AMC ? Whats the deal ?

[stevec]

Hi,

I've been reading alot of stuff about the Whites and the AMC and it seems like a very heated topic so its hard for me to build a picture of what issues will actually affect me in that area. Sorry if this is an unwelcome or heated topic but I'm growing increasingly concerned about New Hampshire and I'm hoping for some hard, usable information.

I hear stuff along the lines that they outlaw camping in the area and essentially force you to stay in shelters that you can't stay in because they are full or expensive. Since its still public land I can't believe they have THAT much control over it, and if they indeed do why is this tolerated ?

I've heard about all kinds of negativity directed at thru-hikers there and all sorts of difficulties getting though the area. I'm wondering what the real issues are and if there are any tips for getting around those difficulties ?

[Team GAK]

Hey Steve -

You shoud go onto their web site and ask that question. (outdoors.org). I go there from time to time, but I only read. The whites are a high traffic area with lots of regulations and regulators. The crew is generally helpful, but somewhat inconsistant. Make sure you get the guide books and know the rules.

Keep an open mind and alway be nice. Don't ever walk into a hut or campsite with an attitude, nothing good will come of that. If the last crew were jerks the next crew might be great. Let it be as good as it can be for you. You may have the time of you life.

[DRRouner]

I agree with Team GAK. I had no problems going thru the whites. The crew, were for the most part were very laid back (some were former thru hikers). While the policies and regulations are far from perfect, please don't take it out on the crew. I remember coming to a free site and the girl was extremely nervous around me when I told her I was a thru-hiker. She finally told me a group of thru hikers the night before had taken their anger out on her instead of the AMC and scared her so bad she hid in her tent with her dog. There are places you can stealth camp and you can get maps when you get to NH. if you are a nobo.

[peter2003]

You will not have a problem until you hit Franconia Notch, Route 3, near North Woodstock, NH. I would probable go into North Woodstock and or Lincoln and stay at a cheap motel, resupply, and continue my hike.

1. Stay at Liberty Springs Tentsite, cost $8.00.

2. After hikking the Franconia Ridge stay at Garfield Ridge Campsite, cost another $8.00.

3. From here you can hike to Ethan Pond Campsite and pay another $8.00, or go bootleg camp near Crawford Notch (this is what I would do).

4. The next stop would be the Nauman Tensite at Mizpah Spring Hut, or bootleg again after loading up with water at the hut. Could cost you another $8.00 but have option of working at hut for free room and board. Another option is to hike clear to Lake of the Clouds Hut and stay in the basement for another $8.00.

5. From Mizpah I would get up early and hike the entire Northern and Southern Presidential range camping somewhere after Madison Hut; but if the weather is bad, there a few places to stay such as the Randolph Moutain Club cabins, however, you have to drop about 1,000 feet to get to them. If the weather is rearly bad stay in camp and rest and wait for a good day.

5. After Pinkham Notch you can bootleg camp in a number of places so I would worry too much about camping.

While I am a long standing AMC member I not a big fan of the huts because the hostels are so expensive (about $70.00 a night) for a bunk and breakfast an supper. The cost along excludes a lot of low and middle income people. My wife and I used to stay at the huts when the cost was more hike a hostel fee, however, ever since the AMC got their permit renewed with the US Forest Service the price increased a lot. I surposed you need the higher fees to pay the high salary's at the AMC. I will not quote the figures, but beleive me they are higher than anyone I know makes.

[Youngblood]

I have a very negative attitude about the AMC in the Whites.

The Whites are breathtakingly beautiful. Some of the trail on the AT seemed like drainage run-off and where usually damp, steep and involved scaling large boulders/small cliffs. When it rained, sometimes it was like hiking in a waterfall. Sometimes the trail there seemed like an obstacle course...a very dangerous one. Probably more falls there than anywhere else and a few folks got hurt pretty badly.

The AMC's policies were not 'thru-hiker friendly'. Very, very hard to find campsites that were not 'owned and controlled' by the AMC, which required fees and reservations. Some of the campsites required decending about a 1000 feet down a side trail to what might be a full campsite. Most of the croo's at the huts where college kids and where very nice, but...they seemed to be on somewhat of a 'power trip' with the thru-hikers the year I went through. My 2nd work for stay left me and my hiking companions with a very negative attitude with the croo's, even though we all got along great with them. After that we stayed at Hiker's Paradise in Gorham and 'slack-packed' the rest of the White's. It was much less difficult hiking the obstacle course type trails with a day pack and might have allowed us to complete the thru-hike without a serious injury, who knows?

Just my $0.02 worth. BTY, I was 51 yo at the time (2000) and am a pretty easy going and understanding type guy (I think), just didn't like the way the AMC runs the Whites. Seemed like a power trip gone amuck. Apparently the AMC ... never mind, I have probably said too many negative thinks already. The Whites are probably the toughest part of the AT, but they are outstanding and are a part of the trip that you will never forget.

Youngblood

[Sleepy the Arab]

There are a few things worth keeping in mind when traversing the Presidentials. About .6 miles down the Valley Way Path right by Madison Hut is the Valley Way Tentsites. This site, like Osgood tentsite another three (rough) miles north on the AT, are FREE. That's right, they're opperated/owned by the US Forest service and not the AMC.

If these tent platformed areas are still a little too developed for your tastes then push on past Osgood Tentsite until you reach the junction with the Great Gulf Trail. Go LEFT (down the non-whiteblazed path) down the Great Gulf trail for about a tenth of a mile. You should find two wilderness campsites, both marked by a simple post sign. These are nothing more than a clear space of earth (water from the nearby brook) but hey, that's all a thru-hiker needs. There are also some good views up the Gulf of the mountains you just slogged over. These are such primo sites and so close to the AT that I'm surprised that they haven't been mentioned in any of the 2 primary guides.

And the RMC Cabins Grey Knob and Crag Camp, despite being 1000 feet off the ridgeline, are worth checking out, if only to thumb your nose at the AMC from the inexpensive competition across the ravine. I believe the cost is $10/night/person, only two bucks more than what the AMC charges for a stay in a building with 25% fewer walls.

[Ann]

Steve, here is my main beef with the AMC. This is an organization who has literally millions in contribution dollars arriving at their doorstep every year. If you have even the SLIGHTEST amount of doubt about this please go to www.guidestar.org and type in Appalachian Mountain Club. It will give you what they took in for contributions plus a LOT MORE info. If you spend even 30 seconds at that site you will get a good picture of things, spend more time there and you'll get an even better view. It is of my opinion that a awful lot of good could be done with that money. A mere pittance is put into backcountry sites...roughly ONLY 1/3 of 1 cent per contribution dollar...the bulk of the money goes for huts, new building endeavors such as the "hotel" that is going up in Crawford Notch right now, salaries for the CEO...ooops I mean Executive Director and glossy marketing efforts that include an obscene amount of money for telemarketing. (I believe on another board Baltimore Jack came up with the figure of $180,000 for telemarketing efforts alone.) That $180,000 figure, spent dialing for dollars, is 3 TIMES the amount of money they pitched in to help run backcountry sites. In the mean time the backcountry sites are crowded and the hut system flourishes and the building efforts continue. It is my opnion that this area of the woods is becoming more elitist as each year passes and it is primarly due to the way money is allocated in this region.

There is an awful lot more I could say about this BUT I will NOT add any more unless others want this discussion to continue and believe me I will gladly add to this thread if anyone out there is interested.

My final words are this: Please, please, enjoy your time in the Whites, I say that from my heart and honestly mean it. I may be partial but the area is absolutely beautiful. My best suggestion to you is to avoid the highest traffic areas during the weekends...this includes: Franconia Ridge...a spectacular hike best enjoyed with the least amount of people...try to plan it for weekdays if possible. The Presi's...again a high traffic area and to truly be enjoyed, hit this area on weekdays if possible. I wish you good weather and spectacular views and bring lots of film.

Oh, and finally, I urge you to take the opportunity to moon the Cog...and take a picture to commemorate the occasion. It will be something you can look back and smile about when you are old and grey!!!!

