Tecumseh view clearing

[sierra]

Yesterday, upon summiting Mt.Tecumseh. I noticed the Forest service had installed a wooden Kyosk on a tree. I failed to get a pic. but it's purpose is to find info. on the clearing of the view. It also stated that cutting of tree's in the Forest could result in a 5000 dollar fine. I'm up there once in awhile and I just noticed this, I think it just went up. Anywho, they seem a little mad still.

 

[egilbe]

You mean some random person went up and cut trees down from the summit to get a better view? That seems kinda whacked

 

[rocket21]

Perhaps the most significant view clearing occurred during the winter of 2012-13. The view clearing appeared to taper when the vista matched the description of the 1992 (25th Edition) White Mountain Guide.

New cutting has been noted more recently, but interestingly the cuts haven't contributed to the view.

 

[DayTrip]

There's a guy on Facebook (whose name I of course can't remember) who has been documenting this in great detail for three years with monthly photo updates. I'm sure if you search it will pull it up. Pretty amazing the extent of the clearing and how it could possibly be done on such a busy summit.

 

[Becca M]

Hmmm, on a peak with a ski area with great SWATHS of clearcuts (aka "ski trails"), a large area of satellite/radio towers, etc., it seems kinda silly to get so upset about clearing for hiker views. Perhaps the $ spent on kiosk(s) and signs could be better spent? (I haven't seen the actual signs or recent cuttings as I haven't been there since maybe winter)

 

[TDawg]

There's a guy on Facebook (whose name I of course can't remember) who has been documenting this in great detail for three years with monthly photo updates. I'm sure if you search it will pull it up. Pretty amazing the extent of the clearing and how it could possibly be done on such a busy summit.

http://www.scenicnh.com/blog/2013/08/mt-tecumseh-summit/ I noticed the cutting my last non winter visit spring of 2012, not a great look. While I don't really care for human enhanced viewpoints, I sure don't hate them!

 

[Driver8]

It's gotta be somebody who has easy access and is up there a lot. What are the classic crime/mystery-solver elements? Motive, opportunity and the means to do it? Probably could be narrowed down with a little deductive thinking.

 

[peakbagger]

I guess I am not that upset by opening up a view. The FS used to clear designated viewpoints in the WMNF. These have been effectively abandoned not due to direct management decision as much as lack of resources. Tecumseh is not in a designated wilderness area and therefore can be managed for multiple use including recreational enhancement. To me the impact of clearing a view on a summit is not more or less the impact of clearing and maintaining the trails to that summit. I agree that the actual cutting looks ugly up close but a blowdown patch also looks ugly. Of course one question that hasn't come up is if this was a historical view that had been kept cleared at one point that had grown in due to lack of maintenance?. Starr King had a long term historical view that at one point ceased to be maintained, it slowly grew in to the point where it was a viewless summit. When the view was reestablished there were many ugly stumps that would have not been there had it been maintained all along. The slide show to me is not a great reference as its taken from slightly different locations and angles. I do see an initial flurry of clearing but its not clear to me how much it has been expanded. If the view wasn't there would the photographer continue making trips on a monthly basis to the summit?

The question to me is does this patch alter an already impacted summit? Will wildlife be affected by the clearing anymore so than the constant stream of hikers? If you look at summits with natural disturbances like Tom which earlier in my hiking career had zero view or Cabot which has gained a semblance of view to the west due to blowdowns is there that much of a difference between a random natural occurrence and a manmade one? One of the management tools for forestry are patch cuts which are random openings in the forest generally caused by blowdowns or lighting strikes that allow edge habitat to be established. Will this clearing actually improve habitat diversity on this summit given the endless stream of people visiting it?

 

[Stan]

The question to me is does this patch alter an already impacted summit? Will wildlife be affected by the clearing anymore so than the constant stream of hikers? If you look at summits with natural disturbances like Tom which earlier in my hiking career had zero view or Cabot which has gained a semblance of view to the west due to blowdowns is there that much of a difference between a random natural occurrence and a manmade one? One of the management tools for forestry are patch cuts which are random openings in the forest generally caused by blowdowns or lighting strikes that allow edge habitat to be established. Will this clearing actually improve habitat diversity on this summit given the endless stream of people visiting it?

Often, clearings will provide brouse that won't grow well under dense foilage and this will attract wildlife, most notably ungulates which are stressed in some areas of northern New England. Wildlife management areas and other landowners frequently provide such clearings to enhance conditions for wild game. Some go as far as to seed with native grasses and shrubs to improve the habitat.

