Trail marking

[jmf]

On my blog:http://www.randonnues.fr/?p=5415.
It's in french and in english

[jbeegoode]

I see that you mark rocks with paint for direction. Here, if there are no Official Forest Service signs, then there are cairns made by anyone. I have gotten off of course a couple of times when the markings were too vague.

When I get my home in order, I hope to hit a trail with some snips, camp out and clear the overgrowth. It is such a pleasant environment naked and great exercise. I like to be of service/seva. Anymore, the Forest Service budgets have been cut so much that they can't do anywhere near what is needed to keep up with maintenance. They have hundreds of trails and budgets for just a few each year, now. Many are becoming no trails from neglect. I'd rather see a few less soldiers and funding to get crews of people out into the "Great Outdoors."
Jbee

[jmf]

In France, the long-distance hiking trails (GR) are labelled by the very official Fédération Française de Randonnée Pédestre, which entrusts the maintenance and marking to hikers' associations. And our association des Marcheurs Nus du Val de Roanne (Naked Hikers of the Valley of Roanne) has been given the mission to take care of a section of a trail.

[BlueTrain]

I didn't know the Forest Service ever did trail maintenance, although the only place I go has signs, only just at the trailhead, in the parking lot. The Appalachian Trail is maintained by volunteers from different clubs up and down the trail, although for the most part, there isn't a lot involved, unless, say, a tree falls across the trail. The trail has been relocated here and there over the years but I don't know how that is managed. Some say the trail has become more difficult over the years. Anyway, I appreciate that there are such trails, even if I no longer get out so much anymore. Once so far this year and here it is September. None are that close.

I have my own local trails that I use every day or two. Virtually no maintenance is required and at least half the distance is paved path. The rest is mostly under the trees but parts are through open areas that grow up. Even on these local trails, trees fall down. There are lots of good trails within the county, most of which connect with others at some point. They are much more suitable for bird watchers than nude hikers, unfortunately.

[Greenbare Woods]

I didn't know the Forest Service ever did trail maintenance, although the only place I go has signs, only just at the trailhead, in the parking lot.

The US Forest Service used to hire contractors for trail maintenance.   I have known men who worked on trails for a contractor. 

It is dependent on their budgets.  My knowledge was some years ago.   How much they do each year now may depend on some enthusiasm for fire prevention and fightingvs. leftist enthusiasm for closing access and abandoning fire roads.

[BlueTrain]

It is true that some people want access to places restricted for their own reasons. But I don't know if they're leftist or not. Maybe just right in the middle. Sounds like having access limited would be a conservative thing. There are places on the Potomac where access is limited and by that, I mean you can't even be on the river.

[Greenbare Woods]

It is true that some people want access to places restricted for their own reasons. But I don't know if they're leftist or not. Maybe just right in the middle. Sounds like having access limited would be a conservative thing. There are places on the Potomac where access is limited and by that, I mean you can't even be on the river.

There are places in the west where Forest Service fire fighting roads have been abandoned and blocked off to restrict access by loggers and RV drivers.   Same with trails.

[jbeegoode]

There are always several parties involved with public lands management and conservation measures.. I too, from my experience, know that these people cannot be categorized by right and left. Conservative meant conservation from the get go. I member working on a board which was two dems, two Republicans, two libertarians and a couple of leftists. They were representing the diversity of an entire town. We were all united to protect our local desert. All with environmental values that weighed a love of the natural place and our lifestyle over making a quick buck.

We worked with County, State and Federal government as well as "The Center for Biological Diversity" who you would label leftist.

