PDA

View Full Version : Regarding the Huts in the Whites -- Illegal to Turn You Away?



dgposey
07-19-2011, 16:10
I have heard that, due to the tempermental weather in the White Mountains of NH, it is illegal to turn anybody away from the huts there. First of all, is this true? And secondly, what does it mean in practice? For instance, if I show up and say I don't have any money/a reservation, will they let me stay?

I maybe should mention that I'm a thru-hiker, and I don't necessarily plan to be one of the first two hikers to arrive to get work-for-stay, and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees.

WingedMonkey
07-19-2011, 16:31
Yes they should house you and feed you for free. And then they should call rescue because you are obviously not prepared to be in The Whites and need to be taken to safety.

Red Hat
07-19-2011, 16:35
don't know where you heard this, but it is not true. Last year a number of hikers were turned away, even in cold wet weather. They will sometimes take more than two work for stays (last year at Lake of the Clouds there were at least 10) but I watched several get sent packing from Madison. Do mention that you are a thru-hiker, but don't expect to always get accepted. By the way, work for stay means work. I didn't get out until 9 or 10 if I got breakfast duty.

hikerboy57
07-19-2011, 16:52
It would be irresponsible to assume theyd let you stay, regardless of conditions, which you should already be aware can be pretty severe, as well as changing rather quickly. People pay up to $100 a head to stay, there is not unlimited space. They will accomodate to the best of their ability in dangerous conditions, but theres only so much space. I wouldnt plan on staying at any of the huts.RMC has several camps on the north side of Mt Madison, you can camp at valley way, or osgood. but dont assume the huts will take you in, even in bad weather.

Slo-go'en
07-19-2011, 17:01
If the AMC didn't have a policy of only paying guests stay (and the occasional thru-hiker if they are feeling generous, but even thru-hikers have to pay in one form or another), the huts would be over run by hikers who didn't want to pay, but still wanted to use thier facilities.

Also to some extent, maximum capacity laws come into play. It its illegal to exceed the limit. When I was a summer caretaker at the RMC Crag Camp, (many years ago) I had a policy of not turning anyone away. The cabin was rated for sleeping 15. I would often have 30, and a couple of nights I had over 50! Finding places to put all those people and thier gear was a challenge! Stacked them in like cord wood.

However, these days the maximum capacity rules are enforced (Forest service insisted to renew the special use permit). If the place is full and you show up late at night, dripping wet and hypothermic, you will not be allowed to stay. You will be able to dry off and warm up, but once that happens, your out of there.

mountain squid
07-19-2011, 17:16
Concur - don't expect a work-for-stay. Make an itinerary with stays at some of the pay shelters and some of the free tent platforms and maybe The Dungeon at Lakes of the Clouds. If, for whatever reason, you do get a work-for-stay, that is good. Just don't expect it. (If you are in the midst of a large group, try to stagger going thru and don't forget that SOBOs might be going thru at the same time.)

For planning purposes, I usually suggest to hikers to 1/2 whatever they think is their hourly average for travel thru the Whites (if you think you currently do 3 mph, expect to do 1.5 mph in the Whites).

Do stop at the huts for soup and baked goodies.

See you on the trail,
mt squid

JAK
07-19-2011, 19:04
Obviously, if it is really crazy ass stormy out, any port in a storm. Common sense.
You should still be prepared for it though, and not be dependant on huts etc. Gone With The Wind Notwithstanding.

Lone Wolf
07-19-2011, 19:15
the huts and the trail the AT uses were there long before the AT was a trail and before there were "thru-hikers". you make a choice to hike the whole thing in one shot. plan accordingly and don't expect special treatment cuz you're on a vacation

Pedaling Fool
07-19-2011, 19:17
I have heard that, due to the tempermental weather in the White Mountains of NH, it is illegal to turn anybody away from the huts there. First of all, is this true? And secondly, what does it mean in practice? For instance, if I show up and say I don't have any money/a reservation, will they let me stay?

I maybe should mention that I'm a thru-hiker, and I don't necessarily plan to be one of the first two hikers to arrive to get work-for-stay, and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees.
That's crazy:rolleyes: By that reasoning it would be illegal to camp in the Whites.

BTW, potentially deadly weather can happen anywhere/anytime; nature just sucks that way.

Jersey Tim
07-19-2011, 19:31
Maybe I need to recalibrate my entitlement-o-meter, but that original post (the past line in particular) just rubbed me the wrong way. The huts are nice things: well-staffed, hot food, and other human conveniences in the middle of a sometimes-harsh environment. If you're unwilling to pay what they ask, just move on. You'd be a fool to be passing through the Whites without enough gear (layers/shelter/bag) to survive in the event that the weather stranded you between huts, anyway.

JAK
07-19-2011, 19:33
Old Magnus scolded them formally for supposing there was any danger to an active young fellow from a spring gale, whether by sea or land; yet ended by giving his own caution also to Mordaunt, advising him seriously to delay his journey, or at least to stop at Stourburgh. "For," said he, "second thoughts are best; and as this Scotsman's howf lies right under your lee, why, take any port in a storm. But do not be assured to find the door on latch, let the storm blow ever so hard; there are such matters as bolts and bars in Scotland, though, thanks to Saint Ronald, they are unknown here, save that great lock on the old Castle in Scalloway, that all men run to see - may be they make part of this man's improvements. But go, Mordaunt, since go you will.

mountain squid
07-19-2011, 20:47
You'd be a fool to be passing through the Whites without enough gear (layers/shelter/bag) to survive in the event that the weather stranded you between huts, anyway.I don't believe that is the point. Most 'thru-hikers' are probably carrying the necessary gear. By the time they get to the Whites, they have heard about the conditions, the weather, the ascents and descents, the huts and their associated expenses and, of course, the work-for-stays. Doing a work-for-stay appears to have become the accepted norm for getting thru the Whites without much expense.

I suspect that very few 'thru-hikers' will, as I have suggested, make a plan, since they haven't done so at any other point on their hike. Instead they'll likely just go thru and 'expect' a work-for-stay. I betcha Pack Rat and Phatt Chapp could count on one hand the number of hikers that have asked for advice before hitting the Whites . . .

See you on the trail,
mt squid

Ender
07-19-2011, 21:14
I have heard that, due to the tempermental weather in the White Mountains of NH, it is illegal to turn anybody away from the huts there. First of all, is this true? And secondly, what does it mean in practice? For instance, if I show up and say I don't have any money/a reservation, will they let me stay?

I maybe should mention that I'm a thru-hiker, and I don't necessarily plan to be one of the first two hikers to arrive to get work-for-stay, and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees.

Incorrect. They can, and will, turn you away. Regardless of the weather. They are under no legal obligation to let you stay there.

peakbagger
07-20-2011, 07:33
There have been challenges over the years to AMC when people arrive at the hut and are "too tired to go on" or dont have the proper gear to go on. The hut crew does have the right (as a private facility) to refuse to let someone stay. If the individual wants to push it, I expect they can call up fish and game for a rescue and most likely end up paying for that rescue.

The reality is that the hut crews try to work out a solution for anyone who ends up on their doorstep as long as the individuals dont get an "attitude" ,unfortunately sometimes the solution is to suggest the hiker head on down a side trail, if they dont have a flashlight, the hut will sell them one. Everyone of the high huts above treeline have "escape routes" where someone can rapidly drop down into the trees. Its rare that threatening conditions will last all night (or even more than a couple of hours) so there is no real need for someone to have to stay at a hut. There are up to date forecasts at every hut so unusual weather conditions shouldn't be a surprise. Do note that many of the guests at the huts are on hut to hut trips or weekend trips, if the conditions are nasty, some of the hut to hut hikers and weekenders will elect not to go to the next hut therefore freeing up spaces, which are made available, albeit at some cost to the last minute guest. I have never in 20 years of living in the area heard of a situation where an obviously injured hiker has been turned out, I have on the other hand heard of several overly dramatic morons who mis-planned their hikes and decided that they needed to vent their spleen for all the hear after being refused a spot. They usually disappear from the hiking community soon after.

In no case should a thruhiker get in this situation, they should know their abilities and have a plan on where they are staying that evening, generally, there are numerous sidetrails that will drop them below treeline and into somewhat open woods in an hour or less if they cant make their intended place to stay. If they get injured enough that they cant proceed, the hut crew will start the rescue process.

Sly
07-20-2011, 07:52
I reached the Madison Spring Hut after season. Severely fatigued and hurting, I wasn't expecting anyone to be there and planned on staying outside in the small foyer. To my surprise when I arrived, there was a caretaker there closing the hut for the season. He refused to let me stay and sent me down the trail to the Valley campsite, where I further injured myself along the way. At that point, I needed to leave the trail and end my thru-hike. To literally add insult to injury, I was reading Trail Journals a few days later and saw where the same caretaker, invited another thru-hiker to stay the night if he washed dishes.

At that point I swore, never to listen to a caretaker again. I understand the need for rules in the high country and the damage that can be done to the fragile environment, but when a group like the AMC brings thousands of hikers to the area every year, are they doing the environment any favors?

Jack Tarlin
07-20-2011, 08:11
Good thread. And Ender is absolutely right. Just like hotels, these places have no obligation whatsoever to lodge people who can't (or more likely, don't want to) pay for their services. It should also be pointed out that there are hundreds, if not thousands of perfectly good places for hikers to legally overnight in the White Mountains, and the properly prepared hiker, especially one who's planned his/her daily travels well, and who carries a current map of the area, including side trails below treeline.....well these folks don't seem to have problems in the White Mountains. But as for expecting the AMC to lodge (at a discount or more likely, for free) people who are ill-prepared or ill-equipped, well, no, they're under no obligation to do so. Alternate argument: If I arrive in downtown Boston on a rainy night, without having made any previous plans, without having looked into lodging alternatives, and with only 10 bucks in my pocket, is it reasonable that the Ritz Carlton put me up for the night at their expense? Um, no, it isn't, and they wouldn't.

bobqzzi
07-20-2011, 08:45
I reached the Madison Spring Hut after season. Severely fatigued and hurting, I wasn't expecting anyone to be there and planned on staying outside in the small foyer. To my surprise when I arrived, there was a caretaker there closing the hut for the season. He refused to let me stay and sent me down the trail to the Valley campsite, where I further injured myself along the way. At that point, I needed to leave the trail and end my thru-hike. To literally add insult to injury, I was reading Trail Journals a few days later and saw where the same caretaker, invited another thru-hiker to stay the night if he washed dishes.

At that point I swore, never to listen to a caretaker again. I understand the need for rules in the high country and the damage that can be done to the fragile environment, but when a group like the AMC brings thousands of hikers to the area every year, are they doing the environment any favors?

What did your situation have to do with the environment or AMC rules?

Lone Wolf
07-20-2011, 08:51
At that point I swore, never to listen to a caretaker again. I understand the need for rules in the high country and the damage that can be done to the fragile environment, but when a group like the AMC brings thousands of hikers to the area every year, are they doing the environment any favors?pretty hard to damage granite. the "environment" in the whites ain't being harmed

Sly
07-20-2011, 09:08
pretty hard to damage granite. the "environment" in the whites ain't being harmed

Not that I'm going to impact them more than the hordes the AMC brings in, there's delicate lichens and fragile plants.

Sly
07-20-2011, 09:13
What did your situation have to do with the environment or AMC rules?

According to the AMC rules there's no camping near the Huts, I believe under the auspices of protecting the environment. Probably more like their pocketbook.

Pedaling Fool
07-20-2011, 09:28
Not that I'm going to impact them more than the hordes the AMC brings in, there's delicate lichens and fragile plants.
These lichens are what's eating our mountains. I say kill the damn things.:D

Or you can just eat them:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A54hTn0C7IY

Slo-go'en
07-20-2011, 09:50
According to the AMC rules there's no camping near the Huts, I believe under the auspices of protecting the environment. Probably more like their pocketbook.

Actually Sly, I belive that is a Forest Service rule and applies to any official, established camping spot. There is no camping allowed with in 1/4 mile of these facilities and none above tree line, which double forbids camping near a number of AMC huts.

Anyway, if you were hiking up there "after season", you should have planned to have stayed at Crag Camp or Gray Knob (which are open all year round).

But don't take my defending the AMC wrong, I am not a memeber and don't really like the fact they seem to be more of a resort and hotel operation then a non-profit originzation. However, they were there first and have been for over a 100 years, so they have some clout.

Slo-go'en
07-20-2011, 09:56
pretty hard to damage granite. the "environment" in the whites ain't being harmed

Just so long as they stay on the granite, which isn't always the case, especially with those who try to camp up there. They would rathier set up a tent on a pacth of thin soil with fragile plants growing on it, then lay down on a rock.

Lone Wolf
07-20-2011, 10:00
Just so long as they stay on the granite, which isn't always the case, especially with those who try to camp up there. They would rathier set up a tent on a pacth of thin soil with fragile plants growing on it, then lay down on a rock.whatever. 1 moose will cause more damage than a bunch of hikers. kill the moose?

Grampie
07-20-2011, 10:19
Part of being a thru-hiker is in the planing. Hiking through the Whites takes some planing. Before you climb the Whites you must be shure that you have adaquately prepaired. You need a warmer sleeping bag and warm clothing incase you face bad weather. The tempeture can easily fall into th 30s or 40s any time of the year. You must also consider where you are going to spend the night and plan accordinaly. Work for stay does not always work. If you arrive late the crew will not let you work for stay so be prepaired to move on or pay.
Stop at the Hiker Welcome Hostel. These guys can give you all the advise you wiull need to safely hike thru the Whites.

