PDA

View Full Version : AMC's Reputation



Saluki Dave
09-01-2003, 18:29
Let me qualifiy this by saying so far all my hiking has been confined to the south (resident of NC), but I've seen the AMC trashed pretty much everywhere it's mentioned. Do these people how they are viewed by the long distance community? Do they care? Is there any effort to make a connection between the two?

It seems to me that any organization dedicated to the outdoor experience would at least consider the criticisms leveled. They may or may not be totally justified. Any AMC-types lurking here that would like to reply?

MOWGLI
09-02-2003, 06:38
Long distance hikers makes up less than 1% of the hiking community. Day hikers and weekenders seem to really like the AMC. Especially when you consider the AMC's membership numbers (I'm not a member). I think it's pretty easy to disregard a small vocal minority. Also, it is my opinion that unfortunately, the majority of thru-hikers do not give back to the trail by doing trail maintenance and the other work that is necessary. There are of course exceptions, and some of them are members of Whiteblaze.

Although I had a very unpleasant experience at Galehead Hut during my thru-hike, overall, I would be ignorant not to acknowledge that the AMC has done an excellent job managing some of the busiest trails in the country. With the amount of visitors in the White Mountains, if careful management was not done, the place would be totally trashed. How many USDA Forest Service folks did anyone encounter while in The Whites? There aren't enough Rangers, and those that do exist are stretched thin. The AMC does alot of the work that the FS can't do because of staff & budget problems.

celt
09-02-2003, 07:16
If you are refering to the critism against the fees for backcountry tent sites and the hotel-like cost of staying at the AMC Huts I think they hear us but aren't about to change their fee-collecting and credit card swiping ways because most of the money from those sources are collected from non thru hikers who are willing to pay for AMC services and facilities. Thru hikers are in the extreme minority in the White Mountain National Forest. I know on thru hiker websites and in trail registers on the AT the anti AMC topic sounds hot but I think its a much cooler subject in regular thru hiking circles and with the AMC.

The AMC definitly seems rich and elitist especially to a hiker coming from south of Vermont where those impressions are almost non existent, although I once heard a thru hiker refer to all thru hikers as elitist. I did't agree with her. Anyways... I think the Whites took a real beating during the backpacking boom of the 60's and 70's and the old high impact way of travelling in the backcountry had to be retired in favor of a lower impact way of travel and one thing the AMC did was to provide education in this new school of thought. The caretakers and croos are apart of that education. They chose to pass the cost onto the users of the backcountry sites. I know the huts don't give a first impression of low impact but they are another subject alltogether...

Mr. Clean
09-02-2003, 08:45
I'm an AMC member, and while I don't agree with everything theydo or stand for, the work they do on the trails is very good. As mentioned, the Forest Service would have a hard time, especially with Government cutbacks, to maintain all the trails. AMC's volunteer trail maintenance program seems to be working very well, and last I knew there were no trails without a volunteer.
I'm not sure how I feel about the huts, but know I'll never stay in one. I'm also disappointed with their new Highland center in Crawford Notch, but I realize that it does fill a segment of society.
They say they are trying to raise money so that they can lobby for the outdoors more and to buy land when available. If true, more power to them. On the whole, I guess we are better off with them than without them.

Saluki Dave
09-02-2003, 08:58
Taking a different tack; it seems that day hikers and to a lesser extent weekenders or even sectioners are considered a less worthy form of life, at least by a vocal segment of the long distance community. If long distance hikers are in the 1% minority, perhaps instead of alienating the majority, we should be cultivating them. They have a potential impact (positive and negative) in proportion to their numbers.

Peaks
09-02-2003, 09:55
Let's hope that I can express my self correctly.

The Whites are very popular. Mostly it's people out for a short time, either just for the day, or for a few days to do a range walk or something similiar. Much of what the AMC does or is involved with is basically crowd control, and education of the public. Just listen to the typical questions asked at any hut. #1 is where are the bathrooms. #2 is where do I put my trash.

Like others have said, but for the AMC, both the paid staff and the volunteers, the Whites would be even more over used and trashed. The US Forest Service does not have the funds and staff to do it all.

Is the AMC sympathetic to thru-hikers? Well, they do employ former thru-hikers, usually off season after the college crowds have gone back to college, and Hawk, manager of shelters , is a thru hiker for both AT and PCT, is on the board of managers for the ATC. So, if you have an issue to raise, why not get in touch with Hawk in Pinkham Notch.

MOWGLI
09-02-2003, 10:10
Originally posted by Saluki Dave
it seems that day hikers and to a lesser extent weekenders or even sectioners are considered a less worthy form of life, at least by a vocal segment of the long distance community.

I think this is a trap that some thru-hikers fall into. Thinking they are "special" and should be treated differently because they are on a long distance hike. This is a MAJOR mistake! The very elitism that some people accuse the AMC of is practiced by some thru-hikers. It's wrong, and it should be called out whenever you see it. We aren't special. In fact, we stink (literally).

Who do I look up to? I look up to people who build & maintain trail. Now that's hard work!

Little Bear
GA-ME 2000

DebW
09-02-2003, 11:28
At the ATC Conference in July, I did a workshop about backcountry waste management and campsite design led by Hawk Metheny (AMC) and Pete Ketchum (GMC). Hawk manages the caretakers in the Whites and is a past thru-hiker. His take on the AMC is that the huts are not designed for thru-hikers. Huts are for people who wouldn't get into the woods without them. Thru-hikers should stay at the campsites and avoid the huts (though he admits that the Lakes to Madison stretch is tough without them, as camping requires losing lots of elevation). I was surprised to learn from the lesson on human waste management at Liberty Spring that the $8 per person camping fee does not quite cover the AMC's cost of bringing in bark mulch for the composting toilets. And many sites in the Whites would be a disaster without them.

smokymtnsteve
09-02-2003, 14:51
wow eight dollars for bark mulch and you only use a handful each time you crap!!!...having not hiked in the whites but having been a shelter caretaker in the smokies ...I have observed that there is more crap left in the privy by dayhikers than there is by folks backpacking...do you think this is true in the whites??? if so then why are the backpackers charged to camp and the dayhikers allowed to bring in crap for free..if bark mulch is the big expense then why not charge people to crap rather than sleep??? maybe you could get to camp for free if you packed out your own crap!!!

