View Full Version : Huts to Trails project hitting snags In Bigelow region
Story here (http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/4621145.html)
This proposed trail will intersect the AT near Long Falls Dam RD.
A hut near Flagstaff Lake will not benefit many hikers as the cost for lodging will be very pricey.
Too bad these "huts" are going the way of more like hotels in the wilderness.
I think that there is a definite niche for selve-serve huts that have all the ammenities minus the staff (i.e. you lug your own food in!).
Carter Notch hut seems to work well in the Fall and Winter as self serve. In my neck of the woods, the 10th Mountain hut system is extremely popular (and as $26/night fairly affordable).
Off my soap box..
This doesn't seem to be affiliated with the AMC and their plans. Flagstaff is just north of the Bigelows as I recall, and south of the 100 Mile Wilderness.
Anyone know the current status of AMC's plans? Weary? Bueller?
This doesn't seem to be affiliated with the AMC and their plans. Flagstaff is just north of the Bigelows as I recall, and south of the 100 Mile Wilderness.
Anyone know the current status of AMC's plans? Weary? Bueller?
AMC has done no significant new construction of buildings on the 37,000 acres and two sporting camps it has purchased in Maine.
Rather the sporting camps have been rehabilitated. This winter one can ski between three camps. Two owned by the club, and a third traditional camp where AMC is partnering with the private owner/operator.
They are AMC’s Medawisla Wilderness Camps, its partner West Branch Pond Camps, and AMC’s Little Lyford Pond Camps.
Each sporting camp offers a lodge for relaxing and meeting other skiers and hikers, a home-cooked communal dinner and breakfast, trail lunch, and a private cabin with wood stove.
AMC has also acquired a third set of sporting camps, Chairback Camps, where rehabilitation has begun, but not completed enough to allow use this winter.
Trails connecting the camps have been built and a couple of leantos for primitive camping are scheduled to be built by volunteers next summer.
I might quibble with some of the details, but overall AMC is being quite responsible in the management of its properties. AMC hopes to help purchase another 30,000 acres or so, which would connect AMC's 37,000 existing acres with the 40,000 acre state-owned Nahmakanta Preserve and about 50,000 acres owned by the Nature Conservancy south of Baxter State Park, essentially creating 300,000 acres of near wilderness in the heart of Maine.
These are exciting times for land protection in Maine, and AMC has been among those leading the efforts.
But the need continues to be greater than the available resources, now that virtually all the paper company lands have been sold to developers.
Our Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is a small, but critical player in these efforts and the only group that seeks to provide buffers to the narrow AT trail corridor in the high peaks area south of Bigelow before the condos move in.
Weary www.matlt.org
Frolicking Dinosaurs
01-04-2008, 13:10
Too bad these "huts" are going the way of more like hotels in the wilderness....I think that there is a definite niche for self-serve huts that have all the amenities minus the staff (i.e. you lug your own food in!)........Carter Notch hut seems to work well in the Fall and Winter as self serve. In my neck of the woods, the 10th Mountain hut system is extremely popular (and as $26/night fairly affordable).....Off my soap box..Echoing what Mags has said here. I'm not a fan of the hut system at all. If to ecology is such that they can build huts in an area, they can certainly provide lean-tos and / or allow primitive camping as well. Not everyone needs or wants a motel room in the middle of nowhere - some of us think such things are downright dreadful.
Edited to add:
Trails connecting the camps have been built and a couple of leantos for primitive camping are scheduled to be built by volunteers next summer.:clap :clap
The entrepreneur of this Huts to Trails project is the ex president of the local Sugarloaf Mtn ski area, next to the AT. It's all about money, lodging at the huts if i recall correctly will be somewhere near $100.00 per night, slightly beyond the average persons budget.
Just another project catering to people from away, not many people around here would spend 100$ to spend a night in a fancy hut.
the_iceman
01-05-2008, 19:12
Or maybe
Alpine Mega Corporation
Or perhaps
Anti-thru-hiker Mega Corp
The AMC claims their huts are losing money in the Whites so why build more? A young forest service ranger I spoke with told me the AMC does more damage to the environment than anyone else. If there were no huts there would be less people in the Whites and perhaps less deaths. I find it ironic that there is a “wilderness protection zone” for a ˝ a mile on either side of a hut when the hut itself is really a “pollution center”.
The woods of Maine need to be protected. I think almost everyone who frequents Whiteblaze agrees with that. The AMC is buying up land and already running a profitable logging operation in Maine. If their goal was simply to preserve the land or even to log it responsibly that would be great. If their goal is to make it another alpine equivalent of Disney as they have done in the Whites then we need to find a better steward for this valuable resource.
