Concerning NH 4000 footer peak bagging

[Ed'n Lauky]

A question came to my mind concerning peak bagging this past Saturday when Lauky and I did the Twins.

There are some 4000 footers where when you reach the top you are obviously on the top. There is no place to go but down--Adams and Jefferson are pretty good examples. Mt. Washington while it has the broad summit, still has the famous summit sign and most folks go there for the traditional picture. That sign is also located fairly obviously at the highest point.

North Twin, however, is somewhat different. At the intersection of the North Twin trail and the North Twin spur trail there is a large cairn. This cairn is obviously not located at the high point of the mountain. There is also, if you take the trail to the view point, a second cairn which also is below the high point which you would pass to get to that view point.

A couple of others that come to mind that are like that are Wildcat A and North Tripyramid. Owl's Head has of course been often discussed and I think most folks now go to the new summit. In the 100 highest category there is, of course, Scar Ridge which has the canister itself on a peak said not to be the highest peak with the lame excuse that it would be too hard to find on the other peak. I never did understand that one.

Anyway, getting back to my question, I noticed on North Twin that there were a number of people who considered the peak "bagged" at the cairn and didn't go to the top. I've seen the same on North Tripyramid. I've not seen it, but I suspect it is the same for Wildcat A.

Perhaps it's just being too "purist" to bring it up, but I thought I would ask what people thought about getting to the true summit.

 

[TrishandAlex]

We make a point of trying to find the actual summit. If we're not sure, we touch all the high places in the area the true summit is supposed to be. For pictures, we sometimes post the cairn picture instead of the true summit picture because the cairn is more interesting than a bump in the woods.

This is what we do for us, since all three of us want to be sure we find the highest point. For others, I'd say that if you're in a certain amount of feet/yards from the actual summit, that's good enough. I'd never tell someone they should do Wildcat A all over again because they didn't touch the actual highest bit (which can be a pain to find, especially in the snow). We're nitpicky about these things ourselves, but for others, within a certain distance seems good enough. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Ed -

There are several NH peaks where the tippy-top may be a few yards away in the puckerbrush. Some hikers insist on sticking a toe on it every time they pass, but I don't necessarily do it every time and feel quite comfortable saying I climbed peak X. However, if I'm with someone who may not know the precise location of the summit, I try to point it out to them just in case they're wired differently than I am.

Kevin

 

[peakbagger]

The downside to the quest for the exact top is that it expands the impact of hikers on summits. I was on North Trypyramid yesterday and it was noticable the amount of trampling that is occuring around the summit area. Not as much of an issue when its bare rock, but when its a viewless summit with spruce/fir its easier to form a mudpit.

Gee wouldnt it be nice if there was a sign at the actual summit (of course they are deemed non essential by the FS)

 

[Fisher Cat]

Cabot is another example of where a sign designating the name and altitude is not on the actual summit. Fortunately, the treadway leading to the actual summit is obvious and short, reducing the amount of extra wear at the top. peakbagger has an excellent point in that concern. Interesting discussion.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The down side to the quest for the exact top is that it expands the impact of hikers on summits.

That's the point I make when hiking with nitpickers. Doesn't seem to alter their quest for what they perceive/hope is the "real" summit, however. But, it's fun to razz with friends.

 

[DrJJFate]

Ed -

There are several NH peaks where the tippy-top may be a few yards away in the puckerbrush. Some hikers insist on sticking a toe on it every time they pass, but I don't necessarily do it every time and feel quite comfortable saying I climbed peak X. However, if I'm with someone who may not know the precise location of the summit, I try to point it out to them just in case they're wired differently than I am.

Kevin

Willey comes to mind.

 

[mtruman]

We've always done our best to find the true summit but may have in fact missed a couple. The photo of us in front of the cairn you're referring to on North Twin two weeks ago could be one of those cases. We did wander around a bit looking for a better indication of the summit but I'm not sure if we hit it. Same thing yesterday on North Kinsman. Found the "big rock next to the trail past the path to the view ledges" that the books seem to indicate is the true summit. We also looked for anyplace that appeared higher and tried to stand there too. We sadly may have failed though. Does this mean that when we eventually get our scroll there will be an asterisk on it?

 

[MichaelJ]

I'm sure that there are far more egregious cases of not actually making it to the summit that have been committed unknowingly (or knowingly) by hikers who have gone on to get their patch and scroll. Fortunately, most are minor and do require having done 99% of the hike anyway.

An example is Tom, where many stop at the first clearing and do not proceed through the woods to the actual summit.

Another is Osceola - if approached from the Kanc via East peak, many stop at the ledges and don't find the little summit clearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are still plenty of people who've never made it to either Owl's Head summit. With all the stories about cairns and signs removed, they might just reach the ridgeline and call it a day.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The application sums it up best:

Regarding fine points of peakbagging ethics, each hiker is left to the exactions of her or his conscience

Tim

 

[JCarter]

Will the real N Kinsman please stand up?

We've always done our best to find the true summit but may have in fact missed a couple. The photo of us in front of the cairn you're referring to on North Twin two weeks ago could be one of those cases. We did wander around a bit looking for a better indication of the summit but I'm not sure if we hit it. Same thing yesterday on North Kinsman. Found the "big rock next to the trail past the path to the view ledges" that the books seem to indicate is the true summit. We also looked for anyplace that appeared higher and tried to stand there too. We sadly may have failed though. Does this mean that when we eventually get our scroll there will be an asterisk on it?

I think this might be the "real" North Kinsman summit:


Man on a Mountain

Of course, I'm basing that on a description in a trail guide somewhere. At least when I was standing on this pointed rock last fall I couldn't see anything higher.

I don't think actually tagging the particular patch of dirt/rock is truly necessary. In fact, yesterday it appeared that the "true" summit of Cannon is off-limits behind/under the tower. Do we count the "human constructs", like towers and cairns as higher than Mother Nature's handiwork when it comes to the summit?

I'd have to say that frequently my "summit photos" aren't really at the "true" summit, since it may not be a particularly photogenic spot.

 

[una_dogger]

The downside to the quest for the exact top is that it expands the impact of hikers on summits. I was on North Trypyramid yesterday and it was noticable the amount of trampling that is occuring around the summit area. Not as much of an issue when its bare rock, but when its a viewless summit with spruce/fir its easier to form a mudpit.

Gee wouldnt it be nice if there was a sign at the actual summit (of course they are deemed non essential by the FS)

Personally, I would love to see the The Four Thousand Footers committee make a public statement about Owls Head (and a small sign marking it from the FS)-- the impact since someone declared a "new summit" opposed to the previous recognized summit has lead to an incredible amount of impact because hikers now feel they must go to the secondary summit.

 

[Lefty E]

Looks like someone would need to construct official trails (or unofficial) to the high points of the mts in question, and if so would it change the "chemistry" of the hike to those mts..?? I've seen quite a few signs asking hikers to stay on the trails....and if I think I could parachute into one of the Carter Lakes, think I was on Wildcat A..

 

[Raven]

Do we count the "human constructs", like towers and cairns as higher than Mother Nature's handiwork when it comes to the summit?

Personally I don't. Natural summit is fine with me.

My personal interpretation of the summit on a peak where it's basically flat, is that I look at it as more of a golfing course green-sized area than a single point, more of a wide circle.

I think a lot is said by one's simple honest attempt at reaching the top. I wouldn't fault anyone for not trampling around a flat summit if the high point isn't obvious. Looking for a summit register on a BW may be different.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

A lot of good points have been made here especially where it concerns the damage done by tramping around looking for that "final" six inches of height.

One question I have though is: Why is there a cairn at the intersection of the North Twin trail and North Twin Spur when the summit is obviously higher and there is a maintained trail going right over that summit? Why not put the cairn where it belongs, right on the top?

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Man on a Mountain

Looks to me like a legitimate sighting of Sasquatch

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...One question I have though is: Why is there a cairn at the intersection of the North Twin trail and North Twin Spur when the summit is obviously higher and there is a maintained trail going right over that summit? Why not put the cairn where it belongs, right on the top?

Good question. Maybe Roy S. knows - otherwise, next time you're in Lincoln, ask Steve Smith. Always thought of him as a great source of historical info.

 

[Raymond]

Probably lots of people have topped off Whiteface’s south summit and counted the mountain as climbed. First time I climbed it, I didn’t realize the summit was as far back as it is. Luckily, I went on to East Sleeper, then Passaconaway, so I passed by Whiteface’s summit eventually. But Whiteface was the first one I returned to later, looking for the actual high point. I think it was at a tree with a smiley face on it.

On a somewhat related note, when I climbed Carrigain last week, there was a bicycle parked at the Signal Ridge Trail sign by Sawyer River Road. I don’t know if the cyclist was making a first ascent or not, but it doesn’t seem kosher to use a bicycle if the road is closed to automobile traffic. Yes, ordinarily the road would be open to all traffic, but if it’s not, wouldn‘t the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Four-Thousand Footer Committee prohibit bicycle riding for peakbagging purposes? I spent some time mulling that over while I walked, and I’m not sure what the right answer is. I think I’m against the bicycling in this circumstance, but if instead it was Route 302 that was blocked to autos but open to bicycles, I’d probably allow them to be ridden there. So I don’t know. Well, maybe Eric will weigh in with a ruling.

 

[DougPaul]

One question I have though is: Why is there a cairn at the intersection of the North Twin trail and North Twin Spur when the summit is obviously higher and there is a maintained trail going right over that summit? Why not put the cairn where it belongs, right on the top?

Cairns are used to mark trails and junctions as well as summits.

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

On a somewhat related note, when I climbed Carrigain last week, there was a bicycle parked at the Signal Ridge Trail sign by Sawyer River Road. I don’t know if the cyclist was making a first ascent or not, but it doesn’t seem kosher to use a bicycle if the road is closed to automobile traffic. Yes, ordinarily the road would be open to all traffic, but if it’s not, wouldn‘t the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Four-Thousand Footer Committee prohibit bicycle riding for peakbagging purposes?

I don't think so. Normally it's open to motorized traffic, so if someone rode a bike, it would also be kosher.

Here's a variation on that - in winter, the road is closed to motorized traffic, but open to snowmobiles. So, it's expected you'll snowshoe/ski to the summer trailhead. However, if you rode a snowmobile - legal though it may be in terms of the law - to the summer trailhead, it wouldn't be kosher to count it as a winter peak.