I don't know how much WMNF does clear for this purpose anymore but when hiking, one can occasionally see such "deer yards" in proximity to dense evergreen coverage which provides food and winter shelter. They're often a good place to spot moose or deer around dawn and dusk.

I welcome view clearings on mountain tops as an additional reward for the summit as long as they're not done recklessly to start an unnecessary and unwanted erosion process. Aesthetics and wildlife have equal standing to lists, redlines and times in my hiking world.

 

[DayTrip]

I don't have an axe to grind in this one way or the other but I'm not a fan. My original thought was if they turned a blind eye to this on Tecumseh would it start happening in other places. Wasn't there another trail in the Whites recently that had some controversial clearings cut on it? (As usual my memory is failing me but I believe they were authorized in that case. Were large sections opened up on the lower parts of the trail on steep banks). Starting to see tons of non essential cairns being built everywhere as "art" on summits, above treeline, in river beds. Where does it stop?

Seems to fly in the face of Leave No Trace. I'm not a big fan of artificially creating elements in nature that weren't there in the first place. Seems like a symptom of the "next generation" of hiker that wants the payoff without the effort (i.e. that great view on Bondcliff is too far so why not clear cut the top of Tecumseh instead because it's an easier hike). I like finding things in nature as close to how they were at the beginning as possible. If you want great views there are plenty of hikes where you already have them. You don't need to manufacture any. And if you aren't fit enough for the hikes you can still enjoy these views in many places with tram rides, auto roads and scenic vistas along highways.

 

[peakbagger]

I agree that a broad brush approach to view clearing could be detrimental. On the other hand the ranger district in that area has a long term heavy hand on management which I suspect most would object to. Samples of the heavy hand are the resources wasted on Owls Head, The bridge removal over the Wilderness trail and the upcoming Thoreau Fall bridge removal. Sometimes they need to pick their battles better and a view on Tecumseh in my opinion should be pretty low on the priority list.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

So by that reasoning, if an all-volunteer group rebuilt the bridge one day under cover of darkness...

Tim

 

[Jazzbo]

I agree with Peakbagger's point of view. Tecumseh has conical summit cone and amount of clearing is minimal to maintain the view. it would be preferable to have it maintained by skilled maintainer. Enhancing views on some peaks would work to spread ever-increasing trail usage over more trails rather than the limited number of peaks with views. Many summits are flat topped and short of catastrophic weather event will never have views. Many so-called view-less peaks have very fine view ledges on or not far from the trail that could benefit from enhancement. South Resolution (as mentioned in WMG) is incredible fine view ledge will never need brushing, but the little spur trail that leads to it always needs brushing and a sign informing hikers it is there.

 

[DayTrip]

Enhancing views on some peaks would work to spread ever-increasing trail usage over more trails rather than the limited number of peaks with views.

That's a good point. I'm all for spreading out the crowds and their impact. I still think there are plenty of summits 2-3 miles from trail heads for tremendous views though. Is the ultimate goal preserving the natural state of the White Mountains or making it as easily accessible to as many people as possible?

 

[DayTrip]

the resources wasted on Owls Head,

Only did Owl's Head once and quite frankly it is well down my list of favorites but I don't recall any structures, bridges, drainages, etc to suck up resources on that route. Seemed pretty untouched. What are the resources used for that area - is maintenance at 13 Falls site considered part of that area, ranger patrols for illegal camping, etc? I've read about the cairns to Owl's Head spur (being unofficial trail) getting taken down. Is that happening more than I realize? I guess I always associate resource use with physical structures and trail work. What other types of things do monies get used for in specific areas?

 

[peakbagger]

You missed the "battle of owls head" a few years back. The FS decided to remove the path and remove the signage on the summit. The FS would send an employee out to remove cairns and signs and the hiking public would undo the work a day or two later. This went on for months. One unnamed individual made up numerous summit signs and offered to supply them to anyone heading up. One of the more humorous points was when an alleged FS employee posted on VFTT chastising the hiking public for forcing the FS to expend so many resources in implementing policy, the feedback to them was that perhaps they needed to elect to manage some other policy. It gradually tapered off to the current state where the cairns remain but if a permanent sign is installed it seems to disappear.

My observations this summer were that there sure wasn't heavy enforcement of wilderness area camping regulations especially along the Bondcliff trail. I would expect that the majority of staff time is spent in the front country versus backcountry.

 

[sierra]

I like the view and I'm glad it's been cleared. As far as leaving the mountains in their natural state, have you not seen all the logging the forest service has authorized? It's done on an ugly way, leaving scars on the landscape that takes years and years to grow over. So excuse me if I'm not offended by a small clearing that hikers can enjoy, that absolutely not bother anyone who doesn't go up there. As far as LNT, I find that argument to fail on many levels. Huts, fs view points, rest areas on the kanc, the Cog. We can't have a small view on a nice peak?

 

[TJsName]

Hmmm, on a peak with a ski area with great SWATHS of clearcuts (aka "ski trails"), a large area of satellite/radio towers, etc., it seems kinda silly to get so upset about clearing for hiker views. Perhaps the $ spent on kiosk(s) and signs could be better spent? (I haven't seen the actual signs or recent cuttings as I haven't been there since maybe winter)

I'm wondering if you've noticed the price tag on the kiosk across from the Osseo trail (I think it's about not taking railroad spikes). I believe the price tag is for $259.

As for the general thread, I don't have a problem with a view clearing being added so long as it's done well (not just a stumpy clear-cut with a pile of brush).

 

[DayTrip]

You missed the "battle of owls head" a few years back. The FS decided to remove the path and remove the signage on the summit. The FS would send an employee out to remove cairns and signs and the hiking public would undo the work a day or two later. This went on for months. One unnamed individual made up numerous summit signs and offered to supply them to anyone heading up. One of the more humorous points was when an alleged FS employee posted on VFTT chastising the hiking public for forcing the FS to expend so many resources in implementing policy, the feedback to them was that perhaps they needed to elect to manage some other policy. It gradually tapered off to the current state where the cairns remain but if a permanent sign is installed it seems to disappear.

My observations this summer were that there sure wasn't heavy enforcement of wilderness area camping regulations especially along the Bondcliff trail. I would expect that the majority of staff time is spent in the front country versus backcountry.

Gotcha. Thanks. I'm pretty green to the politics and posturing on a lot of these issues. Had no idea it was so heated.

 

[DayTrip]

I like the view and I'm glad it's been cleared. As far as leaving the mountains in their natural state, have you not seen all the logging the forest service has authorized? It's done on an ugly way, leaving scars on the landscape that takes years and years to grow over. So excuse me if I'm not offended by a small clearing that hikers can enjoy, that absolutely not bother anyone who doesn't go up there. As far as LNT, I find that argument to fail on many levels. Huts, fs view points, rest areas on the kanc, the Cog. We can't have a small view on a nice peak?

I presume this was directed at me. It is my understanding - correct me if I am wrong - that Leave No Trace is a relatively new program to preserve and protect the current state of the forest. I'm certainly not taking the stand that Tecumseh is a glaring and obvious exception to an otherwise flawless program of preservation in NH. Tecumseh is out in the back country (sort of). Most of the things you reference are right off roads that have existed for centuries and do not influence the back country and it's overall condition (other than the obvious exception of logging - a commercial endeavor that I don't think pertains the the other things here. Money rules out in just about all things). The Cog has been around forever and has historical significance. As far as the huts quite honestly I'm not a big fan of those either. I don't use them, never got water in one and don't care for the huge crowds that seem to hover around them all the time. Detracts from the wilderness experience in my book. They have also been around for what, 100 years now (some anyway)? So my take on Leave No Trace is that we have done enough to the woods already, realize it is in jeopardy to an extent and want to take steps to prevent a further decline in the areas we enjoy so much. It's not a way back machine for erasing 200 years of transgressions.

My only point in this is that the mountains seem to be getting an unprecedented amount of use and it is starting to show, and negatively in many ways (erosion, litter, crowds, the stupid little faux-cairns that are popping up everywhere, etc). I think the woods are a place to be enjoyed as they are, not molded and modified to suit short term needs and the whims of a wave of popularity. There is a sorely lacking level of respect for these areas by many and to see more and more initiatives "glam up" the forest is troubling. That's all. And the changes on Tecumseh have been done without authorization (i.e. f$%^ the rules. I'm doing what I want). While I can see there is a whole lot of disagreement about the Forestry Service, it's goals, it's decisions and how it's managed, etc, etc at some point there have to be rules that we adhere to whether we like it or not. And if we don't like it there are processes to bring about change just like any other law or policy. A lot of people on this forum do just that, and quite diligently I might add. I'm more concerned about the precedent of an unauthorized clearing and the implications it has for future clearings, than the actual clearing itself, which to reiterate is a nice spot and really not out of character with that particular area.