Snowleopard
07-20-2011, 10:28
There are a lot of regulations on camping in the White Mountain National Forest.
Above treeline, please obey these regs. It's a fragile environment and needs to be protected.
Briefly: No camping in the Alpine zone (trees less than 8' tall).
No camping within 200' of trails or water.
No camping within 1/4 mile of hut, shelter, developed tent site, cabin, ...

Basically, if you are not staying at the AMC or RMC shelters, your main option is to drop down considerably lower in elevation. Even where it is legal, sometimes it can be pretty hard to find a spot for a tent (maybe a hammock is easier). I wish the AMC huts were cheaper, but the cost is a reality. If you want to avoid them, you'll have to plan carefully.

If it is a matter of life or death, I suppose I would forgive you for bivying above treeline. BUT, if the weather is that bad you may not survive. Survival is much more likely below treeline. Descending is almost always your best option. Above treeline you should always know the best escape route to a safe location. Very few thru-hikers carry equipment that would assure survival above treeline in summer in bad weather. The worse weather in July or August would be torrential rain, temps in the 30s and 100 mph winds. It's usually possible to avoid the worst weather by checking weather reports before you go up and by descending if the weather deteriorates.

Camping in the Alpine Zone(where trees are 8 feet tall or less)
• No camping except on 2 or more feet of
snow
• No camping on frozen bodies of water
• No wood or charcoal fires from the Forest Service brochure on backcountry camping rules.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf




(http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf)

Snowleopard
07-20-2011, 10:29
There are a lot of regulations on camping in the White Mountain National Forest.
Above treeline, please obey these regs. It's a fragile environment and needs to be protected.
Briefly: No camping in the Alpine zone (trees less than 8' tall).
No camping within 200' of trails or water.
No camping within 1/4 mile of hut, shelter, developed tent site, cabin, ...

Basically, if you are not staying at the AMC or RMC shelters, your main option is to drop down considerably lower in elevation. Even where it is legal, sometimes it can be pretty hard to find a spot for a tent (maybe a hammock is easier). I wish the AMC huts were cheaper, but the cost is a reality. If you want to avoid them, you'll have to plan carefully.

If it is a matter of life or death, I suppose I would forgive you for bivying above treeline. BUT, if the weather is that bad you may not survive. Survival is much more likely below treeline. Descending is almost always your best option. Above treeline you should always know the best escape route to a safe location. Very few thru-hikers carry equipment that would assure survival above treeline in summer in bad weather. The worse weather in July or August would be torrential rain, temps in the 30s and 100 mph winds. It's usually possible to avoid the worst weather by checking weather reports before you go up and by descending if the weather deteriorates.

Camping in the Alpine Zone(where trees are 8 feet tall or less)
• No camping except on 2 or more feet of
snow
• No camping on frozen bodies of water
• No wood or charcoal fires from the Forest Service brochure on backcountry camping rules.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf




(http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf)

Snowleopard
07-20-2011, 10:34
Sorry for the double post. I don't know why that happened.

ironman y2k
07-20-2011, 11:16
In the initial post dgposey's last sentence implies an attitude that can cause problems for future thru-hikers. Understandably thru-hikers are a special breed in the hiking community, but it doesn't allow for special treatment, and as thru-hikers we should respect the trail and all it's rules whether written or unwritten.

The cost of an overnight stay at the huts in the White Mountains is expensive but their expenses are high as well. The "croo" try to accomodate thru-hikers, but as a thru-hiker you should not expect "special" treatment, and if as you state in your last sentence, ".... and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees", then you should plan on ending your day in another location along the trail.

All along the trail from GA to ME people are turned off by poor attitudes or actions of hikers and as a result those who follow can experience a less than favorable welcome.

Please... all who travel the A.T., just like trash, don't leave anything behind that will lessen the experience of those who follow.

Tom Murphy
07-22-2011, 13:00
I reached the Madison Spring Hut after season. Severely fatigued and hurting, I wasn't expecting anyone to be there and planned on staying outside in the small foyer. To my surprise when I arrived, there was a caretaker there closing the hut for the season. He refused to let me stay and sent me down the trail to the Valley campsite, where I further injured myself along the way. At that point, I needed to leave the trail and end my thru-hike. To literally add insult to injury, I was reading Trail Journals a few days later and saw where the same caretaker, invited another thru-hiker to stay the night if he washed dishes.

At that point I swore, never to listen to a caretaker again. I understand the need for rules in the high country and the damage that can be done to the fragile environment, but when a group like the AMC brings thousands of hikers to the area every year, are they doing the environment any favors?

You - show up after work-for-stay no longer available due to close hut and trying to illegally camp next to shelter, caretaker advises you on the closest legal campsite

Other hiker - shows up during season and took advantage of work-for stay.

The thousands of people using the hut system have less impact than you illegally camping above treeline.You shouldn't have pushed thru to Madison. Your thru hike ended due to your own poor decisions. Hopefully you will realize that someday. The caretaker did exactly the right thing.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

hikerboy57
07-22-2011, 13:57
whatever. 1 moose will cause more damage than a bunch of hikers. kill the moose?
Unlike humans, moose dont have the capacity to think.they do have instincts however, and wouldnt catch one trying to reach the highest peaks in a thunderstorm. If a moose were to turn up at the hut, he would be expected to either work for stay(if there are any working moose positions that havent been taken yet),or pay like the rest of the guests.

Carl in FL
07-22-2011, 14:40
Wall decor is the only moose "opening" I am aware of.

Rocket Jones
07-22-2011, 17:32
Wall decor is the only moose "opening" I am aware of.

That's more of a career opportunity.

weary
07-22-2011, 18:08
According to the AMC rules there's no camping near the Huts, I believe under the auspices of protecting the environment. Probably more like their pocketbook.
Those are National Forest rules, not AMC rules. Though AMC like everyone has the right to propose, support, or oppose NFS rules. The reason AMC is now a big time landowner in Maine is partly, at least, to get out from under the control of federal rules.

10-K
07-22-2011, 20:37
\I betcha Pack Rat and Phatt Chapp could count on one hand the number of hikers that have asked for advice before hitting the Whites . . .

See you on the trail,
mt squid

Put me on that hand. I took Phatt Chapp out to dinner and picked his brain for 2 hours. And that was after slackpacking from Franconia Notch back to the hostel in Glencliff in 12 hours. :)

And then I got lucky and got work for stay at every hut I stopped out. I bet I gained 5 lbs going through the Whites.

Red Hat
07-23-2011, 00:16
Put me on that hand. I took Phatt Chapp out to dinner and picked his brain for 2 hours. And that was after slackpacking from Franconia Notch back to the hostel in Glencliff in 12 hours. :)

And then I got lucky and got work for stay at every hut I stopped out. I bet I gained 5 lbs going through the Whites.

Just don't count on getting even a paid spot the last week of August. They are full! I got advice from Phat Chap to try and call ahead when I wanted a spot... but found all paid spots were gone. I did get several work for stays and lucked into cancellations at Lake of the Clouds and Madison.

10-K
07-23-2011, 06:50
Just don't count on getting even a paid spot the last week of August. They are full! I got advice from Phat Chap to try and call ahead when I wanted a spot... but found all paid spots were gone. I did get several work for stays and lucked into cancellations at Lake of the Clouds and Madison.

My luck was really getting into the Whites just as the huts were opening. The first one I stayed out the croo was still getting everything ready to open the next day. There weren't even any guests there that night. By the time I got to whatever hut is just north of Mt. Washington it was *packed* but I still got a space in a bunk.

Carter Notch I had to sleep on the floor but I had a mattress. This was my favorite hut BTW.

Lemni Skate
07-23-2011, 06:55
What is the longest stretch you will hike where you are in an Alpine Zone? Does the trail drop below the tree line at least once per day?

Lone Wolf
07-23-2011, 06:58
What is the longest stretch you will hike where you are in an Alpine Zone? Does the trail drop below the tree line at least once per day?about 12 miles

rickb
07-23-2011, 07:45
No camping within 200' of trails or water.
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf)

FWIW, those are listed as a good LNT practice in the brochure but are not a blanket restrictions in the Whites.

In many areas below treeline in the Whites which outside of federally designated Wilderness areas, it is perfectly legal to camp right next to a trail-- including the AT, or next to a body of water.

That brochure lists many of the exceptions.

Bottom line, don't automatically assume someone camped below tree line right next to the AT in the Whites is there illegally. In some areas he might be, and some areas he might not be.

4shot
07-23-2011, 07:55
In the initial post dgposey's last sentence implies an attitude that can cause problems for future thru-hikers. Understandably thru-hikers are a special breed in the hiking community, but it doesn't allow for special treatment, and as thru-hikers we should respect the trail and all it's rules whether written or unwritten.



wow....there are consistently hard feelings and bias towards thru-hikers on White Blaze. It's a shame too...seems like 98% of the thru-hikers give the rest of us a bad reputation!;)

fwiw, I didn't take the OP's statement of not paying the high fees as entitlement, rather he would work out a different plan than staying at the huts.

Jack Tarlin
07-23-2011, 08:40
The "different plan" for folks who don't want to pay to stay at the Huts is quite simple: They can plan and prepare intelligently and appropriately, in terms of gear and food; they can carry current maps that have detailed information on side trails, alternate campsites/shelters; and they can make sure that they've given some thought in the morning as to where they intend to stay in the evening. But to show up at the Huts expecting some sort of special treatment or discount (as many thru-hikers do) is indeed a display of "entitled" behavior.

sheepdog
07-23-2011, 09:01
whatever. 1 moose will cause more damage than a bunch of hikers. kill the moose?
I don't believe in moose

sheepdog
07-23-2011, 09:03
wow....there are consistently hard feelings and bias towards thru-hikers on White Blaze. It's a shame too...seems like 98% of the thru-hikers give the rest of us a bad reputation!;)

fwiw, I didn't take the OP's statement of not paying the high fees as entitlement, rather he would work out a different plan than staying at the huts.

The OP was talking about forcing the huts to take him in.

envman67
07-23-2011, 10:04
I'm sure this has been mentioned before,but is the cost if you want to stay above tree line?

hikerboy57
07-23-2011, 11:31
I'm sure this has been mentioned before,but is the cost if you want to stay above tree line?
The cost could be death,.Hurricane force winds and below freezing temps,even in summer, are fairly common.Learn your exit routes, and heed the warning signs if weather is turning bad, turn back.

Sly
07-23-2011, 11:56
Actually Sly, I belive that is a Forest Service rule and applies to any official, established camping spot. There is no camping allowed with in 1/4 mile of these facilities and none above tree line, which double forbids camping near a number of AMC huts.

Regardless, it's a rule that intended to herd hikers at an AMC facility. That the AMC has been there 100 years doesn't change the fact it's public land. On the CDT, it's not only legal to camp above treeline, at times it's practically unavoidable.

Snowleopard
07-23-2011, 14:28
Regardless, it's a rule that intended to herd hikers at an AMC facility. That the AMC has been there 100 years doesn't change the fact it's public land. On the CDT, it's not only legal to camp above treeline, at times it's practically unavoidable.
The rule against camping within 1/4 mile of huts is because these are very heavily used areas. Overall, the rules are similar to the Adirondacks, where there is no camping above 4000' and there are no high huts. There are also NY rangers in the ADK who will fine you or force you to leave if you violate the rules in an obnoxious way.

The CDT is very different; there is much much more terrain above tree line. In the White Mountains, there is a small area above tree line, it is a fragile environment and it is very heavily used.

I think the hut crew that turned sly away was a jerk; if someone is hurt, exceptions should be made. A better course of action might have been to plan on dropping down to the the RMC shelters instead of Madison, if I understand correctly where you were.

Thru-hikers who want to avoid paying at the AMC huts need to read Jack Tarlin's post #42 carefully.

WingedMonkey
07-23-2011, 14:33
FWIW, those are listed as a good LNT practice in the brochure but are not a blanket restrictions in the Whites.

In many areas below treeline in the Whites which outside of federally designated Wilderness areas, it is perfectly legal to camp right next to a trail-- including the AT, or next to a body of water.

That brochure lists many of the exceptions.

Bottom line, don't automatically assume someone camped below tree line right next to the AT in the Whites is there illegally. In some areas he might be, and some areas he might not be.

According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf

Carl in FL
07-23-2011, 14:58
Excuse what might be a silly question, but when one refers to the
"Appalcahian Trail Corridor" and mentions something like "within 200
feet of", are they using that term to refer to the Trail walking path,
or is the Corridor itself marked?

hikerboy57
07-23-2011, 15:02
the trail itself.

tdoczi
07-23-2011, 15:21
According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf

my apologies if you already realize this and have some other reasoning here for bringing this rule up, but the summit of mt moosilauke to the CT river is, in most people's minds, out of the white mountains and if you were to hike in that direction it is hiking away from the AMC huts.

rickb
07-23-2011, 16:33
According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/2010_backcountry_rules_web.pdf

There are other restrictions along the AT as well-- 200' where it passes through wilderness areas and even greater prohibitions north of Gorham to the ME line, for example. And those stretches above treeline.

They are just not blanket restrictions along the entire AT in the Whites.

nufsaid
07-23-2011, 17:06
What happened to the idea of personal responsibility?

House of Payne
07-28-2011, 17:57
Interesting read to say the least. I'm an AMC member like some of the responders are, and I was I was curious on the AMC's official position on the subject so I jotted them an e-mail about this. I'm sure their answer will be "by the book", pay or go. I can understand planning especially careful around this portion of the trail because of the limited camp options and the more dangerous weather conditions. In all my time hiking the whites and portions of the AT in NH I have seen more 'do what you have to do' situations when push comes to shove. I have seen folks camped 50 ft off the trail above 3,000ft. due to stormy conditions, people pitcing their tents right behind full shelters when they arrive after dark and in one occasion a man bivy overnight behind Madison after coming in after dark. I think he knew better than to ask for shelter at the hut. I can't imagine the hut croo not doing anything more than scolding him about the rules despite his situation, which in another point of view may have been the wrong decision to get there when he did.

