# USFS v. Owl's Head



## Stephen (Sep 19, 2005)

What's going on? I hear all sorts of talk about the USFS taking down the cairns and the peak signs. What's the history behind all this?

-Stephen


----------



## SkiDog (Sep 20, 2005)

Many many threads here..http://www.viewsfromthetop.com/forums/ . I have been following them pretty much from the start, but the main jist of it seems to be a "hardliner" new ranger is out removing markings left on Unmarked trails as isn't against policy, writing tickets for car campers, removing summit cairns, etc. Just in general following the rule book to the letter. Some on the above board have actually met the said ranger and had lengthy conversations with him..

go read if you have some time...some very interesting views on what should and should not be done regaring LNT, and herd paths etc...

Thats what I got..

M


----------



## SkiDog (Sep 20, 2005)

sorry just noticed in another post that you post at that site as well...sorry...sure you know what I have just posted..sorry I dont have more.


M


----------



## Stephen (Sep 20, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> sorry just noticed in another post that you post at that site as well...sorry...sure you know what I have just posted..sorry I dont have more.
> 
> 
> M



I've just begun posting over there, so I don't know the full deal of it.

-Stephen


----------



## SkiDog (Sep 20, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For sure LOTS AND LOTS to read...its all over too...trip reports, general discussion, Q&A, etc...do a search I think is best...

happy posting..thats a really really hiking geared board....good info..

M


----------



## David Metsky (Sep 20, 2005)

Background: Federally designated Wilderness areas are not allowed to have permanent structures unless they are authorized.  Unofficial trail markings (blazes and cairns) are not allowed.  In the past, enforcement of this has been spotty in the Whites, although summit cairns have been removed in the past (Sandwich Dome) and unofficial trails have been closed and posted.  The Owls Head herd path has always been unofficial.

The WMNF is enforcing the rules again.  These rules come from above, it's not clear if it is one ranger is enforcing things alone.  I seriously doubt that, since several rangers have been involved.  The summit sign on Owls Head (which wasn't on the real summit anyways), the summit cairn, and the cairn on the Lincoln Brook trail have all been removed.  All are pretty clearly not allowed under the federal rules.

Some hikers have objected, saying things were fine the way they were, and have taken to rebuilding the cairns, which have been promptly dispursed by the rangers.  The paint blazes on the Owls Head herd path were scraped off by the rangers, and it appears that at least one tree was cut down.  A sign has been placed at the base of the slide telling folks not to do illegal trail maintainence, since it isn't a trail.

Hopefully, either people will learn to live without the cairns and blazes on unofficial trails in the Wilderness area, or the herd path will become an offiical trail, or some other form of compromise will occur.

 -dave-


----------



## Stephen (Sep 20, 2005)

Dave,

Thanks for putting this into perspective. You give a  view that is not oft repeated.

It would seem the path to take (bad pun) would be to  work to make some of the places official so they can be marked. 

I think this might be a good use of the hiking community's lobbying power. 

-Stephen


----------



## David Metsky (Sep 20, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> It would seem the path to take (bad pun) would be to  work to make some of the places official so they can be marked.


I agree, but designating an official trail in a Wilderness Area is a big project.  If it happens (and I hope it does) I'd prefer it be a new route, as the current route up the slide is unmaintainable.

 -dave-


----------



## SilentCal (Sep 20, 2005)

A new trail might be the way to go with this one.  The herd path has way too many branches now and can confuse some people who are not the skilled with a compass and map.  

I wonder if this is something that the AMC would comment on.  They have used their trail crews to build a new Grafton Loop Trail in Maine.   With the 4000 footers Club being a pseudo-extentsion of the AMC,  I wonder why they have not made a statement about this.   Granted Owl's Head is not along the AT or easily accessible from the huts, but I would think that club in general would have an opinion.

A new Trail?   Hmmm , The Owl's Head Ridge Trail sounds nice.  Going from 13 Falls to the True Summit.  Lots of switchbacks and a VERY long dayhike!


----------



## Sherpa John (Sep 20, 2005)

Well... I'll weigh in on this one seeing as I have been elbows deep in it.. just not on the boards.

Originally I thought a certain "Ranger Dick" who I had ran into on Carrigain one afternoon was the culprit. I'll leave his name off of here... because I ended up running into the ranger in question.

Kevin Wall is the ranger who has removed the base and summit cairns of Owls head, scrapped the paint from Owls Head Trees as well as the removal of The West Bond Cairn. He also removed the Owls Head sign. He did not do ALL of this alone but when talking with him.. he did say it himself and fellow members of his "group."

He was firm in stating the Wilderness Act in why he removed the cairns and paintings. I asked him how he felt about folks getting lost and he makes a valid argument about "if your out there, you should know how to use a map and compass."