DebW
09-02-2003, 16:19
Originally posted by smokymtnsteve
wow eight dollars for bark mulch and you only use a handful each time you crap!!!...having not hiked in the whites but having been a shelter caretaker in the smokies ...I have observed that there is more crap left in the privy by dayhikers than there is by folks backpacking...do you think this is true in the whites??? if so then why are the backpackers charged to camp and the dayhikers allowed to bring in crap for free..if bark mulch is the big expense then why not charge people to crap rather than sleep??? maybe you could get to camp for free if you packed out your own crap!!!

It costs that much because they bring in the bark mulch by helicopter. And the toilet really uses more than the handful that you throw in. When the caretaker stirs the pile and transfers it from one bin to another to compost, he adds quite a bit more. This is with a batch bin composting system (not a mouldering privy). This type is used in the Whites because a moldering privy or pit toilet would fill too fast given the high volume usage. Large groups seem to be a major source of overuse at Liberty Springs, so the caretaker's major job is keeping the large groups from ruining the wilderness experience for everyone else. The campsite design also minimizes the impact of large groups on others.

smokymtnsteve
09-02-2003, 16:38
yea .... I probably don't know much about being that I worked as a caretaker...but I think maybe we should check out the AMC Executive Directors salary and benefits...just wonderin, I certainly have no figures about AMC..but I do know a little about some of the similar organizations surrounding the smokies...these guys ALWAYS have the answer about Money..

are day hikers charged to use the privy or only overnighters?

MOWGLI
09-02-2003, 18:41
I think one of the things you have to ask when questioning the salary of an Executive Director are;

1. What are that persons qualifications in terms of education and workplace experience?

2. What could or did that person earn in the for-profit arena based on question #1?

3. What size budget and organization are they responsible for managing?

4. How is organization they are responsible for performing?

It's really easy to simply attack someone based on a six-figure salary in a non-profit organization. Just because you work for a "non-profit" does not mean that you are not entitled to a competitive wage in the workplace. In order for organizations like AMC to attract quality talent, they need to offer a competitive compensation package. Otherwise you'd have the ****house caretaker running your organization. (no offense Steve).

rickb
09-02-2003, 18:43
Per the AMC web site:

Q. Why does the AMC charge an $8 fee at some backcountry campsites?

A. In 2002, the AMC's 14 shelters in the White and Mahoosuc Mountains will cost about $167,000 to operate and maintain. Operational costs include caretaker salaries, airlifts, capital improvements, transportation, and food for our caretakers. We project that with the $8 fee, we will be receiving approximately $108,800 in user fees in 2002. The net loss of $58,200 will be absorbed by the AMC using income from membership dues, endowments, and fundraising

end of quote
______________________________


As an aside, the AMC has a program whereby youth groups can borrow all the neccessary camping equipment for free and stay at shelters and huts for a dramatically reduced charge. At a full service hut, the cost is something like $15 per night and includes a full breakfast and dinner.

Rick B

smokymtnsteve
09-02-2003, 19:10
Originally posted by TNJED
IOtherwise you'd have the ****house caretaker running your organization. (no offense Steve).

actually I got a whole 8 dollars a day to be caretaker...I was a volunteer position...but seems to me that the ****house caretaker does a more important job than E.D. ...there is always an excuse for the NONprofit E.D. to be highly compensated...guess they couldn't make enough money in "real" business to be able to volunteer time and $$$$ to keeping up the ****house...no offense of course..but I've seen LOTS of the NONprofits types who couldn't make a living so they went to nonprofit work ....I've seen it over and over again....

Saluki Dave
09-02-2003, 20:37
So the AMC is providing a service at a loss to themselves. Perhaps the service is undervalued. If that's the case, they should raise the prices to cover the loss. Of course, that will probably result in a reduced demand, and they may wind up losing even more money. On the other hand, the service may be properly valued, which is to say they're offering something people aren't generally willing to pay for.

I'm trying to imagine establishing a similar system for the southern mountains. I don't think it would fly. Maybe the only reason the AMC system does is because it's already in place. Inertia is a wonderful thing.

smokymtnsteve
09-02-2003, 21:14
Originally posted by smokymtnsteve
yea ....these guys ALWAYS have the answer about Money..



Originally posted by smokymtnsteve
are day hikers charged to use the privy or only overnighters?

MOWGLI
09-03-2003, 07:21
I have an unusual perspective on this whole "For Profit" vs. "Non Profit" thing. After spending 19 years in the telecommunications industry, I opted for a job in the non-profit world this past April.

Steve, just for the record, I admire anyone who is willing to work as a caretaker and deal with composting privvys. Its a difficult & important job. Thanks.

I just think folks are too quick to criticize about salaries with non profits. I can guarantee you that no E.D. for any reputable non-profit is working any 40 hour weeks. They're pouring their heart & soul into their job because they have to. Non Profits also pay money to get money. Since they are dependent on grants for income, an E.D. has to appeal to funders, and be compensated appropriately. If they are underperforming, or are overcompensated, Foundations will pick that up, and reject the organizations grant applications, and the E.D. will be out the door in a hurry.

In other words, there are checks and balances.

smokymtnsteve
09-03-2003, 07:32
I've been around some non-profits myself...as volunter ,,and not just in the hiking community...good luck ..you been there since last April...not very long ..give it sime time ...you will see what I'm talking about...

