Depends on your definition of "relatively new". I heard about and tried to practice LNT in the early/mid seventies...
TomK
Tecumseh view clearing
- Thread starter sierra
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Depends on your definition of "relatively new". I heard about and tried to practice LNT in the early/mid seventies...
TomK
Amy
New member
I just did Tecumseh for the first time last month. Beautiful weather, had the entire trail and summit to myself, didn't see another person all day. I went up the back trail (can't remember the name and don't have my maps with me) not the ski side. I saw no signs of clear-cutting. Did I miss it or is the clear-cutting on the approach from the ski area? What I did see was a beautiful view with hundreds of dragon flies (too many to make for comfortable napping).
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 254
Yes. I was thinking a few decades versus two hundred years for a lot of roads and trails, etc.
nartreb
Well-known member
Amy,
See those tree stumps at lower left in your photo?
In 2002 the view was more like this:
http://www.davidalbeck.com/photos/tecumseh_su_02/img3.jpg
All you can see is the area just to the right of your bigger dragonfly.
See those tree stumps at lower left in your photo?
In 2002 the view was more like this:
http://www.davidalbeck.com/photos/tecumseh_su_02/img3.jpg
All you can see is the area just to the right of your bigger dragonfly.
Don't forget it's a National Forest (not a National Park). It's under the Departmeny of Agriculture and its tag line is "Land of many uses." One of which is logging.
Tim
Tim
RollingRock
Active member
When does a National Forest become a National Park? Through an act of Congress? I'm not sure.
If WMNF became a National Park, does cutting down trees to provide views for hikers then become OK? I'm not sure.
My point is this, I think through public opinion, we are starting to question the Forest Service policies because we use the WMNF as if it is a National Park. Forest Service tearing down bridges, shelters, etc. rather than rebuilding and/or maintaining. I think many of us have stood by silently watching the implementation of this policy but I think the tearing down of the Thoreau Falls bridge has led people to say ENOUGH!
Sorry for veering off the main topic of this thread but I have no problem with maintaining views that existed many years ago for all to enjoy from a summit. Perhaps this is something a National Park would do...I don't know. But I think the Forest Service needs to relax its stance with these sort of issues and realize that the public really does see the WMNF as a National Park. Policies can change...unless the people in charge like to be 'control freaks' and enjoy using their authority to make people unhappy.
Raven
Well-known member
Some thoughts: the view from Tecumseh has changed substantially in the past decade. I like the view.
I think the concern here is not whether the view is acceptable to us or not, but whether it is acceptable to us that anyone who feels like it can clear a summit view. That's letting the end justify the means.
I get the argument that since there's already buildings, lifts, motors, belts, and chairs up there, what's a few missing trees to leave a nice view. Makes sense, but again, if anyone can do that, there will be no trees left to look at. I don't want random hikers and other people making decisions about what views to clear, where to clear them, whether to leave stumps, etc.
Think of the threads we have had concerning hiker responsibility this year....toilet paper all over the place, no regard for 200' rule, camping anywhere and everywhere, groups of 30, fake dog IDs in Baxter, and so on........I don't want these same hikers deciding anything about views and viewpoints and certainly don't think they should be cutting down trees at will. That could get out of control quickly.
I like the view on Tecumseh and the view from Starr King. But just because I'd like one from Hale as well doesn't mean I should go up and cut one....come Hale or high water.
I think the concern here is not whether the view is acceptable to us or not, but whether it is acceptable to us that anyone who feels like it can clear a summit view. That's letting the end justify the means.
I get the argument that since there's already buildings, lifts, motors, belts, and chairs up there, what's a few missing trees to leave a nice view. Makes sense, but again, if anyone can do that, there will be no trees left to look at. I don't want random hikers and other people making decisions about what views to clear, where to clear them, whether to leave stumps, etc.
Think of the threads we have had concerning hiker responsibility this year....toilet paper all over the place, no regard for 200' rule, camping anywhere and everywhere, groups of 30, fake dog IDs in Baxter, and so on........I don't want these same hikers deciding anything about views and viewpoints and certainly don't think they should be cutting down trees at will. That could get out of control quickly.
I like the view on Tecumseh and the view from Starr King. But just because I'd like one from Hale as well doesn't mean I should go up and cut one....come Hale or high water.
Jazzbo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 171
Some thoughts: the view from Tecumseh has changed substantially in the past decade. I like the view.
I think the concern here is not whether the view is acceptable to us or not, but whether it is acceptable to us that anyone who feels like it can clear a summit view. That's letting the end justify the means.
I get the argument that since there's already buildings, lifts, motors, belts, and chairs up there, what's a few missing trees to leave a nice view. Makes sense, but again, if anyone can do that, there will be no trees left to look at. I don't want random hikers and other people making decisions about what views to clear, where to clear them, whether to leave stumps, etc.
Think of the threads we have had concerning hiker responsibility this year....toilet paper all over the place, no regard for 200' rule, camping anywhere and everywhere, groups of 30, fake dog IDs in Baxter, and so on........I don't want these same hikers deciding anything about views and viewpoints and certainly don't think they should be cutting down trees at will. That could get out of control quickly.
I like the view on Tecumseh and the view from Starr King. But just because I'd like one from Hale as well doesn't mean I should go up and cut one....come Hale or high water.
Perhaps what is needed here is some form of citizens or users group independent of the FS . AMC used to perform this function and still does to certain extent. AMC used to have sub-committee which was once called "Improvements Committee". They were involved in early trail development in WMNF. They represented interests of the hiking communitee probably getting permission from USFS to build new trails or modify existing trails. I think there still exists such an AMC body, but I'm not knowledgeable in its current state or what it does these days. Emphasis has shifted to maintenance rather than building new trails. Anyway such a committee might propose measures like restoring or creating new view points.
One could get involved with such a committee - but expect to attend many meetings. Meetings are fine, but take much time and traveling. Time is short for most of us. Users are dispersed all over NE - these days volunteering and participating in committees must go the route of some form of online forum route.
Last edited:
RollingRock
Active member
Agreed. The problem is that with the Forest Service policy of not clearing views on summits that once existed, people are starting to take matters into their own hands. This problem will probably continue for the Forest Service until they change their policy...I find this no different than the Forest Service improving the pull-offs off the Kancamagus Highway by clearing trees to improve the view and improving the facilities. It's OK to clear views for tourists but not for hikers reaching summits...we are not talking about a lot of trees here folks.
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,014
- Reaction score
- 254
This was the point I was laboring to make. You'd think something as simple as this wouldn't be so muddied in multiple organizations and elaborate processes. I wish I understood more about the organizations involved in all of this. As another poster eluded to, it shouldn't take so much time to follow and participate in these functions. The joy of government bureaucracy.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,087
- Reaction score
- 161
Regarding Forest Service vs. Park Service, as Tim pointed out, these are very different agencies (with a different reporting chain all the way up to the President). The Forest Service reports to the Department of Agriculture; the Park Service reports into the Derpartment of the Interior. In VERY broad terms, USFS mission is the best use of the land; NPS mission is the protection of specific parks. My (very broad brush) perception from travels out west is that the Forest Service is generally friendlier and more welcoming than the Park Service, everywhere we went. If you made the WMNF into the WMNP, many current recreational activities would be immediately locked out; one bridge would be the least of your problems.
I think in the Pemi you are dealing with local management with a bad attitude. Have seen the same here in the ADKs from time to time. Current regulatory approach here seems relatively balanced, and they are doing a pretty good job. (The sign of a good job is that there are about the same number of self-marginalized radicals on both sides of most issues.) But we have been through periods of bad management. Within the last ten years, those same regulatory agencies have conducted hate-filled vendettas against local landowners more than once. The bad actors who perpetrated this are out of the agencies now, and more sensible ideas are prevailing. You need to try to clear out the bad apples; it's a long and painful process.
I think in the Pemi you are dealing with local management with a bad attitude. Have seen the same here in the ADKs from time to time. Current regulatory approach here seems relatively balanced, and they are doing a pretty good job. (The sign of a good job is that there are about the same number of self-marginalized radicals on both sides of most issues.) But we have been through periods of bad management. Within the last ten years, those same regulatory agencies have conducted hate-filled vendettas against local landowners more than once. The bad actors who perpetrated this are out of the agencies now, and more sensible ideas are prevailing. You need to try to clear out the bad apples; it's a long and painful process.
