VFTT (and Owl's Head) make the local news

[kltilton]

Back when the Wildcats peaks were changed, how did they know which peak was higher? I thought I read on Dave Metzky's site that the peaks were re-surveyed. I could just imagine doing differential leveling from Lincoln Woods, up the slide and to the summit.

 

[Raymond]

I thought it was just a newer map (maybe metric) being published that resulted in the change of Wildcat E to Wildcat D on the 4000-footer list. But I wouldn't swear to that.

 

[RoySwkr]

Back when the Wildcats peaks were changed, how did they know which peak was higher? I thought I read on Dave Metzky's site that the peaks were re-surveyed. I could just imagine doing differential leveling from Lincoln Woods, up the slide and to the summit.

Wildcats appear on Brad Washburn's map which is more accurate than the USGS, I believe he did his surveying with prisms as GPS was not readily available then. The new USGS map also shows "D" with one more contour than "E", that was presumably done with photogrammetry.

Didn't I read about some surveyor from the Conway area who could get up Carrigain in an hour? How long do you think it would take him to lug the theodolite up to Mt. Lincoln and survey the cols there, no trees to cut

 

[Steve-o]

I think most of the people who set off to attain this peak would of gladly done the extra .1 or .2 to reach this summit, if we knew it was there.
I know, doing this peak again is not exactly high on my wish list.
I say we let it sllllide,until otherwise notified.

Steve

 

[Eric Savage]

FTFC Chair Weighs In

I agree that it's pretty clear that the sign/end of the herd path is not the true summit. However, there is hope for those of you who have already bagged 'it'.

First of all, past ascents of Owl's Head will almost certainly be grandfathered - it has been done once before. This is not the first time that the summit has 'moved' and the last time it happened, past ascents were grandfathered. There will likely be some kind of grace period (the grace period when the lists were revised was three years) during which you can count the present peak. Although we purists would encourage everyone to go to the true summit, it is the Committee's feeling that the 4K lists should not require extensive bushwhacking so until/unless a new herd path is established (and Wilderness issues worked out...), we will probably accept either one.

Secondly, if you did the peak before the mid-90's, you may be OK after all. I'm not sure when the present herd path was worn down and blazed (anyone know?) but it is definitely not the one that I took to the summmit in 1989. I knew that when I went back in 2002 (and this past May) but it wasn't until I caught this discussion on VFTT that I realized that the present *summit* might not be the one I went to in 1989.

On my next trip, I plan to try to find the older herd path, which in my opinion was much better placed (I'm especally disappointed by the fact that today's path heads so far up the small brook at the top of the slide - the old path took a sharp left at the top of the slide and the water coming down was good drinking).

If anyone else has memories of the older herd path, please share.

 

[Eric Savage]

Lincoln and inadequate cols

I don't see how the Four Thousand Footer Committee can address the Owl's Head "issue" without addressing Lincoln as well. Is it or ain't it an inadequate col? If they're going to go down this path, then I think in the interest of "intellectual honesty" that someone (perhaps Dr. D.) should measure a true col depth and put that issue to bed as well. It's either precision or tradition but not both.

The Committee has already established a policy concerning questionable cols (such as Lincoln, Bondcliff, PAtN, etc.). When the list was originally put together and in a couple of early revisions, all peaks with one questionable col were included (Guyot has two, which is why it didn't make the cut). In the latest revision however, it was decided that a peak had to be definitely adequate or inadequate to get on or be kicked off the list. So Lincoln stays since it is not *clearly* inadequate according to the USGS. (An exception was made in the case of South Hancock for sentimental reasons.)
We consider the USGS topo maps to be the final authority (though, yes, there may still be some inaccuracies to be worked out in some future edition). We do not believe that col measurements based on GPS readings are accurate enough to decide the status (or exact height) of a peak (if you think finding the summit of Owl's Head is tricky, try finding the exact point of most cols! - never mind the margin of error of the machine itself).

 

[smitty77]

Secondly, if you did the peak before the mid-90's, you may be OK after all. I'm not sure when the present herd path was worn down and blazed (anyone know?) but it is definitely not the one that I took to the summmit in 1989. I knew that when I went back in 2002 (and this past May) but it wasn't until I caught this discussion on VFTT that I realized that the present *summit* might not be the one I went to in 1989.
If anyone else has memories of the older herd path, please share.

My first and only ascent was in 1989, and like you I don't remember much in the way of a path to the summit, or a sign, so I've been secretly wondering if I tagged the summit at all. I think I remember hanging a left at the top of the slide, but unfortunately, it's been so long and I was rather young at the time, so I don't have very vivid memories. One of the only ones I do have of the trip was on the slide where we found a small piece of notebook paper sitting on a large rock and held in place by a small stone. On it was written SPRING with an arrow, pointing to a little trickle of water coming out from under the rocks. Hardly a "spring" we were thinking. The stupid things the mind remembers....

I'll see if I can get Max to chime in since he's been there 4 or more times over 30 years. He might be able to recall where the trail went back then.

Smitty

 

[Periwinkle]

On my next trip, I plan to try to find the older herd path, which in my opinion was much better placed (I'm especally disappointed by the fact that today's path heads so far up the small brook at the top of the slide - the old path took a sharp left at the top of the slide and the water coming down was good drinking). If anyone else has memories of the older herd path, please share.

If I remember correctly from my 09/16/04 trip, the left is still visible at the "spring", then peters outs. I remember this because I followed it (can't resist a herd path!)

There are also a few faint herd paths heading north from the marked summit. I followed these as well, partly out of curiosity, mainly because my GPS said the trail continued past the sign. I'll have to check my tracks later -- I may have made the "true" summit after all!

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Back from summiting my 49th state high point

Great thread! I did not mean to start so much controversy when I carried one of my surveying altimeters to Owls Head on my bushwhack traverse to Galehead on July 21st with Weedhopper (well, maybe I did a little).

I think that Roy and others have it pretty much right that the USGS 7.5-minute topo map probably has the OH summit location ok with an estimated 4025-ft elevation, which was no doubt determined (estimated) by machine in drawing contours from aerial photographs, as was done with all of the 7.5-minute provisional topos in the the 1980s, and not surveyed. So, many of the GPS readings noted above are probably correct that the 4025-ft estimated highest summit is about 0.2 mile north of the sign (or the formerly signed tree). I still need to reduce my own GPS data from July 21st to confirm the locations. My surveying altimeter only provided relative 20- to 30-ft higher differences in elevation between the signed tree and the higher bumps along the ridge to the north. There is certainly no need to use a surveying transit to resolve such large differences; we are not concerned with constructing a leach field or whatever here. So, the signed tree, as noted by others above, could be right around 4000 ft in elevation (+/- 5 ft), if we accept the USGS 4025-ft elevation for highest point about 0.2 mile to the north.

IMHO, based on my time working at the USGS Denver Fed Center in the 1970s, where topo maps are produced, the old 15-minute topo maps, which were drawn by human hand and eyeball, are far more accurate in respect to contours and elevations than are the newer 7.5-minute provisional topo maps, which were drawn much more quickly by machine with limited ground truthing. Insider rumor has it that some USGS bureaucrat rushed these provisional maps to completion in the 1980s to please some folks in Congress, who in return cut off further funding to take the provisional maps to their final versions. Sound familiar? Like the USFS and BLM fee demo programs?

Nevertheless, I feel that the FTFC must work with the most recent versions of USGS topo maps for consistency and to avoid anarchy. Thus, the issue of whether or not a summit has a 200-ft col separating it from all nearest neighbors will always be more problematic in my view, as many of the 7.5-minute topo maps are equivocal in this regard. In contrast, the Owls Head summit issue is now a slam dunk, given the USGS 4025-ft elevation on the topo map, my new surveying altimeter elevation data, and the GPS location data of others. Only time will tell whether the "herd path" is extended to the true summit of Owls Head.

