is it me or the AMC sometimes acts like it owns the White Mountains?

[ekih]

I know that the AMC does not own the land their huts sit on, but since they maintain the trails that go up to the huts and since they are pretty much in bed together with the US Forest Service and the state of New Hampshire, I was wondering if the attitudes I have perceived reflect reality or are little more than the product of my own imagination, and would like to do some reality testing. I mean, maybe I have personal issues that I probably could work on, but almost every time I enter their huts and look at the pictures of former "crew members" I get the feeling that, you know, I feel a sense of alienation reminiscent of my days as a working class kid attending a private university which, to the chagrin and dismay of many good people, he is able to attend thanks to the evil laws put in place by communist/satanic lawmakers whose primary goal of destroying this nation is best manifested in their desire to set up a system where privileges traditionally afforded only to white, upper-middle class people, are also afforded to less deserving, inferior creatures who sort of resemble human beings. As I said, it's probably all in my head, but that pretty much sums up the kind of feeling I experience when I come within close proximity of anything related to the AMC.

[LIhikers]

Are you looking for some specific info, or are just needing to vent right now?
My wife and I have only had good experiences at the huts. We've bought lunch in the middle of the day and gotten plenty to eat, good food. We've stopped for snacks and lemonade and paid pennies on the dollar of what you'd pay in Starbucks, that is the few times we were asked for money. One day we stopped into Madison spring Hut shortly after the paying guests left and were treated to an all you can eat breakfast with the crew from the left overs. We even stopped into one hut in the middle of dinner and one of the crew stopped what they were doing for the paid guests and showed us on our map where we could camp nearby. Maybe we've been lucky by I've only had positive experiences from AMC. We were so impressed by the attitude we experienced and the work that they do on the trails that we became paid members even though we've never stayed a night in the huts or lodges.

[Teacher & Snacktime]

join the AMC....meet the people....maybe your perspective will change

[Feral Bill]

Based on numerous Whiteblaze threads, your perception is hardly unique. I have not been in the Whites recently enough to offer an opinion myself.

[Dogwood]

I like the AMC. They have always been good to this privledged white middle class male.

SERIOUSLY, ONLY YOU ultimately determines if you will feel inferior! Move beyond you limited beliefs.

[rocketsocks]

I know that the AMC does not own the land their huts sit on, but since they maintain the trails that go up to the huts and since they are pretty much in bed together with the US Forest Service and the state of New Hampshire, I was wondering if the attitudes I have perceived reflect reality or are little more than the product of my own imagination, and would like to do some reality testing. I mean, maybe I have personal issues that I probably could work on, but almost every time I enter their huts and look at the pictures of former "crew members" I get the feeling that, you know, I feel a sense of alienation reminiscent of my days as a working class kid attending a private university which, to the chagrin and dismay of many good people, he is able to attend thanks to the evil laws put in place by communist/satanic lawmakers whose primary goal of destroying this nation is best manifested in their desire to set up a system where privileges traditionally afforded only to white, upper-middle class people, are also afforded to less deserving, inferior creatures who sort of resemble human beings. As I said, it's probably all in my head, but that pretty much sums up the kind of feeling I experience when I come within close proximity of anything related to the AMC.

Probably best to get out of the hiking game altogether, maybe take up some other activity that makes you feel good about yourself...like writing! perhaps write a book about your travels, you obva have a gift for the gab, give it a shot.

[bfayer]

Wow, I guess all I can do is echo what others have said. Only you can change the way you look at the world. I don't hike up north much anymore so I can't say much about AMC.

It sounds like you are bitter that someone outside of your family paid for your education and for some reason you have a problem with the other students that got there because their hard working families paid for them instead of the government. All I can say is get over it, life will be a lot better for you if you stop worrying about what others have or don't have. Other people have more money because they worked hard for it, not because life is unfair to you.

This advice is coming from a guy that spent years sleeping on an old mattress on the floor because his Mother could not afford a bed.

The trail would not even exist if AMC did not take care of it, so next time you see someone from AMC a simple "Thank You" would be appropriate.

[Lone Wolf]

the AMC was around in the Whites long before the AT or national forest service. they're a good thing

[moldy]

The OP makes a good point about the AMC despite the "Catcher in the Rye" analogy. The AMC is a rich and powerful club. They have far more money, power and clout than the ATC. It's board of directors are rich people. They throw their weight around with the Forest Service, National Park Service, New England State Governments and the ATC. You might think that a simple hiking club with a handful of outdoor enthusiasts would not evolve into such a monster. They have an attitude similar to the PATC that they are in charge and can make the rules the want either directly or through influence at the National and State level. Why else could a private club make many millions of dollars on land owned by the people of the United States? The elitist attitude that most thru-hikers feel when enter these clubs turf is obvious to most. They say that they are limiting the shelters and campsites available to hikers because they need to protect the environment. That is why you should spend huge sums of money to stay in the huts. The trail clubs need to all be tossed out of government land and the AT returned to the citizens. The ATC needs to take over management of the trail in reality as opposed to being a front organization.

[hikerboy57]

The OP makes a good point about the AMC despite the "Catcher in the Rye" analogy. The AMC is a rich and powerful club. They have far more money, power and clout than the ATC. It's board of directors are rich people. They throw their weight around with the Forest Service, National Park Service, New England State Governments and the ATC. You might think that a simple hiking club with a handful of outdoor enthusiasts would not evolve into such a monster. They have an attitude similar to the PATC that they are in charge and can make the rules the want either directly or through influence at the National and State level. Why else could a private club make many millions of dollars on land owned by the people of the United States? The elitist attitude that most thru-hikers feel when enter these clubs turf is obvious to most. They say that they are limiting the shelters and campsites available to hikers because they need to protect the environment. That is why you should spend huge sums of money to stay in the huts. The trail clubs need to all be tossed out of government land and the AT returned to the citizens. The ATC needs to take over management of the trail in reality as opposed to being a front organization.
trail clubs are the reason the trail exists. who do you think built the trails?ironic that such elitist organizations can recruit so many volunteers to donate so much of their time to maintain these trails.

[moldy]

It is true that the clubs built the trail. That was the only way they could get it done 90 years ago. So what? How long do we need to show our gratitude? They are out of control. Instead of "occupy Wall street" we need to "occupy the Whites".

[Ezra]

It is true that the clubs built the trail. That was the only way they could get it done 90 years ago. So what? How long do we need to show our gratitude? They are out of control. Instead of "occupy Wall street" we need to "occupy the Whites".

Just curious Moldy...If you do not pay the trail back through donations to a club or volunteer your time doing trail maintenance through a club, how do you pay back the trail? Just curious.

[Grampie]

Ekih, do you think that the White's would be better managed if the government did more and the AMC did less?

[moldy]

Ezra, We still pay and volunteer. We just don't do that with the AMC. We give them the toss. The new trail managers will be part of the Federal Government. Yes they will do a much better than the "for profit AMC club". The NPS does a much better job than the AMC in other National Parks. Even the much overcrowded Grand Canyon NP offers better management. The AMC wants to cater to the rich. That is why they treat thru-hikers so poorly.

[JustaTouron]

The vast majority of people who hike on the AT and in the Whites do not hike the entire AT. The AMC focus is supporting the majority of hikers whose hike run from a day, a weekend or a week, rather than catering to the minority of 5-7 month hikers who feel that everything related the trail ought revolve around them.

[Tom Murphy]

I understand exactly how you feel. The people staying at the huts and the croo working at the hut typically come from the upper socio-economic class.

But there is another group of people in the AMC too. Locals who love the forests and the mountains.

[Tom Murphy]

The AMC does not treat thru-hikers poorly.

[Tuckahoe]

So the only sin I'm seeing here is that the AMC is run by rich people?

And our solution to the problem is to run off a sucessful outdoors/conservation organization that works in partnership with the federal and state governments and turn their mission over to those bloated governments? So we dont want the rich people, we just want their money?

[Nooga]

I have an issue with the AMC. IMO the sections of the AT maintained by the AMC were very poorly marked and infact many of the signs were incorrect. Previous hikers had corrected the signs with sharpies. Overall, I was treated well at the huts, with the exception of the Lake of the Clouds. I arrived about 15 minutes before their arbitrary cutoff and was denied work for stay. The weather was poor and storms were forecasted. I was advised that I could make Madison. Even though I was in thru hiker shape, I knew there was no way I could make it over Washington and to Madison before nightfall. I ended up paying full price to stay the night at Lake. I still deeply resent such callus attitude, given the danger of that section. Another issue I have was having to pay at AMC campsites which were no different that the campsites maintained by the MAC.

[hikerboy57]

I have an issue with the AMC. IMO the sections of the AT maintained by the AMC were very poorly marked and infact many of the signs were incorrect. Previous hikers had corrected the signs with sharpies. Overall, I was treated well at the huts, with the exception of the Lake of the Clouds. I arrived about 15 minutes before their arbitrary cutoff and was denied work for stay. The weather was poor and storms were forecasted. I was advised that I could make Madison. Even though I was in thru hiker shape, I knew there was no way I could make it over Washington and to Madison before nightfall. I ended up paying full price to stay the night at Lake. I still deeply resent such callus attitude, given the danger of that section. Another issue I have was having to pay at AMC campsites which were no different that the campsites maintained by the MAC. was this a surprise to you or did you not do your homework? The fees are listed in every guidebook and yes getting over the Presidential Range does take a little work and planning.

[Slo-go'en]

Wow, sounds like Moldy didn't have a very good experiance with the huts. I'm not sure the experiance would be any better if the National Forest Service ran the huts. In fact, if the NFS took over the huts, they'd have to contract the AMC to run them or a private for profit corperation like the one which runs all the consessions and services in national parks. You don't actually think goverment actually runs those places do you?

Yes, AMC members can be a bit snotty and the crew can treat thru-hikers with an entitlement attitude poorly. I'm no big fan of the AMC, but I do belive the mountains here are much better off with them then it would be without them.

[FarmerChef]

I'm in the Whites hiking them currently (currently taking a zero) and am reserving judgment until we're fully through the AMC section. But what I can tell you so far is that, for the most part, we have been treated well at the huts and campsites and I've seen the same treatment afforded to thru-hikers as well. Of the trails we have traveled and seen they are maintained at least as well as other trails we have encountered on the AT, better in some areas in fact. I'm a bit stymied why the trail travels up streams so frequently but that's nothing new ;)

As far as elitists running this or that, frankly, when the rich stop paying to stay at the huts the fees will change. Until then, they will continue to be what they are. Same goes for the campsites. Until then, I have passed plenty of good, legal campsites not in forest protection zones that are, um, free. And you can always (though I personally wouldn't) hike down to any of the free campsites not along the highly trafficked corridor the AT follows. Is it right or wrong? I can't say. But so far we are enjoying our time here and getting bilked of far more money off the trail than on it. :D

[Chaco Taco]

We joined the AMC when we moved here. My only experience with the huts is in Winter and when we stop in for cookies and Hot cocoa. The crew is always really nice to us and our pup. The caretakers at tentsites are always awesome. Some of the snobby hikers are too much to take sometimes when they complain about $8 and poop in a nice privy as the caretaker sifts through their poo. The RMC is my favorite organization up here. Great crew of folks at the sites and on the trail.

[jeffmeh]

Personally, I think this another piece of entitled hiker BS. Given the challenging terrain, the AMC keeps the trails in very good shape. I have been hiking the Whites since I was a kid, and I have never chosen to stay in an AMC hut, although I have certainly stopped in for some shelter plenty of times. If you treat the crew with courtesy and respect, you generally get the same from them (just like everywhere else in life). I cannot count the number of times they were more than happy to let us prepare our own meals and eat them at their galley tables. Heck, last year on a truly nasty morning at Nauman, we walked over to Mizpah where they offered us full use of their kitchen. We left it cleaner than we found it, and thanked them.

Are you entitled to work-for-stay? No. Do you need to ever stay at the huts with proper planning? No. Are the trails in the Whites well-maintained? Yes. Does the AMC have user fees for some of their facilities (huts and tent sites)? Yes, big deal. Are contributions to the AMC voluntary? Yes.

I am not an AMC fan boy, and I do not agree with everything they do, but overall they do a fine job and I appreciate them.

[capehiker]

Is there anyone on here who had positive experiences as a weekend/ section hiker but negative experienced when they thru hiked? It would be interesting too see if perspectives change.

When I lived in NH, I sectioned/ weekend hiked a good chunk of the Whites and never felt a negative vibe.

[Teacher & Snacktime]

Our local AMC chapter (ironic since RI has no mountains) played an integral part in Snacktime's and my training last year. We met friendly, supportive and well-informed folks eager to share their passion and knowledge. While many of the members were in fact in a higher economic class, that is not really surprising. You have to be able to "afford" this pasttime, not just in terms of finances, but in available time. Thus, for the most part, the members were at or approaching retirement age.had acquired their grown-up economic status, and were pursuing ways to enjoy their success.

My personal observation (and Jung's for that matter) is that those without economic means may enjoy going on a hike in the woods, but are too busy working for the day to day $ to invest their time in the luxury of feeding a hobby or passion...(the difference between hiking and Hiking.) And certainly there's no room for managing organizations to promote their hobby.

The less-affluent will often donate/volunteer as much of their time as they can, but they can't afford to spend enough time to be in charge.

[-SEEKER-]

This year because of weather and timing I ended up staying at some of the huts. Each experience was different. I will say that upon arrival I was not greeted and always had to say "ahem... could you help me?" Right before reaching Mizpah I got caught in a hail storm. The lightning and thunder on Mt. Jackson were simultaneous and I lost part of my hearing until the next morning. My body also tingled for a couple of hours. When I got to Mizpah I was clearly shaken. I was told no work for stay since I was only doing a 380 mile section. I offered to pay to sleep on the floor. Someone from a group of 19 hikers overheard the conversation and offered me a bunk( her daughter had left that morning and they did not cancel the reservation). Initially the croo said no but, after much discussion between the croo and group, I was told I could use the empty bunk.
While hiking on Mt. Madison, I twisted my ankle, lost my balance and fell. I didn't know what the injury was at the time (I fractured my tibia at the knee and tore my meniscus) so I kept on hiking in great pain. By the time I reached Carter Notch Hut a few days later I couldn't go on. I asked the croo where a trail was to get to the nearest road. The hut master talked to me about my injury and decided to send a guy with me to carry my pack to the road. He hiked out the 3.9 miles with me and I really appreciated it.
As far as the AMC as a whole I don't know enough about them to comment. All I can say is I did have at least one good experience.

[mikec]

They came to my rescue when I ran out of water and energy going southbound up Mount Madison a few years ago. They are involved in search & rescues, maintaining the trails and huts and have to do all this in a rough environment. I don't mind giving them $25 a year. I think the organization is worth it.

[jbwood5]

My experience was generally good at the AMC huts and campgrounds. At both Zeland and Mizpah there were AMC club volunteers helping out to get people checked and in, and in my case, checking the list for cancellations and availability (I had no prior reservations). A couple of ladies there worked very hard dealing with some tired, almost grumpy, and impatient people (the place was packed). They kept their composure and were very pleasent.

It is true that it costs a lot of money to stay there, but when you consider the maintenance, cost of paid workers (mostly college students), cost of food/fuel, repairs, etc. it is understandable. I believe the question came up during one of my stays about how they get those propane tanks up there, and the answer was by helicopter, 1 tank at a time due to the weight. I believe it costs several hundred dollars an hour to fly a helicopter including loading and unloading time.

All the caretakers at the campsites were very pleasent.

The only time I didn't feel real good about the situation was at Madison Hut where they basically told me to get out because they had no possible place to put me and then they sent me to a campsite that also had no space. In all fairness, they had no idea that the tensite was full, especially since it is not even maintained by the AMC. It was basically my bad timing, having no reservation, and arriving at the busiest time of the year. I really shouldn't have expected anything different than the way it turned out.

[da fungo]

Interesting. In reading these posts, I think that they can be distilled into two main outlooks:

1. The AMC is an elitist, insular organization that makes outside their core demographic feel unwelcome.

2. The AMC does and has done lots of very good thinks for hiking and hikers in general.

The thing is, they're not mutually exclusive - both points of view seem to be right.

So, you can choose to focus on one or the other point of view, or you can recognize that there is a broader truth buried in there somewhere.

[Biggie Master]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/journey_intro.html

It's amazing that they made their entire journey without the luxury of shelters, maintained trails, or even the option of a meal in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we should consider how lucky we are to have the trail conditions that we have today. Good or bad, it's better than these guys had it.

[Teacher & Snacktime]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/journey_intro.html

It's amazing that they made their entire journey without the luxury of shelters, maintained trails, or even the option of a meal in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we should consider how lucky we are to have the trail conditions that we have today. Good or bad, it's better than these guys had it.


Unfair comparison! To paraphrase Lone Wolf....these guys were not hikers on vacation.

