AMC Buys Camp in 100-Mile Wilderness

[Jack Tarlin]

The fact that the rooms might be comparable in price to other places in the Whites is not the point (Even if it were true, which it isn't. A single room at the Highland Center for non-members in the summertime is $138.00. There are hundreds of places in the Whites that charge much less).

I'm glad some folks think the Center is a "good deal." However, when one examines how much the AMC has done in the last five years as far as building or expanding lodging for folks of limited means (shelters, caretaker campsites, etc.) is is obvious that nearly all their recent efforts have been geared towards their members and their members' friends, i.e. their efforts have been aimed at a tiny fraction of the folks who hike in the Whites.

Most folks neither want, nor are able to spend $138.00 for a night's lodging, and it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich.

And toward wilderness preservation rather than making the wilderness accessible and cushy for its well-off members.

AMC went from neaR bankruptcy 25-30 years ago to doubling its membership to 90,000 and being comfortably in the black.

That suggests to me that AMC is doing the things that its membership wants it to do -- including building luxury lodges, and buying land and sporting camps in Maine.

But in addition to pleasing its members, AMC does important environmental work. It is the principal intervenor in dam relicensing projects, joined other environmentalist organization in opposing the massive wind power project on Redington, and agitates continuously against air pollution.

Bringing a conservation organization back from the brink of bankruptcy by adding wealth members with an agenda other than wilderness preservation and then catering to the new members' whims is not a positive step IMO.

Is there any info on exactly how much of this organizations' spending is going toward building / maintaining cushy wilderness digs and how much is going to things like dam relicensing and fighting windmills & air pollution?

[The Old Fhart]

BJ-"Most folks neither want, nor are able to spend $138.00 for a night's lodging, and it'd be really nice to see the AMC put a little more effort into taking better care of folks who don't happen to be rich"

Gee, my wife and I stayed first class at the Highland Center and it didn't cost us a cent. I gave a slide show in exchange for the stay. Quid pro quo.

[mingo]

also remember that they are doing all this catering to rich people on public land. that's our land, the white mountains national forest, that's basically been ceded to the AMC to do with as they please. and it's the AMC that's decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the AMC first.

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, there are plenty of places to camp in the Whites, tho Mingo is correct in saying that several of them are forbidden to over-nighters because the AMC got their first with a lodge. Lonesome Lake comes to mind.....it's a beautiful spot, and I sorta resent having to break the law if I want to stay there because somehow the AMC got semi-permanent rights to the spot. Public land is just that.....it's public, which means everyone should have the right to enjoy it, and not merely those who can pay top dollar for the privilege.

[weary]

Is there any info on exactly how much of this organizations' spending is going toward building / maintaining cushy wilderness digs and how much is going to things like dam relicensing and fighting windmills & air pollution?

The trouble with the question is that I don't know of any "cushy wilderness digs" that AMC has built. The Highland Center is on a major highway and on the site of an old resort hotel. That area hasn't been wilderness for at least 150 years. Whether you like what they built or not, it is certain that it is better than what would have been built had AMC not bought the property.

Little Lyford Camps is a delightful place but not remotely "cushy." There's still an outhouse behind each of 100-year-old cabins. The cabins are still heated by wood stoves, fired by the guests, not AMC employees.

The last time I was there, I heard someone ask if he could drive his car to his cabin to unload his gear. He was told, "no, that's not how we operate here." He had to pull his gear in 200 yards in a rickety cart like everyone else.

Weary

[The Old Fhart]

Mingo-"also remember that they are doing all this catering to rich people on public land. that's our land, the white mountains national forest, that's basically been ceded to the AMC to do with as they please. and it's the AMC that's decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the AMC first."

So much misinformation in so little space, you are efficient!

First, the Highland Center is on private land that the AMC owns so complaining about that facility is as relevant as complaining about Disneyworld.

