Originally Posted by WingedMonkey
Mainespeak for "some guy."
I knew who he was. But I also am a member of organizations that occasionally beg LL Bean for money. I just didn't want to post anything that might piss him off. I did that once. I wrote a book review that said Bean boots have the slipperiest soles of any footwear I've ever used in the woods. He wrote a pissed off letter to the editor claiming I was destroying the mystique of LL Bean that had made the company successful. Now don't go babbling to the company that I said this.
I was only turned away from one hut. I wasn't bothered that they refused work for stay, even though it was late in the day, and we told them we didn't even care about the food, just needed somewhere to sleep. What did bother me is that they "didn't have the room", but if we paid $12 they would find somewhere for us to sleep. I moved on and night hiked off the mountain. While most of the croo members I met were nice there were a few that came accross as snotty rich kids that feel they are somehow better than long distance hikers. Before I am accused of feeling entitled, I wil let you know that I only stayed at two huts. After that I tried to avoid them, and even refused work for stay at one. The Whites were awesome, but the hoards of people, and the huts, and regulations took the fun out of it for me.
if you hiked from georgia and made it to NH you should know by then how to bed down for the nite. snotty rich kids owe you nothing. you ARE just another entitled "thru-hiker"
Other people are paying $100 to stay at the hut and you turn it down because it's going to cost you a measly $12 dollars! What the heck is wrong with you? (That's a rhetorical question, Lone Wolf already given the correct answer.)Pony-"...What did bother me is that they "didn't have the room", but if we paid $12 they would find somewhere for us to sleep. I moved on and night hiked off the mountain. ..."
That's exactly what I did do. Why would I pay $12 to sleep on a floor when I could walk a few more miles and sleep on the ground for free? The $12 didn't even include the leftover dinner, just a floor. I would have gladly worked for the floor space, but was unwilling to part with the money. Anyway the snotty rich kids I was refering to were at a different hut, like I said, most of the croo members I met were nice, just a few brats at one of the huts gave me this impression.
As far as entitlement goes, am I not entitled to camp in a national forest? Why should the AMC be able to make money off of the national forest and I can't even camp there without forking out some money? Don't the national forests belong to all Americans?
Those people chose to walk to the huts and pay $100. I was merely walking through and my camping options were very limited. I was on a pretty tight budget by this point, so $12 was hardly measly. And before anyone accuses me of being a mooch, let it be known that I never bummed a thing off of fellow hikers, just wasn't fortunate enough to have 10k in the bank when I started.
OK, I'll throw my 2 cents in this discussion.
So, it's up to $100 now.
I guess they need to help pay for those helicopters to bring the food and supplies up.
I have always disliked these so called "huts"
They are not huts. Some of them are HUGE hotels built on some wonderful land. (Lake of the crowds is above treeline and sleeps 80 i believe!) (that one should be the 1st to go)
Now they are letting college kids decide who pays $100 and who pays $12 and who stays for free.
Absurd.
I say rip them all down and lets hike the whites the way they should be hiked.
With tents and our own food.
The hordes will stay away, the fragile environment will survive stronger than ever, but the AMC will have to find other ways to make their millions. (they can keep the AYCE breakfast there at Pinkham though) (is it still only $5)
I even hear they charge to sleep in the dungeon now.
Helicopters, Hotels above treeline, Railroads above treeline, not to mention manned-weather stations, post office, and of course the restaurant and souvenir stand on Mt Washington. Let the tourists go to the ski areas and leave real wilderness for the real hikers.
Anyway..........
when rules are designed to make money for the rule maker, they tend to suck for the rest of us.
Don't let your fears stand in the way of your dreams
I paid $10 for the AYCE at Pinkham Notch. The only money I gave the AMC. The only two nights I stayed at huts (which I felt forced to do rather than by choice) I heard the croo members talking to guests about how they're trying to educate the public about not loving the land to death. On my way down off of Mt. Washington I was behind some people, (hut guests) who incedentally would not let me pass, say " hey the walking is much easier if you get off of the trail and walk down here. On top of fragile alpine plants. Seems to me they are enabling people to love the land to death, all in the name of profit.
Perhaps I am misinformed, but I got the impression that our national forest has been highjacked by a group of people who are gaining monitarily. Don't get me started on the cog railway or the auto road.
simmer
If you start at 6am then as a good hiker you should be able to avoid the huts by hiking the alpine zone through.Why would you want to join the gong show at thue hut? Btw . The huts in the alps under contract with the Alpine Club are required to leave enough space for emergency arrivals. You will have to pay though, just like everyone else. No big deal, really. They just have it figured out better. The AMC huts run on juvenile management rules compared to more experienced operations. Asking you to leave them money in yoir will while you are sitting on the toilet is priceless. Haha. Goes along with paying measly wages to suckers.OTOH if your knees were 'screaming' that just about sums up 90% of hikers that go through Madison. Hardly a cause for pity.Funny to see croo attitude colliding with the through hiker attitude.
