PDA

View Full Version : AMC/RMC overnight fee may rise by $3.00



Slo-go'en
12-07-2010, 17:40
Just saw this in the local paper, which can be read at http://www.berlindailysun.com Dec 7, 2010

A proposed NH regulation would rise the overnight fee for staying at an AMC or RMC facility by $3.00 (I would imagine this would also apply to shelters and tent platforms which are run by the AMC and charged for). The idea is to rise money for S+R, which is currently paid for by hunting licenses, ATV and snow mobile fees.

The extra $3.00 would not be noticed by those who stay in a hut, which cost 90+ dollars a night, but for RMC cabins and AMC run tent platforms and shelters, 3 bucks is a significant increase in terms of percentage, so there is some debate about that going on. Though the bills sponser rightly agrues, heck its only 3 bucks more. - At least for now. No doubt if implimented, the S+R "tax" will go up over time, like everything else.

Pony
12-07-2010, 18:29
Live Free or Die.

Lyle
12-07-2010, 18:46
Another very good reason to continue to avoid NH.

Jack Tarlin
12-07-2010, 20:41
Actually, considering how good the Search/Rescue service here is in my home state, and considering how often it is used, I think $3.00 is pretty cheap for what you get.

And in that the White Mountains, if they were a National park, would be the most visitied such Park in the nation, if anyone were to stay away from New Hampshire because of this "fee", well, I think that would be OK, too, as it gets crowded enough here.

I respect everyone's opinion as to service fees and their necessity, but to me, this one seems eminently reasonable. At home, if one wants "insurance" when one gets into trouble, one pays for it, and it is voluntary. But a safety net in the backcountry for everyone, i.e. a 24/7 resuce service, well this costs money, and everyone should share in this, whether they liove in the state or not. Unless, of course, they're willing to forego calling for help when they decide to forego paying the fee. :-?

peakbagger
12-08-2010, 08:54
There is a lot of refining to do the proposal. The bills sponsors have admitted that they didnt know the diference between the AMC hut system and the RMC cabins. AMC charges $100 plus a night for reservations and two meals and discouts for members. RMC charges $12 a night for no reservations and no meals, no discounts for members. As a percentage, its a lot bigger hit to RMC guests. Also not established is what facilities do the fees apply to? Does it apply to all of the shelters on USFS land that have caretakers? If it applies to shelters with caretakers, does it also apply to designated camping areas near the shelters?. If someone has to pay to stay at "established campsite" intended to focus impact on one area, does this encourage a higher level of use in other areas? Obviously a slippery slope which could add quite a few dollars to a thruhikers budget.

I will point out that NH has a rather significant room and meals tax that is targetted at extracting money from tourists and predominately people out for recreation. It is far more logical to fund S&R from this funding source than specifically targeting facilities, as a lot of the backcountry rescues are for day visitors rather than people who stay at the huts.

The current method of funding S&R is to fund it through hunting,fishing and OHRV licenses. The department deliberately underfunds the S&R account and then has to go to the legislature to make up the shortfall, where they are told to cut their budget elsewhere before getting money from other sources. It not an equitable system as hikers do eat up a lot of S&R resources.

fredmugs
12-08-2010, 10:28
Don't they already make the person being rescued pay? How about increasing that fee?

Lone Wolf
12-08-2010, 10:32
no need to pay any fees in the whites. plenty of places to lay down for the night without using man-made boxes

weary
12-08-2010, 13:12
Among the problems facing the trail, a $3 search and rescue lodging fee is easily the least significant.

4shot
12-08-2010, 14:31
I respect everyone's opinion as to service fees and their necessity, but to me, this one seems eminently reasonable. At home, if one wants "insurance" when one gets into trouble, one pays for it, and it is voluntary. But a safety net in the backcountry for everyone, i.e. a 24/7 resuce service, well this costs money, and everyone should share in this, whether they liove in the state or not. Unless, of course, they're willing to forego calling for help when they decide to forego paying the fee. :-?


on the trail. If the fees go to S & R or whatever, why aren't they charged elsewhere? I'm sure the other states provide similar services for hikers and tourists in the "backcountry". The Appalachian Money Club does a very poor job of rationalizing their costs to the average hiker...in fact, I'm not sure they even attempt to do so and there are many therefore who feel somewhat ripped off by the whole process. My opinion, in the AT up north in the last two states you pay more and get less for your $ than anywhere else on the trail. Again that is an opinion and not put forth as a factual statement. The hut system...don't get me started on that. No wonder so many end up stealthing their way thru the Whites.

4eyedbuzzard
12-08-2010, 15:12
Couldn't pull up the article, but I'm going to be meeting with a senior AMC staff member in NH on an unrelated matter next week - I'll try to get some inside info and post it back here.

Lone Wolf
12-08-2010, 15:30
The Appalachian Money Club does a very poor job of rationalizing their costs to the average hiker... The hut system...don't get me started on that. No wonder so many end up stealthing their way thru the Whites.

the "average" hiker and "thru-hiker" should have researched the AMC and their fees for lodging long before arriving in the WMNF. poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on theirs. the Whites are easily skipped. thru-hikers are biggest, most needy whiners there are

Jack Tarlin
12-08-2010, 16:15
4Shot: Forgetting about NH for awhile, please tell us how and why hikers "get less for their money" in Maine, which, if memory serves, has a tiny handful of high-use areas that charge a fee. Considering there are 281 miles of Trail in Maine, more than any other state except Virginia, having to pay a few bucks to stay in a couple of places seems a small price to pay. And the Trail maintenance in Maine is about the best there is anywhere, and remember, this is really difficult, and in many cases, hard-to-access terrain. Yet the MATC still does outstanding work and their shelters and campsites, as well as the Trail itself, are always in top-notch shape. So again, please tell us how and why you think hikers get less for their money in Maine. Last place I paid to stay in Maine was Baxter State Park and I think it cost six bucks. I think I got my money's worth.

Peaks
12-08-2010, 17:41
Certainly a lot of controversy here about additional fee. To me, it's trying to make one class of hiker pay for what everyone else gets for free. A better place to add the charge would be on the WMNF parking passes.

weary
12-08-2010, 18:51
on the trail...... My opinion, ....in the AT up north in the last two states you pay more and get less for your $ than anywhere else on the trail. Again that is an opinion and not put forth as a factual statement. The hut system...don't get me started on that. No wonder so many end up stealthing their way thru the Whites.
Just a brief defense of the northernmost of the "last two states." AMC administers the shelter at Speck Pond, though the caretaker and the fee he has to charge is long gone by the time the later thru hikers go through.

From there until you reach Baxter State Park, there are no fees that I remember. Baxter Park and Katahdin were bought and paid for by one man, and since his death all the costs of running the park is paid for by fees and what remains of his personal fortune.

The park authority is following Percival Baxter's wishes and is not asking the state for any subsidies. The income from Baxter's legacy and camping fees pay for the park and its upkeep. I think hikers, and Maine taxpayers, are getting a tremendous bargain as the result of the dedication of one man, who spent a lifetime protecting one of the great mountains in the east.

Slo-go'en
12-08-2010, 18:59
A better place to add the charge would be on the WMNF parking passes.

I don't know how it works every where else, but in NH the state pays for S+R, even if it occurs on NF land.

Of course, there is a very good chance that the ones most likely to be needing the rescue are the out of state day and weekend trippers who do park at NF parking lots. However, I suspect that getting the Feds to hand over any revenue from parking passes, even if it is earmarked for S+R, to the state is wishfull thinking.

Miner
12-08-2010, 19:11
I hope NH does things differently then California. Things are underfunded in the state budget and then a political campaign is done about how something needs to be done and some new form of revenue tax/fee is proposed that will fill the need. Only they do a bait and switch. The new tax/fee does go for what its suppose to, BUT the money it use to get from the general budget is reduced by the same amount so no net benefit is added except we now pay more for the same thing.

4shot
12-08-2010, 21:28
the "average" hiker and "thru-hiker" should have researched the AMC and their fees for lodging long before arriving in the WMNF. poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on theirs. the Whites are easily skipped. thru-hikers are biggest, most needy whiners there are


while some of your posts are spot on, this one is absolute garbage. The "poor planning" comment...*** does that even mean? Where did I imply any sort of emergency on my part? Yes, I knew there were fees and I paid them...thought that there would be something i would be getting in return over and beyond what was provided or available on the rest of the trail but there wasn't. How was I or any prospective thru-hiker to know that beforehand? Skip the Whites...yes, in retrospect maybe but they are built up to be a magical part of the trip and I don't think any newbie would even contemplate that. Maybe after the fact but I don't think you could convince any first-time through hiker to skip the Whites anymore than you could the Smokies, SNP, Damascus or any of the other "legendary places" of the AT. Your post was not very well thought out imo.

Lone Wolf
12-08-2010, 21:36
while some of your posts are spot on, this one is absolute garbage. The "poor planning" comment...*** does that even mean? Where did I imply any sort of emergency on my part? Yes, I knew there were fees and I paid them...thought that there would be something i would be getting in return over and beyond what was provided or available on the rest of the trail but there wasn't. How was I or any prospective thru-hiker to know that beforehand? Skip the Whites...yes, in retrospect maybe but they are built up to be a magical part of the trip and I don't think any newbie would even contemplate that. Maybe after the fact but I don't think you could convince any first-time through hiker to skip the Whites anymore than you could the Smokies, SNP, Damascus or any of the other "legendary places" of the AT. Your post was not very well thought out imo.

what the hell were you expecting in return for the $$ you paid? the AMC was there long before the AT and needy, whiny, "thru-hikers". by the time you walked to the whites you shoulda figured out how to lay down for the nite without payin' :rolleyes:

4eyedbuzzard
12-08-2010, 21:52
what the hell were you expecting in return for the $$ you paid? the AMC was there long before the AT and needy, whiny, "thru-hikers". by the time you walked to the whites you shoulda figured out how to lay down for the nite without payin' :rolleyes:
http://www.allthatscool.com/images/september/family.jpg
So, uh, how's that moderation training coming along? Been workin' on that for a while now, huh? . . . :D

Lone Wolf
12-08-2010, 21:55
thru-hikers are already given special treatment with the work-for-stay thing at huts and shelters whereas weekenders and sectioners aren't. what more do the likes of hikers 4shot want?

Appalachian Tater
12-08-2010, 22:40
A lot of hikers who whine over paying $10 for a campsite or night in a donation-based hostel think nothing of spending $50 on beer.

4eyedbuzzard
12-08-2010, 23:55
thru-hikers are already given special treatment with the work-for-stay thing at huts and shelters whereas weekenders and sectioners aren't. what more do the likes of hikers 4shot want?
I don't really know. The trail itself remains free for the entire length, even through NH - got rid of that pesky Bear Mountain Bridge toll in NY a while back as I remember. I personally wouldn't spend the money they want to stay in an AMC hut - but that's my choice. There are options that are low cost and/or free - just not as convenient. Hikers can backcountry camp for free in lots of places below treeline (trees must be over 8 ft tall). Generally the excluded areas one may not make a backcountry camp are: 1/4 mile from ponds, lakes, roads, huts, shelters, etc; and 200 feet from the trail and most streams / rivers. The full list of restrictions is available here (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf). The prohibitions as to where people may camp in WMNF are for the most part not NH regulations or some contrivance of the trail clubs, but rather federal regulations enacted under 16 USC 551 to protect the National Forest and Wilderness areas.

FWIW, the AMC, RMC, and DOC were in the Whites building trails, huts, lean-tos, campsites, AND cleaning up (from massive over-logging), developing trails, and getting legislation passed to protect the forest for recreational use long before Benton MacKaye even had the idea for the AT. Perhaps people should gripe to the ATC for routing the AT over the existing trail network in the Whites (and VT's Long Trail as well. After all, the GMC charges fees at some shelters and campsites too). :-?

rickb
12-09-2010, 07:57
1/4 mile from ponds, lakes, roads, huts, shelters, etc; and 200 feet from the trail and most streams / rivers.

The distances required away from most ponds, most lakes, the Trail (when not in a wilderness area), and most streams and most rivers listed above do not apply throughout the WMNF.

The WMNF has created this confusion because their backcountry regulation brochure list both specific regulations for specific places, as well as Leave No Trace guidelines.

Plenty of places where you can legally camp right next to ponds, stream and the trail and still be legal in the Whites. And if its at a heavily impacted site, you may even be conforming to the LNT guidelines.

It is far easier to avoid fees in the Whites than most people realize.

Pony
12-10-2010, 00:30
I've been curious about this for awhile, and searching the internet has turned up very few results. To my knowledge National Forest land is public land and you can pretty much camp wherever you choose in the NF. WMNF obviously does not follow the same rules due to the special use permit that you hear so much about. Does anyone have any info in regards to this special use permit?

4eyedbuzzard
12-10-2010, 01:04
I've been curious about this for awhile, and searching the internet has turned up very few results. To my knowledge National Forest land is public land and you can pretty much camp wherever you choose in the NF. WMNF obviously does not follow the same rules due to the special use permit that you hear so much about. Does anyone have any info in regards to this special use permit?
A bit confused? :confused: :-?
The special use permits are issued to for-profit commercial operations (ski areas, logging, etc), or non-profit organizations (such as AMC) having impact on the forest. Here's the gov's page(s) on all that
http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/ (http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/)

Many of the camping restrictions come from there being 6 designated Wilderness Areas contained within the WMNF. There are other restrictions due to its heavy recreational use, the alpine environment areas, etc. Most National Forests have some local rules set by the Forest Manager to address issues specific or unique to their area. WMNF probably has more than most due to its rather unique use, which is more like a National Park in many ways than many other National Forests.

4eyedbuzzard
12-10-2010, 01:08
Also, this in regards to passes http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/passes/

4shot
12-10-2010, 12:33
FWIW, the AMC, RMC, and DOC were in the Whites building trails, huts, lean-tos, campsites, AND cleaning up (from massive over-logging), developing trails, and getting legislation passed to protect the forest for recreational use long before Benton MacKaye even had the idea for the AT. Perhaps people should gripe to the ATC for routing the AT over the existing trail network in the Whites (and VT's Long Trail as well. After all, the GMC charges fees at some shelters and campsites too). :-?


and logical - if the practice predated the AT, then you are right. No one that I spoke to on the trail had an explanation for their (AMC) practices and why it seemed so different from any other segment of the trail. I guess we weren't as knowledgeable on the history as some of you are here. we were just walking as they say.:)

As far as the huts go, I really think it would be appropriate to have simple lean-to's seperate from the hutsfor any long distance hiker. The special "privilege" of staying there for free (or work for stay) was a bit akward and some of the paying customers seemed resentful of the fact that we did get to stay there for free, despie the fact that we were helping the staff. I only stayed at two because I was uncomfortable with them because of this. I also think it opens up the Whites to people who weren't equipped or prepared to be up there on more than just a day hike. Twice that I know of thru-hikers voluntereed to go out and find/escort people to the huts after dark who were struggling merely to get from shelter to shelter.

I did however enjoy my stay at the Liberty Springs and Ethan Pond campsites. The caretakers there, can't remenber there names now and too lazy to look at my journal, were great guys, hiker friendly and fun tio hang out with for an evening.

mudhead
12-10-2010, 16:06
Last place I paid to stay in Maine was Baxter State Park and I think it cost six bucks. I think I got my money's worth.

You did get your money's worth. Tent site there is $30 now.

I would pay a couple bucks S&R fee when I bought a WMNF parking pass.

Just as long as that fee didn't cover "really stupid stuff."

Moose2001
12-10-2010, 16:28
Funny how everyone bitches about such a fee UNTIL they need S&R.