He also stated that the OH sign is sitting on his supervisors desk (kinda like a trophy). Now.. I mentioned to him thoughts on all ready existent structures and then he got into the Antiquities Act of such and such a year.

Anyway... what it comes down to is.. though an INCONVENIENCE to SOME hikers.. the poor guy is just doing his job. As gung ho as it may seem.. he is in fact doing the right thing. However... this of course will not stop future hikers from re-establishing old paint markings and sign posts... so long as they don't get caught.

In terms of calling OH Path an official trail... well.. there is a LOT of paperwork and beauracracy to swim through. I proposed the idea to a friend and he sent me THIS reply: "Getting the OH path designated as an official trail could be a long, difficult and perhaps fruitless process, I don't know for sure. Among
hikers, there are probably some who would want it made into an official
trail, and some who wouldn't. What ultimately matters, of course, is how the
Forest Service views it. The Pemi is regulated under the Pemigewasset
Wilderness Plan (1989) and the OH path area is in the "primitive/pristine
zone." Under the plan the construction of new trails is discouraged: "There
will be no new trail construction except to resolve existing maintenance or
to better the wilderness experience." 

I had offered to start a petition to hikers in an attempt to persuade the USFS to create the trail.. and I would become its official maintainer.. but this process sounds more time consuming than mantaining the trail actually would be. The trail may seem not maintainable, but then again.. the South Slide of Tripyramid is similar and easily followed as is OH path. Perhaps a relocatted trail going up the south could work as well.

So... it's a lose lose for hikers.. the forest service will have their way.. but I'm sure certain hikers will continue to fight.. as they should I suggest. Though some folks know how to use a map and compass... I would find it safe to say.. a number of "peak-baggers" may not.

Also... the NEW AMC map of the WMNF does NOT have the OH path or Isolation side path on its map. I would also find it safe to say that future guide books will also exclude mention of these trails.. making both summits a sort of.. BUSHWHACK. NOTE: there are VARIOUS OTHER routes up OH from all other nautical points... its just that OH PATH is the most commonly used.

Besides.. where the sign was... is NOT the TRUE summit  :wink: 

Thats my take.
SJ :wink:


----------



## cbcbd (Sep 21, 2005)

I see no problem in removing the signs. I'm sure if for all of these years there were no signs and no blazes painted on the trail, and someone would come in today and want to paint some blazes and put up a sign, there would be a big stink about messing around with the natural setting of the mountain.

Signs are fun to read and give a concrete sense of being where you thought you would end up (and are great foreground for pictures)... but other than that they are just another artificial object on the landscape. 

As for cairns... leave them alone... they're just  rocks!

I was just hiking in Switzerland a few weeks ago and found the system there very interesting compared to ours:
-no blazes or trail markers or cairns
-signs only at big trail junctions (with not the miles, but the time it would take to get to the destination)
-no summit signs - unless it's a developed summit like Pilatus and Mt Washington
-no trail modifications like stone steps, handles, ladders...(only mod were runners at times in order to minimize trail erosion)

Anyway... after seeing that it made our trails seem very cluttered with idiot proof hiking additions.


----------



## Stephen (Sep 21, 2005)

Wow... so the NH4K would have it's own bushwack peak on the list? Isn't that kind of a prestigious thing? 

-Stephen


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 22, 2005)

while i think a trail to the top of owl's head is a good idea due to the number of people hiking the 4k's, perhaps a look at the other side of the argument is in order:

if hiker's should be able to demand a maintained trail to the summit of owl's head, should sleders have a right to demand a sled trail through the wilderness area?  you could argue hiking and motorized vehciles are two completely different things, but wasn't the wilderness act meant to keep certain places "wild" as some people desire that type of experience and to have places without any development?

like i said, i think a maintained path would be a good thing consider the numbers of people going up owl's head (then again, i can not recall any issues of people getting lost or hurt seriously).  but the point remains, if one group can ask for an exception why can't all groups wanting to partake in wilderness recreation ask for an exception?


----------



## blacknblue (Sep 22, 2005)

Good point, riverc0il.  For the time being, the mountain does live under pretty strict jurisdiction, and having an exception to the rule in this case certainly opens the door wide open for other, less favorable exceptions (that would then be hard to refute).  
I personally enjoy the wilderness/bushwhack experience of Owls Head and it makes the whole peakbagging thing take on a whole new element.  I understand the various usage issues, but it seems that most of the predictions about this or that decision are very speculative.


----------



## Pinnah (Sep 23, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> if hiker's should be able to demand a maintained trail to the summit of owl's head, should sleders have a right to demand a sled trail through the wilderness area?  you could argue hiking and motorized vehciles are two completely different things, but wasn't the wilderness act meant to keep certain places "wild" as some people desire that type of experience and to have places without any development?



