Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 125

Thread: Tecumseh view clearing

  1. #1
    Senior Member sierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New hampshire
    Posts
    2,680

    Tecumseh view clearing

    Yesterday, upon summiting Mt.Tecumseh. I noticed the Forest service had installed a wooden Kyosk on a tree. I failed to get a pic. but it's purpose is to find info. on the clearing of the view. It also stated that cutting of tree's in the Forest could result in a 5000 dollar fine. I'm up there once in awhile and I just noticed this, I think it just went up. Anywho, they seem a little mad still.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Lewiston, and Biddeford Maine
    Posts
    671
    You mean some random person went up and cut trees down from the summit to get a better view? That seems kinda whacked

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Perhaps the most significant view clearing occurred during the winter of 2012-13. The view clearing appeared to taper when the vista matched the description of the 1992 (25th Edition) White Mountain Guide.

    New cutting has been noted more recently, but interestingly the cuts haven't contributed to the view.

  4. #4
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    There's a guy on Facebook (whose name I of course can't remember) who has been documenting this in great detail for three years with monthly photo updates. I'm sure if you search it will pull it up. Pretty amazing the extent of the clearing and how it could possibly be done on such a busy summit.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  5. #5
    Senior Member Becca M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pelham & Bristol, NH
    Posts
    871
    Hmmm, on a peak with a ski area with great SWATHS of clearcuts (aka "ski trails"), a large area of satellite/radio towers, etc., it seems kinda silly to get so upset about clearing for hiker views. Perhaps the $ spent on kiosk(s) and signs could be better spent? (I haven't seen the actual signs or recent cuttings as I haven't been there since maybe winter)
    Yay for winter!!!!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member TDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth, NH
    Posts
    1,334
    Quote Originally Posted by DayTrip View Post
    There's a guy on Facebook (whose name I of course can't remember) who has been documenting this in great detail for three years with monthly photo updates. I'm sure if you search it will pull it up. Pretty amazing the extent of the clearing and how it could possibly be done on such a busy summit.
    http://www.scenicnh.com/blog/2013/08...cumseh-summit/ I noticed the cutting my last non winter visit spring of 2012, not a great look. While I don't really care for human enhanced viewpoints, I sure don't hate them!
    Last edited by TDawg; 09-21-2015 at 07:40 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Driver8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    West Hartford, CT (Photo: Sages Ravine, Salisbury, CT)
    Posts
    780
    It's gotta be somebody who has easy access and is up there a lot. What are the classic crime/mystery-solver elements? Motive, opportunity and the means to do it? Probably could be narrowed down with a little deductive thinking.
    NH4K: 21/48; N.E.4K: 25/67; NEHH: 28/100; NEFF: 14/50; Northeast 4K: 27/115

    https://www.facebook.com/Arkie.in.CT
    http://www.panoramio.com/user/5078936?show=all

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,231
    I guess I am not that upset by opening up a view. The FS used to clear designated viewpoints in the WMNF. These have been effectively abandoned not due to direct management decision as much as lack of resources. Tecumseh is not in a designated wilderness area and therefore can be managed for multiple use including recreational enhancement. To me the impact of clearing a view on a summit is not more or less the impact of clearing and maintaining the trails to that summit. I agree that the actual cutting looks ugly up close but a blowdown patch also looks ugly. Of course one question that hasn't come up is if this was a historical view that had been kept cleared at one point that had grown in due to lack of maintenance?. Starr King had a long term historical view that at one point ceased to be maintained, it slowly grew in to the point where it was a viewless summit. When the view was reestablished there were many ugly stumps that would have not been there had it been maintained all along. The slide show to me is not a great reference as its taken from slightly different locations and angles. I do see an initial flurry of clearing but its not clear to me how much it has been expanded. If the view wasn't there would the photographer continue making trips on a monthly basis to the summit?

    The question to me is does this patch alter an already impacted summit? Will wildlife be affected by the clearing anymore so than the constant stream of hikers? If you look at summits with natural disturbances like Tom which earlier in my hiking career had zero view or Cabot which has gained a semblance of view to the west due to blowdowns is there that much of a difference between a random natural occurrence and a manmade one? One of the management tools for forestry are patch cuts which are random openings in the forest generally caused by blowdowns or lighting strikes that allow edge habitat to be established. Will this clearing actually improve habitat diversity on this summit given the endless stream of people visiting it?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    The question to me is does this patch alter an already impacted summit? Will wildlife be affected by the clearing anymore so than the constant stream of hikers? If you look at summits with natural disturbances like Tom which earlier in my hiking career had zero view or Cabot which has gained a semblance of view to the west due to blowdowns is there that much of a difference between a random natural occurrence and a manmade one? One of the management tools for forestry are patch cuts which are random openings in the forest generally caused by blowdowns or lighting strikes that allow edge habitat to be established. Will this clearing actually improve habitat diversity on this summit given the endless stream of people visiting it?
    Often, clearings will provide brouse that won't grow well under dense foilage and this will attract wildlife, most notably ungulates which are stressed in some areas of northern New England. Wildlife management areas and other landowners frequently provide such clearings to enhance conditions for wild game. Some go as far as to seed with native grasses and shrubs to improve the habitat.