[hikerboy57]

we've been talking about expectations and entitlement issues for a while now, and heres what i dont understand:
most everyone planning a thru hike does some planning .up and down the trail there is research done on hostels, smokies permits, laundries, water sources, etc. most everyone whos done any homework knows the fees that are charged by amc sites, knows that work for stay is not guaranteed, that there are ways to get through the whites without staying at a hut, and that these hut stays are not inexpensive.

so what did they expect when they get there?that something magically changed all this, knew they were coming?


expectations.

[Slo-go'en]

It's truely difficult to grasp the situation here in the Whites until you experiance it. Its unlike any other section of the trail, but then all sections of the trail have thier own little quirks one has to deal with.

[rocketsocks]

I gotta say, I've never stayed in a hut, nor been to the Whites, and I'm quite shacked to hear all this, I'd no idea, and a little disconserting....that said, Aren't you just dealing with a another hiker when you go into a hut, people like you and me? do these hikers/caretakers really come off that bad?

[JustaTouron]

I gotta say, I've never stayed in a hut, nor been to the Whites, and I'm quite shacked to hear all this, I'd no idea, and a little disconserting....that said, Aren't you just dealing with a another hiker when you go into a hut, people like you and me? do these hikers/caretakers really come off that bad?

I stayed in three different huts on three consecutive nights, and found the caretakers and other hikers to be quite nice, decent people. Of course, I am one of those evil, wealthy hikers that the AMC caters to. Aka as paying guest with a reservation. It was a nice change from choosing between just day hiking while still being able to travel light (no tent, cooking gear, not much food etc).

Me and the kids enjoyed the trip, but we wouldn't do it again. We missed the sleep in a tent, cook food over fire aspects that we enjoy. It seemed too much like staying in a motel except for the shower and flush toilets.

[Mags]

Our local AMC chapter (ironic since RI has no mountains) played an integral part in Snacktime's and my training last year.

Narragansett AMC? I learned map and compass from that chapter. Navigated in Arcadia M.A. with a topo that had 10ft contour lines! :D

Still, the basics do not change and I learned a lot for only the cost of the materials ($10 at the time. Probably closer to $15 or so now)

As far as the AMC in the Whites.... Think it is the attitude that you bring with you. Amazing how saying "Please", "thank you" and not expecting special treatment goes toward having a good experience.

Is the AMC perfect? Nope. Does some of the Boston Blue blood-vibe permeate the organization? Probably.
But, the AMC has been caretakers in the Whites for a long time.
Overall, think they do a good job. And, keep this in mind, it is a short stretch of a 2180 mile long trail. Before you know it, you'll be in Maine (or Vermont) and not have to deal with the regs.

[hikerboy57]

It's truely difficult to grasp the situation here in the Whites until you experiance it. Its unlike any other section of the trail, but then all sections of the trail have thier own little quirks one has to deal with.
im not arguing the difficulty. i was weaned in the whites,started my backpacking adventures on franconia ridge in 1976 and im never surprised when the nobos ive met tell me how surpirsed they were at how difficult the whites and western maine were. most,though, also found it much more rewarding than other sections of the trail.
im really referring to the fees, work for stay, the huts,etc. these are things that most, at least, know they need to plan carefully to get through the whites safely, at minimal cost. it shouldnt be such a surprise when you get there and lo and behold,they charge $8, the huts are very expensive, and sometimes there is no work for stay available, and there isnt even room in the lakes dungeon for any more, and the trail is difficult, water above ridgeline is non existent, etc.so why did their expectations change?
by the way, im not insinuating theres an easy way through. but if they have no plan, theyre bound to be disappointed when theres no room at the inn.

[hikerboy57]

I gotta say, I've never stayed in a hut, nor been to the Whites, and I'm quite shacked to hear all this, I'd no idea, and a little disconserting....that said, Aren't you just dealing with a another hiker when you go into a hut, people like you and me? do these hikers/caretakers really come off that bad?
ive stayed at the huts maybe a dozen times and always have had great experiences, have met a pretty wide mix of guests from actors,singers to section hikers, thrus doing work for stay, two of which, i remember once at madison hut simply did a q&a for the guests as ther wfs. as far as the expense, its not cheap by any stretch, but by the same token, a good motel room costs as much without meals, gives people the opportunity to slackpack their way across one of the most beautiful areas in the east. i dont have a problem with that. if i want more of a wilderness experience, , there are dozens of other trails in the whites i can get lost for a few days without seeing more than a few people.

[Dogwood]

So we should throw out the AMC? based on some hikers negative opinions of it?

Oy vey!

[Nooga]

was this a surprise to you or did you not do your homework? The fees are listed in every guidebook and yes getting over the Presidential Range does take a little work and planning.

It was a surprise to me that the trail was so poorly marked and signs that were wrong. Knowing that they charge for tent sites outside of the Whites did not make it anymore palatable. My thru hike was not the first time I that I hike the Whites. It should also be mentioned that knowing that the head of the AMC is one of the highest paid executives of a non profit organization added to the bad taste.

[rickb]

It should also be mentioned that knowing that the head of the AMC is one of the highest paid executives of a non profit organization added to the bad taste.

This comment is factually inaccurate.

Those interested in making contributions to non profit organizations may wish to access guidestar.org for this kind of information.

I did like the ATC (not the AMC, I am drifting here) approach of paying its leadership far below market rates and getting a true believer in the mission however. That changed a few years, ago. The last I checked they bumped the salary of its Executive Director up by $50k and saw the person they hired resign after a year on the job.

Anyone know why? The replacement they hired kept the new salary plus a bit, I think.

in any event, one can make a great living working at a non profit. But those kinds of exaggeration are not informing. You should ask yourself who told you that bull**** and why.

[Drybones]

So the only sin I'm seeing here is that the AMC is run by rich people?

And our solution to the problem is to run off a sucessful outdoors/conservation organization that works in partnership with the federal and state governments and turn their mission over to those bloated governments? So we dont want the rich people, we just want their money?

I wonder why so many people that hate the rich are buying so many lottery tickets?

[hikerboy57]

It was a surprise to me that the trail was so poorly marked and signs that were wrong. Knowing that they charge for tent sites outside of the Whites did not make it anymore palatable. My thru hike was not the first time I that I hike the Whites. It should also be mentioned that knowing that the head of the AMC is one of the highest paid executives of a non profit organization added to the bad taste.
which signs were wrong?
they charge for the sites they maintain in maine, as well as the whites,all public knowledge.as far as the amc salary thing, it comes from revenue and donations, not from your tax dollars, so why should that bother you?

last year i was sectioning maine sobo, hurt my ankle pretty badly in the 100 mile wilderness, hiked on it for 2 days too many and climbed up to chairback shelter. i took a zero the next day, and knew id have to get out the next day as i had barely enough food for 2 days left and monson would probably take me 3=4 on my ankle. i thought about hiking back down to katahdin iron works road, bu being it was the 3rd consecutive day of heavy rains, it would be unlikely thred be an easy hitch back to town. so i decided to make out for monson, and as i climbed my ankle continued to throb, i saw a faint blue blaze off to the right of the trail, remembered a couple of dayhikers had passed by the shelter nobo the day before, figured it led back down to kiw road, so i decided what the heck, the trail wasnt on my map, but i was running out of choices, almost immediately i was now on a gravel lumber road and my ankle finally had a bit of a break from the rocks and roots of the trail, followed it north back towards kiw was. after about an hour, i saw a parking lot and saw a couple loading up their suburu wagon to head out, i asked if theyd be able to give me a lift into the nearest town, they looked at their overstuffed car , saw i was hurt, and said check inside the lodge, maybe they can get you a ride, if not we'll figure it out, we'll find a way to help you.
turned out i was at gorman lodge, now run by the amc. i walked in and their was 3 or 4 people talking, asked if three as anybody heading into town,they said no, but they would call shaws in monson see if they could get someone for me.shaw's said they didnt have anybody coming over that way soon, but that they would call back as soon as they could get someone.
while we waited for a callback, i learned that they were the gorman family, who had donated their proeprty to the amc.in exchange for the donation, they had exclusvie rights to the property for the 2nd 2 weekd of august. now on the busride up from ny, i had read the last issue of appalachia, which had the whole history of the area, including the gorman family,and when i told him this and that i was an amc member, they then offerd me a shower, coffee and some danish.i declined the shower, but a half hour later they told me a guy from the amc was there and was going back to greenville in a little while and would take me there if i liked. i accepted, thanked them for their hospitality, and was driven into greenville.
i knew that knowing what i knew and being an amc member made a difference, and it did annoy me a bit that no ride was offered till they found out how much i knew about them and that i was a member, but the end result was i got into greenville, and it didnt cost me a dime.and if they didnt happen to be there, i would have been s*** out of luck.so i was grateful

[JustaTouron]

It should also be mentioned that knowing that the head of the AMC is one of the highest paid executives of a non profit organization added to the bad taste.

Not true. He isn't living on Ramon noodles, but AMC executive salaries are comparable or lower when compared with other charities their size.

[Sly]

I did like the ATC <snip> approach of paying its leadership far below market rates and getting a true believer in the mission however. That changed a few years, ago. The last I checked they bumped the salary of its Executive Director up by $50k and saw the person they hired resign after a year on the job.

Anyone know why? The replacement they hired kept the new salary plus a bit, I think.



Wasn't Dave Startzell making ~$100K?

Do you know why Mark Wenger quit?

Why shouldn't Ron Tipton make the going rate? Have you seen his resume?

Added from http://www.charitynavigator.org/:





Compensation
% of Expenses
Paid to
Title



$272,110
1.34%
Andrew Falender
President (AMC)




$115,785
5.49%
Liz Bergeron
Executive Director (PCTA)




$106,800
1.42%
David N Startzell
Executive Director (ATC)




$157,160
0.30%
Peter Martin
Executive Director (Sierra Club)

[Jack Tarlin]

Re RickB's recent Post #42: I took his advice and looked into it. As of 2011, all of ten minutes study of public records revealed to me that the heads of such organizations as the Sierra Club, GreenPeace, The Audubon Society and many other similar non-profit "environmental" organizations make less, often MUCH less than the head of AMC. At more than a quarter million dollars a year, i.e. more than the salary of the present US Vice-President, Speaker of the House, or Supreme Court Justice, the head of the AMC makes a very handsome living indeed, and Rick's contention that critics of the AMC's salary policies are spreading "exaggeration" and "bulls***" is a statement that is hyperbolic and untrue.

[rickb]

Re RickB's recent Post #42: I took his advice and looked into it. As of 2011, all of ten minutes study of public records revealed to me that the heads of such organizations as the Sierra Club, GreenPeace, The Audubon Society and many other similar non-profit "environmental" organizations make less, often MUCH less than the head of AMC. At more than a quarter million dollars a year, i.e. more than the salary of the present US Vice-President, Speaker of the House, or Supreme Court Justice, the head of the AMC makes a very handsome living indeed, and Rick's contention that critics of the AMC's salary policies are spreading "exaggeration" and "bulls***" is a statement that is hyperbolic and untrue.



I just looked up one of the organizations cited. I would encourage other to do the same.

Mr David Yarnold who is the head of the national Audubon Society was reported to have made $460,489 in salary plus another $48,087 in benefits on the Form 990.

Jack's feelings towards the AMC may or may not have merit, but he simply is simply wrong on this point.

[JustaTouron]

Maybe it is just me but sometimes I get the feeling that thruhikers think thy own the AT. They moan and groan about every business that is within 20 miles of the trail that is not designed to cater their every whim. The believe they have a greater right to shelters then weekend hikers. The are upset at an organization that maintains the trails and shelters in two states and parts of two others because that organization dares to have huts that are designed to accommodate weekend and week long hikers rather than thru hikers. How dare that a portion of the trail be designed to accommodate the short term hikers over the long term hikers. How dare anyone that is going to hike the entire think they have the right to hike part of it. The role of those folks are to clear the blow downs, not hike the trail. And to make sure all signs and blazes meet the standards of the most particular of thruhikers.

The AMC can live without thru-hikers. Without the AMC you don't have a trail in CT, MA and parts of NH &ME.

[Sly]

I just looked up one of the organizations cited. I would encourage other to do the same.

Mr David Yarnold who is the head of the national Audubon Society was reported to have made $460,489 in salary plus another $48,087 in benefits on the Form 990.

Jack's feelings towards the AMC may or may not have merit, but he simply is simply wrong on this point.

Can you link it?



Compensation
% of Expenses
Paid to
Title



$164,754
0.19%
David Yarnol
President and CEO




http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4160#.UgrpI9JwqSo

However, it appears the Audubon Society likes golden parachutes.



$385,146
0.44%
John Flicker
Former President and CEO



$109,846
0.12%
Frank Gill
Former President and CEO

[rickb]

Sly,

The Sierra Club is a complex organization. Donations to one arm "Sierra Club" are not deductible, while donations to another arm "The Sierra Club Foundation" are. It has to do with their political lobbying and how lawyers structure such things.

it also makes compensation difficult to follow. That organization had many highly paid positions, but you did not identify the top dog. Debora Sorondo, Chief Operating Officer was reported to have been paid just $202,131 from "The Sierra Club" but was also paid an Additional $348,658 in other compensation and from other related organizations. It's all on their last tax for if you look carefully.

A slap in the face, I know.

The ATC was always very different in that they paid this senior staff very little. And yet they got great people. From what I am seeing, the ATC is following the path (catching up?) by paying its leadership more-- but still less than comparable organizations. Having the fit leader is all important. Conventional wisdom says you need to pay for talent. I am sure that holds true most places. Somehow, I think the ATC would be served best by going for commitment over connections, political savvy and financial sophistication. Bigger is not always better, and sometime less is more. I know that could be naive.

[hikerboy57]

Can you link it?



Compensation
% of Expenses
Paid to
Title



$164,754
0.19%
David Yarnol
President and CEO




http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4160#.UgrpI9JwqSo

i see theres a difference in the predecessors salaries.
how are these clubs salaries determined?

[Sly]

how are these clubs salaries determined?

Beats me, I called in sick that day.

[rickb]

Can you link it?



Compensation
% of Expenses
Paid to
Title



$164,754
0.19%
David Yarnol
President and CEO




http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4160#.UgrpI9JwqSo

However, it appears the Audubon Society likes golden parachutes.



$385,146
0.44%
John Flicker
Former President and CEO



$109,846
0.12%
Frank Gill
Former President and CEO




Sly,

Here is a screen shot from their 2011 tax filing (form 990). Go to guidestar.org and look around.

[Sly]

I'll copy and paste, you decide:

AMC



Overall
57.16
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/3stars.png


Financial
52.10
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/3starsb.png


Accountability & Transparency
67.00
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4starsb.png


ATC



Overall
66.32
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4stars.png


Financial
65.76
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4starsb.png


Accountability & Transparency
67.00
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4starsb.png



Sierra Club



Overall
66.08
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4stars.png


Financial
65.34
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4starsb.png


Accountability & Transparency
67.00
http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/icons/stars/4starsb.png

[rickb]

We no doubt agree that the ATC is worthy of our support!

[Sly]

I'll concede that Jack (and I) may be wrong about the Audubon Society.

However, you seem to think the director of the ATC should work for nothing but don't ask the same for the director of the AMC.

[JustaTouron]

I'll concede that Jack (and I) may be wrong about the Audubon Society.

However, you seem to think the director of the ATC should work for nothing but don't ask the same for the director of the AMC.

Are you a member of the AMC? I am. My dues pay the salary of the director. I don't got a problem with the way they run things. If any of my fellow member have problem with they never mentioned it while we were hiking or doing trail maintenance. I guess if we dues paying members had an issue with the AMC they would have to change.

[Sly]

Are you a member of the AMC? I am. My dues pay the salary of the director. I don't got a problem with the way they run things. If any of my fellow member have problem with they never mentioned it while we were hiking or doing trail maintenance. I guess if we dues paying members had an issue with the AMC they would have to change.

I could be mistaken but I don't think I ever said I had a problem with the AMC or how much the director was paid. I was comparing it to the ATC. Both pay their directors nearly the same as far as % of operating expenses. Some of the higher salaries of the other non-profits are far less in % of operating expenses, which is also fine by me.

[rickb]

I'll concede that Jack (and I) may be wrong about the Audubon Society.

However, you seem to think the director of the ATC should work for nothing but don't ask the same for the director of the AMC.

i can see how you might interpret what I am saying that way.

But I don't think that way at all.

I think the membership should simply get the best person for the job. Different organizations require different sets of skills.

I know that the ATC is a sophisticated operation. Even so, I think it would be best managed by a home-grown true believer whose love of the Trail would trump the kind of talents that money can buy. To put it another way, I think the kind of person who would demand a large salary could do more harm than good. The trail needs to be protected, not made better. The ATC needs to keep its focus on volunteers and grassroots, not politics and endowments. just my opinion.