Lone Wolf
09-03-2003, 07:40
If the AMC wasn't embedded in the Whites those mountains would be trashed and ***ed up beyond belief. That's a FACT. I don't agree with a lot of AMC policies and I ain't no member but overall they do a fair job. Thru-hikers should get absolutely no special treatment as they hike thru the Whites. Pay like everybody else or learn to stealth. If a thru-hiker hasn't learned to stealth by then, their backpacking skills ain't worth a sht.

Blue Jay
09-03-2003, 08:06
I do believe Money Hikers and the US Government would trash the Whites without the AMC. However the current AMC Hut System in the Whites does promote over use. If they were all like Carter Notch and the Money Hikers had to carry their own food, use would drop drastically. Closing the Mt. Washington Road and Railway would also be great. None of these things are going to happen, so you just have to deal with it. Yes, some fat cats in Boston are sucking money out of rich North Face/BMW hikers, let em. Stealth, it's part of the adventure.

Don
09-03-2003, 09:41
I ran across this article a while ago...it's a case study of the re-organization of the AMC a few years ago to help make it a more financially viable organization. Those interested in this issue might find it interesting. Its longish -- 18 pages -- and was written to be an analytical case for a strategic planning class....

http://www.csubak.edu/~rdaniels/appl_a.pdf

cascader
12-07-2004, 10:50
So whose the money hiker--the ultralight, ultrafast backpaker with his $325 Western Mountaineering (oh, sorry, WM) sleeping bag, his $150 Flite Vest, and his $360 Exped Sirius tent, or the middle class couple who got their backpack and sleeping bags for under $100 each from the REI outlet site and take their kids to Carter Notch hut for $25 per person once or twice a year?

I never would have considered the AMC huts before I had kids, but with kids, I think it's *the* way to get them interested in backpacking. Start out light, with a full service hut, then move to self-service/off-season huts, then tenting. The 11 year olds you see splashing around in the water at Zealand Falls hut may well be in the middle of the 100 mile wilderness 5 or 6 years later sleeping under tarps.

I know it's not the only way to do it. I started out in the boy scouts, but that's pretty much out of the question where I live unless you belong to a Catholic church or are openly anti-gay. My kids *love* the huts and I'm grateful to the AMC for providing them. They're also great for older hikers who need to go light but can no longer sleep on the ground with impunity, including retirees I've met who definitely are not "money hikers." (Some get discounts by volunteering, as do thru-hikers.) And they can help people extend their hiking seasons who don't have 4 season tents/bags/pads but want to try out winter hiking.

That said, I pretty much agree that the huts are best for certain phases of life--preteens, seniors--but, hey, not every hiker is a healthy 18-35 year old. I've met mostly really nice people in the huts, and it's been a great experience for my kids.

A-Train
12-07-2004, 13:44
I'd second cascader's comments. I have not read this thread, but I think the AMC's huts and education are a great gap to getting kids turned on to the outdoors, as opposed to sitting around watching tv and playing video games.

My dad used to drag me to the adirondacks every summer for a week and I hated it, but at the age of 15 we took a 4 day trip to the whites and returned the next summer to hike a different section of the whites. I wasn't exactly a kid at that age, but it made all the difference turning a city slicker on to backpacking and the outdoor community.

Often I think people are unfair about it being an elite operation only for the rich. My family certainly wasn't very wealthy, but for being the one family vacation a yr, its not really all THAT pricey compared to the way many americans spend their vacations. And I'd say its a whole lot more enjoyable.

Frosty
12-07-2004, 14:39
I know it's not the only way to do it. I started out in the boy scouts, but that's pretty much out of the question where I live unless you belong to a Catholic church or are openly anti-gay. Apologize for getting off topic here, but check the scouts again. Church sponsored troops do not restict membership to church members. All welcome (but be aware that part of the scout credo is reverent). Also, you need not be actively anti-gay or anything else for your child to participate in scouts. You may NOT be a leader yourself if you are gay, however.

Buckles
10-23-2006, 09:32
Also, you need not be actively anti-gay or anything else for your child to participate in scouts. You may NOT be a leader yourself if you are gay, however.

Right, you also don't have to actively support gas chambers to be a fascist and you don't have to actively support lynchings to be a white supremacist. It's alright to socialize with hate-mongers, if they put on a good party.

DavidNH
10-23-2006, 13:18
I want to preface my comments by saying that
I live in New Hampshire and have been here for 10+ years
Have been an AMC member for many years (though am not currently)
and have stayed at most of their facilities and am very familiar with the white mountains of New Hampshire.

On the down side.. many disparage the AMC because
1) it costs 50$ per year for an individual to be a member
2) camping in the whites is mostly limited (by policy and terrain) to official camp sites that cost 8 dollars per person
3) cost of the huts is 80 or so dollars per person and closer to 90 on Saturday nights. left over food at huts also costs.
4) AMC influence and education definitely contributes to crowds in the whites

On the up side.. THE AMC is very beneficial because
The facilities and the club weekend hikes create more knowledge and interest in the mountains
the club is a voice and political force for environmental conservation in the
region
The club contributes to environmental education
The club preserves land
The club serves as a social club for like minded people to meet and develop friendships

So you may refer to the AMC as the Appalachian Money Club as many long distance hikers do, or as the Appalachian Marriage Club as some others do..either way it is still the Appalachian Mountain Club and does a lot of good things in the area.

I should also mention that while the huts are too costly for long distace hikers and nearly always full anyway (reserved months in advance) they DO try to accomadate hikers as much as possible through work for says. On my thru hike I got work for stay at Lakes, Madison, and Carter Notch. It helps to arrive later afternoon.

Just imagine.. if you were hiking the presidential range in bad weather and those huts weren't there! I bet a lot of folks would not make it! And in the white mtns you can't just sit and wait out the weather..bad weather can last a while up there!

If you still are annoyed by the AMC in the white mountains..just remember..Maine is not far. You will get all the challenges but without the amenities. and if the weather goes to hell and you are in the middle of the Mahoosics..well... You are on your own! In the presidentials ..there is shelter near by!

I think it's a good thing the AMC is there!

thoughts?

