PDA

View Full Version : Is joining the Appalachian Mountain Club a good idea?



cabalot
08-02-2004, 21:28
Is joining the Appalachian Mountain Club a good idea? does anyone here belong. does the membership fee go to the trail or to administrators?
any info on the club is appreciated.

Pencil Pusher
08-02-2004, 21:52
Beats me where the money goes, I was in the NY-NJ chapter and it was fun. Tons of social hikes during the summer, ranging from a walk in the park to a death march. They had multiple outings each weekend all over tarnation and 8+ people going in each group. It turned out to be a decent way to meet women too. They had other things to do besides hike, I think I recall kayak trips around Manhattan Island, city walks, etc. Well, I thought it was fun.

weary
08-02-2004, 21:57
Is joining the Appalachian Mountain Club a good idea? does anyone here belong. does the membership fee go to the trail or to administrators?
any info on the club is appreciated.

Well I joined 35 years or so ago. I was writing about hiking the Maine mountains and a member of the Maine Chapter showed up one day. He didn't criticize my stories. He just said they would be more accurate and interesting if I would read the AMC Guide Book and join the chapter. Which I did.

A few years later the club offered me a free honorary membership (I think it's called a "Corresponding" or something.) They thought a silly story I had written, claiming Maine had lost 400,000 acres of land that it had reserved when it sold the rest of the state's public domain warranted that honor.

Years later I lost my card and asked for a replacement. "Oh." I was told. "Almost no one around here remembers those, but I guess you are one." My "new" card is now two decades old. And I guard it carefully. I was told it's the only one the club had left.

Well, I've been a member ever since. And late years I've been producing the Maine Chapter's newsletter, since no one else wanted to.

I find AMC is basically a good organization. If I ever lose my free card, I might even pay to join.

As to your specific question, dues pays the people who run the organization and the costs of maintaining the trails in the White Mountains. AMC is the primary maintainer or trails in the 800,000 acre White Mountain National Forest. It has a professional trail crew and organizes many hundreds of volunteers to help.

Weary

Weary

MOWGLI
08-02-2004, 22:04
Is joining the Appalachian Mountain Club a good idea? does anyone here belong. does the membership fee go to the trail or to administrators?
any info on the club is appreciated.

I belong. It is a very good orgaization that has a commited staff, an excellent record of leading groups, and has a full time scientist studying the issue of air pollution. They do a great job protecting the overused White Mountains National Forest. I would recommend membership to anyone who enjoys hiking, and the social aspects of a club.

Lone Wolf
08-02-2004, 22:07
Can't hurt. I ain't a member of the ATC or AMC. Join em.

Lugnut
08-02-2004, 23:52
Cabalot, If you are close enough to make some contribution to the work of the club then fine, If not, then it's just another card taking up space in your wallet.

cabalot
08-03-2004, 20:56
thanks guys,
i live in NJ and plan to move to PA close to the trail.
i am interested in the social events of the club. is there much difference between the ATC and the AMC?

weary
08-03-2004, 21:34
thanks guys,
i live in NJ and plan to move to PA close to the trail.
i am interested in the social events of the club. is there much difference between the ATC and the AMC?

Enormous difference. ATC manages the trail and works with local clubs in maintaining the trail. It is not concerned with social events, aside from the comaraderie that comes from shared work goals.

AMC is basically a social club with science and trail maintenance side interests. It runs hikes, workshops, campsites, and is concerned with maintaining a clean enviroment that will make these activites attractive to members and customers. This is not an either, or situation. Both are useful and both need support if you can afford it.

Weary

Pirate
08-03-2004, 21:43
I used to be a member then stopped. Too many money grubbing lawyers ripping off hikers. Send money now, sign over your home, the ATC needs to money to buy new rocks.

Jack Tarlin
08-03-2004, 21:52
Actually, I give the AMC decidedly mixed reviews as to their care and protection of the White Mountains.

This is an incredibly over-used and fragile location, yet the Club spends thousands of dollars a year on glossy brochures and ads that encourage ignorant and ill-equipped folks to enter these areas; I personally don't think it's wise stewardship to entice people to visit a threatened, fragile area, unless they're properly equpipped and know what the hell they're doing.

It could also be added that the primary purpose of these ads is to encourgae city folks to stay in some of the AMC's high-end lodging, such as the "Hut" cabins found all thru the Whites, and the brand-new multi-million dollar facility recently opened at Crawford Notch. These facilities, by their very nature and cost, are elitist, classist, and exclusive, as the vast majority of folks who visit the Whites cannot afford to stay at them. One can quite easily question whether exclusive and exclusionary lodging places like these, which are essentially private clubs, are appropriate or have any place on public land.

It can further be stated that the cCub's insistence on maintaining and expanding the operation of these high-end facilities comes at the expense of folks on a limited budget; for several years the club has been in the process of expanding their high-end lodging options while doing very little in the way of expanding or improving such options as shelters, care-taker tentsites, etc.

Lastly, the club insists on operating out of a multi-million dollar turn of the century townhouse on Boston's Beacon Hill. The cost of maintaining this unnecessary facility is enormous, never mind the millions of dollars that could be immediately realized by selling the structure and moving to less opulent offices in a more appropriate location, such as New Hampshire. And lastly, they have a bloated, over-paid office staff; the salary of their executive Director approaches that of the U.S. President.

In short, while the AMC does a lot right, it does a lot wrong. I personally can't justify sending them money so they can tear down decades-old hostels and replace them with luxury hotels, nor do I want my dues to pay for brie and chablis parties at their Boston headquarters (and yeah, I used to be a member of the Boston chapter so I know what I'm talking about here), nor do I want to help maintain a system of high-cost faux European "hiker huts" that exists solely to serve as money-makers for the organization, and to provide their wealthy members a high-country hideaway that is effectively off-limits to 95% of the folks who enter the White Mountains.

To sum up: I'm no longer a member of the AMC and can't in conscience support them. I prefer to give extra time and money to the Appalachian Trail Conference, as I know the money will be spent wisely. Or failing the ATC, I'd sooner join or support such organizations as the Green Mountain Club or the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, two small organizations that do remarkable work with very limited financial and human resources. Or better yet, if you're interested in protecting the backcountry of Northern New England, I'd join them all.

The AMC will have me back as a member when they stop building backcountry palaces, stop catering primarily to the wealthy, stop pretending that the White Mountains exist essentially to serve as a playground for their members. Or to put it another way: I'll re-join the AMC when they return to paying attention to their 130 year old mission statement, which speaks of providing wise stewardship for the forests, mountains, and rivers of Northern New England. When the AMC returns to its roots, I'll return to them. Otherwise, I think that there are other organizations more worthy of our time, money, and support.

weary
08-03-2004, 21:54
I used to be a member then stopped. Too many money grubbing lawyers ripping off hikers. Send money now, sign over your home, the ATC needs to money to buy new rocks.

Pirate is a great guy with a wonderful sense of humor. He told me once about the great joke he would play on life guards in Florida. Having served in the Navy as an underwater specialist, he could hold his breath for minutes at a time.

His trick was to lay on the bottom of public swimming pools and when the lifeguards came down to rescue him, he would grab them and hold them under the water. A great funster that Pirate. But don't believe all he says.

Weary

Mr. Clean
08-04-2004, 05:55
I belong to the AMC and stay a member mostly because of the incredible amount of trail work that they do. Over 1300 miles of trails in the Whites alone. Yea, volunteers do most of the work, but the AMC organizes it all, has trail maintenance classes, and a whole network of folk who work together to make trail work happen. I maintain the South Baldface trail in NH and have done it for four years now, and have always had good experiences with them.
The reason I don't like them is kinda what Jack said, too much $ spent on what most hikers consider foolish things, although they did listen to us and open the hostel at Crawfords again.

ripple
08-04-2004, 08:09
AMC= Appalachian Money Club

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 10:22
And lastly, they have a bloated, over-paid office staff; the salary of their executive Director approaches that of the U.S. President.

In short, while the AMC does a lot right, it does a lot wrong. I personally can't justify sending them money so they can tear down decades-old hostels and replace them with luxury hotels...


Jack, you make some very good points. I agree with much of what you have to say. I just wanted to point out a couple of things I disagree with. When you say they have a "bloated over paid staff" I think you oversimplify the issue. I know many of the staff members at AMC and they are highly skilled and imminently qualified to work on recreation/conservation issues. I think they do a great job. They also have many many extraordinary volunteers. Jeff Hogan is one who comes to mind.

If you are going to attract highly skilled folks in Boston, MA, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you move outside of Boston (which you suggest) it becomes more difficult to attract quality talent. Not impossible by any means, but more difficult. Regarding the salary issue for the ED, the AMC has a membership exceeding 90,000, and they manage dozens of facilities throughout the northeast. Any organization that wants to survive in this economy and competitive environment (yes - the non-profit world is extremely competitive) needs to have a top quality leader. Compare Andy Falender's salary to other ED's & CEOs who manage an organization of 90,000+.

Concerning the allegation that the AMC has torn "down decades-old hostels and replace them with luxury hotels", if you are referring to the Highlands Center, they have not torn down the hostel. In fact, the hostel is up & running from my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jeffrey Hunter

Alligator
08-04-2004, 11:15
If you are going to attract highly skilled folks in Boston, MA, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you move outside of Boston (which you suggest) it becomes more difficult to attract quality talent. Not impossible by any means, but more difficult.
If the folks who work there truly believe what they write, finding talent willing to live outside of Boston should be a piece of cake. Especially since living closer to the source would improve the economic health of the region.

http://www.outdoors.org/about/index.cfm
"We promote the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Appalachian region. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. We encourage people to enjoy and appreciate the natural world because we believe that successful conservation depends on this experience. We fulfill our mission through the three interconnecting pillars of the AMC: conservation, education, and recreation.

weary
08-04-2004, 12:11
If the folks who work there truly believe what they write, finding talent willing to live outside of Boston should be a piece of cake. Especially since living closer to the source would improve the economic health of the region.

http://www.outdoors.org/about/index.cfm
"We promote the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Appalachian region. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. We encourage people to enjoy and appreciate the natural world because we believe that successful conservation depends on this experience. We fulfill our mission through the three interconnecting pillars of the AMC: conservation, education, and recreation.

REgardless of where they live competent people require a competitive salary or like the rest of us they will move on to other jobs. AMC was heading towards bankruptcy, when Andy Falender was hired. He has transformed the organization. His leadership has made AMC an active, vibrant, and financially sound organization.

I've worked with the club's middle leadership group for the past year, planning for the use of the AMC's 37,000 acres in Maine. I'm impressed with their ability and commitment.

I don't agree with everything AMC does. But on the whole they are a valuable resource for trails, the outdoors and conservation in the northeast.

Weary

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 12:28
If the folks who work there truly believe what they write, finding talent willing to live outside of Boston should be a piece of cake. Especially since living closer to the source would improve the economic health of the region.

http://www.outdoors.org/about/index.cfm
"We promote the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Appalachian region. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. We encourage people to enjoy and appreciate the natural world because we believe that successful conservation depends on this experience. We fulfill our mission through the three interconnecting pillars of the AMC: conservation, education, and recreation.


I think the bigger question is, is the AMC failing to fulfill it's mission? I think the answer to that question is a resounding NO. We may disagree about their strategy for satisfying their mission. Yes, they do promote recreation in the White Mountains. Yes, they do appeal to a more affluent constituency than most hiking clubs. If the AMC can engage some of those inner city, well-to-do folks, and empower them to change some of their habits and become influential in their resepective communities, than that IMO is a good thing. When you stay at an AMC facility, you are practically bombarded with information about conservation issues. I am familiar with many of those issues. Someone from Boston or New York City might not be. You can't fault the AMC for reaching out to those folks. I can't anyway. I would like to see them do more outreach to kids however.

If a hiker is really concerned about the AMC, and whether or not they are doing good work, you can get active and help make a difference.

On balance, I think the AMC does a very good job.

Alligator
08-04-2004, 12:44
REgardless of where they live competent people require a competitive salary or like the rest of us they will move on to other jobs.
Weary
Never said anything about not paying competitive salaries. Pay the same salary to a person in a more rural area than Boston. That salary becomes far more competive because the cost of living is much less. Housing costs are a wee bit different between Boston and any of many rural areas closer to the places the AMC seeks to protect. It shouldn't be at all difficult to retain individuals who are in tune with the quote I cited in my previous post.

"Gee, I can move away from the city, closer to the mountains and still be paid my Boston salary."

There certainly may be other reasons why the AMC facility is located in Boston. I am just taking exception to the suggestion that it is due to a need to attract qualified personnel. Other ravings and rantings need not apply.

walkin' wally
08-04-2004, 13:19
My daughter lives in Boston and I can say that it is incredibly expensive per month for her to live there. She has been down there 10 years. She has changed apartments several times.
I too would wonder why the AMC sees Boston as a proper headquarters for their organization.
I want to hike in New Hampsire soon but I can't afford the hut rate$.

Mags
08-04-2004, 13:31
My daughter lives in Boston and I can say that it is I want to hike in New Hampsire soon but I can't afford the hut rate$.
No need to stay in huts in while hiking in NH. Cut my backpacking teeth in the Whites and did not stay in a hut once until my thru-hike when I did "a work for stay".

As mentioned in another thread, though free camping in the Whites does require some more planning than other places, it can be done. Look at the map, gather water at the pay (and crowded) sites around 5 or 6PM (or whenever you want to call it day) and hike on about .25 mile or more.

Wish the huts were more like the Carter hut: caretaker who minds the hut, but otherwise it is self-serve.

Pencil Pusher
08-04-2004, 14:13
I do like accountability. It would be interesting to see some financial numbers, but unfortunately their 2003 'Annual Report' is a joke: http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/annualreport.pdf

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 14:46
I do like accountability. It would be interesting to see some financial numbers, but unfortunately their 2003 'Annual Report' is a joke: http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/annualreport.pdf


That is not a financial report. Those numbers are available if you want them. As far as the report being a joke, I have to disagree. There were lots of deliverables listed in the report. Compare & contrast the report with that of any other trail organization in the United States.

Of particular note is the AMC's Maine Woods Initiative. Some folks on this list would rather see the paper companies or developers take possesion of that land. I'm one who thinks those 37000+ acres are better off under AMC's stewardship. Thankfully we have a Whiteblaze member - our very own Weary - who is actively engaged in the planning for the Maine Woods project. Thanks for your time Weary. I appreciate it!

smokymtnsteve
08-04-2004, 17:38
The words of Eddie Abbey

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense. But men of intellect will believe anything-- if it appeals to their ego, their vanity, their sense of self-importance."


THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Jack Tarlin
08-04-2004, 18:22
Warning: Long Post. Ignore it if You're Not Interested


To Mowgli:

1. First off, the numbers you speak of AREN'T available to interested parties. On more than one occasion I've gone on to the AMC's website (which is read and seen by headquarters staff, publicity flacks, etc.) and asked such pointed, simple, direct questions as:

*What is the salary/compensation of the Club's directors and executive
officers?
*How much revenue does the Club derive from Hut/Hotel operations each
year?
*How much money does the Club spend each year to maintain this system,
i.e. salaries, maintenace, advertising, insurance, etc.
*What is the present assesed value of their Beacon Hill headquarters, and
what does it cost to annually maintain this building?
*What was the exact cost of the new Crawford Highlands facility?

In each and every case, these simple, direct questions were either ignored or
evaded. They were never answered, and it became apparent to me and others that the powers that be on Joy St. in Boston had no intention of answering them, or publicly discussing them. For you to say that the Club's fiscal operations and expenses are open and public knowledge and that this information is "available" is simply untrue. The information is most decidedly NOT available and the Club has made it clear that it has no intention of making it available. The Club is simply not interested in publicly acknowledging---never mind defending----how it spends its money.

2. The Club only replaced the hostel in Crawford Notch after intense and vocal opposition, and the threat of horrible publicity, resignations of membership, newspaper articles, etc. All of this could have been avoided if the Club engaged in any sort of dialogue beforehand with the public or its membership regarding the creation of the new facility and the destruction of the old one, but the Club never did this. It wasn't interested in anyone else's opinon. It wanted a multi-million dollar luxury facility built, and it didn't care who felt otherwise. In short, for you to inform us that the AMC cares about lower-cost facilities, and that the Crawford hostel is still running is disingenuous---it's there only because the Club was absolutley forced to re-open it; they'd much rather people paid top dollar to stay at their new facility, and they only re-opened the old one because of the threat
of massive bad publicity. If they truly cared about people of limited means
who depended on facilities like the old hostel, well, they'd have never closed it in the first place, or they'd have at least debated the issue with their members and the general public---which they didn't.

3. There is no tangible reason for the Club to be located in Downtown Boston, as there are no areas anywhere near Beacon Hill that have anything to do with the AMC's mission or responsibilities. The Club is based on Joy St. because it always has been....this goes back 130 years to the early days of the Club, when recreational trips to Northern New England were enjoyed only by the elite and well to do of Boston and its tonier suburbs. For you to say it's necessary that the Club keep its headquarters there is absurd----the only reason they do so is because most of their senior employees live in such exclsive suburbs as Weston, Dover, Wellesley, Brookline, etc., and it'd be an inconvenience for them to re-locate. Also, the Club is largely supported by its Boston chapter who view the Joy St. headquarters as something of a clubhouse; many functions are held there (the Boston chapter is largely a yupscale social/dating club), and they'd be outraged if the Club relocated. The idea that the club needs to be close to the State House in order to connect with press, politicians, lobbyists, movers and shakers,etc., is ridiculous......the Club has few holdings or enterprises in Massachuesetts. If this excuse were valid, the Club would more properly be in Concord, NH.

4. The statement that the Club is adhering to its original mission statement can also be debated: What is served by encouraging ill-prepared and ill-equipped yuppies to venture into one of the most fragile ecosystems in the Northeast? What is served by maintaining a multi-million dollar headquarters hundreds of miles away from the Club's areas of interest? What message does this send to the permanent inhabitants of these areas, in rural New Hampshire and Maine? I can tell you, as a New Hampshire resident, that the Club's insistence on retaining its Boston base has alienated all sorts of folks....whenever the Club gets involved in a "local" land-use issue, whether it's the expansion of a ski resort, or changes in National Forest policy, the reaction of locals is predictable and vocal. They say "Who are you to tell us what we should do with our land?" "Why do you think your sentiments are more important than those of us who live and work here? Imagine, if you will, that a wealthy suburb of Boston, such as Newton or Belmont, was deciding what to do with one of their last parcels of open land. Let us further imagine that there was a town meeting held, where various folks could stand up and speak their piece on what was best for the land. Now let's imagine that someone stood up and stated that for various environmental reasons, the land parcel was best left undeveloped, or restored to wetland status, or left free from all development. Now let's imagine that this speech was followed by a local resident saying "That's all well and good, you seem very well informed, but who are you and what qualifies you to tell us what we should do with our open land?" And what do you think happens when the "expert" says "I'm a biologist and agronomist from Bethlehem, New Hampshire." Well, I'll tell you what would happen, cuz I've seen it : The locals would quite rightly say "You sound like you know what you're talking about and we respect your opinion, but who the hell are you to tell us what to do with our land and properties here in suburban Boston? What makes you so special that we should listen to you, in that you don't live here, work here, pay taxes here, raise your family here, and so on?"
Yet this is what happens ALL the time when the AMC gets involved in a controversy in New Hampshire or Maine. No matter how many experts and scientists they bring in, they're always viewed as a bunch of dilletante Bostonians who view the White Mountains as their playground, and who insist on telling ignorant locals what is best for the North Country.
All of this could be avoided if the Club sold off Joy St. and relocated to New Hampshire, preferably the Gorham area. When Club officials and officers got involved in local issues, it'd be imposssible to call them meddlesome outsiders. They'd be seen as locals, with a vested interest in the local area. And it'd be tougher to take issue with, or criticize someone, if he was your neighbor, a member of your church, or coached your daughter's soccer team. In short, there'd be all sorts of benefits in re-locating the Club outside of Boston, but the Club refuses to do it----it'd be inconvenient to Club officers and officials, and it'd piss off the Boston Chapter, as they'd lose their Joy. St. funhouse.

4. Lastly, Mowgli, I fully acknowledge that the Club does a great deal of good. But in the high country of the White Mountains, in their insistence on
spending such an inordinate ammount of their time and resources on catering to a tiny fraction of the population, i.e. their members and other wealthy individuals---I feel they've lost their way, and I must disagree with you when you say they're adhering to their mission statement. The Hut/Hotel system that the Club embraces, defends, and expands, is an insult to the 95% of the visitors to the area that can't make use of it----were these exclusionary practices to be based on racial or religious or sexual identity guidelines, the Club's facilities would be closed in a day and they'd be sued to hell and back. Yet they're permitted to run high-end facilities on public land that are absolutely exclusionary and elitist but nobody says anything because the "exclusionary" practices are economic and not racial, religious, etc. In short, they run facilities that are essentially closed to nearly all of the users of the White Mountains, and this is simply wrong.
The mission statement of the Club speaks of the wise use of Northern backcountry resources. I submit that running private hotels and clubs; that refusing to expand facilities for people of lesser means; that re-opening such facilities only when browbeaten into doing so; that maintaining a luxury townhouse headquarters miles away from their area of interest; that keeping a bloated and top-heavy staff that refuses to vacate their tony Boston suburbs; that maintaining policies that insure that the Club will forever be viewed as meddlesome, spoiled, arrogant city folks intent on telling local folks how to handle their affairs----in insisting on doing all this, I think the Club is abandoning its mission statement, and until it adresses these issues, I cannot continue to financially support them.

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 20:56
Warning - super long interesting article entitled A Rough Stretch of Trail by David Hobbs to follow from the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics website at http://www.fseee.org

"If you’ve spent much time in the White Mountain National Forest of New Hampshire, you likely know about the Appalachian Mountain Club. Perhaps you obtained maps, directions or a meal; took a nature walk at the AMC’s Pinkham Notch visitors center; hiked a few of the 1,200 miles of trails the club works to maintain; bunked in one of its seven alpine huts; or, if your luck ran out, had your fanny saved by one of the search-and-rescue crews it helps staff.

If so, you joined the millions who benefit each year from one of the U.S. Forest Service’s longest-running partnerships. Many national forests depend on private concessionaires to perform a variety of functions, but perhaps no other forest relies as heavily on a private group as the White Mountain National Forest does on the AMC. As the primary provider of recreation and interpretive services at the popular national forest (6 million visitors annually), the club directly serves more than 300,000 people each year through its huts and its visitors center (the largest one on the forest) and indirectly serves millions more through its trail work. The influence of the club is so ubiquitous at the 780,000-acre forest that it’s hard to imagine the place without it.

These days, as the shift toward Forest Service partnerships with commercial recreation vendors breeds concern about the “Disneyfication” of public lands, the AMC - White Mountain National Forest partnership seems an attractive, not to mention time-tested, alternative.

But the partnership is far from a controversy-free alliance. Over the past decade, a local backlash against the AMC’s growing environmental advocacy has greatly complicated the relationship—and angered rural residents living near the forest. A current example is the group’s vocal backing of President Clinton’s proposal to protect 43 million acres of national forest roadless areas. Although the vast majority of these pristine lands are in the West, some are in the eastern part of the country, including the White Mountain National Forest. A vocal contingent of northern New Hampshire residents wants to see the White Mountain National Forest exempted from the plan.

“[The AMC’s] lack of understanding about the surrounding communities has put both them and the Forest Service in a difficult position,” says Ned Therrien, a spokesman for the White Mountain National Forest from 1970 to 1995 and an active club member for much of that time. “It’s too bad. Because otherwise it’s just the sort of [public-private sector] relationship you’d want.”

The club was formed in 1876 by Bostonians who, responding to the romanticism of nature that was in vogue then, had taken to traveling north—on train tracks laid to carry logs south—to hike the Whites, New England’s highest range and the only one with extensive area above treeline. The hikers formed the AMC initially for mountaineering companionship and support. In 1888, they built the club’s first hut, in the col between Mounts Adams and Madison. Over the following decades, they built six more, as well as, in 1920, the Pinkham Notch visitors center, which became the club’s White Mountain headquarters (the main AMC offices remained in Boston).

The AMC’s interest in recreation inevitably spawned advocacy, as the sensibility that found beauty in the Whites clashed with the harsh reality of nineteenth-century timber harvesting. Appalled by the scope and intensity of the logging, the AMC played a key role in persuading Congress to pass the Weeks Act of 1911, which established the White Mountain and other eastern national forests. Yet even as the AMC delved into policy arenas, its soul remained the hut and trail system it had established in the Whites.

The Forest Service, for its part, found the AMC integral to its White Mountain operations because the club provided in abundance what are now deemed “recreation services”—trails, lodging, maps, supplies, rescue services and advice. In recognition of these services, the agency charged the club members no fee to use the forest or its facilities. This partnership was formalized in 1934 with a thirty-year special-use permit. In 1965, a renewal extended the arrangement another thirty years, allowing the club to operate its hut system and the visitor center at Pinkham Notch “for the purpose of furnishing meals, lodgings, and minor commissary items to the general public” and authorizing it to levy charges “no greater than necessary and equitable to repay the reasonable cost of operations and maintenance and of services furnished.”

For most of the twentieth century, the club ran its White Mountain facilities very much in a public servant spirit, which sat just fine with area residents. The club sometimes engaged in advocacy, pushing for expansions of the forest, weighing in on forest plans and supporting the landmark Wilderness Act of 1964. But any local resentment raised by this work—and by the yearly summer invasion of well-heeled hikers “from away”—was quieted by the tourist dollars the club’s amenities drew.

The hiking boom of the 1970s and 1980s made the AMC even more indispensable to the Forest Service and resulted in an increase in the club’s professional and volunteer staff, an expansion of the visitors center, and a growing menu of educational and interpretive programs.

But the larger club stumbled. It overextended itself with environmental initiatives and a couple of land purchases (some in the White Mountains, some elsewhere) that left it debt-ridden. Meanwhile, membership numbers stagnated as the organization found itself hobbled, in an age of increasing environmental activism, by its image as a tweedy, old-fashioned New England hiking group—“old Dartmouth people with knobby knees,” as one observer characterized the stereotype. The club grew much more slowly than other environmental groups did at the time, as potential members joined more dynamic organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Even those of a more traditional bent found environmentally active regional groups, such as the Society for the Protection for New Hampshire Forests and state Audubon societies, more attractive.

A sign of the growing environmental awareness came in the late 1980s, when the surrounding region—the 26 million acres of hardwood and spruce-fir forest covering upstate New York and northern New England—was dubbed by local and national environmental organizations as “the Northern Forest,” a bioregion threatened by overcutting and sprawl. The AMC was not at the forefront of this initiative—which essentially sought to slow development of the entire area. Not long after its 100th anniversary, the club was in danger of becoming a fringe player in a critical debate about the future of the entire region.

In 1989, club leaders moved to remedy that. They hired a new director, Andy Falender, and filled a new policy position, director of conservation, with a smart young activist named Steve Blackmer. During the 1990s this new team succeeded in expanding the club’s membership from 35,000 to 80,000, tightening its operations and bottom line and making the AMC a key player in the intensifying debate about how to protect the national forest and the surrounding region. The AMC was back, and bigger than ever.

Unfortunately, by making itself a major player in regional environmental politics, the AMC stirred up a good deal of local resentment. While the trouble played itself out in a confusing swirl of events, hindsight makes it possible to pick out a few key causes.

One factor was the Northern Forest initiative, which had become a hot button issue. Residents long accustomed to solitude (and to thinking of themselves as living in the North Country rather than the Northern Forest) were growing uneasy about several things: the buying up of “wilderness lots” by wealthy outsiders; accelerating, often destructive timber harvesting, even as log exports and papermill automation reduced jobs; and the growing attention given the region by environmental groups and state and federal regulatory agencies.

“Big changes were happening fast,” says Blackmer, who left the AMC in 1998 (amicably) to found the Northern Forest Center, a research group. “AMC didn’t drive those changes. But we became the messengers who got shot.

“Plus,” concedes Blackmer, with the sort of chuckle that distance allows, “as Reagan once put it, 'Mistakes were made.’ That is, the AMC—by which I include myself—bumbled some things. The FERC thing, for starters.”

The “FERC thing” was a blowup over the AMC’s participation in the early 1990s in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s repermitting process for a dam on the Androscoggin River owned by the James River Paper Company. Despite shedding a couple of thousand jobs over the previous two decades, James River’s paper mill in nearby Berlin was still the county’s biggest employer. The AMC and other groups sought to condition the dam’s relicensing on (among other things) the conservation of company land some twenty miles distant. Though this condition rose from both ecological logic and political precedent, it struck many residents as holding the company’s health—and jobs—hostage to an environmental agenda. The move infuriated many locals. When the AMC neglected to send a representative to a key hearing, the occasion became an AMC bashing session that attracted wide press coverage and fanned the flames of smoldering resentment.

“The whole thing made it seem the AMC didn’t care to pay attention to local concerns, legitimate or otherwise,” says Jamie Sayen, an environmental activist and wilderness advocate who lives in nearby Stratford. “By the time the AMC woke up, they had a real problem.”

Indeed they did. In 1994, the heat over the dam relicensing grew so intense that the AMC removed itself from the whole process. By then the controversy over the club’s handling of the matter had galvanized a rather formidable coalition of AMC critics. Two of the most energetic and effective, Mike Waddell and Bruce Sloat, were former AMC employees whose knowledge of the club’s White Mountain operations, coupled with their history of work in other local civic and governmental bodies, made them forceful adversaries. Both men, as well as a handful of other determined critics, such as David Guernsey, a selectman in nearby Kingfield, Maine, and Fred King, another prominent local official, spent hundreds, possibly thousands, of hours in the 1990s holding the club’s feet to the fire—supported at least in part by local residents who shared some of their complaints.

Club defenders dismiss the most strident AMC critics as ideologues grinding personal axes—a criticism seemingly buttressed by the critics’ vehemence. They also say that many of the complaints came from disgruntled former employees. Edith Tucker, a local journalist, said several ex-workers felt mistreated as the group grew into a larger organization. “[A lot of] former AMC employees [and] volunteers [felt] they were ill used as the club profession-alized its operations. People who used to write for their guidebook, for instance, and now they don’t because the club hired professionals to write it, and no one ever thanked them for all those years they did it for free. People who feel the club moved into a different economic reality, a focus on getting bigger, and began acting differently.”

The stew of resentments, rallied and sharpened by the FERC flap, soon found a new focal point: the AMC’s 1995 application for renewal of its thirty-year hut permit. Critics forced a full-scale review of the application, including the production of an environmental impact statement that took the AMC until 1998 to complete.

Those who pressed for a vigorous review were in part playing a game of turnabout-is-fair-play. The AMC’s critics took advantage of the time-consuming review process that conservation groups, including the AMC, had so often utilized to try to stop or delay projects. Still, there was a legitimate environmental concern: the impact of the AMC’s network of huts on the fragile, high-altitude ecosystem in which they are situated. But that issue was overshadowed by the claim, pursued vigorously by AMC critics, that the club improperly used its White Mountain facilities to fund and propagate an agenda hostile to local concerns.

The complaint boiled down to three basic charges:

1) The club had abused the terms of its 1965 permit by conducting both sales and advocacy activities far beyond the furnishing of “meals, lodgings, and minor commissary” the permit specified.

2) The club abused its privileged position on federal land (and its de facto monopoly on the hut business) by conducting advocacy activities contrary to the forest’s public mission.

3) The organization cooked its hut-system books to hide profits (estimated by Sloat and others at about a million dollars) that funded the advocacy work.

The Forest Service took these charges seriously enough to require a full-blown review of the permit—but not enough to deny the permit itself. Forest Supervisor Donna Hepp’s April 1999 decision (upheld later by the agency’s regional office) refuted the critics’ main arguments, noting that the AMC’s audited financial statements, far from proving that the club was hiding profits, showed that the AMC was losing money on its White Mountain facilities. As for the claim that the club was improperly pushing its environmental agenda, Hepp noted that as long as the AMC didn’t violate IRS limitations on the lobbying activities of nonprofit organizations, the group could say whatever it wanted in its programs.

Hepp did place new financial reporting requirements on the club. She also directed the club to take steps to make its huts more environmentally friendly—such as upgrading waste disposal and water treatment systems and ending the club’s midsummer helicopter supply flights (which had generated complaints about noise). But Hepp allowed the club to continue to operate the huts—and to continue the education and environmental research that so irked its critics. She justified this portion of her decision on the principle of free speech and the “net public benefit to the overall AMCÐForest Service partnership and the public.” If AMC critics wanted the club’s activities radically curbed or ended, they would have to wait until the permit came up for renewal again in 2025.

With the permit issue settled, the question now is not whether the AMCÐForest Service partnership will exist but how much political friction it will produce.

Only time will tell. The club has launched several programs to improve relationships with local communities, helping create environmental curricula for schools, supporting a Northern Forest Heritage Museum that celebrates the forest-based economy and culture, and working with the city of Berlin to create a business development center designed to grow new, low-impact businesses. With this work under way and the permit in hand, club officials hope for smoother going.

“Though I can’t say we were glad to go through all this,” says AMC deputy director and Pinkham Notch director Walter Graff, “we see it as a plus now. It taught us a lot—particularly that we need to do a better job working with the local communities—and gave us credibility. Are the wounds healed? That will take awhile. But I think we’re through the worst of it.”

Perhaps. But already another controversy is brewing, this time over AMC support of the Forest Service’s proposal to protect 43 million acres of unroaded lands. That stand has confirmed in the minds of many locals the suspicion that the club, despite its stated support for continued harvesting on the rest of the White Mountain National Forest, in truth supports a no-cut agenda.

The prospect of more such issues has some observers assessing the trail ahead as rather rough and steep.

“There’s a philosophical divide here that won’t go away easily,” says Tucker, the reporter. “Those that live here think the woods are to be used, and they’ll tell you that’s the way God intended it. There are people with the AMC who also think they know what God intended for these woods. The two ideas don’t necessarily match.”

TJ aka Teej
08-04-2004, 21:17
thanks guys,
i live in NJ and plan to move to PA close to the trail.
i am interested in the social events of the club. is there much difference between the ATC and the AMC?Hi Cabalot,
Consider joining the local AT maintaining club where you move to. The big difference between the ATC and the AMC is that the ATC supports the Appalachian Trail and the AMC supports the AMC.

Teej

TJ aka Teej
08-04-2004, 21:30
Of particular note is the AMC's Maine Woods Initiative.Mowgli,
You do know that the AMC is allowing liquidation logging to continue and is planning considerable "outdoor recreational" development, don't you? I'd prefer to see the land preserved, rather than further exploited, but under Maine's current Governor that's completely out of the question.


Some folks on this list would rather see the paper companies or developers take possesion of that land.Really?? Gov Baldacci and his Paper Industry pals are on this list??

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 21:33
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Jack. I'd like to respond to a couple of your assertions.



1. First off, the numbers you speak of AREN'T available to interested parties. On more than one occasion I've gone on to the AMC's website (which is read and seen by headquarters staff, publicity flacks, etc.) and asked such pointed, simple, direct questions as:

*What is the salary/compensation of the Club's directors and executive
officers?

Although I work for a non-profit, I do not profess to be an expert on non-profit financial disclosure. I am fairly new to my job having worked for Verizon for 19 years up until 2003.

There are certain things that an organization that files an IRS form 990 must disclose. I don't believe that the salaries of the individual employees is one of those things. For instance, you have a right to see the IRS form 990 data for the organization I work for, but you will not find my salary listed anywhere. In fact, I don't know what my co-workers make, and for that matter, I don't care. If someone is put off by the high salary paid to the ED of the AMC, it is your right to not support that group. I take my hat off to anyone passionate enough to think about these issues so critically.

Here's a link to some financial information from the AMC's IRS form 990;

http://www.guidestar.org/networkforgood/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=223306



2. The Club only replaced the hostel in Crawford Notch after intense and vocal opposition... In short, for you to inform us that the AMC cares about lower-cost facilities, and that the Crawford hostel is still running is disingenuous---it's there only because the Club was absolutley forced to re-open it; they'd much rather people paid top dollar to stay at their new facility, and they only re-opened the old one because of the threat
of massive bad publicity.

Jack, I was not trying to be "disingenuous". I was simply pointing out that the hostel was not razed as you had implied in your earlier post.



3. There is no tangible reason for the Club to be located in Downtown Boston, as there are no areas anywhere near Beacon Hill that have anything to do with the AMC's mission or responsibilities. The Club is based on Joy St. because it always has been....this goes back 130 years to the early days of the Club, when recreational trips to Northern New England were enjoyed only by the elite and well to do of Boston and its tonier suburbs. For you to say it's necessary that the Club keep its headquarters there is absurd...

Jack, with all due respect, I never said that "it's necessary that the Club keep its headquarters there". It's a business decision that has it's benefits. I don't profess to know the reasoning for them maintaining that building.



4. The statement that the Club is adhering to its original mission statement can also be debated: What is served by encouraging ill-prepared and ill-equipped yuppies to venture into one of the most fragile ecosystems in the Northeast? What is served by maintaining a multi-million dollar headquarters hundreds of miles away from the Club's areas of interest? What message does this send to the permanent inhabitants of these areas, in rural New Hampshire and Maine? I can tell you, as a New Hampshire resident, that the Club's insistence on retaining its Boston base has alienated all sorts of folks....whenever the Club gets involved in a "local" land-use issue, whether it's the expansion of a ski resort, or changes in National Forest policy, the reaction of locals is predictable and vocal.

See the very long article that I posted from the FSEEE website. That lends some additional perspective to the resentment of the AMC by "locals". If what is listed in the FSEEE article is true, I like an organization that takes a stand on roadless issues and I like their position on the FERC deal (perhaps not their approach). Conservation easements are negotiated all the time during FERC re-licensing. There was recently a large easment acquired from ALCOA just south of Great Smoky Mountain NP as a result of a FERC relicensing process. BTW, FSEEE is an outstanding organization. They defend federal employees who are whistle blowers. They do some great stuff.



4. Lastly, Mowgli, I fully acknowledge that the Club does a great deal of good. But in the high country of the White Mountains, in their insistence on
spending such an inordinate ammount of their time and resources on catering to a tiny fraction of the population, i.e. their members and other wealthy individuals---I feel they've lost their way, and I must disagree with you when you say they're adhering to their mission statement. The Hut/Hotel system that the Club embraces, defends, and expands, is an insult to the 95% of the visitors to the area that can't make use of it...

Well, I have to agree with some of what you say here. To lend some perspective to my views, when I went through the Whites in 2000 during my thru-hike, I had a horrible experience at Galehead Hut. I was steaming mad when I left that place. Thankfully the Croo at Lake of the Clouds restored my faith in the organization. Subsequent professional interactions with members of AMC's Staff has further won me over.

In closing, each person has a right to support the non-profit organizations that they believe in. The AMC, by many of their policy and business decisions, is never going to be universally liked. I respect your opinions Jack. I just disagree with a few of them. Thanks for expressing your opinions here on this great site.

Jeffrey Hunter
aka Little Bear GA-ME 2000

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 21:43
Mowgli,
You do know that the AMC is allowing liquidation logging to continue and is planning considerable "outdoor recreational" development, don't you? I'd prefer to see the land preserved, rather than further exploited, but under Maine's current Governor that's completely out of the question.


TJ, we've been down this road on an earlier thread, so I am not going to try and change your opinions (or Bluejays) about the AMC. Yes, I am aware that some logging is to take place after the AMC took ownership of the property.

Here is my question for you. If the AMC did not buy the land, what organization with a better plan than AMC was prepared to do so?

You see, I am a pragmatist. I prefer the AMC to own the land than Boise Cascade or International Paper, and I am glad that your nemesis Weary is involved in the process to shape the management of those lands. I think Weary's heart is in the right place. For that matter, I think yours is too. I respect your idealism.

Jeffrey Hunter

smokymtnsteve
08-04-2004, 21:56
The words of Eddie Abbey

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense. But men of intellect will believe anything-- if it appeals to their ego, their vanity, their sense of self-importance."


THANKS BE TO ABBEY!


Eddie Abbey , forever and forever...and so it is!

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 22:11
Eddie Abbey , forever and forever...and so it is!

SMS, as Andy said to the warden in Shawshank Redemption, "how can you be so obtuse?".

That quote is also pretty funny considering you are the #1 poster here at Whiteblaze.

TJ aka Teej
08-04-2004, 22:22
Here is my question for you. If the AMC did not buy the land, what organization with a better plan than AMC was prepared to do so?
The land was never on the open market, so no organization other than the AMC was in a postion to make any plans. The AMC, the logging interests, and Gov Baldacci freely crafted a deal that suited their personal needs. The Little Lyford Pond Camps owners had sought out the AMC as a buyer, not wanting to put the property on the open market where some one like Roxanne Quimbly or North Woods National Park supporters might buy it. Here's a question for you. If the AMC helps to cut down a forest, is that better than no one cutting down a forest?

smokymtnsteve
08-04-2004, 22:23
SMS, as Andy said to the warden in Shawshank Redemption, "how can you be so obtuse?".

maybe this will be clearer



Although I work for a non-profit, I do not profess to be an expert on non-profit financial disclosure. I am fairly new to my job having worked for Verizon for 19 years up until 2003.


New to non-profits, huh...I'm not.


There are certain things that an organization that files an IRS form 990 must disclose. I don't believe that the salaries of the individual employees is one of those things. For instance, you have a right to see the IRS form 990 data for the organization I work for, but you will not find my salary listed anywhere. In fact, I don't know what my co-workers make, and for that matter, I don't care. If someone is put off by the high salary paid to the ED of the AMC, it is your right to not supportthat group. I take my hat off to anyone passionate enough to think about these issues so critically.

Here's a link to some financial information from the AMC's IRS form 990;

http://www.guidestar.org/networkfor...=1&npoId=223306

I'm quite sure you are LEGALLY correct.


Jack, with all do respect, I never said that "it's necessary that the Club keep its headquarters there". It's a business decision that has it's benefits. I don't profess to know the reasoning for them maintaining that building.


Again you are CORRECT. It is a business decision that you don't know the reason for. I agree with you. do you think it is a good reason or a bad reason?

I could go on Jeff but actually I'm more interested in wether the Eddie Abbey book got to you yet...being the real conservative that I am I mailed it "BOOK RATE" you know that cheap media rate...sometimes it takes a while but It'll get there...you just have to have faith in the system.

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 22:30
Sorry Steve, you are still being obtuse. I'm from New York. Be straightforward. I can handle it.

smokymtnsteve
08-04-2004, 22:35
Sorry Steve, you are still being obtuse. I'm from New York. Be straightforward. I can handle it.


I could go on Jeff but actually I'm more interested in wether the Eddie Abbey book got to you yet...being the real conservative that I am I mailed it "BOOK RATE" you know that cheap media rate...sometimes it takes a while but It'll get there...you just have to have faith in the system. :D

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 22:37
I could go on Jeff but actually I'm more interested in wether the Eddie Abbey book got to you yet...being the real conservative that I am I mailed it "BOOK RATE" you know that cheap media rate...sometimes it takes a while but It'll get there...you just have to have faith in the system.


I got the book Steve, thanks. I'll be sure to pass it along to another hiker when I am done with it. In fact, I'll be hiking from Newfound Gap to Davenport Gap next week. I'll bring the book with me, and try to finish it during the trip.

weary
08-04-2004, 22:38
Mowgli,
You do know that the AMC is allowing liquidation logging to continue and is planning considerable "outdoor recreational" development, don't you? I'd prefer to see the land preserved, rather than further exploited, but under Maine's current Governor that's completely out of the question.


My role over the decades has been to try to keep the debate honest. Therefore I must reply to this latest assault by TJ on truth.

I have been a critic of many AMC efforts over the years. But I also know that TJ's claim that "AMC is allowing liquidation logging to continue" is totally without foundation. AMC has hired the most conservative and responsible forest management group in Maine to plan harvesting on a third of its newly acquired Maine acres.

If TJ has evidence that J. M. Huber Co. , the company AMC has hired to plan for its newly acquired forest lands, either has a history of liquidation harvesting, or wants AMC to engage in such, he should give us some details.

Everything I know suggests that this, like some other TJ proclamations, is largely a figment of his imagination. TJ. There is wise harvesting of forests and unwise harvesting.

I, and I suspect TJ, would prefer no harvesting. But sensible people recognize that there is a range of harvesting techniques -- none of which in reality represent liquidation except for the occasional mall development. Maine's climate is such that trees just naturally want to grow and will grow in Maine, absent pavement.

For most there is a continuum of harvesting, ranging from concern with long range forest harvesting profits and short term profits.

Most of those involved in sales of forest lands in Maine in recent years are almost entirely concerned with short term profits -- the hell with the future.

AMC and a few other environmental organizations are among the few concerned with the future of these lands. TJ is often a wise purveyor of information on this and other forums. That makes his occasional totally off the wall, inaccurate proclamations so destructive.

Weary

smokymtnsteve
08-04-2004, 22:45
I got the book Steve, thanks. I'll be sure to pass it along to another hiker when I am done with it. In fact, I'll be hiking from Newfound Gap to Davenport Gap next week. I'll bring the book with me, and try to finish it during the trip.

I've done that section many times, I worked as a caretaker at Ice H2o a couple years ago...I'm real interested in hearing how the new remodel at tri-ccorner is going. Tri-corner is one of my favorite place...blackberries won't be ripe there yet I don't think you may see a few...maybe

Remember to sneak out to Cammerer, you'll be having the waning moon and maybe you could see an early morning cresent right before sunrise.

Have a great trip ;)

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 22:52
Here's a question for you. If the AMC helps to cut down a forest, is that better than no one cutting down a forest?

TJ, again I admire your idealistic outlook (really). As I said earlier, I am a pragmatist. Since the North Woods National Park is politically DOA, I think the AMC might be the best custodian of the land. BTW, Ms. Quimby is someone I admire. I like her vision.

To add a little more perspective, I was arrested some years ago for civil disobedience relating to logging. I also was picked up by a logger in his logging truck near Andover, ME during my hike in 2000. He was a really nice guy. We talked about logging practices in Maine. My point? All logging is not bad. It's not all bad for the environment, it's not all bad for biodiversity, and it's not all bad for people. Some of the logging practices in Maine are clearly bad.

BTW, I don't have enough info to answer your question. It's not that simple. Sometimes logging can be beneficial.

MOWGLI
08-04-2004, 23:54
Again you are CORRECT. It is a business decision that you don't know the reason for. I agree with you. do you think it is a good reason or a bad reason?



I have been thinking about this question. Is the AMC's decision to maintain it's office on Joy Street a good business decision, or a bad business decision?

Let me put my corporate hat on for a few minutes... First of all, any business, non-profit or for-profit, has to be customer focused if they want to survive. If the majority of the AMC's members live in the Boston area, it might make very good sense to keep the office. I don't know where most of the AMC's 90,000+ members live. I suspect a good number of them live in the Boston metro-area. If that is true, you have to be close to your constituency in order to serve them. I hope they are doing outreach to kids in the Boston City School District.

From a purely financial perspective, there are few investments that have outperformed real estate in the past few decades. If the AMC had sold their building in the late 70s, or early 90s, they'd probably be kicking themselves for what they lost in potential value on their investment.

Another factor is travel costs. If the AMC's Executive Director and the other Staff spend much of their time meeting with members and other folks in the Boston area, then maintaining a local presence might make sense. In my work with the National Park Service, one of the biggest considerations when considering working on a project is travel costs. Not just in terms of airfare,car rental and hotel expenses, but also in lost productivity for their employees while they are traveling.

I hope that provides a few things for y'all to consider.

I apologize for being so long winded tonight. I like a good debate however, and this is a topic that is near & dear to me.

Jeffrey Hunter

Tramper Al
08-05-2004, 08:58
The big difference between the ATC and the AMC is that the ATC supports the Appalachian Trail and the AMC supports the AMC.
Yawn. This sure is getting old.

Blue Jay
08-05-2004, 20:38
Yawn. This sure is getting old.

I disagree, this has been one of the best, sensible, interesting discussions I have ever read on this site. Clearly, an uninformed individual could make an informed decision as to where to send his or her hard earned money after reading this thread. Thank you to all of you.

Jack Tarlin
08-05-2004, 22:47
I was glad to read Mowgli's posts; it provided an interesting perspective.

However, I'm still forced to stand by my original contention, which is that the Club is out of touch, and instead of reaching out (to people of limited means, to rural New England communities, etc.), the Club is still as inusular, elitist, and exclusive as it always was. It's relentless campaign to get the Highland Center built, despite opposition to it within and outside the Club is an excellent example. (The Club also repeatedly mis-led local residents and businessmen about the scope and size of the project, food and beverage plans, i.e. the pursuit of a liquor license, etc). It would not be far off to say that many neighbors of the Center were incensed with the Club's actions before and after this place was being built. If the Club is truly interested in mending their ways in regards to how they're perceived in rural New Hamshire, well they sure screwed the pooch as far as the Highland Center was concerned.

Despite the suggestion that the Club has turned away from its elitist, patrician past, and is interested in making outreaches to folks other than its members, I have to disagree. If thei were so, then why was this monstrousity of a place ever built, and why has the Club never publicly ackmowledged what it cost to build?

And talking about the Club's outreach programs is also a thin argument, when one remembers how exclusive most of the Club's facilities actually are. To this day, there's still a ridiculously goo-goo, politically correct sign outside all of the AMC's huts, which magnanimously points out that the club and its facilities don't discriminate on religious, ethnic, or socio-economic criteria. I'm not kidding, the signage actually says this. How ludicrous to speak of their socio-economic sensitivity when the majority of their facilities in the high country were designed to cater to the well-to-do; the Club is perfectly aware how many people can afford to spend $70.00 a night in the Whites, and who cannot. For them to boast about their public spiritness and their sensitivity on "socio-economic" matters is a crock. In fact, their policies are such that the signage outside the Huts would be more accurate if it said: "This facility was not designed for the likes of most people, and if you can't pay our exorbitant fees, then you can't stay here, which is probably just as well.....you obviously aren't our kind." Seriously, I don't know what's worse-----having unfair, exclusive facilities that are intended to essentially be private clubs---or to erect mushy, feel-good "progressive" signage that falsely announces that all are welcome there. I mean, get real, and stop the hypocrisy: If you've somehow wangled permission to open private, up-scale lodging on public land, and you've planned on keeping it exclusive, i.e., as a playground for your members and assorted other guests, well at least be honest about it. But to put up signs boasting about "socio-economic" equality while the actual policies of the places in questions are anything but
deliberately exclusive---well, this is more than distasteful. It is, instead, obscene hypocrisy.

A night in the woods shouldn't cost as much as a night out seeing a Broadway show, and I doubt I'll ever change my mind on this one. I realize and acknowledge that the Club does a great deal of good---this isn't a black and white issue, and I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm incapable of acknowledging what the Club does right---and it does a lot that's right. But all too often, they shoot themselves in the foot, and as for the argument that they're changing their ways, making their facilities more open and welcoming, and reaching out to non-members and others, especially the local residents of New Hampshire and Maine, well, I just don't see this happening. As long as they keep building luxury facilities that are barred to most of the public, as long as they're so secretive about their finances, as long as they keep doing whatever the hell they like without consulting their members and others beforehand---as long as they retain this air of arrogant, upper-class, omnipotent smugness, which is nothing less than 130 years of class snobbery, well, they're going to have a lot of critics, and a lot of folks who'll be re-thinking their financial support of the club. If change is coming to the AMC, I see too little of it, and it's awfully late in coming.

smokymtnsteve
08-05-2004, 23:11
Never having hiked the whites nor ever really seriously investigating the possibility as i am quite satisfied with the southern mtns ...but

i really thought and had heard that these huts were EXPENSIVE but 70 dollars while not cheap doesn't sound all that bad. the Mt Leconte Lodge in the smokies is around 90 dollars a night. Does the 70 dollars at these huts include food or is that extra?? Is the food any good or just slop??..like do you get a fresh salad ..veggie-tarin friendly meals???

MOWGLI
08-06-2004, 07:16
i really thought and had heard that these huts were EXPENSIVE but 70 dollars while not cheap doesn't sound all that bad. the Mt Leconte Lodge in the smokies is around 90 dollars a night. Does the 70 dollars at these huts include food or is that extra?? Is the food any good or just slop??..like do you get a fresh salad ..veggie-tarin friendly meals???

It includes dinner and breakfast. I forget what the meals were, but they were pretty good. SInce I wasn't eating meat in 2000, I'm sure they had veggie fare. Probably not fresh salads though. That stuff has to be hauled in on the backs of the Croo members.

MOWGLI
08-06-2004, 07:26
And talking about the Club's outreach programs is also a thin argument, when one remembers how exclusive most of the Club's facilities actually are. To this day, there's still a ridiculously goo-goo, politically correct sign outside all of the AMC's huts, which magnanimously points out that the club and its facilities don't discriminate on religious, ethnic, or socio-economic criteria. I'm not kidding, the signage actually says this. How ludicrous to speak of their socio-economic sensitivity when the majority of their facilities in the high country were designed to cater to the well-to-do; the Club is perfectly aware how many people can afford to spend $70.00 a night in the Whites, and who cannot. For them to boast about their public spiritness and their sensitivity on "socio-economic" matters is a crock.


Jack, again, I am not certain, but those signs are quite likely there because the USDA Forest Service requires them as part of their contract with AMC.

This might not make you any happier, but if you really want the financial numbers for the Huts, that data is probably available from the US Forest Service. The AMC is required to provide that data to the Forest Service as part of their 25 year contract. The Forest Service might not give it to you unless you file a Freedom of Information request (FOIL), but they will undoubtedly be compelled to under those circumstances. Another option is to contact your Congressman's office. They can probably get the numbers for you without a FOIL request.

Hope that helps.

Jeffrey Hunter

The Old Fhart
08-06-2004, 07:55
Jack Tarlin: "To this day, there's still a ridiculously goo-goo, politically correct sign outside all of the AMC's huts, which magnanimously points out that the club and its facilities don't discriminate on religious, ethnic, or socio-economic criteria. I'm not kidding, the signage actually says this."
Sometimes you have to read the whole sign to see why it is there. I have a copy of the USFS sign, that is required to be posted, in the gallery at: http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2091/password/0/sort/1/cat/500/page/8
Please read my caption for the photo that explains the additional text added to the sign.

Youngblood
08-06-2004, 08:04
Never having hiked the whites nor ever really seriously investigating the possibility as i am quite satisfied with the southern mtns ...but

i really thought and had heard that these huts were EXPENSIVE but 70 dollars while not cheap doesn't sound all that bad. the Mt Leconte Lodge in the smokies is around 90 dollars a night. Does the 70 dollars at these huts include food or is that extra?? Is the food any good or just slop??..like do you get a fresh salad ..veggie-tarin friendly meals???

SMS, on the surface, that seems like a fair comparison. But, Mt LeConte Lodge doesn't really come into play for thru-hikers in the Smokies. Imagine, if you will, that all of the shelters in the Smokies along the AT where run like Mt LeConte Lodge, now that would be a major concern for thru-hikers... you would be talking about $90 vs $70 per night for 4 to 6 nights. And you would have to deal with their reservation system and know which shelter you would be at far enough in advance to actually get a reservation. That is pretty much the situation for thru-hikers when they get to the Whites, except stealth camping is legal in places and the shelters that are off the ridge line that the AT follows also have a fee ($10 or so? and I don't recall as to whether they have a reservation system also) and may be full when you get there.

Youngblood

MOWGLI
08-06-2004, 10:12
I was glad to read Mowgli's posts; it provided an interesting perspective.

However, I'm still forced to stand by my original contention, which is that the Club is out of touch, and instead of reaching out (to people of limited means, to rural New England communities, etc.), the Club is still as inusular, elitist, and exclusive as it always was.

I understand why you accuse AMC of being elitist, and you have a perspective as a NH resident that I do not have.

That being said.... Is it elitist to work on behalf of clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment? Regardless of your socio-economic lot in life, everyone is dependent on those things. Even "grubby thru-hikers" as the sign in Mr. Fhart's gallery says. The AMC works very hard on those issues, and IMO, they have first-rate staff who do an excellent job. They are also industry leaders in risk management, and have an outstanding leadership training program. The professionalization of that aspect of the club has engendered a lot of animosity from long-time members. "What do you mean, I can't lead an AMC hike unless I get some certified training. I've been doing this for 30 years." The AMC should be applauded for taking their responsibility so seriously. Yeah, it might have something to do with protecting their substantial assets too.

The 1300 or so miles of trails that AMC maintains are also open to everyone. I can't afford to stay at the fanciest hotels, so instead I stay at moderately priced ones. Similarly, I'd be hard pressed these days to afford a hut to hut vacation with my family, even at members rates. That wouldn't stop me from staying at the many AMC campsites that are much more affordable.


At any rate (no pun intended), this has been an interesting discusiion, and I'm glad people have stuck to their opinions rather than attack those folks who have a differing view of the organization.

Jeffrey Hunter

weary
08-06-2004, 11:40
AMC certainly has a public relations problem. The attendance at the ATC biennial conference hosted by AMC, was half that for the MATC hosted conference in 1997.

The vehement anti-AMC posts on this and other internet sites provides additional evidence.

But it is wrong to say that AMC is not evolving into a more grass roots organization. My major complaint about the AMC planning process for its 100-mile wilderness lands is that they bow too strongly to local concerns, thus ignoring some of the environmental impacts.

And you don't suddenly jump from 25,000 members to nearly 100,000 without seriously broadening your base and your perspectives.

I stayed at the huts during my walk in 1993, but otherwise have stayed in a hut only as a guest of AMC. But I don't find the price exorbitant, given that all the food has to be packed in. I just prefer to camp.

Certainly the Maine Chapter hardly qualifies as elites. The leadership is all solidly middle middleclass. WE are teachers, computer technicians, sales people, factory workers, office workers.... None strike me as particularly wealthy. The chapter charges $15 for it's annual meeting, which is subidized by dues income to entice more people to attend.

This year it will be held at a YMCA camp on a lake in Ellsworth. A beautiful, but hardly a luxurious setting. The price includes dinner, a wine and cheese social hour, and a day of canoeing, hikes and bike trips in nearby Acadia National Park. Add $10 for an overnight bunk or tent space.

Most members in my experience don't particpate in club activities. They join mostly to make a contribution to AMC's trails and conservation efforts. The latter is a critical contribution. If AMC didn't exist, we would have to invent a substitute. AMC certainly could and should do more, but no one else works harder on air, water and trail issues in the northeast.

It's the nature of such advocacy to step on local toes from time to time. Local communities tend to be willing to sacrifice the environment for short range economic benefits. Rather than rejecting such parochial interests, AMC too often compromises.

That's not a reason not to join. It is a reason to join and to fight for improvements.

That is easier to do successfully than many on this list seem to think. Our chapter chair went from joining to board member to regional director in about five years.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-06-2004, 17:47
Mowgli--

Thanks for the idea about contacting the Forest service or using the Freedom of Information Act. Someday, I may do this.

But this gets us back to my original point....the Club has been repeatedly asked by its members and others about these figures and expenses, and the questions have been very simple and to the point. They aren't complicated questions. On every occasion, the Club has assiduously avoided or evaded answering these questions, leaving one with the inescapable conclusion that they don't wish these figures and expenses to become public knowledge; they don't want them discussed; they don't want them debated or questioned, either by their own members, the press, or anyone else.

Also, going thru the FOI Act might answer some questions about the Huts, but it doesn't address the other queries that have been repeatedly asked over the years, i.e. the value of the Joy St. headquarters, the expense of maintaining it, salaries and compensation paid to executive officers, ammount spent on social/entertainment activities at Joy. St., the total cost of the Highland Center, etc. These are also figures that the Club is plainly afraid to discuss publicly.

I'm glad there is some recourse to getting some of this information and I'm glad you told us how to do so, but it's pretty sad that we have to rely on Federal redress and legal measures to get the answers to very simple, very direct questions.

The fact remains that the Club spends money on things that it doesn't wish to discuss, and the inescapable conclusion is that the Club is afraid that making this information public would leave it open to intense criticism. Were these expenses justifiable and easily defensible, then I can't for the life of me see why the Club has, for years, resisted openly discussing these issues.

Could it possibly because these expenses are NOT easily defensible?

* * *

Lastly, while I appreciated the humor of Fhart's photo of the Pinkham sign, this is not the signage I was referring to. The ones posted at the Huts absolutely contain ridiculous and entirely false statements regarding non-economic discrimination at their facilities. Limiting the use and enjoyment of their facilities to the wealthy is de facto discrimination based on one's ability to pay; it effectively means they're running private, restrictive facilities on
Public Land. I find this, coupled with their down-grading of the building and maintenance of lower cost facilities for the use of the general public, to be absolutely indefensible. And Mowgli, the fact that these ridiculous feel-good signs are perhaps there at the insistence of the Forest Service doesn't make them OK; whether they're there because of the USFS, or whether this politically correct pap is posted there by the AMC itself, it doesn't alter the fact that what they're saying is complete nonsense. Even if these signs were in fact forced on the AMC, it doesn't alter the fact that the policies that exist within Club facilities are exactly the opposite of non-discriminatory practices.

I have no objection to privately owned and run facilities; life isn't always fair: We can't always afford the restaurant or lodging we'd really want, and we make do with what we can afford. What some folks object to, however, is a non-profit environmental organization that insists on spending a disproportionate ammount of its resources maintaining and expanding high-end facilities, on Public Land, that are essentially off-limits to most of the population.

If you want to run an exclusive, exclusionary private club, then do it on privately owned property, and not on land that was meant to be available to all.

The Old Fhart
08-06-2004, 17:52
Mowgli16: “ They are also industry leaders in risk management, and have an outstanding leadership training program. The professionalization of that aspect of the club has engendered a lot of animosity from long-time members. "What do you mean, I can't lead an AMC hike unless I get some certified training. I've been doing this for 30 years."”

One important point that most either don’t know, or have failed to point out, is that there are essentially 2 AMCs and the distinction is great. While the AMC out of Joy Street runs the hut system and the business end, the local state chapters run almost all of the trips you associate with the AMC. To clarify what Mowgli16 has said about the level of leadership, here is the way it has worked.

The New Hampshire Chapter AMC is at the forefront in leadership training and we take great pride in that. I have been a co-instructor in the Advanced Leadership section of the NHAMC workshops for 22 years so I know a little about this. Other chapters have sent some of their leaders to our Mountain Safety Workshops to be trained by us and other chapters are starting to model their leadership programs after ours. All our trip leaders have to successfully complete the workshop and co-lead three trips with three different leaders who approve them before they can lead trips of their own. Our accepted peer practices and feedback to the excursions committee tries to make sure that every leader we have leads a professional and safe trip. Check: http://www.amc-nh.org/excursions.html for more information. As to the inflated cost of our workshops which has several different sections from beginner through advanced, for Fri. night, Sat., Sun., including five meals and lodging, $100. I don’t think anyone could complain about that price but I’m sure someone will prove me wrong.

So what do I and the other about 20 instructors get for all this service? Nothing, we are all volunteers. We still have to pay out membership dues like everyone else and get no discounts at the huts. The ATC meeting this past summer was not hosted by the AMC but rather by the New Hampshire Chapter of the AMC and all those people volunteered a great deal of their time to make that meeting a success.

If you want to complain about the AMC, fine, I disagree with many of the policies coming out of Joy Street and have spoken publicly against them. However you use too broad a brush when you paint the entire AMC as all money grabbers and elitist snobs. At least know what your talking about. It is like calling all thru-hikers “grubby thru-hikers” or bums.

Jack Tarlin
08-06-2004, 18:02
Sorry if you're upset, Fhart, but I like to think I know what I'm talking about; I was a member for quite awhile.

And if you re-read my posts, I was at great pains to NOT make blanket criticisms of the Club; I was at great pains to state in all of my posts that this is not a black and white issue, and that the Club does in fact perform a great deal of good. So please don't put words in my mouth.

That being said, Fhart, the fish rots from the head, and the problem IS Joy Street. And if Joy St. insists on maintaining the Hut system, on building such monstrousities as the Highland Center, and in being secretive about its finances, then these are things that are worth discussing. It could also be argued that every dime the Club spends providing cushy lodging for its members is money NOT being spent on Trail maintenance, political and environmental lobbying, etc. I wonder how many volunteers or local clubs are getting their funding cut or flatlined while Joy St. spends untold thousands on luxury hotels.

But Fhart, of course you're right. There's more to the Club than Joy St., and I applaud what the local clubs and the volunteers are doing. I only wish they had more assistance and better guidance and leadership from the folks that control the money.

eyahiker
08-06-2004, 18:07
Does the AMC paint the blazes? I had a real issue with a few on top of Race Mtn on a less than desirable day, seems that many are facing the sky, and not in view when you are few steps away ( and below ):clap

I'll pay for the paint.

smokymtnsteve
08-06-2004, 18:29
the Len foote hike inn near the approach trail to springer charges
$70 per adult for double occupancy and $97 per adult for single occupancy. . A hearty family-style dinner and breakfast are included. Tax is also included. Trail lunches are available to overnight guests only for a small fee.



http://www.hike-inn.com/reservations.asp

MOWGLI
08-06-2004, 18:45
... but it doesn't address the other queries that have been repeatedly asked over the years, i.e. the value of the Joy St. headquarters, the expense of maintaining it, salaries and compensation paid to executive officers, ammount spent on social/entertainment activities at Joy. St., the total cost of the Highland Center, etc. These are also figures that the Club is plainly afraid to discuss publicly.

...The fact remains that the Club spends money on things that it doesn't wish to discuss, and the inescapable conclusion is that the Club is afraid that making this information public would leave it open to intense criticism. Were these expenses justifiable and easily defensible, then I can't for the life of me see why the Club has, for years, resisted openly discussing these issues.

Could it possibly because these expenses are NOT easily defensible?


To continue this dialogue, I have a bit of a different perspective here. As part of the re-permitting process for the huts, the AMC is required to report comprehensive financial data to the US Forest Service. The AMC has lots of detractors. There are people that would like to see the AMC go away entirely. Many of these same people would **** in a river, and then complain when they couldn't swim at the beach. My point is this. It is in the AMC's best interests to closely adhere to the stipulation of the contact with the US Forest Service. To do otherwise would threaten their very existence.

I can understand why a non-profit woul refrain from giving out data like this. It would be used against them by the very people who would prefer to soil our skies, our water, and clearcut the forests. If the AMC is not environmentally responsible, attentive to the wants & desires of the MAJORITY of its membership, and run in an ethical manner, they will eventually cease to exist. I don't think that's what they want to do. What organization would pay for an appraisal on the value of their HQ and then publicize that? Lots of folks whose hearts are not in the right place would use that information to try and tarnish the AMC.

Let me try and make a point here. My family arrived in New York in the 1650s (on both sides). My long dead ancestors once owned the land where Trinity Church is now located. For those of you not familiar, this is on Wall Street in NYC right next to Ground Zero (former site of the WTC). This is perhaps the most valuable piece of real estate in all of the United States. Yeah, I know, my relatives mustn't have had a very good sense of financial management. In my case the acorn hasn't fallen far from the tree.


Why don't we hear cries for the church to sell their property, raze the current structure, and use the billions (or hundreds of millions) to feed the poor, and house the homeless? I'll tell you why. Because history is important. The AMC is one of the first and most important conservation organizations in the USA, and for that matter in the world. That's because the environmental movement started here in the U.S in the second half of the 1800s. The decision about Joy Street should not IMO be reduced to a simple financial equation. It is much more complex than that. If that were the case, we should look at places like the Vatican long before we look at the AMC (no disrespect meant to the Catholic Church).

For those who don't like the current contract between the AMC & the USFS, keep yourself healthy, and keep that passion burning. The contract will be up for public review again in 2025.

Jeffrey Hunter

PS: Thanks for what you do Mr. Fhart!

weary
08-06-2004, 20:53
Sorry if you're upset, Fhart, but I like to think I know what I'm talking about; I was a member for quite awhile.

......It could also be argued that every dime the Club spends providing cushy lodging for its members is money NOT being spent on Trail maintenance, political and environmental lobbying, etc. I wonder how many volunteers or local clubs are getting their funding cut or flatlined while Joy St. spends untold thousands on luxury hotels...."
.

Being a member and actively participating are two very different things. Tell us Jack what your participation in AMC has been.

I've seen the figures somewheres about Highland Center. I just didn't pay much attention. It all came from a capital fund drive, largely supported by major donors. No. I don't know this as a fact. I've never asked. But I've been involved in enough capital campaigns to know that major donors supply 90 percent of the funding.

If it's true for a tiny local land trust that I founded and serve as president of, I'm quite positive that the same is certainly true for what you claim is an "elite" group like AMC. Would the same bucks been available for an expanded hostel? No.

Had AMC asked me I would have recommended against the Highland Center. But the fact that it exists doesn't particularly offend me, especially now that the hostel has reopened.

The Highland Center site was available because a giant luxury resort burned down. AMC stepped in and bought the remains, in effect snatching the site from the hands of the major developers who surely would have bought it eventually. Like the 37,000 acres in Maine, the AMC purchase and development in Crawford Notch was far better than the second choice. Neither development has much to do with trails in my opinion. If, Jack, you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it.

The new building is actually quite attractive, though its fees are outside my price range. But I have attended meetings there and eaten meals from the Highland kitchen. The food was basic hut stuff. The beds won't be filled with "elites" with gourmet tastes.

I understand paying customers are below expectations. But it will pick up, I'm sure. Eventually it will become another Pinkham Notch camp -- a center for hiking activities in the region, only, perhaps, by groups with some what higher incomes.

As for your wondering about "how many volunteers or local clubs are getting their funding cut or flatlined while Joy St. spends untold thousands on luxury hotels...."

The Maine chapter hasn't lost any funding. The Chapter did vote to suggest that some of the new dues money be spent on creating low cost facilities near the Highland Center and on the new Maine properties. Both are happening. But that may be only because we asked, rather than whined , or spread absurd rumors about the big bad, elite AMC.

It's not useful in my experience to condemn groups both for not providing services we want, then when they provide them, to condemn them for not thinking about our needs without being asked.

The practice reflects an ignorance of how the real world works. The lesson I keep preaching to my town land trust and to the new Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is that people and organizations respond best when they are asked. Despite all the requests for donations each of us gets in the mail each year, the fact remains that 95 percent of all the money raised by non profits comes from individuals making appointments and calling acquaitnences and asking for a major donation.

Weary

The Old Fhart
08-06-2004, 22:59
Jack Tarlin: "Sorry if you're upset, Fhart, but I like to think I know what I'm talking about; I was a member for quite awhile.
And if you re-read my posts, I was at great pains to NOT make blanket criticisms of the Club; I was at great pains to state in all of my posts that this is not a black and white issue, and that the Club does in fact perform a great deal of good. So please don't put words in my mouth.

Jack, We all know no one can put words in your mouth, but where I didn’t direct my post at any one poster, you shouldn’t assume it was just directed at you, although I don’t want you to feel excluded either. I tried to explain that people should know what they are talking about when they say “AMC”. You should, however, be more specific with your terms. When you say: “I applaud what the local clubs and the volunteers are doing” Do you mean “local AMC chapters” or “clubs” like the Boy Scouts, there is a big difference”. By volunteers do you mean “members of AMC chapters who volunteer” or volunteers in general? Don’t you remember some philosopher saying “before you debate with me, define your terms”, or something like that. I just ask that all posters be specific least we all suffer the slings and arrows flung our way.

If you reread my previous post you will see that it merely explains how the two halves of the AMC works. Your fish analogy of the AMC stinks :) . It is more like a tower where the local chapters support the top. If Joy Street loses the support of the local chapters, there is no AMC. There is constant friction between these two halves and the local chapters try to keep Joy Street in check and direct it in what we feel is an appropriate direction. However, when articulate local chapter members quit rather than work for change, and many who stay are apathetic, lots of nasty things can happen. Believe me, I don’t like some of the policy coming out of Joy Street. Oh, and during the hut licensing renewal hearings a few years ago, I drove 100 miles to speak against unchecked renewal. I know it is far easier to criticize than to act, I think I’ve earned my right to my opinion.

By the way, Kinloch, who you met on the trail outside of Hanover a week or so ago and was the recipient of 2 cans of your trail magic says “thanks.” I met him while hiking in Virginia this spring and again at RT-25C. Also I had to dispose of your empty which he gave me.

Jack Tarlin
08-07-2004, 14:27
This thread is aging fast, and the arguments are growing repetitive, so I'll keep my comments relatively brief:

Fhart asked me to qualify my comment "I applaud what the local clubs and the volunteers are doing." Gee, I thought that was pretty straightforward, but let's try it again: I applaud the efforts of the local clubs, especially when it comes to trail and facilities maintencance; I especially value the work of any and all volunteers. Was that sufficiently clear?


I know better than to argue with Weary about anything, but since he asked: My involvement with the Club began in earliest childhood, many members of my family were members of long standing; my father was active in the Club in the thirties and forties and helped build some of the present Huts. I lived in downtown Boston for many years and was in and out of the Joy St. headquarters more often than I can remember, primarily to use the Library. My involvement with the Boston chapter ended when I realized it was essentially a social/romantic Club for lonely singles. (Also, the quality of white wine served at Club social was generally poor). My active involvement with the Club ended years ago when I got to see how money was spent at Joy St., and even more so, when I saw what the Club's efforts were in the Whites, especially as regarding their insistence on spending so much time, effort, money, and manpower catering to a tiny fraction of the people who visited the Whites.
I disagree with Weary's description of the Highland Center. It's also interesting to see that Weary acknowledges the Highlands rates are out of his price range. That's exactly my point, Weary. They're way out of most people's price range. This is why I describe the place as exclusive and elite. "Elitist", by definition, means secective, private, and exclusive. I'm failing to see why Weary has a problem with my use of the word "elite."
It's also amusing to see Weary tell us that the Highland center was paid for primarily thru a capital fund drive and major donations. Well, I couldn't care if it was paid for by the King of Bulgaria. Instead of using this as an excuse for its construction, I think we should instead ask why it was built at all. If the AMC is capable of carrying out major capital fund drives, or if it has that many deep-pocket donors, then I respectfully submit that there are a lot of things better to do with these funds than build a luxury facility that even Weary admits is not fullfilling its original financial goals, which sounds to me like he's saying that it's not making much, or any money. Gee, nice work, AMC. Let's spend several years going after our wealthiest donors and supporters in order to build a luxury facility that will alienate and anger the locals, exclude 99% of the public, and will not make any money. Gee, sure sounds like wise policy to me.
I can also understand why it's easy for Weary to crtizicize those of us who
no longer wish to be members or support the Club with membership dues....I seem to remember that Weary acknowledged that he posesses a lifetime membership and has not, in fact, paid dues in many years. Perhaps if he had been doing so , he'd be more concerned with what was being done with his money.

And lastly, Mowgli presents us with the remarkable argument that in revealing financial information, or in answering direct questions about its properties, revenues, or spending, the Club would leave itself open to criticism from its enemies. Mowgli says that folks whose hearts weren't in the right place would use this data to "tarnish" the club.
I respectfully submit that this is a backwards argument: If the Club used its revenues wisely and well, it would have nothing to fear; it it didn't give people ample reason to criticize it, then it wouldn't have to fear criticism on these grounds. Instead of being secretive and defensive for fear of leaving itself open to attack, I think it'd make far more sense to behave in such a way that that such criticisms would never appear at all.
And lastly, Mowgli, your "history is important" argument is also a questionable one----merely because a building or location has historical value does not automatically make it untouchable or absolved from criticism.
Yeah, Joy. St. has "historical" value; so do most of the buildings on Beacon Hill. But there's nothing intrisically special or unique about the Joy St. mansion: aAll it means is that this is where the well-to-do Boston Brahmins started the AMC back in the 1870's, back in the day when only the very well to do used the Whites for recreational purposes. Everyone else was too busy working to stay alive; not that many folks had the money, time, or leisure to take backcountry holidays. The Joy St. headquarters indeed has historical value, but it also stands as an anachronism, and a reminder of the Club's patrician and exclusive past, a past that the Club would do well to get away from. I'm sure there are folks who llike having the Club offices conveniently close to their tony suburban homes, and who enjoy working and taking part in social activities on Beacon Hill. Gosh, it's so much fun having John and Teresa Kerry for neighbors!!
But there's no reason or justification for it. It sends the wrong message and it wastes a lot of money.

Jack Tarlin
08-07-2004, 14:48
A final comment:

I just spent some time on looking at the AMC's bulletin boards (www.outdoors.org)......it seems that the new Crawford Hostel (which is called the Shapleigh bunkhouse) is full to the rafters and requires reservations, while the Highland Center, also known as the Ritz Crawford, always has rooms available.

Could this possibly be that there's a much greater interest in reasonably and fairly priced accomodations as opposed to luxury ones? Could it possibly be that the Club erred in putting so much time and effort into a facility that most folks either can't, or would prefer not to make use of? Isn't this de facto proof that the Club erred in building this hotel in the first place?

The lesson here is that there are a lot more folks interested in casual, affordable accomodations, and it's time for the Club to realize this. If they're going to have capital fundraising drives, and if they're going to dun their richest members for hefty donations, perhaps the Club should think about building facilities that people actually are interested in using. It doesn't appear that the AMC lacks the wherewithal or the donor base to amass a great deal of money-----it sure would be nice to see them doing something useful with it.

weary
08-07-2004, 20:36
I know better than to argue with Weary about anything, but since he asked: My involvement with the Club began in earliest childhood, many members of my family were members of long standing; my father was active in the Club in the thirties and forties and helped build some of the present Huts. I lived in downtown Boston for many years and was in and out of the Joy St. headquarters more often than I can remember, primarily to use the Library. My involvement with the Boston chapter ended when I realized it was essentially a social/romantic Club for lonely singles. (Also, the quality of white wine served at Club social was generally poor). My active involvement with the Club ended years ago when I got to see how money was spent at Joy St., and even more so, when I saw what the Club's efforts were in the Whites, especially as regarding their insistence on spending so much time, effort, money, and manpower catering to a tiny fraction of the people who visited the Whites.
I disagree with Weary's description of the Highland Center. It's also interesting to see that Weary acknowledges the Highlands rates are out of his price range. That's exactly my point, Weary. They're way out of most people's price range. This is why I describe the place as exclusive and elite. "Elitist", by definition, means secective, private, and exclusive. I'm failing to see why Weary has a problem with my use of the word "elite." .

Well, partly because elite refers to folks considered socially superior -- not secretive, private and exclusive. Neither I nor Jack consider the old time AMC'ers "socially superior." I always considered them socially inferior, basically jerks.



It's also amusing to see Weary tell us that the Highland center was paid for primarily thru a capital fund drive and major donations. Well, I couldn't care if it was paid for by the King of Bulgaria. Instead of using this as an excuse for its construction, I think we should instead ask why it was built at all. .

Well I agree it probably should not have been built at all. But it's the kind of thing that rich people will donate to and since now it is there, AMC will gradually find some useful role for it. Probably another Pinkham Notch. I don;t think anyone ever claimed AMC was omniscient. Rich people, even elites, make mistakes, like the rest of us.


If the AMC is capable of carrying out major capital fund drives, or if it has that many deep-pocket donors, then I respectfully submit that there are a lot of things better to do with these funds than build a luxury facility....

Yeah, but not necessarily things that will raise a lot of money.


even Weary admits is not fullfilling its original financial goals, which sounds to me like he's saying that it's not making much, or any money. .

Actually, I'm not saying any such thing. I don't know what the goals were. Someone did tell me that recently they were about the only people there.



I can also understand why it's easy for Weary to crtizicize those of us who
no longer wish to be members or support the Club with membership dues....I seem to remember that Weary acknowledged that he posesses a lifetime membership and has not, in fact, paid dues in many years. Perhaps if he had been doing so , he'd be more concerned with what was being done with his money..

Actually, I think the dues are being spent wisely as near as I can tell. I also contribute in kind far more than the dues would cost. I haven't collected any money in years for all the paper, ink cartridges and other stuff I buy to produce the Maine Chapter newsletter.

Nor do I criticize anyone for failing to be a member. I do criticize those who use information from the past to convince new people not to join, which was the question that began this thread.

Yes. AMC was, at least by my standards, kind of elitist in the past. But as Jack pointed out, he quit because it had evolved some time ago into largely a social club with bad wine.

Well, it obviously is still evolving. I haven't checked the quality of the wine, but it maintains virtually all the important trails in the Whites. More, importantly, the club is a major, and badly needed environmental voice in the northeast. And it is expanding to protect very important lands in Maine.

My point is simple. What AMC was, is not important. What it is, is important. And that is a major environmental voice that increasingly needs to be heard and supported.

Weary

smokymtnsteve
08-07-2004, 22:32
"The function of an ideal is not to be realized but, like that of the North Star, to serve as a guiding point"

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

weary
08-08-2004, 08:58
"The function of an ideal is not to be realized but, like that of the North Star, to serve as a guiding point"

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

I'm willing to let Abbey have the last word!

smokymtnsteve
08-08-2004, 09:32
I'm willing to let Abbey have the last word!


""One final paragraph of advice: Do not burn yourself out. Be as I am-a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still there. So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains. Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards." "


THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

peter2003
08-08-2004, 19:36
It has interesting reviewing the various points of interest concerning the AMC (Applachian Money Club). I probable have been a member for 15-20 years and have had to deal with the good vs bad (my view) of the organization for a number of years. Yes, I totally agree with Jack that the Executive Director and other Executive salaries are totally out of balance for an environmental organization that I want to be a part of. However, the AMC does a good job with trail maintenance and stewardship so in the past I have continued to pay my dues to support this part of the organization. I reside in Vermont and do not participate in many AMC activities and don't view the AMC as real important to me. When I received my dues renewal this year the cost had gone up $40.00 to $50.00, a large 25% price increase. At the $40.00 level I had a difficult time in justifying renewal; at the $50.00 level it makes no sence for me based in a large part of the excessive executive salaries lodging policies. Friends of mine in the past have confirmed that the ED salary is not that much lower than the presidents.

Hence, the AMC has lost another long time member; I wonder how many of us there are based in part of the large dues increase.

I also agree that the AMC headquarters should be moved to the north country where most of the AMC operations and activities are located.

I thru hiked the AT in 2003 and passed a number of huts but stayed in none of them although the crew offered work for stay a number of times. There are many places to steal camp in the white's even in the Southern and Northern Presidentials.

vtpete03

weary
08-08-2004, 20:44
""One final paragraph of advice: Do not burn yourself out. Be as I am-a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still there. So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains. Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards." "


THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Thanks for the reminder. As the years go by, I find increasing satisfaction in knowing that some things I am doing will long outlive me. But I am constantly aware of Abbey's precaution.

After a quarter of a century, I'm giving up my MATC trail maintenance assignment, albeit, reluctantly. Physically, I can do it. Physically, those who have worked with me can't. But they will feel obligated to continue if I do.

I see daily growing evidence that the mortality of humans is 100 percent. That means the institutions need fresh ideas if they are to continue. And besides, me and my old ideas need a break.

Weary

rickb
08-08-2004, 21:27
FWIW, I stayed in the bunkhouse last night. Clean sheets. Nice fleece blankets. Hot showers. Price included and AYCE breakfast with coffee, milk, juices, pancakes, french toast, muffins, bagels, breads,hot and cold cereals, bacon and sausage, eggs, homefries and the like.

The elitist cost $23. Oh well, sometime you have to live large.

Because of code issues, cooking in the bunkhouse is limited to a microwave, but I was told there's no problem with using stoves outside.

FWIW, there is a world-class photo exhibit next door, worthy of a stop even if you dont have the coin to stay. It is free as are the headphones.

Rick B

The Old Fhart
08-08-2004, 22:53
Jack Tarlin-"This thread is aging fast, and the arguments are growing repetitive, so I'll keep my comments relatively brief:
Fhart asked me to qualify my comment "I applaud what the local clubs and the volunteers are doing." Gee, I thought that was pretty straightforward, but let's try it again: I applaud the efforts of the local clubs, especially when it comes to trail and facilities maintencance; I especially value the work of any and all volunteers. Was that sufficiently clear?"

Jack, I trust the above is intended as an attempt at humor because what you just said is “the arguments are growing repetitive” and then you immediately repeat the same thing you posted before, almost word for word without clarifying anything.

PLEASE read what I actually wrote and address the question I asked. I did NOT, I repeat, I did NOT, ask you to qualify any statement, never used the word, never intended that meaning. Where we are only talking about the AMC in this post I asked that you, plainly and simplely, state that when you use the nebulous terms “club” and “volunteers” you actually mean, or even include “local AMC chapters.” It looks like you go out of your way to “qualify” your statement by excluding AMC local chapters or are trying to deny their existence as a positive part of the AMC.

To not use the proper terminology make it look like you view the AMC out of Joy Street and the local AMC chapters as a single unit which you despise, or you do not understand the distinction between the two groups. The entire AMC is the “club” and it has about a dozen local chapters, they are not clubs. I realize you loathe the AMC, and a lot of us feel the same way, but can’t you bring yourself to say: “I hate Joy Street but I appreciate the work that the local AMC chapters do and admire their work and dedication.” Just admit that there are two parts of the AMCs, like the force, light side, dark side. It is ok to use “AMC”, “volunteer”, and “appreciate” in one sentence, it won’t kill you.

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2004, 12:16
Geeez, Fhart, I know you're in your dotage, but I didn't think you'd grown completely simple.

I'm obviously aware of the distinction between Joy St. and the efforts of folks in the local clubs. And I've never had a problem acknowledging this.

To directly repeat a line from my last post: "I applaud the efforts of the local clubs, especially when it comes to trail and facilities maintenance."

I'm sorry if Fhary feels the need to point out that I'm repeating myself, but perhaps if people had the sense and reading comprehension to understand why I said in the first place, the repitition wouldn't be necessary.

But Fhart wants me to use the words "volunteer" and "appreciate" in the same sentence. Fine. I guess using "volunteer" and "applaud" wasn't good enough. So here goes: "I greatly appreciate the efforts of the local clubs, especially when it comes to trail and facilities maintenance."

Everybody happy? Let's move on.

The Old Fhart
08-09-2004, 13:23
Jack, you're either completely missing the point or trying to go out of your way to avoid using the proper terminology. If you said "the Red Sox scored 4 goals" (or touchdowns) you would either be displaying a total lack of knowledge of the game of baseball or knowingly going out of your way to not use the proper term, which is "runs".

There are no local AMC clubs-period. They are "local AMC chapters", which are part of the AMC. Please tell me if there is something wrong with you that prevents you from using the correct terminology. Do you so hate the AMC that you can't stand the thought of saying "local AMC chapters"?

You claim to have read the AMC Outdoors publication. Go to any issue and tell me what headings for the hike listings say. In bold black outlined type at the top of the pages it says: "NEW HAMPSHIRE Chapter Activities", for example. It does not say club because they aren’t clubs.

You continue to misrepresent what I have clearly said. I said

It is ok to use “AMC”, “volunteer”, and “appreciate” in one sentence, it won’t kill you.
But you misquote me by saying:
But Fhart wants me to use the words "volunteer" and "appreciate" in the same sentence.
Why can’t you even quote me correctly? Your censorship tries to distort what I actually said by intentionally dropping the “AMC” from my quote.

If you want to appear like you have some reading comprehension and intelligence, in your next post, 1) quote what I said exactly without your “AMC” editing, 2) Look at AMC Outdoors and copy (and post) exactly what it says at the top of any of the AMC CHAPTER ACTIVITIES page. If you can’t do a simple cut-and-paste of what I actually said, if you can’t copy exactly what it says in AMC Outdoors, if you can’t use the proper terminology, your hatred of the AMC puts you beyond all reason and logic.

MOWGLI
08-09-2004, 13:47
Jack, you're either completely missing the point or trying to go out of your way to avoid using the proper terminology. If you said "the Red Sox scored 4 goals" (or touchdowns) you would either be displaying a total lack of knowledge of the game of baseball or knowingly going out of your way to not use the proper term, which is "runs".



I don't know Old Fhart. I think this quote from Jack does show "a total lack of knowledge of the game of baseball";



There are also flights from Canada, but Boston seems much easier, plus it's a great place to visit. Hotel rooms might be a problem in October, tho, as the local baseball team will almost certainly be again participating in the World Series.


The Sox haven't won a World Series in 86 years (and counting) and it sure ain't gonna happen this year! Go Yanks!

Jack Tarlin
08-09-2004, 16:53
Mowgli---

That was actually pretty funny. It's also gratifying that you pay so much attention to my posts that you saved one from quite some time ago. Gosh, I never knew you cared..... Oh, and the season isn't over yet. While you choose to worship at the feet of George Steinbrenner, I prefer the company of St. Jude; there are no causes quite so compelling as the lost ones!

And to my friend the Old Fhart who seems to be spewing even more noxious hot wind than his name would leave you to expect: You suggested I display some reading comp. and intelligence in my future posts; I agree with you entirely. I'm going to display some intelligence and common sense by withdrawing from this conversation. In a multitude of posts on this thread I was at great pains to state that any discussion of the AMC was not a black and white issue; I was at great pains to mention that the Club does a great deal of good. I mentioned several times that I applauded the work, especially the Trail work of volunteers.

You're evidently unhappy with my command of the language. You feel that
my hatred of the AMC puts me beyond all reason and logic, even tho I made any number of comments acknowledging that they did good work and that I applauded some of the club's efforts.

Ya know what? I'm not going to try and explain myself further, I can't really see the point. But you were right about one thing. It's time to show some intelligence. Some thru-hikers I know just walked into the Library. I think I'll do the smart thing and walk away from this ridiculous dialogue and go join them for a beer.

Plus, the Red Sox are on. Maybe I can watch some of the game so as to be a better conversationalist the next time I see Mowgli!

weary
08-09-2004, 17:30
Well, as one who as a cub city hall, sports, chief photographer, darkroom technician, sports columnist, police etc. reporter on a daily newspaper, that had me and a parttime person (if I were not newly politically correct, I would have said girl) put out a six day a week daily newspaper, I once had a baseball player sliding into "left" base. Therefore, I can appreciate the complexities of language for the uninformed.

I even covered the first football game I ever saw. (I found a 14-year-old to tell me what was happening. And I did a lot of faking.) So I recognize Jack's flounderings.

Whatever it was I was going to say, I've forgotten, but I do find this conversation fascinating -- sort of a Bush-Kerry exercise in non communication.

Weary

TJ aka Teej
08-09-2004, 22:49
Everything I know suggests that this, like some other TJ proclamations, is largely a figment of his imagination. TJ.
Once again Baghdad Bob shows why Joy St gave him an award for keeping his knowledge of the AMC's expansion into Maine from his fellow MAMC board members. He claimed he was "sworn to secrecy"... Right, Bob. Sure. Just can't admit you lied to your friends? He once called a post of mine 99% fictional, but then failed to prove any of it wrong. Heck, I've posted news about the trail in Maine that Weary's claimed I'd "made up", despite my providing the urls to the newspaper stories!! Weary, your act is getting stale. Open a window, dude.

TJ aka Teej
08-09-2004, 23:04
All logging is not bad..
I never said it was. My family has been in the lumber business in Maine and New Hampshire almost continually since 1650, starting with saw mills on the Little River in Exeter, NH right up until the fire of 1947 burned up our lumber yard in Lyman, Maine. We've since deeded land that was once woodlots away to the Laudholm Farm and the Rachel Carson preserves on the coast. I simply believe that some land should be/ must be/ needs to be set aside. Some people, thankfully a very insignificant few like Weary, want to settle for the clear cut leftovers. I think we should have higher goals.

Teej

Blue Jay
08-10-2004, 07:48
In bold black outlined type at the top of the pages it says: "NEW HAMPSHIRE Chapter Activities", for example. It does not say club because they aren’t clubs.

Ok, as usual when humans discuss something it starts out good then gets silly. After looking in several dictionaries the difference between Club and Chapter is almost nonexistent. One sounds more elitist, therefore Chapter is slightly more appropriate. You also have lodge and troop and on and on. To debate the merits of this is silly.

MOWGLI
08-10-2004, 08:31
I never said it was. My family has been in the lumber business in Maine and New Hampshire almost continually since 1650, starting with saw mills on the Little River in Exeter, NH right up until the fire of 1947 burned up our lumber yard in Lyman, Maine. We've since deeded land that was once woodlots away to the Laudholm Farm and the Rachel Carson preserves on the coast. I simply believe that some land should be/ must be/ needs to be set aside. Some people, thankfully a very insignificant few like Weary, want to settle for the clear cut leftovers. I think we should have higher goals.

Teej

Well Teej, you were doing great until those last two sentences. You are completely mischaracterizing Weary's views by making a charge like that. Weary should be commended for his efforts to protect land along the trail corridor in Maine. You and I are both aware that he is a Director with the Maine Appalachian Land Trust. http://www.matlt.org/ They do some very important work, and are worthy of our support.

steve hiker
08-10-2004, 08:50
My family has been in the lumber business in Maine and New Hampshire almost continually since 1650
Did they wear those funny Pilgrim costumes with the belt buckes on the hats? :jump

The Old Fhart
08-10-2004, 08:51
Me-“If you want to appear like you have some reading comprehension and intelligence, in your next post, 1) quote what I said exactly without your “AMC” editing, 2) Look at AMC Outdoors and copy (and post) exactly what it says at the top of any of the AMC CHAPTER ACTIVITIES page. If you can’t do a simple cut-and-paste of what I actually said, if you can’t copy exactly what it says in AMC Outdoors, if you can’t use the proper terminology, your hatred of the AMC puts you beyond all reason and logic.”

Jack- "I'm going to display some intelligence and common sense by withdrawing from this conversation."

What makes this so pathetic is that Jack is always the first to call anyone on lying and distorting facts, but when it suits him to bash the AMC he resorts to the same sophomoric tactics. So what has he done when asked to use direct quotes and facts instead of his previous distortions? After deliberately misquoting me and being asked pointed questions he doesn’t want to, and can’t answer truthfully, he says he’s going to withdraw from the discussion. I guess if you have nothing constructive to say, that is what you should do. I wouldn’t have believed that he would be so biased, that he would stoop so low, all over the proper use of a few words. That was a really pitiful display you put on, Jack. I hope you know the others reading this thread are enjoying a good laugh about this right now.


Blue Jay- "Ok, as usual when humans discuss something it starts out good then gets silly. After looking in several dictionaries the difference between Club and Chapter is almost nonexistent. One sounds more elitist, therefore Chapter is slightly more appropriate. You also have lodge and troop and on and on. To debate the merits of this is silly."
For once we absolutely agree on something. And while there may not be a big difference between the term “club” and “local AMC chapter”, there is the fact that you call something by its proper precise name, unless you are trying to slur the intended meaning. I’m sure you would agree that there is a difference between “Bleu Jay” and “Blue Jay”, even thought the meaning is exactly the same.

This is so reminiscent of the US-French feud a while back where some idiotic US lawmakers wanted to rename "french fries", "freedom fries" because they didn't want to have to use any phrase with the word "french" in it.

Blue Jay
08-10-2004, 09:22
No, Bleu Jay is fine. Since there is a female Blue Jay this year I may change it, sounds kind of French.

Lone Wolf
08-10-2004, 09:27
Jay Cor don bleu.

weary
08-10-2004, 10:46
Well Teej, you were doing great until those last two sentences. You are completely mischaracterizing Weary's views by making a charge like that. Weary should be commended for his efforts to protect land along the trail corridor in Maine. You and I are both aware that he is a Director with the Maine Appalachian Land Trust. http://www.matlt.org/ They do some very important work, and are worthy of our support.

At the moment the MAT Land Trust needs to raise $500,000 by September 30 to purchase the summit of Abraham. This summit is mostly above the timberline, so it has never been clearcut, but it does have the largest crop of mountain cranberries I've ever seen, a number of very rare plants and a treeless summit that is second only to Kathdin in Maine.

The project was started by the Appalachian Trail Conference, which bought the easterly slopes a few years ago and donated them to the State of Maine as an ecological reserve. We have volunteered to complete the task, now that the landowner has finally agreed to sell at a reasonable price.

Our goal is to provide buffers for the trail in Maine, which in places is only a 200 foot corridor. I spent an afternoon and early evening last week with land trust supporters, National Parks Appalachian Trail Director Pam Underhill, and members of her staff. We discussed the threat of industrial wind towers on nearby Redington and Black Nubble Mountains, and the work of the land trust in opposing this and other developments that would harm the Appalachian Trail in Maine

BTW our $500,000 campaign also will permit the purchase of a couple of thousand acres on the southerly slopes of Saddleback, where the ski area once planned expanded ski slopes.

If TJ or others want to help preserve these very precious natural areas, our address is PO Box 325, Yarmouth, Maine 04096.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
08-10-2004, 12:15
Geez, Fhart, the only thing pathetic and laughable about this thread is that you're evidently laboring under the mis-guided impression that anyone really gives a rat's ass about it.

I really was trying to stay away from this argument, but if I'm going to get bashed and ridiculed, I sorta have to respond; the problem with foolish Internet arguments is that while the mature and sensible thing to do is to walk away and ignore them, all too often, by not responding to an insult or accusation, you can leave the impression that you're acknowledging the truth of the accusation; in other words, you kinda have to respond to these petty insults even if you'd rather not waste your time doing so.

Well, here goes:

Fhart, in any number of threads, you mentioned that I obviously "loathe," "despise" and have "hatred" for the AMC, a hatred so profound that it puts me "beyond reason and logic." Great, colorful, vivid speech! Too bad that none of this is true.

I've tried to explain---several times now, but with apparently little success--
that while I have serious qualms about some of the AMC's policies, I don't blanketly hate the Club, I'm capable of admitting that they do some very good things, and that I'm capable of discussing this with fairness, reason, and logic. A few quotes of mine from three separate posts:

"In short, while the AMC does a lot right......"

"I fully acknowledge that the Club does a great deal of good."

"This isn't a black and white issue, and I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm incapable of acknowledging what the Club does right....and it does a lot that's right."


In short, I'm perfectly capable of discussing this topic rationally and sensibly, and I don't hate the AMC, nor am I incapable of ever saying anything good about it. Far from it. I wish Fhart would stop accusing me of
this hatred and irrationality. For one, it isn't true, and furthermore, it's
turned this thread, which was originally a quite lively and worthwhile dialogue, into a petty, childish squabble.

I have no problem whatsoever praising some of the work and efforts of the AMC, particularly the work and efforts of its volunteers, especially the ones who do Trail work and maintenance. I thought I'd made this perfectly clear in any number of posts.

On the other hand, I have no problems whatsoever with taking the Club to task when it does things I feel are wrong.

It seems that O.F. can neither admit that I'm actually able to say good things about the AMC while at the same time getting irate if I'm presumptuous enough to mention things that aren't so good.

There's no black and white here. The Club is neither all good, nor all bad. It does some very fine things, as I've said more times than I can remember. It also does things that leaves it open to criticism and questions, and these matters absolutely SHOULD be discussed andquestioned. It's a pity that some folks see "hatred" and "loathing" merely because someone else has the temerity to suggest that the AMC ain't perfect.

weary
08-10-2004, 14:08
Once again Baghdad Bob shows why Joy St gave him an award for keeping his knowledge of the AMC's expansion into Maine from his fellow MAMC board members. He claimed he was "sworn to secrecy"... Right, Bob. Sure. Just can't admit you lied to your friends? He once called a post of mine 99% fictional, but then failed to prove any of it wrong. Heck, I've posted news about the trail in Maine that Weary's claimed I'd "made up", despite my providing the urls to the newspaper stories!! Weary, your act is getting stale. Open a window, dude.

Hmmm. I don't remember doing any of this. I have been sitting in on the AMC planning sesssions and from time to time making comments. There is nothing secret about the process. The Maine Chapter's most vocal opponent of development sits in also. We generally make the 250-mile round trip together.

In the interest of encouraging a free flow of ideas, we have been asked to report decisions, not the discussion leading to decisions. That strikes me as a good idea. So far, aside from a couple of new trails that Maine Chapter members have helped build, there have been no final decisions. A researcher from the University of Vermont is doing environmental studies this summer.

David Publicover, AMC's chief science person, will be attending the Chapters annual meeting on Oct. 2 on a pond near Acadia National Park. I assume he will tell us then what the summer's research has shown and possibly how AMC expects to use the information.

If anyone wants to attend the Maine Chapter meeting, tell me. I'll send you a registration form. It's pretty inexpensive for such an allegedly "elite" club. $15 for all the Saturday activities, including a wine and cheese social and supper. (I won't attest to the quality of the wine. But after a day of hiking, most any wine tastes okay)Add $10 if you want a bunk Saturday night.

A highlight during the day Saturday will be a hike along the Cutler "Bold Coast," the most beautiful portion of the Maine Coast -- probably the most beautiful and remote coastal trail in the entire east. (Well it beats Old Orchard Beach, anyway, TJ.) The trail is a 9.8 mile loop through spruce-fir forests, coastal bogs, blueberry barrens, and with spectacular views from high rocky bluffs of the Bay of Fundy and Grand Manan Island. Bring binoculars in case we see one of the minke, humpback, northern right, or finback whales that frequent the region.

Weary

TJ aka Teej
08-10-2004, 22:41
There is nothing secret about the process. That's not what you said earlier, Weary:

http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2003-December/023942.html (http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2003-December/023942.html)

" During the months of the
negotiation phase, I was pledged to secrecy. " ~ Weary

weary
08-10-2004, 23:10
[QUOTE=TJ aka Teej]That's not what you said earlier, Weary:

http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2003-December/023942.html (http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2003-December/023942.html)

Ah. TJ. How soon you forget. It was you who claimed that you couldn't disclose the source of your absurd claims about AMC plans. You know. Your fantasies about a paved road through the "wilderness." The expansion of Little Lyford POnd Camps into a Highland Center like complex. An RV campground.... I've reported everything I know for sure about what AMC is planning to do with its Maine lands.

The only secret on my part was during the negotiations to purchase the land. AMC didn't want to entice competing bidders that would have simply jacked up the price. That phase ended with the press conference announcing the deal, close to a year ago now.

Weary

Mountain Dew
08-11-2004, 07:27
The amc , "appalachain money croo", has the worst white blazes/signs on the entire A.T. Most of the white blazes look as if they haven't been paid attention to in many years. If the amc has so much money then why can't they spend a little on the white blazes and signs ? :-? Could it be that they feel superior to thru-hikers ? The Maine Appalachian Trail Club does a much better job at fullfilling the amc's mission statement then they do. It seems from my outside view that the amc has turned into "big business".

MOWGLI
08-11-2004, 08:03
The amc , "appalachain money croo", has the worst white blazes/signs on the entire A.T. Most of the white blazes look as if they haven't been paid attention to in many years. If the amc has so much money then why can't they spend a little on the white blazes and signs ? ....

It just might have something to do with the fact that the AT was routed over pre-existing trails in the White Mountains. Some of those trails existed 50 years before the AT was even conceived. That's why the AT is dual designated through much of the White Mountains.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/3897/password/0/sort/1/cat/500/page/4

Personally, I had no problem finding the trail in the Whites. Likewise, the signage in the Whites was just fine. I also like a trail that doesn't tend to have a blaze on a tree every 100 yards. I think that it would be an improvement to reduce the number of blazes on the AT.

The Old Fhart
08-11-2004, 08:15
Jack, your posts on this thread are the most fun and entertainment we’ve all had in a long time! With each post you just get more and more bizarre. Yeh, it is ridiculous, but what makes it so is seeing you try to readjust your story with each new post which only make you look more ridiculous.

First you say:
“It's time to show some intelligence. Some thru-hikers I know just walked into the Library. I think I'll do the smart thing and walk away from this ridiculous dialogue and go join them for a beer.”
You then continue with yet another nonsensical rambling post! Does that mean that you’ve changed your mind and decided to NOT do the intelligent thing? I really like your crying and whining that the big bad Old Fhart is picking on you. Be a man, Jack, and quit blubbering because someone has asked you some hard questions that you don’t dare answer.

The most ridiculous thing about this thread is that you continue to refuse to admit you are wrong and you have deliberately misquoted me and lied to try to prove some point that everyone else on WB knows isn’t true. For some unknown reason you refuse to use the correct terminology “AMC local chapters.” Did their serving you cheap wine at the socials that you mentioned so traumatize you that you can’t say their name to this day? If it isn’t because you so hate the AMC please let us know why you can’t even post those three words together. Check http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4418/size/big/password/0/sort/1/cat/500 to see what the actual printed page in AMC Outdoors says. As Mr. Rogers would say: “can you say “Maine Chapter”, Jack?” Lightning isn’t going to strike you if you say or even type those words! Come on, Jack, what is your problem? Why in all you post on this subject and several direct request have you never used the proper term for the chapters?
I said:

It is ok to use “AMC”, “volunteer”, and “appreciate” in one sentence, it won’t kill you.But you misquote me by saying:

Jack- “But Fhart wants me to use the words "volunteer" and "appreciate" in the same sentence.” You had no trouble quoting yourself in your last post so why do you deliberately misquote, edit, and lie about what I said? Don't you realize that everyone else can see you intentionally dropped the "AMC" from my quote to try and distort the meaning?

You continually say: “Too bad that none of this is true” or “For one, it isn't true…..”, but I’ve shown the printed page and the two quotes above to prove otherwise, and all you have shown is your crying towel. If you’d just corrected yourself after my first post on this and said: “Oh, that’s right, I meant to say “AMC local chapter”, not the incorrect term, “club””, you wouldn’t have had to compound it by misquotes and outright lies. Of course we wouldn’t have had all the laughs you’ve provided us with. I can hardly wait for your next humorous and tearful outburst!

Lone Wolf
08-11-2004, 08:41
Old Fhart is winning! :D

weary
08-11-2004, 10:08
The amc , "appalachain money croo", has the worst white blazes/signs on the entire A.T. Most of the white blazes look as if they haven't been paid attention to in many years. If the amc has so much money then why can't they spend a little on the white blazes and signs ? :-? Could it be that they feel superior to thru-hikers ? The Maine Appalachian Trail Club does a much better job at fullfilling the amc's mission statement then they do. It seems from my outside view that the amc has turned into "big business".

The Whites are a maze of trails. AMC has been building them for the past 125 years. Some of these trails now double as part of the Appalachian Trail. So AT hikers have to be more alert through the Whites than elsewhere.

Back in the early days when the AT was young and the AMC really was pretty "elite" AMC even refused to paint its sacred trails with a white blaze.

But that policy was reversed many decades ago. I had no trouble following the AT in 1993. But you have to recognize that the AT through the Whites bypasses a number of summits and unlike elsewhere is not always the most traveled way, which adds to the confusion for hikers used to following a well worn trail.

icemanat95
08-11-2004, 12:32
The Whites are a maze of trails. AMC has been building them for the past 125 years. Some of these trails now double as part of the Appalachian Trail. So AT hikers have to be more alert through the Whites than elsewhere.

Back in the early days when the AT was young and the AMC really was pretty "elite" AMC even refused to paint its sacred trails with a white blaze.

But that policy was reversed many decades ago. I had no trouble following the AT in 1993. But you have to recognize that the AT through the Whites bypasses a number of summits and unlike elsewhere is not always the most traveled way, which adds to the confusion for hikers used to following a well worn trail.

I often seems that the folks who get lost or complain the most about the blazes are the same folks who refuse to carry a map because it weighs too much, or the elevation guide is deceptive or they are too expensive. I have little sympathy. The trails in the Whites are well marked out with blazes, signage and cairns, the maps spell out what trails you need to take to stay on the AT. All it takes is a little, tiny bit of planning and attention. If you want a trail that you cannot get lost on, try the Freedom Trail in Boston, the blaze is continuous, painted or even bricked right into the sidewalk. Step into the backcountry and there is an assumption of risk and an expectation that you have some minimal amount of skill at wayfinding.

Mags
08-11-2004, 14:10
Back in the early days when the AT was young and the AMC really was pretty "elite" AMC even refused to paint its sacred trails with a white blaze.
I am not sure if this is still the case since the re-lo, but at the Maine Junction you can (could?) still see some faint blue blazes on the AT where it splits off from the LT. The Long Trail came first, so naturally the AT is the side trail off of the main trail of "The Long Trail", at least in Green Moutain Club Territory. :)

Just after GMC territory, you can sometimes spot very faint "tiger stripe" blazes in Darmouth Outing Club territory. Saw them on my own thru-hike six years ago. (Sigh..seems so long ago)

As for navigating in the Whites, as with Bob and Iceman, did not find it too difficult. Even the ATC maps are good enough to find the way. But, you need to carry a map for it to work. :banana And the signage was more than adequate. Just look a the map, look at the trail sign and "Easy, peasy..mac n' cheesy!"..the AT is found!

Jack Tarlin
08-11-2004, 14:43
Fhart, you're making yourself ridiculous.

But have a nice day anyway.

MOWGLI
08-11-2004, 16:27
The beat goes on, the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de, la de da de da.

Charleston was once the rage, uh huh.
History has turned the page, uh huh.
The miniskirt's the current thing, uh huh.
Tennybopper is our newborn king, uh huh.

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de, la de da de da.

The grocery store's the supermart, uh huh.
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh.
And men still keep on marching off to war.
Electrically they keep a baseball score.

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de, la de da de da.

Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss.
The cars keep going faster all the time.
Bums still cry 'Hey buddy, have you got a dime?'

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de, la de da de da

The Old Fhart
08-11-2004, 17:18
Mountain Dew-“The amc , "appalachain money croo", has the worst white blazes/signs on the entire A.T. Most of the white blazes look as if they haven't been paid attention to in many years. If the amc has so much money then why can't they spend a little on the white blazes and signs ? Could it be that they feel superior to thru-hikers ? The Maine Appalachian Trail Club does a much better job at fullfilling the amc's mission statement then they do. It seems from my outside view that the amc has turned into "big business".
Please be more specific. It is very true that the entire 15 mile section from Mizpah to Madison could almost always use new white paint blazes. Because of the severe weather and almost the entire stretch is above tree line these blazes take a real beating and don’t last long. There should be something done in that area. The local trails system predate the A.T. by several decades. The signs clearly identify the trails by their local names but it isn’t always clear which way the A.T. goes at the junctions. That is why hikers are cautioned to carry and use their A.T. maps and exercise care going through this area.

Having said that, you can’t blame the AMC. That stretch of trail, with the exception of 0.2 miles maintained by NHDP, is maintained by the White Mountain National Forest, not the AMC. The AMC does maintain the section over Franconia Ridge where there are actual rock walls to help keep hikers on the trail and that is very well maintained. The USFS budgets have been continually slashed so I don’t fault them for the trail conditions, they do the best they can without any money, but the results do definitely affect thru-hikers and that is what you see.

The next time you hike thru that area, check the signage, the maintaining organization is generally identified. Just make sure you are complaining to the right group. You very well may have been on an AMC section that wasn’t well blazed or signed, but make sure you don’t mistakenly blame the wrong group because the AMC is an easy target.

rickb
08-11-2004, 21:30
And if you do take the wrong trail in that area, you will be in good company.

On his first thru hike* Earl Shaffer reported that he took the wrong trails in the Whites because he had his maps mailed too late.

*Unless you buy into BJ's definition of thru hike, that is. Most
sane people (and the ATC) think it was. ;-)

steve hiker
08-11-2004, 22:44
..................

TJ aka Teej
08-11-2004, 22:44
Here's some info (unfiltered by Weary) about Mt Abram from the ATC's site:
Maine Takes A.T. Western Mountains Project a Huge Step Forward; $200,000 Still Needed

After six years of work by the ATC Land Trust on a nearly $3-million attempt to “buy a mountain,” final achievement seems to be in sight, with the release in July by the board of the Land for Maine's Future program of more than $150,000 for the remaining Mt. Abraham portion of the almost 7,000-acre project Trail-north of Saddleback Mountain. The board also pledged $30,000 toward the remaining 1,200-acre tract on the eastern side of Saddleback, for which ATC's partner, the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust (http://www.matlt.org/), is seeking $200,000 to complete the effort. Negotiations by ATCLT Maine coordinator Jerry Bley that began in 1998 have so far culminated in the protection (from ATC purchase to state ownership and management) of about 5,500 acres of Mt. Abraham and lands to the west of it. A side trail runs between the A.T. and Mt. Abraham, home to a rare alpine-plant community second only to Katahdin in richness and remoteness. ATC initiated environmental reviews last week on the Saddleback tract.

Background:
In 2002, the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) donated 4,033 acres of land on Mount Abraham (known to locals as “Mount Abram”) near Kingfield to the Maine Department of Conservation to be permanently preserved as an ecological reserve. The land donation, valued at more than $1.3 million, represented the largest land acquisition project ever undertaken by ATC, a private national organization that manages the Appalachian National Scenic Trail from Maine to Georgia. The organization took on the Mount Abraham project due to its proximity to the Appalachian Trail which traverses surrounding peaks including Saddleback and Spaulding Mountains. Robert Williams, Director of ATC's land trust program, called Mount Abraham, “an absolute gem that deserves the highest level of protection possible.”

Now, after lengthy negotiation with the owner of land adjoining the Ecological Reserve along the ridge of Mount Abraham, ATC has agreed to purchase this 1,153 acres and and additional 1,206 acres on the eastern slope of Saddleback Mountain. The Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is an essential partner in this transaction. Ultimately, the Mount Abraham land will be added to the ecological reserve and the Saddleback land may be conveyed to the state or the National Park Service.

Mount Abraham, with a summit elevation of 4,049 feet, is one of only thirteen peaks in Maine higher than 4,000 feet, ten of which are already in public ownership. The mountain includes more than four miles of above-treeline ridgeline that encompasses an alpine plant community surpassed in size only by Mount Katahdin. The property includes most of the Firewarden's Trail, a popular hiking trail leading up the east side of the mountain. The summit of the mountain can also be reached from a side trail off the Appalachian Trail.

[/url]In 1999, the Maine Legislature established an ecological reserve program to preserve representative examples of Maine's natural communities as habitat for native plants and animals and to provide opportunities for ecological research. In 2000, Maine's Bureau of Parks and Lands (BPL) designated 69,994 acres of public lands as ecological reserves. The Mount Abraham acquisition is the first ecological reserve to be donated to the State. The Mount Abraham lands will be managed by BPL for backcountry recreation, including the maintenance of existing campsites and trails.

The entire Mount Abraham project was made possible through a combination of public and private funding.

Supporting Partners

The Betterment Fund
Clark Charitable Trust
Davis Conservation Fund
[url="http://www.fieldspond.org/"]Fields Pond Foundation (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/tatl/MtAmap.html)
The Great Outdoors Conservancy (http://www.thegreatoutdoors.org/)
John Sage Foundation
Land for Maine's Future (http://www.state.me.us/spo/lmf/)
Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (http://www.state.me.us/doc/parks/programs/)
Maine Community Foundation (http://www.mainecf.org/)
Margaret Burnham Charitable Trust
The Nature Conservancy, Maine Chapter (http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/maine/)
Open Space Conservancy's Northern Forest Protection Fund (http://www.osiny.org/northernforest/index.htm)
Outdoor Industry Conservation Alliance (http://www.conservationalliance.com/)
Sweet Water Trust
William P. Wharton Trust

<!-- BEGIN FOOTER -->

Mountain Dew
08-12-2004, 02:23
MOWGLI16 .... "It just might have something to do with the fact that the AT was routed over pre-existing trails in the White Mountains. Some of those trails existed 50 years before the AT was even conceived. That's why the AT is dual designated through much of the White Mountains. " ---and that is the cause of bad blazes how ? I do totally agree with you that some sections could do with far less blazes. That would indeed imporove certain sections... if just a little bit. You said that you worked for V.W. in an earlier post. You lived in the Dallas area ?

Weary... I appreciate your effort to educate me on the amc trails in the whites but I knew all of that info. I've learned even more about the amc from this thread. Very interesting thread we have here. Your entry does however back up my suspicions about them not maintaining the white blazes on purpose... OR so it seems.

Icemanat95 ... If your comments to Weary were directed at me then.... I had the maps thanks...oh and....weight with my pack wasn't an issue ever.

The old fhart I'd don't care enough to be more specific. I made it through that section anyways with little or no time lost. The whites was also one of the most fun sections to hike through. The old fhart... "The signs clearly identify the trails by their local names but it isn’t always clear which way the A.T. goes at the junctions. That is why hikers are cautioned to carry and use their A.T. maps and exercise care going through this area." --- I totally agree. I did get lost twice I believe, BUT it didn't cost me anything but time. Oh well right ?

MOWGLI
08-12-2004, 07:39
MOWGLI16 .... "It just might have something to do with the fact that the AT was routed over pre-existing trails in the White Mountains. Some of those trails existed 50 years before the AT was even conceived. That's why the AT is dual designated through much of the White Mountains. " ---and that is the cause of bad blazes how ? I do totally agree with you that some sections could do with far less blazes. That would indeed imporove certain sections... if just a little bit. You said that you worked for V.W. in an earlier post. You lived in the Dallas area ?



Well, certain jurisdictions (like wilderness areas) require less blazing. In some wilderness areas, federal land managers prohibit trail blazes all together. (Not along the length of the A.T. however) Similarly, if the A.T. is routed over a pre-existing trail, than the primary designation might take precedence, and you will end up with fewer traditional A.T. blazes. All trail junctions are well signed as I recall. For instance, the Mountains to Sea Trail, the Benton MacKaye Trail, and the Bartram Trail all run concurrent with the AT for brief distances. The A.T. pre-dated all of those great trails. The primary blazes are the AT blazes, although the yellow Bartram Trail blazes are a bit more noticeable than the BMT & MST blazes. Similarly, when the Benton MacKaye is extended 90 miles through the Great Smoky Mountain NP (on pre-existing trails - on the NC side of the park) there will be signage at all trail junctions, and a few blazes for perhaps 200 yards after a trail junction. Then no indication you are on the BMT until the next trail junction (and sign). Make sense?

I worked for Verizon in Pearl River, NY. I was not with the wireless division, I was with the regulated part of the business (landlines). I worked in a mega-datacenter. The Dallas area was GTE prior to their merger with Bell Atlantic. I came from the NY Telephone/NYNEX/Bell Atlantic side of the merger.

BTW, I was in Andover, ME on a leave-of-absence when I learned about the new name given to my employer - Verizon. My first thought was, what kind of a &^#$%ed up name is that? In retrospect, it's a pretty good name.
A good company to work for too. I just couldn't deal with the corporate BS anymore after my thru-hike. The fluorescent lighting, the white noise and a few insecure micro-managers were killing me.

Jeffrey Hunter aka Little Bear

weary
08-12-2004, 09:15
Here's some info (unfiltered by Weary) about Mt Abram from the ATC's site:
Maine Takes A.T. Western Mountains Project a Huge Step Forward; $200,000 Still Needed -->

For those interested in the details of the MAT Land Trust effort, the following is our budget:

Purchase Price: Abraham and Saddleback parcels $661,000

Surveying and acquisition Costs $55,500

Fundraising and Administration $32,000

Stewardship Endowment $151,500

Total Project Budget $900,000

In hand: from Land For Maine's Future, Open Space Institute, and Maine Bureau of Parks and Land $450,000.

Balance to be raised $450,000

How do you raise this kind of money?

Our "chart" of needed gifts, calls for one $100,000 contribution, one $50,000, three $25,000, eight $10,000, ten $5,000, fourteen $2,500, thirty $1,000, and three hundred less than $1,000.

Anyone who wants to and is able to contribute please let me know and I'll send you a complete campaign packet.

I haven't told my wife yet because we really can't afford it, but I'll be one of the 30 in the above list.

Weary

TakeABreak
08-20-2004, 00:06
AMC = American Money Club, you have some they want to find a way to make it theirs. Why else would a hiking club have it's headquarters in down town Boston.

While doing my thru hike I noticed the sections of trail that were in the poorest state were under AMC jurisdiction, outside of where they charged fee's campsite fee's. go figure.

And yes I have done trail maintenance, I did 50 hours with the nantahala group and two weeks harpers ferry. I have often wandered how those people in boston have done.

weary
08-20-2004, 10:58
AMC = American Money Club, you have some they want to find a way to make it theirs. Why else would a hiking club have it's headquarters in down town Boston..

Mostly tradition. They were founded by Boston folks around 1875, and the Boston Chapter remains about the largest. Besides, it's a pretty funky, traditional kind of building, across from Boston Common. I would be terribly disappointed with them if they ever were greedy enough to sell it.




I'm not quite sure what is being said here. AMC (the parent organization) is responsible for trails in the White Mountains and through the Mahoosucs in Maine. This is done with a paid trail crew and the help of many hundreds of volunteers.

AMC chapters are responsible for other parts of the trail. Other chapters for instance maintain the trails in Massachusetts and Connecticut and I'm guessing the New York/ North Jersey chapter does some trail work in those states. The Maine Chapter has a short section of the AT on Bigelow. Chapter work is all volunteer and totally separate from AMC in Boston, though when requested to do so, AMC has sent professional trail people to offer advice, training, and sometimes help.

[QUOTE And yes I have done trail maintenance, I did 50 hours with the nantahala group and two weeks harpers ferry. I have often wandered how those people in boston have done.

All volunteers should be applauded. But I know many AMC volunteers who surpass those figures annually.

Weary

Pencil Pusher
08-21-2004, 01:06
In regards to post 102,
No point in raising funds for a company that has excessive internal hemorrhaging, especially one that saves oodles of money through the efforts of many dedicated volunteers. Hence the 'joke' of an AMC annual report.
There is one company that researches how much of each dollar contributed actually makes it to the 'cause' and how much goes to operating expenses and the like. Out here, United Way was ranked pretty badly as a result.

walkin' wally
08-21-2004, 18:53
The amc ,....... has the worst white blazes/signs on the entire A.T.

I can't speak for the entire AT but the blazing on the section from the Me/NH border almost to Old Speck is indeed really bad. There are simply no blazes for quite long distances.

weary
08-21-2004, 22:25
In regards to post 102,
No point in raising funds for a company that has excessive internal hemorrhaging, especially one that saves oodles of money through the efforts of many dedicated volunteers. Hence the 'joke' of an AMC annual report.
There is one company that researches how much of each dollar contributed actually makes it to the 'cause' and how much goes to operating expenses and the like. Out here, United Way was ranked pretty badly as a result.


I'm not sure how this relates to post 102. Post 102 has nothing whatsoever to do with AMC.

Weary

Pencil Pusher
08-21-2004, 22:28
My bad. Substitute any similar project AMC has a public budget for. Amazing concept, eh?