Another organization like the AMC that is raising 10s of millions in donations to protect land Maine (their permit in the Whites is renewed every 30 years if you want to be cynical), and has 80,000 plus members, a publishing arm, many properties and initiatives and which looks to always do "more" needs another kind of individual. My guess is that the membership and board knows that that requires talent that is purchased.

Bottom line is each organization should do what it takes to get the kind of leadership they want.

[wakapak]

The OP makes a good point about the AMC despite the "Catcher in the Rye" analogy. The AMC is a rich and powerful club. They have far more money, power and clout than the ATC. It's board of directors are rich people. They throw their weight around with the Forest Service, National Park Service, New England State Governments and the ATC. You might think that a simple hiking club with a handful of outdoor enthusiasts would not evolve into such a monster. They have an attitude similar to the PATC that they are in charge and can make the rules the want either directly or through influence at the National and State level. Why else could a private club make many millions of dollars on land owned by the people of the United States? The elitist attitude that most thru-hikers feel when enter these clubs turf is obvious to most. They say that they are limiting the shelters and campsites available to hikers because they need to protect the environment. That is why you should spend huge sums of money to stay in the huts. The trail clubs need to all be tossed out of government land and the AT returned to the citizens. The ATC needs to take over management of the trail in reality as opposed to being a front organization.

So the ATC should take over management in The Whites even thought the AT only uses a small portion of trails that are actually in The Whites? no way...there's far more trails and areas to maintain, protect and keep up than just the AT up here in The Whites. There's far more people hiking up here in The Whites than hiking on the AT in a given year too. I don't agree with everything the AMC does, but I will say that the organization as a whole keeps these mountains and trails in great condition for everyone to enjoy, from the dayhiker to an AT thru-hiker.

And to those saying the AT is hard to follow up here in The Whites, you just have to be able to read signs and a map truly, which is true backpacking. The trails in the Whites have been around way longer than the AT has, so they weren't going to be re-named just because the AT traverses over the same trail...

[Mountain Mike]

Ezra, We still pay and volunteer. We just don't do that with the AMC. We give them the toss. The new trail managers will be part of the Federal Government. Yes they will do a much better than the "for profit AMC club". The NPS does a much better job than the AMC in other National Parks. Even the much overcrowded Grand Canyon NP offers better management. The AMC wants to cater to the rich. That is why they treat thru-hikers so poorly.
I grew up hiking in the Whites. Like LW said they predate much of the AT. The build & maintain the trails. It's a high use area wher they have built composter privys. One year I helped them clear the landing zone at Etan Pond for the four helicopter drops it took to fly the materials in just to build one. Someone has to mantain them. I've helped to see how it was done at Garfield Ridge CS. It's not a pleasent chore! Aftr hiking the AT & mst of PCT I will take the AMC over any National Park!
AMC is part of ATC & runs programs throuout the year teaching first aid, leave no trace, climbing, etc. Sorry if they don't cater personally to every thru hiker even though they offer work for stay.

[Slo-go'en]

The problem here is your that comparing apples to oranges.

The AMC is in the lodging buisness and the others are not. The AMC owns some pretty prime real estate since they got into this nearly 100 years ago. They also have a publishing buisness, selling all those maps and guides. All this has to be properly managed. They maybe non-profit (and a good thing they are), but they are a buisness with significant physical assets which need to be maintained and managed.

[Sly]

Wak, you'll be pulling hair out of your head trying to follow Moldy's logic. On other threads, ALDHA and the ATC are evil organisations trying to brainwash hikers.

[Mountain Mike]

Stay in one place to long & mold will grow on you, best to keep hiking!

[Lemni Skate]

Man, that's one giant chip on your shoulder!

[rocketsocks]

Stay in one place to long & mold will grow on you, best to keep hiking!
A rolling stone gathers no moss

[rocketsocks]

A rolling stone gathers no moss
23401

don't let this happen to you.

[moldy]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

[hikerboy57]

$8 fees are hardly catering to the rich.the hut stay is about the same as a motel once you factor in meals.
the amc does not own the smokies which has similar restrictions.rmc also charges a fee at their sites and they maintain over 100 trails in n.nh.
when you are planning hiking the whites, plan thinking the huts never existed, you know, the huts the amc built that everyone complains about?pretend theyre not there.
the planners of the at decided to use existing amc trails, not the other way around

[Symba]

The problem here is your that comparing apples to oranges.

The AMC is in the lodging buisness and the others are not. The AMC owns some pretty prime real estate since they got into this nearly 100 years ago. They also have a publishing buisness, selling all those maps and guides. All this has to be properly managed. They maybe non-profit (and a good thing they are), but they are a buisness with significant physical assets which need to be maintained and managed.
Well stated and agreed my friend.

[Symba]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

Ugh, there are so many people visiting the Whites that the clubs need to monitor the leave no trace practice, make sure people don't decimate the landscape. Their practices of 'control' are needed in such an area. A lot of people learn to treat the environment with care by utilizing this system of huts. I, for one as a long distance hiker, would like to have the choice to not have to camp in 'their' designated areas. A possible solution could be a 'long distance backpacker' permit that may allow those who can show their ability to LNT stealth camping practices. It won't happen, just a suggestion. The monies are needed up there in the Whites to help with costs to keep it pristine. Imagine all those visitors not staying on the trail, disregarding the 'rules' of that area of trail for their own use. I reside near the AT in PA/NJ/NY. It is volunteer work at it's best but you still see where people freely camp, impact the landscape, build fires wherever THEY want, and leave garbage. If there was a system of huts in place with the campsites it would be more pristine IMHO. I always pick up garbage when I day hike. I always stop at shelters to see if anyone needs help. Not everyone knows how to 'BE.' So, in actuality a system in some areas has to be in place to protect what we all LOOK at. just my two cents.

[Sly]

Does the AMC act like they own the Whites?

Let's see, they build and maintain trail, they build and maintain huts, they build and maintain shelters and campsite, they probably maintain trailheads, they have had, and continue to have a zillion year lease with the US Forest Service (who doesn't have the budget to do what the AMC does).

Why would they think they own the Whites!? :-?

[Tuckahoe]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

What you see as "the AMC acting likle it own's the Whites" I see as the AMC working to manage and lessen the impact of people/hikers on a fragile environment. As many have pointed out you dont have to use the huts, and paying a small fee to the folks that manage the area is very reasonable.

[JustaTouron]

A possible solution could be a 'long distance backpacker' permit that may allow those who can show their ability to LNT stealth camping practices.

What does one thing have to do with another. I know day hikers who practice LNT and there are thru-hikers who either don't know or totally disregard LNT.

Maybe the problem is you get spoiled in the Smokes were they have a special permit just for thru-hikers allowing you to play by different rules, fees and reservations than folks on a weekend or week long vacation. The whites don't treat AT hikers inferior to other hikers, they just don't offer special treatment.

[Jack Tarlin]

Tuckahoe: The AMC's constant claim of being passionately concerned about the fragility of the environment they're involved with would hold a lot more water if it weren't for the fact that they spend thousands of dollars every year on ads, glossy brochures, websites, etc. encouraging thousands of people (many woefully ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with and respect this environment) to visit there. If the White Mountains were a National Park, it'd be one of, if not the most visited National Park in the United States, and most of this visitation occurs in just a few short months of the year. If the AMC was TRULY interested in the fragility of this area, then maybe they wouldn't expend so much effort trying to get more people to visit each year. By the way, I have no problem at all with small fees that cover the cost/expense of maintaining high-use campsites; Ridgerunner/caretaker programs, etc., but it is a simple truth that the best way to reduce high-impact damage to over-used locales and destinations is to have fewer people visit them. Enticing countless thousands of folks to visit fragile and at-risk areas seems like an odd sort of way to protect them.

[Lone Wolf]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

wow. you are ignorant

[peakbagger]

If someone wants to understand the hows and whys of AMC and their relationship to the WMNF, they would need to review the EIS that they had to develop when their lease/special use permit was renewed with the FS about 15 years ago. I happen to have a copy of it in my collection. They had to look at three options, rip en down, go limited services or keep what they got. Contrary to popular opinion the AMC doesn't own the land under the huts but they do have permit to operate a hut system on USFS land. They along with the USFS develop a management plan to manage the huts. The USFS is the entity that sets the rules on where folks can camp in high use areas. If the huts weren't there it is highly likely that the options for staying along the ridgeline would be far less.

Subsequent to getting the permit AMC has aggressively gone to only building facilities on land they own and control, one of the reasons that they bought the large amount of acreage in the 100 mile wilderness and that they built the Highland Center on their own land. If its on there own land they have far less federal oversight.

[Sly]

The whites don't treat AT hikers inferior to other hikers, they just don't offer special treatment.

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

[JustaTouron]

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

As opposed to $98+ tax for non-thru hikers.

You're effective wage was about $130 per hour.

Wasn't the complaint that thru-hikers were being treated poorly?

[rickb]

If someone wants to understand the hows and whys of AMC and their relationship to the WMNF, they would need to review the EIS that they had to develop when their lease/special use permit was renewed with the FS about 15 years ago. I happen to have a copy of it in my collection. They had to look at three options, rip en down, go limited services or keep what they got. Contrary to popular opinion the AMC doesn't own the land under the huts but they do have permit to operate a hut system on USFS land. They along with the USFS develop a management plan to manage the huts. The USFS is the entity that sets the rules on where folks can camp in high use areas. If the huts weren't there it is highly likely that the options for staying along the ridgeline would be far less.

Subsequent to getting the permit AMC has aggressively gone to only building facilities on land they own and control, one of the reasons that they bought the large amount of acreage in the 100 mile wilderness and that they built the Highland Center on their own land. If its on there own land they have far less federal oversight.


Well, they don't own the land under most huts :).

One thing that is often forgotten is that the Huts effectively subsidize the cost of other AMC initiatives in the Whites, which hikers enjoy for no cost, or -- in the case of the caretaker campsites--much less than the actual cost of the provided service.

In effect, those staying in the huts are helping underwrite the experience of those who don't. The financials associated wi the huts were included in the EIS. While the huts are operated at a profit the overall operation in The Whites operated at a loss-- at least at the time the figures were laid out in the EIS. The actual operating cost was surprisingly expensive. I am surprised more people don't see the poetry in having the folks staying at the huts paying for so much that we get for free!

The delta is covered by the members and donors to the AMC, of course. We should be especially thankful for the land that the AMC has forever protected around the hundred mile wilderness, when few others could or would. And the respect the extended to the local community in the process.

Oh yea, Another thing that is forgotten is the range of options to simply pitch a tent or hammock in the woods. Not everywhere, but in far more places than some think is permitted by the Forest Service.

We are better off for the AMC. And for most of us the benefits didn't cost one thin dime.

[Symba]

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

That is an awesome deal SLY!!! Back in 2000 I was at a shelter down south, forgetting where, but there were ATC managers there for a meeting and one of them was a professional chef. I offered to pay for my meal with them, they invited everyone in the shelter; shelter was in eyes view of the house. Most of us went up; I did all the dishes with another hiker without their asking. It was awesome. I would have cleaned the whole house for them if they asked! Grand trail magic!!! I only went through the Smokies once, I'm not spoiled; it was a thoughtful suggestion. If I knew I was going completely through all the hut systems in the Whites I'd purchase a 'thru' pass to cut back on costs staying in bunk housing. It is a suggestion, nothing else justatouron.

[LIhikers]

It is true that it costs a lot of money to stay there, but when you consider the maintenance, cost of paid workers (mostly college students), cost of food/fuel, repairs, etc. it is understandable. I believe the question came up during one of my stays about how they get those propane tanks up there, and the answer was by helicopter, 1 tank at a time due to the weight. I believe it costs several hundred dollars an hour to fly a helicopter including loading and unloading time.

As a helicopter mechanic, with more years of experience than I'd care to admit, I can assure you that it costs several THOUSANDS of dollars an hour for commercial helicopters.

[JustaTouron]

As a helicopter mechanic, with more years of experience than I'd care to admit, I can assure you that it costs several THOUSANDS of dollars an hour for commercial helicopters.



$1,650 hourly rate for helicopter


http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/campsites-faq.cfm

The AMC might be getting a good rate being it is charity.

[Sly]

As opposed to $98+ tax for non-thru hikers.

You're effective wage was about $130 per hour.

Wasn't the complaint that thru-hikers were being treated poorly?

However, on the other hand, I did a work for stay at a $6 dollar a night shelter and worked a full hour hauling 5 gallon buckets of mineral soil and huge boulders. I would have paid $12 not to work so hard.

[jbwood5]

$1,650 hourly rate for helicopter


http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/campsites-faq.cfm

The AMC might be getting a good rate being it is charity.

The link really answers a lot about the expenses. I wonder if that is a recent update.... or a few years old. Thanks for the helicopter rates. Come to think of it, I got my figures from an electric company pilot many years ago when I used to be a spotter when they patrolled large cross country power lines for broken/damaged/shot at insulators, or downed wires. I'm really dating myself when I tell you it was the late 1970's when I did that work. LOL

I figure in the peak season, one AMC hut grosses about $35K a week.

[JustaTouron]

The link really answers a lot about the expenses. I wonder if that is a recent update.... or a few years old. Thanks for the helicopter rates. Come to think of it, I got my figures from an electric company pilot many years ago when I used to be a spotter when they patrolled large cross country power lines for broken/damaged/shot at insulators, or downed wires. I'm really dating myself when I tell you it was the late 1970's when I did that work. LOL

I figure in the peak season, one AMC hut grosses about $35K a week.

They cite the years 2011 & 2012 on the page so it can't be too old. They also mention that for the $8 campsites and shelters the fee pays 50% the expense with the rest coming from other sources. The huts might be breaking even or even making a profit.

If that is the case, then the weekend hikers dropping ~ $100 a night are subsiding the $8 a night thru hikers. Horribly elitist.

[wakapak]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.

[Lone Wolf]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.you would think thru-hikers would know how to bed down for the night by the time they get to the whites without having to pay for a place. sadly, most don't. they really aren't comfortable in the woods

[wakapak]

you would think thru-hikers would know how to bed down for the night by the time they get to the whites without having to pay for a place. sadly, most don't. they really aren't comfortable in the woods

seriously.....:rolleyes:

[Chaco Taco]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.

I was one of these people. I had my own opinion of the AMC after reading a bunch of stuff here, but when I actually got here and saw some of the BS the caretakers deal with, my opinion changed, quickly. Until you actually live up here and see how the AMC works aside from the AT, then you can make an informed decision and not be slightly ignorant, as I once was. There are some things I dislike about the AMC, but on the whole, the AMC is good up here. Id hate to imagine of they were not part of it and it was left solely to volunteers. Tourists and some, not all thruhikers would destroy the Whites.

[MuddyWaters]

In such a high-use area, someone has to keep the riff-raff in line.

[Tom Murphy]

In such a high-use area, someone has to keep the riff-raff in line.

The USFS makes the rules not the AMC. The huts are so easily avoided with a tiny bit of planning. Drop down off the ridge and there are plenty of legal places to camp.

[Nooga]

And to those saying the AT is hard to follow up here in The Whites, you just have to be able to read signs and a map truly, which is true backpacking. The trails in the Whites have been around way longer than the AT has, so they weren't going to be re-named just because the AT traverses over the same trail...

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

[Lone Wolf]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

dude, wakapak is a lady. the AT through the Whites is borrowing their trail. carry a map, pay attention and quit whining. otherwise just skip the 120 miles

[JustaTouron]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

How do you know the sharpe corrections were done by hikers and not by the AMC while the new signs were being made, to reflect the trail relo?

[Chaco Taco]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.
Wow, maybe Im missing something but if you cant follow the AT through The Whites then you really shouldnt be hiking up here. There are more blazes marking the AT and more signs than any other trail up here. They add MORE signs EVERY year and more blazes. This thing with the sharpies is ridiculous. Ditch your guidebooks and buy a friggin map when you get up here and see for yourself how easy it is to navigate up here. 10 years ago, yea. It might have been more difficult, but TODAY, the trail might as well be paved in the Whites.

And yea, my lady is a lady, not a dude.

[Slo-go'en]

How do you know the sharpe corrections were done by hikers and not by the AMC while the new signs were being made, to reflect the trail relo?

There hasn't been any trail relo's in the Whites in many, many years. That's why thier all erroded down to bed rock. A better reason is someone "clarified" the direction as unless you know the trail name, you might not realise it's part of the AT. And above tree line, which way a trail goes is often not real obvious.

[wakapak]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

Can I ask you when the last time was that you were hiking on the AT up here in the Whites? I've been on quite a bit of it this year and haven't seen any hand-marked with sharpie on signs. Matter of fact there are quite a number of newer looking signs up here in the Whites, due to that constant trail maintenance the pesky AMC likes to do. As people have stated in other threads, it's always best to carry maps with you, especially up here where the AT borrows long existing trails as it winds through these mountains. On the AT maps are also the names of the trails it borrows and on maps of the Whites the AT is also marked. The signs I've seen up here this year do have either AT or Appalachian Trail also printed on them with an arrow indicating the direction. It may not be the heading or in bold print, but it's definitely on the signs.

[ams212001]

The OP does not respond to any posts and often posts about controversial topics. Perhaps he is a troll.

[JustaTouron]

There hasn't been any trail relo's in the Whites in many, many years. That's why thier all erroded down to bed rock. A better reason is someone "clarified" the direction as unless you know the trail name, you might not realise it's part of the AT. And above tree line, which way a trail goes is often not real obvious.

Oh, the signs weren't wrong, it was just the equivalent of having a sign in VT that says "long trail" but not "AT" and expecting the hiker to know that the long trail and the AT are the same in that section.

[wakapak]

Oh, the signs weren't wrong, it was just the equivalent of having a sign in VT that says "long trail" but not "AT" and expecting the hiker to know that the long trail and the AT are the same in that section.

If anyone is setting out for any extended time on the Trail, then they should be doing a little research about the Trail in the area they are hiking. If they don't and then they complain about "not knowing" that the Trail is also using another trail with a different name, then it's their own fault really.

[JustaTouron]

If anyone is setting out for any extended time on the Trail, then they should be doing a little research about the Trail in the area they are hiking. If they don't and then they complain about "not knowing" that the Trail is also using another trail with a different name, then it's their own fault really.

Just out of curiosity: do the major guides (companion, databook, at guide) point out that in the whites the trails have different names and what names they are? Cause if not that is flaw in the books. If they do then the problem is user error.

[Rasty]

There hasn't been any trail relo's in the Whites in many, many years. That's why thier all erroded down to bed rock. A better reason is someone "clarified" the direction as unless you know the trail name, you might not realise it's part of the AT. And above tree line, which way a trail goes is often not real obvious.

Oh, the signs weren't wrong, it was just the equivalent of having a sign in VT that says "long trail" but not "AT" and expecting the hiker to know that the long trail and the AT are the same in that section.

It's the hikers responsibility to know where they are going.

[hikerboy57]

from the companion
"The White Mountains—One of the most impressive sections of the A.T., the Whitesoff er magnifi cent views with miles of above-treeline travel. Extra caution should be
exercised while above treeline, due to rapidly changing weather and the lack of
protection from it. Carry cold-weather gear, even in the middle of summer. Winter
weather, including sleet, snow, and ice, is possible on these high ridges year-round.
Each year, carelessness ends in death for a few visitors to the Whites. Pay close attention
at Trail intersections. Th e Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) maintains
many trails that cross the A.T., and the A.T. route is commonly referred to on signs
and in guidebooks by the name of the local trail it follows, such as “Franconia Ridge
Trail.” (And, to add to the confusion, sections above treeline from Mizpah Hut to
Madison Hut are oft en marked with yellow blazes on rock cairns, to stand out in the
snow.) When above treeline, stay on the Trail. Th is alpine zone is home to very
fragile plants. One misplaced bootstep can destroy them"

[Marta]

FWIW, I found the Whites to be confusing at times when I hiked through in '06. The ATC map set didn't work for me there. After I bought a set of AMC maps I was happier. Part of the problem was areas where heavy use had caused lots of paths to be trampled, offering choices that weren't on the maps. (Harriman SP was even worse that way.) My question became not why doesn't the AMC do a better job marking the AT but Why don't the AT maps show the trail names in the Presidentials? If they just printed Crawford Path, etc. on the maps, problem solved.

Who knows, maybe the new maps do.

Seven years ago today, I wrote in my TJ:

"While I was eating lunch at Zealand Falls Hut I was impressed again at how unfriendly the Croos are. I've decided, though, that it's just because they're yankees and don't know any better."

LOL

The reality is, if less-than-ideal trail markings and people who don't smile when you walk in the room are the worst of your problems, you're having a pretty good hike.

Walk on, friends.

[JustaTouron]

from the companion
"The White Mountains—One of the most impressive sections of the A.T., the Whitesoff er magnifi cent views with miles of above-treeline travel. Extra caution should be
exercised while above treeline, due to rapidly changing weather and the lack of
protection from it. Carry cold-weather gear, even in the middle of summer. Winter
weather, including sleet, snow, and ice, is possible on these high ridges year-round.
Each year, carelessness ends in death for a few visitors to the Whites. Pay close attention
at Trail intersections. Th e Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) maintains
many trails that cross the A.T., and the A.T. route is commonly referred to on signs
and in guidebooks by the name of the local trail it follows, such as “Franconia Ridge
Trail.” (And, to add to the confusion, sections above treeline from Mizpah Hut to
Madison Hut are oft en marked with yellow blazes on rock cairns, to stand out in the
snow.) When above treeline, stay on the Trail. Th is alpine zone is home to very
fragile plants. One misplaced bootstep can destroy them"

Then quite frankly, I think the companion should do a better job. Rather than complain/warn about the Whites is should read something like this:

(I am making up the landmarks, don't use this as a guide:)

1.2 miles past the route 9 the AT joins the laughing duck trail east for the next 5.8 miles. (most signs for the next 5.8 miles will refer to the smiling duck trail not the AT. You will see both white blazes and yellow circles.

.2 miles after sunset hut the AT splits from laughing duck trail follow the signs and white blazers for the AT.

at mile marker 925 the AT joins the the laughing girl trail west for the next 2.6 miles you won't see many white blazes, follow the pink diamonds.

Rather than whine about the whites at the AMC, the guide books should guide you thru the whites. If they aren't doing that shame on the authors of the guidebooks rather than the AMC.

[hikerboy57]

from awols guide c/o chin music's tj
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/ChinMusicIHSS/null_zps94f30e95.jpg


they name the trails.or you can invest $9.95 in a maphttp://amcstore.outdoors.org/amcstore/product.asp?s_id=0&prod_name=White+Mountains+Trail+Map%3A+Presidentia l+Range&pf_id=PACOIDBPKAHABHKJ&dept_id=3023

[JustaTouron]

from awols guide c/o chin music's tj
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/ChinMusicIHSS/null_zps94f30e95.jpg


they name the trails.or you can invest $9.95 in a maphttp://amcstore.outdoors.org/amcstore/product.asp?s_id=0&prod_name=White+Mountains+Trail+Map%3A+Presidentia l+Range&pf_id=PACOIDBPKAHABHKJ&dept_id=3023

Oh, so if the guidebooks do have maps and explain the route...what it he big deal? Read your guidebook.

[atmilkman]

from awols guide c/o chin music's tj
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/ChinMusicIHSS/null_zps94f30e95.jpg


they name the trails.or you can invest $9.95 in a maphttp://amcstore.outdoors.org/amcstore/product.asp?s_id=0&prod_name=White+Mountains+Trail+Map%3A+Presidentia l+Range&pf_id=PACOIDBPKAHABHKJ&dept_id=3023

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I we're hiking the AT NOBO I assume I would be on the Osgood Trail NOBO (which would actually be south according to a compass) then at the Osgood Tent Site I would take the Osgood Cutoff to the east (which would actually be to the west according to a compass) which actually bends back to the south according to a compass. Then I would take the Great Gulf Trail to the east according to directions which would actually be west according to a compass and finally taking the Madison Gulf Trail which is also the AT north again which is actually south according to a compass. Am I reading this right give or take a few degrees?

[hikerboy57]

correct .

[atmilkman]

correct .

Well hell. That ought to tell people something if I can figure it out. I'm from Bama. We only know which way the end zone is. (shameless plug) ROLL TIDE!

[hikerboy57]

it's actually less confusing on the trail itselfthe signs are all clearly marked

[Alligator]

Awol's guide is not exactly a map guidebook, nor is the Companion. They are more for services. The map guidebooks which come with the ATC maps have the level of detail suggested. I don't have one handy at the moment to give an exact quote of a trail. There's also the White Mountain guide and that is very detailed too. One would have a really hard time getting lost with the maps and the guidebooks associated with those maps.

[jeffmeh]

I repeatedly encourage people to carry a "real" trail map through the Whites. The odds are pretty high of severe weather (particularly a thunderstorm) making it prudent to get below tree line ASAP. Knowing about the trails that are not the AT can get you to the best point of egress quickly. And if you need to hanker down for a while and use up your supplies, knowing how to get out to a road is not a bad idea either.

I feel the same way about those heading through the Smokies early when heavy snow is a real possibility.

Sure, there is plenty of trail on the AT where a map is not really required, and plenty of thru-hikers have gone without them altogether, but in certain sections having a trail map is just a basic, smart, safety precaution.

If one cannot follow the AT in the Whites, and is looking to assign blame, find a mirror.

[hikerboy57]

by the way, if you doubt the fury of mt washington winds, read chin musics tj account of a few days ago.

[JustaTouron]

correct .

As you seem familiar with both the companion and the guide? Does one of these do a better job than the other of laying out stuff exactly the way milkman did. 'Cause if so that would be a reason to choose one over the other.

Based on what I have read above here is what I would like to see in a guide (adapted to what ever format the guide actually uses)

Take the Osgood trail N (but the compass will read south) over this section for X.X miles.
At the the osgood campsite take the osgood cut off E (but compass will read west then south) for x.x miles
At the Great Gulf trail go E (compass would read west)
etc.

I don't think it is the AMC job to accommodate the AT and AT hikers, by relabeling trails that predated the AT.

But for $16 my expectation is that AWOL will make it easy for me to navigate it. Hopefully THAT isn't an unreasonable expectation which would cause someone to view me as being "entitled".

[Trance]

You dont even need a guidebook for the AT. I just went to summitpost and printed up the mileage and names of points on the trail and started hiking. The #1 thing I saw when I started my section at Springer in April was a ton of people who had "overprepared".

[hikerboy57]

the at guide, i believe is superior to the companion, although to a certain extent, they supplement each other. the guide has more maps,lists more water sources and campssites than the companion, as well as amazingly deceptive elevation maps( when it looked tough it wasnt, when it looked easy, it wasnt.)
for my thru next spring i'll probably go with the guide, although im an aldha member, the companion is free in pdf form to aldha members, so i'll have that as well.

[Alligator]

As you seem familiar with both the companion and the guide? Does one of these do a better job than the other of laying out stuff exactly the way milkman did. 'Cause if so that would be a reason to choose one over the other.

Based on what I have read above here is what I would like to see in a guide (adapted to what ever format the guide actually uses)

Take the Osgood trail N (but the compass will read south) over this section for X.X miles.
At the the osgood campsite take the osgood cut off E (but compass will read west then south) for x.x miles
At the Great Gulf trail go E (compass would read west)
etc.

I don't think it is the AMC job to accommodate the AT and AT hikers, by relabeling trails that predated the AT.

But for $16 my expectation is that AWOL will make it easy for me to navigate it. Hopefully THAT isn't an unreasonable expectation which would cause someone to view me as being "entitled".No not entitled but you are misunderstanding the level of detail allowable in AWOL's guide and the Companion. Every mapset for the AT has a guidebook at the level of detail you are wanting. If you put all of that information into one book, it would fill up an extremely large book.

[JustaTouron]

You dont even need a guidebook for the AT. .

You don't need a guide book for Disney World either. But I found having the unofficial guide to Disney was well worth the cost in the time and money saved based on their advice. I know people who went to Europe without a guidebook, too. Personally, for $16 and a few ounces I would rather have someone list for me my eating, sleeping and water gathering options along with giving me clear advice on how to navigate the tricky sections where "follow the white blazes" might not be enough.

[JustaTouron]

No not entitled but you are misunderstanding the level of detail allowable in AWOL's guide and the Companion. Every mapset for the AT has a guidebook at the level of detail you are wanting. If you put all of that information into one book, it would fill up an extremely large book.

I am not looking for that amount of detail everywhere. My understanding is for 95% of the trail, "follow the white blazes" is more than enough. But IMHO in the particularly tricky sections there ought be more detail.

[atmilkman]

We're headed to the Whites in Oct. and will probably only do very, very limited day hikes. My brother-in-law grew up there. I know I would not need a map whatsoever. But I'm taking one that Sly sent me just for my own education for future hiking trips where I may be alone. I want an aerial picture in my mind of where I'm at. I want to learn. Maps help me learn.

[Trance]

You don't need a guide book for Disney World either. But I found having the unofficial guide to Disney was well worth the cost in the time and money saved based on their advice. I know people who went to Europe without a guidebook, too. Personally, for $16 and a few ounces I would rather have someone list for me my eating, sleeping and water gathering options along with giving me clear advice on how to navigate the tricky sections where "follow the white blazes" might not be enough.

The guidebook is extra weight... and you cant compare the AT to Disney World. Just do some research before you trip, type a few hostel numbers into your phone and where the pickups are(I barely even used hostels). At just about every major road crossing in GA/NC there were business cards and signs telling me about shuttles and food in town. There is water everywhere... carry a nalagene canteen and fill it. You'll be fine for the day.... and it's weight better spent. As for eating. Plan ahead. Carry stuff that doesnt go bad and is light. Dried fruit, peanut butter, freeze dried stuff, snickers, jerky.

Hiking the trail isn't about where the next McDonalds or Econo Lodge is.

Not trying to sound elitest either. Just saying.

[Trance]

Also... the only time I ever had a hard time finding a white blaze, was coming down from Blood Mountain.... for some reason there were like 4 of us confused looking for a blaze... but we backtracked and found it.

[max patch]

One strategy you may want to use re the Whites:

Not going to debate if you need maps or not. You do; thats a given.

Best time to buy maps is during the annual ATC sale from Thanksgiving to Christmas. For just about the cost of maps now, if you wait til the sale you basically get the maps and the State Guidebooks for the same price. Take the NH Guidebook with you and there is no way you'll have an issue.

[Alligator]

I am not looking for that amount of detail everywhere. My understanding is for 95% of the trail, "follow the white blazes" is more than enough. But IMHO in the particularly tricky sections there ought be more detail.They aren't really set up for that. They are service oriented and set up aiming for a certain amount of parsimony. What happens is you want X to be in the guide, and someone else want's a new town map, and then the book gets bloated. Often times the suggestions for additional material comes from people unwilling to carry a map or the relevant guidebook for that map. Knowing that the trail naming system is different in an area, you might want to have that map guidebook available.

Personally, I only carry portions of AWOL's guide and the Companion for supplementary information like whether tenting is available, where the water is, and how to get around town if I need a resupply. I did a lot of the trail without them though. I just carried the map. Navigation is really easy on the AT.

If there was something real specific though AWOL takes suggestions and you could probably make a suggestion to Sly as well.

[Awol2003]

The inset map that's shown in an earlier post is in the Southbound version of The A.T. Guide. It'll be in next year's Northbound book. My book has a notation throughout the Whites that is intended to help with the intersections. The AT is usually coincident with other named trails, and whenever the AT route changes from one trail to another, there is a notation like this: "Osgood Trail <> Great Gulf Trail". This means that as you travel northbound on the AT, you'll be switching from the Osgood Trail to the Great Gulf Trail. It's really just a hint to watch for a change at that point, and you may confirm the trail names on the signs you pass. The notation may seem cryptic at first glance, but keep in mind that there are more than 20 such transitions in the Whites, so there's not room for full sentences at all of those intersections. I just bought a map of the Whites that has great detail, from the Mountain Wanderer Shop in Lincoln. Shop owner Steve knows his stuff and recommended it. It is "Map Adventures White Mountains Waterfproof Trail Map" and it costs $9.95.

[JustaTouron]

The inset map that's shown in an earlier post is in the Southbound version of The A.T. Guide. It'll be in next year's Northbound book. My book has a notation throughout the Whites that is intended to help with the intersections. The AT is usually coincident with other named trails, and whenever the AT route changes from one trail to another, there is a notation like this: "Osgood Trail <> Great Gulf Trail". This means that as you travel northbound on the AT, you'll be switching from the Osgood Trail to the Great Gulf Trail. It's really just a hint to watch for a change at that point, and you may confirm the trail names on the signs you pass. The notation may seem cryptic at first glance, but keep in mind that there are more than 20 such transitions in the Whites, so there's not room for full sentences at all of those intersections. I just bought a map of the Whites that has great detail, from the Mountain Wanderer Shop in Lincoln. Shop owner Steve knows his stuff and recommended it. It is "Map Adventures White Mountains Waterfproof Trail Map" and it costs $9.95.

Fair enough. I wasn't looking for complete sentences, if Osgood Trail <> Great Gulf Trail is the notation that means that, that is fine.

May I offer TWO suggests neither of which I believe would add a single page in length to the guide: Just add more info to existing lines.

1) if part of the AT uses markings other than white blazes indicated that. I don't know how either those trails are actually marked but something like this Osgood Trail (yellow circles) <> Great Gulf Trail (pink squares). Likewise if side trail uses something other than blue blazes.

2) I know for the purposes of the guides E means right, not east; & W means left, not west. In parts of the trail where things are bit confusing add in the compass number. But don't get rid of the existing standards. Eg. instead of "Great Gulf Trail E" use "Great Gulf Trail E268". Which tells the reader its on your right, but it is actually almost due west. Particularly for directions not exactly on the AT. Such as the direction to a water source from a shelter that is a half mile down a side trail from the trail.

I really doubt either of these suggestions would add more than a 1/100 of a gram of ink to the book, nor a single page. And those who don't need the extra info could easily ignore it.

[Mags]

If navigation is really that much of an issue in the Whites, a $10 map solves the issue.

I do not know what people make an hour, but I know some of you spent more time discussing what should be done than probably what the $10 map is worth (https://www.mapadventures.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=12). ;)

Perhaps I've been out of the AT scene too long, but to expect a guidebook to have all the information needed to hike a trail is, to me, an unrealistic expectation. As Alligator stated, if a guidebook was to have every suggestion put forth, it would be one bloated book. (Of course, everyone's personal suggestion is obviously the most important and should be included. Natch? ;) )

For the AT, the guidebook is fine for 99% of the time....but not quite there. Take a map when in doubt.

[jeffmeh]

If navigation is really that much of an issue in the Whites, a $10 map solves the issue.

I do not know what people make an hour, but I know some of you spent more time discussing what should be done than probably what the $10 map is worth (https://www.mapadventures.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=12). ;)

Perhaps I've been out of the AT scene too long, but to expect a guidebook to have all the information needed to hike a trail is, to me, an unrealistic expectation. As Alligator stated, if a guidebook was to have every suggestion put forth, it would be one bloated book. (Of course, everyone's personal suggestion is obviously the most important and should be included. Natch? ;) )

For the AT, the guidebook is fine for 99% of the time....but not quite there. Take a map when in doubt.

Mags, do you have that one? I'm going to check it out when I'm up there this coming week. Some of my paper ones from my latest AMC Guide are getting pretty dog-eared.

[Pedaling Fool]

FWIW, I found the Whites to be confusing at times when I hiked through in '06. The ATC map set didn't work for me there. After I bought a set of AMC maps I was happier. Part of the problem was areas where heavy use had caused lots of paths to be trampled, offering choices that weren't on the maps. (Harriman SP was even worse that way.) My question became not why doesn't the AMC do a better job marking the AT but Why don't the AT maps show the trail names in the Presidentials? If they just printed Crawford Path, etc. on the maps, problem solved.

Who knows, maybe the new maps do.

Seven years ago today, I wrote in my TJ:

"While I was eating lunch at Zealand Falls Hut I was impressed again at how unfriendly the Croos are. I've decided, though, that it's just because they're yankees and don't know any better."

LOL

The reality is, if less-than-ideal trail markings and people who don't smile when you walk in the room are the worst of your problems, you're having a pretty good hike.

Walk on, friends.
My experience in the Whites are just about exactly the same as Marta's. I have no ill will torwards AMC. I will say that they are the only ones on the trail that truly do the maintenance on privies. You can't have maintenance-free privies that compost on their own. I was impressed with their process.

[jbwood5]

I used that map and I bought one for my wife to follow along when I called in updates. It is made of water resistant material and has the shelters, huts, campsites, contours, road crossings, etc. I believe we paid $8.95 each on Amazon shipped (my wife has Prime). Before I left, I outlined the AT in orange highlighter to cut down the searching. All the trails with the associated names are on there. Also, this map has all AMC and all the none AMC campsites as well.

I also just cut out the few needed pages from AWOLs guidebook and stuck those in a ziplock bag to assist with any town services I might need.

[Mags]

Mags, do you have that one? I'm going to check it out when I'm up there this coming week. Some of my paper ones from my latest AMC Guide are getting pretty dog-eared.

I do. I bought it a few years ago when I went backpacking with a buddy in NH during a family visit. Very good quality map. I remember using the AMC maps since that was what was avail. Had them in ziplock bags! :)
http://www.pmags.com/new-england-rambles

[Slo-go'en]

My brother-in-law grew up there. I know I would not need a map whatsoever. But I'm taking one that Sly sent me just for my own education <SNIP>

Oh, you'll need a map and not just for education. I'll go without a map anywhere else on the AT, but not around here. And that's after having studied maps and hiking in this area for close to 30 years. Ya just can't remember it all. At least not all the details.

[Sly]

Then quite frankly, I think the companion should do a better job. Rather than complain/warn about the Whites is should read something like this:

(I am making up the landmarks, don't use this as a guide:)

1.2 miles past the route 9 the AT joins the laughing duck trail east for the next 5.8 miles. (most signs for the next 5.8 miles will refer to the smiling duck trail not the AT. You will see both white blazes and yellow circles.

.2 miles after sunset hut the AT splits from laughing duck trail follow the signs and white blazers for the AT.

at mile marker 925 the AT joins the the laughing girl trail west for the next 2.6 miles you won't see many white blazes, follow the pink diamonds.

Rather than whine about the whites at the AMC, the guide books should guide you thru the whites. If they aren't doing that shame on the authors of the guidebooks rather than the AMC.



Neither the Companion nor the AT Guide are meant to be detailed trail guide books. The ATC publishes a series with a book for each state. The Companion is more of a town/resupply and shelter guide. Yes it has data points and lists reliable water sources, but not turn by turn directions like the state guides.

[hikerboy57]

Oh, you'll need a map and not just for education. I'll go without a map anywhere else on the AT, but not around here. And that's after having studied maps and hiking in this area for close to 30 years. Ya just can't remember it all. At least not all the details.
best map for the presis is the bradford washburn one.http://www.amazon.com/Bradford-Washburns-Washington-Heart-Presidential/dp/0910146977

[peakbagger]

FYI, if you need to get rescued in the whites and lack an adequate map, it will be cited int he decision to charge for the rescue as its part of the "10 essentials" referenced in the NH hike Safe website.

The Brad Washburn map is a great map of MT washington but only covers a small portion of the whites. There are several maps available that cover the entire forest at a adequate level of detail to follow the trails (not so good for bushwhacking as the Topo is quite dense.

[Bronk]

The trail clubs need to all be tossed out of government land and the AT returned to the citizens. The ATC needs to take over management of the trail in reality as opposed to being a front organization.

History has proven that the best way to protect lands and natural resources is for them to be held in private hands.

[Bronk]

Just curious Moldy...If you do not pay the trail back through donations to a club or volunteer your time doing trail maintenance through a club, how do you pay back the trail? Just curious.

Many do as I do...while hiking the trail if you see something that needs doing, do it. You don't have to join anything or give a dollar to anyone. If something needs fixing, fix it. If something needs cleaned up, clean it. There is a time and a place for organized activity, but if the truth were known I'd bet that the vast majority of trail maintenance happens spontaneously without anyone knowing about it. In the 850 miles I hiked on the AT I saw maintenance happening every day.

[Bronk]

The AMC wants to cater to the rich. That is why they treat thru-hikers so poorly.

Somebody has to pay the bills...thruhikers don't own the trail anymore than the AMC does.

[Bronk]

I have an issue with the AMC. IMO the sections of the AT maintained by the AMC were very poorly marked and infact many of the signs were incorrect. Previous hikers had corrected the signs with sharpies. Overall, I was treated well at the huts, with the exception of the Lake of the Clouds. I arrived about 15 minutes before their arbitrary cutoff and was denied work for stay. The weather was poor and storms were forecasted. I was advised that I could make Madison. Even though I was in thru hiker shape, I knew there was no way I could make it over Washington and to Madison before nightfall. I ended up paying full price to stay the night at Lake. I still deeply resent such callus attitude, given the danger of that section. Another issue I have was having to pay at AMC campsites which were no different that the campsites maintained by the MAC.

I would have left and camped along the trail...if questioned I would have said I was directed to continue on by the AMC and camped due to poor weather. They don't own the trail anymore than you were entitled to work for stay.

[Bronk]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/journey_intro.html

It's amazing that they made their entire journey without the luxury of shelters, maintained trails, or even the option of a meal in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we should consider how lucky we are to have the trail conditions that we have today. Good or bad, it's better than these guys had it.

Perhaps some people want this journey but can't have it because people are telling them when and where they should camp...

[Bronk]

so what did they expect when they get there?that something magically changed all this, knew they were coming?


expectations.

Many, even most from what I've seen, don't plan that far ahead...they buy a guidebook or the databook and look a week ahead at most. They hike hundreds of miles with everybody kissing their @ss and then encounter a bunch of rich college kids who have no idea what customer service is (they've probably spent their lives having their @sses kissed) and then wonder why everybody isn't bending over backwards to grant their every wish.

[Bronk]

This comment is factually inaccurate.

Those interested in making contributions to non profit organizations may wish to access guidestar.org for this kind of information.

I did like the ATC (not the AMC, I am drifting here) approach of paying its leadership far below market rates and getting a true believer in the mission however. That changed a few years, ago. The last I checked they bumped the salary of its Executive Director up by $50k and saw the person they hired resign after a year on the job.

Anyone know why? The replacement they hired kept the new salary plus a bit, I think.

in any event, one can make a great living working at a non profit. But those kinds of exaggeration are not informing. You should ask yourself who told you that bull**** and why.

Always ask to see their 990 before you give to any nonprofit...

[Bronk]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line. They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders. It's funny that in the National Geographic movie they call the Appalachian Trail "the peoples trail". The AMC wants to make it "the rich peoples trail", either pay up or crawl under a rock and die. No wonder thru-hikers get the feeling that the AMC owns the Whites.

In a high use area with a lot of rich people, it is what it is. Count it lucky that there are any options at all.

[Bronk]

Tuckahoe: The AMC's constant claim of being passionately concerned about the fragility of the environment they're involved with would hold a lot more water if it weren't for the fact that they spend thousands of dollars every year on ads, glossy brochures, websites, etc. encouraging thousands of people (many woefully ill-equipped and ill-prepared to deal with and respect this environment) to visit there. If the White Mountains were a National Park, it'd be one of, if not the most visited National Park in the United States, and most of this visitation occurs in just a few short months of the year. If the AMC was TRULY interested in the fragility of this area, then maybe they wouldn't expend so much effort trying to get more people to visit each year. By the way, I have no problem at all with small fees that cover the cost/expense of maintaining high-use campsites; Ridgerunner/caretaker programs, etc., but it is a simple truth that the best way to reduce high-impact damage to over-used locales and destinations is to have fewer people visit them. Enticing countless thousands of folks to visit fragile and at-risk areas seems like an odd sort of way to protect them.

Yes, but most of the people who use huts are essentially slackpacking...which means they probably aren't cleaning their cooking pot in water sources or leaving trash in shelters and fire rings and all other manner of things that people who tent camp do. At the end of the day its probably a wash as far as impact goes.

[Bronk]

Subsequent to getting the permit AMC has aggressively gone to only building facilities on land they own and control, one of the reasons that they bought the large amount of acreage in the 100 mile wilderness and that they built the Highland Center on their own land. If its on there own land they have far less federal oversight.

Private land will probably be better managed...

[Chaco Taco]

Awol's guide is not exactly a map guidebook, nor is the Companion. They are more for services. The map guidebooks which come with the ATC maps have the level of detail suggested. I don't have one handy at the moment to give an exact quote of a trail. There's also the White Mountain guide and that is very detailed too. One would have a really hard time getting lost with the maps and the guidebooks associated with those maps.
Exactly and blaming volunteers that go out and check this stuff each year is the wrong direction to point your aggression. No one "GUIDEbook" should ever steer anyone turn for turn through anything on the trail. That takes away some of the greatest parts of The Whites. If any of you guys have such issue with the AMC and their management and paying a measly $8 for a campsite then maybe you should hike somewhere else. I get your point about private land and all that. I get it, but dont take out your frustration on caretakers at tentsites. I dont stay at huts often, so I cant vouch for the treatment you get at the huts. The CROO doesnt cater to the rich, they have no idea who signs up and makes reservations. They just have a job to do. No thruhiker is entitled to work for stay. A lesson I learned is that if you dont like the work for stay, then you can keep walking. Sometimes, Croo and caretakers have tough decisions when tentsites get to 80 hikers.

IF you have issue with navigation, AGAIN, get a map. The AMC maps are ok but the WMNF maps are great. And if you want to take issue with anything in the Companion, Im available as is Sly. You can direct those comments to us. I handle the section from Hanover to Franconia and assist with the rest of NH. If there is something else you would liek to see added, let us know and we will see what we can do. Dont take this is "we will add it" because this isnt a step by step guide to baby folks through the whites.

[hikerboy57]

Many, even most from what I've seen, don't plan that far ahead...they buy a guidebook or the databook and look a week ahead at most. They hike hundreds of miles with everybody kissing their @ss and then encounter a bunch of rich college kids who have no idea what customer service is (they've probably spent their lives having their @sses kissed) and then wonder why everybody isn't bending over backwards to grant their every wish.
then shame on them. they're pretty oblivious, if they're hiking the at and dont know nh and me are difficult, that extra preparation is needed.even when people have heard about the difficulty, most are still surprised at just how difficult.its really not that hard to avoid the huts.

[Chaco Taco]

Many, even most from what I've seen, don't plan that far ahead...they buy a guidebook or the databook and look a week ahead at most. They hike hundreds of miles with everybody kissing their @ss and then encounter a bunch of rich college kids who have no idea what customer service is (they've probably spent their lives having their @sses kissed) and then wonder why everybody isn't bending over backwards to grant their every wish.
Yea thats a pretty inclusive statement. I met a bunch of folks on the Croo's and Caretakers going in this year that are working these jobs because they are having a tough time finding work elsewhere. Its not cheap either to get the certifications you need to be part of the Croo's and to be Caretakers. I think the service at the AMC sites is what it is, if you are a jerk to them, then they will be a jerk right back. Lumping all of the Croo and Caretakers together as one general subgroup "rich college kids" is unfair.

Example, I had an issue at Guyot Campsite. I walked in with my dog to a quickly filling tentsite. The caretaker was great and said "lets find you somewhere to get set up" Well, we went down to a DOUBLE platform and the couple at the platform totally rejected having me stay with them on the tent pad. Their reply was 'Uh but its raining" and then, "wait he has a dog". Never once getting out of his tent to address me directly. I simply told the caretaker that she didnt need to worry about it. I left and stealth camped on West Bond. Point is, if you want to bash the caretakers and Croo, then you should definitely call out hikers too. Some of the folks I have met on the MANY TRAILS IN THE WHITES BESIDES the AT, are great great individuals. Once in a great while you get a real s****head that has no concern for anyone but themselves.

[moldy]

So if I don't have 8 bucks I should hike someplace else? And this is trail is on public land. The Peoples Trail.

[Lone Wolf]

So if I don't have 8 bucks I should hike someplace else? And this is trail is on public land. The Peoples Trail.

if you don't have 8 bucks then find a place to sleep for free. pretty easy to do up there

[hikerboy57]

if you can spend $5,000 2 thru hike it should probably include the roughly $100 it takes to get through the whites if you pay. It is what it is..
And it's been that way for a long long time

[Tuckahoe]

So if I don't have 8 bucks I should hike someplace else? And this is trail is on public land. The Peoples Trail.

Yup! Why is that so hard to understand? Infact, if you're using it, shouldnt you help pay for it? Isnt that part of the responibility of the people that use "the peoples trail"?

[moldy]

Why is it free to camp in New Jersey but you have to pay in New Hampshire?

[Tuckahoe]

Why is it free to camp in New Jersey but you have to pay in New Hampshire?

Its not free, somebody has paid for it along the way. You should be asking who is carrying the burden for you to camp free.

[Another Kevin]

Concentrate Sly, this is not that difficult. The issue at hand is "does the AMC act like it owns the White's?" When it comes to the Appalachian Trail, the answer is, "YES". They limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters on the Appalachian Trail so that they increase the number of paying customers at the Huts. By forcing people into the huts they make more money. They do everything possible to limit the campsites, camp locations and shelters either indirectly by influencing rules, No camping near the trail, no camping near the hut, no camping near the campsites, no camping above tree line.

For what it's worth, New York State - and I'm talking about the Catskills and Adirondacks, not the patch of suburbia that the AT traverses - has similar rules: no camping within 150 feet of a trail or a water source (this INCLUDES the immediate vicinity of a lean-to except at a posted tent site), no camping above 3500 feet except in winter (or as posted), no open fires above 3500 feet. And there's no hut system profiteering off the rules. It's simply that the alpine and subalpine environments are that fragile. The scars from inappropriate use last for decades.