David

weary
10-23-2006, 17:07
I do believe Money Hikers and the US Government would trash the Whites without the AMC. However the current AMC Hut System in the Whites does promote over use. If they were all like Carter Notch and the Money Hikers had to carry their own food, use would drop drastically. Closing the Mt. Washington Road and Railway would also be great. None of these things are going to happen, so you just have to deal with it. Yes, some fat cats in Boston are sucking money out of rich North Face/BMW hikers, let em. Stealth, it's part of the adventure.
I believe Carter Notch is going back to full service status next year. I think it was Hawk that told me that the caretaker status wasn't paying its own way.

As for the executive director's salary. When the present director took over membership was around 30,000 or so, and the club was so deeply in debt bankruptcy was a serious option. Membership is now 90,000. The debt has long since been paid -- and more taken on to buy 37,000 acres in Maine's 100-mile wilderness.

So far I'm pleased with the wise management of the 37,000 acres with its emphasis on renovating existing camps and structures, rather than new construction.

None of the rumors about major developments in the wilderness have proven true. The roads are still gravel. Volunteers are recruited to help build trails.

NO Maine "highland centers," are contemplated as near as I can tell.

Weary

weary
10-23-2006, 17:07
deleted because mysterious duplicate post

MOWGLI
10-23-2006, 17:24
The debt has long since been paid -- and more taken on to buy 37,000 acres in Maine's 100-mile wilderness.

So far I'm pleased with the wise management of the 37,000 acres with its emphasis on renovating existing camps and structures, rather than new construction.

None of the rumors about major developments in the wilderness have proven true. The roads are still gravel. Volunteers are recruited to help build trails.

NO Maine "highland centers," are contemplated as near as I can tell.

Weary

I spent the weekend in Iowa at the National Trails Symposium. There was a Park Ranger from Baxter there, and we were discussing Maine and the changing ownership of lands. He was very positive about AMC's purchases, and felt that the local community's voice was being heard, and that AMC was doing things correctly. Interesting perspective.

max patch
10-23-2006, 17:39
$80 in the context of a thru hike -- when you factor in all your other expenses -- is nothing. And you don't have to pay to stay at a hut unless you want to (in most cases).

The only concern I have about the expense is that to take a family of 4 or 5 at $80 each hut to hut on a vacation tends to get pretty pricey. But then I think about how much Disney World costs ($60 admission, $10 to park, $5 for a bottled water, plus the cost of a hotel, etc) and it doesn't seem so bad.

ScottP
10-23-2006, 18:35
Everyone I know left the whites with a much higher opinion of the AMC than they entered the whites with.

MOWGLI
10-23-2006, 18:57
Everyone I know left the whites with a much higher opinion of the AMC than they entered the whites with.

Do you know Minnesota Smith?

generoll
10-24-2006, 15:14
[quote=rickboudrie;18180]Per the AMC web site:

Q. Why does the AMC charge an $8 fee at some backcountry campsites?

A. In 2002, the AMC's 14 shelters in the White and Mahoosuc Mountains will cost about $167,000 to operate and maintain. Operational costs include caretaker salaries, airlifts, capital improvements, transportation, and food for our caretakers. We project that with the $8 fee, we will be receiving approximately $108,800 in user fees in 2002. The net loss of $58,200 will be absorbed by the AMC using income from membership dues, endowments, and fundraising

end of quote
______________________________
How can 14 shelters cost $167,000.00 to operate? Can anyone point to any other part of the country where shelters cost that much to operate? Get real. Most shelters "operate" on volunteer labor. I agree that there are way too few volunteers, but from what I read here the problem is overuse which is at least partially caused by easy access, i.e. vehicular access as opposed to making the users walk in. My somewhat limited hiking experience has taught me that the 'overuse' of a site is directly proportional to it's proximity to a road or other means of access which doesn't require feet. Let me be more specific. That doesn't require human feet.

I haven't been to the Whites. Yet. But as a section hiker I do hope to work my way there one of these days, and yes it will annoy me in the extreme if I am required to pay for a backcountry campsite. I just finished a section hike in one of the most heavily used parks in the country. The Smokies, I had to make a couple of reservations for backcountry campsites, but I didn't have to pay for them and they were well tended. They were also inaccessible to wheeled traffic. Is it not possible that there is an obvious pattern here?

My message is apparently to short so I am adding a bit of fluff here to meet the sites requirement.

Lone Wolf
10-24-2006, 15:24
There are quite a few 3 sided shelters in the Whites.

weary
10-24-2006, 15:42
.....How can 14 shelters cost $167,000.00 to operate? Can anyone point to any other part of the country where shelters cost that much to operate? Get real. Most shelters "operate" on volunteer labor. I agree that there are way too few volunteers, but from what I read here the problem is overuse which is at least partially caused by easy access, i.e. vehicular access as opposed to making the users walk in. My somewhat limited hiking experience has taught me that the 'overuse' of a site is directly proportional to it's proximity to a road or other means of access which doesn't require feet. Let me be more specific. That doesn't require human feet.

I haven't been to the Whites. Yet. But as a section hiker I do hope to work my way there one of these days, and yes it will annoy me in the extreme if I am required to pay for a backcountry campsite. ......
What are you talking about: back country shelters or vehicle access shelters? They are two different things.

AMC has no shelters that are near roads. certainly near any roads that AMC has control over. The $8 fees are for high elevation shelters and campsites, where human wastes are mostly carried out by helicopters, and where attendants are paid to manage the sites.

