VFTT (and Owl's Head) make the local news

This is the latter half of Mike Dickerman's hiking column in today's Littleton Courier.

[begin quote] . . .The reason I'm even writing about Owl's Head this week is because of the growing speculation of late that for years hikers who have trekked up the mountain have not actually made it to the true summit. There's mounting evidence, in fact, that the actual summit of Owl's Head may be a quarter-mile or more north of the spot that has traditionally been identified as the true summit.

For months, a number of hiking enthusiasts have been discussing and exploring the question of where the real summit is. Like many, I have been following this debate closely on the "Views From the Top" Internet website. The general feeling is that years ago, when Owl's Head first became a destination for hikers looking to complete the 4,000-Footer list, a signpost was placed at a location on the long summit ridge that appeared to be the highest point.

As the ridge is so thickly forested, giving hikers little or no definitive perspective on where it's highest point might actually be, identifying the summit must have been purely speculative at the time.

Recent bushwhacking explorations of the Owl's Head ridge have convinced a number of hikers that the signed summit is indeed a "false" summit and that the real summit is north of the traditional summit and perhaps 25-30 feet higher. Utilizing a high tech surveying altimeter and a reliable GPS unit, just this past week a hiker friend I know from Thornton concluded that "a good part of the ridge about 0.2 miles north of the (summit) sign is at least 20 feet higher…and one bump about 0.2 miles north is 30 feet higher."

These findings, if proven accurate, would likely mean the currently signed summit is most definitely some distance south of the 4,025-foot summit shown on the South Twin Mountain USGS survey map, and it's even possible that the summit spot long considered the top of Owl's Head might even be a few feet below the 4,000-foot elevation mark.

All of this newly discovered information would undoubtedly lead to much additional discussion among peakbaggers and certainly amongst members of the AMC Four Thousand Footer Committee (of which I am one).

A few immediate questions that come to mind are: 1) If confirmed, should the "new" summit of Owl's Head be so marked and should the existing "herd" path to the present summit be unofficially extended?; 2) Will hikers who've already done the 4,000-Footers be "grandfathered" and not be required to hike back up Owl's Head to bag the true summit?; 3) Since Owl's Head is in the federal Pemi Wilderness, will the Forest Service endorse, discourage, or turn a blind eye to any reassigning of a new Owl's Head summit and any extension of the existing herd path?

Having climbed this mountain twice (in summer and winter) many years ago now, it's been many years since there's been any desire at all on my part to make a return visit.

With all the current speculation about Owl's Head true summit, though, I have to admit the thought has crossed my mind of late that maybe one more trip isn't completely out of the question.

Of course, I won't even consider such a venture until the summit mystery has been resolved once and for all. I figure if I'm going to hike there again in this lifetime, I want to be absolutely sure I get to the real summit the next time. [end quote]

Waumbek said:

This is the latter half of Mike Dickerman's hiking column in ...

2) Will hikers who've already done the 4,000-Footers be "grandfathered" and not be required to hike back up Owl's Head to bag the true summit? ...

Click to expand...

I'm not sending back my patches!

But since I plan to go back, I guess I'll have to check out the 'true' summit.

Please grandfather me!

I just did this hike four days ago...I loved it, but I am not going back anytime soon!!

My Thoughts

If the AMC changes the summit location I'll hike Owl's Head again. I've been looking for a reason to get back there.

If the FTFC grandfathers members in, what about hikers that have finished Owl's Head on the list but not all 48 mountains?? Does it count?

HockeyPuck said:

If the FTFC grandfathers members in, what about hikers that have finished Owl's Head on the list but not all 48 mountains?? Does it count?

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a transition period when they changed the qualifications for the Wildcat Range? I think they gave you five years to finish the 48 if you didn't climb the new Wildcat summit.

I think the something similar applied to the 4000 footers in Maine when they added Redington and Spaulding.

Since I haven't done Owl's Head yet, I suppose a stroll along the ridge is in order when I do make it up there.

Any other surprises you want to tell me now?

We won't need to go back if a few people went up there with shovels and cut the Owl back to size.

As for me, I've got a thousand other hikes before I go back to Owls Head so the patch police will have to come rip it off my sleeve just before the firing squad ...

Say, that unnamed hiker from Thornton ... would that be Mohamed by any chance???

I don't see how the Four Thousand Footer Committee can address the Owl's Head "issue" without addressing Lincoln as well. Is it or ain't it an inadequate col? If they're going to go down this path, then I think in the interest of "intellectual honesty" that someone (perhaps Dr. D.) should measure a true col depth and put that issue to bed as well. It's either precision or tradition but not both.

I have to think they will grandfather everyone. If theya re going to cut a few trees to extend the trail, can they cut a few more to extend the view, perhaps so we can get a close up of the Garfield Cliffs....

OK - It was a quiet afternoon as well....

HERE is a Google Earth image of Owl's Head. I plotted the summit sign location courtesy of GPS co-ords shown on Bob & Geri's trip report and then went 'searching' for higher ground using the software (sure easier than bushwhacking )

I located a 4025' bump and another a little further on at 4027'. When I used the measure tool to see how far it was from the GPS location to the higher ground... 0.2 miles. Sounds familiar

I have yet to discover what source Google uses for elevation information.

I'll be up there this Saturday to see what it's like in the real world

Bob

My neighber has yet to hike this peak so I guess I'll figure it out when we get there next time.

I see that even professional writers — not just some of the people here — also put an apostrophe in a possessive its. Unless it was an ignorant, overeager editor, which apparently happened last week to New York Times columnist David Pogue.

I suppose the friend from Thornton was Mohamed.

No need to extend the herd path — it will happen on its own as we all return. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, "Back into the woods!"

