Fire Towers

[Rivet]

In the recent issue of Adirondac magazine there was a letter from Peter Fish concerning fire towers.

I haven't climbed all the mountains he lists, but I didn't quite understand his rationale for why it's ok for fire towers to remain on certain mountains (Hadley and Arab) and not others (St. Regis and Hurricane).

Having only climbed Hadley of those he listed, I can say that the fire tower is not needed. There is a very good view west without it.

Just wondering what others think.

[DLHiker]

can you post the fish article here?

[Woodspirit]

I think that Pete's point is that we should not just be blindly saving fire towers but should be judicious in the selection of those to rehabilitate and save. In the grand scheme of things fire towers are not particularly significant from either an architectural or historical point of view, the remaining ones being 20th century creations. There are instances such as Wakely where the fire tower may provide the only view from a desirable summit and, if the tower does not overly intrude on the viewshed from other vantage points, it may be desirable to keep the tower. Otherwise the tower is just an incongrious intrusion on the wilderness, whether the term is used in the loose sense or in the more formal definition of Wilderness under the APSLMP.

[Rivet]

It's not available online and it's kinda long for me to type.

Here are some of his main points...

- fire towers have gotten a lot of publicity lately
- easy to get dewy-eyed and work to save them all
- observers did more than sit in cabin
- oberver was important communication link
- new book out, Views From on High, shows Hurricane Mt. tower on cover
- Hurricane Primitive Area cannot become Hurricane Wilderness Area (with Wilderness protection) until tower is gone - same can be said for St. Regis -both have new homes awaiting them
- derelict structures are liability for State
- Hadley and Arab are where towers ought to be - towers are cared for -needed for view -history preserved and local attraction
- towers are not symbols of wilderness but of man

[Gandalf]

- towers are not symbols of wilderness but of man

I have to agree with this last point particularly. Hurricane is the only thing I can go by from personal summit experience here, but I felt like the creaky 'ol thing only detracted from what I thought an unusually and uniquely beautiful area otherwise.

While this issue is hardly black and white and I can appreciate the towers, let's face it - Stonehenges they ain't.

[ADackR]

I think that Pete's point is that we should not just be blindly saving fire towers but should be judicious in the selection of those to rehabilitate and save.

In the grand scheme of things fire towers are not particularly significant from either an architectural or historical point of view,the remaining ones being 20th century creations.

i guess i'm not sure what you're definition of grand scheme is.. because fire towers have a great history with the ADK's an seeing how these steel towers were first imployed during the years of 1910-1920 i think that the engineering involved for that time period is pretty good...

[lumberzac]

There is a very good book about the fire towers and their history called, Adirondack Fire Towers Their History and Lore, The Southern Districts.
by Martin Podskoch

http://www.catskill.net/purple/adksouth.htm

A second book on the northern towers is supposed to come out I believe some time next year.

[wiltz101]

The fire towers in the park are a unique part of the parks history and served to save many acres of land from forest fires. There is no doubt in my mind that the park as we know it today would be totally different had the fire towers never been erected. As far as the comment that they serve very little importance as pieces of history, I would beg to differ. Many architectural historians have stated that the fire towers are very unique structures and are most certainly part of the parks architectural history. If the architecture and engineering weren't significant and important why would organizations like AARCH (Adirondack Architectural Heritage) be working to save them? I am one to compromise with those who wish to see the towers removed. Personally I would like to see all of them saved and to be taken care of; but if we can't take care of them and maintain them then there is no doubt they pose a risk to the people climbing the mountains they are on and I understand how some people would like them removed because of aesthetic reasons. Bottom line, some if not all of the towers should be saved.

[Mavs00]

The fire towers in the park are a unique part of the parks history and served to save many acres of land from forest fires.........

Saved from what? Forest fires can be as natural as the trees they destroy. Other than the man made variety, forest fires have been around since the begining of time and ecologically serve an important function in revitilizing and rejuvenating soil for future generation of forest vegetation. Ever been to the forest fires site on Noonmark's shoulder (headed to Bear Den and Dial), it is a truly amazing place to watch and actually see how the earth heals itself and recovers from fire.

Old time forest fire prevention efforts were MAN's way of protecting resources (trees - which could be harvested for profit) or made made structures like towns, lumber mills, etc....

That said, they are history, history should not be arbitrarily destroyed without weighing the cost/effect of your efforts. I don't mind them at all and appreciate what they represent.

[wiltz101]

Although it is true that forests fires are one of the many natural cycles that occur within the ecosystem, the rate at which they were occurring in the early 1900s was far higher than what would occur naturally. Most of the fires back then were being caused by coal burning locomotives, loggers, and hunters. I wouldn't say that these are natural causes.