Stan
Well-known member
When there is a void, someone will fill that vacuum. In this case, it sounds like the WMNF has created a void due to lack of funds to do the job properly ... a pervasive problem across the board in government functions as it bites off more than it can chew ... and it also suggests there are two discussions going on: 1. whether clearing views at summits, or elsewhere, is appropriate, and 2. if and where it is appropriate, who can clear it.
On item 1. I think it is appropriate but that depends on where as there are inappropriate places where I think we'd it agree it shouldn't happen, most notably wilderness areas or where it can create problems such as erosion. Aside from that it is debateable depending upon one's personal perspective and that's what a democracy is for ... but an informed populace is important to the functioning of that democracy.
On item 2. It is the landowner's responsibility and though it may be delegated, it should be done within bounds of good forestry practice. Done right it not only creates views, it can create an under story healthy in many respects. Might also serve as a firebreak in some instances. I guess it should be done in the context of a larger forestry plan. So, if WMNF doesn't have funds it should provide leadership. When it does neither ...
On item 1. I think it is appropriate but that depends on where as there are inappropriate places where I think we'd it agree it shouldn't happen, most notably wilderness areas or where it can create problems such as erosion. Aside from that it is debateable depending upon one's personal perspective and that's what a democracy is for ... but an informed populace is important to the functioning of that democracy.
On item 2. It is the landowner's responsibility and though it may be delegated, it should be done within bounds of good forestry practice. Done right it not only creates views, it can create an under story healthy in many respects. Might also serve as a firebreak in some instances. I guess it should be done in the context of a larger forestry plan. So, if WMNF doesn't have funds it should provide leadership. When it does neither ...
JustJoe
Active member
Not sure if this is the trail you're talking about. Saw this on the Gale River Trail in mid Sept. of last year. And I'm pretty sure it was'n there in early August. A good 30' swath of spruce laid out in a pile for not much of view even on a clear day I'd imagine. Pretty ugly and unnecessary. I've no idea if this was, or was not authorized. But in my eyes, it's damned ugly.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
In discussion with past WMNF employees, its easy to decide to enforce something in the rulebook. The rules say no one can cut trees and that possession of tools to cut trees is illegal. Someone in the public complains and if the FS supervisor decides its a priority, an employee goes out and enforces the rules. On the other hand clearing a view is a policy decision that must laboriously wind its way through a slow system that is suffering from serious budget limitations. As another employee commented at one point ten plus years ago, in the old days they could do what is right but now they have to go through the bureaucracy to change the color of the toilet paper in the outhouses.
As this thread shows, everyone has differing opinions on clearing. The easiest management approach by the WMNF is to ignore things and let mother nature take its course which as we are all experiencing is to let the trail system decay to the point where the trails can be discontinued.
A friend who is in theory the volunteer maintainer of a trail in a designated wilderness area has explained to me that all he really gets to maintain is the memory of what the trail had been before, he is allowed to pick up litter and report major blowdowns but blazing, or any trimming or clipping is strictly forbidden. He goes out on limb and throws dead branches out of the trail bed but he suspects that even that is frowned on.
Thus the system is primed to do nothing, so private initiative takes over. There are certain lines that the hiking public seem to support like the prohibition about building new unauthorized trails (I.E. the double bubble nubble trail) but other things like maintaining the Hale Firewarden's trail and its glade skiing runs seems to get tacit support. My perception is that view clearing tend to be on the tacit support side of the majority of the hiking public especially on 4Ks.
I expect many folks have hiked the path through the woods to the Zealand summit, they may not realize that that path is relatively new, previously the woods were interlaced with paths spreading the damage over a wide area, at some point the current path was hardened, a summit arbitrarily delineated with a sign at some arbitrary spot to reduce the impact. Wildcat E and Cabot both exhibit similar threading off the trail to reach the "official high spot" and I wouldn't be surprised when these paths get hardened to cut down on degradation of the summit area. Previously both these summits were regarded as climbed when going over the high spot on the trail but certain purists started commenting that these summits hadn't truly been climbed unless the woods were trampled until the true high spot was obtained. This approach to hardening in also apparently formal policy in the ADKs where herd paths have been hardened to prevent overall degradation to the alpine zone. I have seen similar 4K summit "herd" clearings on North Tripyramid. Middle Carter and South (or Middle) Hancock and expect they will get further view enhancement in the future.
As this thread shows, everyone has differing opinions on clearing. The easiest management approach by the WMNF is to ignore things and let mother nature take its course which as we are all experiencing is to let the trail system decay to the point where the trails can be discontinued.
A friend who is in theory the volunteer maintainer of a trail in a designated wilderness area has explained to me that all he really gets to maintain is the memory of what the trail had been before, he is allowed to pick up litter and report major blowdowns but blazing, or any trimming or clipping is strictly forbidden. He goes out on limb and throws dead branches out of the trail bed but he suspects that even that is frowned on.
Thus the system is primed to do nothing, so private initiative takes over. There are certain lines that the hiking public seem to support like the prohibition about building new unauthorized trails (I.E. the double bubble nubble trail) but other things like maintaining the Hale Firewarden's trail and its glade skiing runs seems to get tacit support. My perception is that view clearing tend to be on the tacit support side of the majority of the hiking public especially on 4Ks.
I expect many folks have hiked the path through the woods to the Zealand summit, they may not realize that that path is relatively new, previously the woods were interlaced with paths spreading the damage over a wide area, at some point the current path was hardened, a summit arbitrarily delineated with a sign at some arbitrary spot to reduce the impact. Wildcat E and Cabot both exhibit similar threading off the trail to reach the "official high spot" and I wouldn't be surprised when these paths get hardened to cut down on degradation of the summit area. Previously both these summits were regarded as climbed when going over the high spot on the trail but certain purists started commenting that these summits hadn't truly been climbed unless the woods were trampled until the true high spot was obtained. This approach to hardening in also apparently formal policy in the ADKs where herd paths have been hardened to prevent overall degradation to the alpine zone. I have seen similar 4K summit "herd" clearings on North Tripyramid. Middle Carter and South (or Middle) Hancock and expect they will get further view enhancement in the future.
Tom_Murphy
Member
USFS criteria for brushing out trails
I was a trail adopter of a remote trail in a designated wilderness area until this past season [LBT from Owl Head slide to 13 Falls].
At the USFS training class each spring, I was instructed to brush out the trail using the criteria of a "door being swept along the path". I was also taught to cut at the base of the tree branch. Rather than blazing, I was encouraged to brush in any confusing spurs or herd paths.
I was taking a "bonsai tree" light handed approach. About 3 years ago, an AMC trail crew came through cleared a pretty big trail corridor.
I was a trail adopter of a remote trail in a designated wilderness area until this past season [LBT from Owl Head slide to 13 Falls].
At the USFS training class each spring, I was instructed to brush out the trail using the criteria of a "door being swept along the path". I was also taught to cut at the base of the tree branch. Rather than blazing, I was encouraged to brush in any confusing spurs or herd paths.
I was taking a "bonsai tree" light handed approach. About 3 years ago, an AMC trail crew came through cleared a pretty big trail corridor.
JCarter
Member
Yeah, if a trail adopter in a Wilderness thinks he's forbidden to trim brush from a designated trail, he got different training than I did. The corridor should be narrower, so trimming is less aggressive, but not non-existent. Also, you generally won't find new rockwork in the Wilderness.
A very interesting thread. I probably can't say it any better than Raven did in post #27. Speaking of Hale, there was a guy who used to take pleasure in posting outrageous comments on the old AMC bulletin board who once advocated taking a blow torch to the summit of Hale and clearing out the view. I don't think he was serious. He was known for his inflammatory statements.
Jazzbo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 171
An interesting and comic twist on this topic. One time we went up mt Hale in April during big snow winter and an enterprising and eccentric guy was up there with snow shovels. Snow had a firm crust and he was cutting and stacking snow to the point where he had constructed a very fine 360 degree viewing tower made of snow which enabled us to enjoy a exceedingly fine view of neighboring summits. We all put in some time adding to his tower. Carrigain is a special case with it's tower which was renovated by FS in recent past.
Last edited:
Driver8
New member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Messages
- 779
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with this, but have to say, also, I hated seeing all the stumps and dead tree parts when I visited Tecumseh almost two years ago. A little trim here and there is one thing. Leveling a significant patch of established forest, as there, is another. Had the view been maintained over time, that would be perhaps more acceptable.
Last edited:
