Trees on the Lake

AC2717 · 08-07-2013, 12:57 PM

Anyone else notice that in the older photos of the lake (pre 70's) that there were fewer trees on the lake and a lot more open land? I even look at the scenic look out on Rt 11 and it is pretty much gone. Yet we have a agnecy telling us that we need to leave the trees alone on the waterfront, yet they were not there 20 plus years ago??? This has come up for discussion a couple of times and i was wondering if people had the same problem. I am not saying clear cut everything, but if we were trying to get things back to the way things were, those would not be there?

ishoot308 · 08-07-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC2717

Anyone else notice that in the older photos of the lake (pre 70's) that there were fewer trees on the lake and a lot more open land? I even look at the scenic look out on Rt 11 and it is pretty much gone. Yet we have a agnecy telling us that we need to leave the trees alone on the waterfront, yet they were not there 20 plus years ago??? This has come up for discussion a couple of times and i was wondering if people had the same problem. I am not saying clear cut everything, but if we were trying to get things back to the way things were, those would not be there?

You are absolutely correct! Actually many many years ago (mid 1800's), 70% of the land south of the white mountains had been cleared of ALL forests! At one point back then the the state did not even own any forests whatsoever it was ALL sold to logging companies even the forests of the white mountains!!

AC2717 · 08-07-2013, 02:03 PM

Dont think I was going back to that extreme, I guess I am looking for a discussion on the loss of beauty and loss of open land around the lake as opposed to the contact leave the trees and bushes be

Onshore · 08-07-2013, 03:16 PM

Oh why not ... I'll throw gas on this fire. The law in question was adopted 22 years ago. The sections pertaining to vegetated buffers became effective 19 years ago. If there are trees in places you didn't have trees 20 years ago you put off mowing the lawn for far too long. It would seem that you, like myself, have the same problem judging time. The early 70's were 40 years ago, not 20. That would be back when farmers could still afford to maintain land overlooking the lakes as pasture, people still had camps, and there were alot fewer of them. (As an aside, I think having a working dairy farm or two in the lakes region would great. Nothing like the sweet smell of silage or manure wafting across the bay on that first warm May day.)

Back then the view might have been better but enough of our waters were sufficiently polluted to convince the state legislature to to start forming the predecessors of what would become the Dept of Environmental Services. These were not "crunchy liberals" and there was no Agenda 21 around which to form conspiracy theories. These were the people about whose traditional NH values we so enjoy waxing nostaligic. Heck, Meldrim Thomson was Governor. And yet in 1969 they adopted the Wetlands Act... Please note that in keeping with NH tradition they did not fund it, but they did pass it and order that it be enforced, and they continued to tighten its regulations up until 1978.

As for DOT and the scenic overlooks, Shoreland would not prevent the maintenance or restoration of those views.

Lakesrider · 08-07-2013, 08:50 PM

Even up in Suissevale if look you will notice there are really not that many OLD trees or old growth at all. Yeah there are a few big pines around but most of the other trees are much smaller. There are rock walls going through the lot next to mine and obviously it was a clear field or farm land at some point. There is even a decorative wall around an old pine that is dead now, but at some point someone decided to do some landscaping around this old pine. I'd love to see some old pictures of the Suissevale property before there were houses.

MikeF-NH · 08-08-2013, 06:36 AM

I'm guessing the intent of the law was not to put things back the way they were but instead to:
1.) return the lake to as much of a "natural" state as possible (clearing land for residential and agricultural purposes is not natural)
2.) prevent shoreline erosion (this is probably the major reason)

These are guesses of course. Note also that there were a lot of things done by previous generations (such as damming rivers) that were not necessarily correct. The following generations are spending much time and effort undoing some of these mistakes. Shoreline clearing is perhaps one of these corrections.

AC2717 · 08-08-2013, 08:01 AM

now a days you ride around the lakes region and what were once lake front roads and scenic views are just tree and brush/shrub surrounded

not looking for a fight just curious if others feel like the area is being completely brought back to forest state, which is not a bad thing either, just curious if others observe this and have discussion about it. Do you think it went over board?