The shelters are mostly in rugged country either above treeline or near treeline on fragile soils and often near rare plants and animals. Freezing temperatures can be expected 12 months a year. Inexpensive pit toilets and mouldering toilets don't work in that environment, hence the high costs.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 15:47
The shelters might be in out of the way places, but this certainly isn't true of some of their other facilities: Zealand Falls Hut is perhaps 3 easy miles from a road; Lonesone Lake is maybe 1.75 miles. And the Crawford Notch facility is on a highway. In short, the AMC has made it EASIER for thousands of folks to visit this over-used, fragile area, rather than more diffficult.

generoll
10-24-2006, 16:01
As
i already mentioned, I have not yet visited the Whites. When someone says shelter, I don't think of a motel but rather the typical Adirondack type of shelter which seems to be the norm for the rest of the AT. If shelters are so close to raods as to invite overuse, then perhaps the roads should be closed or the shelters relocated.

weary
10-24-2006, 16:20
The shelters might be in out of the way places, but this certainly isn't true of some of their other facilities: Zealand Falls Hut is perhaps 3 easy miles from a road; Lonesone Lake is maybe 1.75 miles. And the Crawford Notch facility is on a highway. In short, the AMC has made it EASIER for thousands of folks to visit this over-used, fragile area, rather than more diffficult.
I doubt if either Zealand Falls or Lonesome Lake add significantly to overcrowding in the Whites. Neither has space for more than around 100 people, or maybe less.

The Highland Center in Crawford Notch lies on a busy highway a few miles from scores of restaurants and motels. It replaces a major resort hotel. Had not AMC purchased the site something larger and less compatible with the mountain environment surely would have been built.

I'm not terribly happy with the resources that went into the Highland Center, but I doubt if it adds any significant extra use of the trails. It does make an effort to cater to and provide training for youth groups in how to use the trails wisely.

The AMC backcountry shelters fulfill a backpacking need, and help protect a fragile environment. I can't think of any that are particularly near a highway.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 16:35
Rattle River shelter is less than two easy miles from busy Rt.2 near Gorham.

Lone Wolf
10-24-2006, 16:50
Rattle River shelter is less than two easy miles from busy Rt.2 near Gorham.

Rattle River shelter is not considered a backcountry site.
www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/index.cfm

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 16:59
Well, THAT's news.

It sure seems like backcountry to me, unless I'm missing something.

Lone Wolf
10-24-2006, 17:02
please elaborate.

There are 10 shelters, not huts, between Glencliff and Gorham in the WMNF. Obviously you've never hiked there.

Lone Wolf
10-24-2006, 17:08
Well, THAT's news.

It sure seems like backcountry to me, unless I'm missing something.

If Mala can haul a keg in there and have a party, like he was so proud of one year, then it ain't "backcountry".

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 17:11
Off the top of my head, I can think of nine between Glencliff and Gorham: Jeffers Brook;Beaver Brook; Eliza Brook; Kinsman; Garfield; Guyot; Ethan Pond; Imp; and Rattle River. (I'm speaking of shelters either on or very near the A.T. And of these, two, Jeffers and Beaver Brook, are maintained by the DOC and not the AMC.

weary
10-24-2006, 17:19
Rattle River shelter is less than two easy miles from busy Rt.2 near Gorham.
No fee is charged to stay at Rattle River, at least that was so the last time I passed by in 2003. I always considered the shelter mainly a convenience for long distance hikers who wanted to minimize their town stay.

I suppose it also serves as a convenient spot for an after work start on a Friday -- thus allowing an early Saturday start for a traverse of the lengthy Imp, Wildcat and Carter traverse.

Again, I doubt if the Rattle River Shelter's location, adds much to the crowds in the Whites.

For that matter, even if it did, I wouldn't complain. Frankly I encourage people to get out into the woods and mountains. Hiking and backpacking numbers are declining. That's not a good thing, but a bad thing.

Weary

celt
10-24-2006, 17:53
How can 14 shelters cost $167,000.00 to operate? Most of the cost comes from the composting outhouses. 15,000 visitors per yer equals 2500 to 3000 gallons of human waste which equals 40 to 50 compost runs, each taking a full day of labor. That is just mixing the ****e with bark. Once mixed each run will take 4 to 6 weeks to compost and in that time the pile may be mixed 3 to 4 times. Its not easy work. To compost all that dung takes 400 50lb bags of hardwood bark that must be flown in to the campsites. The AMC doesn't have composters just to be green and elitist, the ecology of the Whites (including thin, acid soils and short decomposition season) can't handle that much waste.
Can anyone point to any other part of the country where shelters cost that much to operate? Probably the Smokies, but the AMC doesn't have the financial resourses of the Gov't. They choose to ask the user to pay, not the tax payers. Any backcountry campsite that sees around 2000 visitors durning the summer would cost as much to operate. Any number of national parks could have those kind of numbers.
Most shelters "operate" on volunteer labor. Volunteers are great but they don't seem to want to touch the poo-poo thats been soaked in the pee-pee. Again we come back to the disposal of human waste. There might be some vols out there who would be willing to try, I've worked with thru-hikers doing work for stay who've been eager to learn, but not enough to deal with the volume.
My somewhat limited hiking experience has taught me that the 'overuse' of a site is directly proportional to it's proximity to a road or other means of access which doesn't require feet. Let me be more specific. That doesn't require human feet.None of the AMCs backcountry sites fit this description. "Easy" and "Difficult" are subjective terms, but my experience suggests most hikers wouldn't think that the backcountry sites in the Whites are "easy" to get to and many are "difficult" to get to. And they all require walking. The ease of visiting the Whites is in the driving to the trailhead, we have an interstate highway up the middle of the forest (a route the AMC faught against at one time).
I haven't been to the Whites. Yet. But as a section hiker I do hope to work my way there one of these days, and yes it will annoy me in the extreme if I am required to pay for a backcountry campsite. I hope you make it up to the Whites too, its a beautiful place. I also hope you'll enjoy your section hike enough to return and visit other parts of the forest, there are many other trails and mountains worth exploring. If you don't want to pay for camping don't use the sites that are so busy in the summer it takes a full time caretaker to maintain the site, You can camp away from the busy sites, use the USFS sites which are funded by the WMNF budget and not by user fees or use the AMC unstaffed sites which are funded by the fees collected at the staffed sites.[/QUOTE]

celt
10-24-2006, 18:02
Rattle River shelter is not considered a backcountry site.
www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/index.cfm