The AMC is not a friend to the AT. That is obvious to anyone who has tried to hike the AT thru the Whites. The trail is poorly maintained unless it feeds one of their precious huts. White blazes are almost nonexistent. Counting on shelter from hut crews is like playing Russian Roulette with a half loaded gun – 50% of the time you are turned away even in severe weather.
I was saddened to see an AMC foothold in New Jersey and happy to finally leave the poor trail conditions of the AMC and enter into the MATC area in my thru-hike this year. On the other side of the spectrum there are two clubs that really impressed me with their stewardship of the trail – the PATC and the MATC.
No trail maintainer should ever be disparaged but some of the organizations they belong to could use some adjustment in their focus.
WalkinHome
01-05-2008, 23:09
Hi Iceman, I think you are wrong on two counts in your post but I hope Weary chimes in here as he is the expert.
1. The AMC is not building the huts the thread refers to and they have refurbished a few existing sport camps.
2. The land recently acquired (37K acres) does have a logging component and they hire "certified" logging outfits that meet stringent standards for responsible/sustainable logging operations. Logging is not a dirty word.
I gotta disagree with Iceman's post, and who ever is the ranger that he got his information from.
Part of the reason why some of the huts were built originally was in response to some of the tragedies that happened up there.
I suspect that what Iceman's needs to realize is that the area is heavily used and impacted. The huts do fill a need for many people. Long distance hikers are a distinct minority here. No one forces anyone to stay at the huts or campsites in the Whites. If you don't like what they offer, then walk on by.
The Old Fhart
01-06-2008, 11:39
the_iceman-"....The trail is poorly maintained unless it feeds one of their precious huts. White blazes are almost nonexistent....." If you had any knowledge of the area you'd know that the AMC doesn't maintain or own those trails. Check any of the many signs of the above tree line sections and they will tell you that the trail maintenance is done by the USFS, not the AMC.
As usual, the people who complain about trail maintenance have no idea what they are talking about nor have they helped with trail work.
Another anti AMC thread??? I hope not. They aren't perfect, but they do some excellent work.
Hi Iceman, I think you are wrong on two counts in your post but I hope Weary chimes in here as he is the expert.
1. The AMC is not building the huts the thread refers to and they have refurbished a few existing sport camps.
2. The land recently acquired (37K acres) does have a logging component and they hire "certified" logging outfits that meet stringent standards for responsible/sustainable logging operations. Logging is not a dirty word.
It's easy to quibble. We all would prefer that land near the trail be kept wild and whereever possible reverted to being wild. But the land was on the market. AMC bought it and is making minimal changes. Plum Creek, whose land lies next door, in contrast is seeking permission to build two luxury resorts, a thousand housing units, commercial campgrounds and other amenities.
I prefer the AMC choice. I find the criticism of AMC a bit rediculous. Once the land was going to be sold, the choice became between remodeling four sporting camps, or building condos in the wilderness.
It's my guess that the "commercial" logging will continue for decades before any profit is realized. AMC is basically cleaning up poplar, diseased beech, and other diseased and junk weed trees after years of over cutting by the previous owner.
Harvesting in selected areas is harmless and helps maintain traditional jobs of residents in the region. It help makes AMC a respected neighbor, not an intrusive developer.
As far as the huts go in the whites, most existed for decades prior to the Appalachian Trail. They are part of the culture and traditions of the White Mountain National Forest, which incidentally probably wouldn't exist had not AMC pushed for creation of the forest a century ago, and has fought ever since to have great parcels of the forest designated for wilderness management.
AMC is a friend of the mountains, not their enemy.
Weary
Another anti AMC thread??? I hope not. They aren't perfect, but they do some excellent work.
Just a lil thread drift, it was suppose to be an anti huts to trails commercial venture catering to so called eco-tourists with big bucks flooding the Bigelows and Flagstaff Lake area, at least, that's what the article i posted above was about:rolleyes:
Lone Wolf
01-06-2008, 11:48
The AMC is not a friend to the AT. That is obvious to anyone who has tried to hike the AT thru the Whites. The trail is poorly maintained unless it feeds one of their precious huts. White blazes are almost nonexistent. Counting on shelter from hut crews is like playing Russian Roulette with a half loaded gun – 50% of the time you are turned away even in severe weather.
You are sadly misinformed and a typical whining thru-hiker elitist. I've thru-hiked thru the Whites many times and never had a problem with the trails. Who the hell do you think you are that you deserve shelter while hiking? Pay for it like the rest of the folks. Plan ahead or stay home.
The AMC is not a friend to the AT. That is obvious to anyone who has tried to hike the AT thru the Whites. The trail is poorly maintained unless it feeds one of their precious huts. White blazes are almost nonexistent. Counting on shelter from hut crews is like playing Russian Roulette with a half loaded gun – 50% of the time you are turned away even in severe weather.
