AMC's Reputation

[Don]

I ran across this article a while ago...it's a case study of the re-organization of the AMC a few years ago to help make it a more financially viable organization. Those interested in this issue might find it interesting. Its longish -- 18 pages -- and was written to be an analytical case for a strategic planning class....

http://www.csubak.edu/~rdaniels/appl_a.pdf

[cascader]

So whose the money hiker--the ultralight, ultrafast backpaker with his $325 Western Mountaineering (oh, sorry, WM) sleeping bag, his $150 Flite Vest, and his $360 Exped Sirius tent, or the middle class couple who got their backpack and sleeping bags for under $100 each from the REI outlet site and take their kids to Carter Notch hut for $25 per person once or twice a year?

I never would have considered the AMC huts before I had kids, but with kids, I think it's *the* way to get them interested in backpacking. Start out light, with a full service hut, then move to self-service/off-season huts, then tenting. The 11 year olds you see splashing around in the water at Zealand Falls hut may well be in the middle of the 100 mile wilderness 5 or 6 years later sleeping under tarps.

I know it's not the only way to do it. I started out in the boy scouts, but that's pretty much out of the question where I live unless you belong to a Catholic church or are openly anti-gay. My kids *love* the huts and I'm grateful to the AMC for providing them. They're also great for older hikers who need to go light but can no longer sleep on the ground with impunity, including retirees I've met who definitely are not "money hikers." (Some get discounts by volunteering, as do thru-hikers.) And they can help people extend their hiking seasons who don't have 4 season tents/bags/pads but want to try out winter hiking.

That said, I pretty much agree that the huts are best for certain phases of life--preteens, seniors--but, hey, not every hiker is a healthy 18-35 year old. I've met mostly really nice people in the huts, and it's been a great experience for my kids.

[A-Train]

I'd second cascader's comments. I have not read this thread, but I think the AMC's huts and education are a great gap to getting kids turned on to the outdoors, as opposed to sitting around watching tv and playing video games.

My dad used to drag me to the adirondacks every summer for a week and I hated it, but at the age of 15 we took a 4 day trip to the whites and returned the next summer to hike a different section of the whites. I wasn't exactly a kid at that age, but it made all the difference turning a city slicker on to backpacking and the outdoor community.

Often I think people are unfair about it being an elite operation only for the rich. My family certainly wasn't very wealthy, but for being the one family vacation a yr, its not really all THAT pricey compared to the way many americans spend their vacations. And I'd say its a whole lot more enjoyable.

[Frosty]

I know it's not the only way to do it. I started out in the boy scouts, but that's pretty much out of the question where I live unless you belong to a Catholic church or are openly anti-gay.

Apologize for getting off topic here, but check the scouts again. Church sponsored troops do not restict membership to church members. All welcome (but be aware that part of the scout credo is reverent). Also, you need not be actively anti-gay or anything else for your child to participate in scouts. You may NOT be a leader yourself if you are gay, however.

[Buckles]

Also, you need not be actively anti-gay or anything else for your child to participate in scouts. You may NOT be a leader yourself if you are gay, however.

Right, you also don't have to actively support gas chambers to be a fascist and you don't have to actively support lynchings to be a white supremacist. It's alright to socialize with hate-mongers, if they put on a good party.

[DavidNH]

I want to preface my comments by saying that
I live in New Hampshire and have been here for 10+ years
Have been an AMC member for many years (though am not currently)
and have stayed at most of their facilities and am very familiar with the white mountains of New Hampshire.

On the down side.. many disparage the AMC because
1) it costs 50$ per year for an individual to be a member
2) camping in the whites is mostly limited (by policy and terrain) to official camp sites that cost 8 dollars per person
3) cost of the huts is 80 or so dollars per person and closer to 90 on Saturday nights. left over food at huts also costs.
4) AMC influence and education definitely contributes to crowds in the whites

On the up side.. THE AMC is very beneficial because
The facilities and the club weekend hikes create more knowledge and interest in the mountains
the club is a voice and political force for environmental conservation in the
region
The club contributes to environmental education
The club preserves land
The club serves as a social club for like minded people to meet and develop friendships

So you may refer to the AMC as the Appalachian Money Club as many long distance hikers do, or as the Appalachian Marriage Club as some others do..either way it is still the Appalachian Mountain Club and does a lot of good things in the area.

I should also mention that while the huts are too costly for long distace hikers and nearly always full anyway (reserved months in advance) they DO try to accomadate hikers as much as possible through work for says. On my thru hike I got work for stay at Lakes, Madison, and Carter Notch. It helps to arrive later afternoon.

Just imagine.. if you were hiking the presidential range in bad weather and those huts weren't there! I bet a lot of folks would not make it! And in the white mtns you can't just sit and wait out the weather..bad weather can last a while up there!

If you still are annoyed by the AMC in the white mountains..just remember..Maine is not far. You will get all the challenges but without the amenities. and if the weather goes to hell and you are in the middle of the Mahoosics..well... You are on your own! In the presidentials ..there is shelter near by!

I think it's a good thing the AMC is there!

thoughts?

David

[weary]

I do believe Money Hikers and the US Government would trash the Whites without the AMC. However the current AMC Hut System in the Whites does promote over use. If they were all like Carter Notch and the Money Hikers had to carry their own food, use would drop drastically. Closing the Mt. Washington Road and Railway would also be great. None of these things are going to happen, so you just have to deal with it. Yes, some fat cats in Boston are sucking money out of rich North Face/BMW hikers, let em. Stealth, it's part of the adventure.

I believe Carter Notch is going back to full service status next year. I think it was Hawk that told me that the caretaker status wasn't paying its own way.

As for the executive director's salary. When the present director took over membership was around 30,000 or so, and the club was so deeply in debt bankruptcy was a serious option. Membership is now 90,000. The debt has long since been paid -- and more taken on to buy 37,000 acres in Maine's 100-mile wilderness.

So far I'm pleased with the wise management of the 37,000 acres with its emphasis on renovating existing camps and structures, rather than new construction.

None of the rumors about major developments in the wilderness have proven true. The roads are still gravel. Volunteers are recruited to help build trails.

NO Maine "highland centers," are contemplated as near as I can tell.

Weary

[weary]

deleted because mysterious duplicate post

[MOWGLI]

The debt has long since been paid -- and more taken on to buy 37,000 acres in Maine's 100-mile wilderness.

So far I'm pleased with the wise management of the 37,000 acres with its emphasis on renovating existing camps and structures, rather than new construction.

None of the rumors about major developments in the wilderness have proven true. The roads are still gravel. Volunteers are recruited to help build trails.

NO Maine "highland centers," are contemplated as near as I can tell.

Weary

I spent the weekend in Iowa at the National Trails Symposium. There was a Park Ranger from Baxter there, and we were discussing Maine and the changing ownership of lands. He was very positive about AMC's purchases, and felt that the local community's voice was being heard, and that AMC was doing things correctly. Interesting perspective.

[max patch]

$80 in the context of a thru hike -- when you factor in all your other expenses -- is nothing. And you don't have to pay to stay at a hut unless you want to (in most cases).

The only concern I have about the expense is that to take a family of 4 or 5 at $80 each hut to hut on a vacation tends to get pretty pricey. But then I think about how much Disney World costs ($60 admission, $10 to park, $5 for a bottled water, plus the cost of a hotel, etc) and it doesn't seem so bad.

[ScottP]

Everyone I know left the whites with a much higher opinion of the AMC than they entered the whites with.

[MOWGLI]

Everyone I know left the whites with a much higher opinion of the AMC than they entered the whites with.

Do you know Minnesota Smith?

[generoll]

[quote=rickboudrie;18180]Per the AMC web site:

Q. Why does the AMC charge an $8 fee at some backcountry campsites?

A. In 2002, the AMC's 14 shelters in the White and Mahoosuc Mountains will cost about $167,000 to operate and maintain. Operational costs include caretaker salaries, airlifts, capital improvements, transportation, and food for our caretakers. We project that with the $8 fee, we will be receiving approximately $108,800 in user fees in 2002. The net loss of $58,200 will be absorbed by the AMC using income from membership dues, endowments, and fundraising

end of quote
______________________________
How can 14 shelters cost $167,000.00 to operate? Can anyone point to any other part of the country where shelters cost that much to operate? Get real. Most shelters "operate" on volunteer labor. I agree that there are way too few volunteers, but from what I read here the problem is overuse which is at least partially caused by easy access, i.e. vehicular access as opposed to making the users walk in. My somewhat limited hiking experience has taught me that the 'overuse' of a site is directly proportional to it's proximity to a road or other means of access which doesn't require feet. Let me be more specific. That doesn't require human feet.

I haven't been to the Whites. Yet. But as a section hiker I do hope to work my way there one of these days, and yes it will annoy me in the extreme if I am required to pay for a backcountry campsite. I just finished a section hike in one of the most heavily used parks in the country. The Smokies, I had to make a couple of reservations for backcountry campsites, but I didn't have to pay for them and they were well tended. They were also inaccessible to wheeled traffic. Is it not possible that there is an obvious pattern here?

My message is apparently to short so I am adding a bit of fluff here to meet the sites requirement.

[Lone Wolf]

There are quite a few 3 sided shelters in the Whites.

[weary]

.....How can 14 shelters cost $167,000.00 to operate? Can anyone point to any other part of the country where shelters cost that much to operate? Get real. Most shelters "operate" on volunteer labor. I agree that there are way too few volunteers, but from what I read here the problem is overuse which is at least partially caused by easy access, i.e. vehicular access as opposed to making the users walk in. My somewhat limited hiking experience has taught me that the 'overuse' of a site is directly proportional to it's proximity to a road or other means of access which doesn't require feet. Let me be more specific. That doesn't require human feet.

I haven't been to the Whites. Yet. But as a section hiker I do hope to work my way there one of these days, and yes it will annoy me in the extreme if I am required to pay for a backcountry campsite. ......

What are you talking about: back country shelters or vehicle access shelters? They are two different things.

AMC has no shelters that are near roads. certainly near any roads that AMC has control over. The $8 fees are for high elevation shelters and campsites, where human wastes are mostly carried out by helicopters, and where attendants are paid to manage the sites.

The shelters are mostly in rugged country either above treeline or near treeline on fragile soils and often near rare plants and animals. Freezing temperatures can be expected 12 months a year. Inexpensive pit toilets and mouldering toilets don't work in that environment, hence the high costs.

Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

The shelters might be in out of the way places, but this certainly isn't true of some of their other facilities: Zealand Falls Hut is perhaps 3 easy miles from a road; Lonesone Lake is maybe 1.75 miles. And the Crawford Notch facility is on a highway. In short, the AMC has made it EASIER for thousands of folks to visit this over-used, fragile area, rather than more diffficult.

[generoll]

As
i already mentioned, I have not yet visited the Whites. When someone says shelter, I don't think of a motel but rather the typical Adirondack type of shelter which seems to be the norm for the rest of the AT. If shelters are so close to raods as to invite overuse, then perhaps the roads should be closed or the shelters relocated.

[weary]

The shelters might be in out of the way places, but this certainly isn't true of some of their other facilities: Zealand Falls Hut is perhaps 3 easy miles from a road; Lonesone Lake is maybe 1.75 miles. And the Crawford Notch facility is on a highway. In short, the AMC has made it EASIER for thousands of folks to visit this over-used, fragile area, rather than more diffficult.

I doubt if either Zealand Falls or Lonesome Lake add significantly to overcrowding in the Whites. Neither has space for more than around 100 people, or maybe less.

The Highland Center in Crawford Notch lies on a busy highway a few miles from scores of restaurants and motels. It replaces a major resort hotel. Had not AMC purchased the site something larger and less compatible with the mountain environment surely would have been built.

I'm not terribly happy with the resources that went into the Highland Center, but I doubt if it adds any significant extra use of the trails. It does make an effort to cater to and provide training for youth groups in how to use the trails wisely.

The AMC backcountry shelters fulfill a backpacking need, and help protect a fragile environment. I can't think of any that are particularly near a highway.

Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

Rattle River shelter is less than two easy miles from busy Rt.2 near Gorham.

[Lone Wolf]

Rattle River shelter is less than two easy miles from busy Rt.2 near Gorham.

Rattle River shelter is not considered a backcountry site.
www.outdoors.org/lodging/campsites/index.cfm