Creating views with a chainsaw

[lumberzac]

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad someone cut the trail I hike on, I'm glad someone built the leanto I'm sleeping in, or even re-biult Jim Liberty Cabin. If they didn't cut the trails or camp-sites we couldn't go hiking.

I disagree. All that is really required to hike are your two feet. But I will admit that hiking would be a lot different if we didn't have trails cut.

We go hiking for many reasons and one is the views. To prove this piont of views being a top reason for hiking try to amagine a hike through a dark tunnel uphill. Would it be interesting? No of course not.

Ever do a night hike? You have no view what so ever except for the few feet that is illuminated by a headlamp, yet they are very interesting but in a much different way than hiking during the day. I often find night hiking much more thought provoking, and often far more relaxing, because the hike becomes far less goal oriented. Maybe it’s just the way my brain is wired, but I look at views as merely icing on the cake. They can enhance the hike, but they aren’t that important to me.

 

[Woodspirit]

View Management in the Adirondacks

November 2005

 

[Quietman]

Do you know if that was an approved cut by an organization?

 

[Woodspirit]

I understand that the deed was done by a forest ranger.

 

[BrentD22]

Ever do a night hike? You have no view what so ever except for the few feet that is illuminated by a headlamp

Yes I've hiked at night many times. After dinner I used to hike up from PNVC to Hermit Lake's caretaker cabin. To be honest it used to freak me out. I do have to say that I did have a view even when it was cloudy. BTW I wasn't being literal I was making a point.

 

[--M.]

Very true. Allthough I'll take the so-called wilderness (and all the rules) found in the ADK's over no wilderness at all.

(Maintaining these lands in a "sort of" wild state has to require rules when something like 60,000,000 people live within a 6 hour drive from them.)

This is the counter-point to Pete's question:

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 may want an idea of wilderness (and I certainly have my ideas of what's good), but I must recognize that the Northeast's mountains are really a big community sandbox. Concepts of "Wilderness" are superimposed on the reality, irrespective of any individual wishes I might have.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I may want an idea of wilderness (and I certainly have my ideas of what's good), but I must recognize that the Northeast's mountains are really a big community sandbox. Concepts of "Wilderness" are superimposed on the reality, irrespective of any individual wishes I might have.

The point of my question is....When there is a question, which way do you swing. Do you move towards, "It's there for my (our) enjoyment, let's use it." or do you move toward protecting the wilderness for it's own sake."

 

[expat]

What if a tree fell...

Strictly preserving a wilderness "for it's own sake" could be construed to mean that people should not be allowed in at all.

As you indicated, Pete, it's a continuum. So, why allow a hut in one location, but not allow a view in another. There should be a time and place for both.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Strictly preserving a wilderness "for it's own sake" could be construed to mean that people should not be allowed in at all.

Yes, and strictly going in the other direction means that anything goes..... So???

 

[expat]

Edited my reply

I edited my previous reply. I agree with you that there's got to be a middle ground. But I don't think that it needs to preclude artificial views.

 

[--M.]

I agree with you, Pete, in that we have to think about how we want it as we use it. My point, on the other hand, is that it's too crowded here now to view the great north woods as a set-piece or museum. It must be seen as a resource, because what it offers is so scarce. Maybe it's semantic at this point, but Untouched-by-Human-Hands is probably relegated to Alaska, Siberia, Antarctica, and the like. Mount Washington, Whiteface and Giant get too many visitors for us to say that they're supposed to be "pristine" or "wilderness."

It's odd: Are we quibbling, or is this the heart of the matter?

I'd hate to see all of Maine's timberland converted to condos and resorts, but I can't imagine the public tolerating the Feds telling us we can't go there at all.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

It's odd: Are we quibbling, or is this the heart of the matter?

No, this is the heart of the matter.

 

[BlackSpruce]

Views, junk, artifacts...

Pete what do you think of Noah John Rondeau's fame today, of the countless cans, jars, etc. he left over the banks of his hermitage? - In regard to your statement "do you move toward protecting the wilderness for it's own sake" Noah's celebrity is certainly counterproductive.


Christine

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Pete what do you think of Noah John Rondeau's fame today, of the countless cans, jars, etc. he left over the banks of his hermitage? - In regard to your statement "do you move toward protecting the wilderness for it's own sake" Noah's celebrity is certainly counterproductive.

He was a slob, and didn't care about wilderness.

But that was then. Things were different.

As something becomes more rare its value increases. Wilderness is becoming more and more rare, and it is becoming more important than ever to protect what remains.


If we had in the city six vacant lots available to youngsters of a certain neighborhood for playing ball, it might be 'development' to build houses on the first, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and even on the fifth, but when we build houses on the last one, we forget what houses are for. The sixth house would not be development at all but rather stupidity.
--Aldo Leopold

 

[Grumpy]

About Noah Rondeau and his Cold River hermitage ...

He was a slob, and didn't care about wilderness.

But that was then. Things were different.

As something becomes more rare its value increases. Wilderness is becoming more and more rare, and it is becoming more important than ever to protect what remains.


If we had in the city six vacant lots available to youngsters of a certain neighborhood for playing ball, it might be 'development' to build houses on the first, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and even on the fifth, but when we build houses on the last one, we forget what houses are for. The sixth house would not be development at all but rather stupidity.
--Aldo Leopold

I think it very fair to note that Rondeau was a man of his age, having occupied that spot along the Cold River up into the 1950s. I've personally watched our concept of "ethical standards" in respect to trash, campfires, shelters and about everything else in the boonies change dramatically since then. "If you carry it in, carry it out" was something new for us in the '60s. Now the Leave No Trace conversation has evolved to the point where a common topic of conversation is whether to "pack out your poop."

Leopold's quote is insightful and on the money and pertinent to the conversation.

I'm one of those people who thinks a primary (but not the sole) value in preserving wild areas lies in maintaining a playground for those of us who enjoy visiting such places. Some very nice ecological benefits come along with this, as well.

My belief is that we ought be quite careful with our wild places, but not to the point we are outright "prissy" about them -- treating them as simply too precious to enjoy at all. So I don't knee-jerk condemn all trail cutting, view opening, stream bridging, shelter building, etc., even in "new" areas. Nor am I all for going ahead, Hell-bent, either. There has to be some balance.

Let it be known that I appreciate the prissies among us. Especially the good natured ones. They serve the great and important function of pricking our consciences and appealing to our better sensibilities in these matters. Our world would be a lesser place without them, even if I don't think they should be running the show.

G.