Enhancing the view in Carrigan Notch

el-bagr said:

Pack in a folding ladder. Stand on a friend's shoulders. Bring a snowshovel.

Click to expand...

Or use the old traditional method--climb a tree.

Doug

Build a tower

There is enough snow now.

Forget a 29 foot tower. Check this out!120' tall Bethel ME Snow Woman

Sorry, off topic

skiguy said:

Thankyou for your insight on this Dave. Some perspective from Public vs. Private Lands is always a good thing. "Having a VIEW " is a common denominater for why we all hike....daaa The management of that going forward is something that all of us here hold close to our Hearts. Thankyou Matt for reminding us what a VIEW is all about

Click to expand...

Actually, I will say that sometimes that is why I hike. However, often it's just a long walk or ski in the woods. The quiet can help to clear my head.

I specifically do not hike for a view, and love the Whites for beauitful forests and semi wilderness feeling, an example of that would be Carrigan Notch. I wouldn't walk along and say..mmm theres a good spot to clear a bunch of trees maybe I can catch a glimps of the Bonds from there.. I simply don't do that and would hate if someone did. I only mentioned Carrigain Notch because of how striking Mt Lowell is right above you and how trimming that one area would make it even more exciting to reach. I can't think of any other place I have ever felt it would fit better. Theres just something about that area and a small view would just make so striking. -Mattl

Views from Moosilauke

During construction of Beaver Brook Shelter in '94, there were a few trees cut to improve the view from the shelter...

Sue, friend of guy who likes playing with chainsaws

Ok, I'll make an on-topic post.

Using Carrigan as an example. If it didn't have the tower on top, I doubt that anyone would be in favor of cutting trees to create what many call one the best views in the Whites. But no one is lobbying to have the fire tower removed either.

It seems that the main issue is where does the line get drawn. No touching the 4,000+ footers, 3,500+, 3,000+? No touching the National Forests? State Parks? Who gets to decide how much to cut or trim? It's a can of worms that no one wants to open. The easiest and probably only way to deal with these issues is to say no to any "view enhancement" in the Whites.

Quietman said:

...Using Carrigan as an example. If it didn't have the tower on top, I doubt that anyone would be in favor of cutting trees to create what many call one the best views in the Whites. But no one is lobbying to have the fire tower removed either.
... The easiest and probably only way to deal with these issues is to say no to any "view enhancement" in the Whites.

Click to expand...

No one is lobbying to restore open summits that got that way by fire, either.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Forest Service has a policy or guidelines on creating views. If so, I wonder if it would be a high priority even if there was some lobbying for it.

Such an absolute as no view enhancement outside a wilderness area strikes me as ... unnecessarily absolute. Seems the net enjoyment of such an enhancement would outweigh objections if it were within reason, and the definition of within reason would reasonably lie in any Forest Service policies or guidelines which presumeably are formed by good forest management practices as well as public interest.

The Axe-Man Cometh?

Stan said:

Such an absolute as no view enhancement outside a wilderness area strikes me as ... unnecessarily absolute. Seems the net enjoyment of such an enhancement would outweigh objections if it were within reason, and the definition of within reason would reasonably lie in any Forest Service policies or guidelines which presumeably are formed by good forest management practices as well as public interest.

Click to expand...

I too assume that Matt refers to a legal view enhancement not to illegal stealth cutting, which is reprehensible and, as the Jay slashers find, actionable. There's precedent in the Whites both for "enhancement" and for non-intrusive view finding.

Some of the summit views that we have today result from the late 19th century "improvement" ethic that both built trails and cleared summits. J. Rayner Edmands took an axe-man with him in 1885 when he ascended trailess Mount Flume. The axe-man's role was to clear the summit for Rayner's survey observations with a theodolite. I suspect that the view today from Flume is the result of that clearing, and subsequent soil erosion, rather than fire. (On that trip, Edmands, who forgot his compass and drinking cup, went on to Liberty while the axe-man worked, got himself lost, spent the night out, and exited through the Pemi.) Cherry Mountain and others also saw the work of axe-men to "improve" the view.

But it was also common not to "improve" with an axe and to climb a tree for a view. Notably, a late 19th century party of women climbers mentions that it was easier to climb a tree in skirts and not have to worry about modesty on the descent when no men were on the trip.

I'm not altogether opposed to "improvement" in non-wilderness areas if it's done thoughtfully and rationally. I remember being very surprised to see the ugly side cuts on the new Gorge Brook Trail. It didn't make any sense to me, still doesn't, to cut those views on the side of a mountain, Moosilauke, with a huge view from the top. What, we can't wait a few more minutes until we get above treeline for one of the finest and expansive views in the White Mountains?

On the other hand, as I stood on tiptoes to get one of the last views of the Mt. Washington summit through the col from the new Four Soldiers Trail, I felt sorry that this unique view was closing down for the foreseeable future.

I guess that's the rub: how to get consensus about where to improve, where to leave it alone. Maybe we should all just hike up our skirts and climb a tree.

Is the Carrigain tower in the Wilderness or at the edge? If inside, in time if it falls into disrepair & comes down, they won't be able to replace it due to the Widlerness Act, correct?

Is the Carrigain tower in the Wilderness or at the edge? If inside, in time if it falls into disrepair & comes down, they won't be able to replace it due to the Widlerness Act, correct?

Click to expand...

Thats what I had thought too..But there are so many examples where that is changed. The best one is Dry River. The bridge had severe damage to it during a flood and it has been on the "list" of places that needs to be repaired. Someone correct me if it has already been fixed. I understand that is a very dangerous river at times, but rules are rules. The reason these bridges are here, like the large one over the East Branch, is because they are historic relics, but what happens when they break or fall apart? At this point I think if the fire tower was to have problems it may have to be taken down on Carrigain. I dont think they still use it for spotting smoke do they? If so then yes it will be repaired. I believe the tower is just outside the boundary or on the line. As for Carrigain Notch, the little trimming I was curious about would be several hundred feet before the wilderness boundary. It seems like in wilderness areas that the rules are altered for some large scale things but for small things like blazes on Owl's Head they are strictly inforced. -Mattl

I do not know for sure, but I believe the Wilderness boundary follows the Carrigain-Hancock ridge. If the tower stradles the ridge, then part of it is in.

Mattl said:

It seems like in wilderness areas that the rules are altered for some large scale things but for small things like blazes on Owl's Head they are strictly inforced. -Mattl

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. There can be exceptions to wilderness rules when safety is a major concern, e.g., the Dry River bridge, the replacement of which has been delayed for some time, but presumably not canceled. Otherwise, the wilderness bridge is replaced with stepping stones. At least that's my understanding. View enhancement would not qualify if this is the case.

I sent the below questions regarding views to the WMNF’s Marianne Leberman, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager:

"a. Does the WMNF plan to trim the forest such as the Hale summit to return
the views that were enjoyed from it at one time?

b. Could or would the WMNF respond to a group of people requesting an
enhancement of given viewpoint somewhere within the National Forest?

c. Could or would the WMNF respond to a group requesting the creation of a
viewpoint (ie. no viewpoint at present) in a choice location within the
National Forest?

I'm assuming answers to the above would be 'no' for anywhere within
the White's designated wilderness areas. Please let me know if otherwise."

In her response, she refers to six specific Forest Plan management areas of the fifteen that exist and are colorfully illustrated in the Land and Resource Management Plan, chap. 3, pg. 3-87, available on the WMNF web site.

2.1 – General Forest Management
6.1 – Semi-primitive Recreation
6.2 – Semi-primitive Non-Motorized Recreation
6.3 – Semi-primitive Winter Motorized Recreation
8.1 – Alpine Zone
8.6 – Wildcat Wild and Scenic River

Here’s her response:

"Thanks for asking!

I cannot point you to one source/policy regarding the creation and/or
maintenance of viewsheds for recreation purposes. The Forest Plan is our
overarching guidance and in many cases it is silent in creating/maintaining
viewshed for recreation needs. We would need to look at each request on a
case by case basis. To answer your questions:

a. At this time we have no plans to reopen views that have grown in such as the Hale summit.

b. We would respond to a request but depending on the location the answer
could be either yes or no. In general, we would be more likely to respond
positively to maintaining existing views. We may respond favorably to
enhancing a previous viewpoint in lands in the Forest Plan management areas
2.1, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, 8.1, and 8.6. Again it would depend on what the request is. We have allowed some of our special use permit holders to maintain existing views at their facilities such as the AMC huts and RMC camps.

c. We would most likely respond in the negative to creation of new views,
although Management Area 8.6 (Wildcat Wild & Scenic River) is the only one that specifically states we can create new views so that one could be in the
affirmative.

As you mentioned we would not allow view enhancement/creation in
Wilderness. If you have further questions feel free to give me a call. I
really appreciate you taking the time to better understand recreation
management on the National Forest.

Marianne Leberman
Recreation & Wilderness Program Manager
White Mountain National Forest
(603) 528-8751
email: [email protected]"