Sly
07-28-2011, 18:35
Excuse what might be a silly question, but when one refers to the
"Appalcahian Trail Corridor" and mentions something like "within 200
feet of", are they using that term to refer to the Trail walking path,
or is the Corridor itself marked?

Camping would be from the trail itself. The same type rule applies in the SNP, either at the shelters or 200' off trail.

If I'm not mistaken, marking the "corridor" is an on-going project in NP areas.

If you're interested I have a powerpoint presentation of the Boundary program I could email you.

hikerboy57
07-28-2011, 18:40
house of Payne brings up an excellent point. should conditions be dangerous , I doubt many ridge runners are checking for stealth campsites, so in a pinch, you're probably fine if you had to bivy somewhere.Ive seen plenty of people stealth camping at Star lake near madison, and it didnt seem like anyone was telling them to move on.

Trailbender
07-28-2011, 19:30
The "different plan" for folks who don't want to pay to stay at the Huts is quite simple: They can plan and prepare intelligently and appropriately, in terms of gear and food; they can carry current maps that have detailed information on side trails, alternate campsites/shelters; and they can make sure that they've given some thought in the morning as to where they intend to stay in the evening. But to show up at the Huts expecting some sort of special treatment or discount (as many thru-hikers do) is indeed a display of "entitled" behavior.

None of the huts had a problem with me staying, but I showed up, ready to work, and when I was finished, asked if anything else needed to be done.

Blissful
07-28-2011, 19:59
I don't know I found the croo on my last venture in 2010 much different then in '07. Accommodating and they also charged hikers when there wasn't enough work to do, to spend the night on the floor (aty least at Madison). I saw no one turned away. There was much more food too to go around. In '07 we had none.

Tom Murphy
07-29-2011, 08:52
house of Payne brings up an excellent point. should conditions be dangerous , I doubt many ridge runners are checking for stealth campsites, so in a pinch, you're probably fine if you had to bivy somewhere.Ive seen plenty of people stealth camping at Star lake near madison, and it didnt seem like anyone was telling them to move on.

I would hope those people are camping at star lake in emergency conditions only, otherwise that is an incredibly selfish thing to do.

hikerboy57
07-29-2011, 09:05
I would hope those people are camping at star lake in emergency conditions only, otherwise that is an incredibly selfish thing to do. I agree tom.Im absolutely not condoning it.and thats exactly what I meant,in emergency conditions only, you could still find a place to bivy, and I doubt you'd get chased away. there are the RMC sites, valley campsite and osgood( a bit futher) as alternatives around madison.and of course it might make sense to heed the warning signs telling you to go back in bad weather.

House of Payne
07-29-2011, 20:00
I'm an AMC member like some of the responders are, and I was I was curious on the AMC's official position on the subject so I jotted them an e-mail about this. I'm sure their answer will be "by the book", pay or go.

My email to the AMC (7/28/2011);
I'm a current AMC member and am
currently planning a thru-hike
for 2014. One of the questions
that has come up in some of the
AT forums is stays at the AMC
high huts on the trip. Some are
saying opportunity for work for
stay (however limited) and others
say that many get turned away. My
question to you is why some thru-
hikers would be turned away when
the huts are somewhat isolated to
begin with and situations may
arise where a thru-hiker cannot
move on to another
site/hut/shelter. What is the
AMC's official view on this
subject so I can prepare this
portion of my trip.

thanks,


AMC's response this morning;

The hut crew has some tasks that a thru hiker can help with in return for dinner and breakfast with the crew.

There are only a certain number of tasks at a hut. You would talk to the hut crew when you arrive.

Hope that this helps to clarify.-Elizabeth


I kind of hoped for more of a response from the AMC on this one, instead it looks as if they skirted around what I was asking.

Carl in FL
07-29-2011, 20:18
Reading between the lines, it looks like "we won't throw you out headfirst
into the snow, but don't expect to be fed unless we have work for you".

That's more or less humane.

WingedMonkey
07-29-2011, 20:31
Reading between the lines, it looks like "we won't throw you out headfirst
into the snow, but don't expect to be fed unless we have work for you".

That's more or less humane.

You are reading something that is not there, even between the lines. Why would anyone be on the Whites and not fully prepared for snow or ice or freaking cold weather? Even after my rolled up tent was frozen from being rained on the night before, I didn't go begging at a yuppie shelter. It was closed anyway, but was being shut down by some left over staff. Didn't even approach it.One more fond memory to talk about.

Carl in FL
07-29-2011, 20:51
So you don't know what they would have said because you didn't ask.
I agree one should not be "on the Whites" without being prepared. We
shouldn't go out in the ocean if we can't swim either. However, the
lifeguards rescue first and pass judgment later.

WingedMonkey
07-29-2011, 21:30
So you don't know what they would have said because you didn't ask.
I agree one should not be "on the Whites" without being prepared. We
shouldn't go out in the ocean if we can't swim either. However, the
lifeguards rescue first and pass judgment later.

And if you need emergency attention, by all means go to a hut and ask for help to get off the trail. Lifeguards don't toss you back out to swim after they save you either.
The OP was talking about a thru hiker lying to the hut that he had no money and what if it was "temperamental" (his words) weather.
If he got all the way to New Hampshire with that attitude, who else did he rip off along the way?

Jack Tarlin
07-29-2011, 21:46
Carl: As has been pointed out, if someone is adequately prepared, thinks ahead, brings the necessary gear and equipment, as well as current maps and guidebooks, and if someone gives some thought early in the day to where they'll likely find themselves at day's end......well if they do this, they don't have to worry about being tossed out into the snow because they won't end up at the Huts at dusk sniveling and begging for a place to stay. The situation you described is simply not genuine.....the AMC people don't toss people into the snow. They may not let someone in for free, as is their right, but you're imputing a callousness to them that is both unfair and untrue.

Ender
07-29-2011, 23:26
It's a very simple equation folks... if you get to a hut and one of the two thru-hiker slots is open, and they have work for you, you get to stay for free. Otherwise, expect to pay for your stay or plan to move on to the next campsite/shelter or below treeline. Whatever happens, you should be prepared to camp out and not freeze to death. It's your responsibility.

Carl in FL
08-03-2011, 15:53
The situation you described is simply not genuine.....the AMC people don't toss people into the snow. They may not let someone in for free, as is their right, but you're imputing a callousness to them that is both unfair and untrue.

The situation I described is that they won't (and don't) toss people (out) into the snow, but that they probably won't feed you for free.

Blissful
08-03-2011, 16:03
It's a very simple equation folks... if you get to a hut and one of the two thru-hiker slots is open, and they have work for you, you get to stay for free. Otherwise, expect to pay for your stay or plan to move on to the next campsite/shelter or below treeline. Whatever happens, you should be prepared to camp out and not freeze to death. It's your responsibility.

Bingo. The AMC does not owe a hiker their huts and space. You need to be responsible. If you want a place to stay above treeline and will work for it, plan accordingly. If not, pay up or get out a map and check for other sites to stay.

weary
08-03-2011, 16:10
....I maybe should mention that I'm a thru-hiker, and I don't necessarily plan to be one of the first two hikers to arrive to get work-for-stay, and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees.
What do you think should be a fair fee for a comfortable bed in a rustic lodge, open only seasonally, and two pretty good AYCE meals, much of which had to be backpacked into a famous and beautiful high mountain area, mostly many steep miles from the nearest road?

Trailbender
08-03-2011, 17:32
What do you think should be a fair fee for a comfortable bed in a rustic lodge, open only seasonally, and two pretty good AYCE meals, much of which had to be backpacked into a famous and beautiful high mountain area, mostly many steep miles from the nearest road?

We slept on the floor in sleeping bags, which was fine. I didn't expect to get a bed. The expected trade was work for stay, in exchange for meals and a spot on the floor. Perfectly fine with that. I washed plenty of dishes, and always asked if there was more that needed to be done afterward.

Jack Tarlin
08-03-2011, 21:10
Only problem in one recent post above was the phrase "expected trade".

And that's what this thread is all about.

Hikers expect too much, and take too much for granted, in the White Mountains and elsewhere. The chance for a work-for-stay, food, or free/discount lodging is NOT written in stone anywhere; the problem, as we have seen, is when hikers consider their needs and wants above all else; they allow that they're willing to work for this, but don't consider the fact that this situation does not always exist. In short, what they "expect" to get is not always available; the simplest way for hikers in the Whites to prepare themselves for disappointment is to be happy when this "trade" of services works out for them, but not to expect it. "Expect" in too many circumstances has come to mean "taken for granted" and that's wrong.

Snowleopard
08-04-2011, 10:16
For a description of what a Madison Spring hut croo does in an emergency you can read to sad story of Don Barr. In an August storm, one was rescued and one died. In my opinion, thru-hikers should measure their gear in the White Mts against how it'll work in conditions like this: http://www.ohcroo.com/pdf/spring2001.pdf

I think this has also been published as a chapter of "Not without peril" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1934028320/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1929173067&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=14N26WM5PEZ3MHMRQS44

Trailbender
08-04-2011, 11:55
Only problem in one recent post above was the phrase "expected trade".

And that's what this thread is all about.

Hikers expect too much, and take too much for granted, in the White Mountains and elsewhere. The chance for a work-for-stay, food, or free/discount lodging is NOT written in stone anywhere; the problem, as we have seen, is when hikers consider their needs and wants above all else; they allow that they're willing to work for this, but don't consider the fact that this situation does not always exist. In short, what they "expect" to get is not always available; the simplest way for hikers in the Whites to prepare themselves for disappointment is to be happy when this "trade" of services works out for them, but not to expect it. "Expect" in too many circumstances has come to mean "taken for granted" and that's wrong.

Not really what I meant. I didn't feel entitled to anything, and would have tented if I had to. What I meant by expected, was that is the general idea of a "trade", if spots are available. I would have moved on without a problem if they said no room was available.

flyingturtle
08-04-2011, 12:19
the simplest way for hikers in the Whites to prepare themselves for disappointment is to be happy when this "trade" of services works out for them, but not to expect it. "Expect" in too many circumstances has come to mean "taken for granted" and that's wrong.

I've always kept relatively low expectations (note: NOT low standards! haha) for everything...I'm generally more happy. It's nice to be suprised by things that I may have "taken for granted" if they do in fact happen to occur. But if they do not happen...I'm no worse off! :)

Blissful
08-04-2011, 12:51
I've always kept relatively low expectations (note: NOT low standards! haha) for everything...I'm generally more happy. It's nice to be suprised by things that I may have "taken for granted" if they do in fact happen to occur. But if they do not happen...I'm no worse off! :)

Good attitude to go with on the trail. The those unexpected surprises mean a lot more too, and you are more grateful for them and people in general. I have more situations happen like that then I can count. Amazing stuff

the goat
08-04-2011, 13:01
as jack said, just bring maps. there are tons of trails off the ridgelines that go down to the treeline.

hell, if the weather is nice, there is nothing more beautiful than cowboy camping above treeline in the whites. i've done it a couple of times near lake of the clouds, even turned down a work-for-stay to do it once.

hikerboy57
08-04-2011, 13:33
as jack said, just bring maps. there are tons of trails off the ridgelines that go down to the treeline.

hell, if the weather is nice, there is nothing more beautiful than cowboy camping above treeline in the whites. i've done it a couple of times near lake of the clouds, even turned down a work-for-stay to do it once.
Just watch out for ridgerunners. Its illegal to camp anywhere above treeline in the whites.f yu're near madison, you can go to valey way or osgood, as well as the rmc sites.

Feral Bill
08-04-2011, 23:47
Just watch out for ridgerunners. Its illegal to camp anywhere above treeline in the whites.f yu're near madison, you can go to valey way or osgood, as well as the rmc sites.

When it was legal, I tented above treeline there a couple of times. This was not a good idea at all. The winds can be extremely nasty even in summer, and the weather can change quickly. Better to drop dow as far as needed for safety. Oddly, in winter, with four season tents, I did rather better.

hikerboy57
08-05-2011, 07:57
excellent link for anyone hiking the whites:http://hikesafe.com/

hikerboy57
08-05-2011, 07:59
For anyone hiking the whites, I found a good link:http://hikesafe.com/

Hooch
08-05-2011, 08:51
I maybe should mention that I'm a thru-hiker, and I don't necessarily plan to be one of the first two hikers to arrive to get work-for-stay, and I'm certainly not willing to pay the ridiculously high fees.Really? So you're expecting charity because you're lazy and a cheapskate? Nice. If you, for whatever reason, are unwilling to pay like everyone else or are not able to participate in work-for-stay, be prepared to move on down the line. As a thru-hiker, you're not entitled to anything, as others have pointed out, while you're on this little extended vacation.

Sly
08-05-2011, 09:48
You - show up after work-for-stay no longer available due to close hut and trying to illegally camp next to shelter, caretaker advises you on the closest legal campsite Other hiker - shows up during season and took advantage of work-for stay. The thousands of people using the hut system have less impact than you illegally camping above treeline.You shouldn't have pushed thru to Madison. Your thru hike ended due to your own poor decisions. Hopefully you will realize that someday. The caretaker did exactly the right thing. Sincerely, Tom Murphy Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was hiking off season, the Madison Hut was closed. I reached there in no real shape to continue and figured I could stay in the outside foyer. The caretaker shows up, listens to my story (while my knees are screaming) and sends me down the mountain. Wearily on the way down to valley campsite, I fall and injure myself. The caretaker, still there closing the hut a couple days later, let a perfectly healthy hiking stay.
Why wasn't he sent down the mountain? What ****ing damage could I cause sleeping on the door step that thousands have walked over? And how was my injury, which ended my hike, the result of poor planning?