[Blue Jay]

Ann, that was the best post I have ever read. You hit the nail on the head. The AMC is just another corporation whose sole purpose is using the Whites to make money. In spite of that it is very important to enjoy that part of the trail. Your posts are always great and a delight to read.

[Ann]

Thanks Blue Jay.

And Steve, I wish there WAS an answer to one of your questions on why this is allowed to occur. It amazes me as well. I do however find it very interesting that this is the third board within 6 months that discussion involving this matter and related matters has taken place. If you are interested in a lively discussion on AMC lodging options in the Whites click on this link,
it will demonstrate not only the needsand problems of the area but also the difficulties involved in changing mindsets.

The first link is a great thread initiated by Baltimore Jack and has EXCELLENT questions, and commentary he brings up to the AMC BB DIRECTLY, it is more than several pages long, to contiue reading to the next page click the small link provided that says next.

http://appalachia.outdoors.org/bbs/m...01&STARTPAGE=1




For more on the Crawford Hotel expansion project I cannot provide a direct link but can provide directions on getting there:

1. Go to www.viewsfromthetop.com

2. Click on Search

3. Type in the term-- hotel at Crawford
(in the search area provided)

4. A small list will come up. The last selection, "New AMC Hotel at
Crawford" is what you will be looking for, highlight it to select it.

The thread is about 3 pages long...it is set up just like this site and you just need to click on the bottom buttons to get to the next page in order to read through the thread.

On both BB's you do NOT need to be a registered member to lurk, search or read...if you decide to add to any posts you will need to register.

[Peaks]

The White Mountains are heavily used. The closer to Washington you get, the more people you see. Above treeline, and in the harsh environment, the more fragil is the plants and trees. To minimize the impact, the USFS has imposed certain regulations, like no camping areas.

AMC is very visible in the Whites. The other clubs and agencies are not as visible. So, the AMC bears the brunt of all criticism from thru-hikers who have basically had a free and unregulated hike up to this point.

Campsites: if you have ever stayed at a unstaffed campsite that has been heavily used, then you appreciate a caretaker site that keeps things under control.

AMC maintains hundreds of miles of trail in this area besides the AT. That costs. AMC hauls out and disposes of human waste. That costs big time.

If you don't want to stay at the AMC campsites or huts, that's your right. If you look around, there are places to stealth camp. The basic regulation is don't camp above treeline because of the fragil environment. So, plan accordingly. No camping between Liberty Springs and the other side of Lafayette, and no camping between Mizpah until after Madison, unless you go down a side trail.

The hut experience is unique. However, the closer you get to Washington, the more GI are the crews (largely because of the crowds). Most crews are laid back and great. Ask other hikers going the other way which ones are good. Usually, one or two crews appear to have a chip in their shoulder, and there are some that rock. Some work for stays are very nominal. Some work your tail off. Ask before committing.

Oh, one last thing, don't go in there with the attitude that just because you are thru-hiking that you should get special treatment. Expecially late in the summer after the crew has put up with the general public all summer long.

[rickb]

Hear are a few thoughts.

In the interest of full disclosure I am an inactive AMC member who thu hiked without staying at a hut, but who has subseqently has enjoyed a few hut stays in both winter and summer. I do most of my hiking in the Whites now, but off the AT. My WMNF maps are a web of red lines showing the trails I've hiked over the past dozen years.

1. While a detour to the Perch or another RMC camp (off the Presidential ridgeline) may seem unatractive when you are looking at a map (because it looks like you will drop some hard earned elevation), I'd recommend one not worry about that. The hiking to and from these sites is wonderful, with much of it above treeline. Its simply great hiking. By staying at one of these sites you may well enjoy another sunrise in a fabulous section of the Trail, and another shot at a clear day. I'd strongly encourage people to consider a stay at one of these sites, especially if the alternative is getting through the WHites faster.

2. The White Mountains above tree line are especially heavily used. While some of these folks may be nitwits, a whole bunch of them love the mountains every bit as much as thru hikers. You have any idea how manyformer thru hikers don't get back to the woods and mountains they professed to love? Still, crowds are crowds. If you hit the Trail at 6AM you will have more than a couple hours of hiking in TOTAL solitude. If solitude is important to you, you might want to adjust your schedules. If not important, that's OK too.

