is it me or the AMC sometimes acts like it owns the White Mountains?

[wakapak]

The OP makes a good point about the AMC despite the "Catcher in the Rye" analogy. The AMC is a rich and powerful club. They have far more money, power and clout than the ATC. It's board of directors are rich people. They throw their weight around with the Forest Service, National Park Service, New England State Governments and the ATC. You might think that a simple hiking club with a handful of outdoor enthusiasts would not evolve into such a monster. They have an attitude similar to the PATC that they are in charge and can make the rules the want either directly or through influence at the National and State level. Why else could a private club make many millions of dollars on land owned by the people of the United States? The elitist attitude that most thru-hikers feel when enter these clubs turf is obvious to most. They say that they are limiting the shelters and campsites available to hikers because they need to protect the environment. That is why you should spend huge sums of money to stay in the huts. The trail clubs need to all be tossed out of government land and the AT returned to the citizens. The ATC needs to take over management of the trail in reality as opposed to being a front organization.

So the ATC should take over management in The Whites even thought the AT only uses a small portion of trails that are actually in The Whites? no way...there's far more trails and areas to maintain, protect and keep up than just the AT up here in The Whites. There's far more people hiking up here in The Whites than hiking on the AT in a given year too. I don't agree with everything the AMC does, but I will say that the organization as a whole keeps these mountains and trails in great condition for everyone to enjoy, from the dayhiker to an AT thru-hiker.

And to those saying the AT is hard to follow up here in The Whites, you just have to be able to read signs and a map truly, which is true backpacking. The trails in the Whites have been around way longer than the AT has, so they weren't going to be re-named just because the AT traverses over the same trail...

[Mountain Mike]

Ezra, We still pay and volunteer. We just don't do that with the AMC. We give them the toss. The new trail managers will be part of the Federal Government. Yes they will do a much better than the "for profit AMC club". The NPS does a much better job than the AMC in other National Parks. Even the much overcrowded Grand Canyon NP offers better management. The AMC wants to cater to the rich. That is why they treat thru-hikers so poorly.

I grew up hiking in the Whites. Like LW said they predate much of the AT. The build & maintain the trails. It's a high use area wher they have built composter privys. One year I helped them clear the landing zone at Etan Pond for the four helicopter drops it took to fly the materials in just to build one. Someone has to mantain them. I've helped to see how it was done at Garfield Ridge CS. It's not a pleasent chore! Aftr hiking the AT & mst of PCT I will take the AMC over any National Park!
AMC is part of ATC & runs programs throuout the year teaching first aid, leave no trace, climbing, etc. Sorry if they don't cater personally to every thru hiker even though they offer work for stay.

[Slo-go'en]

The problem here is your that comparing apples to oranges.

The AMC is in the lodging buisness and the others are not. The AMC owns some pretty prime real estate since they got into this nearly 100 years ago. They also have a publishing buisness, selling all those maps and guides. All this has to be properly managed. They maybe non-profit (and a good thing they are), but they are a buisness with significant physical assets which need to be maintained and managed.

[Sly]

Wak, you'll be pulling hair out of your head trying to follow Moldy's logic. On other threads, ALDHA and the ATC are evil organisations trying to brainwash hikers.

[Mountain Mike]

Stay in one place to long & mold will grow on you, best to keep hiking!

[Lemni Skate]

Man, that's one giant chip on your shoulder!

[rocketsocks]

Stay in one place to long & mold will grow on you, best to keep hiking!

A rolling stone gathers no moss

[rocketsocks]

A rolling stone gathers no moss

Attachment 23401

don't let this happen to you.

[moldy]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

[hikerboy57]

$8 fees are hardly catering to the rich.the hut stay is about the same as a motel once you factor in meals.
the amc does not own the smokies which has similar restrictions.rmc also charges a fee at their sites and they maintain over 100 trails in n.nh.
when you are planning hiking the whites, plan thinking the huts never existed, you know, the huts the amc built that everyone complains about?pretend theyre not there.
the planners of the at decided to use existing amc trails, not the other way around

[Symba]

The problem here is your that comparing apples to oranges.

The AMC is in the lodging buisness and the others are not. The AMC owns some pretty prime real estate since they got into this nearly 100 years ago. They also have a publishing buisness, selling all those maps and guides. All this has to be properly managed. They maybe non-profit (and a good thing they are), but they are a buisness with significant physical assets which need to be maintained and managed.

