First-Time NOBO Hiker in Whites Seeks Campsites

[colorado_rob]

I was correcting C_R with regard to the location of Joe Dodge Lodge. It's on Rte. 16, not Rte. 2.

Woops! Yeah, route 16.

Anyway, my wife and I did a SOBO section through the Whites together (I was going NOBO on the AT, but flipped through the whites because of logistics). Anyway, here was our itinerary. We had planned 100 miles in 7.5 days, seems reasonable, right? We did 90, and it kicked our butts, and we hike/climb all the time.

Day 1, a half day: US 2 to Imp campsite, 8 miles. Nice little spot.

Day 2, Imp campsite to Pinkham notch, 13.1 miles, walked to visitor center, Joe Dodge was booked, walked 1/4 mile back north on AT, "stealth camped" about a hundred yards off trail, many sites, many other tents. The guy in the visitor center/store/restaurant (whatever you call it) told us about these sites.

Day 3, Pinkham to Perch shelter/camp, about 10 miles, pain in the butt because the Perch is a full mile off the trail and a bit of a drop, but nice camp spot, platforms, scenic, worth the side trip off trail. The hike up from the Osgood campsite to Mt. Madison is what I consider to be the toughest couple of miles on the entire AT. We had a nice break at the Madison hut.

Day 4, Perch camp to Mizpah hut, 10 miles, basically a tough but beautiful day along the high ridges and of course Mt. Washington. We stopped for a nice break at Lake of the Clouds. We had pre-booked the hut, expensive but worth it, as has been said, we were on vacation! If you join the AMC, the huts are cheaper, I forget the discount, but if you stay in 2 or more huts, the membership pays for itself, plus you get other discounts.

Day 5, Mizpah to Zealand Falls hut, 14.1 miles, there is actually a very easy 5 mile stretch along this section. We had planned on finding a stealth camp, but had such a fine stay at Mizpah, decided to stay at Zealand Falls hut, what turned out to be our favorite hut

Day 6, Zealand to Garfield Ridge campsite/shelter, 9.7 miles, can't remember much about this day, but it was clear we weren't going to make out 100 miles to Glancliff in our 7 nights/7.5 day time frame, but making it to Kinsman notch would work (90 miles).

Day 7, Zealand to Lonesome Lake hut, 10.3 miles, another fine hut, we practically owned it (one other party of two was staying).

Day 8, 13.4 miles to Kinsman notch where we had arranged a shuttle to Glencliff and our car.

So, 7.5 days we made it 90 miles for a 12.5 MPD average, and we can normally hike 18-20 MPD easily. Tough terrain! But gorgeous.

One thing to remember if you do choose to stay in a hut or two: you can bring much less food along. We hiked 7.5 days but only started with 4-4.5 days of food. You can replenish a few snacks at the huts, as well as eat dinner/breakfast if you're staying, of course.

So again, 3 huts, 1 shelter and 3 campsites, all of which were legal, except maybe that one across route 16 from Joe Dodge Lodge, where at least a dozen others were camping and there were many established sites? I honestly don't know that thuis was strictly legal or not, I'm sure the WB police will tell me if it wasn't.

[rafe]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable itinerary, CR.

I suppose, being more or less a "local", camping at a stealth site near one of the big AMC facilities never really occurred to me, and frankly holds no interest.

Your Day 5 took you past the region that RickB and I were discussing earlier. From Zealand hut down to Crawford Notch (Rte. 302) is very easy and flat terrain, by White Mountain standards. One could probably "stealth" somewhere in the woods near the AT crossing on 302, if you wanted to avoid the big AMC facility there.

As an aside -- unless there's been a reroute since I last hiked it -- the trail (AT) near Ethan Pond is very prone to flooding, and likely to be underwater if there's been any kind of rain.

[rafe]

So true. We're doing exactly that in early July. With plane fare added in, this will surely be our most expensive section. But if we're lucky enough to escape any dramatic weather, then the hut-to-hut arrangement gets it done with minimal hassle. We plan to take our time and enjoy the trip.

Might be worth joining AMC, just for the discount.

[Slo-go'en]

So again, 3 huts, 1 shelter and 3 campsites, all of which were legal, except maybe that one across route 16 from Joe Dodge Lodge, where at least a dozen others were camping and there were many established sites? I honestly don't know that thuis was strictly legal or not, I'm sure the WB police will tell me if it wasn't.

If it was 1/4 mile from Pinkham and a 1/4 mile from the road, it passes as legal. The 200 feet from the trail requirement was probably not strictly observed though. But in some cases they have to accommodate hikers and concentrate them someplace. The options of where to put people are very limited.

[rafe]

Woops! Yeah, route 16.

I'm getting to be a geezer, but there are some things one can't forget. I've skied Wildcat dozens of times, and ascended Mt. Washington from Pinkham a half-dozen times or more. Several Memorial-day visits, for skiing Tuckermans Ravine.

I've also driven by there several times on the way to/from skiing at Sunday River, or driving the auto road.

For local hikers, Pinkham is kind of like Grand Central Station. There are several large overflow parking lots across the road. It's a bit like the infamous Rte. 311 trailhead down south (access to McAfee Knob.) But with lots more infrastructure. Those lots are full to the brim for the annual Mem. Day Tuckermans ski event.

Since we're talking about "alternate" camping, a Malto-like hiker could climb down Tuckermans and stay at Hermit Lake shelters. But that's a serious loss of vertical, and kind of nuts. Also, an insanely steep climb.

[rafe]

Oh and to connect to LW's famous and favorite line, "it's just walking" does not generally apply, anywhere in the White Mountains. It's not like the souf'. Not even like the Smokies.

[rickb]

If it was 1/4 mile from Pinkham and a 1/4 mile from the road, it passes as legal. The 200 feet from the trail requirement was probably not strictly observed though. But in some cases they have to accommodate hikers and concentrate them someplace. The options of where to put people are very limited.

The AT skirts the Cutler River FPA on the left side of the AT (going south) out of Pinkham.

Camping is 100% prohibited there no matter how far from a trail.

There is no 200' requirement on the right hand side of he trail until you enter the Great Gulf Wilderness area on the other side of the Auto Road (for a Southbounder).

You are correct about the 1/4 mile requirement from Pinkham and the Road.

[rickb]

One could probably "stealth" somewhere in the woods near the AT crossing on 302, if you wanted to avoid the big AMC facility there.

Not legally -- that's State Land.

[illabelle]

Might be worth joining AMC, just for the discount.

Yep, we did that. DEFINITELY worth it.

[Slo-go'en]

There are quite a few stealth sites in the whites and I used a few when I hiked, thanks to a list of them that was circulated when I hiked last year - but I can't find it now. Its out there though. Keep looking. If I find it I'll message you.

I seem to remember from your TJ that you did a lot of illegal camping, but I'm willing to give a thru hiker some leeway since camping rules apparently don't apply to thru hikers. But to advise a tourist hiker coming to do a short section of the Whites that they can use (or even find) these illegal stealth sites is irresponsible. These sites are strictly reserved for thru hikers.

Well, now that I'm rested up and well feed again after my recent little 650 mile walk, I'll finish up by doing Mt Adams to Glencliff next week and I'll see if I can find any these stealth sites.

[rafe]

Not legally -- that's State Land.

Fine, most of my comments are based on practical matters, simply finding flat, level, safe spots. "Legal" is always a big quagmire in the White Mtns. But as a practical matter, camping is much easier down low on the blue blazes, away from the AT.

[rickb]

I seem to remember from your TJ that you did a lot of illegal camping, but I'm willing to give a thru hiker some leeway since camping rules apparently don't apply to thru hikers. But to advise a tourist hiker coming to do a short section of the Whites that they can use (or even find) these illegal stealth sites is irresponsible. These sites are strictly reserved for thru hikers.

Well, now that I'm rested up and well feed again after my recent little 650 mile walk, I'll finish up by doing Mt Adams to Glencliff next week and I'll see if I can find any these stealth sites.

If you want to work in a bit of solitude, I would recommend bypassing the shelters between Lonesome Lake Hut and Kinsman Notch.

If you don't mind a dry camp there are a great many spots -- some with great views -- that are legal and discrete even if you camp close the the AT (there is no 200' requirement there). You might also consider dropping down to Gordon Pond on a short blue blaze.

Sometimes you find other folks tenting at Gordon Pond, but it is still very nice but potentially a bit buggy and much more private than the designated sites. Keep in mind that while LNT guidelines suggest you camp 200' from the water the obvious sites are closer at Gordon Pond. Since it is not in a Wilderness area, nor listed in any of the Supervisor's orders, it's perfectly legal to camp closer, but if that makes you uncomfortable, probably best to leave the pond to others.

Just some ideas-- all legal.

It is possible to have a taste of wildness and solitude in the Whites-- but sometimes you have to work at it.

[rafe]

It's out of AMC territory but shelters are limited. Shelter spacing is reasonable, though. Eg. (sobo)

Liberty Springs campsite
Kinsman Shelter
Eliza Brook
Beaver Brook
Glencliff (hostel)

If you can't make Beaver Brook (sobo) you'll find flat ground in the woods just west of Kinsman Notch (Rte. 112.) That's where Beaver Brook shelter used to be, long ago.

[BonBon]

I seem to remember from your TJ that you did a lot of illegal camping, but I'm willing to give a thru hiker some leeway since camping rules apparently don't apply to thru hikers. But to advise a tourist hiker coming to do a short section of the Whites that they can use (or even find) these illegal stealth sites is irresponsible. These sites are strictly reserved for thru hikers.