Trailbender
08-05-2011, 10:41
Really? So you're expecting charity because you're lazy and a cheapskate? Nice. If you, for whatever reason, are unwilling to pay like everyone else or are not able to participate in work-for-stay, be prepared to move on down the line. As a thru-hiker, you're not entitled to anything, as others have pointed out, while you're on this little extended vacation.

There is a difference between being a cheapskate and not getting ripped off. If they charged full price for a hut stay, I would definitely feel like I got ripped off.


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was hiking off season, the Madison Hut was closed. I reached there in no real shape to continue and figured I could stay in the outside foyer. The caretaker shows up, listens to my story (while my knees are screaming) and sends me down the mountain. Wearily on the way down to valley campsite, I fall and injure myself. The caretaker, still there closing the hut a couple days later, let a perfectly healthy hiking stay.
Why wasn't he sent down the mountain? What ****ing damage could I cause sleeping on the door step that thousands have walked over? And how was my injury, which ended my hike, the result of poor planning?

I would have calmly explained the situation to him, stated that I couldn't move, and if he told me to move on, I would have politely refused. Sounds like you have a lawsuit in the works, as his actions directly contributed to your injury.

Sly
08-05-2011, 10:50
I would have calmly explained the situation to him, stated that I couldn't move, and if he told me to move on, I would have politely refused. Sounds like you have a lawsuit in the works, as his actions directly contributed to your injury.

I'm not the type for frivolous lawsuits. I chose to be in the mountains that day, so ultimately I do bare the responsibility. However, as I previously said, in the future when it comes to my well being, I'm making the decisions, not some young croo dude hired by the AMC.

bobqzzi
08-05-2011, 12:09
I would have calmly explained the situation to him, stated that I couldn't move, and if he told me to move on, I would have politely refused. Sounds like you have a lawsuit in the works, as his actions directly contributed to your injury.

Is that a joke? I hope so

Hooch
08-05-2011, 12:39
There is a difference between being a cheapskate and not getting ripped off. If they charged full price for a hut stay, I would definitely feel like I got ripped off. I agree that there is a difference in being a cheapskate and not getting ripped off. However, if someone is being charged the same as everyone else for the same thing, it's not getting ripped off. It's called paying your fair share for a service you chose. If one thinks that the huts charge too much, they're freee to move on.

Slo-go'en
08-05-2011, 12:40
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was hiking off season, the Madison Hut was closed. I reached there in no real shape to continue and figured I could stay in the outside foyer. The caretaker shows up, listens to my story (while my knees are screaming) and sends me down the mountain.

Sorry Sly, your not going to get much sympathy on this one.

No doubt your knees were starting to scream well before you got to Madison hut, but instead of dropping down to Crag Camp or Gray Knob, you pushed on figuring since it was "off season" you could get away with illegally camping at Madison hut. But you were caught, plain and simple, sorry.

I suspect there is more to this story then your letting on. Is it possible you had already set up a tent, blocking the front door when the caretaker showed up? If I was the caretaker, that would have pissed me off. I'm looking at a picture of Madison hut - there is no foyer, just a small patch of flat ground directly in front of the doorway.

In any event, if your knees were in such bad shape going down to the tent platforms was enough to end your hike, it's unlikely you would have lasted much longer anyway, even if you had been able to stay at the hut. The decent off Madison on the Osgood trail is a serious knee cruncher - much worse than the valley way.

flyingturtle
08-05-2011, 12:41
I'm not the type for frivolous lawsuits.

You are an increasing rarity these days. Too bad more people aren't like that. People need to man (or woman, mind you) up and take responsibility for themselves! Ok, I'm off my soapbox now! :D

JollyMaiden
08-05-2011, 13:00
You - show up after work-for-stay no longer available due to close hut and trying to illegally camp next to shelter, caretaker advises you on the closest legal campsite

Other hiker - shows up during season and took advantage of work-for stay.

The thousands of people using the hut system have less impact than you illegally camping above treeline.You shouldn't have pushed thru to Madison. Your thru hike ended due to your own poor decisions. Hopefully you will realize that someday. The caretaker did exactly the right thing.

Sincerely,
Tom MurphyVery well said. I've often wondered why thru-hikers think they are entitled to special treatment. Thru-hikers are just hikers on a long hike and are not entitled to any special treatment. The same rules for services and work-for-stay-or-pay should apply to them.

Carl in FL
08-05-2011, 13:23
If the caretaker did "exactly the right thing" for Sly then he did not do
"exactly the right thing" for the person that came through a few days later.
That seems to be one thing irking Sly, as it would irk any one of you in the
same sit. Careful how you hurl the stones.

flyingturtle
08-05-2011, 13:45
If the caretaker did "exactly the right thing" for Sly then he did not do
"exactly the right thing" for the person that came through a few days later.
That seems to be one thing irking Sly, as it would irk any one of you in the
same sit. Careful how you hurl the stones.

I don't mind if they won't bend the rules or make an exception for me, but if they are going to do that, then they have to be consistent, and you don't bend the rules for ANYONE!

Slo-go'en
08-05-2011, 13:55
If the caretaker did "exactly the right thing" for Sly then he did not do
"exactly the right thing" for the person that came through a few days later.
That seems to be one thing irking Sly, as it would irk any one of you in the
same sit. Careful how you hurl the stones.

Well, we know the situation with Sly - he was attempting to illegaly camp in front of the hut and got caught doing it. We have no idea what the situation with the other guy was. No doubt it was a completely different set of circumstances, or the caretaker was in a better mood, or what ever.

Trailbender
08-05-2011, 14:02
Is that a joke? I hope so

The moving on thing? I am old enough now to know to listen to my body. If I know I need to stop and rest, then I'll stop and rest, despite what anyone says. I think most people would be sympathetic, and leave me alone, but if not, I'd probably just ignore them. They won't be the one suffering if I hurt myself badly.

For the lawsuit thing, I was more referring to if it had been a really serious disabling injury, not something minor. He didn't really specify which it was. If the caretaker directly contributed to it by forcing him to move on, and that resulted in an injury, I don't see how he wouldn't be held liable. I don't agree with frivilous lawsuits either, but I wouldn't consider that to be one.

hikerboy57
08-05-2011, 14:13
sorry to veer off topic, but if the first thing you think about is to sue someone, then you've fallen victim to "i take no respo0nsibility for my own safety" school. the whites are the most dangerous small mountains in the world and need to be respected.I probably would have just stealth camped somewhere if I felt it was dangerous to continue.I think the croo member used poor judgement in forcing you on, as you said, it wasnt like they were ovrcrowded or anything. But from everyone Iv spoken with, this seems to be the exception. Most would do their best to ensure they werent sending you out into danger.

Sly
08-05-2011, 16:33
He didn't really specify which it was.

It was a knee injury. When I got to Madison they were screaming and needed rest. Once he sent me packing on the way to the Valley campsite, I fell and twisted it. A day hiker came by and I asked him if I made it down could he give me a ride back to Gorham. He agreed, and we hiked to the trailhead, finishing in the dark. he dropped me off, and I barely made it up the stairs to the Barn. The next day it was worse, and I knew it was going to take time to heal. Once I got back to Mass, they put my leg in an immobilizer. Since we're talking late September, there was no way, I was going to be able finish that year, so I resigned to the fact, I'd have to wait. By the following year I was good to go. This time when I reached the Whites I was a lot stronger and understood the terrain better*. I took my time through the Whites and went from the Dungeon to Osgood. I actually took the Parapeet Trail around Madison (worthless).

That I didn't finish the 1st year was a bit of a disappointment, but I had a great time the 2nd year and met another great group of people.

*(the year I got injured I ran out of money in PA, worked a couple months and got back on the trail southbound in Gorham looking for friends. The plan was to do the Whites sobo, hook up with friends, hike to Maine and then flip, finishing in PA)

weary
08-05-2011, 20:41
You are an increasing rarity these days. Too bad more people aren't like that. People need to man (or woman, mind you) up and take responsibility for themselves! Ok, I'm off my soapbox now! :D
Frivlous lawsuits are mostly a myth. It's hard to find a lawyer even for legitimate lawsuits, unless the legal fraternity smells a chance for big bucks.

I was fed a heart drug that I found out later was notorious for destroying lungs. Something like 3 percent of takers experience lung problems. Seventine percent of those affected die as a result.

I was walking five miles a day. Then suddenly I couldn't walk 125 feet to the top of my driveway to pick up the mail. I went to my heart doctor, and he said, not to worry. Just keep exercising and you will be okay. I ended up in the emergency room a few days later. The doctor, who had totally misread my symptoms, explained that HE had never experienced problems with the drug before. He was a heart specialist. He had never bother to read the problems with the drug he was giving his patients.

A decade later I still can't walk more than a mile, except at a crawl. But no lawyer I talked to was interested. The consensus seemed to be that the award I might win, wasn't worth their time.

Lone Wolf
08-05-2011, 20:56
Frivlous lawsuits are mostly a myth. It's hard to find a lawyer even for legitimate lawsuits, unless the legal fraternity smells a chance for big bucks.

I was fed a heart drug that I found out later was notorious for destroying lungs. Something like 3 percent of takers experience lung problems. Seventine percent of those affected die as a result.

I was walking five miles a day. Then suddenly I couldn't walk 125 feet to the top of my driveway to pick up the mail. I went to my heart doctor, and he said, not to worry. Just keep exercising and you will be okay. I ended up in the emergency room a few days later. The doctor, who had totally misread my symptoms, explained that HE had never experienced problems with the drug before. He was a heart specialist. He had never bother to read the problems with the drug he was giving his patients.

A decade later I still can't walk more than a mile, except at a crawl. But no lawyer I talked to was interested. The consensus seemed to be that the award I might win, wasn't worth their time.3 days before my major heart attack i had a stress test at our local hospital. i failed miserably. the cardiologist didn't seem too concerned. the techs were very concerned. they said consut with a cardiologist ASAP. 3 days later, major attack, over 90% blockage in 4 arteries. tried the lawyer thing. they wouldn't touch it

flyingturtle
08-05-2011, 22:32
Weary, Lone Wolf - Sorry to hear about that...it seems that it all comes down to whether or not you will benefit their bottom line, not if it is the right thing to do.

Sly
08-05-2011, 22:52
Very well said. I've often wondered why thru-hikers think they are entitled to special treatment. Thru-hikers are just hikers on a long hike and are not entitled to any special treatment. The same rules for services and work-for-stay-or-pay should apply to them.

You must have missed the part where I said the Hut was closed for the season. I wasn't expecting special treatment, nor was I expecting someone there to throw me off the mountain. What made me the angriest is that the dude let another healthy hiker stay a couple days later. God forbid you get injured and told to take a hike.

Trailbender
08-06-2011, 12:00
3 days before my major heart attack i had a stress test at our local hospital. i failed miserably. the cardiologist didn't seem too concerned. the techs were very concerned. they said consut with a cardiologist ASAP. 3 days later, major attack, over 90% blockage in 4 arteries. tried the lawyer thing. they wouldn't touch it

That sucks, a human life is more important than money.

JollyMaiden
08-07-2011, 01:23
You must have missed the part where I said the Hut was closed for the season. I wasn't expecting special treatment, nor was I expecting someone there to throw me off the mountain. What made me the angriest is that the dude let another healthy hiker stay a couple days later. God forbid you get injured and told to take a hike.
I did miss the fact that you were injured. To me, any injured or ill hiker, regardless of ability to pay should be allowed to stay and certainly should not be forced to leave the area even if forced to camp near the hut due to overcrowding.

Did you reported this to the NPS? As I understand it they have vendors running things these days and they are not going to know about problem vendors unless we report them.

Slo-go'en
08-07-2011, 11:57
I did miss the fact that you were injured

Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

rickb
08-07-2011, 13:04
Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

Not fair to either the hiker or the hutman to have policies in place that lead to the turning away of anyone indicating distress and seeking refuge.

Hutmen are not trained for it, and should not have this burdon.

If a hutman thinks a person who has indicated distress is well able to move on, they should limit themselves to sharing regulations, and offering advice and encouragement where appropriate. But they should do so respectfully and also make it clear that ultimately these kinds of decisions only the hiker can make.

If the hiker makes a decision that the hutman doesn't like, he can and should radio in to the Froest Service.

In this case it was just a thur hike cut short. Not a life. Still sucks and didn't have to be that way.

Sly
08-07-2011, 13:11
Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

.... interesting conclusion for someone without a clue.

Sly
08-07-2011, 13:26
Well, we know the situation with Sly - he was attempting to illegaly camp in front of the hut and got caught doing it. We have no idea what the situation with the other guy was. No doubt it was a completely different set of circumstances, or the caretaker was in a better mood, or what ever.

Playing attack dog today? You don't have to believe me, and from now on I don't expect you to. Do a search and see if Wingfoot's Trailplace journals are archived (late Sept. '97), you'll see how even though the hut was closed for the season, the caretaker allowed Goldfinger to stay. It was only two nights after he refused my plea.

Slo-go'en
08-07-2011, 14:57
Playing attack dog today?

Sorry to keep beating up on you Sly. Really, it isn't personal.

Just tell me one thing - were you in fact camped in front of the hut when the caretaker showed up? It would make a hugh difference in the way the caretaker would react to you if you were simply sitting on the door step resting or even cooking dinner, then it would be if you had a tent set up or bed roll spread out.

I'm sure there is a really good reason the caretaker made you move on while he let the other guy stay. It is quite possible the other guy was able to make a much better first impression with the caretaker then you were able to. The caretaker was under no obligation to let either of you stay, but for what ever reason, liked the other guy better. No sense in staying bitter about it.

Trailbender
08-07-2011, 15:13
Well, I was in the Army as a medic, so unless a hut croo member or whatever has more medical knowledge than me, I would take my own judgement in regard to injuries over what anyone else says. If I developed an injury where I knew I needed to stop, then I would stop there, independent of signs or what someone says.

Sly
08-07-2011, 16:36
Sorry to keep beating up on you Sly. Really, it isn't personal.

Just tell me one thing - were you in fact camped in front of the hut when the caretaker showed up?

No. It was still too early to even consider stopping, camping, or stealth camping. Nor was I resting at the doorstep. I was resting near the hut, along with a bunch or others hiking that day, trying to determine my next move, when about 30-45 minutes later the caretaker showed up and I asked about staying there.

The thought of asking for a work stay didn't occur to me as the hut was closed, nor was it mentioned. He asked if I had a tent, and I told him of course. That's when he said if it were later in the day or I didn't have a tent, he'd let me stay. I told him again, my knees were screaming and I really didn't want to dropped 500 feet. He repeated, if I didn't have a tent.... (unprepared days hikers get preferred treament?)

The caretaker allowed Goldfinger to stay in exchange for doing dishes. It doesn't bother me any more, it was a long time ago. I was just relaying a story related to the OP.

You can come up with all the excuses you want to defend the caretaker(s), I realize you guys are probably tight. But you ought to consider what can happen when sent someone away, that's not cute, or cool. or able to do your job for you.

rambunny
08-07-2011, 17:40
Simple-if you didn't do the trail before The Trail (like make enough $ to do it),don't expect to be treated like someone who has.Act accordingly & stealth,LNT,and go on-quit whining & hike!

rambunny
08-07-2011, 17:41
Sly-sorry-even caretakers can be di-ks

Trailbender
08-07-2011, 19:08
Simple-if you didn't do the trail before The Trail (like make enough $ to do it),don't expect to be treated like someone who has.Act accordingly & stealth,LNT,and go on-quit whining & hike!

What does making enough money have to do with what he was talking about? Also, you shouldn't be treated better just because you have money, unfortunately, people do.

Slo-go'en
08-07-2011, 21:41
No. It was still too early to even consider stopping, camping, or stealth camping. Nor was I resting at the doorstep. I was resting near the hut, along with a bunch or others hiking that day, trying to determine my next move, when about 30-45 minutes later the caretaker showed up and I asked about staying there.

Okay Sly, I apologize. It really helps to have the whole story. Now, were the other hikers also still there when you asked about staying at the hut? If so, I can see the caretaker thinking "if I let this guy stay, the whole gang will want to".

No, I'm not tight with anyone in the AMC, but I was a RMC caretaker for 9 months up at the near-by Crag Camp and Gray Knob. As such I was charged with at least trying to enforce the rules and one simply has to make judment calls once in a while.

Fredt4
09-19-2011, 12:41
Here's my story, I arrived at Mizpah Hut Saturday before Irene (Sunday) and the only croo member was unhappy with my presence. He requested, recommended, suggested I leave and hike out of the Whites several times due to the park closing. I declined each time and we finally came to the understanding that I was not leaving. The main reason I was not leaving was that in my experience all the hostels (and hotels) fill up during a major storm and it is sometimes diffucult to find a place to stay. I was prepared to camp in my tent or my bivy if necessary but given the circumstances I thought it would be best to be indoors. A croo member arrived late Saturday, just around dark, and later made a phone call. Sunday morning it was raining by day break. I asked if I could use the phone which he agreed to. I located a place to stay in Gorham and in Lincoln should I be able to get there. The croo member informed me of the AMC Highland Center and assured me that I would find shelter there. I decided to hike out via the Crawford Notch trail because the AT didn't seem safe and there wouldn't be any stream crossings. Several stream crossing later I arrived at the AMC HIGHLAND Center on US 302, where I stayed Sunday & Monday night. Looking back on the experience I would say that the croo members didn't have the experience or judgment to make the decision ass to whether I should stay or go. I made the decision since it was my life and only left a safe placs when I had the information I needed of where and how. As to the orginal question of whether they could legally require me to leave, I don't know, but they can't use force, no ranger was going to show up and enforce any request for me to leave and ultimately I made the decision based on my terms. Yes Irene was an exceptional situation, but every day is a unique situation in it's on terms. I understand that more accidents happen on a pretty day than during bad weather. As to the issue of thru-hiker's expectations and privileges I found the current hut system to be a barrier as formidable as the mountains. Perhaps some thing like the sign up as is done at the Birches in Baxter State Park would be helpful. But my hat's off to the croo s and especially to the staff at the AMC Highland Center that put me up for two days.

Hoofit
09-19-2011, 13:40
Too many people think they are ENTITLED to special treatment on the trail - hey, you chose to be there, right!? If you're out of money, call 'Mummy' or go home and earn some cash,it's that simple!
If you're not injured, move on or pay up
And don't go up a mountain without some kind of fair weather forecast..
Isn't that just common sense?

Trailbender
09-19-2011, 14:57
Looking back on the experience I would say that the croo members didn't have the experience or judgment to make the decision ass to whether I should stay or go. I made the decision since it was my life and only left a safe placs when I had the information I needed of where and how. As to the orginal question of whether they could legally require me to leave, I don't know, but they can't use force, no ranger was going to show up and enforce any request for me to leave and ultimately I made the decision based on my terms.

Agreed. I am the one that can make the best judgement on safety calls, and my own personal medical conditions. Any decision or recommendation to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible.

Trailbender
09-19-2011, 14:58
Agreed. I am the one that can make the best judgement on safety calls, and my own personal medical conditions. Any decision or recommendation to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible.

I meant to say, "any decision or recommendation contrary to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible".

tdoczi
09-19-2011, 15:57
I meant to say, "any decision or recommendation contrary to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible".

so that includes being allowed to judge that you should stay in a privately owned building if youre asked to leave?

hikerboy57
09-19-2011, 16:49
what i dont understand is the entitlement issue that still seems to pervade this forum. the huts were there before thru hiking became "popular", the rules have never changed, and some of the examples already cited showed two sides, both helpful and non helpful cru members. Its a very simple message, dont count on a free stay at the huts even if conditions are "dangerous", yes it does take a little logistical planning to get through the presidentials, but its not exactly impossible, and finally, check the forecast. If you're determined to see how to cheat death, then its ridiculous to assume that others should help in your endeavor.I thought freds story was about as realistic a depiction of the croo members as Ive come across.

Snowleopard
09-19-2011, 17:49
The AMC huts are privately owned and predate the AT and even the White Mt. Nat. Forest by a lot.
1888: Madison Springs Hut built by AMC.
1918: White Mountain National Forest was created.
1937: AT was completed.

Fredt4
09-19-2011, 18:40
The AMC Hut are privately owned and predate the AT, but perhaps AMC has lost sight of the purpose of the huts, to provide shelter to persons on the mountain. The use of the huts as a tourist lodging should always be secondary to safety. That in mind, the tourist are part of the matrix as are the thru-hikers and each should be aware of their own limitations and abilities.

Sly
09-19-2011, 18:47
The AMC huts are privately owned and predate the AT and even the White Mt. Nat. Forest by a lot.
1888: Madison Springs Hut built by AMC.
1918: White Mountain National Forest was created.
1937: AT was completed.

The AMC may predate the WMNF but I doubt the Huts are privately owned since they operate under a lease granted by the Forest Service.


The AMC partners with the White Mountain National Forest and is an equal opportunity service provider. The AMC operates Pinkham Notch Visitor Center and its system of backcountry huts in the White Mountain National Forest under special-use permits from the U.S. Forest Service.

hikerboy57
09-19-2011, 18:58
The AMC Hut are privately owned and predate the AT, but perhaps AMC has lost sight of the purpose of the huts, to provide shelter to persons on the mountain. The use of the huts as a tourist lodging should always be secondary to safety. That in mind, the tourist are part of the matrix as are the thru-hikers and each should be aware of their own limitations and abilities.the huts are there not just for safey, but to help minimize imopact above treeline by concentrating hikers at these areas.THEY CHAGRE A FEE TO STAY AT THE HUTS, there is maintenenance done, croo members get paid too, and trail maintenance as well. Ive stayed at the huts, and Im not a tourist. Ive hiked the whites since 1976 in tents, in huts and Ive paid for the privilege.Not everyone agrees with AMCs philosophy, but what gives you the right to stay for free at a privately owned facility everyone else has to pay for.In additon, croo members are not SAR and are not equipped to make safety judgements.prepare properly, watch the forecasts, and heed the signs at treeline, but dont expect the croo to accomodate you.

The Old Fhart
09-19-2011, 20:03
Sly-“The AMC may predate the WMNF but I doubt the Huts are privately owned since they operate under a lease granted by the Forest Service.”

Not totally correct. Madison Hut is on 1 acre of land the AMC actually owns. Lonesome Lake is on land owned by the State of New Hampshire and the hut was originally a sporting camp the State bought around 1923 and leased it to the AMC around 1929. The Division of Parks of the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development built the new hut in its present location around 1963.

Galehead hut was rebuilt in 2000 by the AMC and the new hut has been discussed extensively on WB because of the entrance ramp that had to be incorporated into its design to meet ADA guidelines for all new buildings on USFS land. The USFS lease is for 30 years. The Joe Dodge Center (Pinkham) appears to be outside the WMNF boundry.

Madison reopened this June after an extensive rebuilding. According to the AMC site: “Launched in 2009, the Spirit of Madison Campaign raised $1.5 million: $1 million to rebuild Madison Spring Hut, the oldest hut in our White Mountain system, and $500,000 to create an endowment fund to maintain the hut, provide naturalist programs, and install educational displays.”

Fredt4
09-19-2011, 20:05
Hikerboy57, I don't believe we disagree to a great degree. My point is that you ultimately have to be responsible for yourself and reliance on croo members or caretakers for your safety is not wise. The orginal question was not about free or paying, but can they require you to leave. Legally they probably can, but as Andrew Jackson noted, "They made their decision, now let them enforce it". If you're truly injured or in danger not just whimping out by all means decline to leave. Otherwise rest up, plan your next move and continue your hike. I think that too many hiker's both section and otherwise are not prepared to adjust their plans due to lack of planning and experience. A SAR resulting from your refusal to leave is better than hauling a body off the next day. But as you noted the rules are there for multiple reasons, but I believe safety should always be a priority and later we can sort out fees.

hikerboy57
09-19-2011, 20:15
Hikerboy57, I don't believe we disagree to a great degree. My point is that you ultimately have to be responsible for yourself and reliance on croo members or caretakers for your safety is not wise. The orginal question was not about free or paying, but can they require you to leave. Legally they probably can, but as Andrew Jackson noted, "They made their decision, now let them enforce it". If you're truly injured or in danger not just whimping out by all means decline to leave. Otherwise rest up, plan your next move and continue your hike. I think that too many hiker's both section and otherwise are not prepared to adjust their plans due to lack of planning and experience. A SAR resulting from your refusal to leave is better than hauling a body off the next day. But as you noted the rules are there for multiple reasons, but I believe safety should always be a priority and later we can sort out fees. we dont disagree much at all, your post showed the reality of a croo member and how he actually handled the situation. Many times in this forum, croo members were helpful, whereas a few showed some stubborness to adhere to the rules, irregardless of the potential dangers of sending someone out again. I do feel however, that most thrus have been successfully completred without having to rely on the huts to do so. And anyone who hikes above treeline in the whites should be ready to be spanked, unless theyve prepared for it.I thought your post was a very real scenario, and both you and the croo handled it as such. Im sure no croo member wants to send anyone to their deaths, but many of these are kids right out of school that start worrying about liability issues,and of course"rules". As a card carrying nonconformist, I have my own opinion about "rules".In a life threatening situation, you do what you have to to survive, regardless of "rules".yours was a good post.

weary
09-19-2011, 23:11
The AMC may predate the WMNF but I doubt the Huts are privately owned since they operate under a lease granted by the Forest Service.
Are you suggesting that you can't own anything you build on leased land? A lot of renters, and manufacturers will be surprised to hear that. Billions of dollars worth of buildings exist on leased lands.

Happy Feet 2011
09-20-2011, 18:47
The biggest issue with the AMC that I have is wondering where all the money goes. Their CEO is paid over $200,000 a year(for a non profit that is wild). The trails are maintained by volunteers. Not a single staff member is paid what he is truly worth, they are paid like non-profit employees, with half the compensation being the good of the cause. How about how it is run more like a giant Hotel company rather than as an organization that tries to make the outdoors accessible to everyone. I know I couldn't afford a hut, which is why I only worked for stay but I feel like a non profit that is supposed to support the trail and the wilderness and make it accessible to many is doing a lot of work to keep it exclusive. I mean they don't even have to charge money at the tent sites, I know that they make enough money to cover that from the Huts alone. Don't let anyone tell you that they are only breaking even on those things.

Did anyone else see the ads in the privies this year informing us on how to leave money to the AMC in your Will. Now that is ridiculous.

Ender
09-20-2011, 18:55
To be fair, $200K for a CEO of a non-profit isn't outrageous. In 2008, 3 years ago, the *average* salary for a non-prof CEO was about $150K. That's the average, and it includes all the tiny little non-profs out there. The AMC is not a tiny little non-prof, and the $200K salary is pretty much in line with others in that range. In fact, it's probably a little low, as salaries for larger non-profs regularly get into the mid-$200's.

I'm just saying.


