Summit signs taken down on the Carters

[bikehikeskifish]

Personally I like having the signs. It helps me identify which peak I was on when I took the photo. Unlike someplace like Willey or North Kinsman which really haven't anything to identify them.

BTW, Doug, signs (even trail junctions) can be buried too, like this one:



I don't recall navigation cairns up there now because it is treed and trailed so a summit cairn seems appropriate to me. And it is the AT, and it isn't in Wilderness, so I don't see any problem with marking them even with a sign.

Tim

 

[McRat]

When will they start removing the benchmarks?

Engraved brass on a mountaintop?!? Blasphemy!

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

One thing needs to be said right up front. No one is blaming the young rangers who are out doing their job. I have found them to be very friendly, courteous and helpful. If they are taking signs down, they no doubt have been told to do so.

As with others, I do have questions about the policy. Obviously there was a time when someone or some committee thought the signs should be put up. My question is, what changed? The trail in question is not in a wilderness area. It is, as has been pointed out, part of the AT. Who gets the input into these decisions?

The peaks in question do benefit from the signs especially when peak-bagging in the winter. Also as has been pointed out, for someone not familiar with that section of that trail it isn't that obvious where the peak is. What's wrong with knowing what peak you're on? The old signs were not eyesores. They actually blended into the scenery. The Middle Carter sign and post looked to me like it would last another twenty years or more. The South Carter sign was leaning a bit and I didn't check to see if it was rotting on the bottom but I doubt it. They were well built signs taken down before their time, and by the way, taken down before they should have been according to the stated policy.

The Owl's Head sign has been taken down again, by the way. It was taken down in mid-September. I realize that that's a different situation, but a similar attitude is being displayed. It would be interesting to know who makes the policy? Who interprets the policy? Why can't there be a little more flexibility and dialog concerning the policy?

 

[erugs]

And what about wanting a photo of oneself or one's group hanging around the summit sign? This long-time hiker gets a warm fuzzy feeling upon seeing a sign. Guess I'm a traditionalist afterall.

 

[RoySwkr]

It would be interesting to know who makes the policy? Who interprets the policy? Why can't there be a little more flexibility and dialog concerning the policy?

The standards and guidelines come from the Forest Plan which is approved periodically. Most of the input comes from special interests not ordinary folk - did you send any comments? The extractive industries don't care about hikers and some of the environmental groups actually oppose them, so the FS is quietly downgrading trails.

Last year I proposed that the FS have a comment period and public hearing on the Owls Head situation and they flatly refused, presumably because I'm not a special interest group or congressperson.

 

[rocket21]

Last year I proposed that the FS have a comment period and public hearing on the Owls Head situation and they flatly refused, presumably because I'm not a special interest group or congressperson.

With the budget issues that are hampering many aspects of government, including the Forest Service, I can't help but wonder if their time would be better spent on other things, rather than scraping old blazes, disassembling cairns, and taking down signs. I don't intend to turn this into a political thread and I'm sure the mods don't want that to happen either, but I am thinking about writing to my Federal Representatives and Senators about this. It's troubling to see resources being expended on taking down signs and cairns, meanwhile pavilions collapse and official trails erode and grow in.

 

[MichaelJ]

And, IMHO, cutting down trees to "remove" blazes is utterly unacceptable.

(seen last year or the year before at OH)

 

[adamiata]

Each of us should do our part to help alleviate the rangers of some of their backlog. Simply re-locate a superfluous sign of your choice to your wall.

I think I'll start with the "adminstrative parking only" one at Lincoln Woods.

 

[rocket21]

If anyone can indeed confirm one or both of the Carter signs are down, I think I'm going to go ahead and start writing letters.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

In this thread AndyF stated that the sign is gone for Middle Carter. Wolfgang in his trail report said this: The post by Ed & Lauky was right on. Just one footnote. While we were on Middle Carter, a Ranger was removing the summit signs of both M. & S. Carter. Just a note for you first time peak baggers.

 

[rocket21]

In this thread AndyF stated that the sign is gone for Middle Carter. Wolfgang in his trail report said this: The post by Ed & Lauky was right on. Just one footnote. While we were on Middle Carter, a Ranger was removing the summit signs of both M. & S. Carter. Just a note for you first time peak baggers.

Ah, thank you! I somehow missed AndyF's post.

 

[dr_wu002]

Summit Sign Porter Service

I think I see a potential business venture in the making: Summit Sign Porter Service.

