View Full Version : white house landing
johnny quest
10-10-2008, 12:54
i stayed overnight at white house landing on my failed sobo and was so impressed with the place! i think its a great place for resupply and rest. is there anyone on here associated (or not) with the maine atc that can explain why they wont allow decent signage/directions to getting there?
As I understand it, signs are not allowed on any property controlled by the ATC, unless they are signs made specifically for trail use (mileage). Since most of the area between the trail and WHL is ATC corridor, there has been a feud over the signs put up by WHL. My opinion is that small signs, such as the arrows I saw this July, aren't a big deal. But I know it is a major controversy and you should get lots of responses.
Lone Wolf
10-10-2008, 13:06
is there anyone on here associated (or not) with the maine atc that can explain why they wont allow decent signage/directions to getting there?
it's just a nit-pickin' power trip thing. if the place was owned by someone well known in the so-called "trail community" you can bet there'd be good signage
Lone Wolf
10-10-2008, 13:10
As I understand it, signs are not allowed on any property controlled by the ATC, unless they are signs made specifically for trail use (mileage).
but there's lots of unofficial signs and stuff all over the trail. some dude in vermont bolted a box with a register in it to a tree so hikers can thank him for the sodas he leaves scattered in a stream. nobody says anything about that cuz he's part of the "community" :rolleyes:
johnny quest
10-10-2008, 13:31
i should have been more clear. i meant if the maine atc put a regular directional sign like they currently have on the trail, pointing to the whitehouse landing dock and giving mileage that would solve everything as far as signage went. nothing more.
ive already heard a few opinions from folks on the trail. some said it was because whl was out to make money off the trail. some said that the matc didnt want to give up the illusion of the 100 mile wilderness.
one quote from a nobo i met named Greenwood:
"the first lie you will learn about the 100 mile wilderness is that its not wilderness."
i stayed overnight at white house landing on my failed sobo and was so impressed with the place! i think its a great place for resupply and rest. is there anyone on here associated (or not) with the maine atc that can explain why they wont allow decent signage/directions to getting there?
Except for Baxter State Park, and a few parcels of state "public reserved lands", like the Mahoosucs, Bigelow, and Nahmakanta, the trail in Maine is all owned by the National Park Service, which sets the basic rules for what is allowed. ATC has no significant role. For the most part, ATC interprets NPS rules, for the 30 maintaining clubs, based on park service directives, and the law preserving the trail that was passed by the US Congress.
MATC tried for years to work with the owners of the White House Landing. We explored a number of alternatives that would have served both the hiker need for information and White House's need for business. WhiteHouse insisted on doing things there way. Our pleas for cooperation were ignored.
Maintainers took down numerous blaze orange signs to the business. Replacements were put up almost immediately. Finally, when all our efforts for years to work out a compromise failed, we notified the Park Service ranger in Harpers Ferry.
Apparently, he worked out something with the business. I haven't investigated further. The situation is out of the hands of MATC and now rests with the National Park Service.
Weary
i stayed overnight at white house landing on my failed sobo and was so impressed with the place! i think its a great place for resupply and rest. is there anyone on here associated (or not) with the maine atc that can explain why they wont allow decent signage/directions to getting there?
how did you find the place?
max patch
10-10-2008, 16:01
how did you find the place?
Now thats a great question.
The directions are obviously adequate.
johnny quest
10-10-2008, 16:04
good question.
i knew it was somewhere nearby but the term used in the directions, "tole road" evidently is a widely defined thing. i came to what i considered a grownover trail crossing the a.t. at a right angle. the matc or nps or someone had the normal redwood-colored routed direction sign pointing to landmarks north and south. i figured this was it but none of these told me for sure that this grown over trail was the one to whitehouse landing's trail. but someone had draped a denim shirt over a branch there. my spidey sense told me this meant something. so i took off down the trail. several times i thought i might be wrong and almost turned back but finally i got to the lake, and the boat dock, and the air horn.
johnny quest
10-10-2008, 16:05
Now thats a great question.
The directions are obviously adequate.
are you saying they were obviously adequate for you to find it?
Jim Adams
10-11-2008, 07:55
some said that the matc didnt want to give up the illusion of the 100 mile wilderness.
one quote from a nobo i met named Greenwood:
"the first lie you will learn about the 100 mile wilderness is that its not wilderness."
You can slack pack the entire 100 mile wilderness if you want to.:confused:
It used to be a wilderness...now it's just a name.
geek
superman
10-11-2008, 08:06
When I got to the intersection where I would have gone to the right to White House landing, I cooked a ramen and hiked on. I thought I saw a sign or something that told me where WHL was. Maybe it was written in the dirt with all the other notes hikers left? I have nothing for or against WHL, it had been a long hike and I was looking for Katahdin.
Like Superman, I pushed on by.
There was a day when folks pushed through the 100 mile wilderness without resupply. Now people slack pack the area, have folks bring them resupply, and what not. I have nothing against the WHL. Stumpknocker says they are the finest kind.
But where have all the backpackers gone?
Like Superman, I pushed on by.
There was a day when folks pushed through the 100 mile wilderness without resupply. Now people slack pack the area, have folks bring them resupply, and what not. I have nothing against the WHL. Stumpknocker says they are the finest kind.
But where have all the backpackers gone?
They're probably off chasing the HYOH illusion!
You can slack pack the entire 100 mile wilderness if you want to.:confused:
It used to be a wilderness...now it's just a name.geek
It's always been just a name. The term "100-mile-wilderness" was coined by Steve Clark, a former editor of the MATC guide to the trail in Maine, to warn hikers that there was no easy resupply between Monson and Abol Bridge.
Steve went on to become one of the most important leaders of the Appalachian Trail system in history. He has served as President of MATC, the only person to ever chair two ATC biennual conferences, one of the first ATC honorary lifetime members, chair of the committee that blocked the construction industrial wind towers a mile from the trail .... The list could run for pages.
I've done the "wilderness" all kinds of ways. Going straight through, carrying food for ten days, partial hikes as a trail maintainer, partial hikes as an overseer of three fifths of the 100 miles, as a hiker with a nine-year-old, who had a brother bring in fresh steaks to the AT crossing of the Jo Mary Campground Road, as a visitor to the new AMC facilities and trails at Little Lyford POnd and the Chairback Camps, as a section hiker from the Jo Mary road with two kids in tow, both north to Katahdin and south to Gulf Hagas, as a day hiker and an overnight hiker exploring Gulf Hagas....
All were great hikes through a great and wild section of Maine. I recommend them to all.
Weary
Shutterbug
10-11-2008, 19:16
All were great hikes through a great and wild section of Maine. I recommend them to all.
Weary
I have hiked all over the country and the 100 Mile Wilderness is still at the top of my list. I have hiked all or parts of it 5 different times. I enjoyed every hike.
Lone Wolf
10-11-2008, 20:22
It used to be a wilderness...now it's just a name.
geek
when was that?
I enjoyed the heck out of the 100-mile wilderness in September 1990. WHL wasn't there, or if it was, I was unaware of it (it's not mentioned in the Philosopher's Guide.) What road crossings there were, were dirt roads with no traffic. No cars, no trailheads. Walking south, I encountered maybe half a dozen nobos each day, and that was it. Wilderness? I dunno, but it sure felt wild. Nothing in the southernmost 650 miles of the AT came close to the experience of the trail between Abol Bridge and Monson.
when was that?
Before Paul Bunyon arrived with Ol Blue and his big AXE.
You don't really want to go there, do you?
you Don't Really Want To Go There, Do You?
Lol
... Nothing in the southernmost 650 miles of the AT came close to the experience of the trail between Abol Bridge and Monson. Amen to that, Terrapin! I sure wasn't ready for it and I'd done 1000 miles. Next time, and yes there will be a next time... I'll take it slower and go with a buddy so I'm not so afraid of falling.
the goat
10-12-2008, 20:18
i love the 100-mile-whatever-you-want-to-call-it; it's as close to wilderness as the a.t. gets.
i didn't know a/b whl on my first hike in '01; but on my second hike in '03, i happily stopped there and enjoyed myself thoroughly.
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one.
Let him put up a sign, hikers go there anyway.
Kirby
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one.
Kirby
Yeah, but Shaw's is considered part of the AT community, so they are exempt from all the BS being tossed at WHL.
I stayed at WHL last June and I really enjoyed it. Well worth the side trip IMO.
Lone Wolf
10-19-2008, 19:42
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one.
Let him put up a sign, hikers go there anyway.
Kirby
kirby "gets it"
johnny quest
10-19-2008, 22:50
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one.
Let him put up a sign, hikers go there anyway.
Kirby
i agree. unfortunately its the maine atc that decides. i guess shaws existence doesnt threaten the 100 mile mystique.
im a pisspoor poet. but i wrote this while staying at whl.
There’s a place in the deep woods
Of northernmost maine
Just off the Appalachian trail
On pemadumcook lake,
midst the moose’s refrain
Eagle’s cry and loon’s sad wail.
It’s a paradise place, a haven and respite
It’s a place to regroup and restore.
It’s a welcoming place
To refuel and refit
And to rest your body so sore.
So don’t miss this place
Don’t hurry on past it.
For its not the beginning or ending
The real goal of this walk
Is to enjoy the journey
And places like White House Landing
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one. Let him put up a sign, hikers go there anyway. Kirby
I don't know, but I suspect that if White House landing had put up a simple sign that said White House Landing with an arrow, no one would have said anything.
Instead they posted a dozen blaze orange signs tacked to as many trees, and refused all efforts by MATC to work out a compromise.
AS for your specific comment, Kirby, I don't remember the "illegal" sign marking the blue blaze trail to Shaw's. But the blue blaze is mostly on public highways where MATC or ATC has no jurisdiction.
Weary
You can slack pack the entire 100 mile wilderness if you want to.:confused:
You don't have to, you know. You can still carry all your food if you want. Is it that important that everyone hikes the way you want them to?
A good example of an "illegal" sign is the sign marking the blue blaze trail to Monson, specifically the one that says "Shaw's" with an arrow. Not many complaints about that one.The MATC is kind of egomaniacal. Prostrate yourself, forehead on the floor before the Mighty Ones, and you are fine. It is only when you do not worship them as gods do you get into trouble.
It's a State of Maine thing. Lived in Maine for close to 20 years. Beautiful land, bloated gov't from the top down.
The 'real" Maine State Motto: The Way Life SHould Be (but isn't, not here).
The MATC is kind of egomaniacal. Prostrate yourself, forehead on the floor before the Mighty Ones, and you are fine. It is only when you do not worship them as gods do you get into trouble.
It's a State of Maine thing. Lived in Maine for close to 20 years. Beautiful land, bloated gov't from the top down.
The 'real" Maine State Motto: The Way Life SHould Be (but isn't, not here).
Hey, Frosty, that's a bit extreme. First MATC has no enforcement powers of its own. They enforce 99.99% of the time only by persusion. In my 35 years as a member, there may have been one or two others, but I can only think of only two instances where the club has called in National Park Service rangers. About 12 years or so ago, a couple christianed a brand new leanto with 10 inch high black graffitti. And after a half decade or more of trying to work with White House Landing, the club finally notified the ranger at Harpers Ferry.
Weary
Jim Adams
10-20-2008, 16:11
You don't have to, you know. You can still carry all your food if you want. Is it that important that everyone hikes the way you want them to?
That wasn't my point at all....point being, it is no more of a wilderness than anywhere else on the AT.:mad:
geek.
WalkinHome
10-20-2008, 17:25
The MATC is kind of egomaniacal. Prostrate yourself, forehead on the floor before the Mighty Ones, and you are fine. It is only when you do not worship them as gods do you get into trouble.
It's a State of Maine thing. Lived in Maine for close to 20 years. Beautiful land, bloated gov't from the top down.
The 'real" Maine State Motto: The Way Life SHould Be (but isn't, not here).
Could not be further from the truth. If "egomaniacal" means to selflessly maintain and protect some of the most remote trail for everyone to use, then I guess it would apply. Attend an executive board meeting or a work trip to see that if "prostrate adulation" were offered, it would not be recognized nor would they know what to do with it. They would, however, know what to do with respect. The MATC does, much like many of the other maintaining clubs, have some "great" ones but great in the sense that they have contributed (and continue to do so) so much to the trail. We will continue to do our jobs so that the trail is available for all when they wish to hike it.
I don't know, but I suspect that if White House landing had put up a simple sign that said White House Landing with an arrow, no one would have said anything.
Instead they posted a dozen blaze orange signs tacked to as many trees, and refused all efforts by MATC to work out a compromise.
AS for your specific comment, Kirby, I don't remember the "illegal" sign marking the blue blaze trail to Shaw's. But the blue blaze is mostly on public highways where MATC or ATC has no jurisdiction.
Weary
I apologize, I was unaware of any attempt to compromise with WHL.
When you get to the junction for the blue blaze, there is a sign declaring Shaw's with an arrow.
I know Ray Ronan maintains a section in that area, he might be able to confirm or deny this, but I'm pretty confident there is one. I don't care, it was helpful for me, as I intended to blue blaze to town anyway.
The MATC, from what I understand, simply needs some young blood. I'm not aware of any reach out effort by the club to high schools in Portland. Maybe I'm missing something.
Kirby
WalkinHome
10-20-2008, 19:16
Hi Kirby, The sign for Shaw's was news to me as it is farther south than I maintain. Regarding attracting young people, MATC is not alone in finding this difficult. Maine AMC is ahead of us but still has trouble due to strict guidelines for those working with minors.
It's unfortunate some people think expressing themselves in the manner they have is appropriate. How it helps MATC or newbies is beyond me, nor can I fathom what those who persist with it hope to accomplish.
I would think if the service providers mentioned were to work with Mainetainers, appropriate signage could be put on the AT, especially if those service providers were willing to help pay for it.
Seems I recall sporting camps being listed on signs along with other points of interest many years ago. No doubt there are examples in WhiteBlaze's sign gallery or in the private collections of hikers reading this thread.
superman
10-20-2008, 20:30
As I said earlier I didn't go to WHL when I got to the cross trail.
When I got to the blue blaze for Monson, I simply continued on to the next road crossing. Seeing a sign does not require you to take action. The following year I rehiked the section from Caratunk to Monson. Since I'd left my car at Shaw's and had his son shuttle me to Caratunk, when I got to the blue blaze I took it. It was convenient to have it marked.
Maybe different hikes should have different signage. We could have people waiting on the trail before the hikers get to the signs and change the signs according to the hikers needs and sign preference.:)
It's unfortunate some people think expressing themselves in the manner they have is appropriate. How it helps MATC or newbies is beyond me, nor can I fathom what those who persist with it hope to accomplish.....
Well, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Except for some ancient state lands that were mostly rediscovered 35 years ago, the trail in Maine is owned by the National Park Service. NPS doesn't allow commercial signs on its lands. MATC recognizes that the Maine AT provides some of the wildest trails remaining in the East. We try to maintain that wildness.
Are you saying, we shouldn't fight to maintain what little wildness remains?
Weary
Well, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Except for some ancient state lands that were mostly rediscovered 35 years ago, the trail in Maine is owned by the National Park Service. NPS doesn't allow commercial signs on its lands. MATC recognizes that the Maine AT provides some of the wildest trails remaining in the East. We try to maintain that wildness.
Are you saying, we shouldn't fight to maintain what little wildness remains?
Weary
No, I don't advocate giving up the fight. Generally I argue in favor of maintaining and even enhancing wildness where possible and desireable.
Land ownership has changed since the days to which I referred and perhaps new standards apply. It is important people who read and post here understand why things are done as they are.
Private individuals don't have the right to create trails and put up signage as they see fit. Any such changes need to be proposed to the proper authorities and approved. If the changes requested don't meet the existing standards, then they must be denied.
People ranting here year after year about MATC only serves to fill the heads of a new crop of hikers with nonsense and benefits neither MATC or hikers who depend upon their continued efforts.
Of course service providers have an interest in their customers being able to find their establishments. There are many ways they can go about making themselves known while still complying with NPS's standards.
johnny quest
10-20-2008, 22:37
Well, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Except for some ancient state lands that were mostly rediscovered 35 years ago, the trail in Maine is owned by the National Park Service. NPS doesn't allow commercial signs on its lands. MATC recognizes that the Maine AT provides some of the wildest trails remaining in the East. We try to maintain that wildness.
Are you saying, we shouldn't fight to maintain what little wildness remains?
Weary
i wasnt there when whl first butted heads with the matc. but why cant matc put their own directional sign up, just like all the other routered white lettering on maroon wood, directing the hiker to whl's landing? it is a valid hiker resupply point in my mind. the only reasons for not doing it that i can see would be 1. hard feelings over past battles or 2. the desire to maintain the myth of the 100 mile wildnerness.
i wasnt there when whl first butted heads with the matc. but why cant matc put their own directional sign up, just like all the other routered white lettering on maroon wood, directing the hiker to whl's landing? it is a valid hiker resupply point in my mind. the only reasons for not doing it that i can see would be 1. hard feelings over past battles or 2. the desire to maintain the myth of the 100 mile wildnerness.
That's one of the alternatives we discussed years ago. But the thing is out of the hands of MATC now. It rests with the park service. I forget what the NPS ranger and WHL decided. I understand there is some sort of sign there now. But I haven't been up to look. I'll try to find out. Apparently most people this summer didn't find it hard to find the place.
Weary
This seems to be a familiar whiteblaze topic. I seem to remember at least another (very long) thread to two on the subject.
White House Landing can be a welcome respinte, especially if you are hiking in the rain. The food is good and the one pound burgers or famous. However it is most absolutely a commercial enterprize where they nickle and dime the day lights out of hikers to the maximum extent possible. If you want to spend a night and eat, I doubt you will get out of there without dropping at least a hundred bucks. You WILL eat.
As for the 100 mile wilderness, I agree it is no longer wilderness in the technical sense. There are several roads punched through it and there are plenty of signs of past logging. However, it is STILL very beautiful and remote. Nothing on the rest of the AT in my oppionion, can touch it for remote wild scenery. It is improtant that this section of trail is protected with even more dilligence than other parts of the trail. The signs pointing to WHL fromthe AT could be more discrete. As of 2006 they where nearly impssible to miss.
I think it is worth noting that White House Landing is much more a commercial enterprise than a hostel. They want to make money first and foremost. Shaw's,for example, is clearly a hiker orientated hostel and is priced accordingly. i had the distinct impression that Bill and ? of WHL did not really enjoy there job. I think they preferred dealing with fisherman and snowmobilers (who spend serious money) but are getting less and less of them.
Just my thoughts.
DavidNH
......As for the 100 mile wilderness, I agree it is no longer wilderness in the technical sense. There are several roads punched through it and there are plenty of signs of past logging. However, it is STILL very beautiful and remote. Nothing on the rest of the AT in my oppionion, can touch it for remote wild scenery. It is improtant that this section of trail is protected with even more dilligence than other parts of the trail. The signs pointing to WHL fromthe AT could be more discrete. As of 2006 they where nearly impssible to miss......DavidNH
Technically, it never was wilderness. It has always had logging roads, intensive logging, sporting camps and other commercial activities. But David is right. "Nothing on the rest of the AT can touch it for remote wild scenery."
Interestingly, unlike the rest of the trail, the 100 miles is becoming more remote and more wild. The Nature Conservancy owns 48,000 acres in the area which it is managing as a recovering wilderness. The Appalachian Mountain Club has bought 37,000 acres, a third of which is being managed as wilderness. The rest for remote recreation. AMC's major construction so far has been a network of trails and the restoration of historic sporting camps. Both organizations have closed roads and restricted motorized access.
Another 40,000 acres or so is on the market and pledged to conservation groups if they can raise the money. AMC has a major capital program underway as we debate.
Weary
the goat
10-21-2008, 10:00
If you want to spend a night and eat, I doubt you will get out of there without dropping at least a hundred bucks.
that's a bit of an exaggeration.
i spent the night, i ate a lot, i drank many of their beers and i spent less than half that.
Bluebearee
10-21-2008, 10:03
Thanks Weary for providing accurate and balanced information about the MATC here as well as the background for the WHL signage issue. You've now said it at least three times that the land is NPS, hopefully that point is heard by those reading this.
Lone Wolf
10-21-2008, 10:08
White House Landing can be a welcome respinte, especially if you are hiking in the rain. The food is good and the one pound burgers or famous. However it is most absolutely a commercial enterprize where they nickle and dime the day lights out of hikers to the maximum extent possible.
I think it is worth noting that White House Landing is much more a commercial enterprise than a hostel. They want to make money first and foremost. Shaw's,for example, is clearly a hiker orientated hostel and is priced accordingly. i had the distinct impression that Bill and ? of WHL did not really enjoy there job. I think they preferred dealing with fisherman and snowmobilers (who spend serious money) but are getting less and less of them.
Just my thoughts.
DavidNH
what's wrong with running a business for profit? not everybody loves hikers and worships them. if i ever ran a hostel it would definately be for profit.
keith shaw ran his place as a business. he made money. lots of it
Lone Wolf
10-21-2008, 10:09
Thanks Weary for providing accurate and balanced information about the MATC here as well as the background for the WHL signage issue. You've now said it at least three times that the land is NPS, hopefully that point is heard by those reading this.
then maybe MATC members should quit whining about signs
Thanks Weary for providing accurate and balanced information about the MATC here as well as the background for the WHL signage issue. You've now said it at least three times that the land is NPS, hopefully that point is heard by those reading this.
The trail corridor is almost all owned by NPS. I'm still worried about the land surrounding the narrow trail corridor.
That's why if I ever win the lottery I'm going to devote some of it to the AMC efforts in the wilderness. At the moment all my surplus goes to my two land trusts.
BTW, I think WHL's landlord may be the Nature Conservancy. With luck the conservancy may end this debate one of these days -- or perhaps carry it to a new low.:)
Weary www.matlt.org
then maybe MATC members should quit whining about signs
Actually, Lone Wolf, the whiners are hikers complaining about not being able to find the place. MATC solved the sign problem several years ago. After being unable to reach a compromise with the WHL owners, we notified the NPS of the violation. They sent up an enforcement person, resulting in the whines from hikers.
Weary
What are the chances that the same folks who seem to need or want another, or, more signs on the trail are the same ones that don't think a hiker needs to carry a map?
johnny quest
10-21-2008, 12:59
Actually, Lone Wolf, the whiners are hikers complaining about not being able to find the place. MATC solved the sign problem several years ago. After being unable to reach a compromise with the WHL owners, we notified the NPS of the violation. They sent up an enforcement person, resulting in the whines from hikers.
Weary
im sorry, i thought i was bringing up a valid point. i didnt realize i was whining. i dont know why you people put up with me i really dont.
the whl folks have a different rememberance of the whole sign fight with matc. they have a binder full of newspaper articles about it. but as i said, i wasnt there and dont pretend i know the real deal. might i suggest that weary's pov is going to be weighted in favor of the matc.
my point, again, is that whl is a plus to hikers and ought to be marked. as of september there was no real signage. i deduced the correct trail because of a denim shirt left hanging on a branch.
and what is wrong with making money? whl's prices arent cheap, but they arent rediculous, certainly not in light of where it is and what it takes to get it there.
and i always carry maps. too bad the whl isnt on it.
.....the whl folks have a different rememberance of the whole sign fight with matc. they have a binder full of newspaper articles about it. but as i said, i wasnt there and dont pretend i know the real deal. might i suggest that weary's pov is going to be weighted in favor of the matc.
my point, again, is that whl is a plus to hikers and ought to be marked. as of september there was no real signage. i deduced the correct trail because of a denim shirt left hanging on a branch.
and what is wrong with making money? whl's prices arent cheap, but they arent rediculous, certainly not in light of where it is and what it takes to get it there.
and i always carry maps. too bad the whl isnt on it.
All I know about the issue, I learned from discussions at meetings of the MATC board.
A long time ago, the overseer of the section reported illegal blaze orange WHL signs along the trail. We discussed how to deal with the obvious violation. Our discussions dealt with how to best meet the needs of hikers. As I understand it, all the alternatives were rejected by WHL, or ignored by WHL.
After several years of talk, a couple of years ago we notified the AT ranger at Harpers Ferry. The present situation is the result of the ranger coming to Maine and talking with WHL.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. I doubt if the WHL folks are making a great deal of money. I am positive that Keith Shaw never made "a lot of money," as someone claimed.
Keith made a living. But his mode of living never struck me as reflecting high income. He obvious enjoyed what he was doing. And like a lot of us, chose to stick with a living that didn't make a lot of money, given the advantage of enjoying what we were doing.
I've never been to WHL. But from the comments by those that have been there, it seems that the owner doesn't enjoy what he is doing, which, if so, is sad.
We only live once. It's best to spend it in ways that are enjoyable, I've found.
Weary
Lone Wolf
10-21-2008, 14:22
I am positive that Keith Shaw never made "a lot of money," as someone claimed.
Keith made a living. But his mode of living never struck me as reflecting high income. He obvious enjoyed what he was doing. And like a lot of us, chose to stick with a living that didn't make a lot of money, given the advantage of enjoying what we were doing.
obviously you didn't know Keith very well :)
Jim Adams
10-21-2008, 14:32
obviously you didn't know Keith very well :)
I'll second that!
Keith did way better than just OK. He simply didn't want to live any other way.
geek
I've never been to WHL. But from the comments by those that have been there, it seems that the owner doesn't enjoy what he is doing, which, if so, is sad.When I stopped by two years ago he said that if someone offered a fair price for it he would sell it in a heartbeat.
Jack Tarlin
10-21-2008, 14:39
Jeez, this is turning into another Whiteblaze pissing contest.
It's really simple: Everyone that hikes north from Monson is carrying a trail guidebook of one sort or another, so everyone knows about WHL. They know where it is ; they know what they offer; they have a good idea of what they charge.
Like a thousand other places, hikers can decide for themselves whether or not they wish to patronize this place and spend time and money there. Those that skip the place are welcome to do so. Those that elect to visit the place do so knowing full well what is availablethere.
It's not that difficult, people.
If you wanna go there, feel free.
If you don't wanna go there, well that's fine, too.
But to dump on the place without having been there seems a bit over the top.
And to know full well what is available there and what the costs are.....if you know this, and you still go, and THEN you dump on the place, well this seems petty and small.
The place has services for hikers. The services are pricey compared to some other places. Then again, the place is in the middle of nowhere.
If you want or need this place, then go.
If you don't want or need it, then skip it.
But enough with the whining already.
Hikers complain about the pricing a lot, but the place literally is in the middle of no where, there's not much happening in the north woods these days except logging.
Blue Jay
10-21-2008, 17:21
If you want to spend a night and eat, I doubt you will get out of there without dropping at least a hundred bucks. You WILL eat.
This is complete BS, as always. I've stayed there 3 times, never spent more than $40.
I'll second that!
Keith did way better than just OK. He simply didn't want to live any other way.geek
Sure. That's probably why his heirs sold the business, quickly. They didn't want to be bothered by all those big bucks.
Weary
....But to dump on the place without having been there seems a bit over the top......
Jack, I think most, perhaps all, of those that "dumped" on the WHL, had used the place.
My objections mostly focused on blaze orange signs on the Appalachian Trail, which were a jarring element in what otherwise seemed to be 70 miles of a particularly wild section of trail, north of Monson.
Weary
the goat
10-21-2008, 17:40
Sure. That's probably why his heirs sold the business, quickly. They didn't want to be bothered by all those big bucks.
Weary
apparently you're expounding on a situation you know very little about.
Jack Tarlin
10-21-2008, 17:41
I'd agree with you, Weary, except for a few things:
There were signs DIRECTLY ON THE TRAIL telling people how to get to the Shaw's place, and this signage was there for many years. Neither MATC nor anyone else ever found these signs objectionable or intrusive, as nothing was ever done about them.
Evidently, when a place reached "legendary" status, or was universally beloved, as Shaw's was, they're subject to different standards.
And yes, indeed, some of the criticism of WHL has been from folks who acknowledge that they're merely repeating what they've heard., or what they've read on the Internet, rather than basing their comments on what they've personally experienced.
I've commented on many a Trail facility, but when I say something about a place I've never personally visited, seen, or patronized, I always make a point of saying this, so readers can judge for themselves the value of my comments.
Some other folks might want to consider adopting this posture.
Passing judgment on a place that one hasn't actually seen is probably something best avoided.
apparently you're expounding on a situation you know very little about.
Well, I was replying to a claim that Keith Shaw made big bucks. And the suggestion that he drove ramshackle cars and lived in a ramshackle house, most of which was rented to hikers because he preferred to live that way.
Maybe. But I do know a lot of hikers think hostels rake in a lot of money. Simple arithmetic suggests that's not true. Hostels have limited capacity, require long hours for a few weeks a year, and marginal returns on that labor.
Keith was smarter than most and worked harder than most. But he was also at the northern end of the hiker throngs. By the time hikers get to Maine, their numbers have thinned and most are running short of dollars.
As one former Maine hostel owner told me, hikers love to free load.
Keith had the advantage of having grown up with the hiker revival in the 70s. His place was known and used by most everyone hiking in the area. And he watched the chain of hikers carefully.
In 1991, when I hiked Maine with a 9-year-old we didn't stay at Shaw's. We got into town early. I called my wife to bring up a pair of replacement sneakers for my grandson. When they arrived, we were driven back to the trail junction on Route 15 and walked three miles to the first shelter.
Eight weeks later I was walking from Abol Campground back to Katahdin Stream. Keith stopped to pick me up. As we chatted, he suddenly said, "now I remember, "you're the guy with the grandson that didn't stay at my place."
So when I went through two years later on my walk from Springer, I made sure I stopped at Shaw's. It was expected, don't you know.
Keith was a good businessman. He made more than most hostel owners and shuttlers. But he did not die wealthy from any money he made catering to hikers, I'm quite sure.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
10-21-2008, 18:56
MATC solved the sign problem several years ago. After being unable to reach a compromise with the WHL owners, we notified the NPS of the violation.
The WHL owner felt the same way about NPS rules that Weary still feels about Baxter Park rules: "Screw the rules! Me! Me! Me!"
garlic08
10-21-2008, 19:02
The WHL is a lot like the Vermillion Valley Resort (VVR) on the PCT. Off-trail, accessed by boat shuttle, very expensive, but a very valuable service for many hikers, some of whom will spend well over $200 for a night there. There are some complaints about how it's run, but many love it and even brag a little about how much they spent there. You don't have to go there, but most do.
I've hiked past WHL twice, stopped once for a mail drop (nominal fee), skipped it once. I didn't see any signs for it this year. I did not have a map, but with my guidebook I had no doubt where the junction was.
I stayed at Shaw's this year, and the new owner didn't appear to be swimming in cash. I did a quick calculation, extrapolating what I spent there for lodging and breakfast over a season of hikers, and the numbers didn't come out too good for the year. Mortgage, utilities, staff costs, upkeep (falling behind with a leaky roof when I was there).... If you owned the place free and clear like Mr Shaw likely did, it probably made for a nice cash flow. But add a mortgage, then probably not.
Lone Wolf
10-21-2008, 21:34
Sure. That's probably why his heirs sold the business, quickly. They didn't want to be bothered by all those big bucks.
Weary
you are clueless :rolleyes:
Lone Wolf
10-21-2008, 21:35
apparently you're expounding on a situation you know very little about.
exactly
Jack Tarlin
10-21-2008, 21:43
Actually Keith made quite a good living, and for any number of reasons:
His lodging house wasn't fancy, but it provided what his guests needed. His charges, whether for lodging, shuttling, and especially, for meals, was fair and
always reasonable. One got what one had paid for at Shaw's.
It should also be remembered that Keith's place wasn't just open in hiking season. He also welcomed leaf peepers, hunters, skiers, and especially, snowmobilers.
Making a living as a hostel keeper or innkeeper and relying on hikers as your entire clientele is not a ticket to riches, at least not on the A.T.
The WHL owner felt the same way about NPS rules that Weary still feels about Baxter Park rules: "Screw the rules! Me! Me! Me!"
Not really. The Baxter rules I don't like are those that protect the hiker from himself. I have no conflict with the Baxter rules that protect the mountain. The National Park rules we are discussing protect the trail from inappropriate commercial intrusion. They seek to protect the hiker experience.
If I wish, I can hike the 100 mile wilderness all winter long with no one caring one way or the other. But the last time I walked through the middle of Baxter Park in February, I needed a special park permit, I had to show a doctor's certificate. My pack had to include a full sized ax. I needed a minimum party of four. Our leader had to pass special winter tests.
A thru hiker who I met at the Cabin, who later helped me repair damage to the ceiling of my house from a water overflow, a few years ago attempted a winter thru hike. After pursuing the complex Baxter rules, he gave up and started south from Abol Bridge.
Weary
I've stayed at Shaw's twice, and enjoyed each experience quite a bit. However, there was a hiker there claiming to be "helping out" who was annoying a lot of the hikers passing through in the time frame I was there.
Don and Sue are terrific, the breakfast is top notch, and their prices are fantastic for what you get.
Kirby
Jack Tarlin
10-21-2008, 22:16
The Baxter rules exist for very good reasons: In brief, the people who operate the Park want to make sure that winter visitors are properly trained, clad, and equipped. Park officials are all too aware that when ill-equipped people enter the Park during wintertime, they put themselves at grave risk, and in so doing, also endanger the park employees who'll be called upon to rescue the unprepared.
People who find these rules and regulations too onerous or confining can always go somewhere else.
The Baxter rules exist for very good reasons: In brief, the people who operate the Park want to make sure that winter visitors are properly trained, clad, and equipped.
I can't help but wonder what Baxter would have thought of that approach.
The Old Fhart
10-21-2008, 22:34
Weary-"...If I wish, I can hike the 100 mile wilderness all winter long with no one caring one way or the other. But the last time I walked through the middle of Baxter Park in February, I needed a special park permit, I had to show a doctor's certificate. My pack had to include a full sized ax. I needed a minimum party of four. Our leader had to pass special winter tests."I was the leader of a legal (and successful) winter trip to the major peaks in Baxter in the winter and I can tell you that the requirements aren't a problem for qualified and prepared groups. The only people who complain seem to be the people who try to sneak in, ignoring the rules, and get caught, fined, or jailed. I know of 3 such instances where this has happened and the pithy complaints are always the same.
Jack Tarlin
10-21-2008, 22:37
Actually, Rick, in that Governor Baxter was cocnerned about the intrusiveness of automobiles and aircraft, anything that would cut down on the number of ambulances and helicopters that entered the Park each year in order to rescue foolish and reckless visitors......well, I think he'd probably think that anything that cut back on the number of these occurences would probably be something he'd support. :rolleyes:
When we hike in the Whites in the winter, we decide Friday night and are in the mountains the next day.
Freedom of the hills and all that.
Of course that is in a National Forest. Can't really do that in Baxter.
Lone Wolf
10-22-2008, 03:12
Actually, Rick, in that Governor Baxter was cocnerned about the intrusiveness of automobiles and aircraft, anything that would cut down on the number of ambulances and helicopters that entered the Park each year in order to rescue foolish and reckless visitors......well, I think he'd probably think that anything that cut back on the number of these occurences would probably be something he'd support. :rolleyes:
but if you're a "celebrity " hiker and you get in trouble you can use your cell phone (illegal in the park) to call for help and the park director will call in a chopper, have you hauled off the mountain, then take you out to dinner. :rolleyes: rules are NOT the same for everybody in baxter
I can't help but wonder what Baxter would have thought of that approach.
I'd like to know what he would think of the current use patterns and fancy road maintenance that allows people to drive like maniacs.
rules are NOT the same for everybody in baxter
Ahh! You've been there...
Best day I ever had in Baxter, everyone was at a meeting. Didn't do anything different, it just was pleasant.
Lone Wolf
10-22-2008, 06:35
Best day I ever had in Baxter, everyone was at a meeting. Didn't do anything different, it just was pleasant.
best day i had was july 1st, 91. the state of maine was on on strike or some such foolishness and the gates were wide open and unmanned. it was maineaks last day of his speedhike. we started up katahdin around 6 pm
earlyriser26
10-22-2008, 08:25
but if you're a "celebrity " hiker and you get in trouble you can use your cell phone (illegal in the park) to call for help and the park director will call in a chopper, have you hauled off the mountain, then take you out to dinner. :rolleyes: rules are NOT the same for everybody in baxter
Who was the "celebrity"?
Lone Wolf
10-22-2008, 08:26
"One Leg"
I was the leader of a legal (and successful) winter trip to the major peaks in Baxter in the winter and I can tell you that the requirements aren't a problem for qualified and prepared groups. The only people who complain seem to be the people who try to sneak in, ignoring the rules, and get caught, fined, or jailed. I know of 3 such instances where this has happened and the pithy complaints are always the same.
I've backpacked in the park during the winter months at least a dozen times, always with a permit from the park officials, though I haven't always carried the required gear or had a fresh certificate from a doctor, mostly because often no rangers were around to check and often I joined winter trips at the last minute. I've long since lost count of all my Baxter excursions.
But, I've been on the Katahdin tableland a half dozen times and on the summit once in winter. I'm well aware of winter conditions in Baxter. And in the hundred mile wilderness. And winter conditions throughout the Maine hills. Winter for 30 years was my favorite time for backpacking.
I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules. I could use stronger words, but I don't want to slide into a banned discussion.
As Rick points out, "freedom of the hills" remains something to cherish and to fight to preserve. Baxter is a wonderful place in all four seasons. The rangers are uniformly friendly and helpful. But I truly believe the park authority has made a travesty of Governor Baxter's dream.
The park allows far more motors than Baxter wanted, and imposes far more regulations than he ever dreamed his park would need. I haven't checked recently, but for years camping places for motorists increased, while back country camping opportunities diminished.
Weary
The Old Fhart
10-22-2008, 12:55
TOF-"...The only people who complain seem to be the people who try to sneak in, ignoring the rules, and get caught, fined, or jailed...."
Weary-"...I haven't always carried the required gear or had a fresh certificate from a doctor, mostly because often no rangers were around to check..."
"I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules." Thank you for providing such a good example.:D
Alligator
10-22-2008, 13:14
Folks, you either need to get back to talking about White House Landing or you need to start a "new" thread about the rules at Baxter.
johnny quest
10-22-2008, 13:17
Folks, you either need to get back to talking about White House Landing or you need to start a "new" thread about the rules at Baxter.
no kidding! these some add mofo's.
the real point im making here is that whl is a benefit to the hiker that matc should recognize and utilize by "signing" it.
and they got good burgers.
superman
10-22-2008, 13:52
On the other hand the controversy gives WHL free advertising. Wingfoot felt strongly that there shouldn't be signs for businesses on the AT. I am not the keeper of the trail...I'm just a hiker. I couldn't work up a care back then and I still can't. I leave that to those who bother to carry a hammer to that point in the trail to take a sign down or put one up. It is what it is.:)
johnny quest
10-22-2008, 14:21
not that i give a crap what wingfoot thought (how did HE get into this conversation?) but i agree on that point. i never suggested that whl or anyone else should be able to advertise on the at. i said the matc, in recognition of whl's existence being a value to the hiker, should mark the already direction sign that is there with an direction and distance to the landing to whl. sheeesh.
Some posting still seem to fail to grasp NPS has a role to play. I don't know what NPS policies may apply.
USFS may have altogether different policies from NPS regarding signage. AMC huts are a POI signed along the AT on USFS administered land elsewhere.
I don't consider that advertising any more than I do the signs along Vermont highways that indicate the direction and distance to businesses.
I would think AMC will wish to have trails to their camps indicated along the AT in the 100 Miles. I hope the same standards will apply to them as everyone else.
TJ aka Teej
10-22-2008, 14:49
I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules.
Having a multi-year hissy fit over a sign on a woods road pointing to a hostel seems petty.
Posting endlessly about places one has never been, signs one has never seen, and people one has never met - also seems petty.
I've been to WHL twice, once as a Companion editor, and once on a Dad and daughter backpacking trip. I've also hiked on by, seeing an orange spray painted sign once, and three other times seeing no signage. The only sign at the trail/road junction the last two times was a small MATC one high in a tree saying 'Maher Tote Road'. I found the people at WHL welcoming, the service excellent, the facility beautiful, the location spectacular, and the prices a fine value.
The sign stuff started several years ago, when the owners of WHL would move their snowmobiling signs to the trail crossing in the summer. They'd find that once or twice a year someone would tear down their signs and throw them into the bushes. So they'd put them back up. It's good that ATC finally decided to contact WHL and explain their rule concerning signage.
The signs are gone. Please find something else to complain about, preferably something based on personal experience visiting WHL.
A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.
The one time I walked through--intending to go to WHL, which I did--the "road" wasn't marked at all, but Stumpknocker (whom I met hiking in the opposite direction) had described what to look for, so I found it. I was the only hiker staying there that day and night. Later I talked to other SOBOs who had planned to go there, but had missed it because the "road" was just a gap in the trees where there was apparently a canal running through the woods.
As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?
But once everyone gets all mad about it, sensible solutions go out the window...
Alligator
10-22-2008, 15:09
...
As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?
...I'm not claiming offense here, but I can think of two reasons:
1. Money is involved.
2. It's sets a precedent and other businesses will then want one.
johnny quest
10-22-2008, 15:43
i think ALL the hiker related businesses on the a.t. in the 100 mile wilderness should have a marker sign pointing to its blueblazetrail. oh wait, there aint none. and from what i saw of maines economy, there isnt much danger of any new ones sprouting up.
Lone Wolf
10-22-2008, 15:45
this whole sign thing is an extreme non-issue
bulldog49
10-22-2008, 15:49
A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.
...
Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.
Alligator
10-22-2008, 15:57
Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.It seems like putting a geographical reference sign of some sort might be a reasonable compromise.
Yeah, there are two roads within 2/10ths of a mile of each other that could both be the road. How about once of those signs that says where you in relation to somethings in each direction.
Kirby
TJ aka Teej
10-28-2008, 18:38
A trailjournals entry by a hiker who stayed there this season:
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=256912
A sign saying "Maher Tote Road" would work for me.
....As Teej said, why is it so much more offensive to have a sign pointing to a hostel than have a sign pointing to a shelter?...
Well, for one thing a sign to a shelter is a sign to things that have been an intrinsic part of the trail from the days of Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams. The sign posted on public property to a commercial business posted on public property is a violation of the regulations of the NPS that bought and paid for the land with an appropriation from Congress.
White Blaze spent many acrimonious weeks a while back complaining about a hiker's alleged violation of private property. I think the concerns about that unlawful behavior apply equally to private business posting blaze orange signs on public property in violation of the rules. Even TJ, I'm sure, recognizes that this is true, since he was so sure of the villainy when hikers allegedly interfered with private property rules.
Weary
Works for me too. No reason not to mark the "road/trail" in some manner. It's not even identified on the Maine map.
The latest Maine map predates the agreement worked out between WHL and the NPS -- the owner of the trail corridor. The sale of trail maps is an important addition to the MATC annual budget. We can't afford to change them everytime a business works out an agreement with the National Park Service. I'm quite sure that the next edition of the maps will reflect that agreement. In the meantime, I'm sure the various trail guides will post the information.
Weary
Well, for one thing a sign to a shelter is a sign to things that have been an intrinsic part of the trail from the days of Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams....
Is WHL not one of the original Maine camps that have been around since the earliest days of the AT?
Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite?
Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite?
Yeah, my understanding is there were enough camps along the 100 mile wilderness to allow people to stay at one each night of their trip.
I could be wrong but it seems to me Weary has a personal grudge against WHL.
Jack Tarlin
10-28-2008, 21:04
MacKaye's original dream envisioned rustic camps of residents and workers living in communal woodland communities.
He was not talking about privately owned vacation facilities.
The Old Fhart
10-28-2008, 21:28
Marta-"...Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite? "Here is what MacKaye said in "An Appalachian Trail, A Project in Regional Planning", I believe from 1921. These are different from the hunting/fishing privately owned camps that dotted the 100 mile "wilderness".
2. Shelter Camps –
These are the usual accompaniments of the trails which have been built in the White and Green Mountains. They are the trail's equipment for use. They should be located at convenient distances so as to allow a comfortable day's walk between each. They should be equipped always for sleeping and certain of them for serving meals -- after the function of the Swiss chalets. Strict regulation is required to assure that equipment is used and not abused. As far as possible the blazing and constructing of the trail and building of camps should be done by volunteer workers. For volunteer "work" is really "play." The spirit of cooperation, as usual in such enterprises, should be stimulated throughout. The enterprise should, of course, be conducted without profit The trail must be well guarded -- against the yegg-man and against the profiteer.
3. Community Groups –
These would grow naturally out of the shelter camps and inns. Each would consist of a little community on or near the trail (perhaps on a neighboring lake) where people could live in private domiciles. Such a community might occupy a substantial area -- perhaps a hundred acres or more. This should be bought and owned as a part of the project. No separate lots should be sold there from. Each camp should be a self-owning community and not a real-estate venture. The use of the separate domiciles, like all other features of the project, should be vailable without profit.
These community camps should be carefully planned in advance. They should not be allowed to become too populous and thereby defat the very purpose for which they are created. Greater numbers should be accommodated by more communities, not larger ones. There is room, without crowding, in the Appalachian region for a very large camping population. The location of these community camps would form a main part of the regional planning and architecture. These communities would be used for various kinds of non- industrial activity. They might eventually be organized for special purposes -- for recreation, for recuperation and for study. Summer schools or seasonal field courses could be established and scientific travel courses organized and accommodated in the different communities along the trail. The community camp should become something more than a mere "playground": it should stimulate every line of outdoor non-industrial endeavor.
4. Food and Farm Camps
These might not be organized at first. They would come as a later development. The farm camp is the natural supplement of the community camp. Here is the same spirit of cooperation and well ordered action the food and crops consumed in the outdoor living would as far as practically be sown and harvested. Food and farm camps could be established as special communities in adjoining valleys. Or they might be combined with the community camps with the inclusion of surrounding farm lands. Their development could provide tangible opportunity for working out by actual experiment a fundamental matter in the problem of living. It would provide one definite avenue of experiment in getting "back to the land." It would provide an opportunity for those anxious to settle down in the country: it would open up a possible source for new, and needed, employment. Communities of this type are illustrated by the Hudson Guild Farm in New Jersey. Fuel wood, logs, and lumber are other basic needs of the camps and communities along the trail. These also might be grown and forested as part of the camp activity, rather than bought in the lumber market. The nucleus of such an enterprise has already been started at Camp Tamiment, Pennsylvania, on a lake not far from the route of the proposed Appalachian Trail. The camp has been established by a labor group in New York City. They have erected a sawmill on their tract of 2000 acres and have built the bungalows of their community from their own timber. Farm camps might ultimately be supplemented by permanent forest camps through the acquisition (or lease) of wood and timber tracts. These of course should be handled under a system of forestry so as to have a continuously growing crop of material. The object sought might be accomplished through long term timber sale contracts with the Federal Government on some of the Appalachian National Forests. Here would be another opportunity for permanent, steady, healthy employment in the open.
Here is what MacKaye said in "An Appalachian Trail, A Project in Regional Planning", I believe from 1921. These are different from the hunting/fishing privately owned camps that dotted the 100 mile "wilderness".
Very interesting. Thank you.
It's interesting to me that WHL, a for-profit venture, is actually cheaper to stay at than the AMC's huts, which are closer to MacKaye's vision of Swiss-style chalets.
The ability of hikers to get meals at the huts in MacKaye's vision is for sure distinctly different than the AT shelters of today.:rolleyes:
Jack Tarlin
10-28-2008, 21:42
Yup, WHL sure is cheaper to stay at than the AMC Huts, but when last I checked, WHL didn't have anyone on staff making 200 Grand a year, either. :D
These two facts might be related.
Make AMC completely volunteer run and I'll donate. Not giving money to any organization that pays their top dogs an outrageous amount of money, especially when said organization is not-for-profit.
30 dollar donation to pay for a 200,000 dollar salary, great use of resources.
Kirby
Jack Tarlin
10-28-2008, 21:47
Actually, Kirby, a lot of "environmental" non-profits pay their top dogs in the six figure range, so to be fair to AMC, they're not alone in this.
However, their staff is indeed top-heavy, and I see no reason for them to maintain operations out of a multi-million dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston......which, last I checked, was kinda removed from the mountains. So yeah, they won't be getting any money from me anytime soon, either.
Is WHL not one of the original Maine camps that have been around since the earliest days of the AT?
Wasn't there something in Benton MacKaye's earliest dreams about a chain of rustic camps that would soothe the soul of the urbanite?
I have no idea. And it's totally beside the point. The discussion involves a reply to TJ who seemed to think that a commercial business near the trail should have the same rights to a sign as a three-sided Adirondack shelter built by volunteers to serve trail users for free.
Adirondack lean-tos have been a fixture of the trail since the first section was built in New York a few years after MacKaye's vision for a public corridor through the Appalachian range was published. Not all of Mackaye's VISION was achieved. Volunteers have built more elaborate structures in some southern states, but MATC persists in using the same basic design for the past 8 decades. Nothing at WHL resembles this design as far as I know.
Weary
Actually, Kirby, a lot of "environmental" non-profits pay their top dogs in the six figure range, so to be fair to AMC, they're not alone in this.
However, their staff is indeed top-heavy, and I see no reason for them to maintain operations out of a multi-million dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston......which, last I checked, was kinda removed from the mountains. So yeah, they won't be getting any money from me anytime soon, either.
Perhaps, Jack can explain how their staff "is indeed top heavy." Everyone I see seems to be working diligently and productively.
AMC has been headquartered in that same town house since the club's founding in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Visit it sometime. It's hardly luxurious quarters. The stairways climb all four stories at 60 degree angles. I don't remember what the executives are paid. I checked when this discussion first surfaced years ago, and the figure seemed reasonable then.
If the $200,000 figure is accurate it figures out to about $2 per member, which doesn't strike me as excessive for someone who rescued the club from almost certain bankruptcy a couple of decades ago.
I donate time and work to the AMC. Not money. I do so because AMC strikes me as a very useful organization for protecting the White Mountains. The US Forest SErvice has said that most of the trails in the White MOuntains could not be maintained without the continued effort of AMC.
Also, so far I see nothing not to praise in the AMC's Maine purchases. Despite the rumors posted by TJ early in AMC's 100-mile-wilderness acquisition. so far the club has practiced admirable stewardship. Currently it is joining with other conservation groups to purchase another 40,000 acres, which if successful would create a vast block of protected land unequalled in the east. The new preserve, coupled with existing preserves -- Nahmakanta, Nature Conservancy, Baxter Park, and the Allagash Wilderness Waterway -- would create around 400 miles of wild lands from near Brownville to Allagash Village on the Canadian border.
Weary
Jack Tarlin
10-28-2008, 22:49
You know, Weary, you need to tone it down a bit sometimes.
I don't need to visit the headquarters on Joy St.
I've been there more times than I can count, as I lived in Boston for many years; visited the HQ frequently, and attended many functions there over the years.
The building is worth millions of bucks, Weary. They should sell it off and relocate to Gorham or Crawford Notch, where the club already has land and facilities.
This would generate a great deal of money, and more to the point, it would give the club credibility, especially on local issues, land-use issues, etc. At present, the AMC all too often comes off as a bunch of snooty Boston bluebloods who seem to take great pleasure in telling their lessers how the land in their bacyards should be managed. Oh, and building resort hotels in the White Mountains doesn't much help their case, either.
The AMC is often its own worst enemy.
You know, Weary, you need to tone it down a bit sometimes.
I don't need to visit the headquarters on Joy St.
I've been there more times than I can count, as I lived in Boston for many years; visited the HQ frequently, and attended many functions there over the years.
The building is worth millions of bucks, Weary. They should sell it off and relocate to Gorham or Crawford Notch, where the club already has land and facilities.
This would generate a great deal of money, and more to the point, it would give the club credibility, especially on local issues, land-use issues, etc. At present, the AMC all too often comes off as a bunch of snooty Boston bluebloods who seem to take great pleasure in telling their lessers how the land in their bacyards should be managed. Oh, and building resort hotels in the White Mountains doesn't much help their case, either.
The AMC is often its own worst enemy.
Ah Jack.
I agree with your last sentence. But I think selling the Joy Street town house would probably be a mistake. I suspect doing so would cost them thousands of members who love the place, and cost them many millions in donations they need to expand their Maine holdings.
Also I've seen all of their properties in the White Mountains. None strike me as resort hotels as the words are being used today.
I'm guessing you are talking about the new building they built on land they bought after a resort burned down. It's a beautiful building that fits in well with the surroundings. But hardly luxurious. The last time I was there they hadn't even tarred the driveway.
If they had asked me, I would have told AMC to let the site revert to a hay field, or forest land. But the land was on the market. If AMC hadn't bought it, something far worse would have been built there, I'm quite sure.
Weary
Jack Tarlin
10-28-2008, 23:53
Weary, this isn't really worth arguing about, but a private room in the Highland Center (also known to many as the Ritz Crawford) is 165 bucks, 200 for non-members. Even with meals, this is WAY out of the price range for most folks I know who are hiking in the Whites, many of whom are travelling on budgets of around 15 bucks a day and not 165. So yeah, for most normal people, this place is luxurious.
But this thread isn't about the extravagance, wastefulness, or elitist facilities built and run by the AMC; it's about a trailside facility in Maine.
Maybe we should get back on topic.
At present, the AMC all too often comes off as a bunch of snooty Boston bluebloods who seem to take great pleasure in telling their lessers how the land in their bacyards should be managed.
My impression, from limited exposure.
It's a beautiful building that fits in well with the surroundings. But hardly luxurious. The last time I was there they hadn't even tarred the driveway.
Weary
Probably ripped up the asphalt, to make it rustic.
They do put out some good maps.
Lone Wolf
10-29-2008, 06:28
Actually, Kirby, a lot of "environmental" non-profits pay their top dogs in the six figure range, so to be fair to AMC, they're not alone in this.
However, their staff is indeed top-heavy, and I see no reason for them to maintain operations out of a multi-million dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston......which, last I checked, was kinda removed from the mountains. So yeah, they won't be getting any money from me anytime soon, either.
same for the ATC. they could move to low-rent damascus and set up shop.
Actually, Kirby, a lot of "environmental" non-profits pay their top dogs in the six figure range, so to be fair to AMC, they're not alone in this.
However, their staff is indeed top-heavy, and I see no reason for them to maintain operations out of a multi-million dollar townhouse in the most expensive part of Boston......which, last I checked, was kinda removed from the mountains. So yeah, they won't be getting any money from me anytime soon, either.
Fortunately the AMC gets funding from others. Even those who aren't members can enjoy and benefit from their good works, and be grateful for the significant new land protection effort they have successfully undertaken up in Maine.
As for the notion that a club should move from its historical headquarters to reap a bit of extra cash, I think that should be considered. Perhaps it has been.
One thing is certain, though. The AMC director has raised many millions of dollars for land protection in recent years, including some very substantial individual contributions. Let recognize the success, and cheer them on as the permanently protect land.
Could the same results have been achieve if the club had moved its headquarters to Brockton as Jack wishes? Perhaps. But I am not sure he has been to Brockton lately.
Could the club run a multi-million dollar publishing operation, hundreds of emplyees, and manage so many properties in 4 or 6 states better without professional guidance? Perhaps. Just because the President of the AMC has a Harvard MBA and a long record of success doesn't mean a well intentioned volunteer could't do better. But the club staff is not top heavy by any objective standard.
No matter. Some will always complain about how others spend thier own money. In the case of the AMC that's OK. Everyone gets to enjoy the benefits.
Weary, this isn't really worth arguing about, but a private room in the Highland Center (also known to many as the Ritz Crawford) is 165 bucks, 200 for non-members. Even with meals, this is WAY out of the price range for most folks I know who are hiking in the Whites, many of whom are travelling on budgets of around 15 bucks a day and not 165. So yeah, for most normal people, this place is luxurious.
But this thread isn't about the extravagance, wastefulness, or elitist facilities built and run by the AMC; it's about a trailside facility in Maine.
Maybe we should get back on topic.
My wife and I have stayed at the Shapleigh Bunk House at the Highland Center many times.
What is cool about this is that you get a bunk with sheets for something like $25, and still get to enjoy all the benefits of the Highland Center.
On a couple of occasions we have taken the money saved and splurged on a buffet breakfast of $12 hamburger at the Mount Washington Hotel, just up the street.
For weekenders, the Shaplieg Bunkhouse is a great place to Crash on a Friday night befor heading out with you pack on Saturday.
Lets promote the positive, so others don't get scarred away from a really neat resource!
BTW, When at the hHighland Center, be sure to stop in and see the world-class large format B&W photo exhibit in barn dedicated to Brad Washburn's photos.
His work is not to be missed if you are into such things.
bulldog49
10-29-2008, 08:03
Well, I still believe the Tote Road should be marked. It does not have to reference WHL, just identify this trail from the others in the area. That does not seem like it should be a problem.
Also, the road is not marked on the map and I don't understand Weary's comment about it being related to some sort of agreement with WHL. The maps identify other roads that lead to business establishments, why not this one? :-?
It is a Maine mindset thing. I am not saying it is right.
The people that got upset, will never get un-upset. A line was crossed that no matter what else ever happens, will always be crossed.
Party A: Water is wet.
Party B: No it's not. It is only wet if you touch it.
I think the mindset comes from people from south of the border telling us they are doing things for our own good. Gets you crusty after awhile.
randyg45
10-29-2008, 09:33
I didn't slog thru the entire thread, but the first two pages seem to me to make a good argument for carrying adequate maps. Relying on signs isn't for me...
bulldog49
10-29-2008, 10:22
I didn't slog thru the entire thread, but the first two pages seem to me to make a good argument for carrying adequate maps. Relying on signs isn't for me...
Duh!
No, it's not an argument for maps because the road is not identified on the map. How does a map help you locate something that is not on the map? :confused:
randyg45
10-29-2008, 10:34
"No, it's not an argument for maps because the road is not identified on the map. How does a map help you locate something that is not on the map?"
If the lake in question is on the map, and the AT is on the map... I carry a compass, and I bushwhack.
Further, I do my homework, the first part of which in this case is reading these forums. When I am able to hike this section of the trail, my map will be marked with possible routes to WHL. Simple, really.
Lone Wolf
10-29-2008, 10:40
When I am able to hike this section of the trail, my map will be marked with possible routes to WHL. Simple, really.
would be much simpler if the MATC would keep their noses out of it and let WHL have a sign like lots of other places between georgia and maine. bunch of elitists
would be much simpler if the MATC would keep their noses out of it and let WHL have a sign like lots of other places between georgia and maine. bunch of elitists
No kidding. There are signs and business cards in shelters along the whole length of the AT.
At present, the AMC all too often comes off as a bunch of snooty Boston bluebloods who seem to take great pleasure in telling their lessers how the land in their bacyards should be managed.
Well the AMC members who are active in the Maine Chapter don't come off that way. We are pretty ordinary friendly folks, as Kirby will find when he tells us about his AT thru hike on Jan. 6. Our chapter chair makes her living measuring water levels in Maine streams for the US. Geological Survey. OUr immediate past chair repairs computers, and spends most of his spare time maintaining Maine trails, and building a new shelter in the 100-mile-wilderness.
If there are any "snooty blue bloods" among us, they keep it well hidden.
Weary
randyg45
10-29-2008, 10:55
LW, I didn't mean for my posts to be interpreted as being against a simple sign. I just meant to advocate for being prepared, carrying maps, and being able to use them.
Lone Wolf
10-29-2008, 11:02
I just meant to advocate for being prepared, carrying maps, and being able to use them.
and i agree. no anger towards you
It is a Maine mindset thing. I am not saying it is right.
The people that got upset, will never get un-upset. A line was crossed that no matter what else ever happens, will always be crossed.
Party A: Water is wet.
Party B: No it's not. It is only wet if you touch it.
I think the mindset comes from people from south of the border telling us they are doing things for our own good. Gets you crusty after awhile.
I think this is it to a T. Instinctively, I'd side with WHL and say it's just a sign, get over it. But, stepping back, the AT is maintained primarily by local hiking clubs, from the small, like some of those we have in PA to the large like the AMC. These volunteers do the work and are "responsible", if you would, for their apportioned section of trail. If the way the hiking clubs in ME operate is that no signs are permitted, then as an outsider who has never volunteered my time in ME, I have a hard time telling those clubs that it should be otherwise. Does this negatively affect my opinion of these clubs? Sure. But, nevertheless, if it is anyone's call to make it is their's and not mine.
BTW, never had a problem finding WHL.
I like Mainers. They're alot like us. :D
would be much simpler if the MATC would keep their noses out of it and let WHL have a sign like lots of other places between georgia and maine. bunch of elitists
I can think of several valid names to call MATC members. Elitist is not one of them.
And Yahtzee, there is only one maintaining club in Maine. It's MATC. It's 600 members raise the money, hire caretakers and ridgerunners, run the Maine version of Konnorack (sp) and keep the trail reasonably well maintained with the help of a parttime "coordinator."
The basic rule we give to maintainers is the same as the guidelines that the AT Conservancy provides all maintaining clubs. Maintainers should remove everything they find along the trail that was not placed their as a result of their efforts or with the permission of the club.
When we found blaze orange signs posted to trees, they naturally were removed. Had WHL contacted the club, or cooperated with the club, I suspect something could have been worked out. Neither happened. I think any landowner would have done the same as we did. Remove the offending signs. Even Lone Wolf, perhaps.
Someone should perhaps check this out. The Only Wanderer you can help. Sometime when LW is esconced at Dot's, quietly stick a blaze orange sign on Lone Wolf's lawn directing folks to The PLace. Let us know how long Lone Wolf keeps it there.
Weary
the goat
10-29-2008, 11:59
what is the difference b/t the sign whl is not allowed to hang, and the harrison's camp sign that has hung on a tree just north of peirce pond for years?
Lone Wolf
10-29-2008, 12:00
what is the difference b/t the sign whl is not allowed to hang, and the harrison's camp sign that has hung on a tree just north of peirce pond for years?
WHL doesn't kiss elitist butt
max patch
10-29-2008, 12:01
Where do you draw the line?
A sign today may lead to WHL setting up and do one of those fricking hiker feeds (for a fee, of course) on the trail tomorrow.
Or possibly signs at every road crossing to services. How about a big ole sign advertising the Smith House at Cooper Gap?
Slippery slope.
Just saying Weary, there are signs all over PA and we don't make a big deal about. You do up there. It's your perogative. Everyone's not going to agree with that decision. Like I said, our opinion doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean we don't hold it.
The key phrase is "with permission of the club". Some clubs are uptight and have hoops to jump thru, some grant permission thru acquiescence. It is clear this problem is specific to the WHL. As was stated by Mudhead, you are clearly not gonna get un-upset by the signage.
I think I know where the problem is coming from though. "Any landowner"? The MATC does not own the land, nor do you. We are all mere stewards.
I stayed at WHL on my SOBO attempt this summer and LOVED it. :) We even zero'd there, did laundry on their tub & washboard system, ate two of those famous giant burgers and one of their pizzas during our day and a half stay.
I had read the directions about the connector trail somewhere (maybe even here on WB) before the hike, and made a note I wanted to stay there.
I was carrying maps and companion pages. The companion did list WHL (or maybe a page of something else) did list WHL. Between the two I had figured out roughly when we would cross the "road", and by the time we had reached Maher Tote road we were pretty used to Maine's designation of a road not really being what we would usually consider to be a road, but rather a gap of about 15-20 feet between trees that may or may not look like a vehicle could get down it. When we got to the Maher Tote "road" we headed in the direction of the lake (obvious if you have a map and you know which direction (NOBO or SOBO) you're walking. Shortly after leaving the white blazes we found blue blazes that were obviously not official, but were equally obviously marking a rough cut trail. Amazingly enough, following them led us out to the dock.
We were glad enough to be out of the bugs and on the dock. After sounding the airhorn we were rather surprised to see Bill racing down the grassy slope of WHL and literally roaring across the lake in his boat. He told us to jump in real quick and hang on, there was a storm coming across the lake. We couldn't see a storm at first, but at we cleared the promontory we saw it, and he was right, it was a good one! At the other end we grabbed our packs and ran for the bunkhouse. The storm hit just as we arrived, and it really was a good one: many of the screens were blown out of the bunkhouse windows, and several large tree limbs came down. It was short lived and blew over quickly.
We were the only two guests there, and it was close to the the posted dinner time when we arrived. I was quite prepared to wait until after eating my burger for my shower, but Bill and Linda were very gracious and accomodating, and told us to shower and come on over to the Lodge for dinner when we were ready. The hot shower was far better than I imagined such a shower could be with "off grid" facilities. I had envisioned a tiny trickle of luke warm solar heated water, maybe in an outdoor enclosure, but this was real hot water, in a real bathroom, with real soap and shampoo and towels. The only consession to not being hooked up seemed to be the pitcher and bowl provided instead of a sink with running water. Quaint, functional, and certainly adding charm in my opinion.
The famous burger is cooked to order, and for the record, I don't usually eat burgeres, the last was probably several months before WHL. I was hungry, and had been looking forward to this. I wasn't even sure I could eat a whole pound of meat at once. Linda offered a half pounder, but at only a dollar less that the full pounder I figured if I didn't eat the entire thing, either my hiking partner could finish it, or I'd save it for lunch the next day. However, after ordering, I couldn't wait for it to be cooked and also helped myself to one of Linda's massive home made brownies to nibble on as an appetiser while I waited. Nibble, my ass, I wolfed that thing down before the burger came, then I wolfed the burger down too. The whole thing! It was delicious. The cold beer and/or soda to wash it down didn't hurt either. :)
Linda and Bill were great hosts, and we had some good conversation over the preparation and consuming of dinner, and for some time afterward until we returned to the bunkhouse It was only the next morning that we found out they actually had a family guest that evening, but had spent the time with us, much more time than you'd expect of any food establishment.
WHL is amazing. It's beautiful, and the facilities are much more than I expected. Definitely comparable to many other hostels/establishments on the trail. The cost, yes it's higher than many places on the AT, but they do have to transport EVERYTHING into WHL themselves. Comparison of the entire facilities is futile, because it is such a unique place and experience, but comparisons of the individual facets are possible. For example, we also spent a night as paying guests at one of the huts in the Whites, where we came away from both meals still hungry, could not take a shower, or even a sponge bath with cold water in the bathroom, and were treated with disdain by the staff. WHL is definitely better value. In addition they have some basic resupply and ice cold beverages, neither of which is even a consideration at the huts. :eek: Were the mattresses and pillows the cleanest, newest we had ever seen? No, but they were comparable to Hikers Welcome in Glencliff, which was cheaper for a base cost, but all additional services (shuttle, laundry, etc) were for a fee, very few resupply or food options were available, the shower and bathroom faciities were outside, and there is no comparison in the beauty of the location.
During the zero day we spent at WHL we witnessed a bald eagle swoop down over the lake by the dock and pluck a fish out of the water, and borrowed the canoe for a paddle across the lake to look for moose, and get closer to the bald eagle nest. Our second night there was busier, with about 10 other SOBOs. Everyone left full of good food and content with the night they had spent there.
Sure it would be easier to find WHL if there was a road marker at Maher Tote road, but there aren't any at any of the other roads. It would also be easier to find (and harder to ignore) if there were notices and price list tacked to a tree on the trail, as was the case with several "business opportunities", even one a couple of miles north of Monson (still in the 100 mile "wilderness"). Don't think that temptation of a cheeseburger and cold beer only 5 miles north of Monson didn't tempt us, but we were so close to town we spent only a couple of minutes debating before moving on south. NOBOs fresh out of Monson probably wouldn't even give it a second thought.
So my advice is: Stop by there if you want to. It's easy enough to find if you're looking, and easy enough to ignore if you're not.
I think WHL gets more than enough play as it is,
but if they did allow billboards on the AT, how about.
White House Lodge
"Come for the cheesburgers. Stay for the abuse."
I would go for sure. :D
I like Mainers. They're alot like us. :D
Take that back, or I shall break out the Viking/moose jokes.
Jack Tarlin
10-29-2008, 15:47
Um, RickB:
Nobody was suggesting the AMC relocate to Brockton. In your attempts to seem witty, don't be snotty instead.
I suggested they relocate to the actual base of their operations, i.e the mountains of Northern New England. They already have land and buildings in Gorham; this would be a perfect place for them to have their headquarters, plus they'd have several million in the bank after selling off the Beacon Hill property.
But no, they'll ever never do this. You see, the nice folks who live in Cambridge, Weston, Belmont, Lincoln, Brookline, etc., who comprise a huge percentage of their membership, REALLY like the shrimp and chablis get-togethers that the "Boston" chapter holds on Joy Street, and the folks who run the club REALLY like having their kids go to Brookline High, Browne and Nichols, the Windsor School, etc., and the idea of having to relocate to some benighted place like rural New Hampshire scares the bejeezus out of them, despite the fact that this would be much better for the club's operations and reputation.
So not to worry, it ain't gonna happen.
But for the record, nobody ever suggested Brockton. All I said was they'd do better in the mountains, not on Beacon Hill.
Um, guys.....this thread was about a hiker facility in Maine. Can we get back there, please?
Is their pizza Homemade or frozen?
Alligator
10-29-2008, 16:04
Is their pizza Homemade or frozen?Digiorno.
I stayed at WHL on my SOBO attempt this summer and LOVED it. :) We even zero'd there, did laundry on their tub & washboard system, ate two of those famous giant burgers and one of their pizzas during our day and a half stay.
I had read the directions about the connector trail somewhere (maybe even here on WB) before the hike, and made a note I wanted to stay there.
I was carrying maps and companion pages. The companion did list WHL (or maybe a page of something else) did list WHL. Between the two I had figured out roughly when we would cross the "road", and by the time we had reached Maher Tote road we were pretty used to Maine's designation of a road not really being what we would usually consider to be a road, but rather a gap of about 15-20 feet between trees that may or may not look like a vehicle could get down it. When we got to the Maher Tote "road" we headed in the direction of the lake (obvious if you have a map and you know which direction (NOBO or SOBO) you're walking. Shortly after leaving the white blazes we found blue blazes that were obviously not official, but were equally obviously marking a rough cut trail. Amazingly enough, following them led us out to the dock.
We were glad enough to be out of the bugs and on the dock. After sounding the airhorn we were rather surprised to see Bill racing down the grassy slope of WHL and literally roaring across the lake in his boat. He told us to jump in real quick and hang on, there was a storm coming across the lake. We couldn't see a storm at first, but at we cleared the promontory we saw it, and he was right, it was a good one! At the other end we grabbed our packs and ran for the bunkhouse. The storm hit just as we arrived, and it really was a good one: many of the screens were blown out of the bunkhouse windows, and several large tree limbs came down. It was short lived and blew over quickly.
We were the only two guests there, and it was close to the the posted dinner time when we arrived. I was quite prepared to wait until after eating my burger for my shower, but Bill and Linda were very gracious and accomodating, and told us to shower and come on over to the Lodge for dinner when we were ready. The hot shower was far better than I imagined such a shower could be with "off grid" facilities. I had envisioned a tiny trickle of luke warm solar heated water, maybe in an outdoor enclosure, but this was real hot water, in a real bathroom, with real soap and shampoo and towels. The only consession to not being hooked up seemed to be the pitcher and bowl provided instead of a sink with running water. Quaint, functional, and certainly adding charm in my opinion.
The famous burger is cooked to order, and for the record, I don't usually eat burgeres, the last was probably several months before WHL. I was hungry, and had been looking forward to this. I wasn't even sure I could eat a whole pound of meat at once. Linda offered a half pounder, but at only a dollar less that the full pounder I figured if I didn't eat the entire thing, either my hiking partner could finish it, or I'd save it for lunch the next day. However, after ordering, I couldn't wait for it to be cooked and also helped myself to one of Linda's massive home made brownies to nibble on as an appetiser while I waited. Nibble, my ass, I wolfed that thing down before the burger came, then I wolfed the burger down too. The whole thing! It was delicious. The cold beer and/or soda to wash it down didn't hurt either. :)
Linda and Bill were great hosts, and we had some good conversation over the preparation and consuming of dinner, and for some time afterward until we returned to the bunkhouse It was only the next morning that we found out they actually had a family guest that evening, but had spent the time with us, much more time than you'd expect of any food establishment.
WHL is amazing. It's beautiful, and the facilities are much more than I expected. Definitely comparable to many other hostels/establishments on the trail. The cost, yes it's higher than many places on the AT, but they do have to transport EVERYTHING into WHL themselves. Comparison of the entire facilities is futile, because it is such a unique place and experience, but comparisons of the individual facets are possible. For example, we also spent a night as paying guests at one of the huts in the Whites, where we came away from both meals still hungry, could not take a shower, or even a sponge bath with cold water in the bathroom, and were treated with disdain by the staff. WHL is definitely better value. In addition they have some basic resupply and ice cold beverages, neither of which is even a consideration at the huts. :eek: Were the mattresses and pillows the cleanest, newest we had ever seen? No, but they were comparable to Hikers Welcome in Glencliff, which was cheaper for a base cost, but all additional services (shuttle, laundry, etc) were for a fee, very few resupply or food options were available, the shower and bathroom faciities were outside, and there is no comparison in the beauty of the location.
During the zero day we spent at WHL we witnessed a bald eagle swoop down over the lake by the dock and pluck a fish out of the water, and borrowed the canoe for a paddle across the lake to look for moose, and get closer to the bald eagle nest. Our second night there was busier, with about 10 other SOBOs. Everyone left full of good food and content with the night they had spent there.
Sure it would be easier to find WHL if there was a road marker at Maher Tote road, but there aren't any at any of the other roads. It would also be easier to find (and harder to ignore) if there were notices and price list tacked to a tree on the trail, as was the case with several "business opportunities", even one a couple of miles north of Monson (still in the 100 mile "wilderness"). Don't think that temptation of a cheeseburger and cold beer only 5 miles north of Monson didn't tempt us, but we were so close to town we spent only a couple of minutes debating before moving on south. NOBOs fresh out of Monson probably wouldn't even give it a second thought.
So my advice is: Stop by there if you want to. It's easy enough to find if you're looking, and easy enough to ignore if you're not.
You've convinced me. I'll certainly stop the next time I'm in the wilderness.
What do you think? Should I change my trail name before I sign in?
Weary
What do you think? Should I change my trail name before I sign in?
Weary
If i were you i wouldn't bother stopping. You know damn well that people who live back in the bush don't like outsiders telling them what they can and can't do.
If they were to find out your real identity, well............:D
If i were you i wouldn't bother stopping. You know damn well that people who live back in the bush don't like outsiders telling them what they can and can't do.
If they were to find out your real identity, well............:D
Hmmm. Your right. But I was so looking forward to a one pound hamburger -- though to eat all of it, I would have to start at Grafton Notch, maybe even Gorham, NH.
Do you suppose that if I don't say anything else about WHL, it would be safe to go as soon as next summer? Or should I wait a few years?
Weary
Hmmm. Your right. But I was so looking forward to a one pound hamburger -- though to eat all of it, I would have to start at Grafton Notch, maybe even Gorham, NH.
Do you suppose that if I don't say anything else about WHL, it would be safe to go as soon as next summer? Or should I wait a few years?
Weary
I dunno bout you, but if i were you, i would feel rather awkward going there, ever, after what i've heard here.:-? Just saying.:D
max patch
10-29-2008, 17:20
Do you suppose that if I don't say anything else about WHL, it would be safe to go as soon as next summer? Or should I wait a few years?
Weary
I'm not going so tell em you're me.
Patch. Max Patch.
stumpknocker
10-30-2008, 09:03
I stayed at WHL on my SOBO attempt this summer and LOVED it. :) We even zero'd there, did laundry on their tub & washboard system, ate two of those famous giant burgers and one of their pizzas during our day and a half stay.
I had read the directions about the connector trail somewhere (maybe even here on WB) before the hike, and made a note I wanted to stay there.
I was carrying maps and companion pages. The companion did list WHL (or maybe a page of something else) did list WHL. Between the two I had figured out roughly when we would cross the "road", and by the time we had reached Maher Tote road we were pretty used to Maine's designation of a road not really being what we would usually consider to be a road, but rather a gap of about 15-20 feet between trees that may or may not look like a vehicle could get down it. When we got to the Maher Tote "road" we headed in the direction of the lake (obvious if you have a map and you know which direction (NOBO or SOBO) you're walking. Shortly after leaving the white blazes we found blue blazes that were obviously not official, but were equally obviously marking a rough cut trail. Amazingly enough, following them led us out to the dock.
We were glad enough to be out of the bugs and on the dock. After sounding the airhorn we were rather surprised to see Bill racing down the grassy slope of WHL and literally roaring across the lake in his boat. He told us to jump in real quick and hang on, there was a storm coming across the lake. We couldn't see a storm at first, but at we cleared the promontory we saw it, and he was right, it was a good one! At the other end we grabbed our packs and ran for the bunkhouse. The storm hit just as we arrived, and it really was a good one: many of the screens were blown out of the bunkhouse windows, and several large tree limbs came down. It was short lived and blew over quickly.
We were the only two guests there, and it was close to the the posted dinner time when we arrived. I was quite prepared to wait until after eating my burger for my shower, but Bill and Linda were very gracious and accomodating, and told us to shower and come on over to the Lodge for dinner when we were ready. The hot shower was far better than I imagined such a shower could be with "off grid" facilities. I had envisioned a tiny trickle of luke warm solar heated water, maybe in an outdoor enclosure, but this was real hot water, in a real bathroom, with real soap and shampoo and towels. The only consession to not being hooked up seemed to be the pitcher and bowl provided instead of a sink with running water. Quaint, functional, and certainly adding charm in my opinion.
The famous burger is cooked to order, and for the record, I don't usually eat burgeres, the last was probably several months before WHL. I was hungry, and had been looking forward to this. I wasn't even sure I could eat a whole pound of meat at once. Linda offered a half pounder, but at only a dollar less that the full pounder I figured if I didn't eat the entire thing, either my hiking partner could finish it, or I'd save it for lunch the next day. However, after ordering, I couldn't wait for it to be cooked and also helped myself to one of Linda's massive home made brownies to nibble on as an appetiser while I waited. Nibble, my ass, I wolfed that thing down before the burger came, then I wolfed the burger down too. The whole thing! It was delicious. The cold beer and/or soda to wash it down didn't hurt either. :)
Linda and Bill were great hosts, and we had some good conversation over the preparation and consuming of dinner, and for some time afterward until we returned to the bunkhouse It was only the next morning that we found out they actually had a family guest that evening, but had spent the time with us, much more time than you'd expect of any food establishment.
WHL is amazing. It's beautiful, and the facilities are much more than I expected. Definitely comparable to many other hostels/establishments on the trail. The cost, yes it's higher than many places on the AT, but they do have to transport EVERYTHING into WHL themselves. Comparison of the entire facilities is futile, because it is such a unique place and experience, but comparisons of the individual facets are possible. For example, we also spent a night as paying guests at one of the huts in the Whites, where we came away from both meals still hungry, could not take a shower, or even a sponge bath with cold water in the bathroom, and were treated with disdain by the staff. WHL is definitely better value. In addition they have some basic resupply and ice cold beverages, neither of which is even a consideration at the huts. :eek: Were the mattresses and pillows the cleanest, newest we had ever seen? No, but they were comparable to Hikers Welcome in Glencliff, which was cheaper for a base cost, but all additional services (shuttle, laundry, etc) were for a fee, very few resupply or food options were available, the shower and bathroom faciities were outside, and there is no comparison in the beauty of the location.
During the zero day we spent at WHL we witnessed a bald eagle swoop down over the lake by the dock and pluck a fish out of the water, and borrowed the canoe for a paddle across the lake to look for moose, and get closer to the bald eagle nest. Our second night there was busier, with about 10 other SOBOs. Everyone left full of good food and content with the night they had spent there.
Sure it would be easier to find WHL if there was a road marker at Maher Tote road, but there aren't any at any of the other roads. It would also be easier to find (and harder to ignore) if there were notices and price list tacked to a tree on the trail, as was the case with several "business opportunities", even one a couple of miles north of Monson (still in the 100 mile "wilderness"). Don't think that temptation of a cheeseburger and cold beer only 5 miles north of Monson didn't tempt us, but we were so close to town we spent only a couple of minutes debating before moving on south. NOBOs fresh out of Monson probably wouldn't even give it a second thought.
So my advice is: Stop by there if you want to. It's easy enough to find if you're looking, and easy enough to ignore if you're not.
Nice review....thanks!! I've only had great experiences there too. :)
Bill was showing me an article on some of the history of White House Landing when I was there this year. It's one of only two of the original seventeen Maine camps that is still around and caters to hikers. The other is Harrison's Camp.
There is another, I think it is Nahmakanta Camp, but they only let you come to stay multiple days, which doesn't work for most hikers.
Bill told me that White House Landing was open for hikers in the 1940's, but then reverted back to a working camp again.
It's REAL Maine history and I will always stop in whenever I'm through "The Wilderness". I plan on getting Jim at Millinocket Air to fly me in sometime in his float plane and I'll stay a few days exploring the shores of Pemadumcook Lake by one of Bill and Linda's canoes. :)
I went to Nahmakanta Camp in June. Great folks. The lady there called for an airplane to come get me. My kidney stones were kickin my ass. I ended up getting a taxi as the plane was busy. The ladies name was Angle I think. Her son, about 16, was funny as hell. Nice place Nice folks.
Clyde
TJ aka Teej
10-30-2008, 13:14
I stayed at WHL on my SOBO attempt this summer and LOVED it. :) We even zero'd there, did laundry on their tub & washboard system, ate two of those famous giant burgers and one of their pizzas during our day and a half stay.
Thanks for the first-hand report from someone who has actually been there!
Not for nothing, fellow WhiteBlazers, but this forum would better serve the AT community if comments posted about Trail Towns and Hiker Services were limited to being from hikers who have actually been to those Trail Towns or Hiker Services.
From one of my visits, on a hazy, lazy day..
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=12266&original=1&c=member&imageuser=314
One of the cabins, main lodge in the background:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=12267&c=member&imageuser=314
Inside a cabin:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=12274&catid=member&imageuser=314
Thanks for the first-hand report from someone who has actually been there!
Not for nothing, fellow WhiteBlazers, but this forum would better serve the AT community if comments posted about Trail Towns and Hiker Services were limited to being from hikers who have actually been to those Trail Towns or Hiker Services.....
Generally, a good idea, TJ. But quite a bit of this thread has dealt with things other than the facilities that many hikers obviously like, but rather with the alleged illegal activities of the facility owners.
I'm sure you agree that just as hikers should be condemned for violations of the rules, providers of hiker services should be held to an equal standard. I agree when you properly object to hikers violating the rules of the parks and the private lands which the narrow trail corridor traverses.
But I think we should be equally diligent as White Blaze members to object to violations of the trail corridor, even when they are done by providers of services that we like. NPS regulations are designed to help keep the trail as wild as possible.
I've been a member of MATC for nearly four decades, and a trail maintainer and volunteer for most of those years.. I don't always agree with the decisions the club makes. But I have great respect for those who make those decisions.
I especially respect the efforts of the overseer of the section of the trail where WHL for years posted illegal signs. The Overseer was simply living up to his obligation to both enforce the law, and to keep the "wilderness" as wild as possible.
In addition to overseering the many maintainers of this 60 miles, beginning at the Jo Mary Campground road and ending on the summit of Katahdin, Rick and his wife maintain many miles of the Appalachian Trail in this section of Maine.
Rick, who is employed as a paper mill worker, first called the violations to the attention of his fellow MATC board members, and tried for years to work out an agreement with the business.
And after many, many months of efforts, over many years, MATC finally notified the National Park Service ranger in Harpers Ferry.
FRankly, I tend to disagree with Lone Wolf, who tells us that he doesn't need to work because he lives on the income from his oil company stocks, when he calls this effort, lead by a Maine mill worker, "elitist."
But regardless, I think this is a proper subject of discussion and comment, even by those of us who have not actually visited WHL.
Weary
Lone Wolf
10-31-2008, 03:55
FRankly, I tend to disagree with Lone Wolf, who tells us that he doesn't need to work because he lives on the income from his oil company stocks, when he calls this effort, lead by a Maine mill worker, "elitist."
i work. where did i say i didn't? oil stocks ain't doin' so hot. the MATC is elitist. why is harrison's camps allowed a sign? and shaw's?
Rt 4 & AT near Rangeley , signs for commercial hiker services both sides of highway back in the woods a short distance for the last 2 years i've been in there, probably been there alot longer than that. Service Provider offering rides, lodging etc..., must be friends with the area maintainers? Found one sign on the ground, put it back up on the tree, didn't know they were illegal.
I confirm.
No cheap shower there!
I'm sure you agree that just as hikers should be condemned for violations of the rules
I've backpacked in the park during the winter months at least a dozen times, always with a permit from the park officials, though I haven't always carried the required gear or had a fresh certificate from a doctor, mostly because often no rangers were around to check
I also have an instinctive dislike for petty bureaucrats and their petty rules.Where does your hypocrisy end?
Lone Wolf
10-31-2008, 09:30
Where does your hypocrisy end?
it's pretty comical :)
Where does your hypocrisy end?
it must be the change in climate :rolleyes:
max patch
10-31-2008, 10:02
Where does your hypocrisy end?
Is it hypocritical to call someone who has done more for the trail than probably everyone else on this site a hypocrite?
Some things are best left unsaid.
Is it hypocritical to call someone who has done more for the trail than probably everyone else on this site a hypocrite?
I don't see the relevance to your post. He blatantly breaks the rules he feels are unnecessary yet bashes WHL for not abiding by the rules. That's a hypocrite in my book.
Weary has the respect of the ATC. They gave him their highest honor a few years back.
He has my respect too.
No one is perfect. Not me, not Weary, not Phreak.
Happy Trails!
Where does your hypocrisy end?
What hypocrisy? I'm totally honest. I don't feign. I just tell it like it is, warts and all.
Definition, hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.
I don't see the relevance to your post. He blatantly breaks the rules he feels are unnecessary yet bashes WHL for not abiding by the rules. That's a hypocrite in my book.
He is about 80 years old. Spent most of them conected to the trail. He's earned the right to say what he wants and not remember he said it 10 minutes later. When you get 80 you can to.
Clyde
He is about 80 years old. Spent most of them conected to the trail. He's earned the right to say what he wants and not remember he said it 10 minutes later. When you get 80 you can to.
Clyde
Come on, Clyde. I'm not "about 80." I've got six months to go. BTW. Remind me about April to remove the date of birth from my profile. I don't want anyone to know when I reach 80. People will think I'm old.
Weary
Fly By Mike
10-31-2008, 12:40
Nice review....thanks!! I've only had great experiences there too. :)
Bill was showing me an article on some of the history of White House Landing when I was there this year. It's one of only two of the original seventeen Maine camps that is still around and caters to hikers. The other is Harrison's Camp.
There is another, I think it is Nahmakanta Camp, but they only let you come to stay multiple days, which doesn't work for most hikers.
Bill told me that White House Landing was open for hikers in the 1940's, but then reverted back to a working camp again.
It's REAL Maine history and I will always stop in whenever I'm through "The Wilderness". I plan on getting Jim at Millinocket Air to fly me in sometime in his float plane and I'll stay a few days exploring the shores of Pemadumcook Lake by one of Bill and Linda's canoes. :)
If Jim is busy give me a call. I have a boat and a place on South Twin Lake which connects through North Twin to Pemadumcook. Lots of great places to explore on all these lakes including the River Drivers Museum at the old Boom House on Ambajejus Lake. Be a pleasure to show you around. PM me for my phone#
TJ aka Teej
10-31-2008, 13:00
Generally, a good idea, TJ. But quite a bit of this thread has dealt with things other than the facilities that many hikers obviously like, but rather with the alleged illegal activities of the facility owners.
Yes Weary, thanks to your trolling, the thread is now about you and your continuing bitching about a sign you never saw to a place you've never been. A sign that even you acknowledge no longer exists.
Weary, the sign is gone. Has been ever since ATC contacted the owner.
I'm sure you agree that just as hikers should be condemned for violations of the rules, providers of hiker services should be held to an equal standard.
I do not agree you should be condemned for your violations of, and contempt for, Trail rules you think beneath you while advocating that others should be perpetually condemned for merely doing what you personally champion. I just wish you'd find something new to bitch about.
I do not agree you should condemned for your violations of, and contempt for, Trail rules you think beneath you while advocating that others should be perpetually condemned for merely doing what you personally champion. I just wish you'd find something new to bitch about.
Maybe you're confused. That's Weary. Not the other W person. :D
TJ aka Teej
10-31-2008, 13:32
Maybe you're confused. That's Weary. Not the other W person. :D
Situational ethics aren't just for theologians anymore...
Morals and ethics that change based on the situation are neither moral nor ethical.
Situational ethics aren't just for theologians anymore...
Morals and ethics that change based on the situation are neither moral nor ethical.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
I fail to see hypocrisy in this instance and I wouldn't know what it has to do with the issue which may now be settled. What I see is an overseer brought a complaint to MATC's board. The maintainers or overseers in the other districts didn't.
TJ aka Teej
10-31-2008, 13:40
If Jim is busy give me a call. I have a boat and a place on South Twin Lake which connects through North Twin to Pemadumcook.
Hi Mike - can private float planes land on Katahdin Lake? That's the new IAT entrance to Baxter and a few weeks back I watched three or four planes put in. I started day-dream-planning a backpack trip while watching them from above :D
I started day-dream-planning a backpack trip while watching them [float-planes] from above.:D
Sounds like fun! Can I go too?:)
TJ aka Teej
10-31-2008, 14:05
Sounds like fun! Can I go too?:)
Sure! I've done a Roaring Brook > Russel Pond > Davis Pond > Chimney Pond loop before, I was plotting next time it'd be Katahdin Lake to South Branch, back across via the Wassa, down over Doubletop, then back over Katahdin to Chimney. In my head, that's seven days :D
Situational ethics aren't just for theologians anymore...
Morals and ethics that change based on the situation are neither moral nor ethical.
That is a laughable and trite assertion. Give me one moral ethos and I will guarantee you I can imagine a situation where to do otherwise is the moral and ethical thing. There are no absolutes in this world. While it may be comforting to clutch to moral beliefs to do so is to abdicate any need to personally assess a given situation and find the right thing to do. I have found that situational ethicists are typically those I want to hang with because they are always asking themselves "is this right?", while those who believe they know for certain blindly go thru life ignoring any sense of nuance and merely insisting that they ARE right regardless of the facts. Situational ethicists are actively searching for right and wrong while the rest debate value systems so they can absolve themselves of the need to try and do the right thing.
More on topic, I think hypocrite is strong. Curmedgeonly is more like it.
"You say I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes." --Walt Whitman. We are beautiful creatures, humans, and to limit us to one right and one wrong for every situation does our race an injustice.
Peace.
Jack Tarlin
10-31-2008, 14:32
Nope. A curmudgeon, by definition, is merely a grumpy, ill temepered gentlemen of a certain age.
But when someone advocates or champions something on a Monday, and says something 100% different on a Tuesday......well that's the textbook description of hypocrisy.
TJ has raised a valid point here.
Fly By Mike
10-31-2008, 14:40
Hi Mike - can private float planes land on Katahdin Lake? That's the new IAT entrance to Baxter and a few weeks back I watched three or four planes put in. I started day-dream-planning a backpack trip while watching them from above :D
Not sure if there are any restrictions on float planes in Katahdin Lake. Didn't used to be as far as I can remember, but the new management (owners) may have a different approach. Although, I think in the State of Maine pretty much any large body of water is pretty much open. Sure is pretty up there. Sounds like a great trip you have planned.
TJ aka Teej
10-31-2008, 14:44
Give me one moral ethos and I will guarantee you I can imagine a situation where to do otherwise is the moral and ethical thing.
OK, here:
Ranting that a NPS signage rule violation is The End Of The World As We Know It and painting the person fighting to enforce that rule in heroic terms on one hand, while compaining that a BSP rule regarding hiker safety is 'petty' and that the Ranger who died rescuing a violator of that 'petty' rule deserved his fate since he was 'out of shape and ill-equiped' on the other hand.
Please let us know when doing the above would be moral and ethical, and when doing so would not.
Firstly, there is no moral aspect to this whole debate. This seem to me to be purely a wilderness ethics question. But again your need for simplicity overlooks the obvious nuances of the two situations. These are two different rules with two entirely different purposes. I have stated I disagree with the MATC on the WHL sign, however, Weary has made a decision that this is a very important rule and it must be followed. The purpose of the rule is to eliminate permanent signs that promote commercialism and mar the wilderness feel of Baxter State Park. There would be no point in following the rule one day and not the next. The situation is static. But following the rules pertaining to gear during winter months is not static. Every day changes as does the need to carry some of the required gear. If the rule is I must carry a pickaxe, (just pulled that out of thin air) but there is no snow or ice on the grounds that I will be walking, it would be silly to posit that because I don't want signs on the trail in Baxter that I must carry a pickaxe at all times in the winter. This is what you are suggesting. To put it another way, I can simultaneously agree with and follow drunk driving laws and disagree with and break laws pertaining to how loud I play the music in my car. Both are related to transportation but unrelated to each other.
While it can easily be painted as hypocrisy to follow some rules and not others, I just don't see it that way. Each rule has its own history and purpose and addresses its own situation. I just don't see how adamantly opposing signs on the trail but ignoring winter regulations regarding gear as any way related and therefore, don't see how it could be considered hypocritical to follow one but not the other.
Again, I am not agreeing with Weary on the WHL sign issue. Just think the differences discussed are of personal temperament and not personal character.
max patch
10-31-2008, 15:15
Weary, thank you for all you have done for the trail.
Jack Tarlin
10-31-2008, 15:37
And also your weekly reminders about it. :rolleyes:
Hey guys. You're attacking the messenger. I had no role in what MATC did about the WHL sign, other than joining in the unanimous votes of the board, when it dealt with the matter.
People have critized the lack of the sign. I have tried to explain the events that lead to the removal of the sign by the National Park Service.
As I've said several times, now that the park service has entered the fray, this is no longer a matter that MATC can control. We tried to work with WHL. Our efforts were rejected. We notified the park service. They are the governing agency, not MATC, and the only agency with any enforcement powers.
Weary
And also your weekly reminders about it. :rolleyes:
You're exaggerating again, Jack.
Jack Tarlin
11-01-2008, 15:39
Actually I'm not.
I know dozens and dozens of folks who've given of themselves enormously over the years for the Trail.
Funny thing, tho, none of them ever mention it here.
Ever. :rolleyes:
The finest philanthropists are the anonymous ones.
Actually I'm not.
I know dozens and dozens of folks who've given of themselves enormously over the years for the Trail.
Funny thing, tho, none of them ever mention it here.
Ever. :rolleyes:
The finest philanthropists are the anonymous ones.
Are you suggesting, Jack, that Bill Gates should have just quietly given away his billions and not reached out to the world, resulting in additional billions being donated to his cause by Warren Buffett, and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation.
From time to time I mention the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust in hopes that others might be inspired to donate to keep the trail in Maine wild. Very occasionally when the flow of a thread strikes me as pertinent -- or when the attacks on me get obnoxious -- I speak of some of the other things I've done over the years.
A lot of MATC members have done far more maintenance and other trail work than I have.
If I have any claim to fame it involves something that had nothing to do with philanthropy, or initially, at least, the trail. The real hero was a guy who lived in a tarpaper shack near my home who had drifted out of the habit of working for money, but who liked to poke around in Maine history. One day he came into a tiny newspaper where I worked, and asked that I "do a story about the public lots." He told me about 400,000 acres that Maine had preserved when it sold it's public domain during the early days of statehood, but which were then being treated as private property.
I filed the idea away in case I ever moved to a bigger paper.
That happened a decade later. I did a little research and wrote the story my tarpaper shack friend had told me. I treated it as a funny little Sunday feature. I was doubtful, and my editors were positive there wasn't a chance that land the state had neglected for a century hadn't been permanently lost.
But the story generated some public interest. The governor got involved. Bills were filed in the Legislature. Law suits were filed. I wrote more stories. And suddenly the claimants to the long neglected 400,000 acres began settling out of court.
One of early settlements involved the paper company that owned the land along the ridgeline of the Maine portion of the Mahoosucs. That's how the AT became involved. When the state people doing the negotiations, asked me "What land do we want?" I suggested the Mahoosucs.
I've gotten a lot of mileage out of that little suggestion. Later when voters initiated and succeeded in passing a referendum to grasp Bigelow from the hands of developers, more of the scattered "public lots." were swapped for land needed to protect 40,000 acres in the Bigelow Mountain area.
Officials by then were beginning to recognize the importance of permanently protecting the Appalachian Trail and eventually several other sections were protected by swapping these long lost lands for other lands, including part of the large Nahmakanta Preserve, south of Baxter.
I tell this story from time to time, when folks like Jack remind me, because I find it a fascinating bit of trail history, that I like people to know about.
Many thanks, Jack, for reminding me again.
Weary www.matlt.org
Jack Tarlin
11-01-2008, 17:16
The finest and noblest acts of kindness and philanthropy are the anonymous ones.
Repeat reading as often as necessary. :rolleyes:
You are correct.
I'll let him slide on this one.
(Thanks Weary.)
The finest and noblest acts of kindness and philanthropy are the anonymous ones.
Repeat reading as often as necessary. :rolleyes:
Ah. Jack:):):):):sun:):):):). Sorry for the smiles. But I couldn't quickly find a a LMAO symbol. We are not philanthropists. My wife and I live on the equivalent of two social security checks, around $25,000 a year. Not poverty, by most standards. But certainly not luxury. Thanks to a careful lifestyle, every year we eke out a few thousands for land trust, trail, and church obligations, and of course that recently banned White Blaze P word activities. Other than the value of our house, we have no significant wealth.
Our "philanthropic" efforts are further limited by the handicap of living on waterfront property we bought for $2,900 46 years ago, but which the tax assessors now value a couple of 100 times, or so, higher than that value.
Jack. We are not enemies. I try to do useful things. You try to do useful things. Your talk about proper philanthopy in reference to me reveals a total misunderstanding. Like most people, my wife and I try to do useful things.
We over commit occasionally. And then struggle to catch up.
Weary
Lone Wolf
11-01-2008, 21:06
all this over a friggin sign. children are dying in cancer wards. volunteer your time on your local rescue squad. a trail is just a trail
Sure! I've done a Roaring Brook > Russell Pond > Davis Pond > Chimney Pond loop before.
As have I, several times. Sadly Maine lacks many such spectacular loop hikes. That, among more important reasons, is one reason we formed the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.
Weary www.matlt.org
all this over a friggin sign. children are dying in cancer wards. volunteer your time on your local rescue squad. a trail is just a trailbut this trail has an artificially created 100 mile wilderness that has to be preserved or else it might become extinct and revert back to its old ways with things like a cement bridge over big wilson and a direct roadwalk into monson.
Lone Wolf
11-01-2008, 21:29
but this trail has an artificially created 100 mile wilderness that has to be preserved or else it might become extinct and revert back to its old ways with things like a cement bridge over big wilson and a direct roadwalk into monson.
perspective is all
I think its all relative. Every year you loose a little more. Some years you gain some back. Here they finished the new bridge across the Big Salmon River this year. First it was all about mining and logging, then it went back to wilderness, and now its all about tourism and development and so there will be less wilderness once again. The new bridge and parkway might take longer to revert back to wilderness this time around. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years people start selling it to americans and europeans as vacation property. Trusts are good ideas, but even they can't slow down people forever. Every generation has a different perspecitive of what is natural and what is worth saving. Some year naturalists can make allies, but then people need to find a new way to make a living, and nature gives way once again.
http://fundytrailparkway.com/fundy_footpath.htm
all this over a friggin sign. children are dying in cancer wards. volunteer your time on your local rescue squad. a trail is just a trail
Not "all this over a friggin sign." All this was over protecting a trail. I long ago decided that I couldn't do much about sickness, poverty, or even politics. But helping to keep a a few trails in Maine, was something, I've tried to do.
Poverty, sickness and world injustices will always be with us, and I've done a little to help with such things. But most of my efforts have been devoted to things more permanent, protecting bits and pieces of land for the enjoyment of my kids, grandkids and future generations.
Of course, Lone Wolf, "a trail is just a trail." But trails provide many benefits to many people. We're a nation of increasingly sick people. Two thirds of us are seriously overweight, so obese that seven percent already have diabetes. Trails are more than fun. They are a partial solution to serious national ills.
Trails don't exist, or continue to exist, without people buying the land, building trails, and maintaining trails.
LOne Wolf. Do whatever you want with your time and resources. But a hiking forum may not be a good place to criticize someone for protecting trails.
Weary www.matlt.org
But a hiking forum may not be a good place to criticize someone for protecting trails.Life is full of such irony. We know that. :rolleyes:
johnny quest
11-01-2008, 22:40
some pics of whl. a peaceful place.
but this trail has an artificially created 100 mile wilderness that has to be preserved or else it might become extinct and revert back to its old ways with things like a cement bridge over big wilson and a direct roadwalk into monson.
I'm not sure, 33 whiskey, what you mean by artificially created "wilderness." Before the popularity of automobiles, people from the south used trains to flock to Maine to spend time in what were 100s of hunting and fishing camps.
As autos intruded, motels built, and roads improved, the sporting camps gradually died. Only a dozen or so remain. No body created the "wilderness." It simply reverted to wilderness, once the sporting camp era ended. Gulf Hagas was a major tourist attraction a century ago. By the early 70s, it's existence had been totally forgotten by most people.
The same guy who told me about Maine's long forgotten 400,000 acres of public lots. Convinced me to go with him to see Gulf Hagas. My story and photos created a bit of a sensation. Very few people knew it existed.
Because I like wild places, I work to keep what nature has reclaimed wild. You can do what you want. It's a matter of philosophy. I know I'm in the minority. Most people like to walk in places with roads, machines, motels, sporting camps, and places to buy hamburgers.
I prefer to walk in wild places with a minimum intrusion of civilization.
I'll continue to fight for those things I think important. You can fight for what you want. Being younger, you'll probably win.
But let's try to keep the nomenclature correct. The 100 miles are not an artificial wilderness. It's a recovering wilderness. Something quite precious and rare, and worth protecting.
Weary
Lone Wolf
11-01-2008, 23:19
Not "all this over a friggin sign." All this was over protecting a trail. I long ago decided that I couldn't do much about sickness, poverty, or even politics. But helping to keep a a few trails in Maine, was something, I've tried to do.
Poverty, sickness and world injustices will always be with us, and I've done a little to help with such things. But most of my efforts have been devoted to things more permanent, protecting bits and pieces of land for the enjoyment of my kids, grandkids and future generations.
Of course, Lone Wolf, "a trail is just a trail." But trails provide many benefits to many people. We're a nation of increasingly sick people. Two thirds of us are seriously overweight, so obese that seven percent already have diabetes. Trails are more than fun. They are a partial solution to serious national ills.
Trails don't exist, or continue to exist, without people buying the land, building trails, and maintaining trails.
LOne Wolf. Do whatever you want with your time and resources. But a hiking forum may not be a good place to criticize someone for protecting trails.
Weary www.matlt.org
whatever. you're a big hypocrite and not too in tune with real life. the AT is unimportant in the big pic
Anyone know if WHL is on leased land and/or if that's even an issue in those parts?
whatever. you're a big hypocrite and not too in tune with real life. the AT is unimportant in the big pic
People need to feed their souls as well as their stomachs.
Well in the real world people 'not too in tune with real life' still have to compete, same as everyone else, and they have just as much right to do so. They do a fair job sometimes.
On subjects like this I always think of that movie based on Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf" where the inuit man killed the wolves to get himself a new set of teeth. He liked his sweets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Cry_Wolf_(film)
whatever. you're a big hypocrite and not too in tune with real life. the AT is unimportant in the big pic
"In wildness is the preservation of the world." Henry Thoreau
The finest and noblest acts of kindness and philanthropy are the anonymous ones.....
"Don't hide your light under a bushel:" spoken by Jesus, while delivering his Sermon on the Mount.
"Don't hide your light under a bushel:" spoken by Jesus, while delivering his Sermon on the Mount.
Amen.
Anyone know if WHL is on leased land and/or if that's even an issue in those parts?
I think probably it is on leased land, but I don't know for sure. The paper companies that bought the land a century or more ago had a policy of always leasing, rather than selling land. Until a decade or so ago even most of the houses in the center of Millinocket were on leased lands.
Most of the old sporting camps were on leased land, and most of those that have survived remain on leased land, places like Nahmakanta Camps, and chairback mountain camps on Long Lake. Little Lyford POnd camps was on leased land until AMC worked out a deal with the camps owner to buy out the lease. AMC now owns the camps and the surrounding 37,000 acres.
But I know of exceptions. The camps that once sat among the Hermitage Pines were privately owned. About 35 years ago the Nature Conservancy bought the 25 acres and tore the camps down, over my objections. I considered them an important historic artifact. INcidentally, the Hermitage pines are now owned by the National Park Service.
I know this doesn't answer your question, Rick, but if I was a betting person, I'd bet that the land on which White House Landing sits is probably owned by the Nature Conservancy. But I wouldn't wager much money on it.
Weary
Rocks 'n Roots
11-02-2008, 13:26
I can see Trail people still see nothing wrong in attacking members who espouse the Trail's purpose. (roll eyes)
I wish I could become a 'tyrannical' Trail 'dictator' in charge of the total AT and create a totally wild wilderness corridor in the AT with enforced rules. I'm betting that most of the philosophical disagreers in here would probably still patronize the Trail and might even write positive things about its wild aspects...
Jack Tarlin
11-02-2008, 13:30
Rocks:
People that have been on A.T. Internet sites for more than a few years know all about how you feel about the Trail's original purpose, and what you feel that purpose was meant to be.
They also know how you've mis-interpreted it, mis-represented it, mis-quoted people, mis-read early Trail hitories, or simply flat-out made stuff up in order to support your arguments.
These arguments were played to death years ago on places like At-l; Trailplace, etc.
Plese don't resurrect this stuff here, it's a VERY dead horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw1Sg6Fz1MI
Lone Wolf
11-02-2008, 19:17
I can see Trail people still see nothing wrong in attacking members who espouse the Trail's purpose. (roll eyes)
I wish I could become a 'tyrannical' Trail 'dictator' in charge of the total AT and create a totally wild wilderness corridor in the AT with enforced rules. I'm betting that most of the philosophical disagreers in here would probably still patronize the Trail and might even write positive things about its wild aspects...
huh? english please
TJ aka Teej
11-02-2008, 19:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw1Sg6Fz1MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk
Rocks 'n Roots
11-02-2008, 20:00
Rocks:
People that have been on A.T. Internet sites for more than a few years know all about how you feel about the Trail's original purpose, and what you feel that purpose was meant to be.
They also know how you've mis-interpreted it, mis-represented it, mis-quoted people, mis-read early Trail hitories, or simply flat-out made stuff up in order to support your arguments.
These arguments were played to death years ago on places like At-l; Trailplace, etc.
Plese don't resurrect this stuff here, it's a VERY dead horse.
Some would like it to be, but I honestly feel what I speak of is verifiable in Trail history and even today's current Trail. Sorry Jack, but one personality or one Trail view is too weak a straw to hang the Trail and its future on. I realize there are a lot of people who would like the AT and especially the AT internet to be a hiker club venue dominated by such persons and their Trail ethic (or lack of one) but, honestly, the Trail is deeper than that and can easily be proven by those with more respect for it than the shallow terms you invoke. Don't replace one type of "dictatorship" with another Jack. I respect Wingfoot because he stood for something and wasn't afraid to voice the Trail's wilderness ethic without referring to it as a nuisance as you do. Sorry Jack the Trail is deeper than that. You'll find persons who see the Trail in somewhat more detailed terms to be operating under some of the things those concerned with the Trail's purpose speak of. If one goes to the Trail to drink around a fire for companionship one might be more strained knowing others see it in a broader manner and resent mention of it. People who believe in the greater Trail should never be made to feel unwelcome or be intimidated by Trail thugs. Or people quick to label something "mis-representation" when closer observation would suggest otherwise. No Jack, Trail conservation isn't a "dead horse" as you say and won't be as long as ATC or the AT itself exists. I don't think this should be left up to people who really never show any mention of the Trail's conservation side and are therefore not really good judges of its presence on Trail venues. I really don't see what the argument is? ATC is doing it every day so therefore it is a major part of the Trail. Myself, if I chose someone to represent who would speak up for what is welcome or unwelcome on an AT site, I would choose someone who could eloquently discuss Trail conservation or wilderness without scoffing. What you are trying to do is censor people who believe in the Trail's wilderness purpose by disparaging them. Shame.
Some would like it to be, but I honestly feel what I speak of is verifiable in Trail history and even today's current Trail. Sorry Jack, but one personality or one Trail view is too weak a straw to hang the Trail and its future on. I realize there are a lot of people who would like the AT and especially the AT internet to be a hiker club venue dominated by such persons and their Trail ethic (or lack of one) but, honestly, the Trail is deeper than that and can easily be proven by those with more respect for it than the shallow terms you invoke. Don't replace one type of "dictatorship" with another Jack. I respect Wingfoot because he stood for something and wasn't afraid to voice the Trail's wilderness ethic without referring to it as a nuisance as you do. Sorry Jack the Trail is deeper than that. You'll find persons who see the Trail in somewhat more detailed terms to be operating under some of the things those concerned with the Trail's purpose speak of. If one goes to the Trail to drink around a fire for companionship one might be more strained knowing others see it in a broader manner and resent mention of it. People who believe in the greater Trail should never be made to feel unwelcome or be intimidated by Trail thugs. Or people quick to label something "mis-representation" when closer observation would suggest otherwise. No Jack, Trail conservation isn't a "dead horse" as you say and won't be as long as ATC or the AT itself exists. I don't think this should be left up to people who really never show any mention of the Trail's conservation side and are therefore not really good judges of its presence on Trail venues. I really don't see what the argument is? ATC is doing it every day so therefore it is a major part of the Trail. Myself, if I chose someone to represent who would speak up for what is welcome or unwelcome on an AT site, I would choose someone who could eloquently discuss Trail conservation or wilderness without scoffing. What you are trying to do is censor people who believe in the Trail's wilderness purpose by disparaging them. Shame.
Try to use the space bar and indent every now and again. This is almost unreadable.
Rocks 'n Roots
11-02-2008, 20:05
Try to use the space bar and indent every now and again. This is almost unreadable.
I think you read it well. Well enough that you couldn't answer it.
I think you read it well. Well enough that you couldn't answer it.
Couldn't answer what? There weren't any questions, just ramblings about trail conservancy and some jabs at Jack.
There weren't any questions, just ramblings about trail conservancy and some jabs at Jack.
This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.
This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.
Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.
And it is not just a simple question. This has been a debated ever since Avery and MacKaye clashed over a road along the summit ridges of what is now Shenandoah Natrional Park.
Avery won that skirmish. But the war continues, as MacKaye predicted it would. Sorry. I have no simple answers. Just a conviction that a relatively few acres of wildness better serves the nation and its people, than many miles and acres of new roads. YMMV.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
11-03-2008, 10:30
This issue is deep. I thought it was about a sign that's no longer there.
Is was about White House Landing.
A review of the 'non-sign' comments will show positive responses from hikers who have been there.
A review of the 'sign' comments will show that posters who have never been to White House Landing want the thread to be about them and their opinions of an ex-sign they've never seen.
johnny quest
11-03-2008, 14:10
Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.
Weary
ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all. you pointyhead pseudo intellectuals made it about something more so that you could keep arguing the same thing you always have argued.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.
Lone Wolf
11-03-2008, 14:12
it ain't "thier" trail. it's all of America's
and NPS makes the rules. Complain to them.
Well, as SOG knows, it was never about a sign that's no longer there. It's about the trail and how it should be perceived and managed over the coming decades.
Weary
Actually, SOG does admit it when he's pressed.:o;) I put his hand in my plant press and stood on the straps. He held out pretty long.:D
ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all. you pointyhead pseudo intellectuals made it about something more so that you could keep arguing the same thing you always have argued.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.
Sorry Johnny, you haven't been reading. It's been out of the hands of MATC for a couple of years now. We probably could have worked out something, if the WHL owners had acted responsibly. They didn't, so now your appeal must go to the National Park Service.
Weary
ummm. no.
i started the thread, and honest to god my motivation was to question the wisdom of the matc in not marking the trail turnoff to whl. thats all.
dear matc, for god sake, mark the trail turnoff to whl. it will be an aid to the people who hike your trail.
But if you :-? about it, its likely MATC does not want hikers to have any form of commercial aid through those parts, after all, its suppose to be 100 miles of 'wilderness'.
Now if you want to stay at the AMC camps (http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/lodges/lyford/index.cfm), thats probably a different story but you will likely need reservations and a fair amount of moola.
Jack Tarlin
11-03-2008, 15:13
Rocks:
I never said that "Trail conversation" was a dead horse.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
What I said was that your comments and argument on this subject is a dead horse, and not a particularly eloquently expressed one, either.
Nobody's censoring anyone, Rocks, they are merely asking that arguments and comments be sensible, fact-based, and truthful. Oh, and a little coherency wouldn't hurt, either.
TJ aka Teej
11-04-2008, 11:02
But if you :-? about it, its likely MATC does not want hikers to have any form of commercial aid through those parts, after all, its suppose to be 100 miles of 'wilderness'.
Now if you want to stay at the AMC camps (http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/lodges/lyford/index.cfm), thats probably a different story but you will likely need reservations and a fair amount of moola.
Giant AMC will do whatever they want as far as cutting in connecting trails and posting signs to their lodging businesses in the 100 Mile. Tiny MATC is no match for the Boston mega-corp.
the goat
11-04-2008, 11:08
if I was a betting person, I'd bet that the land on which White House Landing sits is probably owned by the Nature Conservancy. But I wouldn't wager much money on it.
as of 2003 the land was leased, but owned by a logging company, not the nature conservancy.
at the time, the owners of whl were trying to purchase the land from the logging company.
johnny quest
11-04-2008, 11:33
Sorry Johnny, you haven't been reading. It's been out of the hands of MATC for a couple of years now. We probably could have worked out something, if the WHL owners had acted responsibly. They didn't, so now your appeal must go to the National Park Service.
Weary
oh, ive been reading. and i think your wrong.
i wrote the matc and got the below response:
Who is in charge of where and what official signs go on the a. t. in maine? Is it the matc or the national park service. Thank you
The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC
seems pretty clear to me that matc is the organization to decide whether or not to put a sign identifying the side trail to whl
Giant AMC will do whatever they want as far as cutting in connecting trails and posting signs to their lodging businesses in the 100 Mile. Tiny MATC is no match for the Boston mega-corp.
TJ you should try to moderate your blind and unthinking hatred of AMC. Or better yet just try to take an honest look at the largest and most important trail organization in the northeast -- and the organization that has probably built and maintained more trails than anyone else.
MATC has been talking about a trail crossing with AMC for the past couple of years. I haven't followed what decision, if any, may have been made. BTW, all trail crossings eventually need the approval of the National Park Service.
You do have a record of being wrong about AMC. Have you noticed that none of the massive new development that you claimed on White Blaze that AMC had planned to do in Maine, has never been done?
In fact just the opposite has happened. Rather than more development, AMC has been busy reclaiming and preserving historic structures and returning a sense of wildness to their 37,000 acres.
Weary
Lone Wolf
11-04-2008, 11:56
The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC[/I]
seems Steve Clark has overlooked Harrison's camps and Shaw's. buncha BS
as of 2003 the land was leased, but owned by a logging company, not the nature conservancy.
at the time, the owners of whl were trying to purchase the land from the logging company.
I don't have access to maps showing the land ownerships in that area. But the Nature Conservancy, I believe, bought around 50,000 acres south of Baxter Park that used to be owned by Great Northern Paper Co.
Maine owns the Nahmakanta Preserve south of the new Nature Conservancy lands.
Further south Plum Creek and a private family-owned business own large parcels. AMC. the Nature Conservancy and other conservation groups have agreed to purchase some of the Plum Creek land, when and if Plum Creek decides to sell.
Still further south and east of Whitecap the land is owned by a logging outfit from Canada, which outbid an attempt to purchase by AMC.
The Nature Conservancy purchase occurred about 2003, maybe a year or so later.
Weary
johnny quest
11-04-2008, 12:20
no response to the matc info, weary?
oh, ive been reading. and i think your wrong.
i wrote the matc and got the below response:
Who is in charge of where and what official signs go on the a. t. in maine? Is it the matc or the national park service. Thank you
The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC
seems pretty clear to me that matc is the organization to decide whether or not to put a sign identifying the side trail to whl
The National Park Service has delegated such things to ATC and ATC in turn has delegated the decisions to MATC, in return for MATC promising to follow the national guidelines.
As I've said several times MATC would probably have worked out an agreement with WHL if WHL had applied for a sign, which I don't believe they have ever done. It wouldn't have been a "commercial sign" per se, but an MATC sign to an area hikers frequent.
However, as I've said again and again, MATC has no enforcement powers. When illegal commercial signs appeared and were removed, again and again, MATC had no choice other than to notify the NPS ranger at Harpers Ferry.
Having done this, MATC, cannot now reverse the decision of the park service law enforcement officer, and retain any credibility.
Weary
johnny quest
11-04-2008, 20:12
The National Park Service has delegated such things to ATC and ATC in turn has delegated the decisions to MATC, in return for MATC promising to follow the national guidelines.
As I've said several times MATC would probably have worked out an agreement with WHL if WHL had applied for a sign, which I don't believe they have ever done. It wouldn't have been a "commercial sign" per se, but an MATC sign to an area hikers frequent.
However, as I've said again and again, MATC has no enforcement powers. When illegal commercial signs appeared and were removed, again and again, MATC had no choice other than to notify the NPS ranger at Harpers Ferry.
Having done this, MATC, cannot now reverse the decision of the park service law enforcement officer, and retain any credibility.
Weary
i just think your wrong, weary. this is what the matc guy wrote me next. (the underline is mine.)
Steve
Im not talking about a commercial sign. Why doesn’t the matc mark, on the existing signage, the road that leads to the dock where whl picks up? Its being suggested that nps wont allow it.
The suggestion you mentioned is incorrect. All side trails or access trails possibilities have to pass through the MATC executive board first, before it goes to the NPS with our recommendations. They usually abide by what we recommend.
For us to direct people by a sign onto private land, would first require the permission of the land owner. We would have to seek that. If you feel it may be worthwhile, write me a letter, outlining your proposal in detail, with appropriate maps any your conclusions as to why this would be an advantage to hikers. Your estimates of potential usage would also be helpful. We would then have to discuss this with the private landowner who would have the final say.
If the side trail to the landing and the landing itself is all on NPS lands, then it would be up to us.
Steve Clark, MATC
I really hope you made that up.
johnny quest
11-04-2008, 20:26
I really hope you made that up.
nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????
nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????
Steve over the decades has been very knowledgeable about the trail. But he is no longer a member of the MATC board.
He performed admirably during the efforts to keep industrial interests off Redington and Black Nubble during the wind power debates. But he doesn't know the background of this thread.
He thinks someone wants a new sign and he is telling them how it usually happens. He knows and I know that there is a very complex management system governing who controls what, and when, dealing with the trail.
Steve knows the very complex management system that evolved over the decades from no control over the trail in Maine, into a triumvirate system, involving private conservation organizations, MATC, ATC, and NPS.
This system is described over several pages in the MATC Guide to the Appalachian TRail in Maine. Steve is providing answers about how the system works for places that are seeking to play by the rules. His comment have nothing to do with places like WHL, which I don't believe has never applied to have a sign erected, and which rather has attempted to bully MATC into letting him to do what he wants in violation of both MATC and NPS rules.
I could write a small book about the complex relationship between MATC, ATC, NPS, and private businesses -- as could Steve Clark.
We both have tried to answer the obvious question. I in recognition of the trolls behind the question. Steve knowing nothing of such trolls, is answering in a way he thinks reflect what the questioner needs to know.
Weary
johnny quest
11-04-2008, 21:57
you wound me, weary.
i have been very clear in my questioning steve that im a hiker that complained to whl about the difficulty in finding their side trail. i told him about the discusion here and there has been no effort to confuse or decieve him.
he may not be on the board anymore but hes the one that answers when you email them from their website
....hes the one that answers when you email them from their website
That's because he's filling in for a vacancy on the board.
Weary
So the real problem being discussed here isn't really about about wether a commercial interest can put up a sign on the trail, but wether they can put up a sign that directs hikers onto private property without the property owners permission? Am I missing something?
So the real problem being discussed here isn't really about about wether a commercial interest can put up a sign on the trail, but wether they can put up a sign that directs hikers onto private property without the property owners permission? Am I missing something?
Yes. You are missing a lot.
nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????
I say that because I read it. It seemed pretty convoluted. But then I am not a bureaucrat. I had a flashback to a Land Use Planning class I took. Juxtapose was an overused word.
saimyoji
11-05-2008, 18:45
"In wildness is the preservation of the world." Henry Thoreau
"So seek the wolf, and not man." James Hetfield
So nice to see the old WB spirit still lingers. ;)
Lone Wolf
11-05-2008, 19:23
So nice to see the old WB spirit still lingers. ;)
weary is only 80
Blue Jay
11-06-2008, 11:41
weary is only 80
OOOOH, Hey that was mean and violated TSO# 3762 section 8B. I did enjoy it however.
Next time I'm on the trail near Monson, I'll take down that Shaw's sign, since it appears to be there without permission.
Kirby
Next time I'm on the trail near Monson, I'll take down that Shaw's sign, since it appears to be there without permission.
Kirby
Easy there young fellar. No need to vandalize (or troll) about something this serious. :rolleyes:
Easy there young fellar. No need to vandalize (or troll) about something this serious. :rolleyes:
Someone has to uphold the NPS standards everyone is referencing this thread. Seems to me like there's a double standard.:rolleyes:
Kirby
It's not your sign to remove. File your complaint with MATC, not WhiteBlaze.
You know their website's address as well as many of their members. Why do you feel a need to make your grievance public?
It's not your sign to remove. File your complaint with MATC, not WhiteBlaze.
You know their website's address as well as many of their members. Why do you feel a need to make your grievance public?
I had no serious intention of removing the sign, I was merely affirming a point made several other times in this thread by other people in regards to the fact that this sign is there, yet no one has be able to confirm whether it's there with the consent of the MATC, ATC, and NPS.
I sent an inquiry, I'll be sure to post the response here.
Kirby
Lone Wolf
11-09-2008, 21:22
I had no serious intention of removing the sign, I was merely affirming a point made several other times in this thread by other people in regards to the fact that this sign is there, yet no one has be able to confirm whether it's there with the consent of the MATC, ATC, and NPS.
I sent an inquiry, I'll be sure to post the response here.
Kirby
the powers that be don't hike. you'll get no response
the powers that be don't hike. you'll get no response
Not usually true in my experience. However, those of us who hike, tend to believe that the Appalachian Trail is not insignificant, so you may not get a response you agree with.
Weary
Next time I'm on the trail near Monson, I'll take down that Shaw's sign, since it appears to be there without permission.
Kirby
Kirby, the sign questions are pretty complex. I would first contact the overseer of this section of the trail. The sign was legal when I was overseer. I don't keep up with all the changes. My suggestion is that you send $15 to join MATC. That way I'll send you the newsletter that I just finished and which lists the names and contwcts for all the officers and directors.
If you don't have $15, or can't figure out how to join, send me a personal message and I'll send you a copy. BTW, this offer goes to everyone. The cheapest printer I can find insists that we print a minimum of 1,000 copies. Since we have a couple of hundred members and contributors fewer than that, I always have extra copies.
Weary
Kirby, the sign questions are pretty complex. I would first contact the overseer of this section of the trail. The sign was legal when I was overseer. I don't keep up with all the changes. My suggestion is that you send $15 to join MATC. That way I'll send you the newsletter that I just finished and which lists the names and contwcts for all the officers and directors.
If you don't have $15, or can't figure out how to join, send me a personal message and I'll send you a copy. BTW, this offer goes to everyone. The cheapest printer I can find insists that we print a minimum of 1,000 copies. Since we have a couple of hundred members and contributors fewer than that, I always have extra copies.
Weary
Um, what makes a sign legal? Someone follows a bunch of cryptic instructions and sends in a registration card with a check, that what makes it legal? :rolleyes:
WalkinHome
11-10-2008, 10:39
the powers that be don't hike. you'll get no response
This statement is so far out of this universe. In a sense, a minute sliver of truth here - "the powers that be don't hike" - it is what we in the north call a WORK TRIP. 90% of the exexcutive board of the MATC spend a huge amount of there "free" time out inspecting, clearing, relocating and all that other neat stuff and do not have much time left over for recreational hikes. BTW, the other 10% have done a huge amount of work on the AT in the past and they are now contributing their mental skills rather than their physical ones so are still engaged. It seems that there is always something else to do to help preserve this little trail (aka "scar") some of us respect so much.
Lone Wolf
11-10-2008, 11:10
that's all well and good but y'all to need to lighten up on folks who have services for hikers close to the trail and treat them ALL equally. still nobody from the MATC has answered why certain places are allowed signs and WHL is not