The biggest issue with the AMC that I have is wondering where all the money goes. Their CEO is paid over $200,000 a year(for a non profit that is wild). The trails are maintained by volunteers. Not a single staff member is paid what he is truly worth, they are paid like non-profit employees, with half the compensation being the good of the cause. How about how it is run more like a giant Hotel company rather than as an organization that tries to make the outdoors accessible to everyone. I know I couldn't afford a hut, which is why I only worked for stay but I feel like a non profit that is supposed to support the trail and the wilderness and make it accessible to many is doing a lot of work to keep it exclusive. I mean they don't even have to charge money at the tent sites, I know that they make enough money to cover that from the Huts alone. Don't let anyone tell you that they are only breaking even on those things.

Did anyone else see the ads in the privies this year informing us on how to leave money to the AMC in your Will. Now that is ridiculous.

Lone Wolf
09-20-2011, 21:06
The biggest issue with the AMC that I have is wondering where all the money goes. Their CEO is paid over $200,000 a year(for a non profit that is wild). The trails are maintained by volunteers. Not a single staff member is paid what he is truly worth, they are paid like non-profit employees, with half the compensation being the good of the cause. How about how it is run more like a giant Hotel company rather than as an organization that tries to make the outdoors accessible to everyone. I know I couldn't afford a hut, which is why I only worked for stay but I feel like a non profit that is supposed to support the trail and the wilderness and make it accessible to many is doing a lot of work to keep it exclusive. I mean they don't even have to charge money at the tent sites, I know that they make enough money to cover that from the Huts alone. Don't let anyone tell you that they are only breaking even on those things.

Did anyone else see the ads in the privies this year informing us on how to leave money to the AMC in your Will. Now that is ridiculous.the red cross and united way are no different. big salaries for the big wigs

weary
09-20-2011, 21:45
the red cross and united way are no different. big salaries for the big wigs
The President of the Appalachian Mountain Club took over a 75-year-old organization that was facing the likelihood of bankruptcy, and made it solvent. I'm not a great fan of AMC. It's too commercial for me, but the top executive earns his pay. I also hear he's retiring, if you think you might qualify. Also retiring is the chief honcho at ATC.

Both groups I suspect, will launch nationwide searches. My suggestion is that they save money by conducting a joint search. Then flip a coin to see who gets the top pick. The loser gets the runner up.

nehiker
09-20-2011, 23:20
the red cross and united way are no different. big salaries for the big wigs

The Red Cross and United Way are way bigger and more complicated to run than the AMC, aren't they?

rickb
09-21-2011, 06:27
The President of the Appalachian Mountain Club took over a 75-year-old organization that was facing the likelihood of bankruptcy, and made it solvent. I'm not a great fan of AMC. It's too commercial for me, but the top executive earns his pay. I also hear he's retiring, if you think you might qualify. Also retiring is the chief honcho at ATC.

Both groups I suspect, will launch nationwide searches. My suggestion is that they save money by conducting a joint search. Then flip a coin to see who gets the top pick. The loser gets the runner up.

The 100,000 members of the AMC pay its top executive over $300k/year.

Not sure if that is "fair" but for running an an organization with over 200 employees, and an annual budget of around 25 Million that seems to be what Harvard MBA's get these days. Good thing they didn't pay him a commission on all the donnership money he brought in, though-- he would have made out like a bandit.

The ATC members pay its top leader less than 1/2 of what the AMC does. To my way of thinking the less you can pay to get great tallent the better. But getting tallent is the most important thing. The ATC seem to have succeeded on that score. Its a far smaller organization-- about 1/3 the number of employees and a 1/4 of the budget, but in the end getting the tallent is what matters.

On that score, I could never figure out why the ATC raised its leadership team's admittedly low salaries (relatively speaking) by such a high percentage a couple years ago. Did they think any of the old hands would leave or work less hard? Better to have leaderhip that works for love of trail and accepts getting screwed (relative to thier peers in other non profits) to my way of thinking. The board members probably felt great writing the check-- it wasn't thier money and it was the "fair thing to do" after all.

Sly
09-21-2011, 09:57
Are you suggesting that you can't own anything you build on leased land? A lot of renters, and manufacturers will be surprised to hear that. Billions of dollars worth of buildings exist on leased lands.

What I'm suggesting is once the lease is up, or broken, for all intents and purposes, the properties are no longer owned by the lessee.

Fredt4
09-21-2011, 13:19
Legally speaking, most state laws (not familiar with N.H. Law s) provide that all real (attached building) improvements becomes the property of the owner of the land. So, the correct terminology would be the Huts belong to the . . . , (see previous post regarding ownership of various huts) but are privately operated by the AMC. Unless there is some unknown park regulation, the care taker can require a hiker to move on. But if the caretaker used or threaten force (extremely unlikely) and someone was injured as a result the AMC could be liable. I imagine if someone failed to comply the caretaker would call a Ranger who would resolve the situation. So in pratical terms, all hikers sould be prepared to hike on after an appropriate time of rest and temporary shelter from any passing storm.

Don H
09-22-2011, 11:56
The AMC has too much money. If you don't believe tour the Gorman-Chairback Lodge.

weary
09-22-2011, 12:07
The AMC has too much money. If you don't believe tour the Gorman-Chairback Lodge.
Well, given the name, I suspect some guy named Gorman paid for most of it, and got what he wanted. But from the photos, it's not something that fits in with what is called "The 100-mile wilderness."

DavidNH
09-22-2011, 12:51
I can believe you would actually ask this! What an attitude!!

The huts absolutely CAN turn you away (if they are full or you don't have money). Often you canget work for stay but that's only if you arrive late in day and are very nice about it. it's a privelage not a right. If the weather is bad, I would not be above begging my way (I've done it) into the dungeon below Lakes of Clouds hut. Unlike much of the at, the White Mountains do just fine with the day hikers and weekenders. They have no need or reason to cater to thru hikers. Geez! DONT expect any special treatment just cause you are thru hiking

WingedMonkey
09-22-2011, 12:58
Well, given the name, I suspect some guy named Gorman paid for most of it, and got what he wanted. But from the photos, it's not something that fits in with what is called "The 100-mile wilderness."

Leon Gorman is an L.L. Bean Heir (grandson of founder L.L.) and chairman of the board of said company.

mudhead
09-22-2011, 18:55
Leon Gorman is an L.L. Bean Heir (grandson of founder L.L.) and chairman of the board of said company.


Mainespeak for "some guy."

weary
09-23-2011, 11:18
Mainespeak for "some guy."
I knew who he was. But I also am a member of organizations that occasionally beg LL Bean for money. I just didn't want to post anything that might piss him off. I did that once. I wrote a book review that said Bean boots have the slipperiest soles of any footwear I've ever used in the woods. He wrote a pissed off letter to the editor claiming I was destroying the mystique of LL Bean that had made the company successful. Now don't go babbling to the company that I said this.

Pony
09-23-2011, 14:20
I can believe you would actually ask this! What an attitude!!

The huts absolutely CAN turn you away (if they are full or you don't have money). Often you canget work for stay but that's only if you arrive late in day and are very nice about it. it's a privelage not a right. If the weather is bad, I would not be above begging my way (I've done it) into the dungeon below Lakes of Clouds hut. Unlike much of the at, the White Mountains do just fine with the day hikers and weekenders. They have no need or reason to cater to thru hikers. Geez! DONT expect any special treatment just cause you are thru hiking

I was only turned away from one hut. I wasn't bothered that they refused work for stay, even though it was late in the day, and we told them we didn't even care about the food, just needed somewhere to sleep. What did bother me is that they "didn't have the room", but if we paid $12 they would find somewhere for us to sleep. I moved on and night hiked off the mountain. While most of the croo members I met were nice there were a few that came accross as snotty rich kids that feel they are somehow better than long distance hikers. Before I am accused of feeling entitled, I wil let you know that I only stayed at two huts. After that I tried to avoid them, and even refused work for stay at one. The Whites were awesome, but the hoards of people, and the huts, and regulations took the fun out of it for me.

Lone Wolf
09-23-2011, 20:17
I was only turned away from one hut. I wasn't bothered that they refused work for stay, even though it was late in the day, and we told them we didn't even care about the food, just needed somewhere to sleep. What did bother me is that they "didn't have the room", but if we paid $12 they would find somewhere for us to sleep. I moved on and night hiked off the mountain. While most of the croo members I met were nice there were a few that came accross as snotty rich kids that feel they are somehow better than long distance hikers. Before I am accused of feeling entitled, I wil let you know that I only stayed at two huts. After that I tried to avoid them, and even refused work for stay at one. The Whites were awesome, but the hoards of people, and the huts, and regulations took the fun out of it for me.if you hiked from georgia and made it to NH you should know by then how to bed down for the nite. snotty rich kids owe you nothing. you ARE just another entitled "thru-hiker"

The Old Fhart
09-23-2011, 20:44
Pony-"...What did bother me is that they "didn't have the room", but if we paid $12 they would find somewhere for us to sleep. I moved on and night hiked off the mountain. ..."
Other people are paying $100 to stay at the hut and you turn it down because it's going to cost you a measly $12 dollars! What the heck is wrong with you? (That's a rhetorical question, Lone Wolf already given the correct answer.)

Pony
09-23-2011, 23:44
if you hiked from georgia and made it to NH you should know by then how to bed down for the nite. snotty rich kids owe you nothing. you ARE just another entitled "thru-hiker"

That's exactly what I did do. Why would I pay $12 to sleep on a floor when I could walk a few more miles and sleep on the ground for free? The $12 didn't even include the leftover dinner, just a floor. I would have gladly worked for the floor space, but was unwilling to part with the money. Anyway the snotty rich kids I was refering to were at a different hut, like I said, most of the croo members I met were nice, just a few brats at one of the huts gave me this impression.

As far as entitlement goes, am I not entitled to camp in a national forest? Why should the AMC be able to make money off of the national forest and I can't even camp there without forking out some money? Don't the national forests belong to all Americans?

Pony
09-23-2011, 23:53
Other people are paying $100 to stay at the hut and you turn it down because it's going to cost you a measly $12 dollars! What the heck is wrong with you? (That's a rhetorical question, Lone Wolf already given the correct answer.)

Those people chose to walk to the huts and pay $100. I was merely walking through and my camping options were very limited. I was on a pretty tight budget by this point, so $12 was hardly measly. And before anyone accuses me of being a mooch, let it be known that I never bummed a thing off of fellow hikers, just wasn't fortunate enough to have 10k in the bank when I started.

fiddlehead
09-24-2011, 00:39
OK, I'll throw my 2 cents in this discussion.
So, it's up to $100 now.
I guess they need to help pay for those helicopters to bring the food and supplies up.

I have always disliked these so called "huts"
They are not huts. Some of them are HUGE hotels built on some wonderful land. (Lake of the crowds is above treeline and sleeps 80 i believe!) (that one should be the 1st to go)

Now they are letting college kids decide who pays $100 and who pays $12 and who stays for free.
Absurd.

I say rip them all down and lets hike the whites the way they should be hiked.
With tents and our own food.

The hordes will stay away, the fragile environment will survive stronger than ever, but the AMC will have to find other ways to make their millions. (they can keep the AYCE breakfast there at Pinkham though) (is it still only $5)

I even hear they charge to sleep in the dungeon now.

Helicopters, Hotels above treeline, Railroads above treeline, not to mention manned-weather stations, post office, and of course the restaurant and souvenir stand on Mt Washington. Let the tourists go to the ski areas and leave real wilderness for the real hikers.

Anyway..........
when rules are designed to make money for the rule maker, they tend to suck for the rest of us.

Pony
09-24-2011, 01:39
I paid $10 for the AYCE at Pinkham Notch. The only money I gave the AMC. The only two nights I stayed at huts (which I felt forced to do rather than by choice) I heard the croo members talking to guests about how they're trying to educate the public about not loving the land to death. On my way down off of Mt. Washington I was behind some people, (hut guests) who incedentally would not let me pass, say " hey the walking is much easier if you get off of the trail and walk down here. On top of fragile alpine plants. Seems to me they are enabling people to love the land to death, all in the name of profit.

Perhaps I am misinformed, but I got the impression that our national forest has been highjacked by a group of people who are gaining monitarily. Don't get me started on the cog railway or the auto road.

T.S.Kobzol
09-24-2011, 04:25
If you start at 6am then as a good hiker you should be able to avoid the huts by hiking the alpine zone through.Why would you want to join the gong show at thue hut? Btw . The huts in the alps under contract with the Alpine Club are required to leave enough space for emergency arrivals. You will have to pay though, just like everyone else. No big deal, really. They just have it figured out better. The AMC huts run on juvenile management rules compared to more experienced operations. Asking you to leave them money in yoir will while you are sitting on the toilet is priceless. Haha. Goes along with paying measly wages to suckers.OTOH if your knees were 'screaming' that just about sums up 90% of hikers that go through Madison. Hardly a cause for pity.Funny to see croo attitude colliding with the through hiker attitude.

hikerboy57
09-24-2011, 07:34
AMC and the hut system take a lot of heat for bringing clueless tourists to our "wild places" that would never survive a night above treeline, were it not for the hut system. But overall, theres a fine line between bringing public awareness to preserving these "wild" places and loving them to death. I always have mixed feelings, even on day hikes when I see large groups of novice hikers yapping away, chasing away the wildlife walking around mudholes, etc. the flip side is if they can learn to love nature, hopefully they'll help preserve it.Ive stayed at the huts on many occasions, and for me its a great way to explore the whites without having to carry food, stove, tent etc. and anyone whos hiked up there knows the difference between carrying 15 lbs and 30.Theyve allowed me to explore trails that I normally wouldnt have hiked if not for the huts(as well as the RMC sites, which many here have forgotten about).the croo has some educational programs for the kids, talk about LNT as well. Even if their parents are clueless, many of these kids are experiencing the "backcountry" for the first time.If they are properly educated, they will become the next caretakers of the land for subsequent generations, as we are now.I am an AMC member, and AMC is far from perfect, but I do believe its about a lot more than just the money.The huts and the croo owe thruhikers no explanation. their policies are not new.

Chaco Taco
09-24-2011, 09:57
Pony, if the huts werent there, you wouldnt have the beauty in The WHites. There would be trash everywhere from mainly, thruhikers. Im sorry but if you couldnt part with $12 maybe you should have gone home. I had the same opinion of the AMC before my hike based on what other people said about it but after being in the Whites I gained a true appreciation for them. The people that work for them are caring for the trail that you take for granted. You cant camp where you want because if you did, there would be s*** everywhere because Thruhikers dont know how to pick up after themselves. You are def acting a little like the entitled hiker we commonly bash around here, no offense. No one owes you anything.

Slo-go'en
09-24-2011, 10:19
Perhaps I am misinformed, but I got the impression that our national forest has been highjacked by a group of people who are gaining monitarily. Don't get me started on the cog railway or the auto road.

You are misinformed. The huts came first, not the national forest and were there for many, many years before the land around them became "nationallized". Parts of Mt Washington are still privately owned, such as the auto road and cog railroad. The summit is state park, not national forest.

Pony
09-24-2011, 12:40
Seems to me that anytime someone has an opinion about the huts or the AMC on this site, the entitlement topic is close behind. So lets talk about entitlement. I'm sure the poor folks moved out of SNP felt that they were entitled to that land before the federal government moved them out to create the park, however unfortunately for them they didn't have the deep pockets that the AMC does. To really put it in context, the only group of people that are truly entitled to any land in the U. S. are the Native Americans, but we all know what happened to them. The Whites and the Huts are in close proximity to large metropolitan areas such as New York and Boston, and the "owners" have a lot of money. I'm sure this was the case when the national forest was created. Why do you not see hut systems in the Smokies or the Shenendoah's? I'm purely guessing here, but I would bet that when these parks were created there was nobody to stand in the way except for poor rural people, not wealthy people from the city. So it doesn't appear that previous ownership makes a big difference, but rather who owned it first.

As far as the Whites being trashed if it weren't for the AMC, give me a break. I could see that nasty smoke from the cog railway for two days before I ever reached Mt. Washington. All the huts, the auto road, which by the way was the only place I saw litter in the Whites, and especially the railroad and that mess on top of Mt. Washington looked like trash to me, and the AMC is diong nothing to clean that up.

Maybe I do feel entitled, I don't know, but I'll bet if you knew me you would think otherwise.

hikerboy57
09-24-2011, 13:37
Seems to me that anytime someone has an opinion about the huts or the AMC on this site, the entitlement topic is close behind. So lets talk about entitlement. I'm sure the poor folks moved out of SNP felt that they were entitled to that land before the federal government moved them out to create the park, however unfortunately for them they didn't have the deep pockets that the AMC does. To really put it in context, the only group of people that are truly entitled to any land in the U. S. are the Native Americans, but we all know what happened to them. The Whites and the Huts are in close proximity to large metropolitan areas such as New York and Boston, and the "owners" have a lot of money. I'm sure this was the case when the national forest was created. Why do you not see hut systems in the Smokies or the Shenendoah's? I'm purely guessing here, but I would bet that when these parks were created there was nobody to stand in the way except for poor rural people, not wealthy people from the city. So it doesn't appear that previous ownership makes a big difference, but rather who owned it first.

As far as the Whites being trashed if it weren't for the AMC, give me a break. I could see that nasty smoke from the cog railway for two days before I ever reached Mt. Washington. All the huts, the auto road, which by the way was the only place I saw litter in the Whites, and especially the railroad and that mess on top of Mt. Washington looked like trash to me, and the AMC is diong nothing to clean that up.

Maybe I do feel entitled, I don't know, but I'll bet if you knew me you would think otherwise.
Native Amreicans have never had any concept of land ownership, a purely european concept.they understood they were stewards of the land for future generatins.The histry of the whites is what it is. the auto road , cog railway, observatory, restaurant, huts. the whites are immenssely popular for their beauty, and without proper management, would be overrun. the trash issue, IMHO, would be infinitely worse.the smokires arent paticularly thru hiker freindly either.I dont think you, pony have a particular entitlement issue, but history cant be rewrittern, and the rules have been in place long before yo took your first steps.

Slo-go'en
09-24-2011, 13:49
All the huts, the auto road, which by the way was the only place I saw litter in the Whites, and especially the railroad and that mess on top of Mt. Washington looked like trash to me, and the AMC is diong nothing to clean that up.

I hate to be an appologist for the AMC, but we're not about to change 150+ years of tradition just because someone from "away" doesn't like the way things work around here. Anyway, the AMC has nothing to do with the auto road, the cog railroad or what is on top of Mt Washington. Those are all different and completely independant orginizations. Maybe you should read up on the history of the White Mountains and who developed it.

Pony
09-24-2011, 14:00
I admit that I am not well informed about the history of the AMC, and i intend on doing some research. I also didn't intend to come accross as hating the AMC, although after rereading my posts I can understand how people could think that I do. I understand that they do some good things, and they certainly have their place in the White Mountains. That being said, my perception has been that the WMNF is governed by different rules than any other NF I've been in. After my hike I tried to find some info about the special use agreement, and had little luck, any suggestions on where to start so that I may be better informed?

bobqzzi
09-24-2011, 14:15
As far as entitlement goes, am I not entitled to camp in a national forest? Why should the AMC be able to make money off of the national forest and I can't even camp there without forking out some money? Don't the national forests belong to all Americans?
Seriously?

bobqzzi
09-24-2011, 14:16
Native Amreicans have never had any concept of land ownership, a purely european concept.they understood they were stewards of the land for future generatins..
Not even remotely true

hikerboy57
09-24-2011, 14:29
Not even remotely trueplease explain yourself regarding the concept of land ownership. please show me a single tribal boundary line. or even a native american map.Im not talking about whether they practiced LNT, im only talking about ownership of the land.they knew the land ws not and could not be "owned".

Pedaling Fool
09-24-2011, 15:07
They may not have had the same system of land owenership as the Europeans, but they still owned land. Why do you think there were wars between tribes. They fought for resources and you can't separate land/water from resources. To say one can't own land is a philosophical arguement, but when you get into the nuts and bolts stuggle for survival protecting one's land becomes priority number one. (resources trumps any philosophical discussion).

As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/

hikerboy57
09-24-2011, 15:13
They may not have had the same system of land owenership as the Europeans, but they still owned land. Why do you think there were wars between tribes. They fought for resources and you can't separate land/water from resources. To say one can't own land is a philosophical arguement, but when you get into the nuts and bolts stuggle for survival protecting one's land becomes priority number one. (resources trumps any philosophical discussion).

As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/John, you're entirely right. however, native americans had major cultural differences, as some tribes were nomadic hunter gatherers where others settled in one spot till they decimated the land through overuse and pollution.I dont have some romantic notion of Indians being environmentally responsible peace loving hippies, they were far from that. However, there were never any clear boundaries, they would war over the best hunting grounds or planting aresa.the concept of owning land was introduced by europeans, and most tribes found that concept incomprehensible. there was definitely a sense of "territory", but not actual ownership.

Pedaling Fool
09-24-2011, 15:21
But the effect is the same, regardless if you call it land ownership or territory.

hikerboy57
09-24-2011, 15:29
the only argument I can make there is that the warring was constant, with neither side saying'okay its yours".it ws never resolved that a tribe would just concede land to another tribe. they may have lost the battle that day, but the war would continue. In any case, I didnt mean for this to detract from the discussion of ownership of what in the whites, which is about as complicated as it gets. if you asked a native american in the early 1800s to sell you his land, he would have had no clue what you were talking about.now we're just talking semantics, and I'll gladly concede the point.
didnt the whites once" belong" to the abenakis?

Pedaling Fool
09-24-2011, 15:38
As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/

Okey dokey, but first I got to make a correction. No one, that I know of, has linked the native americans to the medieval warm period -- mistake on my part. What I was thinking of is the belief by some (not me) that reforestation after the massive die out of native americans led to the little ice age. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html

The Old Fhart
09-24-2011, 15:51
Pony- “As far as entitlement goes, am I not entitled to camp in a national forest? Why should the AMC be able to make money off of the national forest and I can't even camp there without forking out some money? Don't the national forests belong to all Americans?”
Maybe you haven’t been in the real world before but no matter where you go there are rules and regulations. The GMC and the AMC generally even charge to stay at shelters and it has been that way for decades. The RMC charges to stay at Grey Knob and their other facilities. By the time every thru hiker gets to the Whites they know exactly what to expect so your expectations of entitlement because you are a thru hiker is ludicrous at best. If you had done any reading before you hiked the trail all the guidebooks tell you what to expect. The fact that you chose to ignore this information is your own fault, not others.

If you were to go to Yosemite you couldn’t expect to walk into the Ahwahnee and get a free room and it’s no different from any other National Park or Forest where someone has a lease on that Federal land and spent a huge amount of money to put in some facility. They are entitled to charge for your use of their facility even though you are free to walk there and look at it. Another example would be ski areas on Federally leased land. Just because the facility is on leased public land doesn’t mean you are free to use the lifts and groomed slopes without paying the ski areas a fee. Thru hikers are notorious for not understanding the rules, regulations, and laws concerning the areas they are hiking through so they think they can camp anywhere while the truth is that perhaps up to 3/4 of the A.T. has some camping restrictions. In the Whites, for instance, there is no camping above treeline.


Pony- “Those people chose to walk to the huts and pay $100. I was merely walking through and my camping options were very limited. I was on a pretty tight budget by this point, so $12 was hardly measly. And before anyone accuses me of being a mooch, let it be known that I never bummed a thing off of fellow hikers, just wasn't fortunate enough to have 10k in the bank when I started.”

You also chose to walk to the huts-no difference there. The difference is you feel that just because you’re hiking the A.T. that others should cater to you and your schedule. Your poorly controlled budget and inflexible schedule is no concern of the AMC who already has gone out of its way to accommodate thru hikers. Anyone just out for a weekend hike doesn’t get any special consideration yet you want even more. You should live up to your name and “pony up” and say thank you if you can stay at one of the huts for as little as $12.


If you’re really interested there is lots of information that is available on the Whites, the Huts, the AMC leases, and the history of the area. There has been lots of this information posted on WB in the past and you could also try these links to start.

http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/hermit-lake-shelter.cfm
http://www.outdoors.org/about/history.cfm
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/projects/projects/assessments_archive/fy2005_assessments/amc_camp_dodge_renewal/AMC_Camp_Dodge_SUP_Scope_Rpt.pdf
http://www.condortales.com/whitemtnhuts.html

ChinSpinach
01-05-2012, 11:57
On the topic of the AMC hut prices (and I apologize if this has been said before... that's the problem with reading older posts). For a long time I thought the prices charged were exorbitant and couldn't understand WHY it would cost so much. It was just a little food and a cot, right? Because I'm cheap I've still never stayed in a hut. Then I worked part of a summer opening and supplying the huts. Perhaps the food itself isn't wretchedly expensive, but it gets carted up to Pinkham Notch, sorted, stored. Then the initial batch is FLOWN (helicopter services are really expensive and require a damn good pilot.) to the huts. This means dozens of 50lb sacks of flour, oats, big cans of veggies beans, boxes of granola bars for those people that really need that extra calories, but didn't plan well. That also requires the payment of the people to move all of this stuff. I spent an entire day in May at Lakes moving in a summer's worth of food and supplies. When the season is actually done, the hut croo has to hike in fresh supplies twice week (meats, veggies, etc) and that means more sorting, storing, and driving all of the food to the trail heads. On top of that, the reservation crew, the construction crew (who maintains everything), the hut croo, and a number of others have to get paid. The huts barely break even. A hotel charges about the same amount or more for maybe a continental breakfast and a bed, without the difficulty of being several miles away from a road.

The AMC has its faults. Don't get me wrong. However, they do plenty of good too.

ChinSpinach
01-05-2012, 12:09
To be fair, $200K for a CEO of a non-profit isn't outrageous. In 2008, 3 years ago, the *average* salary for a non-prof CEO was about $150K. That's the average, and it includes all the tiny little non-profs out there. The AMC is not a tiny little non-prof, and the $200K salary is pretty much in line with others in that range. In fact, it's probably a little low, as salaries for larger non-profs regularly get into the mid-$200's.

I'm just saying.

He took it from bankruptcy to paying off loans well in advance of when they needed to be, expanded youth outreach and conservation work (not only in the White Mountains, mind you), expanding services, and many other things. I was shocked at first, but he earns his keep. Sorry to sound like such an AMC fanatic, but for some articles I was writing I did an awful lot of research into the organization.

birdygal
01-09-2012, 15:51
Have a question for everyone. How many miles do you need to hike to be able to camp at night legally with a hammock without using the huts, I can't afford to stay nor do I want to work after doing miles of hiking, just trying to figure out how many miles I need to be able to hike a day to get through the whites

Hoofit
01-09-2012, 16:40
Too many opinions - is their a list somewhere of feasible places to just camp out, every ten miles or twelve miles( Hey, the terrain is steep), through the Whites?, and use my own gear for us regular folk that are not too enamoured with the idea of spending $100 a night whilst hiking the trail.
Don't want to sponge off people or beg work after a day's hiking, just enjoy being self reliant and would be happy to hike the extra few miles to a lower elevation if that's what need to be done.

JAK
01-09-2012, 16:48
Does the AMC publish a pamphlet on how to Stealth Camp through the Whites?

They should.

Slo-go'en
01-09-2012, 17:54
Does the AMC publish a pamphlet on how to Stealth Camp through the Whites?

They should.