We have talked labels before. This perspective of "leftist" is such a label that narrows clear thinking, attempts to fracture the players/the people and over simplifies. Over and over, when participating, I've found over years that environmental concerns of a majority of users and stake holders will try to be usurped by corporate and wealthy liars and pigs tactics. Divide and conquer, particularly label, demonize and falsify. If you look at this"leftist" idea, it will likely stem back to a corporate entity, a think tank filled with hired guns to profit a few. The Forest Service effectiveness is being destroyed by these tactics. Budget cuts to cut the legs off of public participation are disguised as "end big inefficient government" to corral libertarians in separate pens. Free markets work better that government ideas which are just not true, and endlessly proven throughout history. This new religion has been pushed by a few thinktanks that have grown to tremendous power since the early days of John Birch, by hundreds of millions of dollars and funding of fake science, buying off of universities, a constant push. They take a little truth about government and turn it into a broad false ideology through demonetization and then they create astro turf rallying when people get frustrated. The environmental extremist in the overall group are separated by being given labels like "leftists" "communists" "socialists" (which gets into another oligarchical strategy). The science is even demonized.

Whether you agree in total or in part with me, take home that most of us ALL, who know the outdoors, love it. There are huge forces that are dividing us for a buck. They don't like that there are places left wild and natural, places that support the ranching industry, places that recreate for hikers, bikers, motorized tourist and all of the various users. They don't want Conservationism, preserving earth, the mother, for children's children, the spirituality that is our birthright. They just want it all to make the all mighty buck, a quick buck. You and I are on the same side, Bob. We have the same mother.
Jbee

[nuduke]

There's nowhere really wild these days, is there?
John

[jbeegoode]

Nuduke, you must come to Arizona for a visit and hear the howl of a free wolf in the night. Wild is within, the inside, too.

I'll show you wild. It's like taking your clothes off.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

I hate to say it but it could be worse. Probably the only thing that keeps it from getting worse is because the country is so large. That and the fact that natural resources will only last for so long. It is possible to cut all the trees, dig all the coal and so on. There have been countries that have practically been owned by one company. Anyone resisting was (and still is) called a leftist or a communist. And because it has been politically correct for the United States Government to do anything to fight communism, the government ended up supporting right wing dictators, and even assisting in overthrowing legitimate governments to that end.

But you knew that.

Wild places? Wilderness? I generally say there is no wilderness east of the Mississippi. I will add that there isn't much to the west of it, either. But it begs the description of what a wilderness is. I'm not so sure. It need not be dangerous but it will never be benevolent, although that's not a good word (can't think of a better one). The environment just is. It doesn't take sides. Obviously, some places are easier to live in than others but that's not to say one place is more dangerous than another. A desert, for instance, is not usually described as a dangerous place but if you go, take plenty of water. Some places do have dangerous animals, to be sure, and you have to allow for that. But when you think about it, any place worth going to outside of town is going to have some risk. And as I say, you have to allow for that. Otherwise, take your vacation in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. Totally risk-free and I can even recommend a place to stay.

[Peter S]

To provide a 21st century definition, a wilderness is anywhere without wifi 

[BlueTrain]

Or as we heard a hotel desk clerk say in France, "wee-fee."

I suppose one could say that wilderness is a place that is not tame. Or as they used to say, "untamed." Doesn't have to be wooly.

[nuduke]

Nuduke, you must come to Arizona for a visit and hear the howl of a free wolf in the night. Wild is within, the inside, too.

I'll show you wild. It's like taking your clothes off.
Jbee

One day, jbee, I shall return to experience wild Arizona for myself and preferably in your company.  Golf courses just don't have the same feel!
John

[eyesup]

. . . the Forest Service budgets have been cut so much that they can't do anywhere near what is needed to keep up with maintenance.

Years ago when we were active in Scouts, one of the dads on a campout was going on about how much it cost to get in to a NP and how much the camping fees were.

I told him that I didn’t mind the cost because the National Park Service was constantly being targeted for cuts. Like a fraction of a fraction of a percent is going to make a difference. I had recently read an article about how rangers, at the less popular parks, were living in park quarters that were slightly better than log cabins. He thought about that for a minute and then agreed. I never heard him complain again. The rangers earn their pay.

When I’ve camped at private camp grounds the costs are generally more than a NP.

The park service does place the carsonite markers, but sometimes they go missing. If you aren’t familiar with the trail, it can be a challenge.

Duane