Should Views Points be kept open?

[Tom Rankin]

Ok, read carefully:

Should EXISTING view points (whether man made or not) be kept open?

Or - should they be allowed to grow back in?

This was prompted by an article I read recently that had a debate on this subject. One person argued against cutting, and Dave and Carol White argued for. Please mention specific view points if you have any in mind.

 

[leaf]

I think viewpoints which were orginally man-made should be re-cut and kept open. Natural ones (such as a fire, etc) should be allowed to grow back.

When I worked for the AMC in Maine, we were told to cut trees for a viewpoint. I didn't have a problem with it because the trees in that particular forest had been owned by the lumber industries and been clear-cut for years before the AMC purchased the land. All the trees were skinny and weedy, secondary growth maple trees. Nothing of ecological value at that point because the wildlife (besides moose) left that area a long time ago.

 

[Quietman]

Here is a link to a previous debate on a similar subject.

Creating Viewpoints?

Lots of different views on this issue!

 

[Jason Berard]

I'm with Leaf.

There is an existing view on South Moose Mtn. which was created by a bulldozer trying to clear a path to the summit after a plane crash in '69, which was perpetuated by a caterpillar infestation, so I'm told. The view has been growing in (although the summit is still bare), and I plan to re-open it this summer, which I have been given approval for, as the trail maintainer for that section. I plan on trying to make it look as natural as I can.....but the view from there used to be phemomenal. Where once one could see Smart's, Cube, Moosilauke, Franconia Ridge, Bondcliff, WASHINGTON, and more to the east and south, it is now only possible to see Cardigan, and the nearby peaks.

 

[MichaelJ]

I think they should be allowed to be maintained if the people who know better than your average hiker, in other words the ecologists, biologists, rangers, botanists, etc., feel it's acceptable on a case-by-case basis.

 

[funkyfreddy]

I didn't vote in the poll because I think that SOME view points should and others shouldn't be maintained. View points should be sorted out on a case by case basis.....lol.

One viewpoint that I think should be kept open is on the summit of Slide Mt. in the Catskills. The view from its summit has been getting more obscure over the years due to the growing trees.... trimming some of them wouldn't a crime against the forest in my opinion. I would even think that restoring the fire tower that used to be on it's summit might not be such a bad idea.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I didn't vote in the poll because I think that SOME view points should and others shouldn't be maintained. View points should be sorted out on a case by case basis.....lol.

One viewpoint that I think should be kept open is on the summit of Slide Mt. in the Catskills. The view from its summit has been getting more obscure over the years due to the growing trees.... trimming some of them wouldn't a crime against the forest in my opinion. I would even think that restoring the fire tower that used to be on it's summit might not be such a bad idea.

Technically, it was an observation platform, not a fire tower. But as far as Slide goes, I agree with you. When you climb to the highest point in the Catskills, you kind of expect to get views!

 

[rhihn]

Technically, it was an observation platform, not a fire tower. But as far as Slide goes, I agree with you. When you climb to the highest point in the Catskills, you kind of expect to get views!

But what about the views on Sugarloaf, with treetops lopped off, if I remember correctly!

 

[kmorgan]

I voted yes, but have mixed feelings on the subject. I love the views, and that's one of the main reasons for my love of hiking. I'd prefer the least damage/destruction to the environment maintaining them, however. If a view can be kept by simply making a side trail to a open location I would prefer that to cutting the trees.

Kevin

 

[Tom Rankin]

I voted yes, but have mixed feelings on the subject. I love the views, and that's one of the main reasons for my love of hiking. I'd prefer the least damage/destruction to the environment maintaining them, however. If a view can be kept by simply making a side trail to a open location I would prefer that to cutting the trees.

Kevin

Ummm.... Keeping a side trail open requires cutting trees too!


I guess there is one difference, there is no open man-made view point on the side of the mountain that is visible from afar...

 

[sleeping bear]

I don't really have an opinion on the subject at hand, but I do find Leaf's statement interesting.

Nothing of ecological value

Value is subjective. If there was no ecological value the trees wouldn't be growing there in the first place.

 

[kmorgan]

Ummm.... Keeping a side trail open requires cutting trees too!


I guess there is one difference, there is no open man-made view point on the side of the mountain that is visible from afar...

I meant that if a trail was able to lead to a view, rather than cutting down stuff around a summit or along a trail, then the trail would be less of an impact on the environment.

Kevin

 

[Umsaskis]

I also think it would be a case-by-case situation. But in general, I think that views which have been cut for the purpose of a view could be maintained. Usually these are on one side of the peak, not very big, and thus not terribly destructive. As far as cutting new views - that seems silly, with the exception of places where people are making their own paths to views (or attempted views) in places that might not be able to handle it. In this case, having an established, cut viewpoint would channel everybody to a location that has been chosen because it could handle the foot traffic (this is similar to the old herd path vs. no herd path debate).

I love a view, but there is a lot to be said for those peaks that are completely wooded and give you that feeling of being on a high, remote ridge that would go on and on forever if you kept walking, a feeling that is produced by the nature of the woods around you at the summit. Cabot comes to mind, and a few other places. No need to destroy that "aura" for a view.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

In the Whites, I would like to see platforms a la Carrigain built on many summits that once had fire towers (ex. Hale, Carter Dome, and Osceola, but not Garfield). I also would like to see views returned to Starr King and Waumbek, which are still decent on a 5 ft snowpack but have become quite diminished over the past three decades during snowpack-free times.

 

[markmtn]

Viewpoints - Catskills

I vote yes, with the case by case proviso.

More and more summer hiking in the Catskills is in the "green tunnel". The views are disappearing.
The problem this also creates is user disatisfaction. Hiker use is declining and thus public support for outdoor recreation will decline as well. Joe Public who is an occassional hiker probably wants to see something for all the effort to get up there, not just trees and more trees. Truly the vistas are a reward. (A reason why we like winter hiking so much?)
The Cats were pretty much all clear cut at one time, so we are not talking about natural wilderness areas, just regrowth.
Perhaps the side trail scenario would be to lead off the main trail to viewpoints and thus if one wants to maintain the illusion of wilderness while hiking, they stay on the main trail.
Also, if it isn't done by the "experts", some others may decide to do it for themselves.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Also, if it isn't done by the "experts", some others may decide to do it for themselves.

It's already happened several times in the Cats...

 

[forestgnome]

The Cats were pretty much all clear cut at one time, so we are not talking about natural wilderness areas, just regrowth.

Just a quick comment on this widely heard idea. "Regrowth" is natural wilderness. Many times, all the forests have been wiped out by glacial periods. There was no forest underneath all that ice. Each time the planet warms, the forests grow back again.

Fire also wipes out forest, although not as widely spread.

So, all forest is natural "regrowth". It's just the clearcut logging that was not natural.

I don't have a problem with a little judicious trimming at viewpoints. It is not visible as such from any other viewpoint, and few people would even notice that trimming has been done when standing right there, and we hike miles of trimmed trails to get there.

happy trails