Raymond said:

I suppose the friend from Thornton was Mohamed.

Click to expand...

Actually, its Dr. D. Check out Trip Reports.

Raymond said:

I see that even professional writers — not just some of the people here — also put an apostrophe in a possessive its. Unless it was an ignorant, overeager editor, which apparently happened last week to New York Time's columnist David Pogue.

Click to expand...

New York what? Editors can also be our friends.

Mike P. said:

I have to think they will grandfather everyone. If theya re going to cut a few trees to extend the trail, can they cut a few more to extend the view, perhaps so we can get a close up of the Garfield Cliffs....

Click to expand...

My understanding is the trail up to the summit is unofficial and unmaintained, so it would be up to us the hiking community to create a herd path. So unless you are planning on hauling a chain saw up there and cutting down the trees yourself (and you probably need a permit), don't count on those views you want.

Mike Dickerman's column said:

Like many, I have been following this debate closely on the "Views From the Top" Internet website....
These findings, if proven accurate, would likely mean the currently signed summit is most definitely some distance south of the 4,025-foot summit shown on the South Twin Mountain USGS survey map, and it's even possible that the summit spot long considered the top of Owl's Head might even be a few feet below the 4,000-foot elevation mark.

Click to expand...

Obviously Mike has not been following it all that closely It is virtually certain that the sign is not at the 4025 bump according to several GPS readings with nobody saying it is. However it appears to be at a point where the USGS shows a 4000' contour so the question is not whether the sign is over 4000' but rather whether it is at the highest point.

1) If confirmed, should the "new" summit of Owl's Head be so marked and should the existing "herd" path to the present summit be unofficially extended?; ...

Click to expand...

Certainly the sign should be removed from its present location, either gone from the Wilderness or preferably put on the true summit. I think the herd path will take care of itself.

3) Since Owl's Head is in the federal Pemi Wilderness, will the Forest Service endorse, discourage, or turn a blind eye to any reassigning of a new Owl's Head summit and any extension of the existing herd path?

Click to expand...

The Pemi Wilderness maps in the Forest Plan do not show the herd path, and the USGS shows the named feature further S, so I would say they are already turning a blind eye.

2) Will hikers who've already done the 4,000-Footers be "grandfathered" and not be required to hike back up Owl's Head to bag the true summit?;

Click to expand...

Almost certainly previous ascents will be grandfathered, in the past they were what somebody called "grandsoned" - that is even people who hadn't yet been there could climb the old summit for X years. I think this is ridiculous - once the sign is moved people should visit the new & true summit.

Having climbed this mountain twice (in summer and winter) many years ago now, it's been many years since there's been any desire at all on my part to make a return visit.

With all the current speculation about Owl's Head true summit, though, I have to admit the thought has crossed my mind of late that maybe one more trip isn't completely out of the question.

Of course, I won't even consider such a venture until the summit mystery has been resolved once and for all. I figure if I'm going to hike there again in this lifetime, I want to be absolutely sure I get to the real summit the next time.

Click to expand...

{Time for a few more red squares...} Is this the appropriate attitude for a member of the 4K committee? Shouldn't they be the ones looking into this rather than waiting for somebody else to do it? Should a guy who won't go up there be voting on it?

No red squares from me, Roy. Well said, as always. I personally find the FTFC increasingly interesting. It seems to me that the Committee is made up of a mix of folks who are truly interested in making the list accurate and those who are primarily interested in promoting tourism (business owners, newspaper columnists). In my opinion, this is why Lincoln will never be removed from the list unless the FTFC is confronted with overwhelming evidence that the col is inadequate ... it is a popular destination peak and removing it would screw up the whole "48" thing. Changing the location of Owl's Head, on the other hand, is a ground ball ... it's simple and it gives the general public the impression that they're doing things right. It will also, coincidentally, bring many folks back to the Whites to reclimb Owl's Head. I know that on the surface, they appear to be two different issues, but I really don't see how you can separate them.

I will also add that this is in no way meant to be a slam on the FTFC. I actually think they're pretty shrewd.

O.K. Here's my 2 cents also.

I was there last year and recorded it with an extremely accurate GPS reading. We had a discussion then if you look at post I've made "Does X Mark the Spot?".

If you go to this MAP LINK you will see were we stopped at the summit sign area. The map on the left is NG Topo, Map on right is from DeLorme Topo 5.0. which I'm not crazy about.

Usually I make a waypoint from NG TOPO and enter it into the GPS to make sure I find these summits as some may not be marked,fog,etc. But sadly regret not doing it for Owl's Head as I would of did a bush wack to the true summit.

After hiking and recording these mountains with my GPS the N.G. Topo especially is dead on along the ridge lines and at the summits were the receiver is the most accurate.

According to the Owl's Head NG map (beautifully scanned government maps) the true summit is at the X 4025 ft. mark and given the history of the NG Topo maps and their accuracy I am convinced of this.

I won't go back to re log it though since it's just nit picking. Although wouldn't be nice to have an excuse to go and I may go back with a sign to nail to a tree if no one else log's and post's a map to prove it. By next spring.

CaptCaper said:

O.K. Here's my 2 cents also.

...

Although wouldn't be nice to have an excuse to go and I may go back with a sign to nail to a tree if no one else log's and post's a map to prove it. By next spring.

Click to expand...

It's a wilderness area and you have a Big Grin D) emoticon so let's assume you're joshing about nailing anything to a tree.

Just nit picking.

RoySwkr said:

Is this the appropriate attitude for a member of the 4K committee? Shouldn't they be the ones looking into this rather than waiting for somebody else to do it? Should a guy who won't go up there be voting on it?

Click to expand...

There are administrators on the FTFC and peakbaggers. They need both...