The AMCs website only lists shelters maintained by the AMC. Rattle River is a USFS shelter.

celt
10-24-2006, 18:12
The $8 fees are for high elevation shelters and campsites, where human wastes are mostly carried out by helicopters,

Not anymore. All the AMC sites plus the USFS sites at Valley Way, Osgood and Rattle River AND the D.O.C.s Beaver Brook Shelter, have batch bin composting toilets. No human waste is flown out of the A.T. shelters in New Hampshire. The bark used in composting is flown in but this requires less than half the airlifts to fly out waste

celt
10-24-2006, 18:30
There are no free 3 sided open shelters in the whites, like you see on the rest of the AT. The "shelters" as the AMC refers to them are fully enclosed, staffed huts which provide full meals, etc...and cost like $80/night to stay in them..

Has this bit of misinformation been corrected? There are three sided open shelters in the Whites and there are ones that are "free" (no fees, but are they really "free"?): Jeffers Brook, Beaver Brook, Eliza Brook, Jeffers Brook and if you count the Mahoosucs (AMC maintained trail, not in the National Forest) Gentian Pond and Full Goose. The AMC does not refer to its "shelters" as "Huts" or "Huts" as "Shelters", it refers to them as "Campsites". Campsites without shelters, just tent platforms or pads, are refered to as "Tentsites". "Huts" refered to as "Hotels" (not by the AMC).

generoll
10-24-2006, 18:33
O.K., now I'm thoroughly confused. Is it possible to hike the A.T. through the Whites without paying a 'user fee'. Do I only pay if I stay in certain shelters or lodges, or must I pay an entrance fee or a daily fee or whatever the appropriate terminology is?

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 18:41
1. It is possible to get thru the Whites without paying any fees whatsoever; there are all sorts of good, legal, environmental-friendly places to camp for free.

2. There are a handful of sites where a nominal fee is paid, which generally
helps cover the cost of the on-site caretaker. Hikers should note that this fee system is only put in place in VERY highly used areas.

3. Those that don't wish to pay these small fees have the option of planning their hiking days/mileage in such a way that they'll have access to free campsites, and this isn't that difficult to do.

4. There is no entrance fee or permit, or any "daily" fee of any sort required
while hiking in the White Mountains.

rickb
10-24-2006, 18:50
Exactly right, Jack.

One might also keep in mind that the AMC's professional and volunteer crews maintain many hundreds of miles of trails (is that an exaggeration?) away from the AT in the Whites.

There are more than a few free 3-sided shelters along these trails which I thought they maintained as well-- but I don't know for sure.

In keeping with tradition, I do have one small quibble with your post, however. There is a fee for commercial groups passing through the Whites. NOt that everyone pays it ;) .

Rick B

rickb
10-24-2006, 19:00
O.K., now I'm thoroughly confused. Is it possible to hike the A.T. through the Whites without paying a 'user fee'. Do I only pay if I stay in certain shelters or lodges, or must I pay an entrance fee or a daily fee or whatever the appropriate terminology is?


FWIW, I think that it is rather easy to avoid the Huts where you need to pay a good deal of money, or request for a work for stay.

It is also possible to avoid the $8 sites, except for a short stretch of trail between Gorham and Grafton Notch where the corridor is narrow, and you are required to stay at them.

As a practical matter, a few of the other $8 sites might prove to be very attractive, however. Some sections have great alternatives to the designated site nearby, whereas finding a good site in other stretches can be a bit more problematic.

I bet it would be easy with a hammock, though!

celt
10-24-2006, 19:04
O.K., now I'm thoroughly confused. Is it possible to hike the A.T. through the Whites without paying a 'user fee'. Do I only pay if I stay in certain shelters or lodges, or must I pay an entrance fee or a daily fee or whatever the appropriate terminology is?

You can hike the Whites without paying

Nine of the AMCs 14 shelters and campsites: http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/campsites-profile.cfm are staffed by caretakers from early June until Columbus Day (roughly) and an $8 user fee is collected from overnight visitors.

The AMC maintains five unstaffed sites where no fees are collected and between the Dartmouth Outing Club and the USFS there are five more shelters and developed tentsites with no fees.

The AMC operates eight Huts on the Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire: http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/huts/index.cfm Huts are four sided buildings with doors, windows, kitchens, toilets, running water and other amenities like stolen road signs, propellers (now missing) and flotation devices, . They all have different operating schedules but generally they are staffed by a crew and serve dinner and breakfast with a bunk from early June till late October. Some close early, some have short spring and fall caretaker seasons (no meals) and three are open year round with caretakers and no meals.

You can also avoid all developed overnight options and go camping out in the wilds. The USFS has some rules for backcountry camping such as no camping above treeline and no camping within a quarter mile of a developed campsite or Hut. The full list of USFS backcountry camping rules can be found at the WMNF website: http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/huts/index.cfm

There are no entrance fees for the WMNF but there is a parking fee for trailheads on National Forest land. I believe it is $3 a day or $20 for a annual pass $25 for a dual vechical annual pass. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/passes/

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 19:05
One is required to stay at fee sites between Gorham and Grafton??

That's a looong way.

If this regulation actually exists, Rick, please print it, because I was unaware of it.

Or if I mis-read your post, and this regulation only applies to PART of that stretch, please provide details and exact locations..

Thanx.

celt
10-24-2006, 19:21
It is also possible to avoid the $8 sites, except for a short stretch of trail between Gorham and Grafton Notch where the corridor is narrow, and you are required to stay at them.


There are five sites between Gorham NH and Grafton Notch and only one, Speck! Pond has a fee. I believe only the NH section (about 16 miles), where the corridor of National Park Service land is narrow, is camping restricted. The the portion in Maine (14 miles) the trail is on wider tracts of land owned by Maine Bureau of Parks and Land and the risk of camping on private property is less.

celt
10-24-2006, 19:39
The USFS has some rules for backcountry camping such as no camping above treeline and no camping within a quarter mile of a developed campsite or Hut. The full list of USFS backcountry camping rules can be found at the WMNF website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/backcountry_rules_2006-07.pdf


The quote above has the correct link. The link in the original post was incorrect.

rickb
10-24-2006, 19:40
Good point Celt,

It would have been more correct for me to have said:

"It is also possible to avoid the AMC sites except for a short stretch of trail between Gorham and Grafton Notch where the corridor is narrow, and you are required to stay at them. But those sites (Trident COl and Gentian Pond) are free anyway"

If you say that its AOK to camp off trail in Weary's Grafton Notch State Park, I wouldn't argue. I am glad the AMC Caretaker AT spec doesn't walk over to Full Goose to collect the fee anymore.

celt
10-24-2006, 19:58
One is required to stay at fee sites between Gorham and Grafton??

That's a looong way.

If this regulation actually exists, Rick, please print it, because I was unaware of it.

Or if I mis-read your post, and this regulation only applies to PART of that stretch, please provide details and exact locations..

Thanx.
I'd never heard of this either. The AMC White Mountain Guide refers to the Maine section of the Mahoosucs and states camping and fires at designated sites only but no mention of the NPS corridor in the NH section was made. I looked up the Mahoosucs land on the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (MBPL) website and it only restricts camping and above treeline in the Maine section of the Mahoosucs: http://www.state.me.us/cgi-bin/doc/parks/more_info.pl?park_id=58 I'm finding additional info on NPS lands harder to find online.

celt
10-24-2006, 20:04
If you say that its AOK to camp off trail in Weary's Grafton Notch State Park, I wouldn't argue. I am glad the AMC Caretaker AT spec doesn't walk over to Full Goose to collect the fee anymore.

The MBPL site says that there is no camping in Grafton Notch State Park. I found the wording confusing. Is camping not allowed in GNSP? or do they mean there are no campsites in GNSP?

Are you joking about the Speck! caretaker collecting fees at Goose? If not, when where they doing this?

weary
10-24-2006, 20:26
One is required to stay at fee sites between Gorham and Grafton??

That's a looong way.

If this regulation actually exists, Rick, please print it, because I was unaware of it.

Or if I mis-read your post, and this regulation only applies to PART of that stretch, please provide details and exact locations..

Thanx.
I don't know about New Hampshire, but the general rule for the Maine Bureau of Parks and Land on the public reserved lands is that one can camp most anywhere. Restrictions apply only to particularly fragile areas. That applies from the New Hampshire border to the boundary of Grafton Notch State Park.

There are probably special rules for Speck Pond, where AMC employs a caretaker. But staying at Carlos Col, Full Goose and areas in between has always been both possible and free, when I've gone through.

Weary

generoll
10-24-2006, 20:35
O.K., I got it. I think. I suppose that I object in principle to having to pay a fee to a private organization to use public lands. In all likelihood, by the time my sectioning takes me that far north I'll be more then glad to pay the $8 for a few amenities. I just don't want to HAVE to.

Tinker
10-24-2006, 20:42
I left the AMC when it became alarmingly clear that the Club began viewing itself as the only group capable of assessing the proper use of, and, indeed, description of, "wilderness" areas.

Once they determined that an area was wilderness, their view seemed to be that, once they established a hut, lodge, or other center for their members and others willing to pay the price for posh "wilderness" coddling, the "wilderness" area was to be forever closed to any other group(s) intent on competing with their resorts.

The members I know, however, seem to be, on the whole, good souls, though usually a couple of notches in the income level above me, two of my closest AMC friends working for state environmental agencies.

I now support the ATC, ALDHA, and, sometimes to my shame, the Sierra Club.

weary
10-24-2006, 20:56
I left the AMC when it became alarmingly clear that the Club began viewing itself as the only group capable of assessing the proper use of, and, indeed, description of, "wilderness" areas.

Once they determined that an area was wilderness, their view seemed to be that, once they established a hut, lodge, or other center for their members and others willing to pay the price for posh "wilderness" coddling, the "wilderness" area was to be forever closed to any other group(s) intent on competing with their resorts.

The members I know, however, seem to be, on the whole, good souls, though usually a couple of notches in the income level above me, two of my closest AMC friends working for state environmental agencies.

I now support the ATC, ALDHA, and, sometimes to my shame, the Sierra Club.
The rules are made by the USFS, not AMC. Most of the huts are on land the AMC uses as the result of a special use permit. Essentially, the club leases land in the National Forest, just as hundred of other groups do in the White Mountain and other national forests nation wide.

AMC sets the rules for the use of their buildings and land they control as a result of their permit -- just as the Wildcat Ski area controls its buildings and ski trails on land they control as a result of their permit from the USFS.

Outside the permitted area, USFS rules exclusively.

Hate the AMC if you wish. But if you want to be intelligent about your hate take the time to figure out who rules what, and where.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 21:13
Despite my misgivings over some of what the AMC does, in light of what I've seen private concessionaires and for-profit businesses do in other backcountry areas and Parks, whatever qualms we may have about the AMC's actions, practices, and intentions, things would be a lot WORSE in the White Mountain National Forest if the AMC were NOT there.

The people who take time and energy to complain about the AMC (and that includes me, on occasion) would do well to take a moment and consider who and what would replace them.

Tinker
10-24-2006, 21:19
The rules are made by the USFS, not AMC. Most of the huts are on land the AMC uses as the result of a special use permit. Essentially, the club leases land in the National Forest, just as hundred of other groups do in the White Mountain and other national forests nation wide.

AMC sets the rules for the use of their buildings and land they control as a result of their permit -- just as the Wildcat Ski area controls its buildings and ski trails on land they control as a result of their permit from the USFS.

Outside the permitted area, USFS rules exclusively.

