appalachian money club huts...pricey...how come? [Archive]

DavidNH

06-25-2005, 21:08

Hi Folks,

(this is a rant but I just gotta get this off my chest so appologies in advance for the not very positive tone)

I was off hiking in the whites today and stopped in at Greenleaf Hut (that is on the side of Mt Lafayette) to cool down, rest, and chat with the hut master.

I inquired as to the rates of AMC mountain huts in the whites and was stunned at his answer. 78$ for AMC members and 85$ for non members. Not sure if these figures are exact but they are in the ball park.

This is on top of the AMC raising yearly dues to 50$ a year for individuals and the 20$ a year one must pay the Forest Service for a year long pass just to park at the trail heads.

Now I know that even here in New England one can drive to a hotel and pay less money. Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.

I still don't see why the AMC has to charge these rates. Perhaps it is because they can charge any price and the huts will still be full (all those rich flatlanders from Boston and points south you know). I doubt that the hut boys and gals are getting much more than they did a few years back. Perhaps the helicopter costs to get supplies up to the huts? But isn't that just once or twice a year?

I am sure these prices are out of the range of most thru hikers. And there can be only so many work for stay options.

So what do you folks think? Is the AMC justified with these rates? or are they just on the take? I have been an AMC member for years and enjoyed it very much. However, I am seriously considering letting my membership lapse when it runs out next spring.

What might the White Mountains be like without all those AMC huts? Hypothetical I know..but somehow I suspect they would be a whole lot less crowded and yuppified!!!

I await your feed back

NHHIker (a low income hiker)

MOWGLI

06-25-2005, 21:39

Hi Folks,

Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.

NHHIker (a low income hiker)

Surely you can afford a night in an AMC hut if you could afford to travel to Europe to hike?

Lion King

06-25-2005, 21:46

Read Eb Abbey.

He said all this in the 60's...with the exception of the Europe stuff

Frosty

06-25-2005, 23:03

Rant away, but don't stop with the huts :)

Lots of stuff in White Mountains is expensive. Have you priced motels in Lincoln, Bretton Woods or Twin Mountain on weekends?

The Cog Railway?

Gasoline just to get to the WHites and back?

The huts just don't seem so bad to me for what they offer, especially with food hauled up there, which is pretty much daily, not semi-annually. How much would you pay if you went to a motel in the White Mountains? Don't forget to add the price of dinner and breakfast. I'll bet the huts are competitive.

THe Joe Dodge Lodge is a lot cheaper ($50-ish, which isn't bad for lodging and dinner/breakfast). But then, they don't have to haul stuff up the mountain either.

The Highland Center I understand is very expensive. Not sure why. Perhaps the cost of construction, perhaps it is nicer.

The tent platforms seem expensive to me ($8 now I think).

It would be nice it the huts were cheaper, but the same is true of almost everything, from restaurants to automobiles.

There are some cheap places to stay in Gorham.

Hi Folks,

(this is a rant but I just gotta get this off my chest so appologies in advance for the not very positive tone)

I was off hiking in the whites today and stopped in at Greenleaf Hut (that is on the side of Mt Lafayette) to cool down, rest, and chat with the hut master.

I inquired as to the rates of AMC mountain huts in the whites and was stunned at his answer. 78$ for AMC members and 85$ for non members. Not sure if these figures are exact but they are in the ball park.

This is on top of the AMC raising yearly dues to 50$ a year for individuals and the 20$ a year one must pay the Forest Service for a year long pass just to park at the trail heads.

Now I know that even here in New England one can drive to a hotel and pay less money. Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.

I still don't see why the AMC has to charge these rates. Perhaps it is because they can charge any price and the huts will still be full (all those rich flatlanders from Boston and points south you know). I doubt that the hut boys and gals are getting much more than they did a few years back. Perhaps the helicopter costs to get supplies up to the huts? But isn't that just once or twice a year?

I am sure these prices are out of the range of most thru hikers. And there can be only so many work for stay options.

So what do you folks think? Is the AMC justified with these rates? or are they just on the take? I have been an AMC member for years and enjoyed it very much. However, I am seriously considering letting my membership lapse when it runs out next spring.

What might the White Mountains be like without all those AMC huts? Hypothetical I know..but somehow I suspect they would be a whole lot less crowded and yuppified!!!

I await your feed back

NHHIker (a low income hiker)

stupe

06-25-2005, 23:08

NHhiker, I found this at http://www.outdoors.org/about/about-faq.cfm

Q. How do you get all that food to the high mountain huts?
A. Because of increased use, much of the heaviest bulk staples today are airlifted in by helicopter before the beginning of the season and then resupplied in September. Hut crews still "pack" twice a week carrying all of the meats, vegetables, and dairy products that would otherwise spoil. Each hut has its own landing platform or delivery area. If you are lucky enough to be visiting during one of these supply times, we ask only that you stand clear of the helicopter and let the crews do their work.

Q. Where does the money I spend at AMC facilities go?
A. Revenue raised from lodging, meals, merchandise, workshops, and the hiker shuttle help pay for expenses directly related to operating those facilities and programs. These revenues do not cover the costs of AMC's White Mountain National Forest operations, however. The AMC, as a nonprofit public service organization, makes up for this shortfall through membership dues, contributions, endowment income, and other club revenues.

I guess airlifting alone costs a fortune. Still, if I was going to pay that kind of money I would want my own room, my own bathroom, my own cable TV, access to booze, free ice, and escort services, and complimentary continental breakfast .
Are there legal options to staying at the huts? I know it's unsportsmanlike, but I bet I would stealth right by .

Bolivershagnasty

06-25-2005, 23:52

WOW! I didn't know about these huts but if and when I'm blessed enough to do a thru I think by the time get there I'll be glade to have some "goodies" like that that far up there without treading through town. I'd just about bet you would spend more in a town passing with a motel stay than that. But yea it doe's seem alittle high for a trail stop and yes it's probly due to the level of comforts expected "by" the yuppies that probly dominate there most of the time. Yea I'd love to take my girlfriend up there for a night or two and be willing to pay that so she could experiance what I love (without too much of the unpleasant stuff) so I guess others would too. Just have to live and let live I guess.

TakeABreak

06-26-2005, 02:08

Either get to the huts early and do a work for stay or go on to a camp or shelter and stay the night. I did both, and i would prefer to camp or stay in a shelter than to stay in hut. You just have to plan ahead a little, thats all.

The Hog

06-26-2005, 06:45

The current per night price for non-members staying in a hut is $85. That is beyond the budget of many hikers.

I think the AMC should move to a two tier pricing system. One price for full use of all amenities, and a lower price (or free) for more primitive or spartan accomodations. I know this is already done at Lake of the Clouds, and it could be expanded to many, if not all, of the other huts. It would require construction of shelters and/or tent platforms at or near existing huts.

Skyline

06-26-2005, 08:54

Given the life-threatening weather that always--ALWAYS--is a possibility, the huts earn their place in the White Mountains. You can quibble about what they offer or what they cost, but there is no doubt their existence has saved many lives over the years.

The people who work there definitely earn their paychecks, too. A relatively small number of young men and women staff each hut and multi-task every waking hour. They even go out on search-and-rescues.

I can't comment on the rest of the way AMC is operated, but I bet they lose money on their huts...even at these "inflated" rates. And yet they manage to serve up some real tasty, nutritious food--and a lot of it. :-)

If you took a (cheapish) motel room down in one of the nearby towns and added two quality AYCE meals, the total would probably exceed what you pay to stay and eat at one of the huts. Plus at the huts you get to stay in the mountains!

Can't afford it? Lots of hikers can't, and there are definitely options for them. Get to a hut early so you can take advantage of a work-for-stay. Or plan your miles to avoid the huts and camp down below treeline, chance it stealth camping above treeline, or in some places use other designated camping areas or the Randolph Mountain Club shelters.

I did a combination of some of these options--including paying--and am happy I got to sample all sides of this debate.

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 10:43

Mowgli:

Your comment is unfair.

Let's look at things in reverse: I know a young British couple that's thru-hiking this year. A night in the huts for them would cost about $170.00. To put things in perspective, that's about what I spent on the Trail this year between Springer and Gatlinburg (including two motel stops). Not many young people (and many older ones!) have the budget for these sorts of accomodations.

Merely because someone has the funds for international travel doesn't mean they have money to throw away. The Huts are indeed over-priced. The AMC spends too much time running high-end lodging for the well-to-do, and they do this on public land. The Hut system, which is large revenue-producer for the Club is allowed to stay in place, with a greatly lessened emphasis on shelters, campsites, and other lodging/overnight options for people of limited means. The AMC could indeed be providing more low-cost options and facilities but they deliberately do not do so, in order to not interfere with Hut operations and the income generated from the same.

To imply that anyone that can afford a plane ticket shouldn't quibble about
eighty dollar a night bunkrooms in the White Mountains is wrong.

A night in the mountains shouldn't cost more than a night at the opera. If the AMC wants to keep its Hut system in place, that's fine, but they really need to start thinking about the 99% of the population that neither wants, needs, or can afford to overnight in their present facilities.

The Huts are over-priced, and there's nothing wrong with NH Hiker pointing this out.

Just cuz I can afford a plane ticket to Europe doesn't mean I want my pocket picked upon my arrival.

dougmeredith

06-26-2005, 11:12

The AMC spends too much time running high-end lodging for the well-to-do
All levels of government seem quite busy favoring the poor. It's good to see that someone is trying to balance this out. :)

Doug

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 11:22

Foolish comment, Doug. The AMC isn't an arm of the Federal government; it's a private non-profit. However, it does indeed operate its facilities on public land. There's nothing wrong with a privately owned/managed facility having "exclusionary" membership or admission policies; to do this on publicly owned land that everyone in the country theoretically has open access to.....well, that's wrong.

Private clubs don't belong on public land, and to operate facilities whose pricing structure excludes most Americans is also wrong. If the AMC ran facilities that deliberately excluded certain people based on their race, religion, sexual preference, health, etc., well they'd be sued to hell and back and their facilities would be shut down in 48 hours. Operating facilities on public land that deliberately excludes people based on their economic status is equally odious.

wacocelt

06-26-2005, 11:28

I think he was being facetious, Jack.

Frosty

06-26-2005, 12:22

The Huts are over-priced, and there's nothing wrong with NH Hiker pointing this out.Over-priced is kind of subjective, but the huts are definitely high priced. If they don't cover expenses as AMC claims, then they are under-priced. But certainly there was nothing wrong with commenting on this as NHHIKER did. But just because the huts are high or even over-priced doesn't mean they have to lower prices because it would be nicer for us.

This world is FULL of things that cost more than I can afford, not the least of which is a Land Rover. They are high-priced by almost any definiton and over-priced IMO and I wish they cost as much as a Ford Focus so I could buy one. I'd also like a vacation home in Maine on a lake. But Land Rovers and vacation homes and tourist area lodgings aren't entitlements, alas.

It is one thing to say things are expensive, and that is really all NHHIKER was saying. What some are reacting to, I think, is the implied thought, "The AMC should charge rates that are low enough that I can afford them without sacrificing something else."

Bolivershagnasty

06-26-2005, 12:44

:dance :dance I really know nothing about these "huts" and made my commint based on the assumption that it was 70 or 80.00 per night "for a hut". (like a motel room) Based on Jack's commint about the British couple is it 70.00 "per person"? If so that is nuts and I have to change my view to be more likes Jack's and it should be challenged. If there are no other shelters up there and purpously so to give the huts an exclusionary "buisnes", well someone or everyone should pile up right there in their tents one day and refuse to leave based on the expectation of rights to public lands. Take it to court. They (AMC) may do alot of good for the area but to be alowed to monopolize "our" lands for "their" buisnes? And it "is" a buisnes, it may be a "non profit" buisnes but I will bet you whoever is "running" that operation is "making a nice salery" and has a vested intrest in keeping it just the way it is. If it is a non profit operation it should be a matter of public record what the income generated is and what the people running it are getting paid. ( I bet we would be shocked) If thats whats going on they should be made to at least create more sights for more reasonable pricing giving everyone a chance and a choice. I'm not oposed to having a choice of a well to do experiance in the mountains but if they are forcing you to pay that rate or pass on and not bother them well thats another story. What is the name and or charter or information on this orginisation again. I'll do some research on it and find out.:dance

weary

06-26-2005, 13:31

Just a bit of perspective. AMC's permit for the huts was reissued a few years ago, after a long and bitter fight lead mostly by those who were upset with the club's environmental stances.

The only time I've ever paid to use the full service huts was on my walk north in 1993. Then, and now, by booking consecutive nights one can get a major discount. I have from time to time used the huts on a caretaker basis.

I enjoyed my stays in the huts in 1993. But I don't have a budget for such luxuries very often. However, in the context of the cost of a thru hike, an occasional night in an AMC hut probably is not significant for most thru hikers.

A few of us are on tight budgets. But most thru hikers strike me as pretty free spenders on both gear and on trail luxuries. From time to time I post suggestions about how to thru hike at minimum cost. These posts get minimal response. Sometimes I'm chided by those who claim there is no real demand for such low cost thru hiking ideas.

I do detect a double standard by some long distance hikers. I watched hikers dropping $2 into Rusty's donation jar, and dropping $100 in towns a few miles down the road.

I'm quite sure AMC earns a profit from the huts. But it's not a big profit, I suspect. Among the inspirations for the AMC's Maine Woods Initiative, (development in the 100-mile-wilderness) I'm equally sure, was the desire to create a hut system that it could operate as it wished without constant hassles and second guessing from the US Forest Service.

Weary

Doctari

06-26-2005, 14:38

Foolish comment, Doug. The AMC isn't an arm of the Federal government; it's a private non-profit.

NON PROFIT??????

Yes, that is what they claim.

But:
The president of this "Non profit" club pulls down an 8 figure salery. Maybe my definition of Non profit is, , , incorrect.

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 14:45

An eight figure salary would mean he's getting more than 10,000,000 dollars a year. This is a bit much. Even the AMC isn't that well larded.

Their head actually makes, with benefits, closer to a quarter million a year, meaning he's paid about as much as President Bush.

It is debatable whether either of these gentlemen is earning their compensation.

Incidentally, there has long been speculation and comment that the AMC's top folks are earning too much money. The AMC has been repeatedly asked in public, and on their own website, to list the salaries of their top employees. They have repeatedly failed to do so. It is obvious they have no interest in ever revealing this information, to their members or to anyone else. The interactive section of their website where these inconvenient questions were most recently raised no longer exists.

DavidNH

06-26-2005, 15:08

First..I want to praise Jack Tarlin for his very inciteful and thoughtful comments. You are right on and White Blaze is a better place with your presence! You should write some books!!

Second, I personally take offense to the comment that just because I can afford to travel to Europe I should have no problem paying this kind of money for the huts. As an aside.. I am able to go to Europe because I have friends to stay with, Speak French, and don't do the high priced resort and city stuff many Americans do. I do NOT have real deep pockets. One thing that helps is having no kids to support. Many, especially with families, will spend more money on a two week vaction to a Florida Beach or Vermont Ski resort than I will on three weeks in Europe including my Air Fare.

Thirdly I want folks to know that the price of the AMC huts (85 dollars for Non AMC members and 78 for non members) is PER PERSON. The price includes an all you can eat dinner and breakfast (and yes AMC food is good..very good, I will give em that...very good) and a bunk with blankets (yes it can be chilly even in mid summer at elevation!). The huts provide NO showers. There is in most cases no running water. There ARE rest rooms and the club does do a good job dealing with human waste via composting and the like. Thut Hut boys and girls are all college students real hard workers and superfund people. They get room and board and I bet not a hundred a week.

For point of comparison...I could go to the hiker's paradise hostel in Gorham, pay 20 bucks, have bunk, free shower, full kitchen facilities and even ample meals at nearby restaurants still leave me spending less $ than the hut. They also give a complimentary breakfast for hikers, all the eggs and toast you want, or an a la carte breakfast for about 5 bucks. All hikers here should try the place!

another point of comparison. High mountain refuges in French alps summer 2003. Around 50 dollars would get you a high quality four or five course dinner, bunk with blankets, SHOWER, small breakfast, and in some casees a picnic lunch. And by the way..that was a one time special trip...I am not going abroad every year...just so we dont jump to conclusions here.

Additionally, should you be backpacking through the white mountains.. even if you wish to tent... you will find that you have to go to designated sites all of which have care takers and charge you 8 dollars per night. And you will be using the camp sites because in the whites 1) the ground is not level anywhere and 2) the woods are really thick with trees and brush. The eight bucks gets you a platfrom you can put your tent on or a spot in a shelter. The GMC has a similar deal in Vermont but they only charge about 6 bucks per person per night. Personally, I think that paying eight bucks to have a place to set up my tent is too much!

The AMC HAD a very nice hostel for around 18 dollars a night in Crawford Notch. They have since replaced that with the New Highland Center a HOTEL and conference center that will set you back 50-80 per night (or more in some cases? not sure on prices). I see very few folks there who look like true hikers though I am sure some of em are. Mostly, you get the well to do folks from southern New England up for a vaction in the mountains. The club was supposed to make a whole lot of money on the place..but not sure that is happening. Many members were really ticked off some are leaving or have left the club, and I don't think the place is constantly filled (again I am not sure about this).

Lastly, If I am going to pay 85 bucks for one night for a dorm style bunk room in the mountains even with meals included.. couldn't they at least provide showers? perhaps a hot tub? Maybe a beautiful girl or two! But I guess those used to paying 200+ for a room in a Boston Hotel don't mind AMC prices.

NHHIKER

DavidNH

06-26-2005, 15:15

Sorry folks...one more thing...

The AMC has its own chat bulletin boards sort of like this one. As Jack Tarlin pointed out, the one place where one could debate and critize AMC policies, Mountains and Mole Hills, was discontinued. Guess they did not like the controversial stuff on it. Consequently there is no place for one to post statements critical of the AMC. That is why I posted here on white blaze and not on the AMC web site (www.outdoors.org (http://www.outdoors.org)).

Now some one please tell me.. when I thru hike the AT.. how much to I have to put aside for caretakers so I can set up my tent? is it just VT and NH that do this? Do you have to pay caretaker fees in the south as well? sure hope not.

nhhiker

wacocelt

06-26-2005, 15:16

Perhaps there should be a $40 fee to stay at every AT shelter along the way, since the trail is maintained by voluteers and on public land as well. I cut the price in half since there is noone to cook meals etc. Other than that from what I understand you don't get much else.
I'm sure our National Forests and Parks would be much better served if we closed them to only the upper crust, who obviously embrace the outdoors much more than the dirt grubbing low income scum who make up the majority of US society.

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 15:21

Good letter, NH Hiker.