Second, Yosemite, and many other public areas have leased out land or allowed it to be used for profit and non-profit reasons. Wildcat Ski Area comes to mind. In Shenandoah can you say "ARAMARK"? Why skip them while complaining about profiteers on or near the trail? (I for one was glad they were there). Is the PATC evil for not letting you stay at their cabins? (hint- the PATC EARNS their privilages)

Third, whether "ceded" or leased, there are terms and they do not have carte blanche as you seem to think. They are limited as to what they can and cannot do and these terms are spelled out in detail.

Fourth, the GMC (who, by the way, does a GREAT job) has "decided that we can't even camp someplace on our land without paying the [GMC] first". How is that any different? Obviously your lack of knowledge on stewardship and LNT is glaring.

Sorry if I interrupted your whining, have at it.

[Rambler]

If you oppose tha AMC purchase, consider this:

http://environmentmaine.org/envmaine.asp?id=1761&id4=ES

[rickb]

A single room at the Highland Center for non-members in the summertime is $138.00. There are hundreds of places in the Whites that charge much less

This is very true. One such place is just steps away: the Shapleigh Bunk House. The price is $31 for a bunk, but that includes fresh linnens and AYCE breakfast that most thru hiers would appreciate.

Not sure why Jack wouldn't want future thru hikers to know this.

Another option that seems far more popular than the private rooms at the Highland Center is the main lodge's bunk rooms. The price here is $60 bucks per person (I am pretty sure that ATC members are afforded the AMC member rate), but that includes a full breakfast (normall $9 Bucks) and dinner (Normally $20).

That leaves a cost of $30 for your bunk. Is this more than other hostels along the Trail? You bet. But if that grates on you as much as it does Jack, keep in mind that the "profits" will help subsidize the cost of the caretaker sites and prograqms.

Oh by the way, for that price there are free programs and you can borrow all manner of equipment like snowshoes and such.

[Darwin again]

"Leave No Trace" can also mean "Pay No Fees."

[Heater]

Gee, my wife and I stayed first class at the Highland Center and it didn't cost us a cent. I gave a slide show in exchange for the stay. Quid pro quo.

Reminder to self, Pack my slideshow...

[rickb]

when one examines how much the AMC has done in the last five years as far as building or expanding lodging for folks of limited means (shelters, caretaker campsites, etc.)

A good place to do this examination is at www.outdoors.org.

While its true that the AMC has not recently built new campsites in the White Mountain National Forest (glad to hear that some support the idea, but there are all sorts of reasons that is unlikely), the club has done a whole lot building, maintaining and promoting a rather diverse mix a recreational facilities.

If you click on the "Lodging tab" one place those on a budget might begin with is the AMC campgrounds scattered throuh out the New England. At about $15 per site, these are very affordable. Or check out the backcountry cabins. While Goose Pond is set aside for thru hikers to stay free of charge, others can be rented by groups. Not exactly free, but not bad if you go with an extended family or group-- they hold quite a party.

Might be worth checking out if you are looking for an inexpensive way to enjoy the outdoors and your family isn't up to walking 200 feet into the woods to pitch a tent for free.

The AMC isn't about Boston Brahmens and blue bloods. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find one if you spent weeks at the Huts. Most AMC members are not "The Rich", but very regular people. Not that Rch is bad-- but perpetuating old myths and an us vs. them mentality in a magical section of Trail isn't fair to anyone. Not fair to the scorned, and not fair to those who are encouraged carry the these prejudices.

[mingo]

i'm not totally anti-AMC. they do a lot of good stuff. my issues are simple: they attract a lot of people to the national forest with their lodges and then they charge fees at shelters to pay for mitigating the impact of all those people they attracted to the forest in the first place. that's it. i'd rather that the whites were like, say, the smokies. far fewer people hike in the smokies precisely because there's only one lodge. there's no need, therefore, to charge fees for ordinary backpackers to stay at the shelters. and don't tell me that more people hike in the whites because more people live around there. the smokies are the most-visited national park in the country.

[weary]

i'm not totally anti-AMC. they do a lot of good stuff. my issues are simple: they attract a lot of people to the national forest with their lodges and then they charge fees at shelters to pay for mitigating the impact of all those people they attracted to the forest in the first place. that's it. i'd rather that the whites were like, say, the smokies. far fewer people hike in the smokies precisely because there's only one lodge. there's no need, therefore, to charge fees for ordinary backpackers to stay at the shelters. and don't tell me that more people hike in the whites because more people live around there. the smokies are the most-visited national park in the country.

The tradition of "huts" -- call them lodges if you wish -- predates the creation of the National Forest, which was created through the support and political power and agitation of AMC.

The Whites represent the only large block of high peaks in the northeast. They would be overrun with people, with or without AMC. AMC if anything ensures that the hordes are accomodated with minimum damage to the landscape.

Weary

[mingo]

The tradition of "huts" -- call them lodges if you wish -- predates the creation of the National Forest, which was created through the support and political power and agitation of AMC.

The Whites represent the only large block of high peaks in the northeast. They would be overrun with people, with or without AMC. AMC if anything ensures that the hordes are accomodated with minimum damage to the landscape.

Weary

two questions, weary. 1. the lodges predate the forest, but the AMC has rebuilt the lodges and make them bigger and better over time, right? 2. why aren't the smokies overrun with people?

[weary]

two questions, weary. 1. the lodges predate the forest, but the AMC has rebuilt the lodges and make them bigger and better over time, right? 2. why aren't the smokies overrun with people?

AMC has both rebuilt and built at least one brand new hut since the creation of the forest. But I think Madison Springs and Carter Notch are still original -- at least the main building at Carter Notch.

I can't answer question two. But I doubt if the huts play a major role. Most likely it's a matter of population density. At least 80 million people live within a day's drive of the Whites.

Also there are no competing facilities nearby. Shenandoah takes a lot of pressure from the Washington-New York population corridor. And of course no other place in the east has more above timberline acres. AS a result the first choice of New Yorkers is to head north to the Whites, not south to the Smokies.

Finally, I don't know how the total numbers and acres add up. But above timberline is far more fragile than the deep soils of the Smokies. It may not be a matter of more people, just a more fragile environment that limits camping opportunities.

Weary

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

As a person living near the Smokies, I will offer a possible explanation why the backcountry in the GSMNP isn't overrun with tourons. The majority of vacationers in the Smokies stay in Cherokee, NC or to Gatlinburg / Pigeon Forge, TN. Both areas offer a wide variety of amusements and entertainment options that are not in the mountains. Most come for family vacations with plans to go to Dollywood, water parks, Harrah's casino, etc. These people make day trips to Clingman's dome, Newfound Gap, Cades Cove, etc. to explore the wonders of the Smokies. Many float in large tire tubes down the Little River. A very small percentage of the hoard of vistors to this area come to backpack or even to hike further than the 5 mile round trip to Abrams Falls or the paved 2.6 mile round trip to Laurel Falls or the paved 1/2 mile to Clingman's Dome tower.

[Ewker]

the paved 1/2 mile to Clingman's Dome tower.

I crack up laughing everytime I see some woman walking up that paved path in high heels

[mingo]

[quote=Frolicking Dinosaurs]As a person living near the Smokies, I will offer a possible explanation why the backcountry in the GSMNP isn't overrun with tourons. The majority of vacationers in the Smokies stay in Cherokee, NC or to Gatlinburg / Pigeon Forge, TN. {quote]

true, but what if there were lodges up and down the A.T. through the smokies, like there are in the whites, offering a place to sleep, breakfast and dinner? how many more people would venture into the backcountry then? leconte lodge attracts -- what? -- 70 or 80 people a night? what if there were seven or eight lodges?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Excellent point, Mingo. The foot traffic on the routes to Mt LeConte Lodge are indeed heavier than on other trails of similar length and difficulty. The lodge holds 50 guest who must hike one of five routes to reach the lodge. The rates seem to be more reasonable than those at the huts. Many others hike to the lodge and return as a day trip to see it and its spectacular views.