View Full Version : Proposed New AMC Hut Crawford Notch
peakbagger
07-23-2015, 11:47
http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/121686-state-to-hold-hearings-on-proposed-new-amc-hut-would-lease-site-in-crawford-notch-state-park
The Crawford Notch RT 302 crossing has always been a bit of a desolate place in the whites. AMC started running shuttles a few years ago but access to resupply was normally a hitch or a real long walk. It is interesting that the AMC would build another facility on leased land as they reportedly had elected to only build new major facilities on land they owned after their near miss on losing the hut system on USFS land years back. Given the states perpetual need for funding I expect they can have a lot more control over the terms of the lease versus than when on federal land.
Nevertheless if built its nice future option for those planning section hikes.
This link will lead to a topi map showing the precise location.
http://www.nhstateparks.org/whats-happening/news-events/press-release-details.aspx?newsid=40193
odd. to non AT hikers in the whites (which is mostly everyone, btw) i always thought of the highland center as serving as the "hut" in crawford notch. if you're not married to following the AT then its basically right on the way between zealand and mitzpah. i'd think itd make more sense to put a new hut on either end (either between the carters and the mahoosucs or between the kinsmans and moosilauke) but i'm sure theres a million reasons not to.
TJ aka Teej
07-23-2015, 12:36
It's interesting what "hut" means to the AMC.
Sure. More "huts" in the White Mountains is just what we need.
The AMC is a useful lobbying group. It also organizes most of the trail maintenance activities. I'm a virtually lifelong member.
Its activities like the hotels it's basically an enemy of the backcountry experience in the Whites.
jersey joe
07-23-2015, 14:51
The huts in the Whites just added to the experience for me. Much like the campgrounds in Shenandoah.
If this project is done right, I can see it being a positive thing for the white mountains.
There is no need whatsoever for this. The hitch to the Highland Center was easy enough, and everything a hiker needs is there. Also, from Crawford you are only a few hours' hike from Mizpah and Zealand Falls huts.
This is just another cash cow for the ever-expending AMC monopoly in the Whites.
BirdBrain
07-23-2015, 15:36
I don't care for the huts. Easy solution. I don't go to the huts. Those that like huts will like this. Works for them. No big deal. As to the Mahoosucs and a hut: I hope not. The Mahoosucs are tough. That fact keeps the crowds down. The crowds are already there in Crawford Notch. This just gives another option for the crowds.
rocketsocks
07-23-2015, 16:08
It's interesting what "hut" means to the AMC.
Hiker utility tax?
\As to the Mahoosucs and a hut: I hope not. The Mahoosucs are tough. That fact keeps the crowds down. The crowds are already there in Crawford Notch. This just gives another option for the crowds.
if this is in response to my day dreaming aloud, i wasnt suggesting a hut in the mahoosucs, but one somewhere between carter notch and rt 2. to break up along stretch without any huts. past rte 2 i dont think theyd ever think of going. basically i was just saying breaking up the long stretches without huts that exist in a theoretical hut to hut traverse of the whites would seem to make more sense than sticking another hut right smack dab next to 2 already existing huts and the highland center. if amc is expanding the huts youd think a logical goal would be making it so you could start at glencliff and hike 8-10 miles a day staying at huts all the way to rte2. would be kind of cool if you were into that sort of thing. this idea though... i dont get it. or are the close to the road, easy to get to, year round huts (lonesome lake and carter notch) really just big money makers? i've never had the impression carter notch is. maybe lonesome lake is? its the only way this makes sense to me.
BirdBrain
07-23-2015, 17:48
if this is in response to my day dreaming aloud, i wasnt suggesting a hut in the mahoosucs, but one somewhere between carter notch and rt 2. to break up along stretch without any huts. past rte 2 i dont think theyd ever think of going. basically i was just saying breaking up the long stretches without huts that exist in a theoretical hut to hut traverse of the whites would seem to make more sense than sticking another hut right smack dab next to 2 already existing huts and the highland center. if amc is expanding the huts youd think a logical goal would be making it so you could start at glencliff and hike 8-10 miles a day staying at huts all the way to rte2. would be kind of cool if you were into that sort of thing. this idea though... i dont get it. or are the close to the road, easy to get to, year round huts (lonesome lake and carter notch) really just big money makers? i've never had the impression carter notch is. maybe lonesome lake is? its the only way this makes sense to me.
I wasn't really making any deep points. Just talking and proclaiming my love for the quiet Mahoosucs.
I would like to see more on this part of the plan:
AMC is also interested in creating a ski trail leading from the hut down to theroad connecting the state park with trails in the Zealand Valley.
Starchild
07-23-2015, 19:18
There is no need whatsoever for this. The hitch to the Highland Center was easy enough, and everything a hiker needs is there. Also, from Crawford you are only a few hours' hike from Mizpah and Zealand Falls huts.
This is just another cash cow for the ever-expending AMC monopoly in the Whites.
AMC customers don't hitch, it's not their clientele. They cater to people who don't have the ability or experience (or desire) to backpack the whites but still want to visit this magnificent place. These are not people who hitch. And yes AMC gains substantial revenue from these structures.
Another Kevin
07-23-2015, 20:09
It's interesting what "hut" means to the AMC.
About the same thing that Hutte means in the Alps.
BirdBrain
07-23-2015, 20:30
It's interesting what "hut" means to the AMC.
