The Debate on Fire Towers in the Adirondacks

[beverly]

There's a thoughtful article in the New York Times today: Two Views From The Top (Nice title!)
In it the author reviews the history of fire towers, detailing the conflicting opinions of hikers, environmental purists and historic preservationists. Maybe the title should have been Three Views From The Top.

Once viewed as utilitarian structures, soaring bulwarks against the kinds of wildfires that devastated the Adirondacks in 1903 and 1908, the fire towers have been embraced by historic preservationists and hikers as beloved vestiges of a bygone Adirondack era.

Not everyone is enamored of the fire towers, however. Environmentalists, in particular, often find the network of towers troubling, arguing that they draw foot traffic into sensitive areas. A few groups have focused their attention on 2 of the 31 towers that remain in the Adirondacks, saying they should come down in the interest of wilderness protection.

The towers provoking the most interest are on Hurricane and St. Regis. The Adirondack Council and the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks are actively campaigning to remove those towers, for being artificial structures, not allowed in wilderness, primitive or canoe areas. The RCPA has a position statement on their website detailing their recommendations regarding specific towers. These are the only two they recommend removing. From the Times article:

Peter Bauer, executive director of the Residents' Committee, said that were it not for the fire tower on Hurricane Mountain, some 13,500 acres could be reclassified as wilderness and therefore receive the strongest protection. (While hiking is allowed in wilderness areas, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, motorboats and cars are off limits.)

Moreover, he said, the view from Hurricane Mountain is magnificent even without the tower.

"There are always these issues around human structures in wilderness areas," Mr. Bauer said. "People are insulted when you try to remove the evidence of human presence on the landscape. But we have so little wilderness east of the Mississippi, and we think that if we can create more wilderness areas in the Adirondacks, that's exciting."

The Adirondack Council:

"Our concern is with keeping an artifact in the forest preserve that has no practical function other than to concentrate hikers on mountaintops," said John F. Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council.

"We're encouraging people to stomp on alpine plants and overuse an area that we ought to be directing people away from."

The article also mentions the towers on Mt. Arab and Mt. Adams. Mt. Arab has been restored and is a conforming structure. The Open Space Institute, which acquired the Adams tower, hopes to retain it when it sells the land to the state, in order to protect the tower from becoming a "non-conforming" use in the wilderness area, which would mark it for removal. Reading the position paper on the RCPA website (no direct link - see Position Statement Number 2004-9), I like their reasoning - which in part argues for tearing down structures because they have views without the towers. I do think the towers on Hurricane and St. Regis should come down, for the reasons they cite. But I'm not sure that the removal of these towers would diminish hiker traffic - as it would on mountains where towers provide the only "views from the top".

 

[ken]

"We're encouraging people to stomp on alpine plants and overuse an area that we ought to be directing people away from."

what towers have alpine plants around them????? none are more than 4000' high in the adirondacks.

 

[smh444]

Thank you, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Sheehan for demonstrating both arrogance and elitism in a few brief sentences.

 

[Sleeping Giant]

I'm not interested in winning a popularity contest, so I'm very happy with my opinion that abandoned fire towers ought to come down. They're eyesores, they detract from the feeling that I'm away from civilization and its artifacts, and it's very annoying getting to a natural summit and realizing you're not really as high as you can get.

People whine about the stuff on Mt. Washington all the time. Why should fire towers be any different?

P.S. All abandoned lighthouses should be totalled as well.

 

[Woodspirit]

"Thank you, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Sheehan for demonstrating both arrogance and elitism in a few brief sentences."

Actually what they are demonstrating is:
1. They have actually read the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan
2. They are advocating for Wilderness as well as wilderness

 

[lumberzac]

I think the remaining fire towers should stay as long as there are people that are willing to maintain them to the extent that they are not a hazard to those that hike up the mountains that contain them. I view the fire towers as monuments to sacrifice that the men and women observers took to try and protect the forests in the 20th century.

