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

[DavidNH]

Hi Folks,

(this is a rant but I just gotta get this off my chest so appologies in advance for the not very positive tone)


I was off hiking in the whites today and stopped in at Greenleaf Hut (that is on the side of Mt Lafayette) to cool down, rest, and chat with the hut master.

I inquired as to the rates of AMC mountain huts in the whites and was stunned at his answer. 78$ for AMC members and 85$ for non members. Not sure if these figures are exact but they are in the ball park.

This is on top of the AMC raising yearly dues to 50$ a year for individuals and the 20$ a year one must pay the Forest Service for a year long pass just to park at the trail heads.

Now I know that even here in New England one can drive to a hotel and pay less money. Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.

I still don't see why the AMC has to charge these rates. Perhaps it is because they can charge any price and the huts will still be full (all those rich flatlanders from Boston and points south you know). I doubt that the hut boys and gals are getting much more than they did a few years back. Perhaps the helicopter costs to get supplies up to the huts? But isn't that just once or twice a year?

I am sure these prices are out of the range of most thru hikers. And there can be only so many work for stay options.

So what do you folks think? Is the AMC justified with these rates? or are they just on the take? I have been an AMC member for years and enjoyed it very much. However, I am seriously considering letting my membership lapse when it runs out next spring.

What might the White Mountains be like without all those AMC huts? Hypothetical I know..but somehow I suspect they would be a whole lot less crowded and yuppified!!!

I await your feed back

NHHIker (a low income hiker)

[MOWGLI]

Hi Folks,

Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.



NHHIker (a low income hiker)

Surely you can afford a night in an AMC hut if you could afford to travel to Europe to hike?

[Lion King]

Read Eb Abbey.

He said all this in the 60's...with the exception of the Europe stuff

[Frosty]

Rant away, but don't stop with the huts

Lots of stuff in White Mountains is expensive. Have you priced motels in Lincoln, Bretton Woods or Twin Mountain on weekends?

The Cog Railway?

Gasoline just to get to the WHites and back?

The huts just don't seem so bad to me for what they offer, especially with food hauled up there, which is pretty much daily, not semi-annually. How much would you pay if you went to a motel in the White Mountains? Don't forget to add the price of dinner and breakfast. I'll bet the huts are competitive.

THe Joe Dodge Lodge is a lot cheaper ($50-ish, which isn't bad for lodging and dinner/breakfast). But then, they don't have to haul stuff up the mountain either.

The Highland Center I understand is very expensive. Not sure why. Perhaps the cost of construction, perhaps it is nicer.

The tent platforms seem expensive to me ($8 now I think).

It would be nice it the huts were cheaper, but the same is true of almost everything, from restaurants to automobiles.

There are some cheap places to stay in Gorham.

Hi Folks,

(this is a rant but I just gotta get this off my chest so appologies in advance for the not very positive tone)


I was off hiking in the whites today and stopped in at Greenleaf Hut (that is on the side of Mt Lafayette) to cool down, rest, and chat with the hut master.

I inquired as to the rates of AMC mountain huts in the whites and was stunned at his answer. 78$ for AMC members and 85$ for non members. Not sure if these figures are exact but they are in the ball park.

This is on top of the AMC raising yearly dues to 50$ a year for individuals and the 20$ a year one must pay the Forest Service for a year long pass just to park at the trail heads.

Now I know that even here in New England one can drive to a hotel and pay less money. Huts in Europe (as of two years ago) were cheaper, provided better food, and even provided showers for a couple bucks extra.

I still don't see why the AMC has to charge these rates. Perhaps it is because they can charge any price and the huts will still be full (all those rich flatlanders from Boston and points south you know). I doubt that the hut boys and gals are getting much more than they did a few years back. Perhaps the helicopter costs to get supplies up to the huts? But isn't that just once or twice a year?

I am sure these prices are out of the range of most thru hikers. And there can be only so many work for stay options.

So what do you folks think? Is the AMC justified with these rates? or are they just on the take? I have been an AMC member for years and enjoyed it very much. However, I am seriously considering letting my membership lapse when it runs out next spring.

What might the White Mountains be like without all those AMC huts? Hypothetical I know..but somehow I suspect they would be a whole lot less crowded and yuppified!!!

I await your feed back

NHHIker (a low income hiker)

[stupe]

NHhiker, I found this at http://www.outdoors.org/about/about-faq.cfm

Q. How do you get all that food to the high mountain huts?
A. Because of increased use, much of the heaviest bulk staples today are airlifted in by helicopter before the beginning of the season and then resupplied in September. Hut crews still "pack" twice a week carrying all of the meats, vegetables, and dairy products that would otherwise spoil. Each hut has its own landing platform or delivery area. If you are lucky enough to be visiting during one of these supply times, we ask only that you stand clear of the helicopter and let the crews do their work.

Q. Where does the money I spend at AMC facilities go?
A. Revenue raised from lodging, meals, merchandise, workshops, and the hiker shuttle help pay for expenses directly related to operating those facilities and programs. These revenues do not cover the costs of AMC's White Mountain National Forest operations, however. The AMC, as a nonprofit public service organization, makes up for this shortfall through membership dues, contributions, endowment income, and other club revenues.

I guess airlifting alone costs a fortune. Still, if I was going to pay that kind of money I would want my own room, my own bathroom, my own cable TV, access to booze, free ice, and escort services, and complimentary continental breakfast .
Are there legal options to staying at the huts? I know it's unsportsmanlike, but I bet I would stealth right by .

[Bolivershagnasty]

WOW! I didn't know about these huts but if and when I'm blessed enough to do a thru I think by the time get there I'll be glade to have some "goodies" like that that far up there without treading through town. I'd just about bet you would spend more in a town passing with a motel stay than that. But yea it doe's seem alittle high for a trail stop and yes it's probly due to the level of comforts expected "by" the yuppies that probly dominate there most of the time. Yea I'd love to take my girlfriend up there for a night or two and be willing to pay that so she could experiance what I love (without too much of the unpleasant stuff) so I guess others would too. Just have to live and let live I guess.

[TakeABreak]

Either get to the huts early and do a work for stay or go on to a camp or shelter and stay the night. I did both, and i would prefer to camp or stay in a shelter than to stay in hut. You just have to plan ahead a little, thats all.

[The Hog]

The current per night price for non-members staying in a hut is $85. That is beyond the budget of many hikers.

I think the AMC should move to a two tier pricing system. One price for full use of all amenities, and a lower price (or free) for more primitive or spartan accomodations. I know this is already done at Lake of the Clouds, and it could be expanded to many, if not all, of the other huts. It would require construction of shelters and/or tent platforms at or near existing huts.

[Skyline]

Given the life-threatening weather that always--ALWAYS--is a possibility, the huts earn their place in the White Mountains. You can quibble about what they offer or what they cost, but there is no doubt their existence has saved many lives over the years.

The people who work there definitely earn their paychecks, too. A relatively small number of young men and women staff each hut and multi-task every waking hour. They even go out on search-and-rescues.

I can't comment on the rest of the way AMC is operated, but I bet they lose money on their huts...even at these "inflated" rates. And yet they manage to serve up some real tasty, nutritious food--and a lot of it. :-)

If you took a (cheapish) motel room down in one of the nearby towns and added two quality AYCE meals, the total would probably exceed what you pay to stay and eat at one of the huts. Plus at the huts you get to stay in the mountains!

Can't afford it? Lots of hikers can't, and there are definitely options for them. Get to a hut early so you can take advantage of a work-for-stay. Or plan your miles to avoid the huts and camp down below treeline, chance it stealth camping above treeline, or in some places use other designated camping areas or the Randolph Mountain Club shelters.

I did a combination of some of these options--including paying--and am happy I got to sample all sides of this debate.

[Jack Tarlin]

Mowgli:

Your comment is unfair.

Let's look at things in reverse: I know a young British couple that's thru-hiking this year. A night in the huts for them would cost about $170.00. To put things in perspective, that's about what I spent on the Trail this year between Springer and Gatlinburg (including two motel stops). Not many young people (and many older ones!) have the budget for these sorts of accomodations.

Merely because someone has the funds for international travel doesn't mean they have money to throw away. The Huts are indeed over-priced. The AMC spends too much time running high-end lodging for the well-to-do, and they do this on public land. The Hut system, which is large revenue-producer for the Club is allowed to stay in place, with a greatly lessened emphasis on shelters, campsites, and other lodging/overnight options for people of limited means. The AMC could indeed be providing more low-cost options and facilities but they deliberately do not do so, in order to not interfere with Hut operations and the income generated from the same.

To imply that anyone that can afford a plane ticket shouldn't quibble about
eighty dollar a night bunkrooms in the White Mountains is wrong.

A night in the mountains shouldn't cost more than a night at the opera. If the AMC wants to keep its Hut system in place, that's fine, but they really need to start thinking about the 99% of the population that neither wants, needs, or can afford to overnight in their present facilities.

The Huts are over-priced, and there's nothing wrong with NH Hiker pointing this out.

