Creating views with a chainsaw

[Tom Rankin]

Don't want to jump off the subject again, but. This tread reminded me of the jokers who marked up the santanoni trail. what ever happen to them if anything?

I think you will find everything you need to know here:

http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2213

 

[David Metsky]

<mod hat>
Do not discuss global warming in this thread! There's another one set up for that, please use that if you wish to have that discussion.

-dave-
</mod hat>

 

[Sleeping Giant]

There weren't any views in the Himalayas before they cut all the trees down. Now look how many people go there!

 

[DougPaul]

There weren't any views in the Himalayas before they cut all the trees down. Now look how many people go there!

Many, if not most of the trees in the White Mountains were cut down in the late 1800s and early-to-mid 1900s which resulted in the formation of a national forest to protect them...

Doug

 

[Pete_Hickey]

For example we, the 46-rs with DEC approval and for all the good reasons, made it easier for the climbers to reach Marshall summit.

The fact that it was made easier is a side effect. That is NOT the reason the work was done.

Nowadays, a short 2 years later, a greater number of climbers walk right up Herbert Brook

Are you implying that our work caused an increase in use. The numbers don't really show that. Here are the number of finishers over the past few years.

196 97
209 98
182 99
131 00
170 01
222 02
157 03
213 04
174 05

Note that '02 was high, because that is the first year Allen was open after Floyd.

[/QUOTE]Not so sure we can be very proud of the results./QUOTE]I am. I look at what places were like BEFORE our work, and what they are like now. Yes, they are not perfect, but they are a lot better than they were. The state agrees.

 

[Neil]

Walking right up Herbert Brook is not only one heck of a lot of fun but it causes no erosion. One is directly on bedrock. Also, I thought the herd path was in pretty good shape this summer. The upper reaches of the Herbert Brook path are right in the streambed itself and once again, directly on rock.

Part of the answer to these problems of muddy, messy and eroded ADK trails is to survey and cut proper trails with gentler grades. But from what I hear that will not happen in the Adirondacks in the immediate future.

 

[Neil]

Yes the solution is to cut gentler grade but if you think that walking right in the brook I have nothing to add.

I would say that for this particular example (Herbert Brk.) on this particular day walking directly in the brook was far less erosive (anorthosite is awfully hard and impervious) than on the wet and vulnerable trail.

It is interesting to note that there is a secondary herd path forming on the side of Herbert Brook opposite to the herd path for a good 300 vertical feet. I think this is because the herd path crosses the brook about 8 or 9 times and the crossings aren't always obvious, especially with high water. As a result, people miss the crossing and climb up the wrong bank. Maybe it would it be better to put up trail markers.

Any trail that crosses the steam bed that many times in that distance is in the wrong place to begin with. The herd trail up the Boquet to the Grace slide is another example.

Still on Marshall, above the dam, within 300 vertical feet of the summit the problem is that now that the trail has eroded down to the bedrock people are grabbing trees and roots alongside to heave themselves up the steeper sections. It's almost as if now that they can't go any deeper they're going wider.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Part of the initial idea of the improved herdpath was to take them away from the water whenever possible but for some reason it didn't happen.Ideally the path should be moved a "safe" distance from the flow so that the passage of trampers affect as little as possible the water.

You are wrong. We move the paths away from the stream when hikers are causing erosion by walking in the stream (Redfield and Macomb). In the case of Herbert Brook, people walk on rock, and it does not cause erosion.

The older herdpath to Marshall from Cold Brook Pass now receives much less traffic

It ALWAYS received much less traffic. It is also an official path, and is maintained along with the Herbert Brook one.

 

[Peakbagr]

Guys,

I have a fear that the debate is going to take a difficult turn. Could you guys maybe take it offline? While I know all 3 of you are passionate in your love for the ADKs, the particulars are a bit off topic to how the thread started and you might want to continue it on email or PMs before any furniture gets broken.

Thanks,
Peakbagr

 

[BlackSpruce]

Fear no more I deleted all of my posts on this issue.
Thanks,

Christine

 

[mavs00]

Black Spruce...... I wish you hadn't. While Peak probably had a point on the "drifting from the Hale" topic. It is my opinion, that it is precisely the "medley of ideas" presented in thread like this that stimulate 2500+ views.

By following along, many people begin to formulate their own wilderness ethics that they will take with then to the mountains. The general theme that "view cutting" while possibly advantageous in some instances, should not be considered as an individual freedom" will hopefully resinate among the readership.

