Mount Clay Name Change Up Again

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I still call Pierce, Clinton, I do not like that change either ( although in a thread today I used Pierce for a beginner to not confuse him) name changes mean little to me I just ignore them, I will always refer to Clay as Clay regardless, I hope people asking me for directions if this goes through understand that. ...............
To be honest, Henry Clay was kind of a douche. I think I can get away with saying that without evoking the "no politics" thing on the site because he existed so long ago at this point that I don't think it'll turn into a heated debate on whether "Henry Clay was a douche or not..."

Without getting too political, I'm not a huge fan necessarily of Ron Reagan and I used to oppose the name change but recently I've flip flopped. Henry Clay seems arcane and meaningless as long as you don't bother retaining the Native American names or even really know or care who Clay was. But at least.... polarizer or not.... Ron Reagan is a modern name, and I'd actually like to see a dude from the 80's get his name on the summit. The 80's freakin' ruled, man.

Perhaps an alternate idea is this: Rename the presidentials every 4 years. The Washington summit peak gets the current president's name (Obama) then the successive peaks would be previous presidents: Adams = GWB; Jefferson = Clinton; Madison = Bush Sr; Monroe = Reagan and so on. That would mix things up a bit! Oh, and rename Ball Crag each time to be the current Vice President. Is everybody on board yet? We could have a Mount Nixon in the Presidentials at least for a little while!!

-Dr. Wu
 
FWIW, here is the text of a letter from Mr. Yost of USBGN to the Board of Selectmen of Carroll, NH:

------

January 15, 2010

Ms. Bonnie Moroney, Chair
Town Board of the Town of Carroll
Selectman's Office
School Street
Carroll, New Hampshire 03595

Dear Ms. Moroney:

This is in reference to a proposal that the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has received, to change officially the name of Mount Clay in Coos County to Mount Reagan. The U.S. Board is responsible by law for standardizing geographic names for use by the Federal government and its members must approve any new name or name change before it can appear on Federal maps and publications. Because local acceptance of a name is very important to the Board, and because we presume the geographic feature in question is of significance to your community, we would like to know the opinion of the Town of Carroll Board of Selectmen regarding this issue.

Although the name Mount Clay has appeared on Federal maps since at least 1896, the New Hampshire State Legislature in 2003 passed House Bill 82, changing the name for State use to Mount Reagan. The U.S. Board was advised at the time of the State's actions; however, the change could not be considered at the Federal level because the intended honoree was still living. President Reagan passed away in June 2004, and so the required five year waiting period has now passed. Former State Legislator Mike Harrington is asking that the Board now make the change official for Federal use. We have enclosed for your review a copy of the proposal, along with a Geographic Name Recommendation Form to facilitate a response from your office. We also encourage you to share this request with any other office or organization that you believe might wish to comment.

As you can likely appreciate, the Board's policies discourage changing any name in long term published use. The Board also prefers to recognize local usage and preference, so although the name was changed by the State over six years ago, we would like to know if the new name has come into widespread use within the local community. For example, have road signs and maps been updated, and do hikers and other individuals who are familiar with the summit refer to it as Mount Reagan? Has there been overwhelming support or objection to the change? Any information that you can provide to assist the Board in its deliberations would be very much appreciated. We have also asked the government of Coos County, the New Hampshire State Geographic Names Authority, and the U.S. Forest Service to comment on the issue. As soon as all parties have had an opportunity to provide recommendations, we will present the proposal to the U.S. Board for discussion and a decision.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and we look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions or to submit your recommendation, we may be contacted by mail at the address above; by telephone at (703) 648-4552; by fax at (703) 648-4549; or by email at <[email protected]>.

Sincerely yours,

[signature]

Lou Yost
Executive Secretary
Domestic Names Committee
U.S. Board on Geographic Names
 
My map shows the summit of Clay as fully in the Great Gulf Wilderness, which would make any new summit sign verboten, no?

Could be a moot point. New WMNF sign standards call for no place-name signs on any summit, even outside Wilderness. I'm sure this will be controversial.
 
Could be a moot point. New WMNF sign standards call for no place-name signs on any summit, even outside Wilderness. I'm sure this will be controversial.

I haven't seen that one, what is their justification for it? Some peaks it makes no difference as it's quite obvious, but others (S & M Carter, the Weeks) are truly beneficial.

The USFS seems to be making a lot of decisions lately that don't or won't sit well with the "competitive" hiking community.
 
Last edited:
New WMNF sign standards

I haven't seen that one, what is their justification for it? Some peaks it makes no difference as it's quite obvious, but others (S & M Carter, the Weeks) are truly beneficial.