This is largely BS. The AMC predates ATC by a good deal and the ATC took advantage of its trail system to the extent possible. (Ditto with the GMC, if my history is right.) The AT might not exist (or would have been completed a good deal later) without the prior efforts of the AMC and GMC.
There's some bad blood between thru-hikers and the AMC, which is another matter entirely. Obviously, "thru-hikers" are not the reason for AMC's existence. "Iceman" seems to feel they should be, perhaps. :rolleyes:
Lone Wolf
01-06-2008, 12:01
There's some bad blood between thru-hikers and the AMC, which is another matter entirely. Obviously, "thru-hikers" are not the reason for AMC's existence. "Iceman" seems to feel they should be, perhaps. :rolleyes:
ENTITLEMENT. They think thier little thru-hike is so special and unique. Thru-hikers are a dime a dozen and mostly they're a pain in the ass
Perhaps he has had a bad experience or three with the AMC.
They have a facility here, (Acadia), for mucky-mucks...
I have seen more than one of their members out in the park and they will enjoy their hut skiing.
the_iceman
01-06-2008, 19:08
I actually said (or tried to) that I had no problem with the AMC's responsible logging. I have also hiked the Whites for over 40 years and only once as a thru-hiker. Most of my hiking has been done after October 15th to avoid the AMC.
I never said the AMC was not there first.
Some of the signs say USFS but many say AMC and the guide books and ATC say the AMC is responsible for the trail in the Whites.
There needs to be alternatives to the huts or provisions for hikers to traverse the Whites on a long distance hike without reservations months in advance.
The AMC Huts existed before the AT but the AMC complains they lose money on them. Yes, once the land is sold in Maine developers may buy it and then all may be lost. I said it needed to be protected. What I questioned was why in the world would the AMC want to build a hut system if it claims they are losing money in the Whites where they are supported by the large popularion around Boston?
It must be fun to launch into a personal attack on someone you do not know. You have no idea of my background or how many hours I spend working on the trail or if I donate to the ATC. Heck, maybe I just bought 1,000 acres in Maine and was trying to decide who to donate it to.
Maybe a misunderstanding here? Maybe not?
The article I posted(see 1st post in thread) has no mention of AMC involvement in this new project Huts to Trails in Maine. It's some other group.
the_iceman
01-06-2008, 20:29
Maybe a misunderstanding here? Maybe not?
The article I posted(see 1st post in thread) has no mention of AMC involvement in this new project Huts to Trails in Maine. It's some other group.
Different group and different area but I think others missed the difference as well.
The AMC claims their huts are losing money in the Whites
No they don't.
....There needs to be alternatives to the huts or provisions for hikers to traverse the Whites on a long distance hike without reservations months in advance.
The AMC Huts existed before the AT but the AMC complains they lose money on them. ....What I questioned was why in the world would the AMC want to build a hut system if it claims they are losing money in the Whites where they are supported by the large popularion around Boston?.......
AMC has numerous campsites through the whites where hikers can stay without reservations. The problems really exist above the timberline, where the USFS refuses to allow new construction.
Strong hikers can get through the area without using the huts, which includes almost all thru hikers.
As for the huts losing money. I suspect it's an accounting loss. Whether the huts are a profit or a loss depends on which expenses are assigned to the huts.
AMC has 90,000 members. It would have fewer members, I'm sure, if the huts didn't exist -- and fewer contributions as well. The huts may technically result in losses, but without the huts the financial condition of the club would be in decline.
AMC's Maine Woods INitiative has a totally separate financial regime. It's a separate entity that has to raise its own money through income from providing services to users of the area or from the sale of timber or from volunteer maintainers and donors. So far they are doing okay, but at some point it is going to be a pretty touch and go operation, I suspect.
WEary
The huts make a good deal of money.
That said, the AMC does a whole lot more in the North Country than just run the huts. The entire NH operation operates at a loss and is subsidized by other sources of income like membership dues and donations.
Basically, the hut users subsidize other AMC contributions and services up there, including the caretaker-staffed shelters
along the AT.
the_iceman
01-06-2008, 23:49
The huts make a good deal of money.
Someone should tell the hut crews and caretakers who tell everyone they are a losing money and need donations to survive.
Someone should tell the hut crews and caretakers who tell evertone they are a losing money and need donations to survive.
I've been to several huts and shelters often over the past several years, and I have not heard this from the crews and caretakers. True, there is a tip box, and while the crews appreciate the donations, I have not heard the line that it's a money losing operation.
I've been to several huts and shelters often over the past several years, and I have not heard this from the crews and caretakers. True, there is a tip box, and while the crews appreciate the donations, I have not heard the line that it's a money losing operation.
Nor have I. During the hearings on relicensing the huts a few years ago, there was some talk about losing money. But it was basically an accounting loss, if any, as I mentioned earlier.