    I don't know how much WMNF does clear for this purpose anymore but when hiking, one can occasionally see such "deer yards" in proximity to dense evergreen coverage which provides food and winter shelter. They're often a good place to spot moose or deer around dawn and dusk.

    I welcome view clearings on mountain tops as an additional reward for the summit as long as they're not done recklessly to start an unnecessary and unwanted erosion process. Aesthetics and wildlife have equal standing to lists, redlines and times in my hiking world.

  10. #10
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    I don't have an axe to grind in this one way or the other but I'm not a fan. My original thought was if they turned a blind eye to this on Tecumseh would it start happening in other places. Wasn't there another trail in the Whites recently that had some controversial clearings cut on it? (As usual my memory is failing me but I believe they were authorized in that case. Were large sections opened up on the lower parts of the trail on steep banks). Starting to see tons of non essential cairns being built everywhere as "art" on summits, above treeline, in river beds. Where does it stop?

    Seems to fly in the face of Leave No Trace. I'm not a big fan of artificially creating elements in nature that weren't there in the first place. Seems like a symptom of the "next generation" of hiker that wants the payoff without the effort (i.e. that great view on Bondcliff is too far so why not clear cut the top of Tecumseh instead because it's an easier hike). I like finding things in nature as close to how they were at the beginning as possible. If you want great views there are plenty of hikes where you already have them. You don't need to manufacture any. And if you aren't fit enough for the hikes you can still enjoy these views in many places with tram rides, auto roads and scenic vistas along highways.
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Gorham NH
    Posts
    6,231
    I agree that a broad brush approach to view clearing could be detrimental. On the other hand the ranger district in that area has a long term heavy hand on management which I suspect most would object to. Samples of the heavy hand are the resources wasted on Owls Head, The bridge removal over the Wilderness trail and the upcoming Thoreau Fall bridge removal. Sometimes they need to pick their battles better and a view on Tecumseh in my opinion should be pretty low on the priority list.

  12. #12
    Moderator bikehikeskifish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    5,739
    So by that reasoning, if an all-volunteer group rebuilt the bridge one day under cover of darkness...

    Tim
    Bike, Hike, Ski, Sleep. Eat, Fish, Repeat.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Jazzbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Waltham, MA Jazzbo & Marty meet Bigfoot on Kennebago Divide
    Posts
    1,142
    I agree with Peakbagger's point of view. Tecumseh has conical summit cone and amount of clearing is minimal to maintain the view. it would be preferable to have it maintained by skilled maintainer. Enhancing views on some peaks would work to spread ever-increasing trail usage over more trails rather than the limited number of peaks with views. Many summits are flat topped and short of catastrophic weather event will never have views. Many so-called view-less peaks have very fine view ledges on or not far from the trail that could benefit from enhancement. South Resolution (as mentioned in WMG) is incredible fine view ledge will never need brushing, but the little spur trail that leads to it always needs brushing and a sign informing hikers it is there.
    On #67 of NE67
    On #99 of NEHH
    On #46 of WNH48

    An atom walked up to me and said "i think I've lost an electron"
    I said "are you sure?"
    It reply "I'm positive."

  14. #14
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzbo View Post
    Enhancing views on some peaks would work to spread ever-increasing trail usage over more trails rather than the limited number of peaks with views.
    That's a good point. I'm all for spreading out the crowds and their impact. I still think there are plenty of summits 2-3 miles from trail heads for tremendous views though. Is the ultimate goal preserving the natural state of the White Mountains or making it as easily accessible to as many people as possible?
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

  15. #15
    Senior Member DayTrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, CT
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by peakbagger View Post
    the resources wasted on Owls Head,
    Only did Owl's Head once and quite frankly it is well down my list of favorites but I don't recall any structures, bridges, drainages, etc to suck up resources on that route. Seemed pretty untouched. What are the resources used for that area - is maintenance at 13 Falls site considered part of that area, ranger patrols for illegal camping, etc? I've read about the cairns to Owl's Head spur (being unofficial trail) getting taken down. Is that happening more than I realize? I guess I always associate resource use with physical structures and trail work. What other types of things do monies get used for in specific areas?
    NH 48 4k: 48/48; NH W48k: 48/48; ME 4k: 2/14; VT 4k: 1/5; ADK 46: 6/46; Cat 3.5k 10/35

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 08:10 PM
  2. Clearing blowdowns on the AT
    By Jason Berard in forum Trip Reports
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 11:47 AM
  3. Peakbagging and clearing and redlining! Oh My!
    By Tom Rankin in forum Trip Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2007, 08:35 AM
  4. Perkins Clearing-Pillsbury Mt
    By Peakbagr in forum Q&A - New York
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 08:24 AM
  5. Clearing blowdown
    By carole in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12-07-2005, 06:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •