Talk:Four-thousand footers

Clarification of materials

Moved here from article:

Hikers started sharing lists of 4,000 footers they had assaulted in the 1930s,

Unclear; it sounds to me like it refers to peakbagging in the Adirondacks, tho i'm not certain it's false about the Whites. Deserves clarification in any case.

Reaching each summit from each of the four cardinal points of the compass,

It may be true that people do this, even tho it would multiply risks by considerably more than four. But i doubt it is verifiable, bcz i'll bet it would violate some geographic limits on hiking and camping. Let's see some verification.
--Jerzy(t) 10:50, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

"In a December 1931 article in Appalachia, the journal of the AMC, [founder Nathanial] Goodrich proposed a list of 36 White Mountain 4,000-footers he had climbed..." In citation The 4000-Footers of the White Mountains, p.xiii. Similarly, "The late Guy Waterman [author of seminal Forest and Crag carried out a] most amazing winter peakbagging feat ... climbed each peak from all four compass directions ... no matter what obstacles loomed en route [including] some of the most difficult bushwhack routes one could conceive of in the Whites." In 4000-Footers, p.288. According to the Ammonoosuc District Ranger's office, there are practically no restrictions on where an individual may hike in the WMNF in winter, and camping is also widely permitted, except on year-round Forest Protection Areas, private property, or state parks (except where designated). Lupinelawyer 17:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This excellent piece of documentation satisfies me completely, and i admit to expecting more examples like a closed trail on the west side of the East Branch of the Pemi R. -- which perhaps would not be closed if there weren't such a good alternative on the east side. And of course i forgot the dictum that winter opens up the wilderness!
I prefer to imagine especially these winter attempts being undertaken by not by "an individual" but parties of four (of whom i am the least experienced [wink]), but i admit both that some soloers do so (and that not all of them are crazy).
I still like my arrangement and wording better; who should put back cardinal points (& perhaps an option or two that it seems to me i may have dropped largely by carelessness)?
--Jerzy(t) 18:53 & 19:00, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I put back the cardinal point feat, and deleted much of the academic paragraph on whether the 4000-footers are in NH or in the Whites, since nobody debates whether the list is the same, and the list is what this article is about. Yes, winter opens up the wilderness, but only above treeline, and everywhere else it simply doesn't matter. Hike anywhere you want. Lupinelawyer 00:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW "winter opens up the wilderness" is not about the rules, but about the practicality of travel:
  • It's true below treeline, bcz snowshoes or skis put you above the brush that makes "bushwhacking" the 3-season name for off-trail travel.
  • Yes, above treeline, that's a good point, if there's a zone of alpine vegetation, below where it gives out.
  • Of course, on the other hand, the freedom of route above treeline is counterbalanced by the greater cost there of exposure to the weather.

--Jerzy(t) 08:52, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

two not in WMNF?

Why did Jerzy insert the sentence that says "All of them but Mount Washington and Mount Moosilauke also lie in the White Mountain National Forest, and even these two are completely surrounded by it"? Saying Mt Wash isn't "in" the WMNF is like saying the Vatican isn't "in" Rome. Of course it's in Rome! Yes, 59 acres at the top of Mt Wash now form a state park, but since the state park is in the national forest, the summit in the state park is in the national forest. Similarly, what's the issue with Moosilauke not "in" the WMNF, and why would anyone care to make the distinction related to the 4Ks? Lupinelawyer 06:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the analogy between Rome and WMNF is completely wrong-headed. But:

1. I apologize for my careless research regarding Moosilauke: further study of the Forest Service map (1993 edition) clearly implies that while it is not FS owned, that 10-square-mile-ish enclave is within the boundaries of the NF and therefore presumably under WMNF jurisdiction.

---

The summit of Moosilauke and the 4500 acre inholding is owned by Dartmouth College. While there is a recreation easement for the AT corridor, the summit itself has been owned and controlled by Dartmouth since 1920, not the WMNF. Dartmouth also owns an 8 acre plot next to the summit of Washington, but that looks like it will be sold to the state for inclusion in the state park very soon. Technically, neither summit is in the WMNF, but in casual use no one would argue the point.