They also have reduced the number of shelters. When a shelter burns down, do they rebuild it like every other club on the AT? No they don't. Do they look for ways to accommodate the increasing numbers of hikers like other clubs have done in the Southern Appalachians by building more, better and bigger shelters? Could they triple the number of campsites available? No they don't, they hire more ridge runners to police the Appalachian Trail to look for offenders

New York has been doing the same - reducing the number of lean-tos by attrition - because many of the lean-to sites were chosen in a time when people had an entirely different idea about forest management than they do today. Many of the traditional lean-to sites are either subject to erosion, inappropriately close to water sources, or otherwise unsuitable for today's standards. What's more, in large sections of the Adirondacks, it appears that dispersed camping - and one of the reasons for the "150 feet from a trail" restriction is to make sure that people aren't repeatedly camping at the same site - has considerably less impact than concentrated use. It appears that the forest is healthier if hikers use a site and then it rests for a long time than if a few sites are sacrificed to repeated use.

On the A-T proper, the use in most places is heavy enough that essentially the entire Trail is a sacrifice. It's a scar that won't heal, and the best approach to serve both the forest and its users is to keep the damage from growing - concentrate the impacts. For this reason, the clubs farther south have been building more and bigger shelters, and encouraging concentrated use (camp near a shelter or the Trail, rather than dispersing). For various reasons, northern New England land managers believe that the load imposed by the Trail is still low enough that dispersed camping is still the way to minimize impact.

Your screed sounds to me as if you simply haven't learnt any of the art of finding an off-trail campsite, don't want to learn, and don't want to pony up a few bucks for the convenience of not learning.

When I hike the Cats or 'Daks, I account myself fortunate that I need only to go off trail 200 feet and then I can tent on any flat spot I can find. And they let me bushwhack, no "stay on established trails at all times" stuff. Get below treeline, get a shortish distance off trail, find a spot, set up. What's the big deal? (You can do the same in the Whites, too!)

(Tip: When leaving the trail to find a campsite, set your compass to the approximate bearing you're walking. Leave it set that way. In the morning, when you've forgotten which way is back to the trail and the undergrowth and weather have conspired to hide your tracks, you have a compass heading to follow. Even better, write down in your paper journal the approximate heading that the trail was following and the heading you went off on to camp. And yes, always keep a paper journal on 'whacks - it can be very helpful in becoming unlost.)

[hikerboy57]

you dont have to,stay in hostels,motels, towns, huts , campsites that charge a fee. you do have to make reservations to camp in the smokies, and you have to stay in a shelter unless theyre full.
it is what it is.
and nothing is free.somebodys paying for the maintenance on every trail.

[Tuckahoe]

For what it's worth, New York State - and I'm talking about the Catskills and Adirondacks, not the patch of suburbia that the AT traverses - has similar rules: no camping within 150 feet of a trail or a water source (this INCLUDES the immediate vicinity of a lean-to except at a posted tent site), no camping above 3500 feet except in winter (or as posted), no open fires above 3500 feet. And there's no hut system profiteering off the rules. It's simply that the alpine and subalpine environments are that fragile. The scars from inappropriate use last for decades.



New York has been doing the same - reducing the number of lean-tos by attrition - because many of the lean-to sites were chosen in a time when people had an entirely different idea about forest management than they do today. Many of the traditional lean-to sites are either subject to erosion, inappropriately close to water sources, or otherwise unsuitable for today's standards. What's more, in large sections of the Adirondacks, it appears that dispersed camping - and one of the reasons for the "150 feet from a trail" restriction is to make sure that people aren't repeatedly camping at the same site - has considerably less impact than concentrated use. It appears that the forest is healthier if hikers use a site and then it rests for a long time than if a few sites are sacrificed to repeated use.

On the A-T proper, the use in most places is heavy enough that essentially the entire Trail is a sacrifice. It's a scar that won't heal, and the best approach to serve both the forest and its users is to keep the damage from growing - concentrate the impacts. For this reason, the clubs farther south have been building more and bigger shelters, and encouraging concentrated use (camp near a shelter or the Trail, rather than dispersing). For various reasons, northern New England land managers believe that the load imposed by the Trail is still low enough that dispersed camping is still the way to minimize impact.

Your screed sounds to me as if you simply haven't learnt any of the art of finding an off-trail campsite, don't want to learn, and don't want to pony up a few bucks for the convenience of not learning.

When I hike the Cats or 'Daks, I account myself fortunate that I need only to go off trail 200 feet and then I can tent on any flat spot I can find. And they let me bushwhack, no "stay on established trails at all times" stuff. Get below treeline, get a shortish distance off trail, find a spot, set up. What's the big deal? (You can do the same in the Whites, too!)

(Tip: When leaving the trail to find a campsite, set your compass to the approximate bearing you're walking. Leave it set that way. In the morning, when you've forgotten which way is back to the trail and the undergrowth and weather have conspired to hide your tracks, you have a compass heading to follow. Even better, write down in your paper journal the approximate heading that the trail was following and the heading you went off on to camp. And yes, always keep a paper journal on 'whacks - it can be very helpful in becoming unlost.)

AK great post!

[Chaco Taco]

Why is it free to camp in New Jersey but you have to pay in New Hampshire?
Foot traffic. NH has to deal with a much larger hiking population and more trash and more poop. Come check out the days following Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day. Its kind of sad. I know you have seen it posted in other comments and I know you know this, but the AT is only one of many trails in NH.

[moldy]

I noticed that sign they have when you enter the Whites about the hundreds of hikers who died. I wonder how many of them were turned away at some hut, shelter or campsite by some AMC worker then got lost in the dark on the confusing poorly marked trail and ended up walking off the edge. New Hampshire....pay up or die!

[Mags]

Foot traffic. NH has to deal with a much larger hiking population and more trash and more poop. Come check out the days following Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day. Its kind of sad. I know you have seen it posted in other comments and I know you know this, but the AT is only one of many trails in NH.

More fragile environment, too.

[moldy]

Another Kevin, In the catskills and adarondaks did the local hiking club build a pay site at all the flat spots and water sources?

[Chaco Taco]

I noticed that sign they have when you enter the Whites about the hundreds of hikers who died. I wonder how many of them were turned away at some hut, shelter or campsite by some AMC worker then got lost in the dark on the confusing poorly marked trail and ended up walking off the edge. New Hampshire....pay up or die!
check out Applachia, great info about rescues up here. Most SAR's up here are for day hikers, just saying.

[hikerboy57]

I noticed that sign they have when you enter the Whites about the hundreds of hikers who died. I wonder how many of them were turned away at some hut, shelter or campsite by some AMC worker then got lost in the dark on the confusing poorly marked trail and ended up walking off the edge. New Hampshire....pay up or die!
very few .

[Another Kevin]

Another Kevin, In the catskills and adarondaks did the local hiking club build a pay site at all the flat spots and water sources?

No. And that's the point. I was trying to make The state found it fit to enact similar regulations to those in the Whites. Simply because the alpine and krummholz environments are that fragile. The notion that the regulations came about because a club was lobbying to protect its business is simply nonsense here.

There are plenty of flat spots even in the Whites. I used to hike there, I don't like to admit to how many years ago, and never had a problem finding one off-trail. Even if it was just a flat rock big enough to pitch on. Yeah, it sometimes takes a little more looking.

It's actually a good bit harder to find a spot in the Catskills. Vast areas of what is now the Catskill Park were clearcut before around 1900 and now are grown to tangles of spruce, with an understory of viburnum, stinging nettle and blackberry. That's not the ecosystem that was there before, and gradually the beech, ash, hemlock and gray birch should take over from the spruce and the forest will open up. But the hemlocks may take four hundred years to grow to their mature size.They occupy a similar ecological niche in Appalachia to the redwoods in California. They're the slowest growing of all the trees around here, but the longest lived. Eventually, they are majestic, like the monster at far right, and the open forest that forms in their shade is quite lovely.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6047/6855698190_4e84b90b7a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6855698190/)
Majestic hemlocks (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6855698190/) by ke9tv (http://www.flickr.com/people/ke9tv/), on Flickr

In another couple of centuries, with luck, the Cats will have returned to that sort of woodland (the picture was taken on a bushwhack in a valley too remote for the loggers and tanners ever to have stripped).

[Old Hillwalker]

I noticed that sign they have when you enter the Whites about the hundreds of hikers who died. I wonder how many of them were turned away at some hut, shelter or campsite by some AMC worker then got lost in the dark on the confusing poorly marked trail and ended up walking off the edge. New Hampshire....pay up or die! I lived in the White Mountains and hiked in NH most of my 73 years and never saw that sign you said you noticed. Where is it, or are you what I think you are?

[FarmerChef]

So my family and I just concluded our hike of the Whites over the past week and with that I'd like to chime in with our observations.

With regard to finding your way through the intersections. We had no problem at all. Either the sings generously had "AT" inscribed (carved) on them or there was what appeared to be a hand-written symbol next to the correct trail. Sure, it took a few times to get that the signs actually were aligned with the direction of the trail but that just made it easier. And where there was a tricky intersection, AWOL's guide made it clear from what trail and to what trail you were switching. Only a couple of times did we need to pull out the map and have a look and most of that was in the poorly blazed/cairned/marked Wildcat section. There were several times there we weren't sure we were on the right trail but kept going to find a white blaze a quarter or half mile later. Course, I can say the same thing about certain other sections of the trail. I agree with those that say bring a map. The ATC map works just fine but the AMC maps are more detailed. Either one will get you where you "need" to go and there are detailed maps at every hut and, I assume, campsite if you need assistance.

With regard to the AMC crew and staff - We were treated well every where we went, not like second-class citizens. The croo at Zealand Falls were perhaps the "worst" as they were more or less indifferent to us unless we asked questions. Phbbt! Who cares? It's not their job to entertain us as soon as we walk in the door. They have other duties they have to attend to. By that standard, the rest of the croos and staff were flat out awesome to us, including letting my son, 8, work in the kitchen to help serve breakfast and clean the dishes. It made his trip and you couldn't wipe the smile all of his face with a jackhammer. They even gave him, gave him!, an apron to take with him that he'd worn while serving. When my wife left her stuff at Carter Notch Hut, they hiked it out for her (on a croo change) even though we were prepared to hike back in to get it. And staff at any of the visitor's centers took as much time with us as we needed to get advice about the next section.

With regard to the cost - I am undecided how I feel about the cost. We get that the huts are basically for those who can afford to pay for it. But we were always treated well and enjoyed all the services they had to offer, short of a bunk upstairs, for free. What food we bought we got for a SONG. Totally worth the cost. The argument that it costs the same as a hotel room is, in my opinion, wrong. I paid $125 dollars to stay at a Holiday Inn Express on the way home, one of the more expensive hotels we stay in. I could use the Relax Inn's that we prefer but let's keep it inline with mid-level hotels for now. That price included breakfast for all 4 of us (but could have been 5 if we wished). We had dinner at Cracker Barrel and left with full bellies for $45 bucks. That's $170 total for all 4 of us. At a hut I would have paid $440 for a bunk, dinner and breakfast. If I were one person going to a hut, the money is reasonable but when you start adding people it breaks down.

For the same reason, I personally do not like tent sites that charge per person rather than per site but I could be convinced that it is necessary to do it that way. In our case, that made it $32 bucks a night to stay in a tentsite. Wow. But I also know the caretaker has to muck through all our excrement later. So, not that unreasonable.

Finally, I saw lots of Thrus who got work-for-stay. Was the croo required to do this? I don't know. But for what they had to do in exchange for a generous dinner and breakfast and a piece of floor warmer than a shelter floor it was a steal. The day after we stayed at Lake of the Clouds, thrus told us they slept over 20 thrus that night...most for free. I also saw a thru getting work for stay at a tentsite. If we were not section hikers, I'm sure we could have done the Whites for free if we planned carefully. You do not HAVE to pay to stay in the Whites.

With regard to trail condition - These were easily maintained on par with the quality of trail we've seen on the rest of the AT so far. Sure some spots could use a bit of work but what section of trail can't say this already? Signage was excellent for the majority of the trail. We always knew where we were (except in the Wildcats). And even during the week popular spots like Mt. Washington, the Presis, and Franconia Ridge practically swarmed with people. More people than we've seen anywhere else on the trail, including the Shennies. That kind of trail impact takes even more work to keep usable. We saw the trail worn down to bedrock and...growing ever wider. We saw the challenging climbs up rocks where the trail eroded at the edges as people tried to use the dirt and trees to climb up/down rather than the rocks. I imagine the trail 100 years ago looked radically different from what it is today.

Thru hikers and long-distance section hikers account for the tiniest fraction of the hikers in the Whites and it is unreasonable to expect the AMC or any other concessioner to give special consideration to them at the expense of their largest user base. The fact that this happens in many parts of the trail is a wonderful privilege not in any way a right that should be expected at any point on the trail. Did I like sitting in "the corner" while the paying guests ate their food? Honestly, it didn't bother me. I didn't pay to stay (ok, technically I did but it was the dungeon) so I didn't expect to receive the same services or rights of the paying guests. If I wanted those, I needed to pay for my treatment. Would it be any different if I went to a Marriott and asked for work for stay? Nope. I would expect to receive the value of my services rendered in lieu of monies paid. I would not expect to eat free in the restaurant and be given the penthouse suite, or any room at all unless I worked hard and long enough to compensate them for those services (way more than the typical work for stay in the Whites). Chances are, they would just tell me "no" and send me on my way. So, in reality, the AMC IS giving special consideration to thru hikers when they don't have to.

My two cents...aw heck, my two bucks :)

[JustaTouron]

For those of you who allege that the AMC designed the hut system without any regard to the needs of AT thruhikers, I say you are correct!

The first hut was opened in 1889. Seven of the eight huts were first opened by 1932. The first thru hiker wasn't until 1948. Only Mizpah Springs became a hut after thruhiking was an issue, and in 1965 it was still pretty rare.

So of course thruhikers weren't part of the design. They didn't even exist.

[Rasty]

Well said Farmer Chef!

[Train Wreck]

I just returned from my first-ever trip to NH and the Whites and am still processing my thoughts on the hut experience. We stayed one night at Lake of the Clouds and visited two other huts (Zeland Falls and Mizpah) during mid-day. All the croo members we met at each hut were, without exception, pleasant, courteous, and acted as if they actually enjoyed their jobs.

We started out our trip thinking we would try a combo of backpacking and one or two hut stays and just see how far we could make it through the Whites andn still have fun. I quickly learned that hiking with a full pack in the Whites may not be the best choice for me personally (think hiking with full pack up Webster Cliffs :eek:)

At this point, I think when we return to hike more of the AT through the Whites, we will just suck it up and grudgingly pay for the hut stays as we move along the trail. For me, at least, I'm not wanting to carry 6 days worth of food, and having experienced the aggravation and cost of taking shuttles, etc., plus being forced to hike the non-AT access trails when your main goal is primarily to hike the AT portions, the huts are the best solution. The main advantage being having the ability to slackpack and know you only have about 5 miles or so to go before you reach shelter and food are a payoff for the stiff lodging fees.

My biggest complaint about the hut is the meals. I found them a little disappointing. I'm not asking for ribeye, but I did think that for $110 a night, I would have liked something a little more substantial for the main entree than soup (non-meat chili), broccoli, and rice and bread. Except for the bread & broccoli, this stuff I can make on the trail and have been doing so for years. I'm not sure if this is a typical meal or not since it was the only hut dinner we ate. Breakfast was oatmeal, pancakes, and bacon (not very large helpings of the last two, either, everyone at the table was anxiously eyeing the platter to see if it would make it to the end.)

Now you can go ahead and tell me I'm nitpicking and the croo serves up fabulous meals, yada yada yada. Just didn't happen with my stay. YMMV.

I loved the Whites and can't wait to do my next trip up there, and yes, I will be hut-hopping. And I will probably steal YOUR piece of bacon at breakfast. You have been warned :D

[Rasty]

I just returned from my first-ever trip to NH and the Whites and am still processing my thoughts on the hut experience. We stayed one night at Lake of the Clouds and visited two other huts (Zeland Falls and Mizpah) during mid-day. All the croo members we met at each hut were, without exception, pleasant, courteous, and acted as if they actually enjoyed their jobs.

We started out our trip thinking we would try a combo of backpacking and one or two hut stays and just see how far we could make it through the Whites andn still have fun. I quickly learned that hiking with a full pack in the Whites may not be the best choice for me personally (think hiking with full pack up Webster Cliffs :eek:)

At this point, I think when we return to hike more of the AT through the Whites, we will just suck it up and grudgingly pay for the hut stays as we move along the trail. For me, at least, I'm not wanting to carry 6 days worth of food, and having experienced the aggravation and cost of taking shuttles, etc., plus being forced to hike the non-AT access trails when your main goal is primarily to hike the AT portions, the huts are the best solution. The main advantage being having the ability to slackpack and know you only have about 5 miles or so to go before you reach shelter and food are a payoff for the stiff lodging fees.

My biggest complaint about the hut is the meals. I found them a little disappointing. I'm not asking for ribeye, but I did think that for $110 a night, I would have liked something a little more substantial for then main entree than soup (non-meat chili), broccoli, and rice and bread. Except for the bread & broccoli, this stuff I can make on the trail and have been doing so for years. Breakfast was oatmeal, pancakes, and bacon (not very large helpings of the last two, either, everyone at the table was anxiously eyeing the platter to see if it would make it to the end.) I'm not sure if this is a typical meal or not since it was the only hut dinner we ate.

Now you can go ahead and tell me I'm nitpicking and the croo serves up fabulous meals, yada yada yada. Just didn't happen with my stay. YMMV.
I loved the Whites and can't wait to do my next trip up there, and yes, I will be hut-hopping. And I will probably steal YOUR piece of bacon at breakfast. You have been warned :D

Sounds like the AMC needs a new Chef? I might know someone :)

[Train Wreck]

Sounds like the AMC needs a new Chef? I might know someone :)

Chicken ankles would have been a nice additive to the soup du jour :banana

[atmilkman]

And I will probably steal YOUR piece of bacon at breakfast. You have been warned :D
Not if you're sittin' next to me. I'll stick my fork in the back of your hand.

[Chaco Taco]

I just returned from my first-ever trip to NH and the Whites and am still processing my thoughts on the hut experience. We stayed one night at Lake of the Clouds and visited two other huts (Zeland Falls and Mizpah) during mid-day. All the croo members we met at each hut were, without exception, pleasant, courteous, and acted as if they actually enjoyed their jobs.

We started out our trip thinking we would try a combo of backpacking and one or two hut stays and just see how far we could make it through the Whites andn still have fun. I quickly learned that hiking with a full pack in the Whites may not be the best choice for me personally (think hiking with full pack up Webster Cliffs :eek:)

At this point, I think when we return to hike more of the AT through the Whites, we will just suck it up and grudgingly pay for the hut stays as we move along the trail. For me, at least, I'm not wanting to carry 6 days worth of food, and having experienced the aggravation and cost of taking shuttles, etc., plus being forced to hike the non-AT access trails when your main goal is primarily to hike the AT portions, the huts are the best solution. The main advantage being having the ability to slackpack and know you only have about 5 miles or so to go before you reach shelter and food are a payoff for the stiff lodging fees.

My biggest complaint about the hut is the meals. I found them a little disappointing. I'm not asking for ribeye, but I did think that for $110 a night, I would have liked something a little more substantial for then main entree than soup (non-meat chili), broccoli, and rice and bread. Except for the bread & broccoli, this stuff I can make on the trail and have been doing so for years. Breakfast was oatmeal, pancakes, and bacon (not very large helpings of the last two, either, everyone at the table was anxiously eyeing the platter to see if it would make it to the end.) I'm not sure if this is a typical meal or not since it was the only hut dinner we ate.

Now you can go ahead and tell me I'm nitpicking and the croo serves up fabulous meals, yada yada yada. Just didn't happen with my stay. YMMV.
I loved the Whites and can't wait to do my next trip up there, and yes, I will be hut-hopping. And I will probably steal YOUR piece of bacon at breakfast. You have been warned :D
I can definitely say that the food I had at Lake of the Clouds, the only time I have stayed during full service was ok. Noodles and sauce. They had java juice, which I grabbed at 3 am as I left to climb Washington. But I wouldn't dare say anything bad because I did work for stay. Im glad they offered the work for stay service to me. Glad you had fun up here. Its great hiking. It took me a couple of years to really adapt to the hiking up here. I finally feel like a New England hiker because I have the quads and calves of a lumberjack :)

[Train Wreck]

Not if you're sittin' next to me. I'll stick my fork in the back of your hand.

I'll give you all my portion of oatmeal in return for the bacon slice. Apparently grits are a non-commodity as far as breakfast fare in NH :rolleyes:

[Train Wreck]

I finally feel like a New England hiker because I have the quads and calves of a lumberjack :)

I got the cute plaid shirt but not much else :D

[atmilkman]

I'll give you all my portion of oatmeal in return for the bacon slice. Apparently grits are a non-commodity as far as breakfast fare in NH :rolleyes:

I tell you what, we'll tie a piece of string on the bacon and share it. At least in NH they may know what you're talking about when you say grits. In Calgary they have no idea, they don't even know what a biscuit is. Have you figured out a way to bring shrimp on the trail yet? I'll give you ALL my bacon if you make shrimp and grits.

[Symba]

Chicken ankles, oh yeah!!!! :D Honestly, as a hungry hiker on the AT chicken ankles in soup would be pretty darn good.

[Rasty]

Chicken ankles would have been a nice additive to the soup du jour :banana

Sadly 90% of my own industry uses chicken ankle paste.

[Chaco Taco]

Sadly 90% of my own industry uses chicken ankle paste.
But is it free range ankle paste? :)

[Train Wreck]

Chicken ankles, oh yeah!!!! :D Honestly, as a hungry hiker on the AT chicken ankles in soup would be pretty darn good.

Throw in that side dish of broccoli and you got yourself some mighty good hiker stew :D

[Train Wreck]

Sadly 90% of my own industry uses chicken ankle paste.

Can you get chicken ankle paste at Home Depot?
And why would anybody in their right mind want to glue chicken ankles to something?

[Chaco Taco]

Can you get chicken ankle paste at Home Depot?
And why would anybody in their right mind want to glue chicken ankles to something?
could you make a revolutionary new form of duct tape and call it chick tape?

[atmilkman]

Can you get chicken ankle paste at Home Depot?
And why would anybody in their right mind want to glue chicken ankles to something?

To help hold on the Dirty Girl Gaiters.

[Another Kevin]

Wow, the thread had a topic (I think...) but everone's decided to blue-blaze around it.

[Rasty]

CHICKEN MEAT INCLUDING NATURAL CHICKEN JUICES, SALT, CHICKEN FAT, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, SUGAR, DRIED WHEY, HYDROLYZED (CORN AND WHEAT GLUTEN, SOY) PROTEINS, LESS THAN 2% OF NATURAL FLAVORS, HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, CORN OIL, YEAST EXTRACT, DISODIUM INOSINATE/DISODIUM GUANYLATE, NATURAL EXTRACTIVES OF TURMERIC AND ANNATTO, LACTIC ACID.
CONTAINS: MILK, SOY, WHEAT INGREDIENTS.

But is it free range ankle paste? :)

It's is this junk!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXzfmqKKyDYPoOgFJvnCQmq5Vjkhc-PwmXmJ2baf7K7Ltrg_Om

[FarmerChef]

I tell you what, we'll tie a piece of string on the bacon and share it. At least in NH they may know what you're talking about when you say grits. In Calgary they have no idea, they don't even know what a biscuit is. Have you figured out a way to bring shrimp on the trail yet? I'll give you ALL my bacon if you make shrimp and grits.

The answer is yes. I have brought shrimp on the trail and can totally make shrimp and grits on the trail. It won't be instant but it will taste awesome for being dehydrated. Surprisingly, the shrimp are more tender than chewy (you have to either dice them cooked or get very small shrimp before dehydrating).

[Train Wreck]

The answer is yes. I have brought shrimp on the trail and can totally make shrimp and grits on the trail. It won't be instant but it will taste awesome for being dehydrated. Surprisingly, the shrimp are more tender than chewy (you have to either dice them cooked or get very small shrimp before dehydrating).

Sooo..., when are you going hiking again??? :banana

[FarmerChef]

CHICKEN MEAT INCLUDING NATURAL CHICKEN JUICES, SALT, CHICKEN FAT, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, SUGAR, DRIED WHEY, HYDROLYZED (CORN AND WHEAT GLUTEN, SOY) PROTEINS, LESS THAN 2% OF NATURAL FLAVORS, HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, CORN OIL, YEAST EXTRACT, DISODIUM INOSINATE/DISODIUM GUANYLATE, NATURAL EXTRACTIVES OF TURMERIC AND ANNATTO, LACTIC ACID.
CONTAINS: MILK, SOY, WHEAT INGREDIENTS.


It's is this junk!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXzfmqKKyDYPoOgFJvnCQmq5Vjkhc-PwmXmJ2baf7K7Ltrg_Om

Man, I can't believe I got to do both halves of my trail name in one go! Chicken Ankles (feet) are routinely used for making chicken stock/broth. We do it all the time with our chickens. Dehydrate it and you've got bouillon. Bingo! :banana

[FarmerChef]

Sooo..., when are you going hiking again??? :banana

Game on. We're heading down to Mt. Rogers over Labor Day Weekend. Gonna cook up a fine mess at a shelter somewhere up there. Might even bake a cake since I didn't get to do it in the whites (I was looking forward to compensating for the altitude).

And with that, I brought it back to the Whites...ba dum ching!

[Train Wreck]

CHICKEN MEAT INCLUDING NATURAL CHICKEN JUICES, SALT, CHICKEN FAT, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, SUGAR, DRIED WHEY, HYDROLYZED (CORN AND WHEAT GLUTEN, SOY) PROTEINS, LESS THAN 2% OF NATURAL FLAVORS, HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, CORN OIL, YEAST EXTRACT, DISODIUM INOSINATE/DISODIUM GUANYLATE, NATURAL EXTRACTIVES OF TURMERIC AND ANNATTO, LACTIC ACID.
CONTAINS: MILK, SOY, WHEAT INGREDIENTS.



It's is this junk!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXzfmqKKyDYPoOgFJvnCQmq5Vjkhc-PwmXmJ2baf7K7Ltrg_Om



Less than 2% natural flavors? That means more than 98% unnatural flavors...

[Rasty]

Man, I can't believe I got to do both halves of my trail name in one go! Chicken Ankles (feet) are routinely used for making chicken stock/broth. We do it all the time with our chickens. Dehydrate it and you've got bouillon. Bingo! :banana

Have you ever used this stuff? It is nasty. All salt, no ankle

[Rasty]

Less than 2% natural flavors? That means more than 98% unnatural flavors...

Read up on "Natural Flavors". There isn't anything natural about it

[Train Wreck]

Read up on "Natural Flavors". There isn't anything natural about it

Maybe I should stop complaining about the meatless chili soup served up at Lake of the Clouds, then.
Or maybe I shouldn't look too closely at their ingredient list, either...

[Chaco Taco]

CHICKEN MEAT INCLUDING NATURAL CHICKEN JUICES, SALT, CHICKEN FAT, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, SUGAR, DRIED WHEY, HYDROLYZED (CORN AND WHEAT GLUTEN, SOY) PROTEINS, LESS THAN 2% OF NATURAL FLAVORS, HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, CORN OIL, YEAST EXTRACT, DISODIUM INOSINATE/DISODIUM GUANYLATE, NATURAL EXTRACTIVES OF TURMERIC AND ANNATTO, LACTIC ACID.
CONTAINS: MILK, SOY, WHEAT INGREDIENTS.


It's is this junk!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXzfmqKKyDYPoOgFJvnCQmq5Vjkhc-PwmXmJ2baf7K7Ltrg_Om
Things that make you go
23545

[hikerboy57]

is this the "cooking with crap"forum?
ive actually had some good meals at the huts, pork loin was probably the most memorable at madison hut.and the split pea soup , for one who doesnt care for pea soup, was delicious, had 2 bowls.im pretty sure they had to split more than one pea to feed 80.

[coach lou]

I've noticed here on the WB, that after 100 posts most discussions get to food!:)

[Train Wreck]

is this the "cooking with crap"forum?
ive actually had some good meals at the huts, pork loin was probably the most memorable at madison hut.and the split pea soup , for one who doesnt care for pea soup, was delicious, had 2 bowls.im pretty sure they had to split more than one pea to feed 80.

Just the luck of the draw I guess. I can forgive them over meatless chili but not the lack of grits!

[hikerboy57]

I've noticed here on the WB, that after 100 posts most discussions get to food!:)
i have yet to have cheesecake at a hut.if i did, it would probably be made with mont jack

[moldy]

chik'in or no chik'in AMC needs to go. The Appalachian Trail belongs to the people. Just because 80 years ago they helped build the trail for the hikers that does not mean that they are granted dictator status forever. They have evolved into a mega rich corporation on public land. They are not even motivated to help the hikers. It's time to make the Appalachian Trail into a National Park.

[hikerboy57]

moldy, your argument is getting tired. they help thousands of hikers every year. they dont stop everything for thru hikers, the only "privilege" is work for stay, and its already pretty well known, its not always available. . amc is not going away, so just deal with it. there are plenty of places you can hike for "free", so just stay in those places and you'll be fine. when you do, i hope you silently thank those who donated money and time to create and maintain so you can hike for "free".
and as we've all told you a dozen times already, with a little planning, you can hike the whites for free.
many nat'l parks charge fees, including the smokies new permit fee
your "peoples trail" may exist in russia.

[max patch]

The AMC has joined the ATC, ALDHA, and the Companion in their vast conspiracy against hikers. :)

[Chaco Taco]

We have been to Galehead and Zealand quite a few times on day hikes before the Croo arrives for the season and we always get hot cocoa and chocolate chip cookies from the caretakers.

[Train Wreck]

The AMC has joined the ATC, ALDHA, and the Companion in their vast conspiracy against hikers. :)

You forgot the Kent Green Laundry.

[Chaco Taco]

chik'in or no chik'in AMC needs to go. The Appalachian Trail belongs to the people. Just because 80 years ago they helped build the trail for the hikers that does not mean that they are granted dictator status forever. They have evolved into a mega rich corporation on public land. They are not even motivated to help the hikers. It's time to make the Appalachian Trail into a National Park.
Form up a group, state your case and lobby to make it happen. Call Senators and Congressmen and get some volunteer groups ready because winter is right around the corner. No offense moldy but you have made your case but have offered up no solution to how you propose the solution be achieved. Id be willing to listen to every point you attempt to make at solving the issue and making it "The People's Trail" as you put it. If you have no solution to offer, then move along.

[Lone Wolf]

chik'in or no chik'in AMC needs to go. The Appalachian Trail belongs to the people. Just because 80 years ago they helped build the trail for the hikers that does not mean that they are granted dictator status forever. They have evolved into a mega rich corporation on public land. They are not even motivated to help the hikers. It's time to make the Appalachian Trail into a National Park.

you are ridiculous.....

[show me the monkey]

It's time to make the Appalachian Trail into a National Park.

It already is a part of the National Park System. http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm

[bfayer]

Form up a group, state your case and lobby to make it happen. Call Senators and Congressmen and get some volunteer groups ready because winter is right around the corner. No offense moldy but you have made your case but have offered up no solution to how you propose the solution be achieved. Id be willing to listen to every point you attempt to make at solving the issue and making it "The People's Trail" as you put it. If you have no solution to offer, then move along.

I have to agree with this.

Most complaints I have heard involve the huts they built and maintain or the campsites they built and maintain. If there were no AMC the huts and campsites would turn into trash dumps in a week.

Any organization that took over from AMC would have the same rules or even tougher ones. If they didn't, the whole area would be trashed.

[moldy]

Lone wolf, I thought you said I was ignorant? Which is it?

[Lone Wolf]

Lone wolf, I thought you said I was ignorant? Which is it?

how much walkin' have you done in the whites?

[moldy]

Lone Wolf, I guess that after 28 thousand posts you get Grandfathered in so rule #2 does not apply to you. Sort of like how the AMC got grandfathered in and now can do as they like.

[Lone Wolf]

Lone Wolf, I guess that after 28 thousand posts you get Grandfathered in so rule #2 does not apply to you. Sort of like how the AMC got grandfathered in and now can do as they like.

how much of the whites have you walked? simple question

[Chaco Taco]

how much walkin' have you done in the whites?
I think it is a fair question. Have you even hiked up here?

[wakapak]

Lone Wolf, I guess that after 28 thousand posts you get Grandfathered in so rule #2 does not apply to you. Sort of like how the AMC got grandfathered in and now can do as they like.

What did the AMC get grandfathered into? It's been around long before the ATC (AMC founded in 1876). Matter of fact, looking at the AMC history, it helped to form the ATC in 1925.

[moldy]

Look boys I'm doing 30 to life in the Penal System, I will make it there someday.

[Chaco Taco]

Look boys I'm doing 30 to life in the Penal System, I will make it there someday.

Wow you get some amazing internet time in jail.....

[Rasty]

Lone Wolf, I guess that after 28 thousand posts you get Grandfathered in so rule #2 does not apply to you. Sort of like how the AMC got grandfathered in and now can do as they like.

What did the AMC get grandfathered into? It's been around long before the ATC (AMC founded in 1876). Matter of fact, looking at the AMC history, it helped to form the ATC in 1925.

Don't be messing up a good argument with facts and figures. :D

[moldy]

All these people jumping on the band wagon to defend a private clubs right to squeeze hikers. Ain't America grand?

[Chaco Taco]

All these people jumping on the band wagon to defend a private clubs right to squeeze hikers. Ain't America grand?
You are talking about a group you have never even had contact with in an area you have never hiked. I think you lost your credibility a few posts ago.