3. The AMC is not just another corporation whose sole purpose is to make money. I understand how it seams that way, but this is just not true. While I might agree that some of its approaches are flawed, I sincerely believe that the motivation behind the club's decisions are sincere.

Apart from what thru hikers see, the AMC has a web of chapter activities and participation that is very active, and for all intents and purposes, free. I can't document the amount of volunteer trail efforts the club generates, but it is substancial. The club has some 90,000 members and the huts remain very popular.

4. The work-for-stay program has been a source of bitching for years. Someday it will be eliminated, and the problem solved. Thru hikers will then either camp away from huts (very doable) or pay the same as everyone else. I think this will lead to less angst and hurt feelings.

5. The Whites are great. The only thing logistiacally different about them is you need to think more than one night ahead. Peter2003 shows one good approach. Its simply not hard working around the huts and the special above tree line conditions.

6. Do Sign all the hut registers.! They keep them for decades. WHen you return to the dreaded huts with your yet unborn 8-year old, or a new high-heel loving wife, or Niles Crane like husband, or with a wide-eyed grand kid, or on a -15 degree winter day a score of years into the future, you can point out your witty prose and enjoy the momement. Hell, you can even enjoy the hut ;-).

Rick B

[Ann]

Peter...
There are some work arounds for those campsites. I gave some suggestions on the camping thread under the AT Shelters and Lean-to's catagory. I think the only one I didn't give was for Ethan Pond...and there are quite a few options as you head towards Ethan Pond to stay legal there camp 200' off the trail and outside any FPA's. Oh, and don't miss Thoreau Falls!! I HAVE NOT SEEN the list suggested by another poster that is available from the Hostel in Glenncliff (since I've NEVER thru-ed and never stayed there) but it certainly sounds like the BEST source for campsites....most likely better than what I could suggest because I am looking at things via a weekenders or two week vacation hikers eyes.

[Jumpstart]

There was a great list of stealth-camping spots posted at the hostel in Glenlciff...free for the copying. We base-camped at Lafayette Campground and did NH as a series of high-mileage dayhikes, since we had friends and family hiking with us; but as much complaining and whining we heard from thru-hikers about the huts, I never saw a hiker the whole time who didn't appreciate the left-over free breakfasts, the opoprtunity to buy an orange, or a chance to just sit down, dry out, and to get out of the rain.

It's just another experience on the trail, and usually the bitterness we came across was due to the fact that hikers had already blown their allotted budget for their hikes long ago on beer and hotel rooms, and couldn't stay at the huts because someone was more motivated to get up early and beat them out for work-for-stay. The big rumor circulating this year was that they planned to re-route the AT out of New Hampshire all together...maybe their getting sick of all the thru-hiker whining...but I doubt it....

[Ann]

Peaks

Just wanted to mention a few points regarding your post:

You wrote:
>>" The White Mountains are heavily used. The closer to Washington you get, the more people you see. Above treeline, and in the harsh environment, the more fragil is the plants and trees."<<

That is perhaps the ONLY sentence that I am in 100% agreement with you.

You also wrote:
>>"AMC maintains hundreds of miles of trail in this area besides the AT. That costs. AMC hauls out and disposes of human waste. That costs big time."<<

As far as "hauling out human waste"...exactly which backcountry sites are you talking about??? ALL of the backcountry campsites use COMPOSTING...that is done by hand. The compost is then used around the backcountry sites. If you don't believe me take a gander at their site, www.outdoors.org click on lodging and then go to the backcountry sites area...it will confirm this. The caretakers of the sites compost as part of their jobs...there is NO waste that is hauled out from any backcountry campsites, those days are long gone. Now you will say, but they have to PAY the caretakers of the sites, YES this is true however they also collect 8 buck per head to run the sites. The ENTIRE COST to run the sites come in at a slight loss but that is a drop in the bucket as far as contributions go and it works out to cost the membership less than 1/3 of 1 cent per contribution dollar...again, the bulk of the contribution dollars goes towards new building efforts, administration costs and marketing
efforts. IF the backcountry sites were FREE...and that included having a caretaker present at the sites it would cost the membership approximately 1 cent per contribution dollar. (The entire annual cost to run them could possibly be absorbed by the profits from one hut alone..but I won't go there either.) Making the sites free is something I personally would like to see done. It would provide options for more hikers, it would benefit a great number of people out there, is an excellent use of 1 cent per contribution dollar and would be a very inexpensive way to create some good will.

