Tecumseh view clearing

[sierra]

We disagree, yet I don't feel the need to put your expression of your perspective to bed. I'll thank you to return the courtesy.

I was suggesting the back and forth of our opinions, has run it's course. Obviously you feel the need to say more.

 

[Driver8]

I was suggesting the back and forth of our opinions, has run it's course. Obviously you feel the need to say more.

The discussion is ongoing, and I agree people have mostly made themselves understood, but there might yet be more to be said.

I very much don't like the precedent set at Tecumseh. I'd hate to see "view bandits," be they well-intentioned trail maintainers or plain renegades, chopping up the forest on the 20-odd White 4K's with limited or no long-distance views. Leave nature as close as possible to its undisturbed state in such places, as I see it. For the sake of the trees and of wildness, such as it is.

 

[rocket21]

I very much don't like the precedent set at Tecumseh. I'd hate to see "view bandits," be they well-intentioned trail maintainers or plain renegades, chopping up the forest on the 20-odd White 4K's with limited or no long-distance views. Leave nature as close as possible to its undisturbed state in such places, as I see it. For the sake of the trees and of wildness, such as it is.

I think many of us make the mistake of looking at 'precedent' through a lens of our personal timeframe. The reality is that quite a few 4Ks have a history of maintained viewpoints long predating us.

In the case of Tecumseh, Moses Foster Sweetser described 360 degree views from Mt. Tecumseh in the late 1800s. That 'precedent' obviously didn't hold as time passed and the original approach from Welch-Dickey was abandoned. The current view, which was *not* chopped by the trail maintainer, matches the 'precedent' set and maintained into the 1990s.

I also dispute the claim that 20-odd of the 48 have limited or no long-distance views. It's been a couple of years since I've been to some (which, not surprisingly, have limited views), but the vast majority of the 48 have excellent views at or near their summit.

 

[TJsName]

Leave nature as close as possible to its undisturbed state in such places, as I see it. For the sake of the trees and of wildness, such as it is.

And so the trail to the summit should be maintained? And the road to the trailhead? There is more to nature than just trees, and I find it disingenuous when people argue that people aren't natural (not that you've explicitly stated that). I understand that human activity is common view outside the scope of natural phenomenon, but for the purposes of hiking, I view human activity as a part of nature - similar to beavers and moose and deer and insects impacting the forests. The question should be how large of an impact should be have, and does clearing out these view points have a significant negative impact? I would argue it does. As for a 'natural' state of the summit and the views it offers, I would argue the the view can change naturally as well, but it from fire, wind, or erosion. The perspective and appreciation one gets from a summit or clearing, and the view obtained should not be written off due to being 'unnatural'.

 

[DayTrip]

I hate to even jump back into this thread but I think the primary issue (at least it was for me anyway) was that the clearing of said view was being done in violation of the law. If the people clearing the view had gone through the proper channels and received approval to create the viewpoint I would not have nearly as large of a problem with it. I'm not a fan of wide spread clearing of these views and the extensive trail work that gives trails an unnatural feel but if majority of people are in favor of it and it is done legally than I'm OK. That is how democracy works.

What I don't like is the precedent that anyone who feels the need to do whatever they want wherever they want is essentially being told to go ahead and do it becasue we don't have the time, desire or resources to enforce the law. That is a slippery slope and that is the aspect of all this I do not like. I think the primary objective of any trail work is to preserve the existing routes and keep the trails from having a negative impact on the environment when they are used (i.e erosion, etc), not make them easier to do (i.e. massive artificial stair cases and other features that belong in your backyard or downtown).

 

[rocket21]

If the people clearing the view had gone through the proper channels and received approval to create the viewpoint I would not have nearly as large of a problem with it.

I'm not aware of any summit or near summit view clearings being approved by the Forest Service.

I think the primary objective of any trail work is to preserve the existing routes and keep the trails from having a negative impact on the environment when they are used (i.e erosion, etc), not make them easier to do (i.e. massive artificial stair cases and other features that belong in your backyard or downtown).

There is a contradiction in that statement; staircases are generally constructed to stop erosion and preserve existing routes.

 

[DayTrip]

I'm not aware of any summit or near summit view clearings being approved by the Forest Service.


There is a contradiction in that statement; staircases are generally constructed to stop erosion and preserve existing routes.

