appalachian money club huts...pricey...how come?

[dickdurk]

I have plowed through all on this thread and I have to say a lot of the invective starts from an assumption that access to public land also grants a right to privately provided services.

If it's possible to stealth camp (and it seems it is), then use, or don't use, services available. It's called Free Market, folks.

Thousands of people in my area have built houses they own on land they rent. Stupid idea, but there it is. I see a similarity in AMC huts on public forest land.

Michael
BTW non profit status refers to (lack of) dividends paid to owners/shareholders. Employees of said organization are free to earn whatever salary the governing body pays them. MG

[Lone Wolf]

The AMC and the Huts were in the White Mtns. long before it was a National Forest.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Southbound in October 1985 I spent about $2 total going through the Whites, and that's only because the caretaker happened through the Perch.

Today it seems to be a choice between the Appalachian Money Club and the other Appalachian Money Club in the form of destructive developers...

[SGT Rock]

I knew it wasn't. I was just having a little fun with what I perceived to be a poor choice of words. No offence intended.

Doug

I know you meant it in fun. I should have put a smiley in my post

[Blue Jay]

Think about what you just said. Sort of elitist to call someone lazy scum because they are just day hikers.

You are correct, I was not clear (and elitist). I sometimes forget everyone has not been to the Whites, not a smart assumption. I did not mean your standard day hiker, most are sweet. Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery. How about the dolts who smoke, flick their cigs onto a patch of endangered plant life and walk away as a mini "forest" fire starts. Spend any time there and you'll understand.

[Blue Jay]

Public land is for all people whether they ski, snowmobile, RV, car camp, whatever.

WHATEVER, yes cut more roads into public lands for the RVs. This sentence clearly indicates where you are coming from.

[SGT Rock]

You are correct, I was not clear (and elitist). I sometimes forget everyone has not been to the Whites, not a smart assumption. I did not mean your standard day hiker, most are sweet. Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery. How about the dolts who smoke, flick their cigs onto a patch of endangered plant life and walk away as a mini "forest" fire starts. Spend any time there and you'll understand.

I understand, the same sort of celf-centered jerks can be found anywhere.

[The Old Fhart]

Blue Jay-"WHATEVER, yes cut more roads into public lands for the RVs. This sentence clearly indicates where you are coming from."

Reality check: I don't own an RV and don't like them but that doesn't negate their existence. Show me where you imagined I said anything about cutting more roads, or even mention the word road.

P.S. I don't own a snowmobile or ski either so I said nothing about throwing up ski areas, if that's going to be in your next post.

[rickb]

At $18 a night I find car camping in the WHites to be too expensive.

Day hikers are OK. I nver see butts on the trail, much less evidence of mini forest fires. Not sure why, but it seem far, far, fewer day hikers smoke than do thru hikers.

Rick B

[Heater]

At $18 a night I find car camping in the WHites to be too expensive.
Rick B

It's also extremely hard to see the white blazes with the visor down.

[The Old Fhart]

Blue Jay-"Anyone who has spent any time there knows exactly who I mean. An example is the volcano hiker, drives their SUVs to the top of Washington, flows down the sides spewing garbage as they go, gets to Madison or Lake of the Clouds and treats the croo like bad waiters in a Boston Eatery."

The evidence indicates that it is actually the thru hikers that berate the croo and others. If you care to read this thread you will find at least 2 posts where thru hikers brag about doing just that.

[rickb]

OF--

I think that has something to do with the prejudices that some thru hikers bring with them to the Whites regarding the AMC, day hikers, yuppies and the rest.

RIck B

[Frosty]

At $18 a night I find car camping in the Whites to be too expensive.

Of course there is no comarison between backpacking and carcamping, in either price or esthetics, but Nat'l Forest campgrounds only seem expensive until you compare them to private campgrounds in the area.

Being old, I also get sticker skock when confronted with prices like this, but to be honest, it costs me over $18 just to DRIVE to the Whites and back.

Camping at NFS campgrounds is one of the cheapest ways to dayhike in the Whites, IMO. You can get in a couple days hike with only one trip's worth of gas, and a couple meals in restaurants compared to in camp will send send the car camp-hike package much lower than the alternative of motels, public campgrounds or driving up every day.

[Nean]

Has anyone heard about the new road they plan on building over to Madison? And can we get some love for the train

[restless]

FYI
I emailed AMC inquring into working with a trail crew on one of their longer programs. Travelling from TN, a 1-2 day volunteer crew would not be practical. According to the website, the "donation" for a 1-3 week program ran on average of $150. I asked about the possibility of having that fee waived in order to offset travel expenses as well as to adjust for the fact that I am not working for the next couple of months. I was refferred to the 1-2 day programs which were mentioned were free. I replied no thanks but I'll find a crew/club that wouldn't charge me to volunteer.
I know I may sound like an ******* to some but with the cutbacks in federal spending for our public lands and their recreational/trails programs, it would seem to me that ANY organization, be it ATC, AMC or whomever would be willing to accomadate people wanting to help out in the outdoors. I guess bottom line once again, is that the bottom line is of utmost importance. Such a shame.

[SGT Rock]

I totally agree. Seems very counter productive to charge folks to work on the trail or to even make it hard to volunteer in some way.

[The Old Fhart]

Restless, I’ve got a question for you and I’d seriously like an answer because what you’ve said in posts has me confused. You first stated: “ I do have a problem with AMC and so therefore I choose not to support them or their facilities. So I guess thats one less person they have to worry about.”

You now post: ” I emailed AMC inquring into working with a trail crew on one of their longer programs. Travelling from TN, a 1-2 day volunteer crew would not be practical. According to the website, the "donation" for a 1-3 week program ran on average of $150. I asked about the possibility of having that fee waived in order to offset travel expenses as well as to adjust for the fact that I am not working for the next couple of months. I was refferred to the 1-2 day programs which were mentioned were free. I replied no thanks but I'll find a crew/club that wouldn't charge me to volunteer.”

My question is this: if you don’t want anything to do with the AMC why did you go through the trouble of calling them and asking to volunteer? It just seems to me that you’re putting a lot of effort into something that you really have no intention of doing. If they waived the fee I’m sure you wouldn’t have volunteered judging from your feelings about the AMC that you’ve previously posted. I wouldn't pay $150 either and I've mentioned other options for volunteering. I've also joined ALDHA on a work trip in PA and we never mentioned, or argued, about money, we just did the work.

[rickb]

The theory on the fees (for those longer programs that have them) is that they help cover the cost of participants' food, lodging and transportation.

Some find that works for them, others find different volunteer opportunities with the AMC and some direct their energies in a differrent direction.

Rick B

[Pencil Pusher]

Out here the WTA charges $125 for week-longs. I was kinda bummed when I saw this. But they give the schpeel it's for the meals they provide and the llamas, etc that pack in the tools and such. The day trips are free and the volunteer org still makes prison rates for the labor done, so essentially the volunteer is donating both money and labor. I was bummed because I thought the week-long was where the real work was done, but now it seems more aptly put as they describe it, a "volunteer vacation".

[Nean]

If that 150 covers lodging, transport, and meals for one to three weeks, thats not bad. I know the Colorado Trail operates the same way and perhaps the CDTA as well. These things are well organized and fun and full to the limit, are they not? Where is the bad- I don't see it?