Finally, I think that Mike Dickerman's articles in the Littleton Courier are wonderful, as are Steve Smith's articles in the Mountain Ear; these two guys are my favorite "lurkers" on VFTT!

 

[RoySwkr]

Although we purists would encourage everyone to go to the true summit, it is the Committee's feeling that the 4K lists should not require extensive bushwhacking so until/unless a new herd path is established (and Wilderness issues worked out...), we will probably accept either one.

Well, that will make Owls Head a lot easier, if you can count the 2nd
crossing on the Lincoln Brook Trail as the summit

Apparently in the past the Forest Service has removed the cairn at the
bottom of the trail, now they have apparently removed the cairn and sign
from the summit. Maybe next they will fell trees across the herd path as
at Imp Cut-Off and the end of the Black Pond Trail, turning the hike back
into a bushwhack as in the '60s.

Previously I stated that the 4K Club didn't need to get involved, but
with this latest I have changed my mind. The latest Wilderness maps
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_...df_documents/PLAN/E_PLAN_wilderness_mgt_c.pdf
(Isolation p.E-35 Owls Head p.E-37) don't show either the spur to Owls
Head or the spur to Isolation which may be why the sign at the Isolation
spur has vanished. The AMC needs to assert that these trails have in fact
existed for many years and thus should have cairns and signs like other
trails. They should receive official maintenance and adopters like other
trails, and the 4K Club could adopt one in lieu of any other trail they
may have adopted.

Secondly, if you did the peak before the mid-90's, you may be OK after all. I'm not sure when the present herd path was worn down and blazed (anyone know?) but it is definitely not the one that I took to the summmit in 1989. I knew that when I went back in 2002 (and this past May) but it wasn't until I caught this discussion on VFTT that I realized that the present *summit* might not be the one I went to in 1989.

Hmm, you may be right about the path approaching from the W.
I know that Frank Pilar (a former 4K Committee member and outstanding
hiker) has photos of Mt washington from Owls Head through a narrow pass
by Guyot taken on a very clear day in the 70s. If copies of these photos
(and another clear day) could be obtained, it might be possible to determine if they were taken from the present pseudo-summit. And while GPS track logs were uncommon back then, AMC pubs may have a track log for the new mapping project and you could see if the trail really went to 4025 as the map shows or whether some cartographer fudged it.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Another rant

Does anyone else see the irony that USFS personnel have the time to rip down signs and cairns that essentially pre-date Wilderness area designation, but no funds or time to do the most meager of maintenance on their 470+ miles of trails in the Whites? What are they doing with our parking fees, besides improving toilet facilities for the RV crowd?

 

[nartreb]

We do not believe that col measurements based on GPS readings are accurate enough to decide the status (or exact height) of a peak (if you think finding the summit of Owl's Head is tricky, try finding the exact point of most cols! - never mind the margin of error of the machine itself).

Actually, in an above-treeline case like Lincoln, that should be absolute child's play. Can you spot the col? How about here? You might have to make two measurements, maybe even three!

As for the machine itself, while a pure GPS receiver would have a vertical accuracy of three meters at best, many units today include a barometric altimeter which is accurate to about one meter. You have to make sure it isn't "auto-calibrating" from GPS readings, but there's no need to calibrate precisely as long as the calibration is manual. All we care about is the DIFFERENCE in height from the summit. One-meter accuracy should be good enough to settle the controversy over most of the questionable cols. [Naturally you also want to make repeated measurements to eliminate barometric artifacts from weather.]
Everybody who reads this message board has had occasion to be unhappy with the USGS maps (which often don't even show the trails in the correct locations). Rather than sit around waiting for Washington to fix things, why can't we take the lead in coordinating some better measurements?

 

[Eric Savage]

never mind Peak above the Nubble

Actually, in an above-treeline case like Lincoln, that should be absolute child's play. You might have to make two measurements, maybe even three!

