dr_wu002
Well-known member
Some of the peaks we know and love (Chocoura, Height) were burned and are not "bald" as a result of nature necessarily. Others were burned and now nature is taking back the views (Hale, Starr King).
My question is, which mountains in the North East (ADKs, Whites, Greens etc.) are considered to have an "Alpine Zone" which is actually the result of a fire rather than mother nature. I'm wondering if there are any that either we wouldn't expect (say, Liberty maybe?) or are there ones that scientists/geologists/etc. suspect could be the result of pre-white mountain history burns? How about ledgy/bald summits on mountains like:
Tremont
Jackson
Caribou
Isolation
Davis
Pierce
South Twin
Bondcliff (I thought I read somewhere that this summit burned once before)
I assume the Presidentials (Northern Peaks, Washington, Monroe) are true alpine zones but perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong. As are Marcy, Algonquin, Haystack, Skylight, Katahdin, Mansfield etc. Anyone?
-Dr. Wu
My question is, which mountains in the North East (ADKs, Whites, Greens etc.) are considered to have an "Alpine Zone" which is actually the result of a fire rather than mother nature. I'm wondering if there are any that either we wouldn't expect (say, Liberty maybe?) or are there ones that scientists/geologists/etc. suspect could be the result of pre-white mountain history burns? How about ledgy/bald summits on mountains like:
Tremont
Jackson
Caribou
Isolation
Davis
Pierce
South Twin
Bondcliff (I thought I read somewhere that this summit burned once before)
I assume the Presidentials (Northern Peaks, Washington, Monroe) are true alpine zones but perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong. As are Marcy, Algonquin, Haystack, Skylight, Katahdin, Mansfield etc. Anyone?
-Dr. Wu