No point, as it is nearly impossible to do legally. Even with a hammock, you need to drop a considerable distance off the ridge to find trees suitable to hang from. Our mountians are steep, rocky - with large boulders, and densely grown in forest. There are designated camping sites which allow you to avoid most of the huts, though some of them are a significant distance off the AT, down hill and will still cost you money to stay at. The only hut which is difficult to avoid without doing a very, very long and difficult hike is Lake of the Clouds.

peakbagger
01-09-2012, 18:01
I expect the question is satirical but no the AMC doesnt issue a Stealth camp pamphlet. The AMC doesnt call the shots in the Whites (although some may think so). The USFS calls the shots and the AMC gets a limited use permit for their facilities on small plots of land along the trail. The USFS does issue rather distinct regulations on where you can and cant camp and unfortunately you cant camp above treeline except at designated facilities which are AMC huts. To legally camp you need to drop down below treeline (hopefully on a side trail). The general answer is you usually end up dropping about 1000 feet in elevation and may have hike as much as a mile off the AT. Mother nature factors in as what lies below treeline typically is dense spruce fir forest sprouting up out of rocks so finding a flat place to pitch a tent is difficult. A hammock hanger may be able to camp higher but finding an opening in the spruce fir is still quite a challenge.

JAK
01-09-2012, 18:05
Good info. Sounds doable.

quilteresq
01-09-2012, 18:33
According to the AMC rules there's no camping near the Huts, I believe under the auspices of protecting the environment. Probably more like their pocketbook.

No camping near the huts means within 1/4 mile of them - that leaves a whole lot of the WMNF to camp in! - There are many areas where there is no camping within 1/4 mile of the trail - but it's really easy to hike out of them and find a site. And most of the trails have well marked signs when you're entering and leaving a "restricted use area."

hikerboy57
01-09-2012, 20:59
it might be a good idea to actually day hike these areas before your thru to see the terrain. hammocking isnt possible above treeline, and there are plenty of reasons theres no camping within 1/4 mile of the huts, just read the rest of this thread.check out the rmc sites north of adams and madison, osgood tentsite, or be prepared to make miles....

Camping Dave
01-09-2012, 22:02
The huts are a good value.

Whining about the cost, or the rules, or getting caught breaking the rules, is just plain asinine.

Still, the huts are a good value. You'll be glad you stayed there.

HT1
01-09-2012, 22:57
The huts are a good value.

Whining about the cost, or the rules, or getting caught breaking the rules, is just plain asinine.

Still, the huts are a good value. You'll be glad you stayed there.

HMMM?
:eek:Adjective. asinine (comparative more asinine, superlative most asinine).
Failing to exercise intelligence or judgment; ridiculously below average
rationality. ...
.

"Let me use that in a sentence."
.

It would be asinine for me to use 9 days of my trail budget in one night.

and dayhiking in NH from Fl is also out of my budget though I would love to!
.
.


Can some one just give a legal, and doable itinerary for a thru hiker that avoids the Huts? I suspect after that this Thread might quiet... Not likely since hating the Cost of the Huts is a tradition

Grampie
01-10-2012, 14:41
I,like a lot of others think the Huts are a bargan. I thru-hiked and was very conserned about crossing the Whites, as all hikers should be. Read about it and know your options before you start. The work for stay option is a great one. I worked at Lake of the Clouds. Helped with three others defrost and clean a refridgirator. Took a total of about 1 hour . At Madison I washed a few pots used to prep the evening meal. About 35 minutes, At Carter they had no work for stay and I was able to get a bunk free, even though I offered to pay. At Lake of the Clouds and Madison I got supper, breakfast and a bunk. I enjoyed useing the huts and was glad I did.
I did the Whites as a SOBO. I met a hiker who was NOBO and he gave me some advise that worked well for me. Get to the Hut before 3 PM. Seek out the Croo leader and request to work for stay. If granted ask them if you could do some work now because you would like to get a early start in the AM. Doing this I was able to leave right after breakfast. Other work for stay hikers had to wait untill after breakfast, than eat and than help with the clean up after. You could not probably get on your way much before 9:00
Being able to leave around 7:15 I could get to the next Hut before 3 PM without any problem.
My wife met me in Gorham for the weekend. We got a motel room that cost $135. No meals just a room. So staying at a Hut isn't a bad deal after all.

Tom Murphy
03-09-2012, 15:06
Can some one just give a legal, and doable itinerary for a thru hiker that avoids the Huts? I suspect after that this Thread might quiet... Not likely since hating the Cost of the Huts is a tradition



Camp at Nauman Tentsite [$8 fee]

Option A: Hike through to the Perch [RMC - $12 fee ?]

Option B: Drop off the trail down the Jewell Trail until you are below treeline and then find a site 200 feet off the trail

Option C: Hike through to Osgood campsite

These are long days but doable and legal.

Slo-go'en
03-09-2012, 16:37
Camp at Nauman Tentsite [$8 fee]

Option A: Hike through to the Perch [RMC - $12 fee ?]

Option B: Drop off the trail down the Jewell Trail until you are below treeline and then find a site 200 feet off the trail

Option C: Hike through to Osgood campsite

These are long days but doable and legal.

The Perch is $8.00, Crag camp or Gray Knob (cabins) are a whole $13 now.

Good luck finding a camp site off the Jewell trail - until your at the bottom!

Prime Time
03-13-2012, 19:22
dgposey - It's quite simple really. Don't count on work for stay and DEFINITELY don't count on stealth camping above timberline. If the price is out of your league, don't get mad at the AMC, just spend about 10 minutes planning your route through the Whites with stays at the many dhelter and tent sites available throughout them. Yes, you'll have to spend a whole $8 or $9 to stay at a few of them and yes you'll actually have to hike down to get to them and hike back up the next day. You're a thru hiker for crying out loud. You've hiked nearly 2000 miles to this point and spent several thousand dollars. What's the big deal?

jeffmeh
03-13-2012, 19:31
The Perch is $8.00, Crag camp or Gray Knob (cabins) are a whole $13 now.

Good luck finding a camp site off the Jewell trail - until your at the bottom!

Nothing like the Northern Presidentials. I remember paying a buck at Crag Camp and Gray Knob, lol.

Slo-go'en
03-13-2012, 21:09
Nothing like the Northern Presidentials. I remember paying a buck at Crag Camp and Gray Knob, lol.

When I was caretaker there I collected $5.00 1987-88 The log cabin and The Perch were $2.00 Darn inflation!

Prime Time
03-13-2012, 22:36
For anyone who is truly interested in getting through the Whites without staying at a hut, and not just whining or baying at the moon, I offer this.
Day 1 Eliza shelter to Liberty Spring Tent site 11.4 mi $8
Day 2 Liberty Spring Tent site to Guyot Shelter and Tentsite 14.0 mi $8
Day 3 Guyot to Neuman Tent Site 19.2 mi $8 (This is mostly pretty flat but if this seems too long, break in half and stay at Ethan Pond Shelter $8)
Day 4 Neuman to Valley Way tent site 12.4 -0-
Day 5 Valley way to Carter Notch - easy to stealth there. 14.3 -0-
So for $24, $32 if you're slow, you can easily get through the Whites. Hope this helps.

jeffmeh
03-14-2012, 08:00
When I was caretaker there I collected $5.00 1987-88 The log cabin and The Perch were $2.00 Darn inflation!

I missed you by a few years. I took groups out in the summer, through '85, associated with a boys camp in Madison. My son does the same now, and wants to finish his thru-hike by mid-June to start the summer there.

Loneoak
03-14-2012, 10:48
For anyone who is truly interested in getting through the Whites without staying at a hut, and not just whining or baying at the moon, I offer this.
Day 1 Eliza shelter to Liberty Spring Tent site 11.4 mi $8
Day 2 Liberty Spring Tent site to Guyot Shelter and Tentsite 14.0 mi $8
Day 3 Guyot to Neuman Tent Site 19.2 mi $8 (This is mostly pretty flat but if this seems too long, break in half and stay at Ethan Pond Shelter $8)
Day 4 Neuman to Valley Way tent site 12.4 -0-
Day 5 Valley way to Carter Notch - easy to stealth there. 14.3 -0-
So for $24, $32 if you're slow, you can easily get through the Whites. Hope this helps.


Is it possible to hang a hammock at these sites ? thanks

Zigzag
03-14-2012, 11:01
Hey, when I stayed at the old Crag Camp in the 60's I think it was free. The huts were under $30 a night & also included a trail lunch. I stayed up last night way to late reading this entire forum. Surprised to see my wife quoted (Elizabeth from the AMC). I suspect she was replying to a question posed by someone calling about a hut stay & certainly does not repersent the offical AMC policy. Please contact Rob Burbank (Public relations) at Pinkham for a real answer instead of guessing or forming incorrect opinions. I section hiked for a month in Virginia 2 years ago & my wife did not even want me to mention that we both worked for the AMC. The misinformation out there is unbelievable! Remember the AMC is a member drieven organization that has no need to cater to Thru-hikers. You can camp for free at the Mohican Center. You get member rates at AMC facilites if you tell them you are a thru-hiker. Work for stay is very misunderstood. It is program which is often abused. I have seen non thru-hikers going from hut to hut using the program. I have been at huts when 10 thru hikers are fed & offered a place to sleep (often). Remember that hut croo are not full time employees but seasonal workers doing the best they can under often trying conditions. Love those statements about the tourists. What makes the long distance hikers own the mountains. The tourist are helping to pay your way. The AMC huts are used for education, SAR, research, LNT programs, trail maintance among other things. The AMC promotes conservation efforts not only in New Hampshire but also in the Mid-Atlantic area. Most of their efforts are behind the scene, they are not out there promoting like the Sierra Club. AMC faclities are also used in education though YOP, Teen Wilderness & Mountain Classroom programs. In terms of the cost of stays. Short season, 3-4 month open because of trying weather conditions. Difficult resupply. Helicopters used (over 1k/hr.). Old days hut croo carried everything in & out & were often injured. Extra staff on hand at huts for education & research. I have taked to a manager at LeConte Lodge & they base their pricing partially on AMC pricing. I know I will never convince many thru-hikers of the AMC mission or purpose but it is amazing how many hear something & take it as truth without doing their homework.

nufsaid
03-14-2012, 17:52
Hey, when I stayed at the old Crag Camp in the 60's I think it was free. The huts were under $30 a night & also included a trail lunch. I stayed up last night way to late reading this entire forum. Surprised to see my wife quoted (Elizabeth from the AMC). I suspect she was replying to a question posed by someone calling about a hut stay & certainly does not repersent the offical AMC policy. Please contact Rob Burbank (Public relations) at Pinkham for a real answer instead of guessing or forming incorrect opinions. I section hiked for a month in Virginia 2 years ago & my wife did not even want me to mention that we both worked for the AMC. The misinformation out there is unbelievable! Remember the AMC is a member drieven organization that has no need to cater to Thru-hikers. You can camp for free at the Mohican Center. You get member rates at AMC facilites if you tell them you are a thru-hiker. Work for stay is very misunderstood. It is program which is often abused. I have seen non thru-hikers going from hut to hut using the program. I have been at huts when 10 thru hikers are fed & offered a place to sleep (often). Remember that hut croo are not full time employees but seasonal workers doing the best they can under often trying conditions. Love those statements about the tourists. What makes the long distance hikers own the mountains. The tourist are helping to pay your way. The AMC huts are used for education, SAR, research, LNT programs, trail maintance among other things. The AMC promotes conservation efforts not only in New Hampshire but also in the Mid-Atlantic area. Most of their efforts are behind the scene, they are not out there promoting like the Sierra Club. AMC faclities are also used in education though YOP, Teen Wilderness & Mountain Classroom programs. In terms of the cost of stays. Short season, 3-4 month open because of trying weather conditions. Difficult resupply. Helicopters used (over 1k/hr.). Old days hut croo carried everything in & out & were often injured. Extra staff on hand at huts for education & research. I have taked to a manager at LeConte Lodge & they base their pricing partially on AMC pricing. I know I will never convince many thru-hikers of the AMC mission or purpose but it is amazing how many hear something & take it as truth without doing their homework.

Unfortunately there is a culture of entitlement among some long distance hikers.

rainmaker
03-14-2012, 23:00
Unfortunately there is a culture of entitlement among some long distance hikers.

There is both a culture of entitlement among some hikers and elitism among some hut users including the staff. For the most part though the guests and the staff were great. I have a real issue about work for stay. It is my issue and one that I did not change during my hike through the Whites. I do not have an issue with paying so I stayed at Zealand Falls, Madison, and Carter Notch. I was also prepared to camp if necessary and had everything I needed. I found that the young women cru chiefs were the easiest to communicate with and were less likely to give you a hard time about the availability of bunks. Males on the other hand would try to show they were in charge. The young man at Madison met me at the door to inform me that there was no more work for stay options available. I informed him quickly that I no desire to do work for stay, knew for a fact they had they had vacant bunks, presented my AMC membership card and my platinum visa card and asked where I could clean up because supper was about to be served. He responded appropriately and in doing so learned a valuable lesson, " age and treachery will trump youth and talent every time". During supper one of the guests, a fellow from Boston, began making snide remarks about thru hikers and insinuated that they were ill prepared bums who just wanted to mooch off the system. I suggested to him that if he wished to bring his concerns to their attention directly I would bring Giggles, Calculator, and Dayman inside so he could have that conversation. Boston declined. It was a great trip but I was so glad to get to Maine.

kayak karl
03-14-2012, 23:04
yes, i hung at two of them. hung over the wooden platform at one and in the overflow area in the other. did work for stay, 45 min work to cover the $8

Prime Time
03-23-2012, 18:05
Is it possible to hang a hammock at these sites ? thanks
Yes, you can hang a hammock at the tentsites, but you still have to pay. You can hang a Hammock anywhere below tree line except in designated protected areas, which are pretty easy to work around with a hammock.