Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 192
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-21-2009
    Location
    Tennesee
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ironman y2k View Post
    In the initial post dgposey's last sentence implies an attitude that can cause problems for future thru-hikers. Understandably thru-hikers are a special breed in the hiking community, but it doesn't allow for special treatment, and as thru-hikers we should respect the trail and all it's rules whether written or unwritten.
    wow....there are consistently hard feelings and bias towards thru-hikers on White Blaze. It's a shame too...seems like 98% of the thru-hikers give the rest of us a bad reputation!

    fwiw, I didn't take the OP's statement of not paying the high fees as entitlement, rather he would work out a different plan than staying at the huts.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    10-12-2002
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    13,191

    Default

    The "different plan" for folks who don't want to pay to stay at the Huts is quite simple: They can plan and prepare intelligently and appropriately, in terms of gear and food; they can carry current maps that have detailed information on side trails, alternate campsites/shelters; and they can make sure that they've given some thought in the morning as to where they intend to stay in the evening. But to show up at the Huts expecting some sort of special treatment or discount (as many thru-hikers do) is indeed a display of "entitled" behavior.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-24-2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,053
    Images
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    whatever. 1 moose will cause more damage than a bunch of hikers. kill the moose?
    I don't believe in moose
    If you find yourself in a fair fight; your tactics suck.

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-24-2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,053
    Images
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4shot View Post
    wow....there are consistently hard feelings and bias towards thru-hikers on White Blaze. It's a shame too...seems like 98% of the thru-hikers give the rest of us a bad reputation!

    fwiw, I didn't take the OP's statement of not paying the high fees as entitlement, rather he would work out a different plan than staying at the huts.
    The OP was talking about forcing the huts to take him in.
    If you find yourself in a fair fight; your tactics suck.

  5. #45
    Registered User envman67's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-20-2011
    Location
    Williamstown, Ma
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I'm sure this has been mentioned before,but is the cost if you want to stay above tree line?

  6. #46

    Join Date
    07-18-2010
    Location
    island park,ny
    Age
    62
    Posts
    11,909
    Images
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envman67 View Post
    I'm sure this has been mentioned before,but is the cost if you want to stay above tree line?
    The cost could be death,.Hurricane force winds and below freezing temps,even in summer, are fairly common.Learn your exit routes, and heed the warning signs if weather is turning bad, turn back.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slo-go'en View Post
    Actually Sly, I belive that is a Forest Service rule and applies to any official, established camping spot. There is no camping allowed with in 1/4 mile of these facilities and none above tree line, which double forbids camping near a number of AMC huts.
    Regardless, it's a rule that intended to herd hikers at an AMC facility. That the AMC has been there 100 years doesn't change the fact it's public land. On the CDT, it's not only legal to camp above treeline, at times it's practically unavoidable.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    03-22-2009
    Location
    Ashburnham, MA
    Age
    76
    Posts
    1,951
    Images
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sly View Post
    Regardless, it's a rule that intended to herd hikers at an AMC facility. That the AMC has been there 100 years doesn't change the fact it's public land. On the CDT, it's not only legal to camp above treeline, at times it's practically unavoidable.
    The rule against camping within 1/4 mile of huts is because these are very heavily used areas. Overall, the rules are similar to the Adirondacks, where there is no camping above 4000' and there are no high huts. There are also NY rangers in the ADK who will fine you or force you to leave if you violate the rules in an obnoxious way.

    The CDT is very different; there is much much more terrain above tree line. In the White Mountains, there is a small area above tree line, it is a fragile environment and it is very heavily used.

    I think the hut crew that turned sly away was a jerk; if someone is hurt, exceptions should be made. A better course of action might have been to plan on dropping down to the the RMC shelters instead of Madison, if I understand correctly where you were.

    Thru-hikers who want to avoid paying at the AMC huts need to read Jack Tarlin's post #42 carefully.

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-29-2008
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    FWIW, those are listed as a good LNT practice in the brochure but are not a blanket restrictions in the Whites.

    In many areas below treeline in the Whites which outside of federally designated Wilderness areas, it is perfectly legal to camp right next to a trail-- including the AT, or next to a body of water.

    That brochure lists many of the exceptions.

    Bottom line, don't automatically assume someone camped below tree line right next to the AT in the Whites is there illegally. In some areas he might be, and some areas he might not be.
    According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

    http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whit..._rules_web.pdf
    The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
    You never know which one is talking.

  10. #50
    Registered User Carl in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-20-2011
    Location
    Port St. Lucie FL
    Age
    64
    Posts
    227

    Default

    Excuse what might be a silly question, but when one refers to the
    "Appalcahian Trail Corridor" and mentions something like "within 200
    feet of", are they using that term to refer to the Trail walking path,
    or is the Corridor itself marked?