In the interests of accuracy:

1. There is running water in the Huts. It's cold.
2. Meals for Hut guests, while complete, are NOT All You Can Eat.
Thru-Hikers who eat there will in all likelihood need to eat again
later in the evening.
3. The Highland Center, known to many of us as the Ritz Crawford,
is much more expensive than you said: Single rooms there in the
spring and summer can cost as much as $191.00 for non AMC
members ($159.00 for members). This facility, which replaced
a much beloved and very inexpensive hostel, is essentially a hotel
for the AMC's wealthier members and anyone else willing to pay
what they ask. Construction of this complex ran several million
dollars. As in other cases, the Club was singularly quiet when directly
asked before, during, and after construction, about how much this place
cost. The Club is quite clearly not enthusiastic about this information
being public.

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 15:30

NH Hiker:

There are very few places on the A.T. where one must pay to stay at a Trailside shelter or campsite. A handful of these places are in the White Mountains; half a dozen are in Vermont; there's also Speck pond in Maine. One must also pay to overnight in Baxter State Park in Maine.

In all of these cases, the cost is minimal ($5.00 to 8.00; six bucks is about the usual). In ALL cases, these "pay to stay" sites are in extremely high-use areas, where the local maintaining club (AMC, Green Mountain Club, etc). has
put in an on-site caretaker to look after the site, help out and educate overnight guests, etc. The main job of the caretakers is to keep these beautiful locations from being destroyed due to excessive over-use; make no mistake about it, without these user fees or without on-site caretakers, these places would either be destroyed, or they'd be so gross you wouldn't want to stay there.

In all cases, the money generated from these user fees goes to pay the caretakers, ridgerunners, etc., that look after and preserve these spots.

Every year, some thru-hikers grouse about this comparative handful of places that charge a fee. Most of them don't understand why these fees have been instituted at these sites, nor do they much care. Many of them adopt an attitude that they're special and everything should be free.

Incidentally, in almost every case, if you don't want to stay at a "fee" site, one merely has to keep hiking a short distance and can camp wherever one wishes, at no cost. The only exception to this is in a VERY small handful of spots in the White Mountains where there are special rules regarding where one can camp, rules that are in place primarily for environmental reasons.

weary

06-26-2005, 15:33

....Thirdly I want folks to know that the price of the AMC huts (85 dollars for Non AMC members and 78 for non members) is PER PERSON. The price includes an all you can eat dinner and breakfast (and yes AMC food is good..very good, I will give em that...very good) and a bunk with blankets (yes it can be chilly even in mid summer at elevation!). The huts provide NO showers. There is in most cases no running water. There ARE rest rooms and the club does do a good job dealing with human waste via composting and the like. Thut Hut boys and girls are all college students real hard workers and superfund people. They get room and board and I bet not a hundred a week.

For point of comparison...I could go to the hiker's paradise hostel in Gorham, pay 20 bucks, have bunk, free shower, full kitchen facilities and even ample meals at nearby restaurants still leave me spending less $ than the hut. They also give a complimentary breakfast for hikers, all the eggs and toast you want, or an a la carte breakfast for about 5 bucks. All hikers here should try the place!

.....And you will be using the (AMC) camp sites because in the whites 1) the ground is not level anywhere and 2) the woods are really thick with trees and brush. The eight bucks gets you a platfrom you can put your tent on or a spot in a shelter. The GMC has a similar deal in Vermont but they only charge about 6 bucks per person per night. Personally, I think that paying eight bucks to have a place to set up my tent is too much!

The AMC HAD a very nice hostel for around 18 dollars a night in Crawford Notch. They have since replaced that with the New Highland Center a HOTEL and conference center that will set you back 50-80 per night (or more in some cases? not sure on prices). .... Many members were really ticked off some are leaving or have left the club, and I don't think the place is constantly filled (again I am not sure about this).

Lastly, If I am going to pay 85 bucks for one night for a dorm style bunk room in the mountains even with meals included.. couldn't they at least provide showers? perhaps a hot tub? .....
NHHIKER
Taking NH's points, one at a time. The meals are large, but otherwise just okay.

The Hiker's Paradise is in a town. There's no real comparison with a hut a mile above sea level, reachable only by trail.

I don't know why Green Mountain charges $6 vs. $8, but I can think of many possible reasons. The difference doesn't strike me as worth arguing over.

The Crawford Notch Hostel has reopened. I think the fee is around $25 including breakfast.

Finally, and most importantly, there is no realistic way to provide showers above the timberline without doing massive environmental damage. There simply is no soil for the disposal of waste water. Every spring in the mountains would become polluted if AMC attempted to dispose of water from 100+ people a day.

Hikers should oppose any attempt to bring further civilization to the mountain ridgelines, rather than castigate the AMC for not doing so. NH's comments illustrate why hikers generally have very little influence over what happens in the woods and mountains they use for their sport.

Influence requires paying attention to the real issues. Too few hikers do so.

Weary

wacocelt

06-26-2005, 15:44

Influence requires paying attention to the real issues. Too few hikers do so.

Weary, you're dangerously close to summoning the likes of the RnR, do you really want that? Besides, you know that all Thru-Hikers are vagrants and uneducated miscreants like Youngblood, OB and Baltimore Jack.

Jack Tarlin

06-26-2005, 16:19

weary

06-26-2005, 16:29

Weary, you're dangerously close to summoning the likes of the RnR, do you really want that? Besides, you know that all Thru-Hikers are vagrants and uneducated miscreants like Youngblood, OB and Baltimore Jack.
I just report what I observe. I doubt if truth very often causes long term harm.

Nor do I always detect a correlation between education and wisdom.

Weary

MOWGLI

06-26-2005, 18:24

Mowgli:

Your comment is unfair.

Maybe so Jack. I just found it a bit humorous that after talking about hiking in Europe, our friend from NH signed off as a "low income hiker".

I wish my salary was that "low", 'cause I sure can't afford a trip to Europe. :D

wacocelt

06-26-2005, 19:04

MOWGLI

06-26-2005, 19:30

I didn't see anywhere in his post where he mentioned the time frame or capacity in which he was in europe. Perhaps he was in the Military and had the option of spending some leave time hiking.

Are you so firmly entrenched with the AMC that you have to look past thier greed, completely ignoring his point, just to take shots at him?

Well, a couple of things. You are right. I assumed alot - and my comment was not intended to be malicious. I guess I'm just kinda tired of this topic, which has been discussed at GREAT length (use your search engine if you don't believe me) in the past - although not in a year or so.

Now to the second part of your post. Am I "entrenched" with the AMC, firmly or otherwise? No - not at all. I am a former member. I don't happen to agree with you that the AMC is "greedy" however, even though a number of folks who visit Whiteblaze fairly regularly are on record thinking that they are. The AMC happens to have a good manager as their ED, and they run their non-profit organization like it is supposed to be run - like a business. Non-profits that don't function that way usualy cease to exist, unless you're dealing with an organization with a tireless bunch of determined volunteers.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I happen to think that the AMC does alot of important work. Like work on clean air and other issues that impact hikers. I just don't happen to think that whether or not a hiker can afford to stay at a hut is important in the larger scheme of things. After all, one doesn't have to stay there - and if you're a thru-hiker, you could potentially stay at no cost.

Don't like the AMC? Don't become a member, or if you are a member either don't renew, or work for change on the inside. Think the huts are too expensive? Don't stay there. If hat's not enough for you, live long enough to partcipate in the next round of public hearings when the hut concession comes up for renewal. Pretty simple - isn't it?

bogey

06-26-2005, 19:42

Alligator

06-26-2005, 20:39

Moon Monster

06-26-2005, 20:57

If anyone out there is planning to be hiking in Vermont this season, if you go to the "Updates" section of the ATC website (see the section on Thru-Hiker Companion Updates), there is some new information regarding fee sites in Vermont; for one thing, they've lowered the fees, and are also offering discounts for folks planning to stay at more than one of the Vermont fee sites.

Good news. There should also be a date before which there is noone in residence at the paysites in VT. Early NOBOs can pass through these regions without having to pay. I'm not sure the date, but I think it's after mid-June.

Moon Monster

06-26-2005, 20:58

For some counterpoint to the Hut system debate, remember Upper Goose Pond shelter, which is AMC operated and exclusively for AT thru-hikers and section-hikers. It costs hikers merely a suggested donation and, depending on the caretaker, may feature AYCE pasta dinner and pancake breakfast. My meals even had clams, stawberries, and bananas. The water is fetched from a spring reached by boat and getting it is not the least work that the caretaker provides for hikers. It's a sublime place with some time by the pond and then by a fire inside. The AMC is not completely evil.

Nightwalker

06-26-2005, 21:26

It costs hikers merely a suggested donation and, depending on the caretaker, may feature AYCE pasta dinner and pancake breakfast.
Mmmm...
Clam and strawberry pancakes!

:D

The Hog

06-27-2005, 07:03

The water is fetched from a spring reached by boat and getting it is not the least work that the caretaker provides for hikers. It's a sublime place with some time by the pond and then by a fire inside. The AMC is not completely evil.

Amen, Moon Monster! In 1984, the very pretty caretaker at Upper Goose Pond made us all coffee, then (3 years later) graced me with the ultimate trail magic: a wife (herself)!

MOWGLI

06-27-2005, 08:10

Amen, Moon Monster! In 1984, the very pretty caretaker at Upper Goose Pond made us all coffee, then (3 years later) graced me with the ultimate trail magic: a wife (herself)!

THat's a pretty cool story. And what a great place to meet your wife!

The Old Fhart

06-27-2005, 09:39

Thirdly I want folks to know that the price of the AMC huts (85 dollars for Non AMC members and 78 for non members) is PER PERSON. …………………….

For point of comparison...I could go to the hiker's paradise hostel in Gorham, pay 20 bucks, have bunk, free shower, full kitchen facilities and even ample meals at nearby restaurants still leave me spending less $ than the hut. Let’s not compare apples to oranges. I pay far less to stay at the Doyle in Duncannon than at the Ritz in NYC. That doesn’t mean that one is cheap and the other is ripping me off. I also pay far less to take AMTRAK’s Downeaster from Dover to Boston (70 miles) than I pay to take the Cog Railroad about 4 mile to the summit of Mt. Washington. And get this, the price for all these is PER PERSON! Location, maintenance costs, the market, etc., all determine the final cost to the consumer. Would you sell your $200,000 house to someone for $25,000 because that is all they could afford and there are others clambering to pay the full asking price? I doubt it.

I almost never stay at the huts because they cost more than I care to spend but that means I’m cheap, not that the asking price is too high. I guess I have better things to do that rant about places where I don’t have to stay, on a hike that I don’t have to go on.

There's nothing wrong with a privately owned/managed facility having "exclusionary" membership or admission policies; to do this on publicly owned land that everyone in the country theoretically has open access to.....well, that's wrong. Well, what’s wrong here is that quote! The AMC doesn’t have "”exclusionary" membership or admission policies” to the huts. Check this sign (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2091/sort/1/cat/500/page/8) that is posted everywhere at the AMC to see what their policies are. They also made Galehead Hut comply with the ADA when it was rebuilt so it now has a wheelchair ramp and other MI and disability features. The huts are open to all, including people who just come in to eat their own lunch and not spend a dime. Try that at your favorite restaurant! It is quite common for even the Federal Govt. to give discounts like the Golden Eagle pass or the $20 discounted yearly parking permit for the Whites rather than the $3/day use fee.

Oh, and the Highland Center does have a low cost option. After an outcry from members there now is a hostel type area for frugal hikers. If you're staying there July 30th, be sure to catch my slide show on peak bagging.

If you’re going to complain, be fair. Oh, a few years ago when I was at the hearings for the hut renewal permit and spoke against the 30 year renewal, I don’t recall seeing any of you there. At least I tried to do something about it.

Frosty

06-27-2005, 09:58

The huts are open to all, including people who just come in to eat their own lunch and not spend a dime. Try that at your favorite restaurant! . :) :) :)

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 10:30

Don't have time to respond to all of O.F.'s comments, but a few things come immediately to mind:

The low-cost option at Crawford exists ONLY after an outcry for members. It's obvious that the Club didn't consider this beforehand---they didn't care what anyone wanted or thought before they closed the popular Crawford hostel, and they ONLY relented and replaced it much later after so many people complained. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say they're not particularly interested in, or compassionate towards folks of limited means. O.F. thinks we should thank the AMC for being so thoughtful. Hogwash. If they were thoughtful, they wouldn't have torn down the old hostel in the first place, nor would they have spent several million dollars on its replacement. And O.F., how come they won't tell anyone, even their own members, how much this place cost to build, or to run, or how much money it has made since opening. You seem so well informed on AMC matters....sure would love to see you espond to THIS one.

And, O.F. I'm certainly familiar with the Club's vomitous politically-correct goo-goo signage about their running open facilities, and that they don't discriminate based on sex, religion, blah, blah, blah. Gee, are we supposed to applaud them for this signage? After all, if they DID bar their doors to non-whites, the handicapped, gays, etc., they'd be shut down immediately. Are they to be commended for publicly acknowledging that they obey the law? Geez, O.F., most folks who are law-abiding and who do what they're supposed to do don't put up signs announcing this, nor do they expect to be thanked for it. They just do it, partly cuz it's right and partly because it's the law. The AMC's ridiculously self-serving signage asks us to pat 'em on the head for doing something magnificent. Nonsense. All they're doing is telling us that they obey Federal Law. Geez, guys, that's nice to know, but are we really expected to THANK you for doing this?

But they do indeed discriminate based on socio-economic status: Imagine, if you will, that their signage said "We don't discriminate based on your age, sex, color, or gender, but if you're poor, you're not welcome here." O.F., you know and I know there'd be an incredible outcry if this was their posted policy.

But by having multiple facilities (all in prime locations, I might add) that charge fees that most hikers can't afford, this is absolutley ecomic discrimination. Their policies, in effect, are saying to the majority of the populace, the following: "Unless you are as sufficiently well-heeled as our tony members and their friends or neighbors, you can't come in. In short, if you can't pay the freight, you won't be served here."

The AMC may as well be honest and post signs outside the Huts and the Crawford Center that say "People of limited means don't belong here." Their high-end facilities are inevitably elitist, excusionary, and discriminatory. And O.F., the buildings are "open for public use" (water fountains, bathrooms, etc.) because this is the law of the land, period. If the AMC was truly interested in providing quality accomodations for ALL, then they wouldn't spend such a dis-proportionate ammount of their time and money building and operating facilities that cater to such a tiny fraction of the hiking public.

In short, I'm reminded of a quote of Anatole France's, where he said "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge."

So no, O.F., the AMC doesn't actually come out say that poorer people can't stay at their facilities. But in their majestic view of equality, this is, in effect, EXACTLY what they are saying. Doubt me? Then the next time you go up to Lake of the Clouds, tell 'em you wanna stay over, but only have thirty bucks. You'll be shown the door quicker than a guy trying to panhandle at the Four Seasons Hotel. If you ain't well-to-do, they don't want you. This is discrimatory and exclusionary, and on publicly owned land, it's just wrong.

rickb

06-27-2005, 11:11

FWIW, the Hostel at Crawford Notch is $25 for members, and $28 for non memembers. I think ATC members qualify for the lower rate.

That price includes bunks with clean sheet and an AYCE breakfast. The building is much like it was before, except that no cooking is allowed inside (except in the microwave).

Those just passing thru should be shure to check out the large format B & W photo exhibit in the building next door. Its worth a special visit.

Rick B

rickb

06-27-2005, 11:15

But they do indeed discriminate based on socio-economic status: Imagine, if you will, that their signage said "We don't discriminate based on your age, sex, color, or gender, but if you're poor, you're not welcome here." O.F., you know and I know there'd be an incredible outcry if this was their posted policy.

If you are a Scoutmaster/Youth Leader (even from the rich suburbs), the club's YOP program will allow you to stay at the huts for just a token amount. The AMC will also supply the gear.

The Old Fhart

06-27-2005, 12:29

I wrote: “ Oh, and the Highland Center does have a low cost option. After an outcry from members there now is a hostel type area for frugal hikers.’ to which Jack echos: ”The low-cost option at Crawford exists ONLY after an outcry for members. It's obvious that the Club didn't consider this beforehand---they didn't care what anyone wanted or thought before they closed the popular Crawford hostel, and they ONLY relented and replaced it much later after so many people complained.” Well, I’m sure rewording exactly what I just pointed out meant something to you, but my comments were in response to your totally misleading statement: ” The Highland Center, known to many of us as the Ritz Crawford, is much more expensive than you said: Single rooms there in the spring and summer can cost as much as $191.00 for non AMC members ($159.00 for members). This facility, which replaced a much beloved and very inexpensive hostel, is essentially a hotel for the AMC's wealthier members and anyone else willing to pay what they ask.” Why didn’t you mention that there was a lower cost option? Inquiring minds want to know. Was it an error of omission or deliberate to distort the facts. You still seem to be p.o.ed about the cheap wine they served you at their Boston mixers. Get over it, Jack.

And the next bit of disconnected blather after I pointed out your farcical:
There's nothing wrong with a privately owned/managed facility having "exclusionary" membership or admission policies; to do this on publicly owned land that everyone in the country theoretically has open access to.....well, that's wrong. you respond: ”And, O.F. I'm certainly familiar with the Club's vomitous politically-correct goo-goo signage about their running open facilities, and that they don't discriminate based on sex, religion, blah, blah, blah. Gee, are we supposed to applaud them for this signage? After all, if they DID bar their doors to non-whites, the handicapped, gays, etc., they'd be shut down immediately. Are they to be commended for publicly acknowledging that they obey the law? So which of those two diametrically opposed statements of your are you arguing now? Geez, you’re even mad at them when they obey the law. Go beat some other dead horse Jack.

I do agree with your comical statement: ”But they do indeed discriminate based on socio-economic status:………. In short, if you can't pay the freight, you won't be served here." Earth to Jack: this is the real world. This is exactly what Frosty so eloquently pointed out about his not being able to justify buying a LandRover. (BTW, I did own a LandRover for years). Jack, let me explain the capitalist system to you: that’s the way the world is. What you want smacks of Marx (From each according to their ability; to each according to their need.) The rest of your post was so disjointed and nonsensical it isn’t worth commenting on.

Just remember, Jack, If you’re staying at the Highland Center on the night of July 30th , while I’m there, we can discuss it over a fine meal made by their chef. :D

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 12:34

While this is gratifying to hear, it doesn't much help the 99% of the rest of us who are not affiliated with scouting or youth groups.

And the non-member nightly rate is $29.00 for the hostel (now known as the Shapleigh Bunk House), not $28.00. Also, they prefer reservations, which is difficult for thru-hikers as they won't know until they're quite close just when they're arrivin there. But this is certainly a nice option for some hikers, even tho it is an option that the Club offerred belatedly and only after much prodding and many complaints.

For more information, see the "lodging" section at the AMC's website, www.outdoors.org

dougmeredith

06-27-2005, 12:37

So no, O.F., the AMC doesn't actually come out say that poorer people can't stay at their facilities. But in their majestic view of equality, this is, in effect, EXACTLY what they are saying. Doubt me? Then the next time you go up to Lake of the Clouds, tell 'em you wanna stay over, but only have thirty bucks. You'll be shown the door quicker than a guy trying to panhandle at the Four Seasons Hotel.
Um, get a job? I work so that I have money to buy the things that I want. If I gave up my job to do a three to six month hike, I wouldn't be surprised that I couldn't afford the same things as those who chose to work.

Doug

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 12:59

Geez, O.F., for a clever man, you sometimes say some very silly things.

All I'm saying about their feel-good signage is that it merely serves to inform us that they're obeying Federal Law. We,, whoop-de-do! You seem to think they deserve credit for acknowedging that they're aware of these regulations and that they follow them. I think their compliance in these matters is expected, while you seem to think it's a magnanimous act on their part.

And O.F., I know all about the real world. I know there are $26.00 motels on the A.T. amd that there are also some that cost $200.00 a night. This is not news to me. All I'm saying is that the Club has for many years adopted a policy of spending way too much of its time, energy, and resources servicing a tiny fraction of the people who go into the Whites. There should be more shelters, hostels, care-taker tentsites, and less emphasis on high-end facilities (such as Hut system expansion, the Highland Center, etc.)

And Doug Meredith, thanks for the ignorant comment. I choose to work quite hard for much of the year. What I don't choose to do is spend money on facilities I neither need nor want. I'm glad you work so you get the things you want, Doug. Bully for you. And if you wanna fork over 85.00 bucks a night to stay, unwashed, in an unheated bunkhouse with a bunch of demanding of New Yorkers and their offspring, well, that's fine. Have a nice time. It's a great country, Doug. Take your hard earned dollars and piss em away any way you like.

What I was saying, Doug, is this: The AMC shouldn't be spending so much time operating high-cost lodging options, which inevitably exclude most folks, on public land. If people of means wish to speand their hard-earned, or frequently easily inherited dollars at these establishments, that's fine. But public land is just that----public. And an organization that has for decades concentrated on serving the needs of the wealthy should not be doing this sort of thing on public land.

wacocelt

06-27-2005, 13:00

Um, get a job? I work so that I have money to buy the things that I want. If I gave up my job to do a three to six month hike, I wouldn't be surprised that I couldn't afford the same things as those who chose to work.

With an attitude like that, please remain at your job so you can afford all those 'things'. It's not like the folks on the AT have decided to hike through a shopping mall or the lobby of a 5 star hotel, neither of which have thier place on PUBLIC lands, thus giving them the right to exclude the PUBLIC.

I thought I was bad about not understanding and/or staying on topic.

Skyline

06-27-2005, 13:20

I think I understand the POV of those opposed to AMC's huts as they exist now. There are some good posts here from both sides in fact.

What I haven't read here is this: For those of you critical of AMC's operation of the huts, their cost, etc. what would you have them do instead? Run the current huts but make them cheaper (and how would they pay for doing that)? Reduce services (and prices) and make them self-serve like Carter Notch? Tear 'em down and replace with (fill in the blanks)? Something else?

Given the always-present possibility of life-threatening weather in the Whites, would NOT having the huts be a viable option?

I'm not trying to add to the heat, I'm really wanting to know.

rickb

06-27-2005, 13:34

Keep in mind that The Highland Center which so offends was built on private land. With other people's money.

Madison Hut is on private land too, but that is a quible.

Rick B

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 13:46

Skyline:

Good post.

Here are a few ideas:

1. Concentrate less on high-end places like the Highland Center and the full-
service Huts. Add or improve shelters, care-taker campsites. Make some
of the existing Huts self-service like the one at Carter Notch, which has a
skeleton staff, no meals served (there's a kitchen where guests can pre-
pare their own food), and reasonable rates.

2. Simpler facilities would bring in less money, but would also cost MUCH
less to build, staff, maintain, and operate.

3. People that would only venture into this area provided there are high-
end services might do several things: They might learn to get by with
simpler accomodations, which would result in less impact and waste. Or they might camp elsewhere, which isn't such a bad thing----this is already an extreme high-use area. If several thousand of these folks stay away, so what?

4. The AMC spends thousands annually (real ammount unknown, they refuse
to say) advertising their high-end facilities---magazine adds, glossy
brochures, etc. This money could be spent on other, more worthy things.

5. The AMC has a top-heavy executive masthead. Many of these folks are
grossly overpaid, but once again, the Club refuses to answer specific
questions about this. What exactly are they hiding?

6. AMC should sell off its multi-million dollar property on top of Boston's
Beacon Hill (Gosh! Just around the corner from John and Teresa Kerry!)
and should re-locate to more modest, and more geographically
appropriate locale, like Gorham or Pinkham Notch.

De-emphasizing the high-end lodging would benefit thousands of folks. They could keep a few of the full-service huts open for those who desire these services. But they need to provide more lodging options throughout their area of operations. They also need to offer other, more reasonably priced
lodging options near or very close to their present Huts. It is ridiculously elitist that in order to camp and see the sun go down at places like Lonesome Lake, you gotta fork over 85 bucks for the privilege. Where does the AMC get away with this? Who gave them this right to monopolize these areas, effectively excluding 99% of the population from fully enjoying them?

Closing or altering the Hut system would cost them a lot of money (and this is the principal reason they stay open, that, and the Club's terror of alienating their crustier members, who want nothing changed). But this money could be recovered by slashing executive salaries and selling off their Joy Street headquarters.

End result of all this: There'd be lots more lodging options for folks on all sorts of budgets. There'd by low-fee shelters and campsites, there'd be mid-range hostels and shared bunkrooms/cabins, and there'd be a few higher end places. More folks would be served, more folks would be happy.

Doing all this would not be that difficult, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. Anyway, Skyline, you asked what us critics offer in place of their present system. Above are a few ideas, I'd love to hear other ones.

Blue Jay

06-27-2005, 14:08

I usually can't stand when people do this BUT, Jack is absolutely right.

The Old Fhart

06-27-2005, 14:12

Geez, Jack., for a clever man, you sometimes say some very silly things.
Jack, in a less lucid moment-“All I'm saying about their feel-good signage is that it merely serves to inform us that they're obeying Federal Law. We,, whoop-de-do! You seem to think they deserve credit for acknowedging that they're aware of these regulations and that they follow them. I think their compliance in these matters is expected, while you seem to think it's a magnanimous act on their part.” As usual you’ve totally missed the point about the signage and claim I said things I never did, or even implied. Try actually quoting me for a change instead of imagining what you think I might have wanted to say. Read this slowly for the third time and maybe, just maybe, you’ll understand. The point is you first claim the AMC has “"exclusionary" membership or admission policies” but when I pointed out that the signage indicates just the opposite you agree they DON’T have “"exclusionary" membership or admission policies,” but get fixated on the fact that they have to post signs stating same. Nice diversion to sidestep the real issue. No one cares about the signs, Jack, forget it.

Now you say there “should be more shelters, hostels, care-taker tentsites, and less emphasis on high-end facilities (such as Hut system expansion, the Highland Center, etc.)” The Highland Center has nothing to do with the A.T. and is on private AMC owned land so your perceived problem with that is totally idiotic and totally off topic.

You want more hostels, start one yourself and quit this incessant whining. You want more shelters, get the USFS with its crippled budget to build more. You don’t really seem to grasp the FACT that the AMC doesn’t control the “White Mountain National Forest”. That’s probably why it isn’t called the “AMC Forest.” For pity sake, try to understand who actually runs the forest and what can and can’t be done.

You only seem to be interested in winning an argument, without letting the facts get in your way, and several people have pointed this out. If it will quiet you down, you’re absolutely right, about whatever you’re trying to say and no matter how many sides of the question you agree with, or claim you do, imagined, or not.

Youngblood

06-27-2005, 15:15

I'm siding with TOF on this one. I had hard feeling for the AMC after my thru hike, but after learning facts that I wasn't previously aware of I don't quite see it that way anymore. The AMC is what it is and it isn't in the business to cater to a small group of thru hikers that haven't figured out that because things are diffferent in the AMC's domain, that they need to learn to do things different. (That was one of the prime reasons I went to a backpacking hammock, to deal with getting through the Whites if I ever hike through there again.) Basically the camping techniques used along the rest of the AT don't quite work there and the hiker has to do a little more homework and figure other ways of getting through there without letting the AMC's policies and rules be a major hinderance... I didn't do that all that well until the little group I was with decided to slackpack because free, good trail side campsites are not readily available in the Whites like they are elsewhere. It's different and it takes a different attitude, hopefully not one that says make the AMC change and do it the same way its done everywhere else on the AT.

I don't have a problem with the folks from Boston getting out into the outdoors, I think its great to give as many people as possible a chance to enjoy the outdoors as much as I do and if the huts make that possible for them, then the huts are a good thing... they certainly pack 'em in some of them and I wouldn't call three bunks high, side to side, back to back and no showers or no private bathrooms or no place to stowe gear deluxe accomodations. And they still have to hike to many of these, so they are hikers, no better or no worse than the rest of us... they are just hiking their own hike. You don't have to stay at the AMC huts or the AMC campsite, it's your choice.

Youngblood

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 15:22

Hey, O.F. Switch to de-caff. Or maybe eat more prune danish. You either need some rest or a purgative, perhaps both.

I stand by my comments, especially the most recent ones. In re. to the Highland Center, I'm perfectly aware that it isn't on the A.T. You may recall that I'm somewhat more familiar with the Trail than you are. So I ask you, what is idiotic about criticizing the Highland Center, a luxury facility designed to serve a fraction of the White Mountain's visitors? The AMC is a non-profit environmental organization, ostensibly devoted to preserving and protecting thge back-country of Northern New England. I fail to see how spending millions of dollars (again, no one is sure) on a luxury hotel is the best way for the Club to realize its mission. You think it's "idiotic" (Gee, did I quote you right?) on this matter. I think this criticism is eminently justified. They can certainly have found better ways to spend this money.

In regards to their signage, you weren't mis-quoted. You brought up the signs, seemingly to offer prof that the AMC wasn't discriminatory. I pointed out---several times now, sorry you haven't gotten it yet----that their signage is a joke. Of course their policies are economically discriminatory, and the fact that they're in compliance with other Federal laws regarding equal access isn't the point. Their politically correct self-congratulatory signage is a bad joke. Sorry you don't like this being said, but if you didn't want commentary on their signage, you shouldn't have introduced the subject or sent along a photo.

Geez, enough of this. Time to go ice the wrist, a much more pleasurable experience than debating with O.F. Skyline recently asked what the "critics" would suggest instead. That was the purpose of my post instead. I stand by my criticisms and suggestions, regardless of what O.F. thinks. And I note, he's yet to offer any suggestions on how they can improve their operations. Evidently, he feels that they're perfect, and no changes need to be made.

And if you want the last word on this, O.F., you can happily have it as I've better things to do than continue this forever, but since you're such an ardent defender of such boondoggles as the Highland Center, and of such institutions as the Huts, here are a few questions for you:

1. How much did it cost to build the H.C. ?
2. How much has it earned since its opening?
3. How much do the full-service Huts make each year?
4. How much does it cost to operate them?
5. What is the compensation of the AMC's 10 top employees?
6. What is the assessed market value of their Boston headquarters?

Instead of attacking me, O.F., why not address some of THESE matters, matters which the Club is loathe to talk about, so loathe to discuss them that they liquidated the interactive part of their own website where such controversial matters were once freely discussed.

If what they're doing is just fine, O.F., how come even their own members know so little about how the organization operates?

Oh, and O.F., I know the AMC doesn't control the White Mountain National Forest. I never said they did. For an old guy who gets his knickers all atwist when he thinks he's been mis-quoted, you sure are good at putting words in MY mouth. What I said was that I don't approve of some of their operations WITHIN the National Forest, and I think there is room for considerable improvement of these operations. I also think there is considerable room for improvement in other areas, particularly money management, how they spend their energies and resources, and whether or not they're staying true to their original mission.

You think that my arguments are "idiotic". All I'm doing is discussing matters that the AMC wishes would go away, matters that they have been at great pains to NOT openly discuss. They simply didn't want these subjects debated by their members or anyone else.

And evidently, neither do you. Too bad for both of you. These are valid subjects for discussion and deserve to be talked about, and they will be talked about here. You want a place where unpleasant subjects are stifled, ignored, erased? Then go to websites like the AMC's own, where you'll feel right at home, you'll be lauded as a hero and defender, and best of all, your blood pressure wil be lower.

All I've done here is raise some interesting points, and asked some specific questions. Questions that even YOU can't answer, O.F., because your precious AMC has absolutely no interest in a free and open discussion. Instead of directing your anger at me for raising these perfectly valid issues, have you ever considered questioning your beloved AMC for their reasons in ignoring them?

Jack Tarlin

06-27-2005, 15:31

Youngblood---

My above post was sent off before I read your comments.

Nowhere in any of my comments have I stated or implied that thru-hikers deserve special treatment in the Whites.

My comments have little to do with the A.T. or with thru-hiking.

In a nutshell, I'm concerned with how the Club spends its time, energy, and money, and I'm not sure they're truly interested in serving the General public.

I agree with Youngblood that staying at these facilities is a personal choice. It is, however, a choice that most folks don't have the opportunity to make, and in perpetuating a system that concentrates on building and expanding its more expensive accomodations and lodging options, and neglecting or down-playing simpler facilities, the Club is, in efect, limiting choices for other folks. One can't choose to stay in a shelter or campsite if it doesn't exist, or if the Club has elected to spend millions of dollars on a luxury hotel instead of spending some of this sum on varied facilities for different kinds of people.

Youngblood says you don't have to stay at the Huts, it's a personal choice. But he's missing the point. By limiting the number of more reasonable alternatives, the AMC is essentially saying, it's NOT your choice. It's theirs. You'll deal with the options they've given you, and if you can't afford most of them, too bad for you.

That ain't much of a choice.

Sly

06-27-2005, 18:49

Next time through the Whites I'm stealth camping or using alternate facilities. AMC isn't going to get a dime out of me!

The Old Fhart

06-27-2005, 20:48

Jack-“My comments have little to do with the A.T. or with thru-hiking.” Truer words were never spoken.

As to your 6 questions, Jack, get a life! Don’t you have anything better to do than harp about the AMC and its finances? And what is this:
Jack(as God on high, to me)-“You may recall that I'm somewhat more familiar with the Trail than you are.”Ah, you always pull that old chestnut out of the hat when you’re losing an argument on style. I’m not the first person to be whipped with that wet noodle.

But, if, as you say, this has “little to do with the A.T. or with thru-hiking,” we’re talking about the Whites and the AMC and I’ve been hiking in the Whites longer than you’ve been, so that thinly veiled insult comes off as another one of your silly attempts at humor. I’ll match my years of work for the USFS out of Gorham, work on the summit of Washington for 4 winters, 25 years of NHAMC service award, where I’ve trained hundreds of trip leaders, against your few days of strolling along a 3 foot wide trail once a year for 7 years. Just like your “de-caff” reference when I’ve never drank coffee in my life. Start dealing with facts for once.

I have been a critic of the AMC for decades and mentioned I took the time and effort to speak against the 30-year re-permit for the huts. I prefer to act on things the AMC actually does wrong, as opposed to your well known uninformed knee-jerk reaction against anything to do with the AMC after they gave you cheap wine. Jack, if you know so much, why don’t you act on your “beliefs” and do something constructive (like many of the rest of us have) instead of just blowing hot air?

Freighttrain

06-27-2005, 21:12

this is like watching a tennis match!:D

Skyline

06-27-2005, 22:11

I think most of Jack's points in message 50 make sense...especially making existing huts more like Carter Notch (minimal staffing, self-serve, less expensive).

I'm also wondering if there couldn't be a two-tier arrangement at existing huts. Sort of like the difference between First Class and Coach on Amtrak.

On the train, First Class passengers get the superior accommodations (private or upgraded lie-down slkeeping accommodations--some with showers) and their (full-course) meals are included; the cost for First Class sleepers with meals on Amtrak are very high. Coach passengers get reclining seats in a coach car they share with between 48 and 60 others and either bring their own food or pay a la carte from a lower-priced snack bar; coach tickets are a lot more affordable.

I guess at Lake of the Crowds, since they offer the Dungeon, AMC already (sort of) follows this model though some may want to argue that the Dungeon is a step or two below what most would consider minimal standards.

Has such a two-tiered system been seriously considered throughout the entire hut system? Would the current buildings support this kind of arrangement? The ones I've been in seem to have more than one bunkroom, and by eating in shifts (just like on Amtrak) the current dining halls I've seen could support both staff-prepared meals and hiker-prepared meals if an outdoor area could be set aside for firing up stoves. But I didn't use or even stop in at every hut in the Whites, choosing other options sometimes, so maybe there are some that would not support this scenario?

Youngblood

06-27-2005, 22:11

Jack, I don't really know how to respond to your statement that "My comments have little to do with the A.T. or with thru-hiking" because I thought they had everything to do with the AT and thru-hiking through the Whites. The Whites are physically extemely tough and the AMC changes the rules for campsites in a way that makes it even more difficult for thru-hikers who don't adapt to the situation. But hey, the Whites are beautiful and almost a magical place if you learn to cope with them instead of fighting/resisting/resenting the AMC. The AMC was there many years before the AT and ATC were even thought off... the AMC was not created to serve the AT, the ATC or thru-hikers. It is not like many (or maybe any) of the other AT related clubs and it is not an evil organization... it is what it is with a long, long unique history.

Youngblood

Blue Jay

06-27-2005, 22:27

You don’t really seem to grasp the FACT that the AMC doesn’t control the “White Mountain National Forest”. That’s probably why it isn’t called the “AMC Forest.”

So they don't control the "White Mountain National Forest"? Try and set up your own business on one of the White Mountains. Many people, other than yourself, have tried to stop the AMC from owning the White Mountains, all have failed. AMC money talks, hikers walk. It's not called the the "AMC Forest" yet, give them some time. They want to buy Maine first.

Bolivershagnasty

06-27-2005, 22:33

Old Fart! Your opinon doesn't matter anymore than ANY ONE ELSE HERE! So shut up! Your BRAGIN about whatever you think youve done and how much "youve hiked" is , OH "who cares! BS!" the people that scame others every year have done more hiking than you on a single day! I have on the other hand done some research and found that the CEO of AMC makes more than 100k per year so SHUT UP!! (it aint a non profit org to him!) I'll Ill have specificks later so if you want to challeng me "go for it". Start bad mouthing me! I'll be up for it in about 20 min. I'll know more then you ever thought you would EVER NOW. If you want to "count time" I'll have spent more time on trial with more money and efort in the next 2 years than you ever have by the time you DIE than you ever will before leaving this thread. You want to be embarassed? RESPOND!! OLD FART!

DavidNH

06-27-2005, 22:51

WOW...I went on a small rant about the very high priced AMC huts and look what has happened! 50 some odd posts and starting to get nasty.

Lets ease up folks.

All the previous posts have not swayed my oppinion at all on AMC hut prices. I think they are WAY to high. 5o per person I would swallow and accept no prob but 85? WOW!

I will say I stayed at the huts back when it was 55 a person. But now at 78-85 per person per night...well.. this hiker is out in the cold so to speak! And it is not even a matter of being able to afford it or not. I should not have to pay 20,000 dollars for a Ford Escort, I should not have to pay 100 bucks a plate for dinner (even if it is haute cuisine) and I should not have to pay 85 dollars per night for a mountain hut I have to hike to and that really gives rather rustic accomadatations. I think in many ways the AMC is a great organization, but their emphasis on high priced accomadations (their full service huts and their Ritz Crawford) really do make them an organization that is exclusionary based on Economic status. What is sad is that the economic exclusionary (or should I say profit seeking?) nature of the club is that it is preventing it from being the truly great and inclusive organization focused on mountain exploraton and preservation that it could be and should be. I believe the club will always be there. But the club could be so much better if only they would spread out their chips more evenly.

Perhaps we could spiff up the Ritz Craford a bit (ahem..I mean the Highland center) raise the price their to 200 per night for a semi private room and use the difference to subsidize the huts? Or maybe the high priced huts could be used to subsidize dues and bring them from 50 back t0 40? Do ya suppose there might be a day where going on club day trips would entail a small fee? Pay 20 bucks to hike 8 hours with 10 other people over hill and dale? Has never been such always free so far but club being what it is becoming I could see it coming some day!

nhhiker

Moxie00

06-27-2005, 23:05

For years I have not been fond of the AMC. They actually maintain some trails in Maine, especially from the NH border to Grafton State Park. Years age I wrote them because hikers were getting lost an Old Spec because the white blazes had faded and the trail was poorly marked. I got a very nasty letter back from AMC saying I didn't know what I was talking about, they had paid a crew to paint the blazes the year before. I bet the paint ended up on a Bowdoin fraternity house because it sure didn't end up as blazes on the AT. Also the only place in Maine a hiker is charged to stay is at the Spec Pond Camp site, poorly maintained, by the AMC. The Maine Applachian Trail Club maintains over 250 miles of trails,campsites, and shelters in Maine. This is done with all volunteer labor and not one penny is ever charged for a hiker to camp or stay in a shelter. I did have a good experience myself with the AMC on my thru hike. It was a quiet night at Lonesome Lake, they were not full, and the hut manager let at least 6 thru hikers stay at no charge and even fed us. We all did some work but this treatment was much better than we had come to expect from the AMC. Later on a party of fellow hikers was turned away from a hut late in the day and in bad weather because they could not afford to pay and they just made a hole in the alpine tundra and set up their tent. It would have been much better for all involved to just let them sleep on a table. The AMC does provide a service. Many of their guests couldn't handle backpacking so the hut system gives them exposure th hiking without the effort. However the AMC should, but never will, realize that the serious backpackers and thru hikers also belong in the whites and some decent accomidation should be made for them. I joind the AMC to try change dfrom within but all I got was expensive dues and calls during dinner asking for more money. The last call came as my family was eating dinner on Fathers Day so needless to say I don't think they are going to change so they will have to get along without my support.
:(

Bolivershagnasty

06-27-2005, 23:10

NH hiker. They are not going to do anything other than what the are doiing. Stand up an fight or roll over and pay. Theres no options. They shouldn"t rely n anyone me or you. Make it a free get there option durng part of the year and other parts take reservations.

Bolivershagnasty

06-27-2005, 23:18

Oh by the way did I say the guy running the opp was making over 100 k per year? Tell me i'm wrong. Is that a "non profit orginisation"?

weary

06-28-2005, 00:26

....I have been a critic of the AMC for decades and mentioned I took the time and effort to speak against the 30-year re-permit for the huts. I prefer to act on things the AMC actually does wrong, as opposed to your well known uninformed knee-jerk reaction against anything to do with the AMC after they gave you cheap wine. Jack, if you know so much, why don’t you act on your “beliefs” and do something constructive (like many of the rest of us have) instead of just blowing hot air?
AMC is a private club and like most private organizations AMC does some things I like and things I don't like. I personally think the huts in the Whites serve a useful purpose. I also think huts in the 100-mile-mile wilderness are a bad idea, but not so bad that I'm going to quit. Come to think about it, I'm not sure I can quit. The club gave me a lifetime membership 35 years ago -- something to do with the "recovery" of 400,000 acres of public land in the Maine wildlands.

I do continue to put out the Maine Chapter newsletter and to serve on the chapter's board. Why? Overall, AMC does a good job. And I prefer to work for change from within. AMC remains the leading organization that deals with environment of the mountains of the northeast. If the club didn't exist, someone would have to invent it.

As far as I'm concerned, AMC can charge whatever it wants to stay at the huts. Jack's harping about the cost of staying at the huts strikes me as pretty petty, as is his contention the club should sell it's Joy Street headquarters.

Neither the huts, nor the headquarters qualify as luxurious.
Both, however, rate as historic. I can imagine the uproar, should the club decide to abandon either.

FWIW. AMC was heavily in debt when the present executive director came on board. I forget his salary, but it's listed on some public tax documents that I once looked at, but he must be doing something right -- reversing what some saw as approaching bankruptcy, raising money to build the Highland Center, doubling the membership, and buying 37,000 acres of land in Maine, among other things.

I've worked closely with the club's senior staff on the Maine plans. They all strike me as wise, hard working, and dedicated people, though sometimes wrong.

Weary

Larry

06-28-2005, 00:55

Weary offers some sensible comments about the AMC, the mission of which of course extends far beyond the WMNF and the AT. The AMC's IRS Form 990, required of nonprofits, can be accessed at guidestar.com. The most recent year available is 2003. At that time, executive director Andrew Falender was receiving $241,891 in salary and $27,409 in other benefits. (He's no doubt earning more now.) That's a lot of money--but not so much, these days, for running an organization that in 2003 had revenue of almost $19-million and expenses of almost $17-million, which are broken down in the Form 990. In that year, AMC spent almost $1-million on trail maintenance.

AMC's practices shouldn't go unquestioned, but, like Weary, I believe that on balance the club's practices and presence are beneficial to the environment, to the public lands on which it has a presence, and to not just its 90,000 members but to many other hikers and others who have benefited from AMC's presence and efforts for more than 125 years. As others have mentioned in this thread, the AMC (and some of its huts, then more primitive) pre-dated the existence of the WMNF. Indeed, AMC and its politically shrewd leaders in the early 20th century provided an important consitutency for passage of the Weeks Act and the creation of the WMNF. Some sections of the AT in the Whites were built by AMC prior to the existence of AT as a long-distance trail. This history of course doesn't provide AMC a permanent free pass for all its practices today. But, overall, I believe the AMC (I'm a relatively inactive member) continues to do a good and important job.
Larry

The Old Fhart

06-28-2005, 13:31

(In the following I refer to Bolivershagnasty as BS)

BS -Old Fart! Sorry, no one on WB by that name.

BS-Your opinon doesn't matter anymore than ANY ONE ELSE HERE! So shut up! I never said it did, but you’re making a strong case to support that idea.

BS- Your BRAGIN about whatever you think youve done and how much "youve hiked" is , OH "who cares! I was answering Jack’s claim he was THE expert on the Whites, sorry if it made you feel inferior.

BS- the people that scame others every year have done more hiking than you on a single day! Reword that so it looks like an English sentence.

BS-I have on the other hand done some research and found that the CEO of AMC makes more than 100k per year so SHUT UP!! (it aint a non profit org to him!) I'll Ill have specificks later so if you want to challeng me "go for it". You have confused me with Jack. He wants to know, I could care less. Post your “specificks” for him. BTW, Larry did some excellent research and gives specifics, for those who care.

BS- Start bad mouthing me! I'll be up for it in about 20 min. I'll know more then you ever thought you would EVER NOW. If you want to "count time" I'll have spent more time on trial with more money and efort in the next 2 years than you ever have by the time you DIE than you ever will before leaving this thread. You want to be embarassed? I’d be embarrassed to try to write on a level you’d understand. I don’t doubt you’ve spent more time on “trial” with more money and “efort.” If you spent less time on “trial”, maybe you could actually spend some time on the “trail.”

BS-RESPOND!! OLD FART! Sorry, no one on WB by that name, Bubba. :D

Lone Wolf

06-28-2005, 13:44

I think the boy (or is it a girl) was drunk when posting all that *****t. What a dumbazz. :D

MOWGLI

06-28-2005, 14:44

What BS fails to realize, is that TOF has probably forgotten more about the White Mountains than most of us here on WB know - collectively.

And Larry, thanks for your post, and welcome to Whiteblaze.

rickb

06-28-2005, 15:17

FWIW, I think its possible for a thru hiker to waste a lot of good psychic energy over all this AMC stuff. While its fashionable to complain about the club-- whether one is is well informed or not, to what end?

Are the huts expensive? Absolutely, but even if they were half the current price, few hikers would elect to stay in them. Concern for others pocketbooks is great, but (dare I say) why not just take a selfish perspective?

The AMC offers thru hikers work for stay opportunities for those so inclined, and many people find that a worthwhile part of their total experience. So take advantage. Sign the registers, too. When you come back in 20 years (in who know what circumstances), it will be cool to see your name and reflect on what you wrote.

Be selfish. When forking over the $8 for a tent platform or bunk spot, do so in the knowledge that for that part AMC's work, $8 doesn't cover all the direct costs. Be selfish and take advangtage of your subsidized stay. Really. And if you elect to camp off trail, be thankfull that the trailsides are not crowded with tents simply because so many New Englanders will ONLY camp at designated sites. Even though the don't have to. From my perspective thats a good thing.

When discussion arise over the propriety of a salary or HQ location, be selfish there too. Revel in the fact that you, most likely, are enjoying some benefits (and even the most jaded will agree there are some) without having paid a plug nickle!

When you climb out of the Nauman tensite, be selfish and do so early in the AM. After all, you will have a long day over the Presidential if you elect not to stay at Lakes (most likely for free)-- so why not start it with a sunrise on an empty mountain top, which you will have all to yourself. It will be glorious, and all for you-- thanks to the rules which prohibit camping up there.

Be selfish, not bitter. At least while you are hiking. Plenty of time to become a nattering nabob of negativity when you get home.

Rick B

The Old Fhart

06-28-2005, 15:45

MOWGLI16-"...TOF has probably forgotten more about the White Mountains than most of us here on WB know..." Funny, but that somehow conjures up an image of me propped in my wheelchair at “the home” with an addled brain, drooling, staring into space. Thanks, I needed that! (and probably others did too!) :D

Rickboudrie has good advice in his post #72. Enjoy your hike and forget about those things around you that don’t affect you and you can’t change.

MOWGLI

06-28-2005, 16:03

Funny, but that somehow conjures up an image of me propped in my wheelchair at “the home” with an addled brain, drooling, staring into space.

Wow! That is exactly the image I had too! :D

And yes, an awesome post by Rick. It reminds me of some sage advice given to me years ago by a now deceased mentor. He said the only difference between "being in a rut" and "being in a groove" is how you choose to look at a situation. Is your glass half full or half empty?

Frosty

06-28-2005, 16:18

the only difference between "being in a rut" and "being in a groove" is how you choose to look at a situation. Pretty cool. I never thought of it this way.

Jack Tarlin

06-28-2005, 16:26

O.F.---

Please show me where I claimed to be THE expert on the Whites.

I don't recall saying it, here or anywhere else.

If you're going to get all pissy about being mis-quoted, at least try and be consistent. If you're gonna quote people, quote 'em right.

But I do know a good bit about the AMC, tho. And like a lot of folks, I have some concerns about how the organization is run.

As opposed to you.

You mentioned that you could care less about how much the AMC pays its top people. I happen to think this is very important; how they make and choose to spend their money is EXACTLY what this discussion is about, in case you hadn't noticed. And I'm glad you think that Larry supplied "specifics" about this. No, Larry supplied us with out-of-date public information that the Club was legally required to disclose. When it comes to supplying information of this sort on its own, the Club has steadfastly refused to do this, even for its own members. You might not particularly care about this, but I assure you there are plenty of folks who do. As I've asked several times already (another question you've ignored), what on earth do they have to hide or be embarrassed about? Hiding from this discusssion, and terminating public discussion of the matter, as they did on their own website, is not a good sign.

O.F., If you think you have positive ideas to share about possible improvements that the Club could make in its operations, please share them.

If you feel (and it sure sounds like you feel this way) that the Club doesn't need to change a thing in the way it does its business, well, come out and say it.

Right now, you haven't said much, except for being a being a blanket apologist for everything the Club does.

I think the Club does a lot of good. However, I think there's room for improvement. And there's nothing wrong with discussing this.

I'd have welcomed the opportunity to engage in this dialogue at the AMC's own website, so more AMC members and employees could see it, and could participate. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible, as open debate is not permitted there.

When you're done being such a complete rumpswab for this arrogant and self-righteous organization, you might want to address some of these points. Here's something to think about----several times now, you've taken folks to task for not getting more involved, for not taking these complaints and concerns directly to the Club, for not being more outspoken about this.

You miss the point: The Club doesn't wish to discuss these matters, not with its members, not with the general public, not with anyone. It doesn't wish to address these concerns, or to respond to its critics.

And with bleating yes-men like you to speak for them, it doesn't have to speak out much.

Instead of wondering how much they pay their corporate hacks, perhaps we should instead wonder if they're paying YOU. It sure sounds like it.

The Old Fhart

06-28-2005, 17:16

Please show me where I claimed to be THE expert on the Whites.
I don't recall saying it, here or anywhere else.
Jack-"You may recall that I'm somewhat more familiar with the Trail than you are." When you rant on and on about the Whites then try to pull rank on me (and you've done it to others as well), I say maybe you should say you know more about the trail EXCEPT the Whites. Sorry for your lapse in memory about what you said a few posts ago, is your mind going??

Jack-"If you're gonna quote people, quote 'em right."Are you trying to be funny? You quote ONE word (out of context) I said then spend the rest of your post saying what you "thought" it meant and you complain about my quoting you at length. Like:
Jack-"If you feel (and it sure sounds like you feel this way) that the Club doesn't need to change a thing in the way it does its business, well, come out and say it."I already stated the exact opposite but you're too blinded by your hate of the AMC to read the actual words.
I have been a critic of the AMC for decades and mentioned I took the time and effort to speak against the 30-year re-permit for the huts. I prefer to act on things the AMC actually does wrong, as opposed to your well known uninformed knee-jerk reaction against anything to do with the AMC after they gave you cheap wine. Jack, if you know so much, why don’t you act on your “beliefs” and do something constructive (like many of the rest of us have) instead of just blowing hot air?

The rest of your post isn't worth discussing. Listen to what other posters are also telling you, get a life, Jack.

Lion King

06-28-2005, 17:24

Real simple, you dont agree with them, dont support them, if you do agree with them, go stay in their huts...either for work for stay, which i have done when the weather is crap, and Hut girls ROCK, or pay to stay.

Or stealth the Whites, not as hard as people make it out to be, I've done it many times, and will again.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but as with a lot of folks, if others dont agree with what you say, there is a fight, which is damn stupid.

Maybe everyone in this thread who is spewing garbage because their ideals are different need to go hike for a month or so to remember what it means to be a hiker.

On any level.

Jack Tarlin

06-28-2005, 18:20

O.F.:

Geez. For someone who doesn't feel my comments are worth discussing, you sure have a lot to say about them.

Let's try another tack: Skyline recently asked us (post #48) to come up with ideas and suggestions about what the AMC could be doing beter. Several of us, myself included, immediately responded.

O.F., I can't remember you responding to Skyline's very reasonable request.

Instead of merely spitting on anyone with the temerity to disagree with you, it'd be illuminating to see what you think the AMC should change.

Yiou've mentioned several times that you've been a vocal critic of the AMC for decades; in truth, nobody reading this thread would ever guess this was the case. You've been spending all your time defending them, defaming anyone who criticizes them, and simply ignoring much of the argument, such as the debate on how they spend their money. (I recall you said you could care less about this subject).

So, Mr. decades-long-critic, please tell us: What if anything, do you disagree with, and what would you like to see them change? So far, from reading your posts, it doesn't seem that they're doing anything you find fault with.

Lastly, O.F., you accuse me of holding a blanket hatred for the AMC.

Not so. Recent quote of Jack Tarlin's: "I think the Club does a lot of good."
I realize that nine-word sentences might be a bit much for O.F., but this one was pretty straightforward: I said the Club does a lot of good. And I absolutely think this is the case. If O.F. wishes to interpret from this statement that I'm blinded with hatred towards the Club (his words), well, there isn't much I can do about it. But I think the more rational reader would take my statement at face value---I think they do a great deal of good. I also think there's room for improvement. When directly asked to list some possible changes or improvements, I immediately did so.

I encourage O.F.to do likewise.

weary

06-28-2005, 18:51

BJ The Club doesn't wish to discuss these matters, not with its members, not with the general public, not with anyone. It doesn't wish to address these concerns, or to respond to its critics.

I don't know. When the Maine Chapter expressed concern about the plans for the 100-mile-wilderness we were invited to sit at the table with the planning committee. I'm not entirely happy with how that worked out. They didn't always agree with us. But in all honesty, the chapter has had its say. Joy Street never promised us a veto.

I do think our input has slowed things down. And perhaps modified the plans for the better. Certainly, the worst of the speculations voiced on this forum aren't going to happen. Though I never thought they would, so that doesn't mean we won. I just have no way of knowing for sure.

But I've certainly delivered my basic message, as have others on the chapter's three member Maine Woods Initiative Committee. If truth be known, some members of the chapter committee have probably also modified their objections. At least this member has, very slightly.

Weary

Old Hickory MH

06-28-2005, 19:17

Sly

06-28-2005, 19:35

If the PATC can afford to provide a nice place like Blackburn Trail Center, why can't the AMC do something likewise?

Good point and the PATC maintains a huge section of trail, not to mention 27 FREE shelters. Plus, they have all those neat cabins you can rent out for next to nothing!

Check them out...
cabins (http://www.patc.net/activities/cabins/)

Blue Jay

06-28-2005, 19:41

If the PATC can afford to provide a nice place like Blackburn Trail Center, why can't the AMC do something likewise?

Old Hickory..........................I'd rather die living life than live life dying.

The PATC does not have a rich CEO to pay for. Nor do they have a lush palace in the wealthy section of Pittsburg. The're just common people who like to hike and help others who hike. Yes, the AMC does some good things, but they, as most large corporations realize, PR is a very important cover for your true agenda.

MOWGLI

06-28-2005, 19:46

I don't know if it's safe to add my two cents or not but here goes. If the PATC can afford to provide a nice place like Blackburn Trail Center, why can't the AMC do something likewise? If they do, I'm sorry for being misinformed. It does seem that there are options for one hiking to not make it a burden on the wallet.

Old Hickory..........................I'd rather die living life than live life dying.

Old Hickory:

Of course it's safe to post your opinion here. It does get a bit intense at times though - doesn't it?

The Blackburn Center analogy does not really apply here for one simple reason. The bunkhouse at the Blackburn Center does not carry the fees and involves the services that the huts do.

A better analogy would be to look at someplace like the Len Foote Hike Inn, which is located about 5 miles norh of Amicaloa Falls SP, perhaps 4-5 miles south of Springer Mountain. The fees charged at the Hike Inn are comparable to the AMC Huts. The concept is the same. You get simple bunk accomodatons, dinner & breakfast, and some educaton about conservation or natural history. The only difference is that the Len Foote Hike Inn is off of the Appalachian Trail.

Bolivershagnasty

06-28-2005, 22:04

Ok L. Wolf I appoligize for my rant and yes I was drunk last night. haha. I owe everyone and the great one himself "The Old Fhart" an appoligy too and I mean it. But my possition is that if they are charging that much to stay there for what, a nice meal? And forbiding anyone else from the area to maintain their control of that area for "their" hut buisness, which pays the boss a quarter of a million dollars per yr or more, all on public land then thats wrong. It isn't worth that for a meal. If you had to tip the waiter $50 bucks for a $20.00 meal would you think thats appropriate because it's the only place "alowed" in town? Cut the extravigant expenses and take care of the trail which is the purpouse of the orginization isn't it? Hello!! What if they were charging $80.00 per day to hike those public trails just because "they maintained" them. And by Larrys information which stated they took in $19 mil and only spent $1 mil on trail maintanace ( mil = million, for old fart and "The Old Fhart" so he won't get confused and think he has to defend some non exsitant person or grading grammer papers again) Isn't that alittle short? $1 out of every $19 dollars. And had $17 mil in other expenses? hmm doesn't that leave "a profit" of $1 million? I'm all for sucessfull buisness practices and it's great they made an extra mil (for the trail if thats the case) but I wonder how much of that extra mil will be bugeted into bonuses next year. I've done some research today and found out that yea anyone can stealth through there pretty easy but they probly do more damage then if they just built some shelters and designated areas for hikers. And regular or "normal" hikers were not being told "screw you if you don't have enough money or time to work for my buisness for the pleasure of staying on public land" which creates anomosity that gives "some" "excuses" to not treat the land as they should. And they take out their anomosity on the trail that they have for the AMC because they know or think the AMC is or will pay someone to clean up their trash with part of that 17 mil. I bet it wouldn't change their "hut biz' 5 percent. Most people are just going to eat the money and stay for the food anyway and grip about it. I bet they spend more than 5 percent of their 19 mil income on "trail maint" Hmm I wonder how close that comes to the $1 mil spent on trail maint? (not doing the math, maybe O. F. can and come up with a fact) You may have to be a rocket scientist to be worthy of engaging The Old Fhart but you don't have to be one to see things just don't add up. People are making money off of this and alot of it.
"The Old Fhart", you should be debating this issue if you have a valid rebutal to anything I or anyone else cares enough to sit here and write about concerning our trails and the issues that arise. You apparently like degrading and trying to embarassing people when they challenge you or your point of view so you don't have to debate them on facts. As it's been pointed out, what is your stance on how they should change? What is your critic opinion as to how they could be more responsible with "our" dollars they make off "our" trail? Question? Have you EVER been given any comps up there and how much? (thats free stuff) It sounds like you have or at least know someone who makes money off of this deal. Yea I was fubar'ed last night and made an azz of myself but thats ok. Heck we ALL have even you. I appoligize to you for that but I reserve the right to do it again, hehe and thats what makes this sight worth checking every day to see if theres something worth giving "our" two cents worth about. You don't have to get personal, heck L Wolf figured it out pretty quick and called me out which he did in an appropriate way. I have no problem with him thats what he needed to do. I just owe him one, hehe.

Bolivershagnasty

06-28-2005, 22:34

Also O.F. (the Old Fhart. back up and read my first threads on this issue.:clap I admited I did not know much about the whites or this issue and actually agreed with you until I read some of the facts. But I swear you must be dating someone working up there if your not making money off this yourself. :banana

Frosty

06-28-2005, 22:52

"The Old Fhart", you should be debating this issue if you have a valid rebutal to anything I or anyone else cares enough to sit here and write about concerning our trails and the issues that arise. You apparently like degrading and trying to embarassing people when they challenge you or your point of view so you don't have to debate them on facts. As it's been pointed out, what is your stance on how they should change? What is your critic opinion as to how they could be more responsible with "our" dollars they make off "our" trail? Question? Have you EVER been given any comps up there and how much? (thats free stuff).Well, I'm not "The Old Fhart" but I'm kind of an old fart, and I've seen the above type of request before (not from you) and always wonder about it.

Many times I have an opinion that is different than yours or someone else's. In this case, I merely think that seller's provide services and/or goods for prices and we can buy/utilize them or not. Railing against them for the prices they charge is pointless, though I do agree that many things in life are priced more than I am willing to pay.

Okay, so that's what I think. Big deal.

Someone thinks the prices should be lowered.

Everybody has an opinion, but after the second or third time one says something, they are no longer presenting an opinion - they've done that already - they;ve moved on to browbeating.

But what I really don't get is why I have to respond to others' opinions. Why do I or anyone have to debate anything? What is the purpose of resonding to a challenge to my opinion? Here is what I think. Agree with me or not, it doesn't matter in the scheme of thinks. A debate implies winners and losers and trying to cause people to change their mind. I don't care it you don't agree with me. I just want to say what I think. Make up your own mind.

I'm sorry to spin this off of your post. It really isn't directed at you. It just seemed a convenient opportunity to say something that I thought several times over the last year while reading "discussions" about not using water filters, blue blazing, alcohol on the trail, maps or no maps, cell phones, GPS's, dogs on the trail, hammocks, slackpacking, and all the other topics that people seem intent on converting me to their opinion. (I am guilty of that regarding GPS's, but I promise to be good from now on.)

Hope this reads okay. I'm not drunk, but I'm awfully tired, and I've been told that when I get tired I get grumpy.

Roland

06-28-2005, 23:00

Hope this reads okay. I'm not drunk, but I'm awfully tired, and I've been told that when I get tired I get grumpy.
For a tired and grumpy guy, you make a lot of sense.

Bolivershagnasty

06-28-2005, 23:34

Good call Frosty, your right really you are. But this "argument" is about it being on public land I think more than anything else. Monopalizing "a service",like owning a boat dock / resturant ect.. on a large popular public lake with no one else alowed to have one ( on the whole lake) making 19 million dollars per year claiming "non profit" to maintain "your monopaly buisness." For the good of the lake and you spend way less than you make on "the lake" The manager gets a quarter of a million dollars per year to keep things status quo (for job security.) Theres just too much money going in to not enough directions. The people paying those dues are paying those dues to "maintain the public trails" and will never get to the whites they just want to "do the right thing". I've heard their pitch which is not much different than the "troopers or firemans association" calling you, at dinner time, saying "give to the poor widows." Hey you want to help law enforcement so you "give a little" and feel good about it and you never know the difference. I bet they don't tell you only $1 out of every $19 they get goe's to trail maintance or the break down. Being fair maybe 5.00 goe's to land accusittion, so $6 out of $19 is related. When the CEO of a "non profit" org makes more than one percent of the population he's in it for "the money". Not the trail. Cut his paycheck to 100k and see how long he cares about the AT.

Nean

06-29-2005, 08:38

I've heard such about the ATC as well. Where's all that money going and is it well spent? I've hiked thru the Whites a few times and always enjoyed the huts, the croo, the food! The change I left in the donation cups probably wouldn't buy the CEO lunch. Depending on your POV, the huts could be the best bargain on the trail.:)

Jack Tarlin

06-29-2005, 09:37

The ATC's finances are an open book, Nean. And they have a fraction of folks on their payroll. As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of their work is done by volunteers.

Their headquarters, which I know you've visited often, is an extremely modest little house in Harpers Ferry. Have you ever seen the AMC's headquarters on Beacon Hill in Boston, Nean? It's in the finest residential part of the city, and is surrounded by luxury homes. It is certainly worth several million dollars and perhaps much more than that.

If you have questions about the ATC's finances, Nean, I suggest you do the following: Either write to the appropriate folks in Harpers Ferry with your questions, or better yet, ask them in person at the ATC bi-ennial meeting in Johnson City which is going on this week. Want to know how many paid staffers there are? Or how much they spend on trailwork and facilities? Or how many paid staffers work out of their headquarters? Or what theHarpers property is worth? All of these questions will be answered immediately as this organization has nothing to hide. Good luck getting answers to similar queries from the AMC.

Nean, comparing the AMC to the ATC in regards to these matters is simply wrong.

Also, Nean, while you say you've enjoyed the Huts, their staff, and their food, isn't it true that most, if not all of your visits were as a thru-hiker, and you enjoyed the opportunity to do a work-stay---an option not available to 99% person of the population. In short, Nean, you enjoyed the hell outta the Huts in no small measure because you didn't have to pay for them. If you'd been required to fork over $85.00 bucks a night out of pocket, instead of earning your stay with a little dusting or cleaning, well, I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about these places. When they're essentially free, as they were to you, how on earth could you be troubled by them? Of course one would think the Huts were a bargain....if they weren't paying for them! And as to your comment about how your loose change wouldn't pay for executive salaries, well, you're damned right. It's the 85 dollar a night crowd that pays for these guys and all their amenities, including the comfort of a Beacon Hill mansion to work out of. Maybe if they operated in a more modest fashion, Nean, worked out of a more modest location, depended more on volunteer work, paid their executives less, and didn't spend millions of dollars building luxury hotels.....well maybe if they did all this, they wouldn't have to be dependent on running so many high-end lodging facilities.

But to return to your comment: Comparing the behavior of the AMC to the ATC in matters such as the ones you're discussing is simply unfair and wrong, and you do a great dis-service to the dedicated, over-worked, and underpaid folks in Harpers Ferry with your comparison. Please rethink your post.

Lone Wolf

06-29-2005, 09:56

Folks that pay $85 per night do so cuz they want to. 2 full meals, a bed, running water and being closed in from the weather ain't a bad deal. If a thru-hiker type can't figure out how to get through the Whites without paying by the time they arrive there well tough crap. Pay and shut up.

Nean

06-29-2005, 10:12

Sorry, Jack, that you mistook my post. I said I've Heard, not that I agree or compare the 2. Folks have questioned how money is being spent - and that is a good thing. I have nothing against the ATC! It's just that I, Nean, don't have anything against the AMC either, that is until I read your post. Now I hate 'em:) Good to hear from you, Jack Hope all is well

Youngblood

06-29-2005, 10:28

...Also, Nean, while you say you've enjoyed the Huts, their staff, and their food, isn't it true that most, if not all of your visits were as a thru-hiker, and you enjoyed the opportunity to do a work-stay---an option not available to 99% person of the population. In short, Nean, you enjoyed the hell outta the Huts in no small measure because you didn't have to pay for them. If you'd been required to fork over $85.00 bucks a night out of pocket, instead of earning your stay with a little dusting or cleaning, well, I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about these places. When they're essentially free, as they were to you, how on earth could you be troubled by them? Of course one would think the Huts were a bargain....if they weren't paying for them! ...
Jack, if you have had Nean's experience with the Huts on your thru-hikes, would you be as critical of them? Nean learned how to deal with the situation and had a great time... isn't that the way a thru-hike should be? Not everybody choses to go through blow downs when there is an easy path around them... don't overdo complaining about scratches and cuts when you chose to do things the hard way. The AMC was in place before the AT and there was not a mandate from the government that they entirely change who they are and what they do because the AT came along.

Youngblood

ridgewalker777

06-29-2005, 12:26

There are alternatives to paying the top price at huts even if you are not a thru-hiker. Lake of the Clouds offered me sleeping space for $20 one afternoon as a budget alternative. Leftover food was also offered cheap. If you are "stranded", some option will almost always prevent hardship when there are people of good will around...The huts seem to be over-staffed sometimes, likely a necessity to cover all the bases when they have a full-house. There is a question of what the "Croo" is paid...This is probably a major cause of higher charges. Compared to "valley" accomodations, the price is reasonable...Obviously they cannot offer two pricing tiers for "real" backpackers, and slack or "show"-packers, it would lead to endless arguments. Finally, I heard more than one complaint from an inn-keeper in the valley about the AMC Crawford Notch facility--that as a "non-profit" organization, they avoid paying property taxes, giving them an unfair advantage over all the businesses in the area that do so.

The Old Fhart

06-29-2005, 12:49

Jack-“The ATC's finances are an open book, Nean. And they have a fraction of folks on their payroll. As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of their work is done by volunteers”Jack, do you go out of your way to deliberately distort the facts or has your hatred of the AMC so blinded you that you can’t see what is right in front of you? Larry gave you info on their finances, which he found on the internet. As to the ATC having fewer folks on their payroll than the AMC, they also have fewer folks that General Electric. Try comparing like-sized institutions, Jack, or talk percentages. And if you know anything about the AMC, you know, the vast majority of their work is done by volunteers. In another thread Jack wouldn’t even admit the AMC had local chapters, either because he was loathe to use the correct word, or that he would then have to admit that the chapters are entirely volunteer based. Just on the list of volunteer trip leaders for the NH chapter I have in front of me there are about 100 names. Jack, your obsession with the AMC and their finances is consuming your life and is unhealthy. Get help.

Oh, and on your list of silly suggestions, selling their valuable piece of property on Joy Street that is steadily increasing in value much faster than any other for of investment is truly stupid. But that suggestion matches your idea that they build more shelters when they don’t own the land your talking about, it’s WMNF land. But if you really look hard, you might find the single acre of land they actually own in the Presidentials.

Bolivershagnasty-“ You apparently like degrading and trying to embarassing people when they challenge you or your point of view so you don't have to debate them on facts.” I don’t have to- check your post #62, you did that to yourself without any help from others.

BS-“ But I swear you must be dating someone working up there if your not making money off this yourself." Glad you wouldn’t stoop to degrading and trying to embarassing people when they challenge you or your point of view so you don't have to debate them on facts. All you conspiracy theory people are the same. I will answer your questions- No I was not the man on the grassy knoll in Dallas. And, yes, the AMC pays everyone, except you and Jack, to say only nice things about them. :D

Jack Tarlin

06-29-2005, 13:25

O.F.--

Very briefly (as this dialogue is really starting to bore me):

1. Don't confuse, or cross-quote my comments with Bolivar or anyone else
2. Once again, you accuse me, without justification, of hating the AMC. As
I tried to explain above, this isn't the case. If you consider criticism or
reproach to be "blind hatred", then there isn't much I can say. Except
you're wrong.
3. Your comment about their not being able to build new shelters or expand
older ones because they don't own the land in question is ridiculous:
They don't own the land the Huts are on, either, yet this doesn't
prevent them from improving, expanding, and depending on them as a
major revue producer. The AMC's failure to expand sheleters and care-
taker tentsites is almost entirely THEIR OWN decision, and has little to
do with who owns the land.
4. Yes, I know that Larry provided financial information that is available on
the Internet. But I also know (and even Larry himself clearly stated), that
the information is out-of-date, and surely innacurate, as it certainly
provides old information. Information which the Club could easily
provide except they refuse to do so, a fact that you admittedly "could
not care less about." Note to O.F.: If you truly don't care about these
matters, then shut the hell up about them. But stop criticizing those who
DO care about them, OK? If you honestly don't care, then leave the
discussion to those who do.
5. Lastly, I again ask O.F. to answer Skyline's query about how he thinks the
AMC could improve its operations. He's been asked to do this several
times now. His silence would lead one to believe that he doesn't think
there's any need for improvement, or if he has any good ideas or sugges-
tions on this subject, he doesn't wish to share them. Too bad. This
whole thread has been about their operations and how they could be
made better. So far, O.F. has done nothing but blanketly defend them,
has relentlessly chastised those who have criticized them, and has stead-
fastly refused to contribute anything positive about how this organization
that does so much good, can do even better.
6. Lastly, O.F., you make the ridiculous assertion that the AMC's critics
(especially me) refuse to deal with facts. Not so. From my first post on
this thread, I was discussing facts, such as their choice of construction
projects; their willingness to discuss these projects with their members
and others; their de-emphasis of low-cost lodging options; their wasteful-
ness as far as employee compensation, ostentatious offices, advertising
and publicity costs, etc. These are only some of the "facts" I've been
discussing here.

I see no point in continuing this discussion with O.F. Anyone who disagrees with him is simply a hater; nobody but him is offering facts; he allegedly doesn't care about financial matters yet he's commented on the very subject half a dozen times; and lastly, when pressed to contribute something positive to this discussion, such as ideas on how the Club could change or improve, he
has absolutely nothing to offer.

Geez, anyone else as tired of this nonsense as I am? Time to go hiking, I think. If O.F. wants to fire back some more comments about a subject he
allegedly doesn't care about, he's welcome to it; I've got better plans for the day.

The Old Fhart

06-29-2005, 15:28

Jack-“ Very briefly ...........” If only that wasn't another falsehood. :D

Jack-“1. Don't confuse, or cross-quote my comments with Bolivar or anyone else” Didn’t do that. Merely answered 2 people with one post, sorry you couldn’t grasp that concept.

Jack-“2. Once again, you accuse me, without justification, of hating the AMC.” I’ll leave it up to anyone reading your numerous rant and misinformation about the AMC to judge that for themselves.

Jack-“If you truly don't care about these matters, then shut the hell up about them.” Real classy, Jack, please don’t start sobbing. First you want me to play 20 questions with you and then "shut up"? Are you bipolar?

Jack-“Lastly, I again ask O.F. to answer Skyline's query about how he thinks the AMC could improve its operations. He's been asked to do this several times now. His silence would lead one to believe that he doesn't think there's any need for improvement, or if he has any good ideas or suggestions on this subject, he doesn't wish to share them. Too bad. This whole thread has been about their operations and how they could be made better. So far, O.F. has done nothing but blanketly defend them” I haven’t been silent, Jack, You’re just deaf. If you read the title of the thread it is: appalachian money club huts...pricey...how come?, not, as you say: “This whole thread has been about their operations and how they could be made better. You’ve just hi-Jacked (capital intentional) another thread to be a reflection of your warped view and are angry that everyone doesn’t kow-tow to you because "You may recall that I'm somewhat more familiar with the Trail than" [fill in the blank].

Oh, sorry that Larry couldn’t give you current incomes to the penny. I know how really important that is to you finance people. :D

Jack Tarlin

06-29-2005, 15:55

Geez, I guess he missed the part when I said this was getting boring.

News to O.F. : There were really, I think, only two people who gave a rat's ass about this dialogue. Now there's one. So feel free to continue ranting to yourself. It's just as well, since you weren't listening to anyone else anyway.

Final comments: I'm entirely aware of what the original purpose of the thread was.....it was to discuss why the Huts were so pricey and whether or not this was justified. I mentioned that they were pricey because the club needed money to pay for such boondoggles as the Highland Center, to suport a lavish headquarters, and to overpay its bloated executive staff. These matters were absolutely relevant to a discussion of why the Club charges so much at the Huts. They do so because they have to. So the thread wasn't hihjacked. Instead, matters were introduced and discussed that you didn't wish to deal with. When asked (I've lost track of how many times now) to contribute something positive to this dialogue by providing suggestions on impovement in their operations, for once, you have nothing to say. Let me empahasize this for others, if not for you: When asked to contribute something positive here, instead of strident whining and relentless criticism of other posters, you have nothing worthwhile to say. A pity you can't admit it.

In closing, it occurs to me that your incessant ass-smooching of the AMC proves that you really are a noxious old sack of foul wind. It appears that whoever gave you your Trail name sure knew what they were about. And if you gave the sobriquet to yourself, well done!!

By their name shall you know them.

Bye now.

mingo

06-29-2005, 15:59

personally, i'd like to see them tear down all the huts and replace them with little emergency shelters that charge no fees and operate on a first-come, first-serve basis. that way, nobody freezes to death up there for lack of shelter. i was staying once at the imp shelter and the caretaker came around to take my $8 and went off on a rant about how the money goes to handle the godawful impact of all the hikers there in the whites. this guy was a real boy scout-type and more than i could stomach. so i pointed out to him that there wouldn't be such a damn impact if they didn't have all these holiday inns in the sky up there enticing all these people into the mountains. it's a vicious circle. they lure all these people up there and then, to handle all the impact, they start charging even hikers staying at ordinary shelters. the AMC is a joke and its members should unite to force the management to reevaluate its priorities.

Alligator

06-29-2005, 16:04

Good point and the PATC maintains a huge section of trail, not to mention 27 FREE shelters. Plus, they have all those neat cabins you can rent out for next to nothing!

Check them out...
cabins (http://www.patc.net/activities/cabins/) Ssshhhhhhh...

Footslogger

06-29-2005, 16:05

Ya know ...I was a little taken back when the caretaker approached our group at Imp in 2003 and informed us of the fee. It was with a bit of mixed emotion that I shelled out the $8 ...mixed emotion being that I was tired and just wanted to cook dinner and go to sleep. Some of the hikers just gave him their contact information so that the AMC could bill them later. Guess that's one way around having to pay the fee on the spot (or at all, for that matter).

We did ask why there was a fee at a not-so-glamorous shelter and he got a bit embarassed.

Oh well, I guess I've spent $8 on more stupid things.

'Slogger
AT 2003

rickb

06-29-2005, 18:46

A few thoughts...

1. I first heard of Guidestar from the ATC. They used to post a link on their website. Not many organizations do that. Not sure if they still do. Perhaps if the ATC's leadership gets paid better they will stop that practice. So long as they pay everyone less than $100K, I bet they keep it.

2. Before Guidstar, the AMC cheerfully sent me a copy of thier financials, including the 990. They are hardly secretive. As for the information shared being old, how so? Many accountants file their 2003 number in the last half of 2004.

3. The money spent on the Highland Center was raised through a special capital campaign. The current AMC leeadership brought in something like 30 million dollars. The suggestion that the Huts are expensive because of the Highland Center is good way to demonize the AMC, but not based in fact.

4. The AMC hut financials were broken down in great detail as part of the very extensive permitting process. I recall reading a copy of the DIS during a Hut stay. Probably still there. Working from memory they brought in less than 2 million and had direct costs of something more than 1 million. The gross profit was spent on North Country Programs, which had to be further subsidized by member dues and contributions. Profits from the huts do not pay the salaries in Boston.

5. I agree that the huts are too expensive. My real particular beef has much more to do with the caretaker sites, however. While the $8 bucks doesn't cover their management cost, I'd like to see the NPS charge per site, rather than per person. Even if individual hikers have to pay more. This is the approach of the NPS and WMNF campgrounds, and would be more family friendly.

Rick B

pipesmoke

06-29-2005, 19:10

There is no doubt the AMC has grown into a dinosaur but that does not stop thrus from making the trip cheaply. I found the Hut Masters very congenial and with a little planning one can miss the huts altogether and camp legal. Read the fine print, it is still national forest.
Pipesmoke

icemanat95

06-29-2005, 20:07

so i pointed out to him that there wouldn't be such a damn impact if they didn't have all these holiday inns in the sky up there enticing all these people into the mountains. it's a vicious circle. they lure all these people up there and then, to handle all the impact, they start charging even hikers staying at ordinary shelters. the AMC is a joke and its members should unite to force the management to reevaluate its priorities.

This is a bad argument. Why? Because the Huts can only accomodate a relatively small number of people per night. Even the largest only accomodate around 100 people, most only handle about half of that. That's not that many people. Most of the traffic in the Whites comes from day-trippers and weekend backpackers out for a couple of days. The day-trippers account for the vast majority however and demand no accomodations at all. They are not attracted up into the mountains by the Huts, but for the same gol durned reasons you and I are attracted to them, because they are beautiful and engage the soul. The huts only attract those who can afford them and that's not a lot of people.

Now what are the alternatives to the Huts? Well, you could let people stay any damned where they please...wrong answer...they did that for a long while and there was a LOT of damage caused above treeline and below. Yes, you can camp in a lot of places off the books in the Whites, but by making establiushed campsites, they can manage the overnight traffic of the less skilled and prevent the yahoos from burning down the forest. I think there should be more campsites out there for certain and I'd love to see more low-cost options on the high ridges, but be aware, you can't just drop a lean to down above treeline at 5000 feet and expect it to be there the next Spring. Neither can you just dig a pit toilet...it won't work...at all. It's too damned cold most of the time to support the bacterial action needed to gobble up the excrement. Which is why the AMC and the RMC have to spend a pile of money on solar powered composting toilets and the manpower to maintain them.

Enclosed shelters are the only way to go up there, and a free, enclosed shelter IS going to draw more visitors up there above treeline, probably more than the shelter can safely accomodate.

All that said, the RMC offers two cabins just about 1 mile off the trail that are open year round with a caretaker and in the case of Grey-knob, is heated in the cold months with a wood stove. The cost to stay? 8 or 9 bucks per person per night. I'd love to see a few more of those up there, just below treeline.

I think there are two good reasons to maintain the status quo in the Whites. 1. Tradition...a weak reason, but it's viable as far as it goes. But not really good enough without the other reasons.
2. Research...the Huts provide valuable research testbeds across the height of the Presidentials allowing continuing research into the environmental impacts on the mountain ecology including air-quality research, acid-rain monitoring, etc.
3. Educational resource. The Huts provide a safe place to help give people a positive mountain experience that may turn them into more passionate mountain advocates. Some good educational opportunities are provided.

I would still prefer to see some of the Huts converted to low-cost options though.

The Old Fhart

06-29-2005, 21:07

Mingo-“personally, i'd like to see them tear down all the huts and replace them with little emergency shelters that charge no fees and operate on a first-come, first-serve basis. that way, nobody freezes to death up there for lack of shelter.”That would work if all hikers observed LNT, obeyed the rules, etc., but that doesn’t happen and it has been tried. There was an emergency shelter that looked like a small Quonset hut the USFS built at Edmunds Col just north of the summit of Mt. Jefferson, but people were using it when there was no emergency. On a day trip to Jefferson I checked it out and someone had even taken a dump inside. It (the shelter, not the dump)was removed around 1980. The small emergency buildings along the Mount Washington auto road met the same fate.

Unfortunately, you can’t have a shelter anywhere without a caretaker. Even if the caretaker isn’t there all the time, you still need someone who will visit on a regular basis. The Whites have problems because they are within a days drive of about 5 million people. 60,000 hikers a year climb Mount Washington and thru-hikers are not even a blip on the radar.

I guess one advantage of working in a high tech industry for 31 years like I did is you have to deal with real world problems with real world solutions. Many of the suggestions given on this thread are not reality based. Rickboudrie has had some excellent posts in this thread both on the situation and AMC finances. Larry gave good, sound info. Icemanat95 has given a great description of the situation. While realizing there are problems, he realizes that some things just aren’t going to change, or can’t be changed, for whatever reason, no matter how much we desire a Utopia.

Mingo-“i was staying once at the imp shelter and the caretaker came around to take my $8 and went off on a rant about how the money goes to handle the godawful impact of all the hikers there in the whites. this guy was a real boy scout-type and more than i could stomach. so i pointed out to him that there wouldn't be such a damn impact if they didn't have all these holiday inns in the sky up there enticing all these people into the mountains. it's a vicious circle. they lure all these people up there and then, to handle all the impact, they start charging even hikers staying at ordinary shelters. the AMC is a joke and its members should unite to force the management to reevaluate its priorities.”I’ve heard the spiel from caretakers as well and it is part of their job to educate hikers so I politely listen. From my years on Mt. Washington I also know a lot of the people who work on the summit or in the high huts. What you hear from them is very interesting. They describe thru hikers as ill-mannered, arrogant, smelly, cheap people they could do without. I’d like to know if others feel that berating a person like a caretaker who is just doing their job helps the thru hikers who follow or reinforces this image.

Mingo-“the AMC is a joke and its members should unite to force the management to reevaluate its priorities.” Unfortunately, this has happened with the huts-the tribe has spoken, as they say on Survivor. I have stayed at Lakes many times in the Dungeon where I am the only person down there while the upstairs has a capacity 96 people. What that means is there are almost 100 people who would rather spend many times what I pay just so they don’t have to carry a few supplies. A few years ago I suggested at the re-permit hearings for the huts that some portion of each hut be reserved for more or less self-contained hikers at a lower cost. I felt this was an easy to implement, low-cost change that would encourage a few hikers to carry what I’d consider the proper emergency gear for even a day hike. Obviously this hasn’t happened. The free-market has determined that what the people, including AMC members, want is full service facilities and they will willingly pay that.

Moxie00

06-29-2005, 21:09

In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all get along?"

Bolivershagnasty

06-30-2005, 12:07

Jack your right about Stale Flatulance being an appropriate name, he has contributed nothing to to this thread on the subject matter. He doesn't care about the topic it's just entertainment for him to see how long he can goat anyone into arguing with him because it makes him feel like "he's smart" to be able to come up behind you and Monday morning quarterback your quotes, out of context, like some political "spinner". He uses transitional blame to control the subject matter so he doesn't have to offer "his" point of view to be discussed or defended. I mean for gods sake look at his threads, there not even on subject. There about "me" and "you" and nothing about the subject. Hell I cant even remember if he is even defending the AMC he's to busy pointing out someone elses quotes, usally out of context I might add. We've pointed out specifics to discuss to make a point for the flow of the conversation and no I don't have the time or inclination to go back and review every thread to make sure I didn't miss "a word" before I say something. It doesn't matter were just having a conversation. Old Fart you can "quote" all the sentances (or sound bites if you will) you want but do you not understand that anyone that gets to the point their reading it has already read the original "conversation" and understands what was meant? Really, offer something out to discuss and make your point if you have one other than "your" willing to pay to stay up there. Ok we understand you are, now either offer something to convince me it's worth it other than because you say so, to change my mind or get out of the conversation and let others discuss it.( By the way when was the last time you stayed up there and how much did it cost you?) If you see some miss information point it out. But so far all you've done is religated this fine thread topic to a pissing contest sport for "your" entertainment. You are doing a dis service to WhitBlaze.net, the trail and hikers alike. You obviously do not represent the normal average hiker and contrairy to your statments everyone doesn't agree with you. There are others posted here not in agreement. Grow up and stop playing up to the crowd :D and start talking to the crowd if you really feel the AMC huts are worth it. Formulate a real original sentance regarding the original issue and put it out there if you have one. If you already have and I missed it in all this then "re quote it" with your fine ability to bring up past quotes. If your next thread isn't full of adult conversation and "your" quotes that pertain to why the huts are so expensive and why and is it justified then get out of the conversation because you really are doing a dis service to WhiteBlaze.net and the hiking community. And your not doing the AMC any favors by being a "rep" for them this way.

Bolivershagnasty

06-30-2005, 12:40

And thank godness some people here on page 6 have actually started talking about the issue. Thanks Iceman, Pipsmoke, Footslogger and rick and even old fart finally had something to add on this page that was informitive and non combative. Stop bad mouthing and give us information.

The Old Fhart

06-30-2005, 12:52

Bolivershagnasty-"And thank godness some people here on page 6 have actually started talking about the issue." So that is what you call your post #108, talking about the issues? Glad to see you kept to the high road and waste an entire long post on a personal attack. Please preface your disjointed posts by stating whether you're drunk or not because no one can tell the difference. I'll let others answer your posts, I have to go to the bank and deposit my check from the AMC! :D

Lone Wolf

06-30-2005, 13:09

You're a jerk Boliver. Your momma ever teach you any respect? OF is a good guy.

Bolivershagnasty

06-30-2005, 19:35

Yea "good guy" = old fart. Old fart can be as disrespectfull as "he" wants but when someone treats him with the same disrespect it's "oh shame on you, your suposed to take the high road". And old fart, post #108 and this one was post giving a s*** about trying to take the high road with you. Can you do anything other than "spin" what someone else says? Maybe have some construtive information about an issue.

And L Wolf, its nice to see you come out from under the table between breaths :eek: to defend the old fart. Watching the back of your head :banana has made me dizzy. Go back under there and keep "wolfn". Old fart apparently is a legend in his own mind and also apparently a leg-end in your mind too.
I just wish he would bring something to the table besides you and have the passion to bring substance to a conversation that he has for games. I don't doubt Mr. White Mnts has something he could offer given all the experiance he has.

Frosty

06-30-2005, 21:00

~~~~~~~~~~

Have we gotten into the cooking sherry again? :)

The Old Fhart

06-30-2005, 21:12

Frosty-"Have we gotten into the cooking sherry again?" :) Long gone. He's just finishing the drain cleaner now. ;)

Bolivershagnasty

06-30-2005, 21:30

Why no Frosty, can't you tell? Just PBJ and milk tonight. Wow Old Fart! No brackets or mis guided quotes! Was that a couple of paragraphs that you cant mis quote anything out of context?

rickb

06-30-2005, 21:54

Just PBJ and milk tonight.
Probably means Psychodelics, blow and Junk.

The Old Fhart

06-30-2005, 22:12

Rickboudrie-"Probably means Psychodelics, blow and Junk." Good one! I actually suspect he is a psychotic bipolar jerk.

Frosty

06-30-2005, 22:15

Why no Frosty, can't you tell? Just PBJ and milk tonight. Ah, PB&J. That used to me my night time snack, but about ten years ago I started baking my own bread with a bread machine. Almost always make whole wheat bread, and PB&J just isn't the same on whole wheat.

celt

06-30-2005, 22:38

I'm late to this thread, I might have missed some discussions on what I comment on...

I liked Jack T's defense of the campsite caretakers, their efforts definitly help minimize hiker impact on the Whites. BTW the monies collected each year by the AMC caretakers on the AT only cover 2/3s of the cost of operation. The balance comes from other sources (like Hut profits). Jack feels the AMC doesn't put enough emphasis low end facilities like campsite when compared to high end facilities like the huts. Is that just in terms of money spent on the facilites? If so then so be it... Shelters don't need glossy ads or multiple caretakers or fancier composting toilets and expansion of each site should be done only with careful consideration because they (and their FPA's) exist to control backcountry "sprawl" and building more sites could also be viewed as sprawl and those sites would no doubt be built in less desireable destinations and maybe only see use for two months a year (July and August) and then just be a burden in terms of maintenance. I think its better to consentrate use at the current sites, which historically have been the most popular destinations and with caretakers can have impact minimized and even reversed. The campsites may not get the most attention of the AMC's children but they do more with less and when you compare the number of campsites and number of huts (CS's: 13 Huts: 8) and even the total capacities of the campsites versus the total huts capacity (I'll do the math later if anyone asks) it seems the campsites make at least a comparable impact of influencing backcountry visitors.

A few other comments.

The huts do have shoulder seasons when prices are lower and even caretaker seasons, lower still, but in the mid summer the market will bare the higher rates and the profits support AMC programs that operate in the red like campsite caretaking, Youth Outreach Program and Mountain Classroom all of which promote responsible use of the backcountry among other good things.

The GMC was able to lower the nightly cost of camping at its caretaker sites because it got a grant from the USFS. The actual cost per night per visitor is probably very close to the AMC sites cost, they do the same things: LNT education, basic trail work on surrounding trails, a few heavier duty per caretaker each summer, lots of miscellaneous chores and lots and lots of composting of human waste.

PS
Just saw the more recent posts... I guess I shouldn't have felt bad about not reading all the way to page six.

fiddlehead

06-30-2005, 23:27

Surely you can afford a night in an AMC hut if you could afford to travel to Europe to hike?
i wonder why people assume you have to spend a lot of money to travel in other countries? When we hiked the Pyrenees in 1999, we hiked for around a dollar per mile. We stayed in a room one night, ate in 2 restaurants the whole trail and had one of the best hikes of my life. there were 2 other thru-hikers doing the total trail that year (that we knew of).
New England is very expensive, especially compared to Spain. The wine in France was about $1-2 a litre if you bought it in your own container. The cheese (bought directly from the goat herders) was the best i've ever eaten in my life.
(We airhitched it over there and back for a total cost of $199 round trip! About the same price as a greyhound bus to and from the start/end of the AT)
Also, in Europe, they don't look at you like a beggar or homeless person when you play your guitar on the street corners with your bag opened. They respect you and throw in money if they like it. It often is enough to pay for your drinks that night!
In Nepal, you can hire a sherpa to carry your gear for $5 a day. Beds in Tea houses are around 25cents each. Of course it cost a bit more to get there though, but the hiking is tough to beat.
You don't have to spend a lot of money to have a great trip. Some of the best friends i have were met when stealth camping.
Assuming you have to be rich to travel is crazy.

fiddlehead

06-30-2005, 23:35

Pencil Pusher

06-30-2005, 23:41

Sly

07-01-2005, 00:00

I thought the AMC had signs or policy indicating thru-hikers stayed free for a night on their journey, provided they did some work. If it's old policy, it can't be too old because I recall reading one of Jersey Joe's entries on staying without paying.

Most Huts allow 2 work-for-stays, Lake of the Clouds will allow more. It's an attractive alternative if you don't know any better, but for the most part you have to stop early enough in the afternoon to get the spot and the work is usually done after breakfast the following morning, delaying your start.

attroll

07-01-2005, 03:06

OK. Enough is enough on this. I don't care who started it Bolivershagnasty. You don't have to drag your attitude all over this site and show it in every post and everyone else does not have to keep feeding Bolivershagnasty to try and tick him off.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_112271", true); </SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_112271", true); </SCRIPT>

wacocelt

07-01-2005, 03:55

Hey now! I'm Bipolar AND a Jerk, but you have asbotiveley no right to put me in the same catemegoryas Boliverblahblah! I demand an eventual retraction of said infracions(or much sulking and gnashing of teeth will enuse)!

Nean

07-01-2005, 06:58

I'm having a little trouble understanding the problems folks have with the AMC other than have too much money and want too much more. :welcome to America! To me (not rich despite the rumor) the huts are an option and ALL things considered, IMHO, not all bad. Seems if folks really have a problem they should take it up with the higher ups of the AMC instead of taking out an attitude towards the AMC workers and folks who don't have a problem. Push solutions not each other.

The Old Fhart

07-01-2005, 12:21

Nean-"Seems if folks really have a problem they should take it up with the higher ups of the AMC instead of taking out an attitude towards the AMC workers and folks who don't have a problem. "Right on! I also said in post #106: "I’ve heard the spiel from caretakers as well and it is part of their job to educate hikers so I politely listen. From my years on Mt. Washington I also know a lot of the people who work on the summit or in the high huts. What you hear from them is very interesting. They describe thru hikers as ill-mannered, arrogant, smelly, cheap people they could do without. I’d like to know if others feel that berating a person like a caretaker who is just doing their job helps the thru hikers who follow or reinforces this image."

Good post.

rocket04

07-01-2005, 18:23

By the way, i don't know if it's been brought up, but it is possible to thru-hike the whites without paying anything or staying in the huts, it takes some long days (and some short ones) and it takes some stealth camping, but i've done it. (and didn't stray more than 1/3 mile from the white blazes)
Definitely, I only paid at one campsite, and it's because I didn't know they allowed work for stay there too. I did work for stay in 2 huts and one campsite/shelter, so all I paid was $8 at the first campsite. It's really not that difficult, they let a ton of people do work for stay at Lake of the Clouds when I was there.

rocket04

07-01-2005, 20:06

Again Old fart, nothing poistive or constructive, but hey congradulations. I'm going to let this go and be done. Uter one more word about me and I AM going to be at a few events this year just to meet you. I may not stop you from running your mouth but I will break you of the habit of mouthing off to people you don't know. Call this bluff. One word. I'm not even going to bother to respond until I see you in person. Now it's personal. Oh, give it a rest. It's an internet forum, stop taking things so seriously...

Bolivershagnasty

07-01-2005, 20:12

I absolutly mean what I said on my childs life.

Fannypack

07-01-2005, 21:03

Bolivershagnasty, it seems, actually I know, that your comment "on my childs life" is a little over the top.... Where do u get the idea that u can get upset just because someone doesn't do what u want or answer your questions?? This is a forum for ideas / comments / suggestions and sometimes we don't agree with what other persons say but when I don't agree with what someone says & i feel the urge to get personal with my comments I just take the conversation off-line. Have u considered this possibility?

TJ aka Teej

07-01-2005, 21:15

1. As mentioned, you don't have to stay at a hut when you hike through the Whites. Stop by 'Hikers Welcome' in Glenciff for tips. By the time AT hikers get to the Whites, they should have the skills to legally stealth, and the knowledge to find the less expensive options. I suggest AT Hikers try to stay at a Hut (avoid Lakes) if they can swing it, just so they can say they've seen the elephant.
2. IMO, the AMC has rates designed to be exclusive. The AMC wants to provide for their base membership, not for blue collar families or backpackers passing through.
3. "I wish" only works in fairy tales. I wish the above treeline huts were cheap, spartan, and self-service only. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that wish to come true.
4. I was having coffee at the caretaker's yurt at Speck Pond and heard this comment: "I love the AMC, it's Joy Street I hate." I want that on a tee shirt.
5. I agree with a lot of what Jack and Old Fhart have posted - about the AMC, not about what they've posted about each other.
6. To put a WhiteBlaze member on ignore, click on "User CP" up on the top bar, and then go to the bottom of the menu on the left. A peaceful read is just a few clicks and a little typing away.

Pencil Pusher

07-01-2005, 21:37

Oh, give it a rest. It's an internet forum, stop taking things so seriously...
No doubt. Making threats of physical violence on internet forums is rather lame. Just agree to disagree. Nobody should be threatened like that.

The Old Fhart

07-01-2005, 21:40

Hey Pencil Pusher, you may not be used to hearing this from me, but, thanks!

justusryans

07-02-2005, 02:31

My opinion? If you disagree with someone, hey you disagree. stuff happens. If you start personal attacks.... well you need to be a man and be responsibile for running off at the mouth. We all need to be men here, not sniveling little weasels who run our mouths then cry when we get called out on it. If you don't make personal attacks, there's no problem. Why should we not be held responsible for our posts?

Youngblood

07-02-2005, 08:05

I think the personal attacks and threats makes everybody a little nervous... no sense in it and it shouldn't be tolerated. Somebody has issues that they need help with.

For what it is worth, some of us see certain issues differently, get passionate about our views and sometimes mildly insult those with opposing views in the 'heat of debate'. But we do not physically threaten each other over it and we are the best of friends when we meet each other in person... to handle it in other way is ridiculous. It is expected that all the folks that regularly post on this web site are hikers (or want to be hikers) and have a genuine concern for the AT in particular.

Youngblood

SGT Rock

07-02-2005, 08:17

Closing this thread down because some folks take things just a little too far.

SGT Rock

07-02-2005, 23:07

OK, based on some suggestions I'm opening this back up, but play nice y'all.

Bolivershagnasty

07-03-2005, 17:32

Ok Old Fhart,I'm apoligizing for being an azz. You took it way beyond what it should have with your attitude not mine. You have personally offended me but I accept my culpability for my responses. I give and expect an apoligy too whether it's here or ever I see you. You need to comment on the AMC huts, not me and whatever that leads too. Your from up there so give us some information as to why it's so and make a point. forget me or Jack, just make your point and give us, who are not aware, of an education of whats going on up there. My beef started out only with the attitude I precieved you had with Jack. I've spoken with him and he's ok with you so I guess I have to be too. Best wishes. BS

Bolivershagnasty

07-03-2005, 17:36

Which I did several post ago.

Bolivershagnasty

07-03-2005, 17:37

Reply to "Justusryan"

Bolivershagnasty

07-03-2005, 18:01

dis regard last post it was in reference to an earlyer post I was trying to resopond too.

Bolivershagnasty

07-03-2005, 18:39

restless

07-03-2005, 19:43

While I have my own opinions regarding the AMC, I'll keep them to myself as it seems that regardless of your opinion, it's already been aired here on a previous post. But I do have a few observations and questions, for what their worth:
1). I have seen mention in several posts about stealth camping in the Whites. My understanding is that it is illegal to camp above treeline. Is it really practical, or for that matter practiced,or do people disregard the rules and camp anyway?
2) Was there not a time in their early history when the purpose of the huts to some extent was to provide shelter for hikers in the Whites during adverse weather condition? I'm familiar with how nasty it can be up there but it seems to me that I have heard tales of hikers being turned away because there was no room in the inn. If this is the case, would not AMC by their own policies be endangering hikers when in fact they could possibly provide some sort of refuge?
3)Along with several others I find AMC's pricing for most of their activities rather steep. If I'm not mistaken, AMC charges people to work on trail crews. Has anyone worked on one of these crews and if so how does it compare to other crews(ie- Konnarock, AHS Volunteer Vactions,etc.).
4) With regards to the prices at AMC huts, they seem to be on par, perhaps a little more, albeit not much more, than LeConte Lodge in the Smokies. LL is run by a for-profit business (Stokely Enterprises), the food is for the most part canned goods (no telling how much preservatives are in that crap although most people, myself included, will tell you anything tastes good when you've hiked 5 miles to eat it), and they also have an airlift in the spring but their weekly resupply is brought in by llama. When I worked there in '97 the staff was paid $28 per day plus tips (usually worked out to about $4 a day) plus room and board. I hope that AMC, with the amount of money they bring in are paying the croo a tad bit more. Any info on that end would be informative.
5)Is AMC actively doing anything to reduce the number of visitors in this highly used area? I have not hiked thru the Whites and when I do so, I will probably take another route around the Presidentials at a minimum. I do have a problem with AMC and so therefore I choose not to support them or their facilities. So I guess thats one less person they have to worry about.

I enjoyed reading the rants but lets try to stick to the issues rather than it becoming a forum for attacking others.

SGT Rock

07-03-2005, 20:05

And FannyPack if you have anything to say again to me don't send me "vailed" e mails say it here in open. I will not be hard to find if you want to find me at any of the future trail meetings. As a matter of fact I'll find you too to get things straight. I haven't "threatened your life". Just let me know if you want to meet and discuss this at any event. I'm not bashfull. I look foward to meeting you too. Otherwise I'm done with this thread. I've apoligized and thats all I can do or going to. Either get on with the topic or leave it to those who can.
Actually, if anyone plans to threaten anyone, please take it off forum. This is no place for any sorts of threats. It is our personal wish (Troll and I) if anyone plans to threaten anyone, you do it without using this forum, it's PM system, or e-mail interface. I know we cannot monitor the last two forms, but we ask this as a courtesy to us as the administrators. We have done the courtesy of providing the board, please everyone return the courtesy to us and the other users here.

Anyway, I don't have any opinion on the matter being discussed because I admit I haven't any real knowledge of the situation other than what I have read here. Many people have made some logical points here and I look forward to reading more about this from those that continue to post about this - hopefully in a manner polite and respectful to those that disagree with you. People that I respect seem to have opposite view points which lead me to believe this topic, like many others, doesn't have a clear cut best consensus.

Now back to the discussion, and play nice or I'll start requiring APA standard citation on all quotes lest yer post be deleted:D

Nean

07-03-2005, 22:43

I went to the ballgame the other day. 12$ to park my car a few hours, 45 bucks to rent a chair, 7 dollars for a hot dog, 4 4 fries, 4.50 per coke or about what those folks spend for a stay at a hut. My team lost. Gas is 2.20 a gallon. Some folks on the trail (like me) will take a side trip to see a concert- what a bargin those shows are! I stopped at a cheap motel last week- they wanted 65 for a room, it was 2am. I paid 1.25 for a pint of water today and I'm ready to kick some ass

Moxie00

07-03-2005, 23:29

If when you speak of the AMC you are speaking of that Boston based club that started hiking and creating trails in the White Mountains over a half century before most of us even heard of the Applachian Trail I support them. If you speak of that wonderful group that built and maintain a system of huts in the mountains that hikers can safely stay at with excellent meals I applaud their efforts. Who could speak badly of that group that employes many college students whose goal is the comfort of hikers who otherwise either wouldn't or couldn't see these spectular mountains without their efforts. We need more organizations like the Applachian Mountain Club.:-?
But perhaps instead when you speak of The Applachiam Mountain Club you are speaking of that ruthless gang from Joy Street that hold a virtual monopoly on the peoples Mountains of New Hampshire. That underhanded group of blue bloods that charge unreasonable inflated rates to those who only wish to enjoy the wilderness in peace and quiet. That bunch of pirates that force legitimate backpackers and thru hikers off the ridges each night because there is no room for those that can't pay then they should be punished and their monoply should be taken away and given back to the people.:-?
This is my opinion of the Applachian Mountain Club and my stand is firm. I cannot be swayed in my beliefs and no matter what you say it will not change my opinion.;)

The Old Fhart

07-04-2005, 00:54

Restless, to briefly answer some of your questions:
1) Is it illegal to camp above treeline. Yes, but understand the definition. Treeline is where trees are less than 8 feet high, or in winter there has to be a certain amount of snow cover.
Is it really practical, or for that matter practiced,or do people disregard the rules and camp anyway? Although not practical (imagine camping in a boulder field), it is done by some, sometimes with tragic results.
2)[Is the].. purpose of the huts..to provide shelter..during adverse weather condition? Yes, but that is one of the many purposes, including education, research, and evironmental protection. There have been cases in the past where they didn’t provide shelter in questionable conditions and it cost them a lot of bad press.
3)Along with several others I find AMC's pricing for most of their activities rather steep. The hut pricing is where everyone agrees. However, don’t confuse steep with unreasonable. The huts are generally full in the summer, especially on weekends, so people are willingly paying the asking price. To say “pricing for most of their activities” is rather steep is incorrect. The local chapters lead trips (probably totaling over 1000 trips/year) that are absolutely free. Most thru hikers aren’t aware of the full range of chapter activities. Also, with 60,000 hikers/year climbing Mt Washington and maybe 600 thru hikers, which group should any business up there cater to?
If I'm not mistaken, AMC charges people to work on trail crews. Here we have a real problem because most people view the AMC as a single unit. However, there is that part of the club attached to Joy Street and Pinkham Notch and there are the local clubs that are entirely volunteer based. The local chapters do not charge volunteers to do trail work unless they have to stay at a facility run by Joy Street and then they usually pay a reduced rate. The various chapters may vary slightly in how this works. This is no different than a friend of mine who did trail work around Mt. Rainier. He had to pay his own airfare (about $500) but they provided a tent for him to sleep in and provided tools.
4) I hope that AMC, with the amount of money they bring in are paying the croo a tad bit more. Once again, supply and demand govern the free market. Pricing is different in different parts of the country. AMC publications have from time to time listed hut operating costs, etc., for those who actually want to know. I'm sure some of the bean counters out there can supply specifics.
5)Is AMC actively doing anything to reduce the number of visitors in this highly used area? I have not hiked thru the Whites and when I do so, I will probably take another route around the Presidentials at a minimum. I do have a problem with AMC and so therefore I choose not to support them or their facilities. So I guess thats one less person they have to worry about. Part of the problem is that people who have never visited the area have preconceived opinions about the AMC but the hikers that go thru the Whites with an open mind and treat all the people they meet with the respect they’d expect, have absolutely no problems, they actually enjoy the Whites. One important point is that you can get thru the Whites without staying at any hut if you really want to do that. To skip this beautiful seem a tad extreme.

Also, the AMC can do little to control the people who visit the Whites. An example is spring skiing in Tuckerman’s Ravine where the can have over 5000 people hike up to the bowl to ski in a single weekend. The nearby huts are closed then so there is no correlation there. Camel’s Hump in VT gets 40,000 hikers/year and there is no AMC there either. People go to these areas in spite of the huts, not because of them.

I know these answers won't make some out there happy but them's da facts.

Blue Jay

07-04-2005, 07:58

Part of the problem is that people who have never visited the area have preconceived opinions about the AMC but the hikers that go thru the Whites with an open mind and treat all the people they meet with the respect they’d expect, have absolutely no problems, they actually enjoy the Whites.

Also, the AMC can do little to control the people who visit the Whites.

Camel’s Hump in VT gets 40,000 hikers/year and there is no AMC there either.

I know these answers won't make some out there happy but them's da facts.

The first time I went through the Whites I had no preconceived opinions. I did not know an outside agency could control a public park. I had an open mind, treated all people with respect, had no problems and enjoyed the Whites (other than the Presidentials, big piles of rocks do nothing for me). It was very clear however that places with food on top of mountains attract day hikers like honey attracts bears. To say the AMC can do little to control people who visit the Whites is laughable. Stop providing food to the lazy scum and they'll stay by their TVs. To use Camel's Hump as an example was also bad for your "facts". It is a wonderful place and proves the AMC is not wanted, needed, and thankfully not there. As for your statement "them's da facts", no dem's de opinions. You continue to confuse the two.

The Old Fhart

07-04-2005, 08:10

Blue Jay-"To use Camel's Hump as an example was also bad for your "facts". It is a wonderful place and proves the AMC is not wanted, needed, and thankfully not there."It only proves that people will flock to the mountains in droves without the AMC, not because of them, which is all that I said, and you have restated and agreed with, although with a political interpretation.

Nean

07-04-2005, 08:49

The Old Fhart

07-04-2005, 08:55

Good point, Nean. These are "public lands", not just hiker lands. The trails out in the Yosemite area are possible because of the influence and support of the packers and horse people. I love seeing horses if it means a 3 percent grade and maintained trail!

Youngblood

07-04-2005, 09:12

People sure are passionate about this one, kinda like the horse haters out west- THEY don't belong on MY trail. But "they" have the same right. Try Glacier or Yellowstone if you want to talk control- which I never felt in the Whites. Putting people in groups and insulting them doesn't seem to be a good way to get a point across either. I didn't always feel this way, but I'm glad THOSE people can get a taste, if you will, of the great outdoors. Too many people will only see it on TV. Attitude determines so much in life, the Whites are a good example.
Nean, I don't believe you and I have ever met, but I have a vague idea of your vast hiking experince and understand that gives you a perspective on all this that most of us aren't really capable of having. I appreciate your insight on this debate and value it, especially with the demeanor you have shown. Thanks.

Youngblood

SGT Rock

07-04-2005, 10:28

Stop providing food to the lazy scum and they'll stay by their TVs.
Think about what you just said. Sort of elitist to call someone lazy scum because they are just day hikers.:confused:

restless

07-04-2005, 11:02

Although not practical (imagine camping in a boulder field), it is done by some, sometimes with tragic results.
There have been cases in the past where they didn’t provide shelter in questionable conditions and it cost them a lot of bad press.
The hut pricing is where everyone agrees. However, don’t confuse steep with unreasonable. The huts are generally full in the summer, especially on weekends, so people are willingly paying the asking price. To say “pricing for most of their activities” is rather steep is incorrect. The local chapters lead trips (probably totaling over 1000 trips/year) that are absolutely free. Most thru hikers aren’t aware of the full range of chapter activities. Also, with 60,000 hikers/year climbing Mt Washington and maybe 600 thru hikers, which group should any business up there cater to?
This is no different than a friend of mine who did trail work around Mt. Rainier. He had to pay his own airfare (about $500) but they provided a tent for him to sleep in and provided tools.

Also, the AMC can do little to control the people who visit the Whites. An example is spring skiing in Tuckerman’s Ravine where the can have over 5000 people hike up to the bowl to ski in a single weekend. The nearby huts are closed then so there is no correlation there. Camel’s Hump in VT gets 40,000 hikers/year and there is no AMC there either. People go to these areas in spite of the huts, not because of them.

I know these answers won't make some out there happy but them's da facts.
OF,
Thanks for your response. I've highlighted a few lines that I thought were of worthy note, most notably the "tragic results" that occurred because hikersmade a bad choice to camp illegally, and the "bad press" AMC recieved because of a few bad decisions, probably on part of the croo.
I did check the AMC webpage and found local chapter trail maintenace outings, but also looked at the work schedule on the main website. I still contend that $150 for a weeks worth of work locks a lot of people out of a great volunteer opportunity. I would still be interested in hearing from people who have worked with both an ATC crew as well as an AMC crew and get comparisons between the two.
So far as AMC not being able to control the number of people that use the Whites, that may be true or it may be too problematic for the FS to consider something as drastic as a permit system. I would imagine that AMC works as a concessionnaire to the FS, much like the rafting companies along the Nanthala are, and therefore are responsible for paying a fee to the FS to operate their facilities on these lands. Although I'm not sure anyone's minds will ultimately be changed by what has been said in this thread, mine included, two things stand out. When it comes to AMC, there are people who hate it and people who love it. So it for the time being will continue to be one of those areas that we have to agree to disagree on. Secondly, it should force those of us who enjoy using public lands in areas that are not as developed to speak out and urge the local land managers not to pursue the course that has been taken in the Whites. I for one would not like to see a ski resort on the side of Mount Rogers, although at one time that was a consideration. I would not like to see the Roans and Humps desecrated by the construction of a series of huts similar to those in the Whites. I would stand in strong opposition to any proposals that might arise in the future to commercialize any of our public lands that are still wild. Perhaps it is too late for the Whites. But lets do our best to kepp the remaining wildlands wild.
And that is just my opinion.

dougmeredith

07-04-2005, 11:05

Think about what you just said. Sort of elitist to call someone lazy scum because they are just day hikers.:confused:
JUST day hikers? Who's the elitist now? :)

Doug

The Old Fhart

07-04-2005, 14:02

Restless, a few more comments on your last post:

I did check the AMC webpage and found local chapter trail maintenace outings, but also looked at the work schedule on the main website. I still contend that $150 for a weeks worth of work locks a lot of people out of a great volunteer opportunity. I would still be interested in hearing from people who have worked with both an ATC crew as well as an AMC crew and get comparisons between the two.I think $150 is too high but I don’t know the details. However, you mention both ATC and AMC work crews and that is still incorrect. The local chapter work crews are different. For instance, I joined the NHAMC for a weekend summit cleanup on Mt. Washington and it didn’t cost me a cent (O.K., cost me gas and time). Getting an overnight on the summit is a great perk! Please don’t confuse what comes out of Joy St. or Pinkham with the local chapters. Oh, as a trip leader and instructor, the NHAMC pays for my backcountry 1st aid training, which isn’t cheap.
......AMC not being able to control the number of people that use the Whites....As far as AMC not being able to control the number of people that use the Whites, only a small percentage of the total visitors stay at the huts so whether the huts are there or not isn’t going to make a huge difference. I’ve seen as many as 100 people who have hiked to the summit of Washington on January 1st when nothing is open. Let’s face it, people love the outdoors. My example of 40,000 people visiting Camel’s Hump, VT, where there is no AMC, or Mt. Monadnock, NH (click here) (http://www.tmclark.com/monadnock.html) that gets 125,000 climbers per year, making it the most climbed mountain in the world. It comes down to location and views, and has nothing to do with the AMC.
When it comes to AMC, there are people who hate it and people who love it. So it for the time being will continue to be one of those areas that we have to agree to disagree on. This is not a black and white issue. Many of us hate things the AMC does and work to change it. My point has been that if you’re going to hate the AMC, hate it for something it actually does and know whether your talking about what comes out of Joy St. or the local chapters.
I for one would not like to see a ski resort on the side of Mount Rogers, although at one time that was a consideration. I would not like to see the Roans and Humps desecrated by the construction of a series of huts similar to those in the Whites. I would stand in strong opposition to any proposals that might arise in the future to commercialize any of our public lands that are still wild. Perhaps it is too late for the Whites. But lets do our best to kepp the remaining wildlands wild.A lot of our public land is multiple use and Mt. Rogers, which you mentioned, has cattle that come right up to Thomas Knob shelter, horses, etc., so it is far from wild. And while I think it would be nice to dream about “wilderness” reserved only for hikers, it just isn’t going to happen. Public land is for all people whether they ski, snowmobile, RV, car camp, whatever. We can hope that our piece of the pie is the largest but we have to be realistic. As far as the Whites, yes, it is too late for drastic changes there so we have to grin and bear it. If we could start from scratch today there probably would be some changes but I doubt that they would have a huge effect. Most of the area known as the Whites was heavily logged in the early part of the 20th century and is not original forest. There are still many places where you can still see the scars left by the clear cutting or the resulting fires that ensued. It would be nice to see what the forest looked like originally.

I still say that for you to do a thru hike and bypass the Whites based on rumors you’ve heard is a little extreme. Hike through like all the thru hikers and then make up your mind based on your actual experiences.

SGT Rock

07-04-2005, 14:40

JUST day hikers? Who's the elitist now? :)

Doug
I think that was my point, not my attitude.

dougmeredith

07-04-2005, 15:22

I think that was my point, not my attitude.
I knew it wasn't. I was just having a little fun with what I perceived to be a poor choice of words. No offence intended.

Doug

The Old Fhart

07-04-2005, 16:12

Please, SGT Rock, Dougmeredith, we were just getting back to normal! ;)

dickdurk

07-04-2005, 16:21

I have plowed through all on this thread and I have to say a lot of the invective starts from an assumption that access to public land also grants a right to privately provided services.

If it's possible to stealth camp (and it seems it is), then use, or don't use, services available. It's called Free Market, folks.

Thousands of people in my area have built houses they own on land they rent. Stupid idea, but there it is. I see a similarity in AMC huts on public forest land.

Michael
BTW non profit status refers to (lack of) dividends paid to owners/shareholders. Employees of said organization are free to earn whatever salary the governing body pays them. MG

Lone Wolf

07-04-2005, 16:30

The AMC and the Huts were in the White Mtns. long before it was a National Forest.

Rocks 'n Roots

07-04-2005, 16:41

Southbound in October 1985 I spent about $2 total going through the Whites, and that's only because the caretaker happened through the Perch.

Today it seems to be a choice between the Appalachian Money Club and the other Appalachian Money Club in the form of destructive developers...

:mad:

SGT Rock

07-04-2005, 16:57

I knew it wasn't. I was just having a little fun with what I perceived to be a poor choice of words. No offence intended.

DougI know you meant it in fun. I should have put a smiley in my post :p

Blue Jay

07-05-2005, 08:49

Think about what you just said. Sort of elitist to call someone lazy scum because they are just day hikers.:confused:

You are correct, I was not clear (and elitist). I sometimes forget everyone has not been to the Whites, not a smart assumption. I did not mean your standard day hiker, most are sweet. Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery. How about the dolts who smoke, flick their cigs onto a patch of endangered plant life and walk away as a mini "forest" fire starts. Spend any time there and you'll understand.

Blue Jay

07-05-2005, 08:59

Public land is for all people whether they ski, snowmobile, RV, car camp, whatever. WHATEVER, yes cut more roads into public lands for the RVs. This sentence clearly indicates where you are coming from.

SGT Rock

07-05-2005, 09:10

You are correct, I was not clear (and elitist). I sometimes forget everyone has not been to the Whites, not a smart assumption. I did not mean your standard day hiker, most are sweet. Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery. How about the dolts who smoke, flick their cigs onto a patch of endangered plant life and walk away as a mini "forest" fire starts. Spend any time there and you'll understand.
I understand, the same sort of celf-centered jerks can be found anywhere.:mad:

The Old Fhart

07-05-2005, 09:17

Blue Jay-"WHATEVER, yes cut more roads into public lands for the RVs. This sentence clearly indicates where you are coming from."Reality check: I don't own an RV and don't like them but that doesn't negate their existence. Show me where you imagined I said anything about cutting more roads, or even mention the word road.

P.S. I don't own a snowmobile or ski either so I said nothing about throwing up ski areas, if that's going to be in your next post.

rickb

07-05-2005, 09:20

At $18 a night I find car camping in the WHites to be too expensive.

Day hikers are OK. I nver see butts on the trail, much less evidence of mini forest fires. Not sure why, but it seem far, far, fewer day hikers smoke than do thru hikers.

Rick B

Heater

07-05-2005, 09:26

At $18 a night I find car camping in the WHites to be too expensive.
Rick B
It's also extremely hard to see the white blazes with the visor down. :jump

The Old Fhart

07-05-2005, 09:29

Blue Jay-"Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery." The evidence indicates that it is actually the thru hikers that berate the croo and others. If you care to read this thread you will find at least 2 posts where thru hikers brag about doing just that.

rickb

07-05-2005, 09:32

OF--

I think that has something to do with the prejudices that some thru hikers bring with them to the Whites regarding the AMC, day hikers, yuppies and the rest.

RIck B

Frosty

07-05-2005, 09:58

At $18 a night I find car camping in the Whites to be too expensive. Of course there is no comarison between backpacking and carcamping, in either price or esthetics, but Nat'l Forest campgrounds only seem expensive until you compare them to private campgrounds in the area.

Being old, I also get sticker skock when confronted with prices like this, but to be honest, it costs me over $18 just to DRIVE to the Whites and back.

Camping at NFS campgrounds is one of the cheapest ways to dayhike in the Whites, IMO. You can get in a couple days hike with only one trip's worth of gas, and a couple meals in restaurants compared to in camp will send send the car camp-hike package much lower than the alternative of motels, public campgrounds or driving up every day.

Nean

07-05-2005, 10:20

Has anyone heard about the new road they plan on building over to Madison?:) And can we get some love for the train:rolleyes:

restless

07-05-2005, 12:27

FYI
I emailed AMC inquring into working with a trail crew on one of their longer programs. Travelling from TN, a 1-2 day volunteer crew would not be practical. According to the website, the "donation" for a 1-3 week program ran on average of $150. I asked about the possibility of having that fee waived in order to offset travel expenses as well as to adjust for the fact that I am not working for the next couple of months. I was refferred to the 1-2 day programs which were mentioned were free. I replied no thanks but I'll find a crew/club that wouldn't charge me to volunteer.
I know I may sound like an ******* to some but with the cutbacks in federal spending for our public lands and their recreational/trails programs, it would seem to me that ANY organization, be it ATC, AMC or whomever would be willing to accomadate people wanting to help out in the outdoors. I guess bottom line once again, is that the bottom line is of utmost importance. Such a shame. :(

SGT Rock

07-05-2005, 12:34

I totally agree. Seems very counter productive to charge folks to work on the trail or to even make it hard to volunteer in some way.

The Old Fhart

07-05-2005, 13:16

Restless, I’ve got a question for you and I’d seriously like an answer because what you’ve said in posts has me confused. You first stated: “ I do have a problem with AMC and so therefore I choose not to support them or their facilities. So I guess thats one less person they have to worry about.”

You now post: ” I emailed AMC inquring into working with a trail crew on one of their longer programs. Travelling from TN, a 1-2 day volunteer crew would not be practical. According to the website, the "donation" for a 1-3 week program ran on average of $150. I asked about the possibility of having that fee waived in order to offset travel expenses as well as to adjust for the fact that I am not working for the next couple of months. I was refferred to the 1-2 day programs which were mentioned were free. I replied no thanks but I'll find a crew/club that wouldn't charge me to volunteer.”

My question is this: if you don’t want anything to do with the AMC why did you go through the trouble of calling them and asking to volunteer? It just seems to me that you’re putting a lot of effort into something that you really have no intention of doing. If they waived the fee I’m sure you wouldn’t have volunteered judging from your feelings about the AMC that you’ve previously posted. I wouldn't pay $150 either and I've mentioned other options for volunteering. I've also joined ALDHA on a work trip in PA and we never mentioned, or argued, about money, we just did the work. :D

rickb

07-05-2005, 13:32

The theory on the fees (for those longer programs that have them) is that they help cover the cost of participants' food, lodging and transportation.

Some find that works for them, others find different volunteer opportunities with the AMC and some direct their energies in a differrent direction.

Rick B

Pencil Pusher

07-05-2005, 19:29

Out here the WTA charges $125 for week-longs. I was kinda bummed when I saw this. But they give the schpeel it's for the meals they provide and the llamas, etc that pack in the tools and such. The day trips are free and the volunteer org still makes prison rates for the labor done, so essentially the volunteer is donating both money and labor. I was bummed because I thought the week-long was where the real work was done, but now it seems more aptly put as they describe it, a "volunteer vacation".:(

Nean

07-05-2005, 21:18

If that 150 covers lodging, transport, and meals for one to three weeks, thats not bad. I know the Colorado Trail operates the same way and perhaps the CDTA as well. These things are well organized and fun and full to the limit, are they not? Where is the bad- I don't see it?

The Old Fhart

07-05-2005, 21:36

Nean-"These things are well organized and fun and full to the limit, are they not? Where is the bad- I don't see it?"I'm afraid you're missing the point here. The poster wants to complain about the AMC, you're trying to be reasonable and use logic. You can't win no matter how right you are! ;)

Nean

07-06-2005, 11:07

I see said the blind man :cool:

Mr. Clean

07-07-2005, 08:06

While I certainly don't agree with all that the AMC does, it has to be remembered of all the GOOD that they do. They have organized one of the greatest volunteer trail crews that keeps the trails open for all of us. Both the professional and volunteer trail maintainers are held to high standards in trailwork. They have so many people wanting to volunteer that they are actually taking some trails from the Forest Service and maintaining them. Actually, all the trails 'belong' to the Forest Service, AMC just maintains them. So, as someone else said, the political part of AMC may be pretty distasteful, but the working part of the Club is full of good people and hard workers.
An AMC member and trail maintainer.

Alligator

07-07-2005, 08:34

...They have so many people wanting to volunteer that they are actually taking some trails from the Forest Service and maintaining them. Actually, all the trails 'belong' to the Forest Service, AMC just maintains them. So, as someone else said, the political part of AMC may be pretty distasteful, but the working part of the Club is full of good people and hard workers.
An AMC member and trail maintainer. Just extending your thoughts, all the trails on the WMNF belong to WE THE PEOPLE :sun.

Mr. Clean

07-07-2005, 21:12

This is true!

SavageLlama

07-08-2005, 19:02

How many huts are along the AT in NH?

Are there any where stealthcamping can't be found within a mile of the hut?

restless

07-08-2005, 19:09

My question is this: if you don’t want anything to do with the AMC why did you go through the trouble of calling them and asking to volunteer? It just seems to me that you’re putting a lot of effort into something that you really have no intention of doing. If they waived the fee I’m sure you wouldn’t have volunteered judging from your feelings about the AMC that you’ve previously posted. I wouldn't pay $150 either and I've mentioned other options for volunteering. I've also joined ALDHA on a work trip in PA and we never mentioned, or argued, about money, we just did the work. :D
OF,
I admit my call to AMC was to see if in fact they were locked into the fee for trail work, or if they were flexible. It appears that they are not flexible in this regards. I do agree with one of your earlier posts that the local chapters do not charge a fee and hopefully that is where a lot of work gets done on a local level, albeit in 1-3 day stints. As to my working with a trail crew, if they had in fact offered to waive the fee, I would have gone although it is not what I had planned for the summer. Perhaps I might have been persuaded to change my stance on AMC by working with them and getting to see first hand how they operate. Next time I wind up in NH, I will try to work in some time with one of the local chapters.I work full time as a seasonal trail boss, and have eight years working with crews including MATC, ATC among others. Unfortunately, I have not been on an ALDHA work trip, but judging from some of the work I've seen them do in the past, as well as many of the people that participate, it would be something I enjoy. Perhaps soon in the future, as I usually only make the Pipestem gatherings.
As to other posters, after this, I am not familiar with how the CT operates, although it is not an argument I want to get into at this point. My point in this post has been simply to bring to light the fact that most trail crews, not all, charge nothing to work on a trail crew. All you have to do is pay your way to get there. Food and lodging are generally provided although that varies from place to place.

Heater

07-08-2005, 19:24

Frosty

07-08-2005, 22:03

My point in this post has been simply to bring to light the fact that most trail crews, not all, charge nothing to work on a trail crew. All you have to do is pay your way to get there. Food and lodging are generally provided although that varies from place to place.Well, I don't know much about why organiztions use volunteers, but I assume it is to save money. If the organization has to provide food and lodging, it then it might be cheaper for them to hire laborers.

In this case, lodging could be a place to set up your own tent for free, or a cost to cover their expenses if a building and services are provided. For food, I would think volunteers would provide their own or pay for food.

This may not be the way it works, but there seems no point in asking for volunteer labor if the resultant cost after feeding/housing is greater than that of day laborers.

Do you think the AMC is taking in more money from your fee than they are spending on your food and lodging. In other words, so you think that the AMC is using this as a money making operation?

Peaks

07-09-2005, 07:29

How many huts are along the AT in NH?

Are there any where stealthcamping can't be found within a mile of the hut?

6 "full service huts on the AT," 1 caretaker hut (Carter), 1 full service hut 1 mile down (Greenleaf), plus Pinkham at the road crossing.

Plenty of stealth sites, but above treeline, they may be a ways down off the ridge.

SavageLlama

07-09-2005, 09:46

6 "full service huts on the AT," 1 caretaker hut (Carter), 1 full service hut 1 mile down (Greenleaf), plus Pinkham at the road crossing.

Plenty of stealth sites, but above treeline, they may be a ways down off the ridge.
Thanks. Is it possible to stealthcamp with a tent or do you need a hammock?

restless

07-11-2005, 15:42

Well, I don't know much about why organiztions use volunteers, but I assume it is to save money. If the organization has to provide food and lodging, it then it might be cheaper for them to hire laborers.
Frosty,
I think precisely why organizations, especially non-profits-use volunteers IS to save money. Most NPO's could not afford to pay for a full time trail crew. BUT why hire laborers, and get for the most part a sub-standard trail? Trail building might not be as technical as other forms of construction but there are certain standards that should be followed in trail construction in order to provide a satisfactory trail.

In this case, lodging could be a place to set up your own tent for free, or a cost to cover their expenses if a building and services are provided
I've had both. Some organizations, such as the ATC, pay very little for housing for their volunteer crews, others pay a substantial amount. In most cases though housing is one of those costs associated with hosting voulunteers and is either absorbed by the organization or compensated for by grants.
For food, I would think volunteers would provide their own or pay for food.
It's hard, though. most organization swallow the cost or once again find other sources of funding and/or donations.
This may not be the way it works, but there seems no point in asking for volunteer labor if the resultant cost after feeding/housing is greater than that of day laborers.

Do you think the AMC is taking in more money from your fee than they are spending on your food and lodging. In other words, so you think that the AMC is using this as a money making operation?

I would hope not, although I have an idea as to what it takes to run a trail crew. Chancres are the answer is no, by the time you consider food, housing, transportaion to and from the jobsite(or are the volunteers responsible for this as well?) and other incidentals. But, if you expect them to contribute to not only the construction of quality trails, but their travel. food and lodging, my question is how is the organization conpensating these individuals for their time and money?

Frosty

07-11-2005, 16:23

IBut, if you expect them to contribute to not only the construction of quality trails, but their travel. food and lodging, my question is how is the organization conpensating these individuals for their time and money?It shouldn't IMO. Though I have never volunteered for the AMC, I have volunteered for other organizations, and it never occurred to me to ask for money for my travel and food, and the (admittedly few) times I helped arrange volunteer work, no one ever asked for travel or food money.

People happily showed up, brought their own tools and food (or bought stuff). Some people even DONATED money as well as working for free

I think this must be mostly an anti-AMC thing. I doubt the American Red Cross would be criticized for not paying volunteers.

The Old Fhart

07-11-2005, 16:58

Restless-"But, if you expect them to contribute to not only the construction of quality trails, but their travel. food and lodging, my question is how is the organization conpensating these individuals for their time and money?"You seem to be missing the point. I guess that is why it is called volunteering and not a "job." ;) If you want to get compensated, get a real job. If you want to go on a working vacation, which might cost you some money, volunteer for any of the thousands of places nationally, and internationally, that operate in just this manner. This is a common practice. Drop the pretense, you've been posting continually about how you feel about the AMC and that hasn't changed. As you said:
Restless-“ I do have a problem with AMC and so therefore I choose not to support them or their facilities.”Put some of this energy you're wasting into trail work instead of harping on this one point.

I have to agree with Frosty on this one. His last post nailed it right on the head.