AMC and the hut system take a lot of heat for bringing clueless tourists to our "wild places" that would never survive a night above treeline, were it not for the hut system. But overall, theres a fine line between bringing public awareness to preserving these "wild" places and loving them to death. I always have mixed feelings, even on day hikes when I see large groups of novice hikers yapping away, chasing away the wildlife walking around mudholes, etc. the flip side is if they can learn to love nature, hopefully they'll help preserve it.Ive stayed at the huts on many occasions, and for me its a great way to explore the whites without having to carry food, stove, tent etc. and anyone whos hiked up there knows the difference between carrying 15 lbs and 30.Theyve allowed me to explore trails that I normally wouldnt have hiked if not for the huts(as well as the RMC sites, which many here have forgotten about).the croo has some educational programs for the kids, talk about LNT as well. Even if their parents are clueless, many of these kids are experiencing the "backcountry" for the first time.If they are properly educated, they will become the next caretakers of the land for subsequent generations, as we are now.I am an AMC member, and AMC is far from perfect, but I do believe its about a lot more than just the money.The huts and the croo owe thruhikers no explanation. their policies are not new.
Pony, if the huts werent there, you wouldnt have the beauty in The WHites. There would be trash everywhere from mainly, thruhikers. Im sorry but if you couldnt part with $12 maybe you should have gone home. I had the same opinion of the AMC before my hike based on what other people said about it but after being in the Whites I gained a true appreciation for them. The people that work for them are caring for the trail that you take for granted. You cant camp where you want because if you did, there would be s*** everywhere because Thruhikers dont know how to pick up after themselves. You are def acting a little like the entitled hiker we commonly bash around here, no offense. No one owes you anything.
You are misinformed. The huts came first, not the national forest and were there for many, many years before the land around them became "nationallized". Parts of Mt Washington are still privately owned, such as the auto road and cog railroad. The summit is state park, not national forest.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
Seems to me that anytime someone has an opinion about the huts or the AMC on this site, the entitlement topic is close behind. So lets talk about entitlement. I'm sure the poor folks moved out of SNP felt that they were entitled to that land before the federal government moved them out to create the park, however unfortunately for them they didn't have the deep pockets that the AMC does. To really put it in context, the only group of people that are truly entitled to any land in the U. S. are the Native Americans, but we all know what happened to them. The Whites and the Huts are in close proximity to large metropolitan areas such as New York and Boston, and the "owners" have a lot of money. I'm sure this was the case when the national forest was created. Why do you not see hut systems in the Smokies or the Shenendoah's? I'm purely guessing here, but I would bet that when these parks were created there was nobody to stand in the way except for poor rural people, not wealthy people from the city. So it doesn't appear that previous ownership makes a big difference, but rather who owned it first.
As far as the Whites being trashed if it weren't for the AMC, give me a break. I could see that nasty smoke from the cog railway for two days before I ever reached Mt. Washington. All the huts, the auto road, which by the way was the only place I saw litter in the Whites, and especially the railroad and that mess on top of Mt. Washington looked like trash to me, and the AMC is diong nothing to clean that up.
Maybe I do feel entitled, I don't know, but I'll bet if you knew me you would think otherwise.
Native Amreicans have never had any concept of land ownership, a purely european concept.they understood they were stewards of the land for future generatins.The histry of the whites is what it is. the auto road , cog railway, observatory, restaurant, huts. the whites are immenssely popular for their beauty, and without proper management, would be overrun. the trash issue, IMHO, would be infinitely worse.the smokires arent paticularly thru hiker freindly either.I dont think you, pony have a particular entitlement issue, but history cant be rewrittern, and the rules have been in place long before yo took your first steps.
I hate to be an appologist for the AMC, but we're not about to change 150+ years of tradition just because someone from "away" doesn't like the way things work around here. Anyway, the AMC has nothing to do with the auto road, the cog railroad or what is on top of Mt Washington. Those are all different and completely independant orginizations. Maybe you should read up on the history of the White Mountains and who developed it.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
I admit that I am not well informed about the history of the AMC, and i intend on doing some research. I also didn't intend to come accross as hating the AMC, although after rereading my posts I can understand how people could think that I do. I understand that they do some good things, and they certainly have their place in the White Mountains. That being said, my perception has been that the WMNF is governed by different rules than any other NF I've been in. After my hike I tried to find some info about the special use agreement, and had little luck, any suggestions on where to start so that I may be better informed?
Seriously?
Not even remotely true
please explain yourself regarding the concept of land ownership. please show me a single tribal boundary line. or even a native american map.Im not talking about whether they practiced LNT, im only talking about ownership of the land.they knew the land ws not and could not be "owned".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
