dr_wu002
Well-known member
There is a 3' high scree wall, reinforced by dead trees (!) that blocks off the entire southern section of the small alpine zone on Mt. Bond. Anyone that has ever hiked Mt. Bond knows there there was always a tiny little divider there already -- this new one is large, ugly and very confrontational. There are no signs there that indicate why the wall is there and frankly, I imagine that people are going to knock it down and this will be seen as another page in the ongoing battle with rangers in the Pemigewasset Region over these things.
First of all, I don't understand what the scree wall is trying to accomplish. Mt Bond has a tiny alpine zone ~1/10 of an acre, and in the area that is blocked off not much is growing there. Is this an attempt to "re-vegetate" the area? Why? It's an incredibly small area what "rare" plants and such could possibly benefit, realistically, in such a tiny space?
Second, Mt. Bond has one of the most underrated views in all the Whites -- in my opinion its view is better than Bondcliff and West Bond, especially in the southern - and now closed - part to a large extent. Why don't the rangers build little paths like they do on Mt. Marcy and such in the Adirondacks? I realize they're not perfect (but neither is the scree wall, there were people walking around in the area beyond the wall yesterday) but at least they'd give people some access to the Southern part of that alpine zone -- where the really awesome views are -- while allowing some regrowth in that area.
Third: a sign or some notice would help. They Forest Service (edit: Guyot Caretaker?) has gone to town with putting signs about the "Bridge" that they removed all over the freaking place -- why not let people know what the deal is on Mt. Bond. If there's some sort of bird nesting there (which I doubt) at least have the sense to let people know that there is a purpose in their design. Just putting a wall comes across as confrontational and insulting -- like the Forest Service has disdain for the hikers that go to Mt. Bond and are going put a barrier with no explanation to stop them. I find it insulting to say the least -- especially because we all pay federal taxes as well as the parking fees.
Fourth is my own personal opinion. I can understand "managing" the alpine areas like they do on Franconia Ridge and Mt. Eisenhower -- places where paths are effective; not 100% -- people do walk around on the sensitive flora but, in general, the plant life seems to be thriving up there. Mt. Bond is different, it's a tiny little nothing of an alpine zone surrounded by fairly healthy looking spruce. Why are they aggressively managing such a small area? For a few square feet of "Alpine Plants" -- seems like a waste of resources and it's going to push people a bit too far. If you want people to respect these areas, don't go overboard. What's next? Close all the summits that have alpine zones? It's ridiculous, people should be able to and are going to walk around in these alpine zones, at best create a balance between being there and managing it for the plants and other stuff. A huge, ugly scree wall is just going to prompt people to climb over it, tear it down, or walk on the plants on either side to access the area and then they're going to walk around and stomp on things. It is very poorly done, poorly constructed and poorly thought out.
Hey, I say step lightly -- I'm not a plant lover or anything but I like to see the thriving and unusual plant life in these areas, but I also want access to them -- especially areas that we've always had access too. I'm not advocating cutting trails to more "secret" alpine zones on mountains such as Mt. Bond, but why try feebly and foolishly to cut off an area that people have been accessing for a long time. It makes no sense. I didn't get a chance to talk to the rangers yesterday but I will next time I'm up there and I hope that other people do as well. Maybe if a more sensible solution is enacted people won't start start knocking the wall down because I think eventually it'll be a lose-lose situation for the alpine zone, the rangers, and ultimately hikers. I'm prepared to fight the good fight but it seems like things are getting ugly in the Pemi...
-Dr. Wu
First of all, I don't understand what the scree wall is trying to accomplish. Mt Bond has a tiny alpine zone ~1/10 of an acre, and in the area that is blocked off not much is growing there. Is this an attempt to "re-vegetate" the area? Why? It's an incredibly small area what "rare" plants and such could possibly benefit, realistically, in such a tiny space?
Second, Mt. Bond has one of the most underrated views in all the Whites -- in my opinion its view is better than Bondcliff and West Bond, especially in the southern - and now closed - part to a large extent. Why don't the rangers build little paths like they do on Mt. Marcy and such in the Adirondacks? I realize they're not perfect (but neither is the scree wall, there were people walking around in the area beyond the wall yesterday) but at least they'd give people some access to the Southern part of that alpine zone -- where the really awesome views are -- while allowing some regrowth in that area.
Third: a sign or some notice would help. They Forest Service (edit: Guyot Caretaker?) has gone to town with putting signs about the "Bridge" that they removed all over the freaking place -- why not let people know what the deal is on Mt. Bond. If there's some sort of bird nesting there (which I doubt) at least have the sense to let people know that there is a purpose in their design. Just putting a wall comes across as confrontational and insulting -- like the Forest Service has disdain for the hikers that go to Mt. Bond and are going put a barrier with no explanation to stop them. I find it insulting to say the least -- especially because we all pay federal taxes as well as the parking fees.
Fourth is my own personal opinion. I can understand "managing" the alpine areas like they do on Franconia Ridge and Mt. Eisenhower -- places where paths are effective; not 100% -- people do walk around on the sensitive flora but, in general, the plant life seems to be thriving up there. Mt. Bond is different, it's a tiny little nothing of an alpine zone surrounded by fairly healthy looking spruce. Why are they aggressively managing such a small area? For a few square feet of "Alpine Plants" -- seems like a waste of resources and it's going to push people a bit too far. If you want people to respect these areas, don't go overboard. What's next? Close all the summits that have alpine zones? It's ridiculous, people should be able to and are going to walk around in these alpine zones, at best create a balance between being there and managing it for the plants and other stuff. A huge, ugly scree wall is just going to prompt people to climb over it, tear it down, or walk on the plants on either side to access the area and then they're going to walk around and stomp on things. It is very poorly done, poorly constructed and poorly thought out.
Hey, I say step lightly -- I'm not a plant lover or anything but I like to see the thriving and unusual plant life in these areas, but I also want access to them -- especially areas that we've always had access too. I'm not advocating cutting trails to more "secret" alpine zones on mountains such as Mt. Bond, but why try feebly and foolishly to cut off an area that people have been accessing for a long time. It makes no sense. I didn't get a chance to talk to the rangers yesterday but I will next time I'm up there and I hope that other people do as well. Maybe if a more sensible solution is enacted people won't start start knocking the wall down because I think eventually it'll be a lose-lose situation for the alpine zone, the rangers, and ultimately hikers. I'm prepared to fight the good fight but it seems like things are getting ugly in the Pemi...
-Dr. Wu
Last edited:
