Regarding the Huts in the Whites -- Illegal to Turn You Away?

[Pedaling Fool]

They may not have had the same system of land owenership as the Europeans, but they still owned land. Why do you think there were wars between tribes. They fought for resources and you can't separate land/water from resources. To say one can't own land is a philosophical arguement, but when you get into the nuts and bolts stuggle for survival protecting one's land becomes priority number one. (resources trumps any philosophical discussion).

As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/

[hikerboy57]

They may not have had the same system of land owenership as the Europeans, but they still owned land. Why do you think there were wars between tribes. They fought for resources and you can't separate land/water from resources. To say one can't own land is a philosophical arguement, but when you get into the nuts and bolts stuggle for survival protecting one's land becomes priority number one. (resources trumps any philosophical discussion).

As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/

John, you're entirely right. however, native americans had major cultural differences, as some tribes were nomadic hunter gatherers where others settled in one spot till they decimated the land through overuse and pollution.I dont have some romantic notion of Indians being environmentally responsible peace loving hippies, they were far from that. However, there were never any clear boundaries, they would war over the best hunting grounds or planting aresa.the concept of owning land was introduced by europeans, and most tribes found that concept incomprehensible. there was definitely a sense of "territory", but not actual ownership.

[Pedaling Fool]

But the effect is the same, regardless if you call it land ownership or territory.

[hikerboy57]

the only argument I can make there is that the warring was constant, with neither side saying'okay its yours".it ws never resolved that a tribe would just concede land to another tribe. they may have lost the battle that day, but the war would continue. In any case, I didnt mean for this to detract from the discussion of ownership of what in the whites, which is about as complicated as it gets. if you asked a native american in the early 1800s to sell you his land, he would have had no clue what you were talking about.now we're just talking semantics, and I'll gladly concede the point.
didnt the whites once" belong" to the abenakis?

[Pedaling Fool]

As for land management they would burn acres and acres of land for agricultural needs as well as other effects; some even believe they started the medieval warm period. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321134617.htm


http://homepages.baylor.edu/gary_stinchcomb/2011/03/

Okey dokey, but first I got to make a correction. No one, that I know of, has linked the native americans to the medieval warm period -- mistake on my part. What I was thinking of is the belief by some (not me) that reforestation after the massive die out of native americans led to the little ice age. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/j...af-010709.html

[The Old Fhart]

Pony- “As far as entitlement goes, am I not entitled to camp in a national forest? Why should the AMC be able to make money off of the national forest and I can't even camp there without forking out some money? Don't the national forests belong to all Americans?”

Maybe you haven’t been in the real world before but no matter where you go there are rules and regulations. The GMC and the AMC generally even charge to stay at shelters and it has been that way for decades. The RMC charges to stay at Grey Knob and their other facilities. By the time every thru hiker gets to the Whites they know exactly what to expect so your expectations of entitlement because you are a thru hiker is ludicrous at best. If you had done any reading before you hiked the trail all the guidebooks tell you what to expect. The fact that you chose to ignore this information is your own fault, not others.

If you were to go to Yosemite you couldn’t expect to walk into the Ahwahnee and get a free room and it’s no different from any other National Park or Forest where someone has a lease on that Federal land and spent a huge amount of money to put in some facility. They are entitled to charge for your use of their facility even though you are free to walk there and look at it. Another example would be ski areas on Federally leased land. Just because the facility is on leased public land doesn’t mean you are free to use the lifts and groomed slopes without paying the ski areas a fee. Thru hikers are notorious for not understanding the rules, regulations, and laws concerning the areas they are hiking through so they think they can camp anywhere while the truth is that perhaps up to 3/4 of the A.T. has some camping restrictions. In the Whites, for instance, there is no camping above treeline.

Pony- “Those people chose to walk to the huts and pay $100. I was merely walking through and my camping options were very limited. I was on a pretty tight budget by this point, so $12 was hardly measly. And before anyone accuses me of being a mooch, let it be known that I never bummed a thing off of fellow hikers, just wasn't fortunate enough to have 10k in the bank when I started.”

You also chose to walk to the huts-no difference there. The difference is you feel that just because you’re hiking the A.T. that others should cater to you and your schedule. Your poorly controlled budget and inflexible schedule is no concern of the AMC who already has gone out of its way to accommodate thru hikers. Anyone just out for a weekend hike doesn’t get any special consideration yet you want even more. You should live up to your name and “pony up” and say thank you if you can stay at one of the huts for as little as $12.


If you’re really interested there is lots of information that is available on the Whites, the Huts, the AMC leases, and the history of the area. There has been lots of this information posted on WB in the past and you could also try these links to start.

http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/camp...ke-shelter.cfm
http://www.outdoors.org/about/history.cfm
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whit..._Scope_Rpt.pdf
http://www.condortales.com/whitemtnhuts.html

[ChinSpinach]

On the topic of the AMC hut prices (and I apologize if this has been said before... that's the problem with reading older posts). For a long time I thought the prices charged were exorbitant and couldn't understand WHY it would cost so much. It was just a little food and a cot, right? Because I'm cheap I've still never stayed in a hut. Then I worked part of a summer opening and supplying the huts. Perhaps the food itself isn't wretchedly expensive, but it gets carted up to Pinkham Notch, sorted, stored. Then the initial batch is FLOWN (helicopter services are really expensive and require a damn good pilot.) to the huts. This means dozens of 50lb sacks of flour, oats, big cans of veggies beans, boxes of granola bars for those people that really need that extra calories, but didn't plan well. That also requires the payment of the people to move all of this stuff. I spent an entire day in May at Lakes moving in a summer's worth of food and supplies. When the season is actually done, the hut croo has to hike in fresh supplies twice week (meats, veggies, etc) and that means more sorting, storing, and driving all of the food to the trail heads. On top of that, the reservation crew, the construction crew (who maintains everything), the hut croo, and a number of others have to get paid. The huts barely break even. A hotel charges about the same amount or more for maybe a continental breakfast and a bed, without the difficulty of being several miles away from a road.

The AMC has its faults. Don't get me wrong. However, they do plenty of good too.

[ChinSpinach]

To be fair, $200K for a CEO of a non-profit isn't outrageous. In 2008, 3 years ago, the *average* salary for a non-prof CEO was about $150K. That's the average, and it includes all the tiny little non-profs out there. The AMC is not a tiny little non-prof, and the $200K salary is pretty much in line with others in that range. In fact, it's probably a little low, as salaries for larger non-profs regularly get into the mid-$200's.

I'm just saying.

He took it from bankruptcy to paying off loans well in advance of when they needed to be, expanded youth outreach and conservation work (not only in the White Mountains, mind you), expanding services, and many other things. I was shocked at first, but he earns his keep. Sorry to sound like such an AMC fanatic, but for some articles I was writing I did an awful lot of research into the organization.

[birdygal]

Have a question for everyone. How many miles do you need to hike to be able to camp at night legally with a hammock without using the huts, I can't afford to stay nor do I want to work after doing miles of hiking, just trying to figure out how many miles I need to be able to hike a day to get through the whites

[Hoofit]

Too many opinions - is their a list somewhere of feasible places to just camp out, every ten miles or twelve miles( Hey, the terrain is steep), through the Whites?, and use my own gear for us regular folk that are not too enamoured with the idea of spending $100 a night whilst hiking the trail.
Don't want to sponge off people or beg work after a day's hiking, just enjoy being self reliant and would be happy to hike the extra few miles to a lower elevation if that's what need to be done.

[JAK]

Does the AMC publish a pamphlet on how to Stealth Camp through the Whites?

They should.

[Slo-go'en]

Does the AMC publish a pamphlet on how to Stealth Camp through the Whites?

They should.

No point, as it is nearly impossible to do legally. Even with a hammock, you need to drop a considerable distance off the ridge to find trees suitable to hang from. Our mountians are steep, rocky - with large boulders, and densely grown in forest. There are designated camping sites which allow you to avoid most of the huts, though some of them are a significant distance off the AT, down hill and will still cost you money to stay at. The only hut which is difficult to avoid without doing a very, very long and difficult hike is Lake of the Clouds.

[peakbagger]

I expect the question is satirical but no the AMC doesnt issue a Stealth camp pamphlet. The AMC doesnt call the shots in the Whites (although some may think so). The USFS calls the shots and the AMC gets a limited use permit for their facilities on small plots of land along the trail. The USFS does issue rather distinct regulations on where you can and cant camp and unfortunately you cant camp above treeline except at designated facilities which are AMC huts. To legally camp you need to drop down below treeline (hopefully on a side trail). The general answer is you usually end up dropping about 1000 feet in elevation and may have hike as much as a mile off the AT. Mother nature factors in as what lies below treeline typically is dense spruce fir forest sprouting up out of rocks so finding a flat place to pitch a tent is difficult. A hammock hanger may be able to camp higher but finding an opening in the spruce fir is still quite a challenge.

[JAK]

Good info. Sounds doable.

[quilteresq]

According to the AMC rules there's no camping near the Huts, I believe under the auspices of protecting the environment. Probably more like their pocketbook.

No camping near the huts means within 1/4 mile of them - that leaves a whole lot of the WMNF to camp in! - There are many areas where there is no camping within 1/4 mile of the trail - but it's really easy to hike out of them and find a site. And most of the trails have well marked signs when you're entering and leaving a "restricted use area."

[hikerboy57]

it might be a good idea to actually day hike these areas before your thru to see the terrain. hammocking isnt possible above treeline, and there are plenty of reasons theres no camping within 1/4 mile of the huts, just read the rest of this thread.check out the rmc sites north of adams and madison, osgood tentsite, or be prepared to make miles....

[Camping Dave]

The huts are a good value.

Whining about the cost, or the rules, or getting caught breaking the rules, is just plain asinine.

Still, the huts are a good value. You'll be glad you stayed there.

[HT1]

The huts are a good value.

Whining about the cost, or the rules, or getting caught breaking the rules, is just plain asinine.

Still, the huts are a good value. You'll be glad you stayed there.

HMMM?
Adjective. asinine (comparative more asinine, superlative most asinine).
Failing to exercise intelligence or judgment; ridiculously below average
rationality. ...
.

"Let me use that in a sentence."
.

It would be asinine for me to use 9 days of my trail budget in one night.

and dayhiking in NH from Fl is also out of my budget though I would love to!
.
.


Can some one just give a legal, and doable itinerary for a thru hiker that avoids the Huts? I suspect after that this Thread might quiet... Not likely since hating the Cost of the Huts is a tradition

[Grampie]

I,like a lot of others think the Huts are a bargan. I thru-hiked and was very conserned about crossing the Whites, as all hikers should be. Read about it and know your options before you start. The work for stay option is a great one. I worked at Lake of the Clouds. Helped with three others defrost and clean a refridgirator. Took a total of about 1 hour . At Madison I washed a few pots used to prep the evening meal. About 35 minutes, At Carter they had no work for stay and I was able to get a bunk free, even though I offered to pay. At Lake of the Clouds and Madison I got supper, breakfast and a bunk. I enjoyed useing the huts and was glad I did.
I did the Whites as a SOBO. I met a hiker who was NOBO and he gave me some advise that worked well for me. Get to the Hut before 3 PM. Seek out the Croo leader and request to work for stay. If granted ask them if you could do some work now because you would like to get a early start in the AM. Doing this I was able to leave right after breakfast. Other work for stay hikers had to wait untill after breakfast, than eat and than help with the clean up after. You could not probably get on your way much before 9:00
Being able to leave around 7:15 I could get to the next Hut before 3 PM without any problem.
My wife met me in Gorham for the weekend. We got a motel room that cost $135. No meals just a room. So staying at a Hut isn't a bad deal after all.

[Tom Murphy]

Can some one just give a legal, and doable itinerary for a thru hiker that avoids the Huts? I suspect after that this Thread might quiet... Not likely since hating the Cost of the Huts is a tradition

Camp at Nauman Tentsite [$8 fee]

Option A: Hike through to the Perch [RMC - $12 fee ?]

Option B: Drop off the trail down the Jewell Trail until you are below treeline and then find a site 200 feet off the trail

Option C: Hike through to Osgood campsite

These are long days but doable and legal.