setting the record straight on whitehouse landing camps

[kanga]

Had anyone requested a trail sign saying "White House Landing Tote Road," I suspect MATC would have had our sign volunteer make one.

Instead multiple blaze orange signs kept appearing without notice, were removed by MATC volunteers as the national park and ATC regulations require, only to mysteriously reappear, again and again. I don't doubt for a minute the reports from many hikers, praising White House Landing.

I do suspect that the businesses squabbles with MATC are the result of Bill's own doing, or rather, his failure to do the ordinary things most businesses need to do in a complex society, like talk to your neighbors.

Weary

wait just a minute. society? neighbors? i thought we were talking about the "wilderness" that needs protecting from people?

[Skidsteer]

They've got a video.

Quite an advertising budget.

[Tinker]

Funny, my wife just plopped an envelope in front of me from the MATC. They're looking for funding to staff certain sites where they use caretakers.

Interesting.................

[Alligator]

That's a bit different than advertising via signs along a "wilderness" trail.

Does the AMC have signs directing hikers to their "camps" (resorts, if they'r typical AMC lodgings) along the AT in the "Wilderness". If so, the MATC should be all over them for it.

That's the question I'm asking.

A video on a website is fine by me (but so is a sign on the AT announcing the White House Landing camp).

I'm looking for inconsistencies in logic here.

I only added the video link so that folks could see what is being discussed and quit arguing for 3:31.

It would be great if someone could add some more factual information such as some current photos.

[weary]

wait just a minute. society? neighbors? i thought we were talking about the "wilderness" that needs protecting from people?

Sorry, I thought you knew. Wilderness is a rare thing these days. It requires constant vigilence to exist.

[Tinker]

I only added the video link so that folks could see what is being discussed and quit arguing for 3:31.

It would be great if someone could add some more factual information such as some current photos.

Thank you. Discussion is fine, argument is not so fine.

[weary]

Funny, my wife just plopped an envelope in front of me from the MATC. They're looking for funding to staff certain sites where they use caretakers.

Interesting.................

Yep. As I recall we used to have 5 caretakers to protect fragile parts of the trail. This year we have cut back to three because of budget problems.

[Alligator]

I'm not taking sides here but if the AMC cared about it being wilderness they would have bought the land and let the camps rot. Wilderness is special, camps like those wouldn't exist in a federally designated wilderness. Just saying.

[kanga]

it's not there weary. it's just called the 100 mile wilderness. it's not really a wilderness. there's great dirt roads going through there and the at crosses them every time you sneeze. there are people at the crossings all the time. day hikers, people cutting through on their way home seeing if hikers need a ride, church groups at the "campsites", vans, beer cans. are you getting this?

[Tinker]

I'm not taking sides here but if the AMC cared about it being wilderness they would have bought the land and let the camps rot. Wilderness is special, camps like those wouldn't exist in a federally designated wilderness. Just saying.

Herein lies the contradiction - Wilderness needs people to love and protect it. The AMC introduces people (usually fairly well off folks with money to invest) to the wilderness from the comfort of substantial living quarters (in the Whites, it's the "Huts"). The living quarters themselves are far from natural but localize the environmental impact of many hikers. If good numbers of citified wealthy folks find enjoyment in the outdoors, there's a good chance that they will support the AMC monitarily, who then, if all things work properly, will provide the financial support to ensure the legal protection of designated wilderness (wild and remote or not).
It's a catch-22 situation.

[weary]

I think it would be a major disservice for the MATC NOT to indicate that emergency help could be had by traveling down the road and sounding the horn at the boat dock.
I met a LOT of unprepared hikers in the Hundred Mile "Wilderness" who might have had emergency situations if they got caught in bad weather.
If it is true that the AMC is signing side trails to their properties and services near the trail without the condemnation of the MATC, this particular situation smacks of elitism and hypocrisy, (and possibly monopoly?).

AS a member of the MATC board of directors, I know that AMC has requested approval of a side trail to Little Lyford Pond Camps. As I recall, the request was granted and a sign approved.

I can't speak officially for MATC. For a few years I was an overseer in the area. Now I just put out the MATC's five-times a year newsletter, the MAINEtainer.

But I have been around for a long time and I know that some of us think of the 100 miles as being as close to wilderness as exists in this area of the trail.

Anyway, when one ventures into an alleged "wilderness" one should be prepared to take care of oneself when caught in "emergency situations in bad weather."

That's the challenge that makes wilderness so desirable to a few of us, and why we fight to preserve as much remaining wildness as possible. Strange as it may seem to some, it's the preservation of wildness that makes me resist blaze orange signs along the trail, pointing the way to one pound worcestershire flavored hamburgers, tasty as they may be.

Weary

[Alligator]

Herein lies the contradiction - Wilderness needs people to love and protect it. The AMC introduces people (usually fairly well off folks with money to invest) to the wilderness from the comfort of substantial living quarters (in the Whites, it's the "Huts"). The living quarters themselves are far from natural but localize the environmental impact of many hikers. If good numbers of citified wealthy folks find enjoyment in the outdoors, there's a good chance that they will support the AMC monitarily, who then, if all things work properly, will provide the financial support to ensure the legal protection of designated wilderness (wild and remote or not).
It's a catch-22 situation.

You missed the "it being wilderness" part. It=100 mile wilderness. As long as the camps are there, it will never be wilderness (in the federal sense).

I get that we need multiple varieties of outdoor experience to broaden the base of outdoors minded people. I'm not sure what the best mix is nor am I judging AMC. I haven't seen these camps and maybe they were a good choice given the alternatives.