But would it be fair to kick Lincoln off because its col is easy to find and not Fort (which BTW does have a USGS measurement in the vicinity of the col that suggests only 199 feet of rise)?

 

[Puma concolor]

I say ... kick 'em all off. Personally, I prefer the way the 46Rs do things. Tradition rules. But the FTFC has a long standing precedent of NOT being traditional and adjusting/updating lists whenever a new survey comes out. It seems odd to me that the Committee is always eager to add mountains (Bondcliff, Galehead, Redington, Spaulding) or to change summit locations but is very gun shy about removing sham peaks from the list. A 200-foot col is lame enough as it is. No other major American peakbagging list uses such a shallow col requirement. If it can't meet that criteria, then (by your own precedent) it shouldn't be on the list.

Added 8/19 - OK the above isn't entirely accurate. The South Beyond 6000 Club also has a 200 foot col requirement. It's still lame, though.

 

[RoySwkr]

At the link below you can find Miriam Underhill's photo from the summit on the first "sporting" winter ascent circa 1970, note that it doesn't look much like the summit today. I was there on a clear enough day to see the towers on the bump she tentatively identified as Mt Washington.

I also include a scanned version of her trip report (from the last chapter of her autobiography "Give Me The Hills" which is not in the British edition) which I hope someone will OCR to text. Now is not the first time the 4K Club has marked the wrong summit of Owls Head, the question is whether Miriam got the right one I believe this is covered under the fair discussion exemption to the copyright laws, and I think Miriam herself would approve. Sorry about the quality, I was trying to keep the file size down. http://s92966274.onlinehome.us/underhil/underhil.htm

 

[DougPaul]

At the link below you can find Miriam Underhill's photo ...

Interesting.
Source?

Doug

 

[TDawg]

Any idea the year of that picture? Was it during the time when the forest was in the early stages of recovering from logging operations?

 

[Eric Savage]

A matter of proportion

A 200-foot col is lame enough as it is. No other major American peakbagging list uses such a shallow col requirement. If it can't meet that criteria, then (by your own precedent) it shouldn't be on the list.

Added 8/19 - OK the above isn't entirely accurate. The South Beyond 6000 Club also has a 200 foot col requirement. It's still lame, though.

But if you think in terms of a percentage of the elevation criteria, this would be equivalent to a 700-foot col requirement for the 14ers (what is the col requirement for the 14ers?).

 

[albee]

But if you think in terms of a percentage of the elevation criteria, this would be equivalent to a 700-foot col requirement for the 14ers (what is the col requirement for the 14ers?).

I don't know what the col requirement is out in Colorado, but aren't the trailhead elevations much higher, cancelling out the relevancy for height percentages? I bet if you look at elevation gains for Colorado hikes, you would see a lot of 4000-4500 foot climbs. I did a 13,000'+ mountain in Colorado but I started at 10,000' so it wasn't a big deal.

On a different note, since trail maintenance is prohibited in WMNF by unaffiliated personnel, would it be illegal if I "broke" a few branches while "bushwhacking" that extra 0.2 of a mile to the true summit? What is the penalty? How could they catch and prosecute you? And would this be against the Leave No Trace principles? Would forming a longer herd path really be detrimental to the environment and other people's enjoyment of this particular mountain?

Has there ever been a cannister on the true summit? I, for one, loved my trip to Owl's Head and would go again in a heartbeat.

 

[David Metsky]

A friend hiked Owl's Head on saturday and hiked most of the way with a FS ranger. She confimed that the FS has removed the cairns several times recently, including a small one that was build and removed on Sat. She reported that several folks had walked right past the slide trail and eventually turned around and found it on the way back.

I'm fine with no cairns and no sign, I thought it was pretty hard to miss the slide if you know how to read a map. There's no need to make this an official trail, and it would be pretty hard to get it through the FS paperwork anyways. A herd path will be established, and I can see taking a bit of effort to ensure that it's not a zoo, but I like the idea that one of the 4000'ers is quite a bit different from the others.

-dave-