  11. #51

    Join Date
    07-18-2010
    Location
    island park,ny
    Age
    62
    Posts
    11,909
    Images
    218

    Default

    the trail itself.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WingedMonkey View Post
    According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

    http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whit..._rules_web.pdf
    my apologies if you already realize this and have some other reasoning here for bringing this rule up, but the summit of mt moosilauke to the CT river is, in most people's minds, out of the white mountains and if you were to hike in that direction it is hiking away from the AMC huts.

  13. #53
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,874
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WingedMonkey View Post
    According to the White Mountain National Forest "Backcountry Camping Rules" No camping or fires within 200 feet of the Appalachian Trail Corridor from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke to the Connecticut River (except at shelters)

    http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whit..._rules_web.pdf
    There are other restrictions along the AT as well-- 200' where it passes through wilderness areas and even greater prohibitions north of Gorham to the ME line, for example. And those stretches above treeline.

    They are just not blanket restrictions along the entire AT in the Whites.
    Last edited by rickb; 07-23-2011 at 16:40.

  14. #54

    Default

    What happened to the idea of personal responsibility?

  15. #55
    Registered User House of Payne's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-22-2011
    Location
    Rockland, MA
    Age
    53
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Interesting read to say the least. I'm an AMC member like some of the responders are, and I was I was curious on the AMC's official position on the subject so I jotted them an e-mail about this. I'm sure their answer will be "by the book", pay or go. I can understand planning especially careful around this portion of the trail because of the limited camp options and the more dangerous weather conditions. In all my time hiking the whites and portions of the AT in NH I have seen more 'do what you have to do' situations when push comes to shove. I have seen folks camped 50 ft off the trail above 3,000ft. due to stormy conditions, people pitcing their tents right behind full shelters when they arrive after dark and in one occasion a man bivy overnight behind Madison after coming in after dark. I think he knew better than to ask for shelter at the hut. I can't imagine the hut croo not doing anything more than scolding him about the rules despite his situation, which in another point of view may have been the wrong decision to get there when he did.

  16. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl in FL View Post
    Excuse what might be a silly question, but when one refers to the
    "Appalcahian Trail Corridor" and mentions something like "within 200
    feet of", are they using that term to refer to the Trail walking path,
    or is the Corridor itself marked?
    Camping would be from the trail itself. The same type rule applies in the SNP, either at the shelters or 200' off trail.

    If I'm not mistaken, marking the "corridor" is an on-going project in NP areas.

    If you're interested I have a powerpoint presentation of the Boundary program I could email you.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    07-18-2010
    Location
    island park,ny
    Age
    62
    Posts
    11,909
    Images
    218

    Default

    house of Payne brings up an excellent point. should conditions be dangerous , I doubt many ridge runners are checking for stealth campsites, so in a pinch, you're probably fine if you had to bivy somewhere.Ive seen plenty of people stealth camping at Star lake near madison, and it didnt seem like anyone was telling them to move on.

  18. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Tarlin View Post
    The "different plan" for folks who don't want to pay to stay at the Huts is quite simple: They can plan and prepare intelligently and appropriately, in terms of gear and food; they can carry current maps that have detailed information on side trails, alternate campsites/shelters; and they can make sure that they've given some thought in the morning as to where they intend to stay in the evening. But to show up at the Huts expecting some sort of special treatment or discount (as many thru-hikers do) is indeed a display of "entitled" behavior.
    None of the huts had a problem with me staying, but I showed up, ready to work, and when I was finished, asked if anything else needed to be done.

  19. #59
    AT 4000+, LT, FHT, ALT Blissful's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-14-2005
    Location
    Virginia, 10 miles from the AT near SNP
    Age
    56
    Posts
    10,470
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    171

    Default

    I don't know I found the croo on my last venture in 2010 much different then in '07. Accommodating and they also charged hikers when there wasn't enough work to do, to spend the night on the floor (aty least at Madison). I saw no one turned away. There was much more food too to go around. In '07 we had none.







    Hiking Blog
    AT NOBO and SOBO, LT, FHT, ALT
    Shenandoah NP Ridgerunner, Author, Speaker


  20. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hikerboy57 View Post
    house of Payne brings up an excellent point. should conditions be dangerous , I doubt many ridge runners are checking for stealth campsites, so in a pinch, you're probably fine if you had to bivy somewhere.Ive seen plenty of people stealth camping at Star lake near madison, and it didnt seem like anyone was telling them to move on.
    I would hope those people are camping at star lake in emergency conditions only, otherwise that is an incredibly selfish thing to do.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •