Creating views with a chainsaw

[Paul the Explorer]

...every tree is sacred

every tree is great

if a tree is wasted,

God gets quite irate

How many millions of trees are there in WMNF alone? Cuting a few dozen to open some summits isnt going to alter the environment.

Wanting a view after climbing to summit does not make one "lazy" ...nor is it an "American" fault (how arrogant!)

While enjoying the view I have earned on summits, I have met Germans,UKs,Russians,Japanese,Israelis,Quebecois,Pakistanis,Chinese and many others that got off their ass,climbed the miles, only to stand on a mountain peak to look down a valley with wonder.

The landscape is changed every time a trail is created, or a parking lot is made to access a trailhead.

The concept of "virgin" forest is a romantic fabrication of the mind. Maybe opening a few summits would give some sub-alpine species or wildflowers a starting point.

 

[David Metsky]

The only place I've see this done is on the Gorge Brook Trail up Moosilauke (Dartmouth land), where a view looked be to be created looking south to Carr Mtn, Stinson, Kineo, etc.... I think it's the first view you get ascending Moose this way.

I helped build that trail and frankly I was pretty appalled at the view that was cut there and also by the edge of Jobildunc Ravine. Neither were needed, IMO. They're also growing in and look fairly ugly right now. I'm fighting any plan to maintain those cuts. There's a natural view on East Peak and across the Balcony just above those view points.

I'm just not a big fan of artificial views. From a trail maintenance standpoint they represent extra work and annual clearing project, but it's more aesthetics than anything else. It feels like cheating to me, I can't explain it any other way. There are more reasons to climb mountains then views, although I think we can all admit that views are a huge draw. But every mountain doesn't need a view, and people can choose which ones to climb. I also think it's a slippery slope, once you start cutting them there will be calls to cut an awful lot. Why only have a limited view when you can make a 360 degree view?

The only place I've agreed with the cutting of a view was on the Carriage Road on Moosilauke. We wanted to stop the snowmobiles from riding all the way to the summit and the turnaround was in the trees, about 1000' below the ridge. We had to give them a view there or many of the riders would continue on up to the summit regardless of what the signs said. In an effort to please all sides we cut a view of the summit right below the turnaround. So far, most of the snowmobilers stop there.

It's a complex issue, and I'm not against the idea of cutting down trees. I just don't like the idea of creating a view solely to give people a reason to climb a mountain.

-dave-

 

[dclynch]

I vote for views

I think views should be preserved or enhanced; they did it for the Zealand hut. I like to walk through woods, but also enjoy looking down and out from a well-earned viewpoint. Hale used to have a view without climbing the cairn. When I was on Moriah two years ago, it looked like the 360 was about to be blocked to the northwest. Jackson and South Twin are also more obscured than they were years ago. The loss of the Starr King view is almost a crime. You used to be able to sit there and take it all in; now you can barely see standing on a rock. With the encouragement of global warming, we will probably lose others before too long.

 

[hikerfast]

I like the different viewpoints. I would add that I don't think it should be the main reason for climbing the mountain, but a view sure makes it nicer. I guess I wouldn't agree with creating new views, but trimming on the summits where outstanding views are disappearing would be worth considering.

 

[pilgrim]

I agree with Metsky, wu, lumberzac, etc.

There is enough manmade intrusions on our peaks and trails.

 

[cbcbd]

Some mountains have views... others don't. It's what makes each one different.

Some places don't even have mountains to have a view out of... they have to get their views from the flatlands!! I know, it sounds dreadful

 

[timmus]

I can understand why some people prefer having views, but think about it… There is a whole bunch of hikers carrying a small saw in their pack, what you think they will do if they see that some trees have already been cut? They’ll cut MORE.

There are very few people working their ass off in order to fix the damages done on these mountains, compares to the amount of ignorant careless hikers that actually creates these damages.

 

[Neil]

I’m in favor of letting nature decide. As some views grow in, other new views will form as trees die and are knocked over by wind and water.

Obviously a "hot thread" that will get a lot of play.

In the Adirondacks mother nature has conspired to help the view seeker that lays in us all. The ingrediants are mixed together in this order:

Impervious rock, soil with a high organic matter content, a dry spell, heavy rain. The rainwater gets in between the rock and the soil (which will have shrunk and pulled away during the dry spell) and like a wedge, lifts the soil up and the whole thing, soil and trees goes flying down the mountain. What's left is a slide. Nature's gift to hikers to quote Barbara McMartin.

View cutting is a tempting proposition and it's easy to say that there is no shortage of trees or that nature is more destructive but where do you stop man-made alterations in what is supposed to be a park? It's one thing to put in a parking lot alongside the highway but it's another to go right to the top of a mountain and saw down trees for a better view.

 

[Rik]

As someone said, it's a hiker enhancement like a trail.

Why not just pave the trail? Why not put trails on ALL mountains? Why not put in refreshment stands?... Wouldn't these just be "hiker enhancements"?

 

[forestgnome]

With the encouragement of global warming, we will probably lose others before too long.

Before this current phase of global warming, all the views were blocked by a mile-high blanket of ice.

It would be nice if those formerly spectacular viewpoints, such as North Tripyramid, Hancocks, Starr King and others didn't become overgrown, and I don't think there would be any harm in a little pruning to maintain them. But it would be cheesy IMO to cut trees for a view, or to enhance a view, on mountains. It just doesn't seem right, even though we cut trees and branches to maintain trails. A view may be a strategic dearth of flora, but it's a beautiful natural feature. I don't see an artificial view as a huge crime, but I would prefer to be content with the natural ones, and there are many along the trails after the fall, and finding an open ledge or slide off-trail is a wonderful experience.

The op, dvbl, should not be heckled here with sarcasm. He makes it clear that 10-15 trees would be cut, and that there is no desire to take it any farther than that, certainly not talking about hot dog stands and pavement. I don't see anything drastic in his query. It's a good discussion.

Happy Trails

 

[NewHampshire]

I'm sure it's been considered, but it will never happen unless there is a massive change in environmental policy. We're trying to encourage trees to grow back, remember?

Which is rather ironic since Zealand road is currently seeing HEAVY logging!

Brian

 

[GlennS]

I get the impression that the Maine ATC doesn't mind cutting a few trees. I recall cuts on Spaulding, Crocker and Old Speck. I'm not in favor of making the Whites look like the Scottish Highlands but I don't see any thing wrong with maintaining an existing view.

 

[Dave Lang]

Southern Balds

In the south they have had this debate for years now. The southern balds have been disappearing due to nature reclaiming the open areas on numerous summits which historically have been open, but below tree line. There are many theories as to why the balds even exist, and many more opinions as to whether man should intervene to stop or reverse the growth. In some areas, like Max Patch they have set fire to the balds to mimic the method some people believed the native Americans had used. On Mount Rogers in Virginia they graze horses. However, the most often used tool is the chainsaw. Love it or hate it, that is what they do. The scope of southern bald restoration is however certainly on a scale that is hard to compare to removing a few trees for creating a view.

 

[dug]

Pray for a lightning strike and maybe a forest fire will do the clearing for ya'.

 

[hikerfast]

or we could have the next gathering on top of hale and 120 people each cut small trees for our fire...rofl!

 

[Rik]

The op, dvbl, should not be heckled here with sarcasm. He makes it clear that 10-15 trees would be cut, and that there is no desire to take it any farther than that, certainly not talking about hot dog stands and pavement. I don't see anything drastic in his query. It's a good discussion.

Happy Trails

Since I think you were referring to my posts I'll just say that part of the reason I would not support cutting views is that it could be a slippery slope that lead to further "enhancements". The justification could be the same. A precedent might be set. "This place is great, know what would make it even better..."
I have no problem with the question being asked.

 

[RoySwkr]

Why not just pave the trail? Why not put trails on ALL mountains? Why not put in refreshment stands?... Wouldn't these just be "hiker enhancements"?

There is a planning process which varies by landowner for creating trails and enhancements. Cutting views should be like other enhancements, done only by landowner consent.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Many views in the Whites have grown over with trees in just the 40+ years that I have been hiking. Moreover, most White Mountain trails are hardly brushed any longer and are becoming partial if not full bushwhacks. Although I do not think cutting trees on top of Hale would do much good for views (a fire tower was constructed there because of the rounded nature of the summit), there are lots of other summits and ledges that could benefit by the judicious cutting of a few trees that have encroached over the past few decades. After all, humans are responsible for much of the global warming and rising treelines over the past century, and I predict that trees will make considerable advances upslope obscurring more views, even on the Presi's, Franconia Ridge, Moosilauke, Guyot, and other open summits, over the next few decades. Although I fully support removing trees to open up views, I do not condone the use of noisy chainsaws, as the trees that need removal are not all that large in diameter.

 

[dvbl]

It seems pretty lame to me. I guess it's not a surprise coming from our self-centered culture. What, no view? Why did I bother doing this peak?

One of the things I love about hiking is you can find a good view from just about any peak. You just might have to work for it. Americans are so lazy. Just go find the views, you don't have to make them yourself.

-Dr. Wu

The following sentence is from the original thread and needs to be shown again: This would be done for the sole purpose of diverting some of the heavy traffic (and all its associated problems) from Franconia Loop and Crawford Path and other (over?) crowded trails. The point being made was about trying to more evenly distribute the hiking crowds in WMNF. It didn't have a single thing to do with laziness or self-centeredness. I thought I had made that pretty clear. But I guess there's no harm in repeating it. One can agree or disagree with the premise of the thread; I don't care either way; but at least first get the point of the thread.

As to your contention that "Americans are so lazy"...well, let's see...the guys I served with in the Marines were not lazy; the European and Asian exchange students I studied with in college couldn't believe most US students work part-time jobs in addition to attending college full-time; the few European folks I've worked with in the US couldn't believe we start out with two weeks vacation per year rather than the six weeks that they get. "Americans are so lazy"??? Are you sure you want to stick by that statement?

 

[Artex]

The following sentence is from the original thread and needs to be shown again: This would be done for the sole purpose of diverting some of the heavy traffic (and all its associated problems) from Franconia Loop and Crawford Path and other (over?) crowded trails. The point being made was about trying to more evenly distribute the hiking crowds in WMNF. It didn't have a single thing to do with laziness or self-centeredness. I thought I had made that pretty clear. But I guess there's no harm in repeating it. One can agree or disagree with the premise of the thread; I don't care either way; but at least first get the point of the thread.

As to your contention that "Americans are so lazy"...well, let's see...the guys I served with in the Marines were not lazy; the European and Asian exchange students I studied with in college couldn't believe most US students work part-time jobs in addition to attending college full-time; the few European folks I've worked with in the US couldn't believe we start out with two weeks vacation per year rather than the six weeks that they get. "Americans are so lazy"??? Are you sure you want to stick by that statement?

The last time I checked, America had an obesity epidemic.