Well stated and agreed my friend.

[Symba]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

Ugh, there are so many people visiting the Whites that the clubs need to monitor the leave no trace practice, make sure people don't decimate the landscape. Their practices of 'control' are needed in such an area. A lot of people learn to treat the environment with care by utilizing this system of huts. I, for one as a long distance hiker, would like to have the choice to not have to camp in 'their' designated areas. A possible solution could be a 'long distance backpacker' permit that may allow those who can show their ability to LNT stealth camping practices. It won't happen, just a suggestion. The monies are needed up there in the Whites to help with costs to keep it pristine. Imagine all those visitors not staying on the trail, disregarding the 'rules' of that area of trail for their own use. I reside near the AT in PA/NJ/NY. It is volunteer work at it's best but you still see where people freely camp, impact the landscape, build fires wherever THEY want, and leave garbage. If there was a system of huts in place with the campsites it would be more pristine IMHO. I always pick up garbage when I day hike. I always stop at shelters to see if anyone needs help. Not everyone knows how to 'BE.' So, in actuality a system in some areas has to be in place to protect what we all LOOK at. just my two cents.

[Sly]

Does the AMC act like they own the Whites?

Let's see, they build and maintain trail, they build and maintain huts, they build and maintain shelters and campsite, they probably maintain trailheads, they have had, and continue to have a zillion year lease with the US Forest Service (who doesn't have the budget to do what the AMC does).

Why would they think they own the Whites!?

[Tuckahoe]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

What you see as "the AMC acting likle it own's the Whites" I see as the AMC working to manage and lessen the impact of people/hikers on a fragile environment. As many have pointed out you dont have to use the huts, and paying a small fee to the folks that manage the area is very reasonable.

[JustaTouron]

A possible solution could be a 'long distance backpacker' permit that may allow those who can show their ability to LNT stealth camping practices.

What does one thing have to do with another. I know day hikers who practice LNT and there are thru-hikers who either don't know or totally disregard LNT.

Maybe the problem is you get spoiled in the Smokes were they have a special permit just for thru-hikers allowing you to play by different rules, fees and reservations than folks on a weekend or week long vacation. The whites don't treat AT hikers inferior to other hikers, they just don't offer special treatment.

[Jack Tarlin]

Tuckahoe: The AMC's constant claim of being passionately concerned about the fragility of the environment they're involved with would hold a lot more water if it weren't for the fact that they spend thousands of dollars every year on ads, glossy brochures, websites, etc. encouraging thousands of people (many woefully ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with and respect this environment) to visit there. If the White Mountains were a National Park, it'd be one of, if not the most visited National Park in the United States, and most of this visitation occurs in just a few short months of the year. If the AMC was TRULY interested in the fragility of this area, then maybe they wouldn't expend so much effort trying to get more people to visit each year. By the way, I have no problem at all with small fees that cover the cost/expense of maintaining high-use campsites; Ridgerunner/caretaker programs, etc., but it is a simple truth that the best way to reduce high-impact damage to over-used locales and destinations is to have fewer people visit them. Enticing countless thousands of folks to visit fragile and at-risk areas seems like an odd sort of way to protect them.

[Lone Wolf]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

wow. you are ignorant

[peakbagger]

If someone wants to understand the hows and whys of AMC and their relationship to the WMNF, they would need to review the EIS that they had to develop when their lease/special use permit was renewed with the FS about 15 years ago. I happen to have a copy of it in my collection. They had to look at three options, rip en down, go limited services or keep what they got. Contrary to popular opinion the AMC doesn't own the land under the huts but they do have permit to operate a hut system on USFS land. They along with the USFS develop a management plan to manage the huts. The USFS is the entity that sets the rules on where folks can camp in high use areas. If the huts weren't there it is highly likely that the options for staying along the ridgeline would be far less.

Subsequent to getting the permit AMC has aggressively gone to only building facilities on land they own and control, one of the reasons that they bought the large amount of acreage in the 100 mile wilderness and that they built the Highland Center on their own land. If its on there own land they have far less federal oversight.

[Sly]

The whites don't treat AT hikers inferior to other hikers, they just don't offer special treatment.

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

[JustaTouron]

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

As opposed to $98+ tax for non-thru hikers.

You're effective wage was about $130 per hour.

Wasn't the complaint that thru-hikers were being treated poorly?