That ain't nothing. You should see the "cottages" of Acadia. Maybe you have.
if this is in response to my day dreaming aloud, i wasnt suggesting a hut in the mahoosucs, but one somewhere between carter notch and rt 2. to break up along stretch without any huts. past rte 2 i dont think theyd ever think of going. basically i was just saying breaking up the long stretches without huts that exist in a theoretical hut to hut traverse of the whites would seem to make more sense than sticking another hut right smack dab next to 2 already existing huts and the highland center. if amc is expanding the huts youd think a logical goal would be making it so you could start at glencliff and hike 8-10 miles a day staying at huts all the way to rte2. would be kind of cool if you were into that sort of thing. this idea though... i dont get it. or are the close to the road, easy to get to, year round huts (lonesome lake and carter notch) really just big money makers? i've never had the impression carter notch is. maybe lonesome lake is? its the only way this makes sense to me.
This makes sense from a thru-hiker point of view, but thru-hikers constitute a very small portion of hikers in the Whites. Many, many more hikers are there for a few days, peak-bagging, loop hiking, etc., and enjoy the huts for what they are.
This makes sense from a thru-hiker point of view, but thru-hikers constitute a very small portion of hikers in the Whites. Many, many more hikers are there for a few days, peak-bagging, loop hiking, etc., and enjoy the huts for what they are.
i agree wholeheartedly that AT thru hikers arent the majority users of the whites, no doubt. but that, to me, just makes this hut even more redundant with the highland center. they cover the exact same area. a hut in the kinsmans or carters would open up a new area to people who didnt want to backpack that isnt currently very accessible.
also, the number of people who do a non-at hut to hut to hut hike, i have found, is very high. i dont imagine anyone wanting to do zealand-new hut-mitzpah as they are all so close together. i could see a market for doing carter notch-new hut say somewhere around rattle river or kinsman notch to new hut to lonesome lake to franconia notch. at the moment, as i said in my first post here, i think a lot of people who for whatever reason dont want to do zealand to mitzpah in one shot just stop at the highland center, it is literally right on the trail, just not on OUR trail.
imscotty
07-23-2015, 22:06
It will be interesting to hear the local reaction to this. I seem to remember the Highland Center being a bone of contention in the permit renewal process. It is hard for local businesses to compete against a 'nonprofit' offering the same services.
i agree wholeheartedly that AT thru hikers arent the majority users of the whites, no doubt. but that, to me, just makes this hut even more redundant with the highland center. they cover the exact same area. a hut in the kinsmans or carters would open up a new area to people who didnt want to backpack that isnt currently very accessible.
This hut will be built on state land-- not a coincidence.
As to redundancy, is it your belief that this hut will not be well-used and popular?
This hut will be built on state land-- not a coincidence.
As to redundancy, is it your belief that this hut will not be well-used and popular?
i would think less well used and popular than if built somewhere else that doesnt already have such places very (as in under 3 miles away) nearby, yes. will it get used? i'm sure, at first especially.
Starchild
07-24-2015, 07:27
Any plans in connecting the hut to the highland center via rail? There is the abandoned train station at the AT crossing on a active tourist rail line, which if put back into service would link the 2 places (as the highland center has a rail stop), also a link into N. Conway.
It will be interesting to hear the local reaction to this. I seem to remember the Highland Center being a bone of contention in the permit renewal process. It is hard for local businesses to compete against a 'nonprofit' offering the same services.
Not with the prices the AMC charges.
Odd Man Out
07-24-2015, 10:57
I've been reading about the camping rules around the Whites and find them very confusing. I know dispersed camping options are limited but they do exist. Would the camping exclusion zone around a new hut eliminate existing options for camping?
BirdBrain
07-24-2015, 11:13
I've been reading about the camping rules around the Whites and find them very confusing. I know dispersed camping options are limited but they do exist. Would the camping exclusion zone around a new hut eliminate existing options for camping?
Yes. Camping is not allowed within 1/4 mile of an established site of ay kind. It really is not as hard as it seems. I am an OCD planner. It drove me bananas trying to get solid mapped areas where I could sleep. Signs are everywhere. As you approach an established site, a "you are here" sign will be visible giving clear instructions. As you approach an alpine region, a "don't camp here" sign will be posted. Some people rip the signs down. After you have seen a few, you will know what was there. It is sorta like seeing stop signs or yield signs. The very shape is enough. In between those areas, you will find many stealth spots. Honestly, it isn't that hard to plan your distances to hit the cheaper campsites (not huts). If you don't like campsites, push on a bit and you will find a spot.
I've been reading about the camping rules around the Whites and find them very confusing. I know dispersed camping options are limited but they do exist. Would the camping exclusion zone around a new hut eliminate existing options for camping?
There are a great many dispersed camping opportunities in the Whites.
If you don't camp above tree-line, or within 1/4 mile of road or structure you ar generally OK within the White Mountain National Forest --with the additional requirement that you walk 200' off trail in some (not all) Wilderness areas.
There are specific restrictions-- as detailed in formal Forest Supervisor's Orders, but these are generally in high use (over use) areas.
Along the AT there is another kind of restriction, however -- a lack of decent spots in some stretches -- especially if you "need" to be near a water source or have a big tent.
peakbagger
07-24-2015, 11:34
Note National Forest guidelines would not apply to the new hut as its on state land but very close to the WMNF. I think Lonesome Lake is on state land and they do enforce a 1/4 buffer so the state may use the same rules
I am sure the ATC will have some input, but if this goes forward it would make sense to route the AT back into the woods at the end of the Ethan Pond Trail.
31448
Question for Peakbagger-- Have you or any of your fellow hikers on VFTT bushwhacked to the proposed hut location? Given the name the AMC selected, it would seem like that it could have some interesting natural features.