We get to looking at our shoreline/property and see that there are things there now that were not there even ten years ago and now they cannot be removed to an extent. We look at the photos of the property next to ours and also where we are from the 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 2000s and it feels like the open space is being choked off and loss of views and landscape. What was rooling grass is now over grown brush

08-07-2013, 12:57 PM	#1
AC2717 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay Posts: 2,522 Thanks: 747 Thanked 344 Times in 257 Posts	Trees on the Lake Anyone else notice that in the older photos of the lake (pre 70's) that there were fewer trees on the lake and a lot more open land? I even look at the scenic look out on Rt 11 and it is pretty much gone. Yet we have a agnecy telling us that we need to leave the trees alone on the waterfront, yet they were not there 20 plus years ago??? This has come up for discussion a couple of times and i was wondering if people had the same problem. I am not saying clear cut everything, but if we were trying to get things back to the way things were, those would not be there? __________________ Capt. of the "No Worries"

08-07-2013, 02:03 PM	#3
AC2717 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay Posts: 2,522 Thanks: 747 Thanked 344 Times in 257 Posts	Dont think I was going back to that extreme, I guess I am looking for a discussion on the loss of beauty and loss of open land around the lake as opposed to the contact leave the trees and bushes be __________________ Capt. of the "No Worries"

08-08-2013, 08:01 AM	#7
AC2717 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay Posts: 2,522 Thanks: 747 Thanked 344 Times in 257 Posts	now a days you ride around the lakes region and what were once lake front roads and scenic views are just tree and brush/shrub surrounded not looking for a fight just curious if others feel like the area is being completely brought back to forest state, which is not a bad thing either, just curious if others observe this and have discussion about it. Do you think it went over board? We get to looking at our shoreline/property and see that there are things there now that were not there even ten years ago and now they cannot be removed to an extent. We look at the photos of the property next to ours and also where we are from the 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 2000s and it feels like the open space is being choked off and loss of views and landscape. What was rooling grass is now over grown brush __________________ Capt. of the "No Worries"

08-07-2013, 03:16 PM	#4
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Oh why not ... I'll throw gas on this fire. The law in question was adopted 22 years ago. The sections pertaining to vegetated buffers became effective 19 years ago. If there are trees in places you didn't have trees 20 years ago you put off mowing the lawn for far too long. It would seem that you, like myself, have the same problem judging time. The early 70's were 40 years ago, not 20. That would be back when farmers could still afford to maintain land overlooking the lakes as pasture, people still had camps, and there were alot fewer of them. (As an aside, I think having a working dairy farm or two in the lakes region would great. Nothing like the sweet smell of silage or manure wafting across the bay on that first warm May day.) Back then the view might have been better but enough of our waters were sufficiently polluted to convince the state legislature to to start forming the predecessors of what would become the Dept of Environmental Services. These were not "crunchy liberals" and there was no Agenda 21 around which to form conspiracy theories. These were the people about whose traditional NH values we so enjoy waxing nostaligic. Heck, Meldrim Thomson was Governor. And yet in 1969 they adopted the Wetlands Act... Please note that in keeping with NH tradition they did not fund it, but they did pass it and order that it be enforced, and they continued to tighten its regulations up until 1978. As for DOT and the scenic overlooks, Shoreland would not prevent the maintenance or restoration of those views.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (08-08-2013), gillygirl (08-07-2013)

08-07-2013, 08:50 PM	#5
Lakesrider Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,129 Thanks: 380 Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts	Even up in Suissevale if look you will notice there are really not that many OLD trees or old growth at all. Yeah there are a few big pines around but most of the other trees are much smaller. There are rock walls going through the lot next to mine and obviously it was a clear field or farm land at some point. There is even a decorative wall around an old pine that is dead now, but at some point someone decided to do some landscaping around this old pine. I'd love to see some old pictures of the Suissevale property before there were houses.

08-08-2013, 06:36 AM	#6
MikeF-NH Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 317 Thanks: 2 Thanked 120 Times in 80 Posts	I'm guessing the intent of the law was not to put things back the way they were but instead to: 1.) return the lake to as much of a "natural" state as possible (clearing land for residential and agricultural purposes is not natural) 2.) prevent shoreline erosion (this is probably the major reason) These are guesses of course. Note also that there were a lot of things done by previous generations (such as damming rivers) that were not necessarily correct. The following generations are spending much time and effort undoing some of these mistakes. Shoreline clearing is perhaps one of these corrections.