I'm trying to get an electronic copy of the new sign standards. I only have a paper copy at the moment. Here is the applicable section:

All signs must be scrutinized for their necessity and eliminated if not needed for public safety or resource protection (i.e. signs labeling summits, arrows once used to guide hikers through open areas that have since regenerated, etc.)
 
Are there any signs with "Clay" on them? I'm having a hard time recalling any. If that's the case, why would the USFS ever erect one, unless as a blatantly partisan gesture?
 
Clay does not have a summit sign, or any other sign for that matter.

Non-obvious summits could qualify under resource protection. That's the rationale behind the cairn on the summit of Owl's Head - they don't want everyone walking all over creating random herd paths. If no sign, perhaps then a cairn? And are they going to start taking down jars next?

I would assume that the most famous sign, being in a state park, is safe (Mt Washington 6288' 1,917m)

Many peaks have trail signs on them, which are there for navigation purposes, but have no actual summit name on them.

What NH4Ks still have signs with the peak name and/or elevation? Scanning my summit photos I can find only 4

Washington
Zealand (I would miss this one)
Cabot
Moosilauke

(plus South and Middle Carter in summer)

Tim
 
Last edited:
Moosilauke is private land, Dartmouth handles the signs and it's unlikely to be moved. The summit is also a trail junction, so there is a need for signs there.
 
What NH4Ks still have signs with the peak name and/or elevation?
I believe there is one on the Cannon Mtn tower (also a state park)

I think the sign at the view spur says North Twin Mtn although it is not the summit :)

You can find several Owls Head photos around :)

Are there any signs with "Clay" on them? I'm having a hard time recalling any. If that's the case, why would the USFS ever erect one, unless as a blatantly partisan gesture?

I believe there are signs for the Mt Clay Loop, of course the Mt Pleasant Trail was also renamed but the Mt Clinton Trail was not :)

I'm trying to get an electronic copy of the new sign standards. I only have a paper copy at the moment.
Can you tell us where they came from, are they part of the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan which allegedly had a public hearing or are they some new initiative which perhaps deserves one?

And does this say anything about summit cairns, which are also vanishing but don't have the maintenance expense rationalization?

The USFS seems to be making a lot of decisions lately that don't or won't sit well with the "competitive" hiking community.

I don't think that it's competitive hikers particularly who like signs, a lot of family albums feature summit photos and places like the Squam Range not noted for peakbagging have summit signs
 
Can you tell us where they came from, are they part of the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan... does this say anything about summit cairns...

It's an updated standard that seems to have been developed since the Plan revision. I got a copy from the Saco district. No mention of cairns that I can find - it's strictly about signs. Also worth noting that that:

The standards and guidelines set forth by the Sign System Plan shall be applied to all future sign production. Signs will be replaced as their condition warrants and not due to their nonconforminty with the updated standards.
 
The sign on the "summit" of North Twin says "North Twin Spur / South Twin Mt ->". I have not seen signs on Whiteface or Cannon myself. Owl's Head, well, we all know what happens there ;) And of course Zealand is unofficial, but it is the best sign in the WMNF, IMO. Apparently it is just outside the Pemi Wilderness boundary and is therefore not subject to the same scrutiny as Owl's Head. I know there have been tiny "stick signs" on the "real" summits when the official signage is not, but I never went out of my way to look for them.

Tim
 
The sign on the "summit" of North Twin says "North Twin Spur / South Twin Mt ->". I have not seen signs on Whiteface or Cannon myself.
There used to be a sign on Whiteface which was removed after Wilderness designation, you can see the bolt holes if you look closely

I think there used to be 2 signs on North Twin, is one gone?
 
I think there used to be 2 signs on North Twin, is one gone?

On 17-Aug-2008, this is what the summit looked like. The sign in this photo does not specifically mark this as the summit (which we all know it's not since the viewpoint spur clearly goes up hill) and reads as posted above.



The take-away from this discussion is that in reality there are very few (10% or so) of the NH 4000s which have "summit signs" on them. A simple / small cairn at Zealand or Owl's Head is really useless in winter - the Zealand sign is barely visible, and only by looking at the ground - in deep snow like we've had recently.

Tim
 
South, Middle, and North Carter at one time had (don't know if they still have) real signs on posts:

img_2867.jpg
img_2873.jpg
img_2876.jpg
 
The sign on the "summit" of North Twin says "North Twin Spur / South Twin Mt ->".
The sign in the photo looks to be a brown WMNF sign and appears to be for trail to S Twin only, there was a sign for the trail to Rte. 3 which I recall was a white AMC sign and I think the first line was NORTH TWIN MTN or somesuch - doubtless someone has a photo of it but apparently it's gone
 
It's an updated standard that seems to have been developed since the Plan revision.
It seems to conflict with the Forest Plan, at least for the A.T. which is to have signs at significant points

Would you like to ask about this too?
 
Top