setting the record straight on whitehouse landing camps

[GGS2]

I'm a little bit puzzled by all this stuff. My understanding is that the 100 mile wilderness is the remains of a large timber limit in northern Maine, possibly all of northern Maine at one time. The camps such as WHL are what remains of a network of fishing and hunting camps that used to service the guests of the timber companies and others. I am familiar with such camps, as we have a few of them up here in Canada. Now I guess the area is turning into a wilderness by someone's definition, or at least the AT corridor is. So, WHL is somehow grandfathered, and is still a legal enterprise with a right to exist. The debate seems to be about bad blood over some signage "vandalism", and some ongoing maintenance on an access road that is supposed to revert to wilderness. The WHL seems to survive in part by serving 100-mile wilderness thrus, and the said thrus are largely glad of the service, to the extent that the WHL has entered into the lore of the trail, including their greasy, overpriced, much devoured and desired burgers and pizzas. Have I got it right so far?

You know, this is the sort of dispute that often ends up in court enriching nobody but the lawyers, and often ends up bankrupting the lesser of the disputants. As someone has said, "Why can't we all just get along?" Why not just work out a compromise, such as a simple sign and permission to maintain the old trail? What's the big deal?

By the way, I don't want to give the impression that Canada is lily white in this sort of this. There are a number of national parks which have had to deal with such things, and one, Fourillon in Gaspe, ended up removing a whole village by eminent domain. Not a pretty record. That's why I am so keen that people just accept a small compromise. It wouldn't be unique, nor would it be an unsustainable blotch on the pristine character of the area. The were timber limits, for heaven's sake, and the access trail was a tote road! Good grief!

If I got it wrong, never mind, as Gilda used to say.

[ed bell]

Speaking as a complete outsider who has never been around the area in question, why haven't we been directed to pictures of anything having to do with any of this? I guess I'll go look for some. I think it would put some perspective on this.

[Alligator]

If you google whitehouse landing they have a website and the camp is linked to a google map. You can see their dock but I didn't know where the actually pickup point is on the other side. I don't have the Maine maps to look at.

The AMC site has a map of the Lyford Camp which shows it's position relative to the AT.

No photos yet though of the junctions.

[ed bell]

I couldn't find one searching this photo database. You'd think there would be some photos if there were some sort of shenanigans going on.

[Jester2000]

On the PCT there's an official trail sign pointing out that McDonald's is .4 mi to the right when you hit El Cahon.

Perhaps when one is blessed with an abundance of wilderness one takes such things less seriously.

Still seems like much ado to me, though.

[Shutterbug]

Speaking as a complete outsider who has never been around the area in question, why haven't we been directed to pictures of anything having to do with any of this? I guess I'll go look for some. I think it would put some perspective on this.

When I passed Whitehouse Landing in 2004, the only sign was a business card posted to a tree with a thumb tack.

In 2005, this was the sign. I certainly wasn't offended by it. It certainly didn't interfere with my wilderness experience.

[Lone Wolf]

there's a sign for Kincora nailed to a tree right on the trail down in Tennessee. it's against ATC policy. but nobody does anything about it

[envirodiver]

Ah, I see Weary just got Kanga rude , her typical knee-jerk response to people she can't discuss issues with logically. Too bad she doesn't understand the simple concept that the land is public land administrated by NPS and they are the ones who have said no commercialization, like signs to private businesses-it has nothing to do with Weary. Despite all the bluster and pointless rhetoric from Kanga, Weary can't put a sign there any more than Kanga or WHL can, it's illegal, plain and simple.

If Kanga truly works for the Government then she should know enough to go through the proper channels to try to get a sign that meets her specifications placed on Mahar Tote Road rather than continuing her personal attacks in these forums. The rest of her diatribe isn't worth commenting on, other than to say a whole lot of TP is needed to clean it up..

So how do the signs to the AMC businesses fit into this?

[camp mom]

When I passed Whitehouse Landing in 2004, the only sign was a business card posted to a tree with a thumb tack.

In 2005, this was the sign. I certainly wasn't offended by it. It certainly didn't interfere with my wilderness experience.

that sign was posted at the end of the marhar tote rd.1/4 mi. was not seen from the a.t. it directed hikers to go right at that point,now there is only 1 sign there,got to remember to these rds use to be used for snowmobiles also, we served food and had cabins,and it is still used to this day. they are little orange sign with a snowmobile on it,all groomed trails have those signs.

[white_russian]

I want to go back to the very beginning. When WHL put their very first sign like ten years ago or whatever did they contact anyone such as the MATC, ATC, NPS, ect beforehand or did they just do it? Did they ever even try to grease the wheels to get their sign?

I know if it was me I would have started working with that sections maintainer and checking on Polywadjo Lean-to and what not. Maybe let that section's maintainer join you at the dinner table and stay at the camp for free or when they were working on the trail. Maybe join the MATC. Then talk about a sign.

[weary]

Your wrote the newsletter in 2008. It says the following


Is there a sign at that junction? I haven't been to KIW in many years.

You also said there was a sign approved for the side trail Post #91.

How about MATC just buries the hatchet since they were willing to let AMC have one. You could sponsor it Weary. Then everyone can make nicey nicey and we can talk about Bigfoot.

So no MATC minutes?

[/LEFT]

I believe you and others have been quoting from the annual meeting minutes. They usually run in the first or second issue after the early April annual meetings.

There are also minutes of our five-times a year MATC board meetings, but I don't keep them on file.

As for me motioning for a sign, the overseer for that area handles such things. He saw what struck him as illegal signs, investigated, talked with the leasees of sporting camps under discussion, failed to reach what he thought was a reasonable solution, and so notified the National Park Service.

AS near as I can tell, most MATC board members seem quite happy with the status quo, which was achieved as the result of the park service visit, and, I suspect, would not welcome me bringing up the issue again. I doubt if my motion would get a second. I'm sure it wouldn't pass.

WHL has long since achieved its goal. All hikers who read the trail registers or talk to other hikers know that the business exists, that it has highly prized one pound hamburgers. And visiting there is both a break from the routine of the "wilderness," a friendly stay, and a chance to thumb their noses at mean old MATC and the park service.

And by raising the issue again as they open for the hiker season, WHL has helped make doubly sure that even new hikers will be well aware of its existence.

Weary

[JEBjr]

I'm can see how signs on the AT could get out of control. How about just a flyer in the Shelter Journal prior to WHL? Seems like most of the Shelter Journals that I've seen have leaflets advertising upcoming trail attractions as well as emergency contact information.

[Alligator]

Can't seem to get a straight answer from you Weary.

1. Does AMC have a sign pointing to their Lyford Camp? AMC got approval for one from MATC, as you reported.

2. Do you support the approval of the AMC sign, whether or not it has been placed?

3. Do you support the reported new side trail that AMC has as reported by you? (I'm going by your report.)

4. Would you support a sign for WHL, regardless of who you have to talk to about it being placed?

[weary]

When I passed Whitehouse Landing in 2004, the only sign was a business card posted to a tree with a thumb tack.

In 2005, this was the sign. I certainly wasn't offended by it. It certainly didn't interfere with my wilderness experience.

Many thanks for posting the photo. Offensive, or not, the array is a blatant violation of National Park regulations that MATC is charged with enforcing.

Weary

[camp mom]

I want to go back to the very beginning. When WHL put their very first sign like ten years ago or whatever did they contact anyone such as the MATC, ATC, NPS, ect beforehand or did they just do it? Did they ever even try to grease the wheels to get their sign?

I know if it was me I would have started working with that sections maintainer and checking on Polywadjo Lean-to and what not. Maybe let that section's maintainer join you at the dinner table and stay at the camp for free or when they were working on the trail. Maybe join the MATC. Then talk about a sign.

when we first opened our doors to hikers in 99 we didnt have a clue about any of that stuff.we didnt even know the prior history whl had with the early days of the at.poopajack,suggested to bill to open up to hikers because we were in the 100 mile wilderness where its hard to get stuff.it made sense. so we did, not realizing what we were about to udertake and how it was going to change our lives.as stated in previous posts and the original blog,mark simpson president of the matc hiked in from monson to meet us and take down any signs we had put up.by the time he got to us he had changed his mind and allowed our signs to stay up until he could go in front of the board to suggest that they make us an approved sign.he said the positive feedback from the sobo's had changed his mind and what we were doing was a good thing.We never heard back from anybody .so, we just left the sign up.A year later we met a hiker who was at that meeting and that suggestion was blown out of the water with dynamite. then we realized we were on our own and the matc was not under any circumstances going to approve of a sign for a place that just took away their claim to fame of the longest stretch of the at without a place to get stuff.here it is 12 years later and no reasonable solution has been settled upon.this isnt rocket science.we fit the trail more than most places being one of the original 11 that were along the 100 mile wilderness in the early days of the at.All we did was reopen our doors 50 years later.

[weary]

Can't seem to get a straight answer from you Weary.

1. Does AMC have a sign pointing to their Lyford Camp? AMC got approval for one from MATC, as you reported.

I haven't personally seen it, but I believe a sign that meets park service and MATC standards has been installed.

2. Do you support the approval of the AMC sign, whether or not it has been placed?

Yes

3. Do you support the reported new side trail that AMC has as reported by you? (I'm going by your report.)

Yes. the trail was actually built by MATC and AMC volunteers to MATC standards.

4. Would you support a sign for WHL, regardless of who you have to talk to about it being placed?

If WHL applies for a sign that meets MATC and Park Service standards for signs on the Appalachian Trail, I would vote to approve its placement. Such a sign would have to provide information needed by hikers, rather than simply the promotion of a commercial business, as I understand the rules.

[camp mom]

Many thanks for posting the photo. Offensive, or not, the array is a blatant violation of National Park regulations that MATC is charged with enforcing.

Weary

do you not understand,did you read my remark to that sign???? it was a 1/4 mile from the a.t. well over the 500ft.set back from the trail corridor. the reason that also was there is we did not want a hiker to walk the rest of the way to our boat dock to find out he or she missed dinner ,or would be after dark to sound the air horn. was a good thing to do,nothing worse than an upset hungry hiker.so understand this weary that sign was legal. nothing to do with the matc.i think its time for you to retire

[camp mom]

If WHL applies for a sign that meets MATC and Park Service standards for signs on the Appalachian Trail, I would vote to approve its placement. Such a sign would have to provide information needed by hikers, rather than simply the promotion of a commercial business, as I understand the rules.

yea, hiker services,doesn't that say it all???

[Alligator]

Camp mom, you might get a compromise of a sign showing the turn and distance, but a whole load of business details, I'd suggest making a compromise there.

[camp mom]

I believe you and others have been quoting from the annual meeting minutes. They usually run in the first or second issue after the early April annual meetings.

There are also minutes of our five-times a year MATC board meetings, but I don't keep them on file.

As for me motioning for a sign, the overseer for that area handles such things. He saw what struck him as illegal signs, investigated, talked with the leasees of sporting camps under discussion, failed to reach what he thought was a reasonable solution, and so notified the National Park Service.

AS near as I can tell, most MATC board members seem quite happy with the status quo, which was achieved as the result of the park service visit, and, I suspect, would not welcome me bringing up the issue again. I doubt if my motion would get a second. I'm sure it wouldn't pass.

WHL has long since achieved its goal. All hikers who read the trail registers or talk to other hikers know that the business exists, that it has highly prized one pound hamburgers. And visiting there is both a break from the routine of the "wilderness," a friendly stay, and a chance to thumb their noses at mean old MATC and the park service.

And by raising the issue again as they open for the hiker season, WHL has helped make doubly sure that even new hikers will be well aware of its existence.

Weary

what do think we are STUPID!! no maintaineers has never been in to see us,no rick st .croix,so if he had said that he did,you better think again of him being a dedicated,law abiding maintainer,we are not promoting our business,we are trying to get thru to you and the ones that don't want us there,its not about the signs is it,well we will still have our doors open to all the a.t. hikers that want to stop,at least we don't make them feel like a second class citizen like the amc makes them feel like in the white,all are created equal.