resource than good.

That might be many places east of the Mississippi River. :-? Is there a real wilderness experience to be had there?

Do trails have a place in a wilderness experience? Is the concept of the A.T. compatible with real wilderness?

How can an area with existing trails revert to wilderness -- whatever that is -- when people insist upon using those trails?

Just a few points to ponder for those who like to think.;)

Great set of points, Grey:

A few years back I took my Scouts to Laurel Creek Wilderness in Monongahela National Forest in WV (GREAT place, by the way!!). All trail signs had been removed, and trails were no longer maintained. We had a NFS Ranger join us for dessert one night (the Scouts loved her...she hiked in 3 miles to meet us!) told us that if people walked a trail, it would be visible, and it was another reason for good map/compass skills. We could tell, after only about 6-7 years of designation, that it made a difference. (Downfalls were left in place, too.) Yes, it made it closer and closer to a wilderness. And removal and probably had a modest reduction in use, to the benefit of the wilderness.

There are wildernesses east of the Rockies, including a very few that are still 'virgin' ones (never tilled or forested). It will be good to see some areas return, as much as possible.

For the AT, other than junctions, there is no need for the "always one blaze in sight" rule, I think. While the footpath may not be visible in winter snows, I realize, snow is going to interfere with seeing white blazes on trees, too. Perhaps the ATC will reconsider the extent of blazing and allow a modest reduction.

The Weasel

BlackCloud
06-14-2007, 16:20
Nah, I like the blazing as is; especially in snow and right after the leaves have fallen.

If truly interested in Leave No Trace, shoudn't some emphasis be given to keeping hikers on the trail?

The Old Fhart
06-14-2007, 18:02
Marta-"The problem for me last year with the AMC territory was the tremendous number of alternate trails coupled with the weird inconsistency of the blazing. I was a poor, dumb SOBO who had gotten used to lolloping along in the woods seeing blazes fairly often. All of a sudden, I enter AMC territory and the rules have changed."Two points here.
1st, you are not entering AMC territory, You're entering the WMNF who is responsible for most of the signage and trail maintenance in the area. The AMC signs are the white signs that are generally quite informative and the WMNF signs are brown and have good information for those hikers with guidebooks and maps. The A.T. guidebooks and the ALDHA companion caution hikers to pay close attention to the signs in this area.
2nd, the 'inconsistency' is with the A.T., which is an 'alternate' trail entering a well established area that has been building and maintaining trails since 1870. Some of these trails have been consistently blazed and signed for over 100 years and to get those blazes changed to white for the new trail on the block you'd have to talk to the USFS, not the AMC.

Jester2000
06-14-2007, 19:10
Yes, my error in titling the thread. The is a fine line between being funny and being a pain in the ass. Apparently I am still trying to find that line. As old as I am now, I don't hold out much hope any more.

Oh, I don't know, Frosty. I think you're funny AND a pain in the ass.