[wakapak]

Don't be messing up a good argument with facts and figures. :D

Oopss, My Bad :D

[Tom Murphy]

All these people jumping on the band wagon to defend a private clubs right to squeeze hikers. Ain't America grand?

You can hike the Whites without paying a dime to the AMC. I do it every summer.

[rickb]

One thing that gets lost discussions like these is the fact that while the AMC is a "private" club it is one that has over 80,000 members.

Furthermore, while no member may pay a bit more for some services, non members are always welcome and have equal access. This is not a place handing out Green Jacket to an anointed few.

Its also an organization that is about a great deal more than the expensive huts. If one is unfamiliar with the organization, I would encourage them to explore around "outdoors.org". But even that tells just a small part of the story. In addition to what you see there, the club is made up of geographically diverse chapters that have a great many outings and activities. These are invariably led by volunteers and are free to all comers-- again, whether you are a member or not.

The club has been instrumental in permanently protecting land in Maine-- all privately funded. That's right, at no cost to the taxpayers or most of us. Most here would agree that is a good thing, but anything of scale has its detractors, of course. Protecting land is Maine is not without controversy, as hunters and snow machine users have historically had essentially unencumbered access to paper company land. When you hear criticism of the AMC, it is always wise to ask where the true feelings are coming from.

That was the case when the club secured a 30 year permit to operate the huts about 15 years back. A great deal of the opposition was driven by those who did not like the Cubs environmental advocacy in the North Country, which was seen by some as contrary to the region's economic health. Again, when you hear the club being criticized, the stated reasons are not always the real ones. Today's detractors will have another chance to have the huts closed in about a dozen when their permit come up agin. Some would be wise to be carful for what they wish for.

The club does more than most realize with youth opportunity programs and education outreach and trail protection and maintenance. Simply put, there is a great deal going on.

I get why some don't like the huts. They attract many thousands of people to the White that would not be there otherwise. The are expensive, to be sure.

But they are still only part of what the AMC is all about-- and like other have already posted, they cane be avoided all together by thinking thru hikers, or (in the case of a few) enjoyed at a far lower cost by visiting them on a self-serve basis in the winter. Not a bad way to go when it's 15 below zero!

[moldy]

Near the core of the issue at hand is the slight and subtle difference between helping the hikers and helping the trail. The hikers perspective is different than the trail club perspective. The dozens of trail clubs even have a slightly different cut from each other on what to do to help the trail. The clubs are organized, some more than others. The hikers are not. The hikers come in a huge bell curve of different interests and motivations. The clubs have control, the hikers do not. This is not to say that many hikers want to help the trail and the clubs want to help the hikers. What should take priority? This web page is a forum for people to ask questions and discuss issues. Many of the people who frequent this site see only the trail club perspective. They tend to team up and mob anyone who questions their view and beat down what they see as questioning their wisdom. Is the Appalachian Trail for keeping or is it for hiking? Many hikers post here on Whiteblaze to vent there frustration like the OP because they have no other place to speak. Despite what many people think we have no hiker oriented organizations, despite the claim made by several clubs.

[Tom Murphy]

Near the core of the issue at hand is the slight and subtle difference between helping the hikers and helping the trail. The hikers perspective is different than the trail club perspective. The dozens of trail clubs even have a slightly different cut from each other on what to do to help the trail. The clubs are organized, some more than others. The hikers are not. The hikers come in a huge bell curve of different interests and motivations. The clubs have control, the hikers do not. This is not to say that many hikers want to help the trail and the clubs want to help the hikers. What should take priority? This web page is a forum for people to ask questions and discuss issues. Many of the people who frequent this site see only the trail club perspective. They tend to team up and mob anyone who questions their view and beat down what they see as questioning their wisdom. Is the Appalachian Trail for keeping or is it for hiking? Many hikers post here on Whiteblaze to vent there frustration like the OP because they have no other place to speak. Despite what many people think we have no hiker oriented organizations, despite the claim made by several clubs.

I agree that the interests of day hikers and trail club members do not always mesh with the interests of thru-hikers.

But you make it sound like trail clubs are placing toll booths and other barriers up and somehow preventing access to the trail.

The reality is that the USFS sets the rules for camping in the WMNF not the AMC or the RMC or the MATC.

[moldy]

This is just a few of the many differences between hiker interest and club interest that get frequent attention here on Whiteblaze. Blazing, some hikers want more and better, some clubs want less. Signage, same deal. Trail magic, thru hikers appreciate it, trail clubs hate it. Shelters, thru-hikers want more, better and bigger, trail clubs want to reduce the number. Privies, same deal. Fires, trash bins, trail routing, deadfall removal, the list goes on and on. Club behavior as the OP is talking about or out of control hiker behavior in town and on the trail as the clubs like to talk about. All issues that can't be denied. People advocating for the clubs will have a slightly different slant on issues than those advocating for hikers. Contributing to the complexity is the numerous governmental organizations involved in the Appalachian Trail who also have both a voice and a say. There is no group that advocates for hikers.

[hikerboy57]

not all thru hikers are looking for the trail to be easier. they accept the challenges and deal with them head on, instead of whining.

[moldy]

So you and lone wolf are in agreement, I'm a ridiculous, ignorant, whiner? That's all you got? I'm glad that rule #2 does not apply to you either. You club wienies are like the tea party for the trail.

[hikerboy57]

So you and lone wolf are in agreement, I'm a ridiculous, ignorant, whiner? That's all you got? I'm glad that rule #2 does not apply to you either. You club wienies are like the tea party for the trail.
ive hiked the whites for over 30 years. how much time have you spent up there?
and im not pointing to you directly. ive heard a lot of whining on the trail, and not just about the amc.
the trail isnt going to change because someone wants it too. its a lot easier to deal with the trail on its own terms rather than wishing it were different.others have asked you to provide a suitable alternative, and its apparent you havent been able to.
i have nothing against you personally, moldy,i just feel,as many others on this thread have stated, that those who actually live and hike those trails have come to appreciate the amc, and not condemn it. are they perfect?no, of course not.but were it not for them there would be no huts to turn you away, and no trail through nh and western maine.
it is what it is, and you just deal with it, not whine about it.or whine about it, but deal with it anyway

[max patch]

Shelters, thru-hikers want more, better and bigger, trail clubs want to reduce the number. Privies, same deal.

I disagree with your conclusions re trail clubs on these issues. If this was true Georgia would not have built a new Stover Creek shelter when the old one was dismantled several years ago. Nor built a new shelter at Gooch Mtn. when the one at Gooch Gap was dismantled. Or built a new shelter on Blue Mtn when the shelter a mile S was dismantled. Or the new shelter on Springer when the old one was relo'd to the Approach Trail. And privies keep getting built, not removed.

For what its worth, Moldy, I mentally put you in the "nut job" category when you stated your opinion that the Companion and other groups were part of a "conspiracy" against hikers.

[Another Kevin]

Some say: Without the work of the clubs, there would be no trails to hike on.

That would bother me some, although I'm comfortable enough with bushwhacking that it wouldn't be a total show-stopper.

But it's actually tougher than that: Without the clubs, we'd have user-created trails, prone to erosion, poorly drained, and destructive of the landscape.

I've seen once-popular tentsites that have been trodden into mudholes that are unusable - still, a century after hikers abandoned them. I've seen the scars of poorly-executed herd paths. Some of them are eroded six feet deep, and continue to erode with every spring's snowmelt. They will heal only in geologic time. How do we avoid this? The only way I know is to construct well-graded, well-drained trails with sound routing. To require dispersed camping (away from a trail, to avoid repeated use of sites) or construct well-engineered tent sites and shelters. To have restrictions on the construction of soil-destroying fire rings, the use of sites, even trail travel in certain seasons.

Who's going to do the work? Who's going to police the restrictions so that the land doesn't continue to be destroyed? The government isn't going to spend to do it. In fact, in the present climate, preserving public access to public land is an uphill battle. A great many in the government are in favor of "fence it in and sell it off" - turning the national forests back into paper company lands and private preserves, and the national parks into Disneylands. In fact, a great amount of the AMC's "come and vacation here" advertising that you so deride really has the motive of keeping the trails in the public awareness, in hopes that our elected representatives won't do just that.

And the environmental-protectionists are not exactly our friends either: they tend to view any human presence, even the minimal impact of a blazed trail, as despoliation. User-created trails that damage the landscape would turn the environmentalists against hikers in a heartbeat. So, in order to have trails at all, we have to sail between the Scylla of those who would close the land and sell it off and the Charybdis of those who would exclude human presence altogether. Sailing that arduous course requires a unified voice and a tradition of responsible use, and the clubs - onerous as their influence on the regulations may seem - provide that voice.

Is it the voice of hikers? Well, by moldy's definition, apparently, it is not - perhaps only "thru-hikers" count, and we day-trippers, weekenders, and sectioners - who comprise the vast majority of trail users - are overrepresented precisely by comprising so vast a majority. But I would think that the self-interest of thru-hikers would coincide here: they, too, depend on access to public land.

And if you join a chapter of any trail maintenance club, attend meetings, and see what they're up against, you'll find that the real disproportionate representation goes to those who actually do the work. Which is as it should be. In fact, it's pretty insulting to say to the people who clear the blowdown, place and clean the waterbars, rebuild the bridges, clean out the trash, shovel the poop, improve the routings, and so on: "my opinion counts for more than yours because I'm a HIKER, and our interests don't coincide." If the reaction is, "too bad, go build your own trail!" that should tell you something. Except that the reaction is, "go build your own trail, in cooperation with the land managers who will need to verify that it is consistent with long-term access to the land, and build it according to sound engineering and environmental practices, and so on. Good luck, and expect to have your proposals rejected the first dozen times because of considerations that you were totally unaware of." Much of what moldy sees as the trail clubs being chummy with the government is more that the trail clubs have long experience with compliance with the regulations and know why the regulations are in place.

It's a hard problem, and the solution of having the governments offer the trail clubs concessions to administer the land for them is an imperfect one. But I'd be hard put to come up with a better. Unfortunately, with so few people available to do the work, the temptation among the broader community seems to be to view the workers as a conspiracy.

[moldy]

So I will add, "nut job to my title". Thanks for playing. You are correct about the ever improving shelter situation in the Southern Appalachians. Sorry I did not make a disclaimer in your case. You all are making the Yankees look bad. On my trip last year through New England I was dismayed by the shelter conditions. North of the NY/NJ line they have nothing like you have down South. Nothing new, nothing big. No money in it I guess. Yes, the ATC and clubs use the now poorly read companion as yet another method to get the word out....there word that is. AWOL has driven them out of business, they just don't know it yet.

[Chaco Taco]

So I will add, "nut job to my title". Thanks for playing. You are correct about the ever improving shelter situation in the Southern Appalachians. Sorry I did not make a disclaimer in your case. You all are making the Yankees look bad. On my trip last year through New England I was dismayed by the shelter conditions. North of the NY/NJ line they have nothing like you have down South. Nothing new, nothing big. No money in it I guess. Yes, the ATC and clubs use the now poorly read companion as yet another method to get the word out....there word that is. AWOL has driven them out of business, they just don't know it yet.
Where did you hike, New England is pretty big.

[swjohnsey]

Last time I checked AMC was worth more than $120,000,000.

[hikerboy57]

net assets as of 2011 were $95 million (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/AnnualReport_2011_FORWEB.pdf )

you'll note their outdoor centers operate at a loss, as well as their programs.

[bfayer]

net assets as of 2011 were $95 million (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/AnnualReport_2011_FORWEB.pdf )

you'll note their outdoor centers operate at a loss, as well as their programs.

Thanks for the info. Personally I really don't care if they have assets worth $95 billion, their money is their money. What I do care about is they are a group of mostly volunteers that take their time and money to do a job I don't have time to do.

If a rich person want's to donate their time and money to provide a trail to hike on and a clean campsite to camp on then why would I complain about the fact they make too much money. If a rich family is willing to pay big bucks to stay in a high price walk in hostel and call it a hut, why would I care?

Every time I go hiking and eat lunch at a shelter or stay at a nice campsite, I feel blessed that we live in a world where other people are still willing to share their hard work and money with other people they will never know.

Someday I'll get back up north to hike, and when I do I hope the AMC is still there doing it's thing, just as I am glad the PATC is doing it's thing down here.

[Another Kevin]

net assets as of 2011 were $95 million (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/AnnualReport_2011_FORWEB.pdf )

you'll note their outdoor centers operate at a loss, as well as their programs.

$99 million at the end of 2012 - their endowment fund performed well. (It's largely a "war chest" in case the club needs to acquire real estate to protect a critical corridor, and against the possibility of catastrophic operating losses.) About half their net assets are in real estate - the lands and buildings that AMC owns outright in order to protect them for their programs.

That isn't a huge endowment for an organization that size. 120,000 members and associates, 150,000 guest-nights at the facilities, 53,000 kids in the youth programs ... it's a big operation, and comparatively running on a shoestring. (What sort of assets does a typical for-profit business that large maintain? Considerably more!) Remember that the reason that hikers can use the Katahdin Iron Works tract (nearly 40,000 acres of land) is that AMC bought it ten years ago.

In short, my quick read of the operating statement says, "they have a lot of money because they do a lot of stuff." Which isn't the feeling I get about a good many other 501(c)3 organizations.

[hikerboy57]

their largest asset is their membership, who contribute not just their money but their time in maintaining trails and backcountry sites, as well as educating http://www.outdoors.org/publications/outdoors/2012/fieldnotes/amc-launches-new-maine-schools-program.cfm?utm_source=amcoo&utm_medium=email&utm_content=member&utm_campaign=novamcoo.

i guarantee you if a private company ran the huts, prices would be much higher and there would be no work for stay.
there would also be a huge void to fill in maintaining some of the northeasts most challenging trails.

the trail indeed belongs to the people. each one of us shares responsibility in its preservation.
there are no free trails.

[RED-DOG]

I have always had good experiences with the AMC huts, the hut croos and the trail crews, have always treated me with a lot of respect, and been very curtious and helpful, I have only been able to get work for stay 2 times and every other time i have paid full price and didn't think twice about it, this is just another very sad case of Thru-hiker entitlement Syndrom.

[jeffmeh]

Wow, one takes a week off and misses everything from chicken ankles to Scylla and Charybdis. :)

Regarding "The People's Trail," the worst answer for land management would be to allow everyone to use the resource as he sees fit without bearing any costs for his actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I

[dperry]

On my trip last year through New England I was dismayed by the shelter conditions. North of the NY/NJ line they have nothing like you have down South. Nothing new, nothing big. No money in it I guess.

What do you define as "big", anyway? The three shelters we've stayed in in Massachusetts (maintained by a chapter of the AMC, by the way) were all two stories and could hold ten people easy, probably twelve in a pinch. Ok, so they weren't like Ed Garvey in Maryland, but then, what is?

[Another Kevin]

Since two thirds of the thru hikers have left the trail by the time they get up here, the shelters up north don't need to be as big.

(I tent anyway, where it's lawful. And sometimes where it requires creative interpretation of the rules.)

[Bronk]

i guarantee you if a private company ran the huts, prices would be much higher and there would be no work for stay.
there would also be a huge void to fill in maintaining some of the northeasts most challenging trails.



The AMC is a privately owned company. They keep most of their $105 million in Bermuda and the Cayman islands.

[Dogwood]

East coasters can be loud rude bitchy opinionated people.

[hikerboy57]

i guarantee you if a private company ran the huts, prices would be much higher and there would be no work for stay.
there would also be a huge void to fill in maintaining some of the northeasts most challenging trails.



The AMC is a privately owned company. They keep most of their $105 million in Bermuda and the Cayman islands. being that they are a non-profit organization why would they have to put money overseas

[Lone Wolf]

East coasters can be loud rude bitchy opinionated people.

i'm from Rhode Island

[Another Kevin]

The AMC is a privately owned company. They keep most of their $105 million in Bermuda and the Cayman islands.

Uhm, you're aware that the annual financial statement and auditors' report (http://www.outdoors.org/pdf/upload/Appalachian-Mountain-Club-Consolidated-Financial-Statements-2012.pdf) is online? Unless you have personal knowledge that the accounts are not as stated - in which case the attorney general's office should hear about it - I will thank you not to spread lies.

[miassis dragon]

"The world owes me something" bla, bla, bla. I despise this kind of attitude on any level. To me its a sign of some someone wanting something given to them instead of earning it for themselves. The easy way out is to attack other individuals, groups, corporations, etc. as if they took something personal from you. Want respect on a hikers forum? Do a thru-hike, volunteer your time to a worthy cause, make a donation for the benefit of other hikers. Do something positive instead of sitting behind a computer screen and complaining about the world around you. How bout it ekih?

[BirdBrain]

East coasters can be loud rude bitchy opinionated people.

Yes we can. You have a problem with that?