Excellent question.

I think the language of the Wilderness Act is something along the lines of "no permenant trace" of human use.  But it does allow for human use, which sets up an interesting tension.  How many footfalls does it take for things to be permenant and then whaddya do?

As with all laws, the laws aren't nearly as important as the regulations that are used to enforce the laws. Laws are vague but regs get specific.  Mechanized use of the Pemi is forbidden, which excludes bicycles, much less ski-doos.  I'm trying to justify the logic here that allows AT ski gear with all its complications but disallows bikes!!

Going in another direction, David Foreman wrote a great essay that appeared in Backpacker in the 90s in which he advocated keeping Wilderness Areas unmapped. His point was that map and compass was an artificial aid that should be avoided when confronting the wilderness on its own terms.  

To my mind, you can't pick up the stripping away of navigational aids without also considering limiting access to areas.  The less aid you have, the more likely you will get herd path type destruction, since terrain, distance and common sensibilities will lead folks to walk and sleep in similar places.  If this is true, then the only way to keep the place from getting hammered it to go to a quota system (like they do at Whitney and Yosemite, among other places).


----------



## Mike P. (Sep 26, 2005)

I'd be okay with just th cairn, the trail traffic should keep a path pretty clear, what is sad is that as trees come down, the detours will become numerous again, by then there will likely be new rangers or a letting up of the rules or they may petition the system for an offical trai

I agree you should be able to read a map & compass but how many rescues will they do before they come to the conclusion, many can't.  What's easier & safer, educating 100's or thousands of people on map or compass, resucing people or a maintaining a couple of cairns & some paint?  Each side had valid points.

Similar arguement if you're on Everest you should have some really good skills, or if I pay $70,000 someone should hold me hand the whole way up?


----------



## MichaelJ (Sep 27, 2005)

I really don't expect anyone to get lost up there; however, I agree wholeheartedly that this is going to lead to an explosion of herd paths all over the place, and that is *not* how to manage a forest area.

As well as cutting down trees because they were blazed. That's beyond wrong.

This issue should have been dealt with a decade ago; to suddenly attack it now just doesn't sit will and certainly wins no PR points.


----------



## Mike P. (Sep 28, 2005)

Lost, no, calling in because they run late & don't have a light, maybe, if they can't find the slide on the way down, how is the footing in the woods, I suspect it's not as good & covered.

I had an opportunity to do some unplanned bushwhacking down part of Macomb in the ADK's when we could not find the slide.  Some spots it was better, some spots you trusted the ground was solid under the branches.


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok, I think I've got it! The 2005 forest service plan says no bridges or cairns because it isn't natural, but i.e., it's ok to leave a complete metal tower on Carter Dome lying around littering this mtn.
Sure USFS, I've got your number! Get the message? Any replies?!


----------



## Stephen (Oct 4, 2005)

MtnMagic said:
			
		

> Ok, I think I've got it! The 2005 forest service plan says no bridges or cairns because it isn't natural, but i.e., it's ok to leave a complete metal tower on Carter Dome lying around littering this mtn.
> Sure USFS, I've got your number! Get the message? Any replies?!



Yeah, I think I heard them say "Good, 'n you?".

:lol:

-Stephen


----------



## Pinnah (Oct 4, 2005)

MtnMagic said:
			
		

> Ok, I think I've got it! The 2005 forest service plan says no bridges or cairns because it isn't natural, but i.e., it's ok to leave a complete metal tower on Carter Dome lying around littering this mtn.



Unless I'm mistaken on this point, Carter Dome is not in a designated Wilderness Area.  The capital letters are important. USFS Wilderness is a legally defined terms with specific landmanagement implications.


----------



## David Metsky (Oct 4, 2005)

Pinnah said:
			
		

> Unless I'm mistaken on this point, Carter Dome is not in a designated Wilderness Area.  The capital letters are important. USFS Wilderness is a legally defined terms with specific landmanagement implications.


You're not mistaken.  The federal rules for Wilderness Areas vs regular forest areas are quite different.  As far as I can tell, the FS is following the rules and regulations as written.

 -dave-


----------



## Fat Guy (Nov 7, 2005)

As far as ripping cairns down, IT'S JUST A PILE OF ROCKS.  However cutting trees down to block a trail is a "man made structure" also.  I guess that is what was done to the end of the Black Pond trail many years ago discourage people from keep going around the pond on their way to the Lincoln Brook trail, ironical on the way to Owl's Head. 
    Having said that, does ANYONE have or know of pictures in magazines or articals with the cairns in question shown or made referance to in publications dated pre-wilderness act.  If some could be found those structures would then fall under the antiquities act and this discussion could be a whole new ball game. This could possibly include the trail up Owl's Head it self.


----------