Overhead would be simple: have signs made up for the New England 451... each summit. Throw in an extra 100 or 200 signs for peaks not on the list. You sign up for the service sort of like Zipcar... you state the peak you're going to, time of day etc. And what happens, for a fee, a porter arrives at the trailhead before you (preferably on a bicycle -- Green Company) and hikes up to the peak that you're going to. Around 10 minutes before you arrive, the porter installs the sign in the ground (don't peg it on the tree!) and then scurries off into the woods so that when you get there you have the summit to yourself and a beautiful sign to go along with it. Possibly a variation on the service is that the porter could pretend to be another hiker arriving at the summit and offer to take a picture of you with the summit sign. Then, after you leave the porter carefully packs up the sign (LNT!) and hikes out.

This accomplishes a number of things:

1. No conflict with the rangers about summit signs here and there... the porter hikes the sign in and then hikes it out.

2. Job Creation - in a hurtin' economy what could be better?

3. Sign maintainability - the porter service will be in possession of all the signs and be able to provide efficient and timely repairs and cleaning to all signs and easy replacement for lost/damaged/stolen/excessively worn signs.

4. Reassurance - for the hiker that a summit sign (for a fee) will always be there when you want it. No more anxiety. No more worries that nobody will believe that you were actually there. No more wondering if you're actually on the correct summit or not.

Perhaps a premium level service could be in place for fancy (ie. Zealand) or even edible signs (trail magic!) Also, having a corporation run the service instead of the government would insure that peak names would be spelled corect and peak elevation would be posted accurately.

This has potential. Of course, this visionary idea could be viewed as sarcastic or silly (and you'd be right ). But, nobody ever knows what the next big thing be or who will be the next Al Gore (invented the internet!!).

-Dr. Wu

 

[AndyF]

If anyone can indeed confirm one or both of the Carter signs are down, I think I'm going to go ahead and start writing letters.

Middle Carter, yesterday, 10-08-2008



No sign, just a cairn

 

[bikehikeskifish]

You all could just call the Andro ranger station and talk to Justin yourself. Perhaps he can tell you how to effect the policy change your are looking for.

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Dr_wu002, I think you're on to something.

It's interesting how things change/evolve/(devolve?) over the years. I seem to recall that many years ago, when the ADK's had summit registers, that in order to "prove" to Grace you'd made the summit it was necessary to note who had signed the register previously. As the registers disappeared, I recall there being a requirement that you take a picture of the summit sign? Maybe some NY types can chime in if I have any/all of this wrong. When I did the ADKs for the list there were no such requirements, and it was on the honor system, like the NE lists.

As for auctioning signs - doesn't the RMC do something similiar to the AMC in that regard?

 

[pilgrim]

As for auctioning signs - doesn't the RMC do something similiar to the AMC in that regard?

Yes, they do.

 

[TCD]

In the day of the ADK canisters, there were canisters on most of the "trailless" peaks (these have evolved into "peaks with minimally maintained paths"). When I did my first round of the 46 (1986), 26 peaks had maintained trails, and the other 20 were trailless. These included the Dixes (except for Dix itself), the Sewards, the Santanonis, and scattered others. The trailless peaks had canisters, with the exception (I think) of Iroquois, based on it's "line of sight" access, and no good place to attach a canister.

Yes, you did have to write down the three names before you, and send that in to Grace. It was kind of cool, and old fashioned.

The 46ers opted to remove the canisters as a gesture of goodwill, since these tiny objects were non conforming (even though they would all have fit, 1000 times over, into any Leanto).

After they were replaced by signs, i don't recall any photo requirements. I think it just went to the honor system, but maybe someone who was on the Grace Committee at the time can remember better.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I seem to recall that many years ago, when the ADK's had summit registers, that in order to "prove" to Grace you'd made the summit it was necessary to note who had signed the register previously.

Not all that many years ago. Less than 10.

Initially, the names sent in were verified, but the verification stopped in the '80s when the numbers just made it impractical. It has essentially been an honor system since then, although not obvious to the hiker.

As the registers disappeared, I recall there being a requirement that you take a picture of the summit sign?

Never. In fact, when the canisters were removed and signs installed, we had a problem with people venting their frustrations by stealing the signs, so this would have been very difficult.

Also, (fitting in with this thread) signs are only on peaks which are not obvious to prevent wandering. A number of peaks, where the summit is obvious, are not supposed to have signs.

 

[Tom Rankin]

The trailless peaks had canisters, with the exception (I think) of Iroquois, based on it's "line of sight" access, and no good place to attach a canister.

The 14'ers seem to have solved this problem. All of them are way above tree line, but they have their canisters anchored with a metal cable wedged in between 2 rocks, or looped around, whichever works best.

Example:

http://viewsandbrews.com/temp/canisters.jpg

 

[TCD]

But cabling the canister onto the rock is even more "non conforming"...surely someone out there in Colorado must think that it is the end of the world...