Creating views with a chainsaw

[SteveHiker]

And, lest we forget, the wilderness we have now is all we will ever have.

I don't think that's entirely true. The wilderness we have now, we didn't have 100 years ago. There's always the possibility that in the future we can have more or less.

 

[Hunter]

I am way too lazy to read through all the responses, so if someone has already mentioned this please forgive me, but in the great state of New Hampshire we tax our views. If we were to cut down a few trees on selected summits to enhance the view I am sure the nice people at Avatar would eventually come by and levy a tax on the mountain. The better the view the higher tax.

As the mountain doesn't have a natural tax base I am assuming the state would then put a toll booth at the trailhead and perhaps a couple more along the trail in order to raise the necessary funds to pay the tax. Of course once the taxing authority got a good look at the view they would undoubtedly see all the other mountains around them and say to themselves "if we can get this much for Hale, just imagine what we could net from say Washington or Chocura!"

Before you know it the state would have a completely new revenue source. Unfortunately we hikers would bear the brunt of this tax, but I am sure we could all switch to water sports.... oh, I forgot, we also tax waterfront views in the state

 

[--M.]

As I'm always saying, ask yourself the following question:


"What do I want? Do I want wilderness, or do I want a playground which has the illusion of wilderness?"

I often find the sense in Pete's arguments, and do here too, but I must disagree on this one: Aren't these areas (Whites, Maine, ADKs, Catskills) really sandboxes already? Is it not already an illusion?

I like seeing orthodoxy questioned, and I think this is one. While I agree that the 'slippery slope' argument is in effect, I'd argue that we should be clear about what "wilderness" we really have up there. How we manage it is, hopefully, a democratic process.

Personally, I wouldn't mind coming across such an area, depending on how it were done.

Another good socratic discussion! I encourage all to stay in the debate and make yourselves (civilly) known.

--M.

 

[iceNsnow]

while we are axing eachother -

I am thinking that LOGGING should be permitted.
YUP! Permits to allow Logging.
We'd have some animals that would live and brouse. A more realistic "wilderness" - imho.
In all my trips to the High Peaks, I rarely see big game animals and I believe it is because there are too many trees.
The AMR is one of few places that I see deer and they do cut plenty of trees as well as maintain a road of significant width.

Would anyone else enjoy wildlife?

Redneckin' Inge

 

[Peakbagr]

Inge,

You make a good point....but then you're usually going too fast to see them. If I were a moose or deer, I'd be afraid you'd be able to run me down.

 

[Neil]

I am thinking that LOGGING should be permitted.
YUP! Permits to allow Logging.
We'd have some animals that would live and brouse. A more realistic "wilderness" - imho.
In all my trips to the High Peaks, I rarely see big game animals and I believe it is because there are too many trees.
The AMR is one of few places that I see deer and they do cut plenty of trees as well as maintain a road of significant width.

Would anyone else enjoy wildlife?

Redneckin' Inge

Reminds me of the movie Amadeus when the king said there were , "Too many notes" in a Mozart concerto. If the forests were managed just so I bet we could get just about any form of wildlife to take hold and abound. All we have to do is create the right conditions. If that is what evryone wants, ie. a sort of cageless zoo, then let's do it.

 

[iceNsnow]

Wait a minute!

Oh Alan - that's what you are trying to get me to do??!!

So you are telling me that deer and even moose can squeeze through those sticky/pokey spruce w/ all that old blowdown and second growth?
Have you really seen any? I am quite curious because when I first started hiking I looked and looked and couldn't understand why I see more wildlife on my drive to the grocery store - I've given up hope now and don't expect anything but trees, trrees and more trrrreeeees. yup I like trees too.

 

[Rob S]

Hi Inge,

I've never seen a moose in the ADKs myself, but I recall reading something recently about their presence and found the following (of which I cut and pasted from the forums over at Adkhighpeaks.com):

The area north of state Route 3 between Loon Lake and Saranac in Clinton County is believed to have a large concentration of moose, Winchell wrote.

State biologists estimate there are between 200 and 400 moose in the Adirondacks and with a healthy breeding population, that number is forecasted to increase.

Rob

EDIT - apologies for the thread drift ........

 

[Sheomet]

I am thinking that LOGGING should be permitted.
YUP! Permits to allow Logging.
We'd have some animals that would live and brouse. A more realistic "wilderness" - imho.
In all my trips to the High Peaks, I rarely see big game animals and I believe it is because there are too many trees.
The AMR is one of few places that I see deer and they do cut plenty of trees as well as maintain a road of significant width.

Would anyone else enjoy wildlife?

Redneckin' Inge

whitetails thrive on edge habitat, I'm not sure about moose

 

[Peakbagr]

Lots of moose down Indian Lake way. Leastways, tracks and scat.

 

[Neil]

Lots of moose scat in the Sawtooths. I found a huge pile in the back of my car. No trees there.