"Our concern is with keeping an artifact in the forest preserve that has no practical function other than to concentrate hikers on mountaintops," said John F. Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council.

If that is the case, than all of the lean-tos, and designated campsites should be removed because they attract hikers as well.

 

[ken]

abandoned fire towers ought to come down. They're eyesores, they detract from the feeling that I'm away from civilization

so do other people at the summit, we should take down the little colored discs that mark the trail too (if they can't find the top we wont have to look at them)

and it's very annoying getting to a natural summit and realizing you're not really as high as you can get.

so - there are plenty of mountains without firetowers that you can climb if you don't like them - i would rather see a standing maintained foretower rather than a pile of scrap laying near where the tower used to stand because it costs too much to drag it down the mountain.

(how about sleeping giant's tower - that should come down too then)

 

[Sleeping Giant]

Yes - by all means take down the tower at the top of Sleeping Giant.

And take down the colored disks.

As for people, I didn't say anything about them so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

It's fine to disagree with my opinion, but you're doing it in a less than classy way.

 

[spongebob]

This current Wilderness renewal program, (Like the big city brother Urban renewal) has some negative aspects too. You might lose some historically significant structures that future generations might appreciate, if it weren't for the mood of the moment.

I know Portland, Maine would like to have the Union Station train station back, instead of a lovely strip mall that was considered progress when that was torn down. I don't think it is fair discounting Marcy Dam or any firetower as an eyesore as you feel it detracts from your wilderness experience. That gives previous & future generations definition of the word "wilderness" less importance than yours.

 

[Rob S]

I think the remaining fire towers should stay as long as there are people that are willing to maintain them to the extent that they are not a hazard to those that hike up the mountains that contain them. I view the fire towers as monuments to sacrifice that the men and women observers took to try and protect the forests in the 20th century.

I usually don't participate in threads that appear to be getting heated, but lumberzac's sentiment is too good to pass up. Very-well stated, I agree.

Differences of opinion is a good thing. As long as we remain civil.

 

[smh444]

Hey Sleeping Giant - you're opinion is as valid as any. No problem with that.

Does anyone remember, as a kid, the excitement of climbing a mountain with your folks and then the extra thrill of climbing a rickety old fire tower at the top? Well, I do.

After dragging my kids on many a hike to a viewless summit, I can say with certainty that the best hikes were the ones with a view - a 360 degree view!!! There are enough crappy miserable viewless peaks out there.

Stomp on Alpine plants? Don't make me choke on my granola bar. I'm guessing that I have done less damage to the Adirondaks in my entire life than anyone who has built a house there in the last 20 years.

Ditto on lumberzac's statement.

 

[teleskier]

Guess I have to weigh in with smh444 - "an area that we ought to be directing people away from."??? It never ceases to amaze me how some groups ask the citizens of the state to pony up their tax dollars to acquire lands on the rationale that they should belong to the public rather than be locked up in the hands of the privileged few. And then, they are shocked - shocked! - to discover that the public would actually like to enjoy and experience what their hard-earned money paid for. It seems so, what's the word... hypocritical?

 

[Warren]

While I can agree with the preservation of fire towers for historical reasons, I am not in full agreement with the idea of preserving every tower out there. Why?

I think it leads to an instinctive "lets preserve this tower to" thinking, before even looking at the larger picture; how the tower affects the views of the peaks around it, how the existence of the tower may affect the wilderness designation of an area and other more minor points, such as is preservation activism better directed elsewhere?

I think the argument "well who would go there with out a view" leaves out those of us who actually like the woods as woods and appreciate them even if there is no miles long view. I also from a philosophical point of view feel that the message that a mountain or even a hill is somewhat less worth while for lack of a view is a poor message. It also implies that if something would lead to increase use by the public it should be condoned.

In the ADK's where the locals, if I understand it right, have to jump through hoops to add a deck or use their own property in some manner preserving a structure in the wilderness should be difficult, should undergo a lot of scrutiny and should be an exception, not a rule. For those who equate tower removal with lean to removal, well, O.K. remove the lean to's especially if they are on the mountain tops' concentrating hikers on said mountaintops. Come to think of it, that has been done, and lean to relocation continues.

Recent events in the Northeast- the placement of cell towers and wind farms show that there is already an interest in weakening the restrictions placed upon our open spaces. Could movements to preserve fire towers weaken the restrictions on other types of structures? I don't know.

Not all towers should be taken down, but I don't think they all should be preserved. I can argue the historical significance of other less environmentally friendly industries that were more dangerous and required more sacrifice of those working in them, should we make efforts to preserve the disappearing artifacts of them to?

As for the quotes from the article. If there are no alpine plants in these areas and if the area is not in danger of overuse, the Council and the Residents Committee is doing themselves a disservice.

Hmmm, seems there needs to be a tower master plan....

 

[Grumpy]

The View From My Tower

lumberzac wrote:

. . . I view the fire towers as monuments to sacrifice that the men and women observers took to try and protect the forests in the 20th century.

That statement, I believe, considerably distorts history. While a very few observers who occupied fire towers may have made some personal sacrifice for what they believed was the sake of the greater good in doing so, the real probability is that most were just doing a job to put food on their tables and roofs over their heads. Nobody should deny that the work was important, or that it could be tedious, and in some ways at some times difficult, but let’s not romanticize it too much, lest we inadvertantly trivialize it.

In truth, I think the towers do stand as monuments to a time in which we experienced an awakening of obligation to and a sense that we could protect the forests, both for their commercial timber-producing potential and for ecological purposes. They also give tangible testimony to an era in which very different technology (from the sort we use today) was employed to provide surveillance and pinpoint the location of “smokes” detected by the observers.

With that last thought in mind, I make a pitch for placing first emphasis on preserving some fire towers at selected locations that would provide real opportunity to demonstrate how they worked together as a system. Towers were located to cover vast forest tracts and permit “triangulating” the location of suspected fires. I would not advocate restoring the old wire telephone lines that connected towers to the outside world, though.

Now, like Beverley, I am of two minds on the whole question of whether fire towers should be removed or preserved.

My sense is that first priority should be given preserving towers in spots that will demonstrate how the system worked. Beyond that, where great views are to be had without without them, towers probably can be removed with no real negative consequences. Finally, if the tower provides the view, perhaps it should stay and continue providing that view. It may be worthwhile to install some kind of small plaque or monument where each tower has been removed, to serve as a reminder that the concept of “stewardship” has been and remains significantly dynamic.

The idea is to conserve both our sense of wildness and our sense of history at the same time. To deny the latter by removing all its traces strikes me as being “revisionist,” and untruthful, which I do not believe is entirely helpful to the greater cause of environmental protection.

As for the towers attracting hiker traffic? So be it. This is not something to wring our hands over. We live in an era when we are being told to seek healthier forms of activity for our own good. It would seem that hiking to old fire towers and fire tower sites is exactly the kind of thing that we are encouraged to do.

G.

 

[tonycc]

There is a clear difference between new construction and an existing structure when it comes to rule making. What is the difference between junk and a historical aritifact?

Out of curiosity, how many towers are there in the Daks? None of these towers will stand forever, time and gravity will see to that. Eventually they will all be gone. The only question is how fast that should happen. I think we should be careful about removing may be considered an irreplacable artifact of our history.

Trying to justify removing them to protect the environment around them because they encourage people to visit is a dangerous concept if extended. Maybe we should outlaw peak bagging clubs, like the 46'ers, since they tend to encourage people to visit fragile mountain tops, especially those without a view. The reasons people visit any location are varied. When people stop visiting the environments will be restored eventually. Mother nature is both fragile and robust.

Tony

 

[lumberzac]

Out of curiosity, how many towers are there in the Daks?
Tony

There are currently 31 (34 if you count those that were moved to new locations) of the original 60 left standing. Of the 31, 18 are on public land.

 

[ken]

When people stop visiting the environments will be restored eventually.

no it won't - we will build houses and shopping centers instead - why leave all that land unused when we keep multiplying???? if there is no reason for people to visit it, they won't (and if you don't use it you may lose it).

 

[Tom Rankin]

Out of curiosity, how many towers are there in the Daks? None of these towers will stand forever, time and gravity will see to that. Eventually they will all be gone. The only question is how fast that should happen. I think we should be careful about removing may be considered an irreplacable artifact of our history.

Trying to justify removing them to protect the environment around them because they encourage people to visit is a dangerous concept if extended. Maybe we should outlaw peak bagging clubs, like the 46'ers, since they tend to encourage people to visit fragile mountain tops, especially those without a view. The reasons people visit any location are varied. When people stop visiting the environments will be restored eventually. Mother nature is both fragile and robust.

The Glens Falls ADK chapter has a "Fire Tower Challenge".

See http://www.adk-gfs.org/fire_tower_challenge.html

There are 23 towers left in the Dax, and you have to climb 18 of them, and all 5 of the remaining peaks with fire towers in the Catskills, to qualify for their challenge.

Laurie and I climbed most of them this summer. Many of them are challenging hikes, either for length of walk, or elevation gain. Some are quite easy. They are spread out more than the high peaks, so you get a different perspective on the Dax. On at least half, we had the tower to ourself. This was all on weekends. I think the challenge is actually helping to spread out the hiker traffic to different places.

The tower itself is not always climbable. Some (like Hurricane) are falling apart and are not safe. Others are completely restored (including the cabin) to almost 'like new' state.

I encourage you to check them out!

See also:

http://vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8874&highlight=tale+fire+towers

 

[SOFAS]

Having just completed the Fire Tower Challenge, I'm pretty sure I can say I would never have climbed many of these mountains had it not been for the Fire Towers on them. It was my understanding that one of the purposes of the Fire Tower Challenge was to draw hikers to less used sections of the parks. At least in my case, that strategy worked.

The Fire Towers are a reminder of the way the Adirondacks were in the past century. The Views From The Top guidebook mentions that only 28 of the original 69 towers still exist on the mountians in the Adirondacks and Catskills. As previously noted in other posts, time will eventually destroy some of the remaining towers. IMO we really don't want to lose any more of these artifacts than we have to.

 

[ken]

After doing 2 and 3 Fire Towers in a day, we decided to see if we could put together a trip of the remaining towers on the Fire Tower Challenge List, that would allow us to climb 4 in one day.

hey tom - i just read your report - congratulations on doing 4 in a day, but don't be surprised if you get accused of "cheating" - - there were two days that i did four - the guy from the glens falls chapter that gives out the patches accused me of cheating - he said "wow, you must have been hiking and driving at a very high rate of speed" - i did the math for him - to do a high peak (take allen) you drive for 3 hours to get there hike for 10 hours (19 miles) and drive 3 more hours (6 hours driving,10 hours hiking) - - leave from the same place - drive for 1.5 hours climb a 6 mile tower, drive another 1 hour, climb a 2 mile tower, drive 1 hour, climb a 6 mile tower, drive 1 hour and climb a 2 mile tower and drive another 1.5 hours to get home - total time driving is again 6 hours, and the hiking is only 16 miles (about the same hike and drive as mount marcy) - i then told him to choose any saturday and i would pick him up in glens falls and show him how it is done - he never took me up on the offer (he said "in any case here is your patch") - - also the book states that "the challenge starts with the publication of this book" - well... i asked if anyone else had finished and was told "12 previously finished the challenge, but they all had prior climbs to thier credit, some as long ago as the 50s" - so what happened with jack freeman's statement in print that the challenge starts with the publication of the book (april 2001)? - i guess the guy handing out the patches hadn't read the book??????? if i had known the keeper of the patches was counting previous climbs, i would have used mine (i climbed snowy mountain back in 1966 and many others after that) - but i guess i was the first to finish "leagally" according to the rules printed in the "views from on high" book...