As far as trail maintenance goes...yes, the trails on the AT are nicely maintained. The trails in other parts of the Whites are in SORE need of some attention. The trails that head to ANY hut are in great shape also. Now, the AMC runs "sub-clubs" within it's membership. One is the 4000 footer club. It would seem to me that a club who promotes and runs this sub-club would also want to do a good job in maintaining these trails, since it is part of their OWN membership...this is not the case. There are more trails than you can imagine out there that are so overrun with brush and foliage and the blazes so worn or not visible at all that they are difficult to follow for many people. I would like to mention that in this past year alone I can site a few cases that hikers have become lost, and have required rescue assistance due to what they called the inability to follow the trail. I won't go there in making a judgment call on the rescue validity because that is another can of
worms and I am a firm believer in having good navigational skills despite trail conditions however, I also feel that the club should at a minimum make sure there are visible blazes on the trails that lead to these peaks.


So Peaks, that is just my 2 cents also.

[Moose2001]

I came to the conclusion that if the AMC was really serious about spending it's money on what it's "stated" mission is, they would dump that Boston palace they call their headquarters and move into some reasonable digs, like Pinkham Notch. How much of your membership dollars go into keeping the AMC staff in such a palatial setting? Just take a look at the difference between the headquarters of the ATC and the AMC. ATC is nice but it's functional. No blown money on non-hiking extras.

Of course, AMC will tell you that's their traditional headquarters. AMC was founded by a bunch of rich Boston businessmen. They figured they knew better than anyone in New Hampshire how to manage the resources in the White Mountains. I still see that same paternalistic attitude in AMC's dealing with their members and their approach to the White Mountains. IMHO, the best thing that could ever happen to the AMC is a group of disgruntled members get together, stage a "coup" and turn the club to what its mission really should be, protecting and preserving the Whites for everyone.

[Ann]

Moose...

Very well put!!!

IMHO, the best thing that could ever happen to the AMC is a group of disgruntled members get together, stage a "coup" and turn the club to what its mission really should be, protecting and preserving the Whites for everyone.

[Peaks]

Don't mean to pick a fight with Ann. OK, I guess that the days of flying poop is finally over. The last ones should have been replaced this past year or so.

That's an interesting idea to move AMC out of Joy Street. ATC moved out of DC,a nd PATC moved out of DC also. Maybe AMC should do likewise.

I'm not involved with club politics. Maybe we should be. I just like to go out and hike.

[rickb]

"ENTIRE COST to run the sites come in at a slight loss but that is a drop in the bucket as far as contributions go and it works out to cost the membership less than 1/3 of 1 cent per contribution dollar", says Ann.

Ann makes a good point. Her numbers might even be accurate for a year in which the AMC recieved some specatacular one-time contibutions dedicated to building the Highland Center and support specific endowments, like one dedicated to maintaining trails.

Basically what she is saying is that the $8.00 campsite fee is subsidized by the club, but not enough.

She has a good point. This bothers some AMC members, too. The funny thing is the club's failure to further underwrite the costs of the caretaker sites more seems to most bother those who don't contribute to the AMC.

I'd recommend hikers passing through not get sucked in to that way of thinking. Enjoy the free beneftits, and the subsidized ones. Get a shower in Pinkham notch with a clear conscience. Dry out at a Hut as you pass by, and enjoy the people there. Camp in the woods if you want.

To the extent that 90,000 people contribute to an organization with goals that don't fully relfect your own, I'd just chill. And enjoy the free benefits of those which do, and when it comes time to making your own contributions, think of the ATC. When you pay your $8.00 for a tent platform, understand that other's money has subsidized your stay a little, and that the AMC isn't making a profit on your visit. When you move a bit farther North and stay at a free caretaker site run by the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, ask yourselves how they were able to do that. And whether or not its likely your will ever support them with a contribution, either.

