PDA

View Full Version : AMC Buys Camp in 100-Mile Wilderness



SavageLlama
08-07-2006, 14:05
Appalachian Mountain Club buys camp in 100-Mile Wilderness
Associated Press Newswires
August 7, 2006
01:06 PM

GREENVILLE, Maine (AP) - The Appalachian Mountain Club said Monday it has purchased a sporting camp along Second Roach Pond as part of an ongoing strategy that combines land conservation, recreation and sustainable forestry in the 100-Mile Wilderness.

The acquisition of Medawisla Wilderness Camps follows the outdoors organization's purchase three years ago of the nearby Katahdin Iron Works tract, a 37,000-acre property that was its largest land acquisition ever.

The 100-Mile Wilderness extends from Monson to Baxter State Park and is traversed by one of the Appalachian Trail's most rugged sections. Its natural features include the West Branch of the Pleasant River, which feeds the Gulf Hagas Gorge, and the three highest peaks between Bigelow and Katahdin.

The Medawisla camp, in operation since 1953, include seven housekeeping cabins frequented by hikers, canoeists, fishermen, wildlife watchers and cross-country skiers. The AMC will continue to manage the camps for backcountry recreation as part of its Maine Woods Initiative, which seeks to address the region's needs by supporting nature-based tourism and recreation as well as local forest products jobs.

Medawisla, seven miles south of Kokadjo and accessible by gravel logging roads, is the second sporting camp in the area under AMC management. The club also runs Little Lyford Pond Camps, 15 miles to the south. Both camps are open to the public.

"We are excited to broaden the range of outdoor experiences we can offer to the public, a key goal of the initiative," said Walter Graff, the club's deputy director.

Medawisla was purchased form Larry and Shannon LeRoy, who have owned and managed the property since 1992.

Based in Boston, the 90,000-member AMC was established in 1876 and describes itself as the nation's oldest conservation and recreation organization.
------
On the Net: http://www.outdoors.org

mingo
08-07-2006, 14:14
how long will it take the Appalachian Money Club to build some damn holiday inn-type lodges up there and turn the 100-mile wilderness into the 100-mile tourist trap?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-07-2006, 14:56
Why is "Another one bites the dust" playing in my head?

Hammerhead
08-07-2006, 15:14
Say hello to the future 100-Mile Strip Mall

Jack Tarlin
08-07-2006, 15:32
The AMC has no interest in building a strip mall. I'm sure that in the long run, having the AMC in charge of this property will be a positive thing. If this land had to be sold, I'm glad it was purchased by the AMC and not by an independent commercial developer, who would do God-knows-what with it.

That being said, I certainly hope they don't plan to duplicate the New Hampshire hut system here. Wise and caring stewardship of a beautiful but fragile area is obviously a worthy goal, but building more back-country lodges for the well-to-do, in order to provide more play areas for their club's members, is not, in my opinion, the best way to go.

I'll be curious to see what happens next.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-07-2006, 15:42
Jack makes an excellent point - the AMC likely won't do as much damage as most commercial developers. However, their previous track record hints that they may turn the property into a resort rather than a campground.

mingo
08-07-2006, 15:56
they've got something up their sleeve. they wouldn't buy some kind of fishing camp just to operate it indefinitely as is.

The Old Fhart
08-07-2006, 16:09
Although it is AMC PR, you could start here (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/mwi-march-final.pdf) to get some info. Of course speculating without facts is certainly more fun!

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-07-2006, 16:46
Old Fhart, I can't find the plans for the new camp in the press release (http://www.outdoors.org/about/newsroom/press/2006/amc-purchases-medawisla-wilderness-camps.cfm). Are they stated elsewhere?

Hammerhead
08-07-2006, 16:50
Although it is AMC PR, you could start here (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/mwi-march-final.pdf) to get some info. Of course speculating without facts is certainly more fun!


Exactly....I wasn't being serious about the 100-Mile Strip Mall.

Frosty
08-07-2006, 17:02
Of course speculating without facts is certainly more fun!I find facts limit what conclusions I reach, and are not conducive to pre-determining outcomes prior to starting a discussion.

Shutterbug
08-07-2006, 17:51
The Medawisla camp, in operation since 1953, include seven housekeeping cabins frequented by hikers, canoeists, fishermen, wildlife watchers and cross-country skiers.

Now, I am really confused. I visited a camp in that area a few years ago, but my pictures look nothing like the cabin shown on the Medawisla Camp web site.

The camp I visited was just off of French Town Road south of Kokodjo. I wonder if it was a different camp or if the pictures on their web site are really old?

The Old Fhart
08-07-2006, 18:10
Frolicking Dinosaurs-"Old Fhart, I can't find the plans for the new camp in the press release. Are they stated elsewhere?"
The start of the article says: "The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) has purchased Medawisla Wilderness Camps near here and will continue to manage the property to provide guests with outdoor recreation opportunities in Maine’s 100-Mile Wilderness region." I would expect some changes but right now it doesn't appear that they will be drastic. They obviously have the ability to market the camp much better on their web site and in their member magazine, the AMC Outdoors. I'd keep an eye out to see what develops, because things could change.

TJ aka Teej
08-07-2006, 19:50
Baldacci and the Paper Companys are franchising out the "100 Mile Wilderness" to a logical developer.

TJ aka Teej
08-07-2006, 19:56
The camp I visited was just off of French Town Road south of Kokodjo.

That's where this camp is. There are snowsled trails and logging roads that connect in to the Little Lyford Pond Property. There's a 10,000 acre clear cut area inbetween the two. The AMC now owns most of the land ajacent and to the west of Gulf Hags and White Cap Mountain. Note that the AMC isn't using the code words "allow traditional uses", which will raise the ire of the hunters and snowsleders who traditionally have used this area.

Cookerhiker
08-07-2006, 19:58
I would like to think the AMC will keep it as a traditional "wilderness camp" with a minimum of "improvements" but time will tell. Those of us who are AMC members (and for that matter, those who aren't) should voice our opinions to the AMC.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-07-2006, 21:35
The start of the article says: "The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) has purchased Medawisla Wilderness Camps near here and will continue to manage the property to provide guests with outdoor recreation opportunities in Maine’s 100-Mile Wilderness region." Isn't this the same organization that believes the hut system is an outdoor recreational opportunity? While it rules out a strip mall, it doesn't rule out some other pretty disgusting options.

weary
08-07-2006, 21:56
Jack makes an excellent point - the AMC likely won't do as much damage as most commercial developers. However, their previous track record hints that they may turn the property into a resort rather than a campground.
In my opinion, AMC has done a pretty good job with their management of Little Lyford Pond camps.

I suspect, however, that they still aren't breaking even. These camps survived mostly through the work of a husband and wife team. If you have to pay all the help, it gets more difficult.

I think they think the long range success of their Maine Woods Initiative requires a series of camps so clients can walk from one to another much as they do in the "huts" in the Whites. I don't sense that AMC will succeed in a traditional sporting camp business, catering to hunters.

I applaud the new purchase. It's a step in the right direction. I understand they are negotiating with the owner of the LOng Pond Camps to take over that operation also. That will give the club a start on a meaningful "hut" system without building anything new, which is the goal I've argued since the initiative began a few years ago.

Speculation about strip malls is not a useful thing at this point. More valuable are thoughts on how best to attract customers to the "wilderness" AMC hopes to preserve and more realistically, recreate.

Weary

Shutterbug
08-07-2006, 23:50
...I don't sense that AMC will succeed in a traditional sporting camp business, catering to hunters...


There is a lot of opportunity for the camp outside of their past normal operations. A "Wilderness Conference Center" would have significant demand. There are a lot of organizations that would pay big bucks to take their leadership team to a Wilderness Conference Center away from distractions. That is why I visited the camp a few years ago -- to see if it would be satisfactory for a faculty retreat. It wasn't, but could easily be upgraded.

latte
08-08-2006, 01:08
Many members here have a serious hang up with the White Mountain Huts. They are what they are. However, the AMC (of which I am not a member) provides more to the hiking community in the way of managed shelters. I have no issue with paying $8 so that someone else can manage my human waste. That's actually a pretty decent deal to me and it helps the environment as well. I just looked into purchasing green energy for my home. The cost of that is $6 per 100 kilowatts over and above my current cost. That irritates me more than paying for what I can actually see. Back to my original thought.... If the AMC provided managed shelters for a small fee, would that be so bad? I know that someone will say I'm not seeing the "money monster" for what they are, but with all the other crap going on in the world, anything the AMC does, will be less harmful in the long run. Besides, if rich people were not baited into giving their money to an environmentally consious group (by visiting the huts), where would all the money come from to buy the land so that the condo developers can't. :-?

walkin' wally
08-08-2006, 09:48
Now, I am really confused. I visited a camp in that area a few years ago, but my pictures look nothing like the cabin shown on the Medawisla Camp web site.

The camp I visited was just off of French Town Road south of Kokodjo. I wonder if it was a different camp or if the pictures on their web site are really old?

Just to clairify. The Medawisla Camps are located on Second Roach Pond which is east and north of Kokadjo not south of Kokadjo. They have been used mostly for ecotourism since 1992.

The area just off the Frenchtown Road would be First Roach Pond which abuts Kokadjo from the South. The Frenchtown Road is one way to get to the Lyford area. There are several Roach Ponds (6 or 7) that drain into one another and form the Roach River.

Medawisla Camps can be reached by traveling past Kokadjo and heading north towards Baxter Park and turning right a few miles up the road at the sign. Maps 41 and 42 Maine atlas and Gazeteer :)

mingo
08-08-2006, 10:08
Speculation about strip malls is not a useful thing at this point. More valuable are thoughts on how best to attract customers to the "wilderness" AMC hopes to preserve and more realistically, recreate.

Weary

the issue isn't how best to attract "customers." it's whether they should try to attract any "customers" at all. why do they need to make money?

The Old Fhart
08-08-2006, 10:47
Mingo-"the issue isn't how best to attract "customers." it's whether they should try to attract any "customers" at all. why do they need to make money?"We can all tell a lot of thought went into that post!! :sun

Lone Wolf
08-08-2006, 10:48
I've grown to like the AMC over the years. What's all the fuss?

Shutterbug
08-08-2006, 11:04
Just to clairify. The Medawisla Camps are located on Second Roach Pond which is east and north of Kokadjo not south of Kokadjo. They have been used mostly for ecotourism since 1992.

The area just off the Frenchtown Road would be First Roach Pond which abuts Kokadjo from the South. The Frenchtown Road is one way to get to the Lyford area. There are several Roach Ponds (6 or 7) that drain into one another and form the Roach River.

Medawisla Camps can be reached by traveling past Kokadjo and heading north towards Baxter Park and turning right a few miles up the road at the sign. Maps 41 and 42 Maine atlas and Gazeteer :)

That is the same general area I visited, but clearly I visited a different camp. Thanks for the additional information.

Moxie00
08-08-2006, 20:45
When I was growing up a half century ago my family lived part of the year on 3rd Roach Pond and a trip trip to 2nd Roach back then was a treat. They actually had cold soda and meat. With no refrigeration we only ate meat for a few days after a trip to Greenville which happened every six weeks. Ray O'Donnel owned 2nd Roach Camps that eventually became Medawisla after new owners bought the place. Medawisla means "cry of a loon" in the Wabanaki Indian language. Ray had float plane and if there was a major event like a war starting Ray said he would fly over to third and let us know. It's just as well he never came because Ray had a bad heart and drank too much so he should not have been flying. There was a passable road to Ray's and we got in by canoe. In those days logs were all floated down the rivers in the spring so the network of roads that were built in the "100 mile" to bring out the logs didn't exist. It was a true wilderness then and camps like Ray's, later named Medawilsa were a true wilderness experience. Every day my cousin and I would catch 20 or so trout to have for dinner and our hired man, Varney caught hornpout for breakfast. Everyone got around by foot or canoe. Well those days are gone forever and so is the 100 mile wilderness as we knew it. In 1976 Maine passed a law that logs could no longer be driven down the rivers so the paper companies built roads everywhere to get the logs out. The Lumberjacks that lived in the camps all winter eating beans and cutting wood have been replaced by giant timber harvesting machines run by one man sitting in an air conditioned cab. The paper companies are now selling the land and private developers are purchasing large tracts either for development of for their private use. I am no fan of AMC but they will be a better steward of the land than Plum Creek, the development company that owns thousands of acres in the area and wants to build McMansions, marinas, and cute little strip malls. We will never again see a true wilderness in nothern Maine but with preservation efforts by the AMC, the Maine Applachian Trail Trust and some wealthy enviromentalists at least some idea of how it used to be will be maintained. The 100 mile wildernes is a wonderful experience but the the trail is too narrow and the land on either side is being bought up by people that see economic gain from it's use. The AMC will protect the land and the Maine Applachian Trail Trust has the hope of someday seeing the trail be a mile or so wide on all it's miles through Maine. Don't condem those trying to save the wilderness as it is beyond saving. Instead praise those who wish to preserve the memory of what it once was.

The Old Fhart
08-08-2006, 20:58
Moxie00-"Don't condem those trying to save the wilderness as it is beyond saving. Instead praise those who wish to preserve the memory of what it once was."Oh ma gawd, Moxie, why can't everyone see things this clearly!

BTW, I lived in a "civilized" area and we had an ice man deliver ice for our ice box. Just had to remember to empty the pan on the bottom.;)

Blue Jay
08-08-2006, 21:10
I've grown to like the AMC over the years. What's all the fuss?

You know so have I. Hell, they don't even charge at Upper Goose anymore. Yes, they screw up a lot and may be a little too fond of money, but you can say that about most of us also.

max patch
08-08-2006, 21:15
Bottom line is the land can be owned by the AMC or a land developer. Seems like an easy choice to me.

mingo
08-09-2006, 08:31
Bottom line is the land can be owned by the AMC or a land developer. Seems like an easy choice to me.

the AMC is probably a better owner than a land developer. depends on the land developer. the AMC itself is going to do some developing of that land, i bet. my point is that we should expect better from the AMC than what we get. the AMC is a "nonprofit" that's supposed to be devoted to preservation of wilderness. instead, it's devoted to making a buck off rich tourists. at the same time, it attracts many more people to the wilderness than would otherwise go and thus detracts from the wilderness values that it's supposed to be promoting.

weary
08-09-2006, 09:04
Moxie: "In 1976 Maine passed a law that logs could no longer be driven down the rivers so the paper companies built roads everywhere to get the logs out."
Just an historical correction. Such a law was passed, but only after the last paper company, Scott, announced it was ending its log drives.

The myth that the state drove the companies off the water and onto roads persists. But there is no truth to it. Three things lead to the abandonment of river drives:

1. A federal anti trust investigation into whether Maine paper companies were colluding. The evidence. Paper mills in all woodland states were expanding and building new mills, except in Maine.

2. A federal inventory of the Maine forests that showed this state had the only large surplus of unharvested trees in the nation.

3. An early 1960's Maine law that for the first time required that the paper mills treat the wastes that had made Maine rivers among the dirtiest in the nation.

No proscecutions resulted from the antitrust efforts, but the companies suddenly stopped talking quite so openly and began competing. The forest inventory disclosed to corporate executives that they were sitting on a gold mine of unharvested timber. And the requirement that wastes be treated essentially required that mills be rebuilt.

Log drives are inherently inefficient. About 10 per cent of the logs get lost on the way to the mills. Logs that sit in the water for close to a year produce lower quality paper. For these reasons most mills world wide had stopped river drives decades earlier.

The 1976 law made environmentalists feel good, but had no impact on the real world. Mills had already ended their drives -- with the exception of Scott Paper Co. which was building a new mill several miles inland from the Kennebec River, which would make river delivery impossible in a few months anyway.

Weary

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-09-2006, 11:00
the AMC is a "nonprofit" that's supposed to be devoted to preservation of wilderness. instead, it's devoted to making a buck off rich tourists.That was an interesting point so I decided to check it out. The AMC is actually losing money on the outdoor recreation centers:
Source: http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/2005%20AMC%20Financial%20Statements.pdf Page 5

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2006, 11:19
If this is indeed true, F.D. then it begs this question:

What are they doing in the hotel/resort business anyway?

This issue was brought up when the AMC was building the multi-million dollar luxury facility at Crawford Notch several years ago.

Among the questions raised at the time, were WHY was the club spending so much on this one place; HOW MUCH would it ultimately cost; and did the club really think this was a wise thing to be doing anyway?

All of these questions were either dodged or never answered.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-09-2006, 11:25
Excellent questions, Jack. It would seem to be better to use the roughly $1.7 million it appears the outdoor centers lost in 2005 to buy some of that land the developers are currently buying.

BTW, nice to be on the same side of an issue with you for a change.

mingo
08-09-2006, 11:36
That was an interesting point so I decided to check it out. The AMC is actually losing money on the outdoor recreation centers:
Source: http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/2005%20AMC%20Financial%20Statements.pdf Page 5

they just bought them, right? that's why they're listed as a loss. the cost of the purchase

FLHiker
08-09-2006, 11:43
Technically it's "Not For Profit." The subtle difference is that they are allowed under certain circumstances to show a profit - maybe an accountant type can give us more specifics on the rules. It would be nearly impossible to run an organization that zero's out it's books precicely each year.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-09-2006, 11:51
It appears they lost $1.2 million on them in 2004 as well.

From the history of the AMC on its web site (http://www.outdoors.org/about/history.cfm) -
1999 AMC granted new 30-year special use permit for operating its White Mountain hut system and Pinkham Notch Visitor Center
2003 AMC opens Highland Center at Crawford Notch, an outdoor program and education center based on an award-winning “green” architectural design
2003 AMC launches Maine Woods Initiative with purchase of 37,000 acres in 100-Mile Wilderness region from International Paper and purchase of Little Lyford Pond Camps

mingo
08-09-2006, 12:16
what are they counting as an outdoor recreation center? those places in maine? they didn't own them in 2004, did they? are they talking about the white mtn huts? in that case, if they're losing money, how do they keep them open? are they trying to claim that they use donations to supplement the operation of the huts? that's ridiculous. they're cooking their books

max patch
08-09-2006, 12:52
Technically it's "Not For Profit." The subtle difference is that they are allowed under certain circumstances to show a profit - maybe an accountant type can give us more specifics on the rules. It would be nearly impossible to run an organization that zero's out it's books precicely each year.

just means they don't pay income taxes on their "profits".

Shutterbug
08-09-2006, 13:03
the issue isn't how best to attract "customers." it's whether they should try to attract any "customers" at all. why do they need to make money?

Nonprofit's have more of a need to make money in the short run, than for profit corporations. I have run both.

In a "for profit" corporation, the shareholders will often fund losses to carry the corporation through tough times. A nonprofit corporation has no shareholders; therefore, if it does not at least break even after considering both earnings and donations it can't continue in operation. Many nonprofit's spend most of their income in fund raising. Other's charge a fee for their services. My personal view is that those who charge a reasonable fee for their services do more to accomplish their mission than those who direct most of their energy to fund raising.

Shutterbug
08-09-2006, 13:18
It appears they lost $1.2 million on them in 2004 as well.

From the history of the AMC on its web site (http://www.outdoors.org/about/history.cfm) -
1999 AMC granted new 30-year special use permit for operating its White Mountain hut system and Pinkham Notch Visitor Center
2003 AMC opens Highland Center at Crawford Notch, an outdoor program and education center based on an award-winning “green” architectural design
2003 AMC launches Maine Woods Initiative with purchase of 37,000 acres in 100-Mile Wilderness region from International Paper and purchase of Little Lyford Pond Camps

I have not taken the time to study the AMC's financial statements, but I can share some of my perspectives. Understanding financial statements for Nonprofits takes some experience.

Since making a profit is not the goal of a nonprofit, the "bottom line" is not the profit or loss. The important issue is cash flow. A nonprofit can have a large loss and still have a positive cash flow. (If anyone doesn't understand, I can give examples.)

A nonprofit that owns lots of land with improvements will always show losses because they show depreciation of the assets (a noncash expense) as an expense, but do not usually include the appreciation of the value of assets until they are sold. So, a nonprofit, like AMC, can show year after year of "losses" and still operate with a positive cash flow.

So, when looking at the financial statements of a nonprofit, don't think profit or loss, think cash flow.

weary
08-09-2006, 14:37
If this is indeed true, F.D. then it begs this question:

What are they doing in the hotel/resort business anyway?

This issue was brought up when the AMC was building the multi-million dollar luxury facility at Crawford Notch several years ago.

Among the questions raised at the time, were WHY was the club spending so much on this one place; HOW MUCH would it ultimately cost; and did the club really think this was a wise thing to be doing anyway?

All of these questions were either dodged or never answered.
AMC went from neaR bankruptcy 25-30 years ago to doubling its membership to 90,000 and being comfortably in the black.

That suggests to me that AMC is doing the things that its membership wants it to do -- including building luxury lodges, and buying land and sporting camps in Maine.

But in addition to pleasing its members, AMC does important environmental work. It is the principal intervenor in dam relicensing projects, joined other environmentalist organization in opposing the massive wind power project on Redington, and agitates continuously against air pollution.

Being a human institution, AMC is not perfect, but I think it does a very good job overall, though from time to time, I sense that AMC thinks of me as an enemy and wishes it had never given me an honorary membership 35 years ago during the long public lots controversy.

I return the favor by editing the Maine Chapter newsletter and serve as the chapter's institutional memory, since no one has been more active over the decades than me.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2006, 15:14
I agree with much of what Weary just said, with one caveat....while I have no doubt that the club is "doing the things that its membership wants it to do", I'm not sure that keeping its members happy is the Club's principal mission----and nor should it be.

Actually, the AMC's principal mission is pretty plain. In their own words, it is "to promote the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Appalacian region."

How this mission turned into building multi-million dollar resort hotels for its members, or building yet more high-end backcountry lodging is a fair question to ask.

In my first post in this thread, I clearly said that in the long run, it's better that this land be purchased by a private, non-profit, environmental organization than by an independent developer.

But that still doesn't alter the fact that the AMC's primary purpose is to protect land and natural resources---they acknowledge this themselves.

Providing new playgrounds that by their very nature exclude most of the general public is NOT supposed to be their main priority.

Weary's right. They're no doubt doing what most of their members want.

And that's the problem. What most of their members want isn't necessarily the right thing to do.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-09-2006, 15:18
Well said, Jack.

weary
08-09-2006, 15:33
The first priority for a nonprofit with environmental goals is to remain alive. That requires compromise. So far the ratio is pretty good. !.7 million for the highland center (which incidentally isn't all luxury. IN addition to lodging, it hosts many educational activities and high level environmental and land protection meetings throughout the year) and 15 million to buy the 37,000 acre Maine Woods Initiative property.

So far there has not been significant new construction on the 37,000 acres, just environmental improvements and renovations of run down facilities.

WEary

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2006, 15:43
I wish them well in their hope to stay alive, Weary, I really do.

And since you seem well versed in these matters, please tell us about the compensation of their Executive Director. I've been curious about this for years, and have never gotten the details on this. When AMC officials, including their senior PR flack, were publicly asked about this on the "Mountains and Molehills" section of their allegedly interactive website, their response was to liquidate that section of the website.

If their first priority is "staying alive", Weary, maybe they'd have better luck if they paid their management more modestly, didn't operate out of a multi-milion dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston, and didn't put so much time and effort into expensive construction projects that do indeed primarily exist to serve a tiny fraction of the folks who visit the lands that the AMC claims to wisely steward.

mingo
08-09-2006, 15:54
tell it, jack. oh yeah, oh yeah Can I get a witness ...

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-09-2006, 15:57
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/3304.htm:
Andrew J. Falender, Executive Director
Using information reported on an organization's most recent Form 990, we include as compensation an individual's salary, cash bonuses, and unusually large expense accounts and other allowances.
Compensation (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openBrWindow%28%27http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/glossary.list/word/Compensation/print/1.htm%27,%27glossary%27,%27scrollbars=yes,width=62 5,height=300%27%29): $241,973
% of Expenses: Compensation for the CEO of this charity is equal to 1.15% of this organization's total functional expenses

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2006, 16:19
Geez, only $241,973?

Then again, that figure is probably not current.

Nor does it include benefits and perks.

To put things in perspective, the Vice-President of the United States of America makes around $40,000 less.

Of course, there are many of you who no doubt feels he deserves less!

But the head of the Sierra Club makes around a hundred thousand dollars less.

Does he do less work, or is his job less important than the head of the AMC?

And the Executive Director of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, in the last figures I saw, which I think were for 2004, made something like $104,000.

Does he only work half as hard as his counterpart on Beacon Hill? Is is job and office only half as important?

Nope. Of course it isn't. If, as Weary says, the organization is fighting to stay alive, seems to be there are some belts that could come in a notch or two.

generoll
08-09-2006, 18:26
forgive the partial thread creep here, but wouldn't windpowered generators fall within the concept of enviornmentally sound practice? I understand the NIMBY view, but someones gotta do it and it's gotta go somewhere or it won't happen. I'm quite content to live 20 or so miles from a nuclear power plant. When I had my sailboat I had a solar panel to keep the batteries charged. If I'd had the money and the time to spend sailing I would have mounted a windcharger to the stern rail and considered myself fortunate. If the AMC is trying to stop the construction of a windpower farm, then bad cess to them.

RockyTrail
08-09-2006, 18:29
Log drives are inherently inefficient. About 10 per cent of the logs get lost on the way to the mills. Logs that sit in the water for close to a year produce lower quality paper. For these reasons most mills world wide had stopped river drives decades earlier.


An interesting sidelight:
Hardwood logs that sank many years ago from log floats in the Great Lakes are now being retrieved for their valuable lumber. Often these trees are original old-growth dense lumber, some hundreds of years old and are now being used to make musical instruments (guitars,etc) with supposedly fantastic tonal qualities...

TJ aka Teej
08-09-2006, 18:35
The AMCs "failure" to make these recent puchases profitable will no doubt be one of the reasons they'll continue the push to develop them into resorts. The Mercedes SUV crowd doesn't want to drive on dirt roads to sleep in bunk beds. Highland Centers 2 & 3 are coming soon to a "wilderness" near you.

rickb
08-09-2006, 18:48
And the Executive Director of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, in the last figures I saw, which I think were for 2004, made something like $104,000.

Does he only work half as hard as his counterpart on Beacon Hill? Is is job and office only half as important?

Nope. Of course it isn't. If, as Weary says, the organization is fighting to stay alive, seems to be there are some belts that could come in a notch or two.

QUestion for Jack: Do you know why the Executive Director of the ATC got a $20,000 raise in one year? In 2003 he made 85,000.

Question for Jack: when you get your first heart attack, do you want to have your bypass done by the person who will do the best job, or the person who does it for the lowest price?

Darwin again
08-09-2006, 18:57
I find facts limit what conclusions I reach, and are not conducive to pre-determining outcomes prior to starting a discussion.

Wow. Frosty must work in the state department or white house!:-?

AMC: They'll find a way to create special playgrounds for a special few. Just like the Whites. it's what they do.:rolleyes:

weary
08-09-2006, 19:15
I wish them well in their hope to stay alive, Weary, I really do.

And since you seem well versed in these matters, please tell us about the compensation of their Executive Director. I've been curious about this for years, and have never gotten the details on this. When AMC officials, including their senior PR flack, were publicly asked about this on the "Mountains and Molehills" section of their allegedly interactive website, their response was to liquidate that section of the website.

If their first priority is "staying alive", Weary, maybe they'd have better luck if they paid their management more modestly, didn't operate out of a multi-milion dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston, and didn't put so much time and effort into expensive construction projects that do indeed primarily exist to serve a tiny fraction of the folks who visit the lands that the AMC claims to wisely steward.
You know as much as I do about the compensation. It's available publicly on public IRS forms. I forget the figure or the form number, but when I last looked I thought he was well compensated -- perhaps too well compensated.

But he's obviously both talented and underpaid compared with for profit corporations. He did rescue AMC from bankruptcy and membership has doubled in recent years.

WEary

weary
08-09-2006, 19:33
The AMCs "failure" to make these recent puchases profitable will no doubt be one of the reasons they'll continue the push to develop them into resorts. The Mercedes SUV crowd doesn't want to drive on dirt roads to sleep in bunk beds. Highland Centers 2 & 3 are coming soon to a "wilderness" near you.
Teej. You are moderating. You originally told us these developments were already planned. Now you think the failure to make Little Lyford operations pay for themselves will push AMC to further development.

I've visited Little Lyford several times. Other than the installation of four showers and a flush toilet, I see no evidence of massive change.

Since AMC the last time I looked still hadn't paved the driveway to the Highland Center, I kind of doubt if they will pave the logging road to Little Lyford Pond which is 15 or 20 miles long, and would cost several million dollars or more -- especially, since they only own the middle section. Plum Creek owns most of the northern section. A Canadian LOgging company the southern portion.

I suspect no one at AMC expects to pay for the land by renting cabins. These are capital costs for which donors will be sought. They do hope to break even on the day to day operations.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2006, 19:49
Rick:

Being familiar either the head of the ATC and his unstinting efforts over the years, I think he's worth every penny. Have YOU turned down a raise lately?

Being familiar with the AMC, and having spent a lot of time in their headquarters in Boston over the years, I've see a lot of waste. You haven't answered my question......do you think the head of the Sierra Club or the ATC does less vital work than the head of the AMC? Or the ATC? If you think so, please feel free to tell us. I think the the AMC spends too much money on staff, administration,and facilities, and I think this problem is decades old. You are welcome to feel differently.

And as far as my first coronary infarction (which you seem to be looking forward to more than me), I hope the attending physician is the best I can find or afford, but if he's making twice as much money as one of his contemporaries, I'd sure in hell like to know why. In the case of the AMC versus similar non-profit organizations and staff compensation of same, the discrepancies are striking. If you can explain this, feel free to do so.

boarstone
08-09-2006, 20:14
At least it was kept out of Old Roxxy's paws!......

rickb
08-09-2006, 20:24
It should probably be pointed out that that the SIerra Club has not one, but two, individuals making over $220K.

Facts matter.

But thats ok, just as some people like to observe that their brother-in-law spent way to much (how irresponsible) on his new car, Jack is more than welcome to complain about how OTHERS are paying the head of thier club too much.

And thats OK. Most people who enjoy the hundreds of miles of AMC maintained trails and subsidized caretaker campsites and other benefits of the club also don't contribute.

BTW, the Hostel at Crawford Notch is still a pretty good deal, and the photo exibit in the barn next door are really not to be missed.

weary
08-09-2006, 21:14
It should probably be pointed out that that the SIerra Club has not one, but two, individuals making over $220K.

Facts matter.

But thats ok, just as some people like to observe that their brother-in-law spent way to much (how irresponsible) on his new car, Jack is more than welcome to complain about how OTHERS are paying the head of thier club too much.

And thats OK. Most people who enjoy the hundreds of miles of AMC maintained trails and subsidized caretaker campsites and other benefits of the club also don't contribute.

BTW, the Hostel at Crawford Notch is still a pretty good deal, and the photo exibit in the barn next door are really not to be missed.
All very true. And though I've never slept there, I suspect even the beds in the Highland are are within the range of what one can easily find on a busy summer weekend in the
whites.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-10-2006, 11:10
The fact that the rooms might be comparable in price to other places in the Whites is not the point (Even if it were true, which it isn't. A single room at the Highland Center for non-members in the summertime is $138.00. There are hundreds of places in the Whites that charge much less).

I'm glad some folks think the Center is a "good deal." However, when one examines how much the AMC has done in the last five years as far as building or expanding lodging for folks of limited means (shelters, caretaker campsites, etc.) is is obvious that nearly all their recent efforts have been geared towards their members and their members' friends, i.e. their efforts have been aimed at a tiny fraction of the folks who hike in the Whites.

Most folks neither want, nor are able to spend $138.00 for a night's lodging, and it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-10-2006, 11:34
it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich.And toward wilderness preservation rather than making the wilderness accessible and cushy for its well-off members.
AMC went from neaR bankruptcy 25-30 years ago to doubling its membership to 90,000 and being comfortably in the black.

That suggests to me that AMC is doing the things that its membership wants it to do -- including building luxury lodges, and buying land and sporting camps in Maine.

But in addition to pleasing its members, AMC does important environmental work. It is the principal intervenor in dam relicensing projects, joined other environmentalist organization in opposing the massive wind power project on Redington, and agitates continuously against air pollution.Bringing a conservation organization back from the brink of bankruptcy by adding wealth members with an agenda other than wilderness preservation and then catering to the new members' whims is not a positive step IMO.

Is there any info on exactly how much of this organizations' spending is going toward building / maintaining cushy wilderness digs and how much is going to things like dam relicensing and fighting windmills & air pollution?

The Old Fhart
08-10-2006, 11:42
BJ-"Most folks neither want, nor are able to spend $138.00 for a night's lodging, and it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich"Gee, my wife and I stayed first class at the Highland Center and it didn't cost us a cent. I gave a slide show in exchange for the stay. Quid pro quo.

mingo
08-10-2006, 11:52
also remember that they are doing all this catering to rich people on public land. that's our land, the white mountains national forest, that's basically been ceded to the AMC to do with as they please. and it's the AMC that's decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the AMC first.

Jack Tarlin
08-10-2006, 11:57
Actually, there are plenty of places to camp in the Whites, tho Mingo is correct in saying that several of them are forbidden to over-nighters because the AMC got their first with a lodge. Lonesome Lake comes to mind.....it's a beautiful spot, and I sorta resent having to break the law if I want to stay there because somehow the AMC got semi-permanent rights to the spot. Public land is just that.....it's public, which means everyone should have the right to enjoy it, and not merely those who can pay top dollar for the privilege.

weary
08-10-2006, 12:29
Is there any info on exactly how much of this organizations' spending is going toward building / maintaining cushy wilderness digs and how much is going to things like dam relicensing and fighting windmills & air pollution?
The trouble with the question is that I don't know of any "cushy wilderness digs" that AMC has built. The Highland Center is on a major highway and on the site of an old resort hotel. That area hasn't been wilderness for at least 150 years. Whether you like what they built or not, it is certain that it is better than what would have been built had AMC not bought the property.

Little Lyford Camps is a delightful place but not remotely "cushy." There's still an outhouse behind each of 100-year-old cabins. The cabins are still heated by wood stoves, fired by the guests, not AMC employees.

The last time I was there, I heard someone ask if he could drive his car to his cabin to unload his gear. He was told, "no, that's not how we operate here." He had to pull his gear in 200 yards in a rickety cart like everyone else.

Weary

The Old Fhart
08-10-2006, 14:42
Mingo-"also remember that they are doing all this catering to rich people on public land. that's our land, the white mountains national forest, that's basically been ceded to the AMC to do with as they please. and it's the AMC that's decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the AMC first."So much misinformation in so little space, you are efficient!;)

First, the Highland Center is on private land that the AMC owns so complaining about that facility is as relevant as complaining about Disneyworld.

Second, Yosemite, and many other public areas have leased out land or allowed it to be used for profit and non-profit reasons. Wildcat Ski Area comes to mind. In Shenandoah can you say "ARAMARK"? Why skip them while complaining about profiteers on or near the trail? (I for one was glad they were there). Is the PATC evil for not letting you stay at their cabins? (hint- the PATC EARNS their privilages)

Third, whether "ceded" or leased, there are terms and they do not have carte blanche as you seem to think. They are limited as to what they can and cannot do and these terms are spelled out in detail.

Fourth, the GMC (who, by the way, does a GREAT job) has "decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the [GMC] first". How is that any different? Obviously your lack of knowledge on stewardship and LNT is glaring.

Sorry if I interrupted your whining, have at it.:D

Rambler
08-10-2006, 18:17
If you oppose tha AMC purchase, consider this:

http://environmentmaine.org/envmaine.asp?id=1761&id4=ES

rickb
08-10-2006, 20:28
A single room at the Highland Center for non-members in the summertime is $138.00. There are hundreds of places in the Whites that charge much less

This is very true. One such place is just steps away: the Shapleigh Bunk House. The price is $31 for a bunk, but that includes fresh linnens and AYCE breakfast that most thru hiers would appreciate.

Not sure why Jack wouldn't want future thru hikers to know this.

Another option that seems far more popular than the private rooms at the Highland Center is the main lodge's bunk rooms. The price here is $60 bucks per person (I am pretty sure that ATC members are afforded the AMC member rate), but that includes a full breakfast (normall $9 Bucks) and dinner (Normally $20).

That leaves a cost of $30 for your bunk. Is this more than other hostels along the Trail? You bet. But if that grates on you as much as it does Jack, keep in mind that the "profits" will help subsidize the cost of the caretaker sites and prograqms.

Oh by the way, for that price there are free programs and you can borrow all manner of equipment like snowshoes and such.

Darwin again
08-11-2006, 00:44
"Leave No Trace" can also mean "Pay No Fees." ;)

Heater
08-11-2006, 04:46
Gee, my wife and I stayed first class at the Highland Center and it didn't cost us a cent. I gave a slide show in exchange for the stay. Quid pro quo.

Reminder to self, Pack my slideshow...:rolleyes:

rickb
08-11-2006, 06:58
when one examines how much the AMC has done in the last five years as far as building or expanding lodging for folks of limited means (shelters, caretaker campsites, etc.)

A good place to do this examination is at www.outdoors.org.

While its true that the AMC has not recently built new campsites in the White Mountain National Forest (glad to hear that some support the idea, but there are all sorts of reasons that is unlikely), the club has done a whole lot building, maintaining and promoting a rather diverse mix a recreational facilities.

If you click on the "Lodging tab" one place those on a budget might begin with is the AMC campgrounds scattered throuh out the New England. At about $15 per site, these are very affordable. Or check out the backcountry cabins. While Goose Pond is set aside for thru hikers to stay free of charge, others can be rented by groups. Not exactly free, but not bad if you go with an extended family or group-- they hold quite a party.

Might be worth checking out if you are looking for an inexpensive way to enjoy the outdoors and your family isn't up to walking 200 feet into the woods to pitch a tent for free.

The AMC isn't about Boston Brahmens and blue bloods. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find one if you spent weeks at the Huts. Most AMC members are not "The Rich", but very regular people. Not that Rch is bad-- but perpetuating old myths and an us vs. them mentality in a magical section of Trail isn't fair to anyone. Not fair to the scorned, and not fair to those who are encouraged carry the these prejudices.

mingo
08-11-2006, 09:01
i'm not totally anti-AMC. they do a lot of good stuff. my issues are simple: they attract a lot of people to the national forest with their lodges and then they charge fees at shelters to pay for mitigating the impact of all those people they attracted to the forest in the first place. that's it. i'd rather that the whites were like, say, the smokies. far fewer people hike in the smokies precisely because there's only one lodge. there's no need, therefore, to charge fees for ordinary backpackers to stay at the shelters. and don't tell me that more people hike in the whites because more people live around there. the smokies are the most-visited national park in the country.

weary
08-11-2006, 09:25
i'm not totally anti-AMC. they do a lot of good stuff. my issues are simple: they attract a lot of people to the national forest with their lodges and then they charge fees at shelters to pay for mitigating the impact of all those people they attracted to the forest in the first place. that's it. i'd rather that the whites were like, say, the smokies. far fewer people hike in the smokies precisely because there's only one lodge. there's no need, therefore, to charge fees for ordinary backpackers to stay at the shelters. and don't tell me that more people hike in the whites because more people live around there. the smokies are the most-visited national park in the country.
The tradition of "huts" -- call them lodges if you wish -- predates the creation of the National Forest, which was created through the support and political power and agitation of AMC.

The Whites represent the only large block of high peaks in the northeast. They would be overrun with people, with or without AMC. AMC if anything ensures that the hordes are accomodated with minimum damage to the landscape.

Weary

mingo
08-11-2006, 11:03
The tradition of "huts" -- call them lodges if you wish -- predates the creation of the National Forest, which was created through the support and political power and agitation of AMC.

The Whites represent the only large block of high peaks in the northeast. They would be overrun with people, with or without AMC. AMC if anything ensures that the hordes are accomodated with minimum damage to the landscape.

Weary

two questions, weary. 1. the lodges predate the forest, but the AMC has rebuilt the lodges and make them bigger and better over time, right? 2. why aren't the smokies overrun with people?

weary
08-11-2006, 11:26
two questions, weary. 1. the lodges predate the forest, but the AMC has rebuilt the lodges and make them bigger and better over time, right? 2. why aren't the smokies overrun with people?
AMC has both rebuilt and built at least one brand new hut since the creation of the forest. But I think Madison Springs and Carter Notch are still original -- at least the main building at Carter Notch.

I can't answer question two. But I doubt if the huts play a major role. Most likely it's a matter of population density. At least 80 million people live within a day's drive of the Whites.

Also there are no competing facilities nearby. Shenandoah takes a lot of pressure from the Washington-New York population corridor. And of course no other place in the east has more above timberline acres. AS a result the first choice of New Yorkers is to head north to the Whites, not south to the Smokies.

Finally, I don't know how the total numbers and acres add up. But above timberline is far more fragile than the deep soils of the Smokies. It may not be a matter of more people, just a more fragile environment that limits camping opportunities.

Weary

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-11-2006, 11:59
As a person living near the Smokies, I will offer a possible explanation why the backcountry in the GSMNP isn't overrun with tourons. The majority of vacationers in the Smokies stay in Cherokee, NC or to Gatlinburg / Pigeon Forge, TN. Both areas offer a wide variety of amusements and entertainment options that are not in the mountains. Most come for family vacations with plans to go to Dollywood, water parks, Harrah's casino, etc. These people make day trips to Clingman's dome, Newfound Gap, Cades Cove, etc. to explore the wonders of the Smokies. Many float in large tire tubes down the Little River. A very small percentage of the hoard of vistors to this area come to backpack or even to hike further than the 5 mile round trip to Abrams Falls or the paved 2.6 mile round trip to Laurel Falls or the paved 1/2 mile to Clingman's Dome tower.

Ewker
08-11-2006, 12:02
the paved 1/2 mile to Clingman's Dome tower.

I crack up laughing everytime I see some woman walking up that paved path in high heels :eek:

mingo
08-11-2006, 12:19
[quote=Frolicking Dinosaurs]As a person living near the Smokies, I will offer a possible explanation why the backcountry in the GSMNP isn't overrun with tourons. The majority of vacationers in the Smokies stay in Cherokee, NC or to Gatlinburg / Pigeon Forge, TN. {quote]

true, but what if there were lodges up and down the A.T. through the smokies, like there are in the whites, offering a place to sleep, breakfast and dinner? how many more people would venture into the backcountry then? leconte lodge attracts -- what? -- 70 or 80 people a night? what if there were seven or eight lodges?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-11-2006, 12:32
Excellent point, Mingo. The foot traffic on the routes to Mt LeConte Lodge (http://www.leconte-lodge.com/amenities.html) are indeed heavier than on other trails of similar length and difficulty. The lodge holds 50 guest who must hike one of five routes (http://www.leconte-lodge.com/directions.html) to reach the lodge. The rates (http://www.leconte-lodge.com/rates/rates_2006.html) seem to be more reasonable than those at the huts. Many others hike to the lodge and return as a day trip to see it and its spectacular views.

weary
08-11-2006, 13:02
....Lonesome Lake comes to mind.....it's a beautiful spot, and I sorta resent having to break the law if I want to stay there because somehow the AMC got semi-permanent rights to the spot. .....
For shame Jack! Breaking the law. What must our trail ethicist, Warren Doyle, think?

mingo
08-11-2006, 13:20
I can't answer question two. But I doubt if the huts play a major role. Most likely it's a matter of population density. At least 80 million people live within a day's drive of the Whites. Weary

the smokies is the most-visited national park.

ed bell
08-11-2006, 13:58
One of the reasons the Smoky's are not overrun is their campsite registration program. All backcountry camping is limited to designated campsites and many if not most of those sites are rationed(limited space). The rangers are active on many trails and will bust you with a fine for unregistered camping. I've avoided planning trips to GSMNP on many occasions because getting a reservation at shelters or campsites can be a pain in the butt. Wintertime is my cup of tea for Smokys camping. Peak fall colors it's a freakin zoo. I agree with Mingo that if the Smokys had more LeConte type lodges, it would encourage more use rather than help control it.

Moxie00
08-12-2006, 10:19
If anyone should want to get back to Meduwisla, the camp that started all this, I climbed Katahdin Thursday and yesterday come home on the Golden Road and the Scott Road. The property AMC purchased is several miles into Plum Creek Land and is completly surrounded by it. It is very close to the AT and is part of what many consider the 100 mile wilderness. Plum Creek is a west coast landowner that purchases timberland. They first tell you they have no development intrests, just want to cut and sell wood. Their pattern on the west is after they have been established they then start with condos, camps, RV parks, marinas, and even golf courses. They recently filed plans with the State of Maine for such developments very near the 100 mile wilderness. Well I drove in and took a look. Meduwisla looks just fine, a little more refined than when Ray O'Donnel owned it in the 1950's but still what one would consider a wiklderness experience, or as close as you can get today. No Golf, no RV's, no condos. I am no real fan of AMC but anything they do is far better than what Plum Creek wants to do to the area. Love AMC, hate AMC, I could care less. I am a member but not a good one but it does give me a discount on stuff they sell. I would much rather see AMC turn Meduwisla into a high price wilderness experience than have Plum Creek get it and put in an adult amusement park. I would hate to have my sleep disturbed in the 100 mile wilserness because I set my sleeping pad up on a stray golf ball sliced off the Plum Creek 9th fairway.

Jack Tarlin
08-12-2006, 12:29
Hey Weary, I knew you're a little slow on the uptake, but please re-read my post. I didn't say that I knowingly break the law when I stay at Lonesome Lake. I talked about resenting having to break the law IF I WANTED to stay there, which is entirely a different thing.

For an ex-newspaperman, you sure have lousy reading comprehension.

blindeye
08-14-2006, 21:08
o.k. at the risk of being pummeled putting the AMC in charge of anything(by the way i tried to find their "office" on Joy St. in Boston,no luck) is akin to putting our senators and congressmen and (women) who by the way the majority of which are lawyers. in charge of making laws. My point? conflict of interest. IMHO

weary
08-14-2006, 22:25
If anyone should want to get back to Meduwisla, the camp that started all this, I climbed Katahdin Thursday and yesterday come home on the Golden Road and the Scott Road. The property AMC purchased is several miles into Plum Creek Land and is completly surrounded by it. It is very close to the AT and is part of what many consider the 100 mile wilderness. Plum Creek is a west coast landowner that purchases timberland. They first tell you they have no development intrests, just want to cut and sell wood. Their pattern on the west is after they have been established they then start with condos, camps, RV parks, marinas, and even golf courses. They recently filed plans with the State of Maine for such developments very near the 100 mile wilderness. Well I drove in and took a look. Meduwisla looks just fine, a little more refined than when Ray O'Donnel owned it in the 1950's but still what one would consider a wiklderness experience, or as close as you can get today. No Golf, no RV's, no condos. I am no real fan of AMC but anything they do is far better than what Plum Creek wants to do to the area. Love AMC, hate AMC, I could care less. I am a member but not a good one but it does give me a discount on stuff they sell. I would much rather see AMC turn Meduwisla into a high price wilderness experience than have Plum Creek get it and put in an adult amusement park. I would hate to have my sleep disturbed in the 100 mile wilserness because I set my sleeping pad up on a stray golf ball sliced off the Plum Creek 9th fairway.
I suspect the good news is yet to come. I doubt if AMC would have bought the camps without some agreement with Plum Creek for the protection of the surrounding lands.

Weary

weary
08-14-2006, 23:01
Hey Weary, I knew you're a little slow on the uptake, but please re-read my post. I didn't say that I knowingly break the law when I stay at Lonesome Lake. I talked about resenting having to break the law IF I WANTED to stay there, which is entirely a different thing.

For an ex-newspaperman, you sure have lousy reading comprehension.
What you actually said, Jack, was:

"....I sorta resent having to break the law if I want to stay there because somehow the AMC got semi-permanent rights to the spot. Public land is just that.....it's public, which means everyone should have the right to enjoy it, and not merely those who can pay top dollar for the privilege."

BTW Jack, the "somehow the AMC got semi-permanent rights" is really no mystery, as you know, but for whatever reason chose to pretend to be confused. Virtually every popular national forest and national park in the nation has concessionaires with exclusive rights to make a profit and to keep those who don't pay out.

The Whites have several such licensees including the Wildcat Ski area, located across the road and a bit north of the AMC Pinkham Notch Center.

Weary

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-15-2006, 06:58
Virtually every popular national forest and national park in the nation has concessionaires with exclusive rights to make a profit and to keep those who don't pay out.Perhaps it is time to encourage our elected officials to examine this practice. It would seem that allowing multiple groups to have long-term leases on public land without some clear guidelines as to what sort of development / "improvements" are allowed on that land would be inviting trouble and ultimately not in the best interest of wilderness preservation.

rickb
08-15-2006, 06:59
One thing that is remarkable about the Whites is just howm many camping options there are.

While the list of regulations is rather detailed, it basically boils down to prohibitions against camping within 1/4 mile of any man-made feature (other than a trail), and against camping in the fragile environment above treeline (except when that environment is protected by snow cover).

Other than that, there arethe usual Wilderness Area restrictions which require you to camp 200' off trail in those areas, and theere is one's own good judgement regarding LNT.

There are far better camping alternatives for hikers in the Whites than pitching a tent next to the Hut at Lonesome lake. Not sure why the attraction and all the resentment. Pull out a big map of the WMNF (not just a little strip map) and the possibilities are huge (thanks largely to the trail network built, supported and maintained by the AMC).

rickb
08-15-2006, 07:08
Virrtually every popular national forest and national park in the nation has concessionaires with exclusive rights to make a profit and to keep those who don't pay out.

Weary,

As you and Jack and all the others who paid attention when the AMC went through the exhaustive repermitting process a few years back should know, the AMC's back country operations in the WHite Mountains do not make a profit, but rather are subsidized by member dues and capital contributions.

While the Huts may "Make Money", the "Profit" is offset by other North Country Operations.

Rick B

Jack Tarlin
08-15-2006, 11:45
The profit is also offset, as has been previously noted, by such things as heavily paid executives; a multi-million dollar headquarters in Boston; lousy food-service management at facilities; the building of luxury hotels, etc.

And Weary, I'm certainly aware that "exclusive" long-term rights to concessionaires is a frequent practice in our parks, including the existence of facilities that most folks can't pay for.

Where we differ, Weary, is that you seem to think this a good thing.

weary
08-15-2006, 11:48
Perhaps it is time to encourage our elected officials to examine this practice. It would seem that allowing multiple groups to have long-term leases on public land without some clear guidelines as to what sort of development / "improvements" are allowed on that land would be inviting trouble and ultimately not in the best interest of wilderness preservation.
Oh, There are guidelines. AMC went through a grueling process seven years ago to win relicensing for its high mountain "huts." It's one reason they decided to invest in Maine land where they would have control over what happens and not be answerable to bureaucrats.

But I agree that the system of concessionaires needs review. Bush has raised the practice to a new high. The western parks and Shenandoah are especailly overrun with private interests controlling great parts of the public landscape.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-15-2006, 11:59
Weary, don't make this---like every other thing you say---a political issue.

I know, it's tough for you to go twenty minutes without bashing the President, but it works both ways. I hiked over 11,000 miles on the A.T. between 1995 and 2001 (i.e. during the Clinton-Gore years), and if that pair, who were alledgedly extraordinary environmentalists, put two nickels into such places as the Smokies and Shenandoah Park during their time in office, I sure didn't see it.

The neglect (and frequent sale) of our public lands and parks is a disgrace, but blaming only George Bush for this is dis-honest. The problem is systemic, it's a long-time thing, and Democratic administrations are just as guilty.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
08-15-2006, 12:03
Perhaps the guidelines need to be made even more stringent / protective of the wilderness. Things like the trail crossing gravel roads, rustic campgrounds or an occasional home or cabin won't interfere with my wilderness experience half as much as things like interstates, condos, golf courses, huts, lodges, developed campgrounds (with pools, arcades, etc.), ski resorts and retail vendors along the trail.

rickb
01-01-2007, 15:57
Just a few comments after a 4-night stay at Little Lyford:

1. Little Lyford is about 6 miles to the AT by way of Gulf Hagis
2. I now know why Weary has been waxing so poetic about the Gulf Hagis for so many years. It is truely spectacular.
3. The $50 pp we spent for a night in the bunkhouse was a bargain considering the food and wood consumed
4. Food served was many times better than at a hut. Perfect.
5. The hosts, Pat and Chuck, were the real deal, and added a lot to the experience. Chuck was a seasonal Ranger at Katadin Stream CG and later a LEO in Millinocket; his wife grew up in sporting camps and later retired after working at Baxter SP. They had a remarkable wealth of knowldege and were teriffic.
6. The sauna was a bit too hot for my liking

And most impotantly, 37,000 acres is a lot of land that is now protected. I didn't grasp how much land that was until we got there.

weary
01-01-2007, 19:31
Just a few comments after a 4-night stay at Little Lyford:

1. Little Lyford is about 6 miles to the AT by way of Gulf Hagis
2. I now know why Weary has been waxing so poetic about the Gulf Hagis for so many years. It is truely spectacular.
3. The $50 pp we spent for a night in the bunkhouse was a bargain considering the food and wood consumed
4. Food served was many times better than at a hut. Perfect.
5. The hosts, Pat and Chuck, were the real deal, and added a lot to the experience. Chuck was a seasonal Ranger at Katadin Stream CG and later a LEO in Millinocket; his wife grew up in sporting camps and later retired after working at Baxter SP. They had a remarkable wealth of knowldege and were teriffic.
6. The sauna was a bit too hot for my liking

And most impotantly, 37,000 acres is a lot of land that is now protected. I didn't grasp how much land that was until we got there.
I'm quite pleased with the development so far. Nothing like the early speculation in these forums were ever proposed, or even possible -- things like paved roads, 200 bed, Highland Center hotels.

But they did prompt me to sit in and take part in the initial planning. I've been surprised at how responsive the club hasd been to concerns raised by Maine members. Initially, the talk was of constructing up to five new overnight facilities. Maine Chapter members argued that the least construction was the best construction.

I argued again and again that emphasis should be on using existing developments -- the series of buildings on leased lots that AMC inherited and the old time sporting camps that existed on and near the AMC lands.

So far no new construction has happened and AMC is now the owner and operator of three old sporting camps. In an ideal world AMC would have purchased the land, torn down all the buildings and let wilderness return.

But in case White Blaze members haven't been listening, total return to wilderness remains a challenge. But AMC, so far, has achieved a fair compromise.

Weary

rickb
01-01-2007, 20:31
One of the guests with whom we shared meals was a local who is very active with a Greenville, ME group looking to temper Plum Creek's (the huge land holder) plans to develop prime waterfront land in that area into some 1000 homesites and a couple resorts.

Scary stuff.

It makes me wonder how earlier generations were able to establish National Forests, while now the heavy lifting is left to groups like your Maine Applachian Land Trust, the AMC, and other private groups. The scale of protection that is needed seems huge,

weary
01-01-2007, 21:34
One of the guests with whom we shared meals was a local who is very active with a Greenville, ME group looking to temper Plum Creek's (the huge land holder) plans to develop prime waterfront land in that area into some 1000 homesites and a couple resorts.

Scary stuff.

It makes me wonder how earlier generations were able to establish National Forests, while now the heavy lifting is left to groups like your Maine Applachian Land Trust, the AMC, and other private groups. The scale of protection that is needed seems huge,
Maine is easily the leader in private land protection these days. My tiny town, population 2,100, and a total acreage of 18,000, has 5,000 acres of protected land. 600 acres is a state park. Another 1,000 acres has been given or sold at bargain prices to the State Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The rest was protected by private groups. One elderly man just gave the Nature Conservancy 2,000 acres. Our Land TRust has protected 800 acres, partly easements that prevent development and mostly allow public access. A private family created a separate non profit trust to preserve 600 acres of forest and a mile-long beach. All this has occurred over the past 40 years, since I bought a dilapidated house and moved to town. UNtil about the early 1960s there was no public land in our town.

The state has done wonders. The Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, AMC and similar groups have purchased fee rights and easements on around 2 million acres in the past decade or so, though it's mostly in easements that forbid major new development, while permitting wood harvesting to continue.

The Maine Appalachain TRail Land TRust was formed in part because none of these acquisitions recognized the central importance of the trail and its narrow corridor. Though our fundraising efforts have not drawn the results we had hoped, everyone in the acquisition business now knows about the Appalachian TRail and its need for expanded buffers.

Though the numbers are large, the need is even greater. Maine's paper companies have virtually sold all their lands to speculators. At least 10 million acres remain on the market or will soon be for sale at rapidly excalating prices.

Weary www.matlt.org

weary
01-15-2007, 23:30
AMC's request for a million or so in Land for Maine's Future bond issue funds comes up for a final decision Tuesday. The request is being opposed by snowmoble, and other motorized interests. If I get my MATC newsletter done in time I'm going to the state capital in Augusta to support the effort.

Weary

Below is summary of AMC activities to date.

Land Use and Recreation Management On the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Katahdin Iron Works Property

The Appalachian Mountain Club’s Maine Woods Initiative (MWI) combines outdoor recreation, ecological protection, sustainable forestry and community partnerships in the 100-Mile Wilderness region. On the 37,000-acre Katahdin Iron Works (KIW) property, our goal is to create new multi-day recreational experiences for visitors with an emphasis on non-motorized, backcountry opportunities, attract new nature-based tourism to the region, and support local forest products jobs and traditional recreation.

AMC is placing a conservation easement over the entire property to ensure permanent public access for hiking, hunting, fishing, skiing, and other traditional, non-intensive outdoor recreation, to permit sustainable forestry activity, and permanently restrict development to a few small footprints for public overnight facilities, such as sporting camps and remote cabins. Under the easement, a Recreation Management Plan will be developed and mutually agreed to by AMC and the Maine Department of Conservation.

Below are more details on AMC’s recreational activities and infrastructure investments to date, community partnership and education programs, background on the design and proposed management of the ecological reserve area, and our forestry activity.


Human-powered Recreation and Community Partnerships

New Trails
AMC has built 26 miles of new trails for hiking and skiing since we took ownership three years ago. In addition to building new trails, AMC is improving existing trails. A total of about 45 miles of actively maintained hiking and skiing trails are currently open for public use on AMC’s property.

New and Improved Campsites
In 2006, AMC trail crews established a new primitive campsite at Coyote Rocks, on the north side of Long Pond, about midway between the east and west ends of the pond. This site is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Also, the KI -Jo Mary Forest campsite on the west end of Long Pond was improved significantly. Campsites were added and relocated. The road and boat put-in were improved, and a parking area was established. A boat dolly is now in place to make getting boats into the water a lot easier than in the past. Use of both campsites is on a first-come, first-served basis, with registration through the KI Jo-Mary Forest checkpoints from May to October.

Sporting Camps
In 2003, AMC began operating Little Lyford Pond Camps, an historic sporting camp. In fall 2004, we opened our first remote cabin, Moose Point Cabin, on Long Pond, providing recreational opportunities (including fishing, canoeing, skiing and hiking) to the public year ’round as a self-service facility. In 2006, AMC purchased Medawisla Wilderness Camps on Second Roach Pond and made arrangements to operate Chairback Mountain Camps on Long Pond for the public. Medawisla continues to be open to the public year ’round, and we plan to open Chairback Camps to the public in the near future. Little Lyford and Medawisla currently provide both meals and lodging for AMC members and the public.


Outdoor Education Programs
• In 2005 and again in 2006, AMC provided instructors for a program hosted by the Evergreen Enrichment Collaborative in Greenville and Guilford that introduced 350 kids to cross country skiing and snowshoeing. In 2005 we found that fewer than 5% of the students had ever been in skis or snowshoes. In 2006 AMC provided instructors for similar programs in the Brownville and Milo elementary schools.
• AMC hosted and provided instructors for an Evergreen Enrichment Collaborative school program at Moose Point Cabin for two weeks in the summer of 2005.
• AMC hosted the Holderness School for a weeklong mushing program in the winter of 2005 at Moose Point Cabin. In winter 2006, AMC hosted a Natural Resource Education Center program at Moose Point.


Partnerships for Local Economic Development
• AMC worked with the Piscataquis County Economic Development Council and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension to create the “Southern Piscataquis Regional Recreation Map and Guide,” as a tool for residents and visitors to explore and appreciate the region’s many natural and cultural resources. This map is available for free to schools and health care providers in the region.
• AMC representatives have served on the board of directors of the Piscataquis County Economic Development Council since 2005 and on the Piscataquis County Tourism Task Force since 2006.
• AMC is a member of the Moosehead Lake Region Chamber of Commerce.
• AMC worked with snowmobile clubs from both Brownville and Greenville as well as many other groups to help create the first ever 100 Mile Wilderness Sled Dog Race, which took place in February 2005. AMC and local clubs worked together to lay out the race route, groom the trail, and provide monitoring during the race. The race already has a full slate of competitors for 2007 with an additional waiting list.


Snowmobile Access

Open Trails
• There are currently 14.5 miles of groomed snowmobile trails open on AMC’s KIW property (with an additional 3 miles coming in the winter of 2006-’07). AMC’s easement includes language recognizing the significance of the existing east-west snowmobile access across our property, connecting the communities of Brownville and Greenville. We are not aware of any other easement held by the State of Maine that includes comparable language regarding snowmobile trails. AMC has been and remains committed to allowing a major east-west snowmobile trail, as we recognize the economic and recreational importance of snowmobiling to the region.
• AMC has kept open a popular club trail, Calli's Trail, to allow for access from Horseshoe Pond to the ITS 110 and to points on the northwest slopes of Indian Mountain for prime views of Katadhin and other mountains to west. This decision was mutually agreed to by the Moosehead Riders and AMC to ensure that both motorized and non-motorized recreationists will continue to have the opportunity to enjoy these special places.
• AMC has worked with the Moosehead Riders to plan for a new snowmobile parking area to allow riders to don snowshoes and climb Indian Mountain on a recently constructed AMC hiking trail. As we did last year for Calli’s Trail, AMC has offered to provide grooming for this parking area for snowmobiling.
• AMC has worked with local clubs for the last few years on improved signing and trail maintenance. We worked together with the Moosehead Riders Snowmobile Club to develop a very successful plan to create a snow "berm" to separate snowmobilers and skiers on the KI Road to facilitate safety and enjoyment for all-- creating a truly multi-use trail
• AMC has worked closely with the Elliotsville Snowmobile Club to build a new snowmobile trail over AMC land to connect their landlocked trails to the KI Road ITS trail. This will add approximately 3 more miles of groomed snowmobile trail on the property, for a total of 17.5 miles of snowmobile trails.


Balancing Land Uses
• After discussions with the Moosehead Riders and Brownville Snowmobile Clubs, approximately 9 miles of club snowmobile trails in the proposed ecological reserve area were closed between 2004 and 2005. Groomed snowmobile trails through and around AMC’s property continue to allow connections between Brownville, Greenville, Ellitotsville and Kokadjo. As a private landowner managing this property to meet multiple goals, we strive to find the best fit of appropriate uses across the property based on our management goals and the landscape features.
• AMC created a new ski trail to Little Lyford Pond Camps to provide alternate routes for skiers and snowmobilers, and enhance the recreational experience of both.

Ecological Reserve Area

We are developing management guidelines for the 10,000-acre reserve area to maintain its remote and wild character and protect the headwaters of the West Branch of the Pleasant River.

Ecology
AMC has completed a major ecological assessment of the entire property including the reserve area. The boundaries of the reserve area were created to protect the headwaters of the West Branch of the Pleasant River, which includes the remote Mountain Brook Pond watershed. This 3,000-acre watershed is almost entirely contained within the reserve. We believe that it is relatively rare in Maine to have a watershed area of this size completely protected. The area includes the highest elevation on the property and a dense network of small ponds and wetlands, including Baker Pond, a Land Use Regulation Commission-classified remote pond. On a larger scale, the reserve boundary encompasses the watershed of the West Branch of the Pleasant River upstream of Gulf Hagas. This watershed is known for its native brook trout fishery, and its protection is a high priority for AMC. The reserve boundary follows the watershed boundary to the maximum extent possible – an important concept in conservation biology.

Wilderness
The reserve is also a wilderness area meant to provide a place for skiers, hikers, anglers and hunters who wish to experience the quiet and remote feeling of the Maine woods. An increasingly rare commodity across the region, we believe this wild and non-motorized ecological reserve will attract new visitors and outdoor enthusiasts to the area. It is our goal to have a positive impact on the local and regional nature-based economy.

Currently about 14% of Maine’s BPL lands, but only about 2% of total land in the state, is officially designated as wilderness or ecological reserve (and close to half of this acreage is Baxter State Park). We feel our management of this area will make an important contribution to a land use (and the associated ecological conditions and recreational opportunities) that is quite rare in the state.


Sustainable Forestry

• AMC has developed a long-range timber management plan and we intend to pursue certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) program.
• AMC has completed three harvests between 2004 and 2006 with an estimated local payroll of more than $500,000. All wood was cut by Maine loggers and sold to Maine mills and woods products operations.
• AMC has harvested approximately 16,000 cords over the past three years.


For more information, contact:


Gerry Whiting
AMC Maine Woods Projects Manager
207-829-3410
[email protected]



Bryan Wentzell
AMC Maine Policy Manager
207-626-5777
[email protected]



Shannon Leroy
MWI Camps and Programs Manager
7 Washington Street,
Greenville, ME 04441
[email protected]

walkin' wally
01-17-2007, 19:09
Weary,

Just curious,

I guess the money has been approved but..

I don't understand how this works. Why does the AMC want to sell a conservation easement on land they already own? Aren't they supposed to be conservation minded as it is? Why do they need to do this? I mean isn't the land already protected by them?

Also, don't they have money as it is, what with buying sporting camps in the area and all ?

Why not put the 1.25 million into some land that has no protection at all?

weary
01-18-2007, 01:26
Weary,

Just curious,

I guess the money has been approved but..

I don't understand how this works. Why does the AMC want to sell a conservation easement on land they already own? Aren't they supposed to be conservation minded as it is? Why do they need to do this? I mean isn't the land already protected by them?

Also, don't they have money as it is, what with buying sporting camps in the area and all ?

Why not put the 1.25 million into some land that has no protection at all?
I understand AMC took out a $14 million loan to buy the 37,000 acres. By selling an easement to the LMF program and getting $4 million in federal Forest Legacy funds, AMC gets to pay back a big chunk of their loan.

This has been in the works from the beginning. It would have been approved long ago, except for a long debate over the terms of the easement. AMC resisted agreeing to a permanent snowmobile right of way, mostly because no other landowner that has gotten LMF funds has been required to do so.

I suspect negotiations to buy the land in the first place involved discussion with LMF about the possibility of LMF help. The fund was set up to encourage such purchases.

AMC probably would have bought the land without LMF help. But the system is the system.

Weary

walkin' wally
01-18-2007, 18:20
Thanks, Weary