PDA

View Full Version : Shelter stay required



vggalan
07-26-2004, 17:28
I just got a (partially garbled) message from a cousin of mine who has a question for the New England experts. Tom is doing a long section hike from the Delaware Water Gap up to Baxter. He was talking with another hiker and was told that in the White Mountains, you have to stay in shelters, which cost something like $60-$70. No tent camping is allowed. Is this at all true? It sounds a little fishy (not to mention outrageously expensive), but I've never hiked in New England.

Jack Tarlin
07-26-2004, 18:46
No, this is not true.

There are a number of large cabins in the Whites (called "Huts") which are operated by the Appalachian Mountain Club. Some of them cost something like $70.00 a night to stay, which includes breakfast and dinner, as well as a bunk. Some of the huts are "self-service" meaning there is little staff, and no meals are served. They cost considerably less.

There are also quite a few campsites and shelters with a resident care-taker in residence; these generally cost about $8.00 per night per person.

There is also plenty of off-trail tent camping, tho one should make sure one is doing this in an environmentally friendly "Leave No Trace" way; i.e. camp well off the Trail; away from water; avoid "hardened" (i.e semi-permanent) campsites; refrain from building a fire or fire ring; pack out everything you've brought with you; practice appropriate hygeine/sanitation; and essentially, make every effort to leave no visible trace of your overnight visit. One should also refrain from camping in sensitive areas (Wilderness areas; areas above treeline; areas too close to developed campsites, Huts, etc.) Obviously, one should refrain from over-nighting where signage specifically prohibits it. Those who knowingly break laws or National Forest regulations do so at their own risk and peril.

The botom line, tho, is that there are plenty of good places to camp in the Whites, and one is absolutely not required to pay the exorbitant prices set in place by the AMC at their high-end huts. The only people that pay this much money to overnight in the Whites are those who voluntarily choose to do so.

Youngblood
07-26-2004, 19:01
I thought it was a lot more difficult to find free off trail camping sites in the Whites than in any other area of the AT. Come to think of it, I think this was the only sizeable area on the AT where finding free camping was a problem. But, it could be one of those deals that if you know where it is at, then it isn't a problem. Obviously the flip side is that if you don't know where it is at, then it is a problem... it was a problem for me, it is often a sore point with thru-hikers and they come up with their own name for the AMC because of this.

Youngblood

Jack Tarlin
07-26-2004, 19:13
Youngblood---

You sure are right; there are plenty of easier places to find a campsite. But if people plan accordingly, study their maps and mileage charts, and look for site before darkness falls, you'd be surprised how many good places there are.....and many of them are very easily findable. At worst, one can get off of a high ridge and find a place down below treeline; admittedly this can be a pain in the ass and can involve a long hike down the ridge (and then back up it again in the nmorning), but if you give yourself enough time, there are plenty of places to stay.

P.S. Youngblood sensibly mentioned that the Whites were a lot easier if you knew in advance where the good sites were. I want to remind folks again that a public internet forum like this one is NOT the place to post the locations of these sites, especially the ones that are of questionable or debatable legitimacy. It is best that folks discover thses places on their own, or discreetly through private conversation or correspondence, as publicly listing these sites is a good way to get them patrolled or destroyed.

Alligator
07-26-2004, 20:09
Certainly does sound fishy. Jack (Tarlin), I just wanted to clarify something you mentioned, about
At worst, one can get off of a high ridge and find a place down below treeline; admittedly this can be a pain in the ass and can involve a long hike down the ridge (and then back up it again in the nmorning), but if you give yourself enough time, there are plenty of places to stay.Unless rules have changed, there is no camping above treeline except in winter. But the suggestion to come down off the ridgelines is a good one. Often, there are places available off the AT that are perfectly legitimate. The situation is analogous to the Smokies, where there are many sites located a short distance off the AT.

But Jack, I would say my best advice on this matter would be to consult the White Mountain Guide for current regs and maps.

Maybe someone could give it to him as a birthday present.

vggalan
07-26-2004, 20:44
Thanks guys. I'll fill him in next time he calls. I think he was freaked because he's been trying to keep the costs down. Hopefully, this'll ease his mind and he'll put that damn cell phone back in his pack. :)

smokymtnsteve
07-26-2004, 21:05
P.S. Youngblood sensibly mentioned that the Whites were a lot easier if you knew in advance where the good sites were. I want to remind folks again that a public internet forum like this one is NOT the place to post the locations of these sites, especially the ones that are of questionable or debatable legitimacy. It is best that folks discover thses places on their own, or discreetly through private conversation or correspondence, as publicly listing these sites is a good way to get them patrolled or destroyed.


Unless you are doing something illegal..or as you so delicatley put it, "questionable or debatable" ..then what is the problem with a public list?

Tramper Al
07-26-2004, 21:22
Vggalan,

Some of the replies are correct.

Does your friend have a trail guide and map for this section? He does need to plan ahead if he wants to continue cheap or free camping.

The expensive huts have 'work-for-stay' for thru-hikers (for the first one or two arrivals, but this is not guaranteed), and he should already have heard about that. It is obvious from the maps where these huts are.

The most challenging section for camping is the Presidentials. He will want to consider these sites, in order: Nauman, Perch. That will get him through and these and other sites are on all the maps. It is illegal to camp above treeline in the Presidentials, and this is as it should be.

Youngblood
07-27-2004, 09:47
Unless you are doing something illegal..or as you so delicatley put it, "questionable or debatable" ..then what is the problem with a public list?

Even though it is not obvious, I think Jack and I are in agreement on this thread. I was unprepared for finding campsites when I got to the Whites. I was used to campsites being right on the trail, easy to find, and no fees-- pretty much like it was up to that point on my nobo thru-hike. It is different in the Whites, you have 'homework' to do. I think if the stealth sites (and stealth means unnoticed, it doesn't mean illegal... illegal means illegal) where widely known, they would not stay stealth sites and the AMC would feel that they needed to do something with them, one way or the other, and they would no longer be available as free stealth sites.

Youngblood

Last comment: When I hiked through the Whites, I and the folks I was with were 1st timers. We were unprepared for the free camping situation in the Whites. (Yes, we read about it the guidebooks but it didn't sink-in as well as it should have.) It was different from what we were use to and it did frustrate us. If I were to do it again, I would do it differently... probably along the lines of what Jack suggests.

icemanat95
07-27-2004, 12:34
The biggest problem with the Whites is that the trail stays above treeline all along the Presidential massif. There simply are not that many options in finiding legal. above treeline spots to sleep. To avoid the Two Huts on the Presidential crest, you've got to be willing to either walk some serious miles, or you've got to be willing to get off the crest and down below treeline.

From the Nauman tent sites near Mitzpah Hut to the Madison Ridge tent sites, you are largely above treeline and totally exposed to the weather. It's rugged and generally rough going. When the wind is up, balance can be difficult and forward motion can be HARD. In a 90 MPH wind (pretty common really) you may well be reduced to crawling over some terrain so again, plan your time and note the possible escape routes. From around the Mt. Washington area, you can descend down the Jewell Trail on the North-west side or down into Tuckerman's Ravine either along the Tuckerman Ravine Trail or along the Lion's Head trail. There are a number of relatively inexpensive shelters in the Ravine at Hermit Lake Shelters. A nice site actually, but the climb back out is significant...not for a thru-hiker, but it'll put an extra hour onto your day.

From the Mt. Jefferson area, you can descend on the north side to The Perch Campsites which include a number of tent platforms and a small, enclosed lean-to. This site is administered by the Randolf Mountain Club and the fees are reasonable. From Thunderstorm Junction and the Mt. Adams area, you can descend down Lowe's Path to Gray Knob Cabin, a manned cabin (also an RMC facility. About 8 bucks a night, you must supply your own food and bedding. The Cabin has a full time caretaker all year round. It gets radio report weather and can be heated if the weather turns truly foul. I love Gray Knob cabin as a base for dayhiking in the area. You can sleep at the cabin at night and just carry a daypack to explore the area. VERY cool. Crag Camp is one trail junction further down the AT and a similar distance off the ridge. It is also an enclosed cabin, open in the winter, but has no woodstove and no caretaker. The caretaker from Gray Knob comes around once or twice a day to check in and collect fees. Both sites have composting toilets and good water. The hike down is pretty quick as well, so it's not that big a deal. The hike up is uphill, but it's not that hard for a trail hardened thru-hiker. There are multiple campsites both on and off trail as you descend down off of Madison into Pinkham Notch.

The Huts are very overpriced. Somehow they manage to run similar huts in the Alps at much more reasonable rates. Though I think those are government financed, which means that they probably cost as much to run, but the taxpayers pick up the majority of the tab allowing climbers and hikers to stay cheap. The AMC does not have that luxury.

I, like most hikers in the Whites, would like to see some more economical options across the Presidential massif, but there are significant complications involved.

The Whites do take more planning, but quite frankly, the fact that so much of it is above treeline in the alpine zone, as well as the exposure involved makes proper planning necessary anyhow. Thru Hikers hitting the Whites are really entering into an environment they haven't been in yet along the trail requiring a somewhat different approach. The planning needed to find safe and legal campsites in the Whites also makes you mindful of the special weather conditions to take into consideration.

It is a challenge rather than an obstruction.

oruoja
07-27-2004, 12:35
Am curious after hearing of several thru-hikers refusing to pay the GMC caretakers the $6.00 fee on the AT in Vt if this has happened at the "huts" in NH. I don't condone this or suggest this act as a way to get through the Whites, but am curious as to what the reaction and action by the staff has been to deal with this if in fact it does on seldom occasion occur.

Mags
07-27-2004, 13:34
Am curious after hearing of several thru-hikers refusing to pay the GMC caretakers the $6.00 fee on the AT in Vt occur.
Wow! That's kinda rude of the thru-hikers. Gives a bad name to all of us. In Vermont, it is very easy (esp. along the AT portion of the AT/LT corridor) to find alternative, free sites. Why give the caretaker a hard time? Just eat dinner at the site (no charge for that!), talk to the caretaker to get some info about the trail up ahead, grab some water and camp .25 up the trail. Easy peasy, mac n' cheesy. Easier than arguing with a caretaker and giving a bad name to thru-hikers. Less people, too.

As for free sites in the Whites: I was naive when I started backpacking. Did not know it was supposed to be hard to find sites in the Whites. So I naively would grab some water at 5-6 PM near the fee (and crowded!) campsites, hike up a bit and look around for a flat spot somewhere 40 paces or so off the trail and call it good for the night. You may have to hunt around, but if you look at the maps you can often tell where a candidate will be for a decent, off-trail site.

rafe
09-30-2008, 08:20
FWIW and FYI: I stayed at the Perch about 10 days ago. There are four tent platforms, and a shelter that holds about five or six hikers. Fee for the shelter was $7. There is little or no possibility of "stealth" camping in that neighborhood, unless you have a hammock. When I was there, all four tent platforms were occupied. Three of us shared the shelter. Water supply was a stream about 100 yards away, it was flowing quite nicely.

Peaks
09-30-2008, 16:50
Youngblood---

You sure are right; there are plenty of easier places to find a campsite. But if people plan accordingly, study their maps and mileage charts, and look for site before darkness falls, you'd be surprised how many good places there are.....and many of them are very easily findable. At worst, one can get off of a high ridge and find a place down below treeline; admittedly this can be a pain in the ass and can involve a long hike down the ridge (and then back up it again in the nmorning), but if you give yourself enough time, there are plenty of places to stay.

P.S. Youngblood sensibly mentioned that the Whites were a lot easier if you knew in advance where the good sites were. I want to remind folks again that a public internet forum like this one is NOT the place to post the locations of these sites, especially the ones that are of questionable or debatable legitimacy. It is best that folks discover thses places on their own, or discreetly through private conversation or correspondence, as publicly listing these sites is a good way to get them patrolled or destroyed.


I met up with a USFS ranger this past summer who claims that the USFS has all camping sites GPS'ed, including the illegal ones. So, if you do choose to tent, best to do so legally.

Homer&Marje
09-30-2008, 17:00
Good luck tenting up anywhere near the Twins or Galehead hut.... which by the way charges $80 a night to stay $91 (Forget what else is included for extra) The problem is that if you don't have a hammock, the ground is very soft spongy moss, but underneath are glacial boulders. Like walking on basketballs to find a spot 1/4 mile off the trail. Even with a hammock I imagine up in the higher timber lines, the trees are too small to hang from...then again I have not tried that yet.