Mt Tecumseh Elevation Article

[peakbagger]

https://www.nhmagazine.com/a-4000-footer-controversy/

A nice summary on the background for the decision to list Tecumseh under 4000 feet.

Now we need the 4K committee to officially weigh in on the reduction in height as their list still includes it.

I figure Isolation and Waumbek are next given AGW predictions on Mean Seal Level rise

 

[CaptCaper]

They should come up with a give or take 5 ft either side of 4k's that can be left in. Grandfathered so to speak. Tecumseh is an enjoyable hike unlike some of the other 4k's. Who cares if it's 5 ft shy. It's still a 4k. Do the math and see that's it's probably 99.9 % 4K. Hope they aren't so anal about these enjoyable just 4k's.
Now some on the 52 WAV list should be taken out as they just plain stink.

 

[skiguy]

Now some on the 52 WAV list should be taken out as they just plain stink.

It’s under review.

 

[Tom Rankin]

CaptCaper, your response is subjective. What if I dislike Tecumseh because it is near a ski center, and love Isolation because of its - Isolation

The best approach is science and data.

(Unfortunately the Catskill 3500 Club has chosen to side with your approach in NOT de-listing Rocky, which is now 3487, even though it was willing to add peaks in the past).

 

[TCD]

Tom, of course this is subjective, but I disagree. I think the reason a lot of folks pursue a particular list is tradition, not precision.

So I like that the Adirondack 46 list stays the same. Who cares if surveyors 150 years ago could not be as precise as surveyors today? Or that Couchsacraga (on the list) is only 3820, or that McNaughton (not on the list) is 4000, or what the "prominence" of Yard Mountain is? The list is the list.

Of course any area like the Catskills or the Whites or whatever are free to manage this any way they want, but they should remember it's all supposed to be just for fun!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It’s under review.

Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

Tim

 

[sierra]

Me and my dog are hitting the Big T tomorrow. He's working on the 3k's. Joking aside, I am ambivalent as to whether the peak should be removed or not. Its their list, their rules, they can decide what they see fit. I'm in a spot where list don't matter anyway, I just hike and Tecumseh happens to be one of my go to peaks. Its a nice hike and I love the valley. So many great short hikes you can wander on if you feel like doing more. P.S. I actually like CaptCaper's idea of the 5ft. either way rule to allow peaks to stay. I mean 5 ft. there are cairns taller then that.

 

[skiguy]

Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

Tim

Maybe Dingo will chime in on that. It was mentioned that the list would be changing on his 52 with a View FB Page.

 

[David Metsky]

Tom, of course this is subjective, but I disagree. I think the reason a lot of folks pursue a particular list is tradition, not precision.

But the history of the NH 4000'ers is precision, not tradition. Peaks have been removed and added in the past because of new surveys; there's no reason to change the practice now.

 

[egilbe]

If they take off Tecumseh, I hope they add Hight or Guyot to replace it. It wouldn't matter to me, since I've hiked them, too. Now that 52 with a view list has some summits that are overgrowing. Nothing a judicious cut or two with a hand saw wouldn't correct.

 

[JustJoe]

Which one(s) are candidates for departure? I'll leave them towards the end

Tim

The OTHH'ers are just now starting to look into replacing some peaks. Nothing named for departure or addition yet as far as I know. Change my be a good year out. Ken MacGray probably knows more.

 

[nartreb]

So if Tecumseh drops off the NH4K list, will it get added to the 52WAV? Judging from photos, somebody has already been up Tecumseh with a saw, so the views are there...

 

[NHClimber]

So is my old patch no good now? Eventually the list will be quite small at the rate we are going...

 

[ChrisB]

How about we compromise and say it's only a 4k in winter?

No way!!

I am 6 feet tall, so it should stay a 4000 footer for me (3995 + 6 = 4001). All you shorter-than-5-foot folks will need another summit for your award.

 

[peakbagger]

I haven't seen any definition of exactly what constitutes the top of the mountain? Barring a flat granite ledge, many summits have natural loose material of unknown depth over ledge. When I see USGS disks they generally are not on the high spot rather they are on a nearby secure point that has a reasonable chance of not moving. but does have a good view of the surrounding terrain. Up until this recent high tech method, the triangulation methods used were optical so disks needed to be located to allow the survey targets to be seen from a distance.

With that background, the question of a pile of stones being built to raise the elevation of the summit comes up. I don't think the clubs have traditionally accepted this as a workaround. There have been attempts over the years to maintain a pile of rocks on the summit of Mt Katahdin to be at least 13 feet high so that the summit is one mile high. On many of these visits the pile of stones appears to be short of the 13' height. It gets stranger with a location like Jay peak that reportedly blasted the summit elevation to allow a building to be built over the high point.

 

[David Metsky]

If they take off Tecumseh, I hope they add Hight or Guyot to replace it.

The number 48 isn't part of the list, it's been 46 and 47 in the past. There's no need to replace anything. If Hight or Guyot qualify they'll be added in their own right.

 

[Rob S]

For me personally, regardless of actual height, the Catskills will always have 35 peaks, the ADKs 46, and the Whites 48. I value tradition over precision, but would not have any issue with any club changing their list. Like Tecumseh, life is too short, ..... (haha!), and I'd prefer to keep hiking the peaks I want to hike, whether on a list or not.

 

[Scubahhh]

Pick up your dog and hold him over your head and it'll be 4000'

 

[JoshandBaron]

For me personally, regardless of actual height, the Catskills will always have 35 peaks, the ADKs 46, and the Whites 48. I value tradition over precision, but would not have any issue with any club changing their list. Like Tecumseh, life is too short, ..... (haha!), and I'd prefer to keep hiking the peaks I want to hike, whether on a list or not.

If you value tradition then why 48 for the Whites?

 

[Salty]

If they take off Tecumseh, I hope they add Hight or Guyot to replace it. It wouldn't matter to me, since I've hiked them, too. Now that 52 with a view list has some summits that are overgrowing. Nothing a judicious cut or two with a hand saw wouldn't correct.

Myself and another guy who's been looking at the LiDAR data have independently determined Guyot is almost certainly within the 4k qualifications (col height has what's kept it off). I also believe (as others have previously noted from the maps) that Lincoln and S. Hancock most definitely do NOT meet the qualifications (lack of col). That being said, if Those That Be decide to go the way of science, Tecumseh will still be on the NEHH list. Or, if you like it, hike it. If you don't, don't.

I wish the author had not mentioned a 3 foot pile of rocks on top, nor would I advocate taking view pruning of any kind outside of proper channels. It's a slippery slope risking going overboard (case in point: Tecumseh) when individuals decide what's best for everyone else.

And you kids get off my lawn!