So all the clearings we read about in this and other threads are illegal? I assume if Forest Service (or Fish And Game or whoever - I do not recall which agency is pushing the legality issue with the Tecumseh clearing) is challenging the clearing as illegal than there is some legal means for getting a view cleared on National Forest land right? Trail maintainers are required to get training on proper standards and report to some agency right? I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. Just legitimately inquiring as to how this process would go. It may have already been answered here and I forgot. This is a long thread.

And as far as the staircase comment, I get that there are functional purposes to these elements. I'm just saying they can become far more elaborate and artificial than they need to be, which I am not a fan of in the woods. I can build a simple concrete retaining wall in my backyard to hold back a slope. I could also build an elaborate multi-tiered rock wall with alcoves and other features to accomplish the same purpose. When these elements are very elaborate and contrived it cheapens the wilderness experience for me like I'm at a theme park or something, not walking around in the middle of nowhere. That's all. Maybe I'm not accurately expressing my sentiments how I'm describing it. The work is elaborate and impressive. Just out of place in my opinion.

 

[rocket21]

So all the clearings we read about in this and other threads are illegal?

USFS Level 1 maintainers are not trained to create or maintain views.

If certain individuals also complained about the cutting on Starr King/Waumbek, South Hancock, South Carter, Moriah, Cabot, Tom, Field, East Osceola, Galehead, North Tripyramid, Middle Tripyramid, or Passaconaway, the Forest Service's response would certainly be interesting.

But, it's important to note the recent cutting on Tecumseh has *not* contributed to the view. Something else is going on and Forest Service law enforcement is involved.

 

[HH1]

FWIW, from a 2008 VFFT thread, scroll to the bottom.
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?20875-Enhancing-the-view-in-Carrigan-Notch/page3

 

[RollingRock]

If certain individuals also complained about the cutting on Starr King/Waumbek, South Hancock, South Carter, Moriah, Cabot, Tom, Field, East Osceola, Galehead, North Tripyramid, Middle Tripyramid, or Passaconaway, the Forest Service's response would certainly be interesting.

What is the complaint about East Osceola? Where is it? I'm interested as I'm the trail maintainer for the Osceola Trail.

 

[rocket21]

What is the complaint about East Osceola? Where is it? I'm interested as I'm the trail maintainer for the Osceola Trail.

I was referring to summit or near summit viewpoints that have had cutting in recent years (in the case of East Osceola, the view just below the summit cairn; the stumps have since aged).

 

[Driver8]

In the case of Tecumseh, Moses Foster Sweetser described 360 degree views from Mt. Tecumseh in the late 1800s. That 'precedent' obviously didn't hold as time passed and the original approach from Welch-Dickey was abandoned. The current view, which was *not* chopped by the trail maintainer, matches the 'precedent' set and maintained into the 1990s.

The precedent, which you skirt past, is of hacking up the forest on viewless summits in order to open up a view. Do you support that? There are nice views pretty close to Tecumseh's summit, as I and I believe others have noted. Why the need for one right at the top?

But circling back - do you support hacking up the forest at East O's summit? Middle and South Carter? Do think the precedent set by the Tecumseh hackers is a good one - let's go hack out a wide view on all the viewless 4K summits?

And do you know who hacked up the T view for sure, and thus, by implication, who didn't? Did you witness any of it? If so, let the FS know and get your reward.

 

[Driver8]

And so the trail to the summit should be maintained?

"As close as possible in such places," is the key phrase. There's no road over that wooded summit, only a footpath, and now, a hacked view. The valley where the roads run is not such a wild place. Keep the roads up, they're already built. And the footpaths are minimally intrusive. Do you support hacking up viewless, forested summits to open up a view? Should it be done for all viewless White 4K summits, worth the significant negative impact? Is T a good precedent in that regard?

I think the T clearing is highly unnecessary given the superb nearby viewpoints already opened by human intrusion, which I agree with you is, itself, natural in a sense when not excessive and heavy-handed.

 

[Driver8]

I hate to even jump back into this thread but I think the primary issue (at least it was for me anyway) was that the clearing of said view was being done in violation of the law. If the people clearing the view had gone through the proper channels and received approval to create the viewpoint I would not have nearly as large of a problem with it. I'm not a fan of wide spread clearing of these views and the extensive trail work that gives trails an unnatural feel but if majority of people are in favor of it and it is done legally than I'm OK. That is how democracy works.