Deleting your reasoned and thought out posts deny the rest of us the benefit of your considered experience and wisdom. That's a shame, considering some {like me } are not educated enough to properly formulate REASONED opinions these weighty topics.

Perhaps, we can consider having Peakbagr use his magical undelete button.

btw.... No criticism intended, I hit delete more times then anyone

 

[Mattl]

I cant believe how people react when the idea of cutting a couple trees comes up. In terms of cutting in general the whites definetly could use some more selective cutting, things are far overgrown. For views, I don't hike in any way for a view, but it is still nice to get a small one. Cutting or pruining a few trees for an outlook really does not impact the environment. People can argue by saying cuttin a few trees in the fir zone can weaken it and make it more susceptible to blowdowns, but I am only talking about a few to open a slightly larger view area, not a huge expansive view. With the lack of forest fires now, we need to prune a little to maintain them. I know some places that are beautiful the way they are, but would be neat with just a small opening in the canopy. -Mattl

 

[chomp]

I cant believe how people react when the idea of cutting a couple trees comes up. In terms of cutting in general the whites definetly could use some more selective cutting, things are far overgrown. For views, I don't hike in any way for a view, but it is still nice to get a small one. Cutting or pruining a few trees for an outlook really does not impact the environment. People can argue by saying cuttin a few trees in the fir zone can weaken it and make it more susceptible to blowdowns, but I am only talking about a few to open a slightly larger view area, not a huge expansive view. With the lack of forest fires now, we need to prune a little to maintain them. I know some places that are beautiful the way they are, but would be neat with just a small opening in the canopy. -Mattl

I agree totally. Whacking a few trees on a summit to provide a small view will have zero impact.. other than making a whole bunch of hikers happy. Its almost impossible to see the rocky summit on a peak like Mt Bond - and that summit has a view. Clearing a few trees from, say, East Osceola would not be visible at all to anyone not standing on the summit. I understand that we don't want to be clear-cutting summits and all that, but this rule reeks of the "zero tolerance" mindset. And, for anyone that has had to deal with such rules know that they should be named "zero logic" instead of "zero tolerance".

 

[Sheomet]

I agree with the 2 previous posts, I have no problem with cutting down a couple of trees for a viewpoint.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

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?"

 

[Puck]

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?"

Great point! Why would I want to go someplace that is more manicured then my own yard? I get away to get away from the 'to-do' list.

 

[expat]

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?"

Check out how many people hike maintained trails vs. how many primarily bushwhack, even if you exclude occasional hikers and limit it to people on this board. A large majority choose trails over no trails.

There are good reasons to have trails, shelters, hardened campsites, cairns, signs, ladders and (ugh) even huts, and all the other "aid" that we build into our wilderness for our safety, comfort, and overall enjoyment. Why not some selective, manufactured views, too?

 

[mavs00]

I'm sure Tim would be happy to restart a conflagration over on ADKHighpeaks.com.

No he wouldn't.........

 

[BlackSpruce]

Thank you Tim for your encouraging comments. Yes I was just trying to make a point but Pete considers himself the ultimate Adirondack authority and will not tolerate any discussion about whatever issues regarding the High Peaks trails. Being extremely judgemental on the web will get us nowhere, the silent majority climbs in large numbers, isn't wrong about everything and could be right regarding a few cuts branches to keep a view as nothing to scream about. Hiking doesn't equal practicing a cult.

Christine

PS: the High Peaks Wilderness isn't that wild, we have trails, ladders, bridges, signs, lean-tos, Rangers, emergency rescue, parking facilities, privies...

 

[Neil]

This thread brings to mind a subject that was elaborated on by Nash in his book, "Wilderness and the Americam Mind". Namely, the juxataposition of a pastoral view of nature versus a wilderness point of view.

On one hand the pastoralist would turn the Earth into a bounteous, sustainable garden (of Eden?) and there would be small towns and farms everywhere (like, everywhere imaginable,) thanks to technology. Technology will have taken care of pollution, overpopulation and what-have-you. Humankind will have achieved total control of nature including the weeding out of undesirable life forms.

On the other hand there are the Pete Hickeys and bushwhackers of this world. Are they merely holding on to a "quaint historical artifact, charming but inessential"? Will they eventually be condemned to climbing walls in gyms, descending artificial rapids and exploring man-made mazes created for those who need to get lost?

Cutting views on summits or trails to beautiful waterfalls within environments like the Whites and the ADK's is a very far cry from the above but....

....it's a step in that direction.

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