white house landing

[weary]

Anyone know if WHL is on leased land and/or if that's even an issue in those parts?

I think probably it is on leased land, but I don't know for sure. The paper companies that bought the land a century or more ago had a policy of always leasing, rather than selling land. Until a decade or so ago even most of the houses in the center of Millinocket were on leased lands.

Most of the old sporting camps were on leased land, and most of those that have survived remain on leased land, places like Nahmakanta Camps, and chairback mountain camps on Long Lake. Little Lyford POnd camps was on leased land until AMC worked out a deal with the camps owner to buy out the lease. AMC now owns the camps and the surrounding 37,000 acres.

But I know of exceptions. The camps that once sat among the Hermitage Pines were privately owned. About 35 years ago the Nature Conservancy bought the 25 acres and tore the camps down, over my objections. I considered them an important historic artifact. INcidentally, the Hermitage pines are now owned by the National Park Service.

I know this doesn't answer your question, Rick, but if I was a betting person, I'd bet that the land on which White House Landing sits is probably owned by the Nature Conservancy. But I wouldn't wager much money on it.

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I can see Trail people still see nothing wrong in attacking members who espouse the Trail's purpose. (roll eyes)

I wish I could become a 'tyrannical' Trail 'dictator' in charge of the total AT and create a totally wild wilderness corridor in the AT with enforced rules. I'm betting that most of the philosophical disagreers in here would probably still patronize the Trail and might even write positive things about its wild aspects...

[Jack Tarlin]

Rocks:

People that have been on A.T. Internet sites for more than a few years know all about how you feel about the Trail's original purpose, and what you feel that purpose was meant to be.

They also know how you've mis-interpreted it, mis-represented it, mis-quoted people, mis-read early Trail hitories, or simply flat-out made stuff up in order to support your arguments.

These arguments were played to death years ago on places like At-l; Trailplace, etc.

Plese don't resurrect this stuff here, it's a VERY dead horse.

[yaduck9]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw1Sg6Fz1MI

[Lone Wolf]

I can see Trail people still see nothing wrong in attacking members who espouse the Trail's purpose. (roll eyes)

I wish I could become a 'tyrannical' Trail 'dictator' in charge of the total AT and create a totally wild wilderness corridor in the AT with enforced rules. I'm betting that most of the philosophical disagreers in here would probably still patronize the Trail and might even write positive things about its wild aspects...

huh? english please

[TJ aka Teej]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw1Sg6Fz1MI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Rocks:

People that have been on A.T. Internet sites for more than a few years know all about how you feel about the Trail's original purpose, and what you feel that purpose was meant to be.

They also know how you've mis-interpreted it, mis-represented it, mis-quoted people, mis-read early Trail hitories, or simply flat-out made stuff up in order to support your arguments.

These arguments were played to death years ago on places like At-l; Trailplace, etc.

Plese don't resurrect this stuff here, it's a VERY dead horse.

Some would like it to be, but I honestly feel what I speak of is verifiable in Trail history and even today's current Trail. Sorry Jack, but one personality or one Trail view is too weak a straw to hang the Trail and its future on. I realize there are a lot of people who would like the AT and especially the AT internet to be a hiker club venue dominated by such persons and their Trail ethic (or lack of one) but, honestly, the Trail is deeper than that and can easily be proven by those with more respect for it than the shallow terms you invoke. Don't replace one type of "dictatorship" with another Jack. I respect Wingfoot because he stood for something and wasn't afraid to voice the Trail's wilderness ethic without referring to it as a nuisance as you do. Sorry Jack the Trail is deeper than that. You'll find persons who see the Trail in somewhat more detailed terms to be operating under some of the things those concerned with the Trail's purpose speak of. If one goes to the Trail to drink around a fire for companionship one might be more strained knowing others see it in a broader manner and resent mention of it. People who believe in the greater Trail should never be made to feel unwelcome or be intimidated by Trail thugs. Or people quick to label something "mis-representation" when closer observation would suggest otherwise. No Jack, Trail conservation isn't a "dead horse" as you say and won't be as long as ATC or the AT itself exists. I don't think this should be left up to people who really never show any mention of the Trail's conservation side and are therefore not really good judges of its presence on Trail venues. I really don't see what the argument is? ATC is doing it every day so therefore it is a major part of the Trail. Myself, if I chose someone to represent who would speak up for what is welcome or unwelcome on an AT site, I would choose someone who could eloquently discuss Trail conservation or wilderness without scoffing. What you are trying to do is censor people who believe in the Trail's wilderness purpose by disparaging them. Shame.

[A-Train]

Some would like it to be, but I honestly feel what I speak of is verifiable in Trail history and even today's current Trail. Sorry Jack, but one personality or one Trail view is too weak a straw to hang the Trail and its future on. I realize there are a lot of people who would like the AT and especially the AT internet to be a hiker club venue dominated by such persons and their Trail ethic (or lack of one) but, honestly, the Trail is deeper than that and can easily be proven by those with more respect for it than the shallow terms you invoke. Don't replace one type of "dictatorship" with another Jack. I respect Wingfoot because he stood for something and wasn't afraid to voice the Trail's wilderness ethic without referring to it as a nuisance as you do. Sorry Jack the Trail is deeper than that. You'll find persons who see the Trail in somewhat more detailed terms to be operating under some of the things those concerned with the Trail's purpose speak of. If one goes to the Trail to drink around a fire for companionship one might be more strained knowing others see it in a broader manner and resent mention of it. People who believe in the greater Trail should never be made to feel unwelcome or be intimidated by Trail thugs. Or people quick to label something "mis-representation" when closer observation would suggest otherwise. No Jack, Trail conservation isn't a "dead horse" as you say and won't be as long as ATC or the AT itself exists. I don't think this should be left up to people who really never show any mention of the Trail's conservation side and are therefore not really good judges of its presence on Trail venues. I really don't see what the argument is? ATC is doing it every day so therefore it is a major part of the Trail. Myself, if I chose someone to represent who would speak up for what is welcome or unwelcome on an AT site, I would choose someone who could eloquently discuss Trail conservation or wilderness without scoffing. What you are trying to do is censor people who believe in the Trail's wilderness purpose by disparaging them. Shame.

Try to use the space bar and indent every now and again. This is almost unreadable.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Try to use the space bar and indent every now and again. This is almost unreadable.

I think you read it well. Well enough that you couldn't answer it.

[A-Train]

I think you read it well. Well enough that you couldn't answer it.

Couldn't answer what? There weren't any questions, just ramblings about trail conservancy and some jabs at Jack.

[emerald]

There weren't any questions, just ramblings about trail conservancy and some jabs at Jack.

This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.

[weary]

This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.

Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.

And it is not just a simple question. This has been a debated ever since Avery and MacKaye clashed over a road along the summit ridges of what is now Shenandoah Natrional Park.

Avery won that skirmish. But the war continues, as MacKaye predicted it would. Sorry. I have no simple answers. Just a conviction that a relatively few acres of wildness better serves the nation and its people, than many miles and acres of new roads. YMMV.

Weary

[TJ aka Teej]

This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.

Is was about White House Landing.

A review of the 'non-sign' comments will show positive responses from hikers who have been there.

A review of the 'sign' comments will show that posters who have never been to White House Landing want the thread to be about them and their opinions of an ex-sign they've never seen.

[johnny quest]

Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.

Weary

ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all. you pointyhead pseudo intellectuals made it about something more so that you could keep arguing the same thing you always have argued.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.

[Lone Wolf]

it ain't "thier" trail. it's all of America's

[emerald]

and NPS makes the rules. Complain to them.

Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.

Weary

Actually, SOG does admit it when he's pressed. I put his hand in my plant press and stood on the straps. He held out pretty long.

[weary]

ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all. you pointyhead pseudo intellectuals made it about something more so that you could keep arguing the same thing you always have argued.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.

Sorry Johnny, you haven't been reading. It's been out of the hands of MATC for a couple of years now. We probably could have worked out something, if the WHL owners had acted responsibly. They didn't, so now your appeal must go to the National Park Service.

Weary

[woodsy]

ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.

But if you about it, its likely MATC does not want hikers to have any form of commercial aid through those parts, after all, its suppose to be 100 miles of 'wilderness'.
Now if you want to stay at the AMC camps, thats probably a different story but you will likely need reservations and a fair amount of moola.

[Jack Tarlin]

Rocks:

I never said that "Trail conversation" was a dead horse.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I said was that your comments and argument on this subject is a dead horse, and not a particularly eloquently expressed one, either.

Nobody's censoring anyone, Rocks, they are merely asking that arguments and comments be sensible, fact-based, and truthful. Oh, and a little coherency wouldn't hurt, either.

[TJ aka Teej]

But if you about it, its likely MATC does not want hikers to have any form of commercial aid through those parts, after all, its suppose to be 100 miles of 'wilderness'.
Now if you want to stay at the AMC camps, thats probably a different story but you will likely need reservations and a fair amount of moola.

Giant AMC will do whatever they want as far as cutting in connecting trails and posting signs to their lodging businesses in the 100 Mile. Tiny MATC is no match for the Boston mega-corp.