I did a lot of stealth camping but it was mostly legal. I liked to be away from the shelters. I had a few nights that I couldn't get to a perfectly legal spot but I tried to stay on the right side of the law The list I got in the whites listed lots of perfectly legal spots- and some not. I was legal through the whites except for one night. I don't want to give anyone bad advice, but if you stay below treeline and follow the rules- what is wrong with that?

[rickb]

I did a lot of stealth camping but it was mostly legal. I liked to be away from the shelters. I had a few nights that I couldn't get to a perfectly legal spot but I tried to stay on the right side of the law The list I got in the whites listed lots of perfectly legal spots- and some not. I was legal through the whites except for one night. I don't want to give anyone bad advice, but if you stay below treeline and follow the rules- what is wrong with that?

Many people don't understand the rules very well.

They will claim (incorrectly) that you must camp 200' feet away from every trail or pond, for example.

To the extent that it causes them stress to come across an illegal camper (who really isn't illegal at all) I feel bad for them.

Problem is, if people keep repeating misinformation over and over it starts to be accepted as fact.

[Slo-go'en]

If you want to work in a bit of solitude, I would recommend bypassing the shelters between Lonesome Lake Hut and Kinsman Notch.

I'll stick to designated sites, thank you very much. I like pooping in a privy (improper human waste disposal at "stealth" sites is reason enough to avoid them) and having water reasonably close by and a nice level and rock free tent platform to sleep on. I don't mind paying the $8 fee either.

If I want solitude, I know of lots of other places to go around here other then the AT. I got miles and miles of trail right behind my house few people ever use and there is always the Coos trail if I want a real adventure.

The AT from Hanover to Glencliff was signed as FPA requiring camping 200 feet off trail, ect. But the trail crosses private land on that segment. I don't know if they have extended the FPA through the NF, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I'll find out soon enough.

[rickb]

The AT from Hanover to Glencliff was signed as FPA requiring camping 200 feet off trail, ect. But the trail crosses private land on that segment. I don't know if they have extended the FPA through the NF, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I'll find out soon enough.

There are several sections of the AT in the Whites with such a restriction-- that one being the longest.

Here is a link to the relevant Supervisor's order (with maps) showing the others. There are separate orders for the Wilderness Areas which the AT mostly skirts.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5276594.pdf

[rafe]

Many people don't understand the rules very well.

Seriously, "Supervisor's Orders"? Who's got time for that? Who can keep track of all the different entities and jurisdictions in the White Mountains? It makes my head spin, and I've been hiking there for decades. As for the camping rules, I mostly concern myself with what's safe and feasible.

They will claim (incorrectly) that you must camp 200' feet away from every trail or pond, for example.

I've certainly never made that claim. But I'll say this, to the extent that the rule is in effect, in these mountains, it's as good as saying, "Don't even think about it."

Problem is, if people keep repeating misinformation over and over it starts to be accepted as fact.

Oh no, someone is wrong on the Internet!

[One Half]

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've been in that section but coming down off Madison, why not stop at Osgood tentsite? There's a couple platforms there and water nearby. It's not very far from Pinkham.

And yeh, C_R that section is a bit of a trip. 97 water bars when we used to maintain it and we didn't even go all the way to the top of Madison. that was just from tree line (IIRC) down to the tent site.

[Oteast]

A couple of things:
1) The AMC campsites or campsire and shelter sites are generally nicely located, have a well cared for privy, a boxed spring close by and are reasonable in cost for tenting. There are several in this zone that are up high (Liberty Springs Campsite, Garfield Ridge Shelter/Campsite, Ethan Pond Campsite (free and run by WMNF), Nauman tentsite right after Mizpah hut, Great Gulf Campsite (free run by WMNF)...

2) The AMC hut croo's usually try to accommodate thru's in work-for-stay if they can, do a good job at the tasks they give you, stay out of the way and discrete until they need you and likely they'll radio ahead for you at other huts. I recall being offered this based on initial positive work-for-stay at Galehead hut doing dishes, they offered the same at Lonesome Lake (it was down low enough to camp...), Mitzpah (where-in I wanted to stealth camp further north and did), and Lakes of the Clouds (where I did take them up, here they had me sweep out and straighten the bunkrooms and tidy up the dining area after breakfast), and Madison (again went afternoon and evening hiking beyond up Madison and down to Great Gulf tentsite. Thru hiker volume increase since the early 90's may make this harder option nowadays...

3) Stealth camping. It's hard to know if you in the legal given all the regs. I did this three times in the Pemigewassit and Southern Presidentials. If you follow the spirit of LNT (tent and do all you cooking and camping on a bare rock-slab, no fires, camp out of site from the footpath, pitch after dark and strike before dawn, stay below treeline even if above timberline which is 8' average canopy height), the one ranger and one ridge runner that came across me back in the day observed the then "Low_Impact" now LNT practices in use and just commented hello and be mindful of impacts please. But that was close to 25 years ago...