Metsky 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

1. The map is not fully definitive re Mt. W:
   • For exclusion:
     • Of the other four SPs said (on the reverse of the map) to "lie nearby", 2 are isolated from the NF, one is outside with 80% of its border in common, and one is surrounded but not included in the NF; this suggests avoiding overlap.
     • MWSP is also described as "nearby" (rather than included).
   • For inclusion:
     • The symbol for WMNF-boundary is not used, and despite the cramped scale of the small MWSP, there was probably adequate room for it.
     • Echo Lake Cathedral Ledge SP is clearly shown as included, providing one exception to any rule against overlap.
   • IMO the evidence best supports inclusion of MWSP by WMNF, tho an explicit confirmation would be welcome.

--Jerzy(t) 08:28, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Split/Merge/Reassign?

I suggest that this article be kept in the "Mountaineering" category and dropped from the "Geography of New Hampshire" category, because there is an independent article List of mountains in New Hampshire. The immediate article covers the NE 4K and 100 Highest, which is not properly exclusively NH geography. The "List" article should be included in the "Geography of New Hampshire" category and renamed Mountains of New Hampshire so as to be consistent with the format for other geographical features. It can refer to the 4K Footers article and peaks appropriately marked as listed, but could also include others, such as Clay (er, Reagan), Jim, and smaller peaks such as Monadnock. Thoughts? FrostHeaves 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Two mountains or two summits?

There are a several cases where I'm not sure if peaks on the list should be considered two separate mountains or two summits on one mountain.

• In Maine
  • Katahdin (Baxter Peak): 5268 ft
  • Katahdin (Hamlin Peak): 4756 ft
    
    
  • Crocker Mountain: 4228 ft
  • South Crocker Mountain: 4050 ft
    
    
  • Mount Bigelow (West Peak): 4145 ft
  • Mount Bigelow (Avery Peak): 4090 ft
    
    
  • Saddleback Mountain : 4120 ft
  • Saddleback Mountain (the Horn): 4041 ft

• In New Hampshire

8. South Twin: 4902 ft

12. North Twin: 4761 ft

14. Bond: 4698 ft

16. West Bond: 4540 ft

30. Bondcliff: 4265 ft ("The Cliffs")

15. Middle Carter: 4610 ft

19. South Carter: 4430 ft

20. Wildcat: 4422 ft

37. Wildcat D: 4070 ft ("Wildcat Ridge")

21. Hancock: 4420 ft

26. South Hancock: 4319 ft

22. South Kinsman: 4358 ft ("South Peak")

28. North Kinsman: 4293 ft ("North Peak")

24. Osceola: 4340 ft

34. East Osceola: 4156 ft ("East Peak")

32. North Tripyramid: 4180 ft ("North Peak")

35. Middle Tripyramid: 4140 ft

Any thoughts? —wwoods 00:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As far as the 48 NH/WM go, the list of peaks is maintained according to standards and rules adopted by the AMC Four Thousand Footer Club (FTFC) in 1957. Lupinelawyer 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is discussed, briefly, in the "Prominences" section of this article. I believe this AMC site (http://www.outdoors.org/activities/hiking/hiking-4kfooter-club.cfm) goes into detail. - DavidWBrooks 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That link is giving me a 404. What I meant was, do we need individual articles for each peak on the list, or would it be better to lump some together? And if so, which? Currently we have a mix; e.g. Middle Carter and South Carter Mountain have their own articles, while North and South Hancock are in Mount Hancock and North and South Twin are in Twin Mountains.

—wwoods 22:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

World view/Vague

From reading this article, it would seem that this refers entirely to mountains in the USA. This doesn't seem to be stated anywhere, however, and until I read references to the AMC and New Hampshire I assumed this referred to all 4000ft. mountains *worldwide*. I'm not sure whether my interpretation is correct or not, so could somebody clarify the article? -Zepheriah (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit. Is it better now or does it need more? Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)