 

[Mattl]

The Adks have had a problem increasing their moose population, possibly due to challenges getting there from other areas. The Whites have always had a high population because of accessability from northern NH and Maine. I think the higher human population in southern Canada and Lake Champlain have a lot to do with it. It will be a slow process. -Mattl

 

[Rik]

I am thinking that LOGGING should be permitted.
YUP! Permits to allow Logging.
We'd have some animals that would live and brouse. A more realistic "wilderness" - imho.
In all my trips to the High Peaks, I rarely see big game animals and I believe it is because there are too many trees.
The AMR is one of few places that I see deer and they do cut plenty of trees as well as maintain a road of significant width.

Would anyone else enjoy wildlife?

Redneckin' Inge

Along these same lines I wouldn't put out naturally occuring fires in "wilderness" areas.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I am ambivalent on this issue. On the tallest mountains of the northeast there really is no need to cut views as there are numerous open views. Even on the smaller mountains it is often possible to route trails past the available rock ledges which need no enhancement, or bushwhackers can seek these ledges. If there are to be enhanced views they ought to be rare and perhaps limited to historic viewpoints.

One example, is the former historic view of the Kaaterskill Falls in the Catskills from Prospect Rock shown here in a 19th century drawing:

A few other historic drawings and photos are here. The view had been cut in the 19th century and was maintained until the early 1960s. When I first sought out and found this spot in the mid 1970s the view was very similar to these pictures, but without the Laurel House buildings which were removed in 1967. In recent years many spruce saplings have grown up atop the Prospect Rock ledge. The last time I visited about 5 years ago the view was completely blocked by the spruce. I have heard that the NYS DEC has discussed reopening the view though there are no firm plans. The location is in the Kaaterskill Wild Forest under the draft Catskill Park State Land Master Plan, Draft Revision, August 2003 (1 MB PDF) which is still under review. This draft Master Plan allows viewpoints to be maintained and created in Wild Forests, and maintained but not created in Wilderness Areas. All created or maintained views must be specifically identified in the UMPs which should keep the numbers few and rare. A few excerpts concerning maintained vistas follow:

Definition

Vista - a natural or created break in trees or vegetation permitting a view of the distant landscape.

Wilderness Vistas (in Wilderness Areas)

Recognizing that the geography and forest types in the Catskills either minimize or obscure natural viewpoints, man-made vistas provide the user with exceptional panoramas. And yet while recognized for its visual aesthetics and lauded for its inspiration by painter and poet alike, the creation and/or maintenance of a vista in a wilderness area must be balanced with both the philosophical as well as physical limitations of the area.

Existing vistas may be maintained where only an immaterial amount of tree cutting is necessary on an occasional basis. The preferred method of vista maintenance is side trimming of lower branches. Vistas may be temporarily obscured to allow small trees to grow high enough to permit branch trimming. Vistas to be maintained will be identified in UMPs. No new vistas may be created.

Vistas in Wild Forest

Existing vistas may be maintained. Opportunities for new vistas may be considered at locations where only an immaterial amount of tree cutting is required. All vistas to be maintained or created must be authorized in an approved UMP.​

 

[iceNsnow]

The Adks have had a problem increasing their moose population, possibly due to challenges getting there from other areas. The Whites have always had a high population because of accessability from northern NH and Maine. I think the higher human population in southern Canada and Lake Champlain have a lot to do with it. It will be a slow process. -Mattl

If the Adks are indeed having a problem with an increased moose population, it seems to be the best scenerio to chop down a few trees and let them live in the woods instead of fighting traffic on the Northway or Rte73!

 

[lumberzac]

If the Adks are indeed having a problem with an increased moose population, it seems to be the best scenerio to chop down a few trees and let them live in the woods instead of fighting traffic on the Northway or Rte73!

I could be wrong on this, but I believe moose prefer a more mature forest where as white tails prefer fringe areas. If you think about it this makes sense. The moose population disappeared from the Adirondacks about 100 years ago; this was also at a time when the mature forests acreage was at an all time low, due to logging and forest fires. The forests have now matured and the moose have begun to repopulate the Adirondacks and have actually reached a point where they are actually moving into areas outside the blue line.

 

[SteveHiker]

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've seen you on the summit of Hale.

 

[giggy]

I've seen you on the summit of Hale.

you can't prove that.

 

[Mattl]

Moose prefer successional growth with a mixture of softwoods and hardwoods. They thrive on the edge of bogs, small clearcuts/selective cutting, and after a fire has gone through, which doesn't seem like it will ever be able to happen again, considering the danger to human life with increased population in those areas. Old trees do not benefit moose that much except for when they may bed down. I think the problem is not the forest there, since there is lots of water and bogs, it's getting them there. -Mattl

 

[iceNsnow]

confusion on my part

I could be wrong on this, but I believe moose prefer a more mature forest where as white tails prefer fringe areas. If you think about it this makes sense. The moose population disappeared from the Adirondacks about 100 years ago; this was also at a time when the mature forests acreage was at an all time low, due to logging and forest fires. The forests have now matured and the moose have begun to repopulate the Adirondacks and have actually reached a point where they are actually moving into areas outside the blue line.

Lumberzac!
I like your name, btw

If moose like mature woods and the woods in the Adks are now mature then why are the moose leaving and moving out? I think the woods could be too mature and that could be why they are leaving?