Owl's Head cairns and signs removed

[dvbl]

I guess I just don't get what the big fuss is all about. Maybe because I'm not a peak "bagger"? Who knows. Anyway, why not just climb the mountain and enjoy it? When you get to "top", wander around a bit and explore. Guess what...you've climbed Owl's Head. If there's another nub that's 7 feet higher that you missed, did you really fail at climbing Owl's Head? When I climb Washington and I skip the final 15 steps to the summit cross because it's too crowded...I still climbed Washington. I think all this GPS stuff is fun, but man, don't let it ruin your good time just because you got to 4018' instead of 4025'. If you miss the turn off to the slide, so what. Catch it on the way back. In the mean time, enjoy the beauty of that comparatively lightly-travelled section of LBT.

Just hike and have fun and loosen up on all the technical GPS crap.

And building cairns and placing signs wherever you want doesn't seem to fit the spirit of Leave No Trace.

 

[Tom Rankin]

We were prepared for this, sought this, researched this prior. What's the rub?

The 'rub' is that not everyone does this, especially after hearing that there are signs, cairns, etc. already up there. That's a problem with removing stuff, people get use to it being there.

 

[Tim Seaver]

There is an ongoing issue of "unauthorized" trails throughout the WMNF. Some, like Owl's Head, are well know, others are not. In any case, the signage, blazing, etc. tends to get removed on a rotating basis.

In other words, a complete waste of manpower and money. GO USFS!

 

[psmart]

In other words, a complete waste of manpower and money. GO USFS!

The alternative - leaving all this unauthorized stuff in place - would be even worse.

Please see forestgnome's excellent comment earlier in this thread.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The alternative - leaving all this unauthorized stuff in place - would be even worse.

I really don't see how a few piles of rocks marking a route is a real problem. Perhaps you could explain the dire consequences of their presence?

Somewhere, there is someone spearheading this ill-advised campaign, which has shown to be decidedly ham-handed in it's implementation ( i.e. cutting trees, scraping bark) THAT is what is "worse", NOT little piles of rocks.

Hopefully, they will find something better to do with their time or hand off the keys to someone less anal-retentive about silly little piles of rocks.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Speaking only for myself, I would really like to take my photo with the Owl's Head sign. It's part of the experience of peak bagging. For good or for bad, it's what got me re-interested in hiking, and while it is no longer the driving force, I still would like to finish the list. If I make the effort to reach Owl's Head, I want a photo which is definitely Owl's Head, not a "maybe this is the highest point in the woods" shot. Yes, I could Photoshop the sign in I suppose, but I would know it wasn't real, and wouldn't be happy about it.

My wife thinks it odd that I always want to take the camera to take more pictures of mountains and woods. I'd hate to have holes in the record of this fun journey, however, and so I always take the camera.

Tim

 

[Orsonab]

Ultimately, there are only three ways to solve this problem:
1) redesignate Owl's Head as 3999 feet tall
2) have the AMC officially adopt the trail
3) the USFS successfully prosecutes and severely punishes a hiker caught building a cairn, etc.

Until one of these occurs, cairns will rise and cairns will fall, causing upset on both sides.

What is the official AMC policy on this issue?

 

[dr_wu002]

Speaking only for myself, I would really like to take my photo with the Owl's Head sign. It's part of the experience of peak bagging. For good or for bad, it's what got me re-interested in hiking, and while it is no longer the driving force, I still would like to finish the list. If I make the effort to reach Owl's Head, I want a photo which is definitely Owl's Head, not a "maybe this is the highest point in the woods" shot. Yes, I could Photoshop the sign in I suppose, but I would know it wasn't real, and wouldn't be happy about it.

The funny thing is, until about a year or two ago, if you took your picture under the "Owl's Head" summit sign, you were actually about 0.2 miles from the real summit. There's probably more than one sign anyway and if there's not, there will be.

Hey, you could always bring your own sign up, take a picture with it and then take it down. People will be stumbling all around the woods trying to find the real summit sign!

-Dr. Wu

 

[psmart]

Ultimately, there are only three ways to solve this problem:
1) redesignate Owl's Head as 3999 feet tall
2) have the AMC officially adopt the trail
3) the USFS successfully prosecutes and severely punishes a hiker caught building a cairn, etc.

I vote for #1 It might be the easiest. I was on 3998-foot Sandwich Dome yesterday and only saw 2 people the entire day.

#2 is a non-issue: The AMC can't adopt an unauthorized trail. They don't have any more authority to maintain it than the rest of us.

I hope #3 won't come to pass. It really won't resolve things.

 

[onestep]

I think we should all read Thoreau’s “The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government.” (ie Civil Disobedience), reflect upon the NH State Motto, and then repeat three times “That government is best which governs least” .

The root of the Owl’s Head issue is “wilderness”.