Hate the AMC if you wish. But if you want to be intelligent about your hate take the time to figure out who rules what, and where.

Weary

I'll leave the hating up to others. Hating leaves me, well, weary.

I'll admit to my ignorance of USFS policies. The elitist attitude of the AMC, as a group, not as individuals, is what I object to.

If you see that as hate, maybe it's hitting a little too close to home.

Sorry for my previous generalization.

neo
10-24-2006, 21:45
:) amc treated me right i only spent 32.00 hiking thru the whites
i stayed at 4 huts madison springs,lake of clouds,zealand falls and
galehead which included dinners and breakfast all work for stay,
i had lunch at mitzpah and lonesome lake.no caretaker at kinsman pond free
total money spent in the whites.
16.00 in candy bars at crawford highland lodge
4.00 lunch mitzpah hut
4.00 lunch lonesome lake hut
8.00 camping fee liberty springs
32.00 total:cool: neo

Skyline
10-24-2006, 23:14
Despite my misgivings over some of what the AMC does, in light of what I've seen private concessionaires and for-profit businesses do in other backcountry areas and Parks, whatever qualms we may have about the AMC's actions, practices, and intentions, things would be a lot WORSE in the White Mountain National Forest if the AMC were NOT there.

The people who take time and energy to complain about the AMC (and that includes me, on occasion) would do well to take a moment and consider who and what would replace them.

Yeah, can you imagine if ARAMARK (the monopoly concessionnaire in Shenandoah National Park) ever got a foothold in the Whites?

rickb
10-25-2006, 06:49
Here is a PDF of the educational pamplet that the AMC publishes for thru hikers:

http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/rec-at-thru-hiker-brochure.pdf

kyhipo
10-25-2006, 07:35
their is good and bad in any sitution with rules:rolleyes: ,but to be honest most people would find something bad while hiking no matter where they were.ky

neo
10-25-2006, 07:43
:) amc treated me right i only spent 32.00 hiking thru the whites
i stayed at 4 huts madison springs,lake of clouds,zealand falls and
galehead which included dinners and breakfast all work for stay,
i had lunch at mitzpah and lonesome lake.no caretaker at kinsman pond free
total money spent in the whites.
16.00 in candy bars at crawford highland lodge
4.00 lunch mitzpah hut
4.00 lunch lonesome lake hut
8.00 camping fee liberty springs
32.00 total:cool: neo


:) they even let me hang and sleep in my hammock on the front porch at galehead and zealand falls.:cool: neo


http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=13046&catid=member&imageuser=3462

Peaks
10-25-2006, 10:07
I am glad the AMC Caretaker AT spec doesn't walk over to Full Goose to collect the fee anymore.

That would be a h**l of a walk: Down Spec Arm, through Mahoosic Notch, up Fulling Mill Mountain, and then back again. Seems like all the caretaker would do is hike back and forth between the two shelters.

Peaks
10-25-2006, 10:14
I'm sure that there are a few of us on this forum that are old enough to remember what it was like to use on of the heavily used sites before caretakers.
These sites were trashed from overuse. Not only in the White Mountains, but also in the Green Mountains. I'll gladly pay a few dollars in order to enjoy a site that is maintained, or when I don't want to pay the fee, then I'll move on and tent elsewhere without whinning.

celt
10-26-2006, 06:22
I left the AMC when it became alarmingly clear that the Club began viewing itself as the only group capable of assessing the proper use of, and, indeed, description of, "wilderness" areas.

Once they determined that an area was wilderness, their view seemed to be that, once they established a hut, lodge, or other center for their members and others willing to pay the price for posh "wilderness" coddling, the "wilderness" area was to be forever closed to any other group(s) intent on competing with their resorts.

The members I know, however, seem to be, on the whole, good souls, though usually a couple of notches in the income level above me, two of my closest AMC friends working for state environmental agencies.

I now support the ATC, ALDHA, and, sometimes to my shame, the Sierra Club.
When you refer to "wilderness" areas do you mean Federal Wilderness' like The Pemi Wilderness or Great Gulf Wilderness? While the AMC maintains trails in Wilderness areas, 13 Falls Campsite is the only AMC managed site in a Federal Wilderness area. All of the AMC Huts pre date the creation of NH Wilderness areas and all but Mizpah pre date the creation of the Wilderness Act. No Hut could ever be in a Wilderness because they don't meet the requirement that the land be untrammeled and in a wild state.

DavidNH
10-26-2006, 09:38
I am having trouble understanding something regarding the fee based camp sites in the white mountains.

You take 5-6 months off to thru hike the AT, you plan your trip (in most cases I suspect) for months in advance. You are staying at hostels in towns (20/night or more when all is said and done) eat at restaurants, and visit, in many cases, many many bars. None of THAT is free. You really can afford it!

Yet you complain about spending 8 dollars a night in one of the most crowded hiking areas in the east to put a tent up on a platform. In exchange waste is managed, the place is kept clean, crowds are managed, and trails are maintained. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

As for the huts, as many have already said, there is ample opportunity for work for stay which gives you free lodging breakfast and dinner.

It doesn't matter whethe you are a day hiker, weekender, section hiker, or thru hiker. You are a visitor in the mountains and your presence impacts them to one degree or another.

As I think it over..we probably should have care takers in Georgia at least during the over crowded peak thru hiker season!

David

Jack Tarlin
10-26-2006, 15:36
David has made an excellent point.

Every year, at the bar at the Inn at Long Trail, I see hikers bitching and moaning about the fee charged for a handful of campsites/shelters in Vermont.

While bitching, they are invariably eating eight dollar burgers and enjoying five dollar-a-glass microbrews.

People that complain about paying fees at a tiny number of high-use sites aren't making legitimate complaints.

They are merely cheap.

It's really simple......if you don't wanna pay for a "fee" site, plan your hiking day a bit better so at the end of the day, you can stay somewhere else, for free. This isn't rocket science.

But some folks will always complain anyway.