As for how other trails have been kept up in the Whites, a very few are not kept up well. Frankly, these are the trails that wouldn't be attractive to backpackers if they were. The vast majority are. Perhaps Ann will recall what a mess the mountains were after a major ice storm a few years back, and the great job done to clear them.

Rick B

[Grimace]

Had to jump in on this one. Sorry, Ann, you made me a little angry. I am an active AMC member. I took part in there How to Thru-Hike Workshop which was insturmental in my completion of the AT. I am an active Trail Maintenance Volunteer maintaining a section of trail from Full Goose Shelter to the top of Goose Eye.

I will agree that some of their policies may be a bit flawed. Maybe they do spend too much money on fundraising. However, IMHO, they do spend their money on other important things.

They run a program for impoverished youth to get out into the woods.

They hold many a workshop including Leave No Trace, Avalanch Safety, the afformentioned how to Thru-Hike, Ice Climbing, Rock Climbing. I can go on and on.

They maintain a ridiculous amount of trail from NH down to Deleware.

They promote conservation.

You are right about the composting toilets. OH wait, those were free right? Oh, and so are the tons and tons of bark they helicopter in to help all of the feces compost. I forgot, so are the employees that hike into the campsites to literally stir your **** to aid in the composting. Then they spead it onto screens to dry, then they disperse it into the woods, never the same place twice.

How about those Huts. I might agree with you ont his one. I had some bad experiences heading through the Whites. But, as I think Mr Boudrie said, they are not there for Thru Hikers. THey are there to create revenue to the AMC and to give families a chance to enjoy the mountains way. I have no problem that huts exist. You think every hotel along the trail should let thrus stay for free?

I'm sorry, Ann, that the trails through the Whites don't meet your standards. HOwever, let's just say that your front yard had the same amount of thin top soil you find in the Whites. Don't forget the bedrock real close to the surface. Then think about the average grade of trail in the Whites (Switchbacks are not feasible in this terrain and soil). Don't forget to add the rainfall, snowfall, snow melt, high winds. Then add Millions of people walking to your front door every year. Don't you think you'd have a bit of a gully in your front yard? We trail maintainers work tirelessly to create drainage, clean out the gullys, cut back the brush, prevent the creation of rogue campsites and trails. Despite our efforts we always come back to our trails to find litter, clogged drainages, overturned rocks, rogue campsites and trails. You have not known work until you hike up to Goose Eye with hoes, shovels, loppers, and clippers then hike down to the shelter digging and cutting along the way. Don't forget to drop off the 2 six packs you lugged with you to drop off for thrus at the shelter, then hike back up to Goose Eye and down the other side. We do the best we can. There are plenty of trails in the Whites that don't have full time maintainers. Perhaps you should pitch in some day, or even adopt a trail you find particularly bad. Or, you could just bitch.

The AMC kindly runs a lodge near Gorham (which puts thru hikers up for free) solely to aid the trail voluteers. THey provide food, lodging, and tools at no cost.

Any organization that promotes leave no trace, conservation, enjoyment of the outdoors, and the AT gets a check in my book.

[peter2003]

A few other thoughts about the AMC:

1. I think it is hard to respect the AMC due the high executive salary's (how many memberships does it take to pay the CEO salary).

2. I have never been impressed with the AMC trailcrew efforts; for a club the size and financial strength of the AMC they could do a whole lot more and have more trailcrew.

3. It seems that the AMC is more interested in becoming a guide service for the rich Boston folks rather than protecting the environment and the white's. Just take a look at the guided hikes and workshops the club offers at a very high cost while the AMC membership could receive the same training/skills from the chapters for free or a much smaller charge.

4. Some of my friends can recall the above tree line campsites controlled by the AMC/USFS a number of years ago, that have been torn down. One has to questions whether the motive for such action was to protect the environment or decrease competition for the AMC huts.

5. As an AMC member I would vote to take the huts down and or turn them into European type self service hostels offering service at a cost basis, ie lodging at about $25.00 a night.

Peter