The solution is not wilderness, the problem is wilderness.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Ultimately, there are only three ways to solve this problem:
1) redesignate Owl's Head as 3999 feet tall
2) have the AMC officially adopt the trail
3) the USFS successfully prosecutes and severely punishes a hiker caught building a cairn, etc.

Until one of these occurs, cairns will rise and cairns will fall, causing upset on both sides.

What is the official AMC policy on this issue?

They could reduce the 48 to 46, removing Isolation and Owl's Head (two peaks some find unworthy, except for the list status.) This would remove the two peaks which don't have official trails to the summit, and would make it consistent with the ADK-46 too.

Tim

 

[albee]

Yeah, and we could also remove Jackson, Tom, Zealand, and Lincoln, but include West Osceola, Boott Spur, Nancy, and Mt Chocorua... just so we have some that are "trail-less", some that are col-less, and some that aren't 4,000 feet, just like our friends to the west...

 

[onestep]

Just remove the "wilderness" designation.

End of issue.

 

[marchowes]

Yeah, and we could also remove Jackson, Tom, Zealand, and Lincoln, but include West Osceola, Boott Spur, Nancy, and Mt Chocorua... just so we have some that are "trail-less", some that are col-less, and some that aren't 4,000 feet, just like our friends to the west...

hahahahhahahaa

Nancy will just present the same problem as owl's head (unofficial yet surprisingly well maintained trail)

Or maybe Al is just intentionally trying to stir the pot

We can call it the "WDK46r" list (Whitedirondack of course)

 

[adamiata]

Ultimately, there are only three ways to solve this problem:
1) redesignate Owl's Head as 3999 feet tall
2) have the AMC officially adopt the trail
3) the USFS successfully prosecutes and severely punishes a hiker caught building a cairn, etc.

Until one of these occurs, cairns will rise and cairns will fall, causing upset on both sides.

What is the official AMC policy on this issue?

You forgot option 4) The Forest Service gets a clue and stops concerning itself with such petty little problems.

Wilderness isn't defined by pencil pushing bureaucrats.

 

[psmart]

Just remove the "wilderness" designation. End of issue.

I don't think that would resolve the matter. OH would still be an unofficial trail, and the environmental and safety issues would still be a factor in making it official. I know of serveral unauthorized trails OUTSIDE of Wilderness with similar problems, and their non-Wilderness status doesn't make the situation much easier. Sure, Wilderness designation plays a role, but its not the only factor.

 

[RoySwkr]

I still think this would benefit from a broader dialog with the FS. Although the options may seem limited, a formal review (including an environmental analysis and public scoping) would still be useful. There's a new Forest Plan and new employees, so I wouldn't be put-off by past experiences.

Maybe I'll wait another year and try this, last year they wouldn't even release the documentation they had because it was secret.

Now at least removing blazes from Owls Head is consistent with other trails in Wilderness

One thing that appears in Wilderness guidelines is no signs at ends of trail because you're supposed to know when you're there, that would mean no Owls Head sign even if it was an official trail.

My latest compromise idea - no cairns on slide (who needs them?) and no trail signs but 2 signs to mark this over-50-year-old historic path. One would be at the bottom to mark the start of the historic path and one at the Underhill summit recognized for over 40 years.

 

[DougPaul]

One would be at the bottom to mark the start of the historic path and one at the Underhill summit recognized for over 40 years.

No good--it has to be over 50yrs old to be recognized by the Federal Antiquities Act...

Doug

 

[RoySwkr]

It would be fun to put up a sign that says "Waumbek" instead of "Owl's Head" and then hide in the woods and film people as they nervously fumble for their maps to try and figure out where the hell they are!

I have heard of that happening with the ZEALE sign.

Gene Daniell used to take a photo of every summit sign, even those that just said 3240 or whatever. I told him he could just make some signs and nail them to trees in the backyard and nobody could tell the difference, but now that may be the only record that they ever existed.

 

[NewHampshire]

You forgot option 4) The Forest Service gets a clue and stops concerning itself with such petty little problems.

Wilderness isn't defined by pencil pushing bureaucrats.

This is the problem, though. Its not the USFS fault. They are FEDERALLY MANDATED to consern themselves with this petty problem. Do you honestly believe the Rangers set out every so oftne thinking "HA, I love showing these peakbaggers whos the boss around here!"? Perhaps some do, but I think most believe that what they are doing is indeed a waste of time. But orders are orders, and while these rules may have been ignored in the past by previous FS service personell, that still does not make it right.

You are indeed correct that Wilderness can not be defined by bureaucrats, but we have shown on this site that those who use the forest themselves can not define it. We all have our own views on what consitutes "Wilderness" and no surprise they do not always match up even remotely closely. So for now, all we can do is abide by the rules as made until the voice of the many overrides the status quo.

Brian