[Tinker]

How about small signs saying "emergency help - miles"? Is that against wilderness ethics? This is something I've never seen and wonder why (other than the obvious - wanting to "feel" as though one was in the middle of a vast wilderness. Far too few people venture into the woods with an emergency plan or even knowledge of nearby facilities which can render emergency services.

[ozt42]

I thoroughly enjoyed my stay at WHL in 2008 and expect to be back again this year.

I think we could probably rustle up the donations and support to have White House Landing added to a new sign for the Mahar Tote road but I get the impression that the MATC would not allow that to happen.

Would a new sign with a simple direction arrow and mileage solve the debate or would that be "commercialization"?

Why doesn't NLC a days hike north, a similar distance from the trail, offering similar services, and with a heavily maintained gravel road leading right up to their front door get a share of the venom that gets directed at WHL? Is it deeper pockets, or richer clientele?

[Razor]

Yes, That is how it works and it could be working with the White House also What I think everyone is critical of is the blatant hitting of WHL and the pass to AMC It just does not make anyone happy to see good providers like the WHL being bullied into strict enforcement and the big boys given a pass. That is not defendable.All along the trail providers are asked to change something that is not right but the way the club has tried to push this situation has not been right since the very beginning.

[Bearpaw]

You missed the "it being wilderness" part. It=100 mile wilderness. As long as the camps are there, it will never be wilderness (in the federal sense).

In the federal sense, it will never be wilderness as long as the logging roads are maintained, or permanent human structures still exist, or especially if logging continues in the region (which it does). None of these are allowed in a federally designated wilderness.

The "100-Mile Wilderness" is a neat place, but it's just a name, not an actual wilderness, with any actual legal designation. Claiming signage regulations exist to preserve "wilderness" is a falsehood.

[Tinker]

AS a member of the MATC board of directors, I know that AMC has requested approval of a side trail to Little Lyford Pond Camps. As I recall, the request was granted and a sign approved.

I can't speak officially for MATC. For a few years I was an overseer in the area. Now I just put out the MATC's five-times a year newsletter, the MAINEtainer.

But I have been around for a long time and I know that some of us think of the 100 miles as being as close to wilderness as exists in this area of the trail.

Anyway, when one ventures into an alleged "wilderness" one should be prepared to take care of oneself when caught in "emergency situations in bad weather."

That's the challenge that makes wilderness so desirable to a few of us, and why we fight to preserve as much remaining wildness as possible. Strange as it may seem to some, it's the preservation of wildness that makes me resist blaze orange signs along the trail, pointing the way to one pound worcestershire flavored hamburgers, tasty as they may be.

Weary

Hey! Don't blame the poor ol' hamburger . (I'm trying to keep this as light-hearted as possible).
I'm seeing that a lot of folks perceive this as a David (WHL) vs. Goliath (AMC, MATC) issue and just want the rules of engagement, so to speak, to be the same for both parties.

[weary]

I'm not taking sides here but if the AMC cared about it being wilderness they would have bought the land and let the camps rot. Wilderness is special, camps like those wouldn't exist in a federally designated wilderness. Just saying.

You're assuming that AMC has enormous amounts of money it can spend as it wishes. I know of no evidence that that is so. AMC has never been rich. When I first came involved in the 1970s the club was facing bankruptcy. It's recovered nicely in recent decades thanks to sound management.

But from what I'm told the AMC's investment in the 100-mile-wilderness is supposed to be self supporting. Much of the capital costs are being paid out of capital fundraising, including quite a bit from the state and federal governments.

But the facility costs, the bunk houses, the meals, and such are to be paid out of the income generated by such services, which is as it should be.

The investment in the 100 mile wilderness in Maine stemmed, as I understand it, in a desire by the club to get out from under the yoke of the US Forest Service.

AMC seemed to think it could do a better job without always having to answer to government bureaucrats in the Forest Service, which owns most of the property where the club operates in the White Mountains.

I sat in on some of the early Maine planning. The goals have changed significantly since then. Rather than a lot of new construction, the club has basically rehabilitated old sporting camps.

The result is not more wilderness, but less wilderness. But it strikes me as a fair compromise, given that the land was on the market, and repairing old buildings is far better than more summer homes and brand new resort facilities that purely commercial developers would have built.

Weary

[Alligator]

The only assumption I made there is that if the AMC did not want the land to revert to wilderness. That's true. They rehabilitated the camps. I wasn't making any money assumptions but I will say they had more money than they needed, they got the land and then fixed up the camps too. They could have saved some on rehabing the camps. It's clear the intent is not to let it revert to wilderness.

What's more germane to the argument though is what regulations exist in regard to signage and commercializaton of the trail. The sign issue here is not a wilderness issue, the legal designation is not wilderness.

[weary]

Hey! Don't blame the poor ol' hamburger . (I'm trying to keep this as light-hearted as possible).
I'm seeing that a lot of folks perceive this as a David (WHL) vs. Goliath (AMC, MATC) issue and just want the rules of engagement, so to speak, to be the same for both parties.

Well, Teej seems to be the only knowledgeable person who thinks that AMC is a competitor in this matter. AMC Maine living facilities in the area are many miles away from the trail. As near as I can tell, AMC does not seek the AT hiker dollar. Rather it seeks fishermen and family groups, and hikers willing to spend a weekend or a week, not an overnight, which seems to be WHL's prime business as near as I can tell.

As far as David vs. Goliath goes, neither qualifies. MATC is mostly a workingman's club. It's volunteers strike me as the hardest working volunteers I've ever seen, certainly not the richest.

Weary