What I don't like is the precedent that anyone who feels the need to do whatever they want wherever they want is essentially being told to go ahead and do it becasue we don't have the time, desire or resources to enforce the law. That is a slippery slope and that is the aspect of all this I do not like. I think the primary objective of any trail work is to preserve the existing routes and keep the trails from having a negative impact on the environment when they are used (i.e erosion, etc), not make them easier to do (i.e. massive artificial stair cases and other features that belong in your backyard or downtown).

I wholly agree, DayTrip, though I'd oppose clearing a new view in the woods on a wild summit even if duly authorized by the USFS.

 

[Driver8]

If certain individuals also complained about the cutting on Starr King/Waumbek, South Hancock, South Carter, Moriah, Cabot, Tom, Field, East Osceola, Galehead, North Tripyramid, Middle Tripyramid, or Passaconaway, the Forest Service's response would certainly be interesting.

I've read complaints about some of these in this and other threads here. Not sure if they've been taken to the USFS, but they been noted here at Views.

But, it's important to note the recent cutting on Tecumseh has *not* contributed to the view. Something else is going on and Forest Service law enforcement is involved.

What recent cutting are you talking about? Several people have said, to me personally or here in these fora, that the hacking at Tecumseh, which seems to have started in June 2013 or thereabouts, has significantly widened and opened the summit view there. That's the recent cutting I think is the core subject of this thread.

Tim L. has also noted a second view opening just southeast of the summit, looking across the ski area toward Sandwich Dome, which appears to have opened up that view. Is there some other, non-view-opening cutting on T which we've not covered here? I'm confused a bit here.

 

[rocket21]

The precedent, which you skirt past, is of hacking up the forest on viewless summits in order to open up a view. Do you support that? There are nice views pretty close to Tecumseh's summit, as I and I believe others have noted. Why the need for one right at the top?

What is your definition of viewless? History and science suggest much of New England was once free of vegetation, then largely vegetated, then largely cleared, and now increasingly vegetated. It's also interesting that you question the "need" of a view on the summit while being ambivalent to the "nice views" nearby, which have been maintained by humans for a much shorter time.

But circling back - do you support hacking up the forest at East O's summit? Middle and South Carter? Do think the precedent set by the Tecumseh hackers is a good one - let's go hack out a wide view on all the viewless 4K summits?

I have no issue with reasonable view maintenance, but obviously I have a problem with hack jobs.

And do you know who hacked up the T view for sure, and thus, by implication, who didn't? Did you witness any of it? If so, let the FS know and get your reward.

I suggest you re-read post 108.

"As close as possible in such places," is the key phrase. There's no road over that wooded summit, only a footpath, and now, a hacked view. The valley where the roads run is not such a wild place. Keep the roads up, they're already built.

If you do a little research, you'll see that, in the lifetime of some members on this site, there was a fire control swath cut over the summit, and, during the lifetime of many members on this site, there were logging and skid roads that came fairly close to the summit. By this logic, perhaps the Forest Service should start maintaining those again?

I've read complaints about some of these in this and other threads here. Not sure if they've been taken to the USFS, but they been noted here at Views.

I suggest you re-read post 108.

What recent cutting are you talking about?

Cutting in 2015 which involves the sign that spawned this thread.

Several people have said, to me personally or here in these fora, that the hacking at Tecumseh, which seems to have started in June 2013 or thereabouts, has significantly widened and opened the summit view there.

That is incorrect; I suggest you re-read post 3.

 

[Driver8]

Well, Randy, I admire your energy and intensity. For all your effort in the most recent post, though, you don't answer the simple question: where is the "recent cutting" to which you referred earlier? At the summit? Somewhere else?

 

[rocket21]

Well, Randy, I admire your energy and intensity. For all your effort in the most recent post, though, you don't answer the simple question: where is the "recent cutting" to which you referred earlier? At the summit? Somewhere else?

Brad, I suggest you re-read posts 1 and 3. The signage and cutting relate to the summit of Mt. Tecumseh.

 

[Raven]

Hale has a beautiful, expansive view from the summit.

One simply needs to look up.

 

[Driver8]

Brad, I suggest you re-read posts 1 and 3. The signage and cutting relate to the summit of Mt. Tecumseh.

Who's Brad? I read those posts, per your suggestion, among many, in your dozen-or-so answer post. Wasn't clear to me, hence the question. Thanks for the continued dialog. Learning!