Just cuz I can afford a plane ticket to Europe doesn't mean I want my pocket picked upon my arrival.

[dougmeredith]

The AMC spends too much time running high-end lodging for the well-to-do

All levels of government seem quite busy favoring the poor. It's good to see that someone is trying to balance this out.

Doug

[Jack Tarlin]

Foolish comment, Doug. The AMC isn't an arm of the Federal government; it's a private non-profit. However, it does indeed operate its facilities on public land. There's nothing wrong with a privately owned/managed facility having "exclusionary" membership or admission policies; to do this on publicly owned land that everyone in the country theoretically has open access to.....well, that's wrong.

Private clubs don't belong on public land, and to operate facilities whose pricing structure excludes most Americans is also wrong. If the AMC ran facilities that deliberately excluded certain people based on their race, religion, sexual preference, health, etc., well they'd be sued to hell and back and their facilities would be shut down in 48 hours. Operating facilities on public land that deliberately excludes people based on their economic status is equally odious.

[wacocelt]

I think he was being facetious, Jack.

[Frosty]

The Huts are over-priced, and there's nothing wrong with NH Hiker pointing this out.

Over-priced is kind of subjective, but the huts are definitely high priced. If they don't cover expenses as AMC claims, then they are under-priced. But certainly there was nothing wrong with commenting on this as NHHIKER did. But just because the huts are high or even over-priced doesn't mean they have to lower prices because it would be nicer for us.

This world is FULL of things that cost more than I can afford, not the least of which is a Land Rover. They are high-priced by almost any definiton and over-priced IMO and I wish they cost as much as a Ford Focus so I could buy one. I'd also like a vacation home in Maine on a lake. But Land Rovers and vacation homes and tourist area lodgings aren't entitlements, alas.

It is one thing to say things are expensive, and that is really all NHHIKER was saying. What some are reacting to, I think, is the implied thought, "The AMC should charge rates that are low enough that I can afford them without sacrificing something else."

[Bolivershagnasty]

I really know nothing about these "huts" and made my commint based on the assumption that it was 70 or 80.00 per night "for a hut". (like a motel room) Based on Jack's commint about the British couple is it 70.00 "per person"? If so that is nuts and I have to change my view to be more likes Jack's and it should be challenged. If there are no other shelters up there and purpously so to give the huts an exclusionary "buisnes", well someone or everyone should pile up right there in their tents one day and refuse to leave based on the expectation of rights to public lands. Take it to court. They (AMC) may do alot of good for the area but to be alowed to monopolize "our" lands for "their" buisnes? And it "is" a buisnes, it may be a "non profit" buisnes but I will bet you whoever is "running" that operation is "making a nice salery" and has a vested intrest in keeping it just the way it is. If it is a non profit operation it should be a matter of public record what the income generated is and what the people running it are getting paid. ( I bet we would be shocked) If thats whats going on they should be made to at least create more sights for more reasonable pricing giving everyone a chance and a choice. I'm not oposed to having a choice of a well to do experiance in the mountains but if they are forcing you to pay that rate or pass on and not bother them well thats another story. What is the name and or charter or information on this orginisation again. I'll do some research on it and find out.

[weary]

Just a bit of perspective. AMC's permit for the huts was reissued a few years ago, after a long and bitter fight lead mostly by those who were upset with the club's environmental stances.

The only time I've ever paid to use the full service huts was on my walk north in 1993. Then, and now, by booking consecutive nights one can get a major discount. I have from time to time used the huts on a caretaker basis.

I enjoyed my stays in the huts in 1993. But I don't have a budget for such luxuries very often. However, in the context of the cost of a thru hike, an occasional night in an AMC hut probably is not significant for most thru hikers.

A few of us are on tight budgets. But most thru hikers strike me as pretty free spenders on both gear and on trail luxuries. From time to time I post suggestions about how to thru hike at minimum cost. These posts get minimal response. Sometimes I'm chided by those who claim there is no real demand for such low cost thru hiking ideas.

I do detect a double standard by some long distance hikers. I watched hikers dropping $2 into Rusty's donation jar, and dropping $100 in towns a few miles down the road.

I'm quite sure AMC earns a profit from the huts. But it's not a big profit, I suspect. Among the inspirations for the AMC's Maine Woods Initiative, (development in the 100-mile-wilderness) I'm equally sure, was the desire to create a hut system that it could operate as it wished without constant hassles and second guessing from the US Forest Service.

Weary

[Doctari]

Foolish comment, Doug. The AMC isn't an arm of the Federal government; it's a private non-profit.

NON PROFIT??????

Yes, that is what they claim.

But:
The president of this "Non profit" club pulls down an 8 figure salery. Maybe my definition of Non profit is, , , incorrect.

[Jack Tarlin]

An eight figure salary would mean he's getting more than 10,000,000 dollars a year. This is a bit much. Even the AMC isn't that well larded.

Their head actually makes, with benefits, closer to a quarter million a year, meaning he's paid about as much as President Bush.

It is debatable whether either of these gentlemen is earning their compensation.

Incidentally, there has long been speculation and comment that the AMC's top folks are earning too much money. The AMC has been repeatedly asked in public, and on their own website, to list the salaries of their top employees. They have repeatedly failed to do so. It is obvious they have no interest in ever revealing this information, to their members or to anyone else. The interactive section of their website where these inconvenient questions were most recently raised no longer exists.

[DavidNH]

First..I want to praise Jack Tarlin for his very inciteful and thoughtful comments. You are right on and White Blaze is a better place with your presence! You should write some books!!

Second, I personally take offense to the comment that just because I can afford to travel to Europe I should have no problem paying this kind of money for the huts. As an aside.. I am able to go to Europe because I have friends to stay with, Speak French, and don't do the high priced resort and city stuff many Americans do. I do NOT have real deep pockets. One thing that helps is having no kids to support. Many, especially with families, will spend more money on a two week vaction to a Florida Beach or Vermont Ski resort than I will on three weeks in Europe including my Air Fare.


Thirdly I want folks to know that the price of the AMC huts (85 dollars for Non AMC members and 78 for non members) is PER PERSON. The price includes an all you can eat dinner and breakfast (and yes AMC food is good..very good, I will give em that...very good) and a bunk with blankets (yes it can be chilly even in mid summer at elevation!). The huts provide NO showers. There is in most cases no running water. There ARE rest rooms and the club does do a good job dealing with human waste via composting and the like. Thut Hut boys and girls are all college students real hard workers and superfund people. They get room and board and I bet not a hundred a week.


For point of comparison...I could go to the hiker's paradise hostel in Gorham, pay 20 bucks, have bunk, free shower, full kitchen facilities and even ample meals at nearby restaurants still leave me spending less $ than the hut. They also give a complimentary breakfast for hikers, all the eggs and toast you want, or an a la carte breakfast for about 5 bucks. All hikers here should try the place!

another point of comparison. High mountain refuges in French alps summer 2003. Around 50 dollars would get you a high quality four or five course dinner, bunk with blankets, SHOWER, small breakfast, and in some casees a picnic lunch. And by the way..that was a one time special trip...I am not going abroad every year...just so we dont jump to conclusions here.


Additionally, should you be backpacking through the white mountains.. even if you wish to tent... you will find that you have to go to designated sites all of which have care takers and charge you 8 dollars per night. And you will be using the camp sites because in the whites 1) the ground is not level anywhere and 2) the woods are really thick with trees and brush. The eight bucks gets you a platfrom you can put your tent on or a spot in a shelter. The GMC has a similar deal in Vermont but they only charge about 6 bucks per person per night. Personally, I think that paying eight bucks to have a place to set up my tent is too much!

The AMC HAD a very nice hostel for around 18 dollars a night in Crawford Notch. They have since replaced that with the New Highland Center a HOTEL and conference center that will set you back 50-80 per night (or more in some cases? not sure on prices). I see very few folks there who look like true hikers though I am sure some of em are. Mostly, you get the well to do folks from southern New England up for a vaction in the mountains. The club was supposed to make a whole lot of money on the place..but not sure that is happening. Many members were really ticked off some are leaving or have left the club, and I don't think the place is constantly filled (again I am not sure about this).

Lastly, If I am going to pay 85 bucks for one night for a dorm style bunk room in the mountains even with meals included.. couldn't they at least provide showers? perhaps a hot tub? Maybe a beautiful girl or two! But I guess those used to paying 200+ for a room in a Boston Hotel don't mind AMC prices.

NHHIKER

[DavidNH]

Sorry folks...one more thing...

The AMC has its own chat bulletin boards sort of like this one. As Jack Tarlin pointed out, the one place where one could debate and critize AMC policies, Mountains and Mole Hills, was discontinued. Guess they did not like the controversial stuff on it. Consequently there is no place for one to post statements critical of the AMC. That is why I posted here on white blaze and not on the AMC web site (www.outdoors.org).

Now some one please tell me.. when I thru hike the AT.. how much to I have to put aside for caretakers so I can set up my tent? is it just VT and NH that do this? Do you have to pay caretaker fees in the south as well? sure hope not.

nhhiker