Creating views with a chainsaw

[Rob S]

I enjoy the views on a summit as much as the next guy, but am against cutting trees, or even pruning. As others have already said, there are plenty of mountains with views if that is what I am really looking for. Otherwise, standing on a wooded summit, rays of sunshine piercing the balsam, is in some strange way even more "spiritual" to me. Hard to explain, but as much as I love a good view and the challenge of identifying nearby peaks, I feel more gratification on a hike (or bushwhack) where the forest and my friends were the only views for the day.

Another reason I dislike pruning of trees for views is the unsightly result of the pruning. On a ADK100 whack last May, our party was horrified to find that someone had pruned some trees and left the wounded stump. Ugly as all hell.

Lastly, as if we needed another reason to be partial to winter hiking, it is always a pleasant surprise to hike a familiar wooded summit in the winter and discover all the views to be had with the leaves off the trees. I also recall pushing my way thru some balsam (searching for a canister) on top of a Catskill peak that supposedly had no views and accidentally found a large boulder that, when stood upon, provided a superb view that I doubt many others had found. The point is, there may be more views up there than you think.

 

[TDawg]

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.

I saw this as well over the summer on N. Crocker and Spaulding (in two directions). I thought it looked pretty ugly, as most of the trees weren't even cut close to the ground. Mind you the cuts on these mountains consist of 50-75 yard TRAILS to man made views IIRC, not just simple pruning.

North Crocker wouldn't have much of a view w/o it's trail and man made view, I thought Spaulding had decent views from around the summit and could have gone without cutting anything.

 

[mavs00]

If there is a an "representing agency" or other official enitity that is authorized to makes the determination to maintain a view in an effort to limit degredation and damage to a ecologically fragile ecosystem, such as the mountain slope, boreal system occupied on these summits (at least in the ADK's), then I'd not be totally opposed. As BlackSpruce says, you could make an argument for something like that I suppose.

However, When it comes to individual action, I'm pretty strongly against it. Problem is each of us has different perspectives and expectations, so when one of us goes up and says "let me snip a branch here and there so we get a little peek of the view". Next guy comes along and says "Looks nice and all, but if we take out this little tree or that little tree, it will be better". And so on and so forth. Soon enough, you have a compounding problem and individuals making long term decisions that effect everyone else's "mountain" experience. Lack of standardization leads to people making up their standards and those may not compatible with the expected wilderness spirit that many who go there are seeking, certainly when it comes to pathless remote summits.

Certainly it's been a past problem in the ADK high peaks area, and now it is becoming a major issue on the lesser pathless summits as well. Some of those summits are trashed, expect more of the same in the future unless some real changes or standards (even if self imposed) are put in place.

None of this has anything to do with the situation on Hale (which I'm clueless about), but its goes to show, there are lots of different situations and factors that might factor into the decision other than "Gee, a view right here would be nice".

 

[Raymond]

I don't know where I stand on this issue, but I have some random thoughts.

First, I'd like to challenge Timmus's statement that "There is a whole bunch of hikers carrying a small saw in their pack." What bunch? How many members? Who are they?

And i12climbup suggesting that views not be opened up because it is a "pleasant surprise" to stumble upon a view makes me think of the argument 35 years ago that by adding the designated hitter, the American League would lose all those memorable instances when a pitcher actually got an important hit.

Regarding the view from Mount Hale, I'm just over six feet tall and the way I remember it I could barely see over the trees while standing on the tippy-top point of the cairn.

Spruce Mountain in Vermont had a view cleared on its summit despite a fire tower being there. A rare tower that had its cabin open, too.

Speaking of towers, how popular would Carrigain be without its summit tower?

 

[MichaelJ]

I saw this as well over the summer on N. Crocker and Spaulding (in two directions). I thought it looked pretty ugly, as most of the trees weren't even cut close to the ground.

I thought these paths were carved because they were property bounds and the viewpoints merely coincidental? I would be horrified to think they were done just for views.

I would rather see energy directed at *management* of what's already out there. Before pruning a summit, how about pruning a trail? Why not remove the numerous blowdowns on various trails before a whole mess of eroded paths form trying to go around them? Or properly cut a short reroute if it's too big?

If there's a viewpoint to be found, then someone's feet will find it. Then another's. Eventually there will be a small herd path. Perhaps it can be left alone and not worried about. Or perhaps it's a steep, messy route that's going to erode a swath and in which case the right thing to do is a little cutting of a cleaner, better-built path. Don't build a trail to attract the feet; build a trail under where the feet are already going, to preserve what's there.

I wish as much as the next person that there was still an open view from Guyot shelter, but I'd be horrified and appalled if someone cut down a bunch of the trees. A little pruning 10 or 20 years ago would have been nice, but what's done is done.

 

[marty]

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.

The Maine ATC has also created some viewpoints in the Bemis Mountain range over the past few years, including a new one just west of the summit proper. There is also a new one west and downhill from Moody Mountain. In these cases, narrow paths were created to nearby open ledge areas, which certainly requires less tree cutting than creating an overlook.

While I am fundamentally against the cutting of trees, this practice does create views with nominal cutting. This might make normally lightly used sections of AT more attractive destinations for many hikers.

 

[Andrew]

I agree with RoySwkr that many specific management issued should be weighed and it is not a broad-brush issue. For example in the WMNF no such view clearing should be permitted in a Wilderness Area, but could be considered through deliberation with the managing agency in other areas of the forest. The overall forest plan does have (recreational) management goals for specific areas of the forest and the recreational experience we are seeking can be directed by visiting those areas. I am always acutely aware of the management goals for the public land I am visiting to keep with the experience I am seeking.
Not to say that this should be taken lightly for any location, but with spirited debate and a close look at the resulting effects and future effects on an area, I feel it is a reasonable consideration.
On the north slope of Lovewell Mt (Washington, NH) the MSGTC cleared the view this summer. Some club members were pissed-off since the trail up to the view needs many hours of erosion control work, and they felt this was poor management of the available work resources.
Black Spruce hit on one of my concerns- people tend to tramp about off trail on a viewless summit seeking a view. If the resulting effect damages the summit vegetation more than careful opening of a view close to an established trail, then this might be the most reasonable choice. I am no fan of a widespread cut, but I was sure happy last week when I stepped out on Hanging Rocks on Cardigan and took in the sweet view that had been kept open.

 

[forestgnome]

. 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. .

Human-caused global warming is theory, not fact. It is obvious the planet has been warming for ~15,000 years. Let's hope this natural cycle continues. There was a mini-ice age a few centuries ago It's ok to believe the theory, but it should be represented as theory, not fact.

The op has tried to steer this thread toward the idea of an attempt at relieving traffic on the busy ridges and peaks by providing alternate hikes with rewarding views. I agree with Metsky et al, it won't work because the hype given to FR, Presidentials, Bonds will not deminish. Whatever trail gets the most hype will get the most traffic.

As a scenic photographer who has hiked most of the White Mtns. in all seasons, I consider North Moat to be the most beautiful viewpoint. The trails to the summit are really nice and it can be done as a day through-hike with car-spotting, so it has everything most people want, yet it doesn't get all that much traffic. I was alone on the summit from 11:00a.m. till 1:00p.m. this October on a clear Saturday.

We regular hikers will hike everywhere, but the traffic numbers in the crowded places are swollen by people who only hike occasionally. Some only hike occasionally in a given region because they are only occasionally in that region, or even in this country, and others because they only hike a couple times a year. These people will hike the most hyped trails.

 

[dug]

forestnome makes an excellent point. There are lots of trails that have excellent views, but don't meet listable criteria. Those are rarely travelled. I don't think opening up other spots would do the trick. I can remember when Hale was an open field and the views were great. I'm sure at some point nature will open up other viewpoints in other places.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Let's hope this natural cycle continues. ...

I hope you live at a higher elevation than I do!

 

[giggy]

We regular hikers will hike everywhere, but the traffic numbers in the crowded places are swollen by people who only hike occasionally. Some only hike occasionally in a given region because they are only occasionally in that region, or even in this country, and others because they only hike a couple times a year. These people will hike the most hyped trails.

sorry with all due respect - this is not true for all (most??). some people hike these areas becuase they have what they want in the northeast.

some people are into hiking in the woods and some are into mountains: (and neither is better than the other, but I think the latter draws the atttaction to the areas in question)

for example - I think most hit the pressie and FR areas for these reasons:

1) exposed ridges, rock, snow, ice
2) snowfeilds
3) sustained alpine zone
4) alpine gullies, rock, snow and ice
5) 4K+ ele gains in short distance.

This is what brings most people to these areas IMO. The hype is these are the best areas around for the above mentioned.

It is what your into - Personally, I will not drive 3.5 hours to hike hale, et all when I can get the same effect on me in my local state forest. I will drive 3.5 hours to climb steep snow on washington for the 50th time

I guess my point is these are pretty much the only areas like this on the east coast with baxter tossed in and you have people from the NE coming to these areas (prezzie/FR) to get this terrain.

 

[Dugan]

On the other hand, just because you can't see into the distance, doesn't mean there is not a view. Many are the times I've appreciated seeing forest all around me on a wooded summit.

 

[David Metsky]

I thought these paths were carved because they were property bounds and the viewpoints merely coincidental? I would be horrified to think they were done just for views.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the cuts on Sugarloaf and Crocker are boundary lines, not cut for views. They're cut pretty poorly IMO, but they were done for survey and marking purposes.

-dave-

 

[Peakbagr]

Agree with Mavs00, Black Spruce and i2climbup.
The situation with many of the (still) very wild ADK and Catskill untrailled bushwhacks may be different than what is the norm in New England.
The soil, bushwhacking culture, and nature of the NY peaks is a different proposition than NE.
Rob makes a good point about wintertime offering views that arent' available during the snowless months.
Black Spruce gets a thumbs up for the summit signs on some of the untrailled peaks to keep herd paths from forming, as does Tim for pointing out that 'official' views are different than the vigilante ones seen in more and more places.

 

[mavs00]

They are more of us on the planet every day and the more will climb the better, so we can all work together on solutions and preservation.

It doesn't mean that we can without DEC approval cut whenever and wherever we fancy.

Christine

I agree wholeheartedly. As for summit indicator (sign, etc), I tend to agree with the PREMISE, that an indicator of some sort does assist climbers in quickly identifying the summit location, which may prevent damage on CERTAIN summit (like the ones Christine describes). Simple pragmatism dictates that a clear identifier is much healthier in the lont term than summit tromping in the old-fashion eyeball altimeter method.

However, like view brushing, when you do it as an individual, it's not better than a renegade act, and should be discouraged. In the ADK, in designated wilderness ares, it is a renegade act at this TIME. I'm not convinced that the agencies involved would not be open in working with outhers in an honest effort of protection like this in the future, provided that all involved parties understand that the sole determiner of those decisions is the agency charged with protecting the resource itself (summit, ecosystem, etc), and not individual users of that resource.

It's wisful thinking with current practices in play.

 

[beverly]

Funny!

Human-caused global warming is theory, not fact. It is obvious the planet has been warming for ~15,000 years. Let's hope this natural cycle continues. There was a mini-ice age a few centuries ago It's ok to believe the theory, but it should be represented as theory, not fact.

It's only a theory with an overwhelming scientific consensus - kinda like evolution. As Stephen Jay Gould said:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

I've listened to Bill McKibben talk about how the Northern Forests are already undergoing change and will be vastly different in a hundred years. Maybe more "naturally-made" views from the top as a result. Hold on to your saws! As I walked with him this past Labor Day weekend, Bill also said (jokingly) that if we have another snow-less winter like last year, he is going to kill himself.

 

[Bob]

here we go again

overwhelming scientific consensus

Do a little research, this is a totally inaccurate statement.

 

[hikerfast]

to get this thread back on track, does anyone have direct or second hand knowledge of what views have been lost, or what people would like to see 'nature' bring back with wind or whatever? Personally the view on Hale I have seen disappear in 22 years unless you stand on top of the cairn. I think in 30 years there will be trees 30 feet high up there. This thread makes me wonder what else used to be open, and what else will disappear. I wonder if Zealand used to completely open, or North Twin, etc. Any comments?

 

[dclynch]

Owl's Head

In terms of nature bringing back a view, I fantasize about a real dry summer with a lightning stike on Owl's Head that causes a fire and really opens the summit! )

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Answering the original question...

I, for myself, am working my way through the NH48. Whether or not a mountain has a view is not important to me during the first round. I will, given the chance, hike the "mountains of lesser views" on "days of lesser weather". When I am done (or maybe even before) I will go back and do those which intrigued me the most, perhaps from a different direction. As my kids get older, I will bring them back to the ones I enjoyed most, or the ones which I think they are up to hiking.

Of the 14 I've done (Moosilauke, Osceolas, Tripyramids, Whiteface-Passaconway, Bonds, Flume, Liberty, Lincoln, Lafayette), I will say that all had some view, or other feature that makes them worthy of a return trip (least views include Passaconaway--very steep, hard on my knees, limited view and East Osceola, while viewless at the top, had that neat chimney, and cool Pemi views on the way across the col.) Of these 14, I can easily see repeating most -- Moosilauke and Osceola are close and have outstanding views, and wouldn't be prohibitively difficult for my kids in a few more years. The Bonds are beautiful, if a little far. And it's hard to beat the view above tree line of FR. The two times I went up there were not bluebird days, and I'd like to go back when I can gaze over the Pemi and on to the Presis...

So, my experience so far is that 2 of 14 haven't got views per se from the summit, but they do have something interesting to offer. Even if it is their proximity to my house that is the main attraction.

Tim