is it me or the AMC sometimes acts like it owns the White Mountains?

[rickb]

If someone wants to understand the hows and whys of AMC and their relationship to the WMNF, they would need to review the EIS that they had to develop when their lease/special use permit was renewed with the FS about 15 years ago. I happen to have a copy of it in my collection. They had to look at three options, rip en down, go limited services or keep what they got. Contrary to popular opinion the AMC doesn't own the land under the huts but they do have permit to operate a hut system on USFS land. They along with the USFS develop a management plan to manage the huts. The USFS is the entity that sets the rules on where folks can camp in high use areas. If the huts weren't there it is highly likely that the options for staying along the ridgeline would be far less.

Subsequent to getting the permit AMC has aggressively gone to only building facilities on land they own and control, one of the reasons that they bought the large amount of acreage in the 100 mile wilderness and that they built the Highland Center on their own land. If its on there own land they have far less federal oversight.

Well, they don't own the land under most huts .

One thing that is often forgotten is that the Huts effectively subsidize the cost of other AMC initiatives in the Whites, which hikers enjoy for no cost, or -- in the case of the caretaker campsites--much less than the actual cost of the provided service.

In effect, those staying in the huts are helping underwrite the experience of those who don't. The financials associated wi the huts were included in the EIS. While the huts are operated at a profit the overall operation in The Whites operated at a loss-- at least at the time the figures were laid out in the EIS. The actual operating cost was surprisingly expensive. I am surprised more people don't see the poetry in having the folks staying at the huts paying for so much that we get for free!

The delta is covered by the members and donors to the AMC, of course. We should be especially thankful for the land that the AMC has forever protected around the hundred mile wilderness, when few others could or would. And the respect the extended to the local community in the process.

Oh yea, Another thing that is forgotten is the range of options to simply pitch a tent or hammock in the woods. Not everywhere, but in far more places than some think is permitted by the Forest Service.

We are better off for the AMC. And for most of us the benefits didn't cost one thin dime.

[Symba]

Actually they offer work stays to thru-hikers which is most likely more than they are required to do. I had to sweep the floor for about 45 minutes to stay at Mitzpah, totally worth it.

That is an awesome deal SLY!!! Back in 2000 I was at a shelter down south, forgetting where, but there were ATC managers there for a meeting and one of them was a professional chef. I offered to pay for my meal with them, they invited everyone in the shelter; shelter was in eyes view of the house. Most of us went up; I did all the dishes with another hiker without their asking. It was awesome. I would have cleaned the whole house for them if they asked! Grand trail magic!!! I only went through the Smokies once, I'm not spoiled; it was a thoughtful suggestion. If I knew I was going completely through all the hut systems in the Whites I'd purchase a 'thru' pass to cut back on costs staying in bunk housing. It is a suggestion, nothing else justatouron.

[LIhikers]

It is true that it costs a lot of money to stay there, but when you consider the maintenance, cost of paid workers (mostly college students), cost of food/fuel, repairs, etc. it is understandable. I believe the question came up during one of my stays about how they get those propane tanks up there, and the answer was by helicopter, 1 tank at a time due to the weight. I believe it costs several hundred dollars an hour to fly a helicopter including loading and unloading time.

As a helicopter mechanic, with more years of experience than I'd care to admit, I can assure you that it costs several THOUSANDS of dollars an hour for commercial helicopters.

[JustaTouron]

As a helicopter mechanic, with more years of experience than I'd care to admit, I can assure you that it costs several THOUSANDS of dollars an hour for commercial helicopters.

• $1,650 hourly rate for helicopter

http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/camp...psites-faq.cfm

The AMC might be getting a good rate being it is charity.

[Sly]

As opposed to $98+ tax for non-thru hikers.

You're effective wage was about $130 per hour.

Wasn't the complaint that thru-hikers were being treated poorly?

However, on the other hand, I did a work for stay at a $6 dollar a night shelter and worked a full hour hauling 5 gallon buckets of mineral soil and huge boulders. I would have paid $12 not to work so hard.

[jbwood5]

• $1,650 hourly rate for helicopter

http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/camp...psites-faq.cfm

The AMC might be getting a good rate being it is charity.

The link really answers a lot about the expenses. I wonder if that is a recent update.... or a few years old. Thanks for the helicopter rates. Come to think of it, I got my figures from an electric company pilot many years ago when I used to be a spotter when they patrolled large cross country power lines for broken/damaged/shot at insulators, or downed wires. I'm really dating myself when I tell you it was the late 1970's when I did that work. LOL

I figure in the peak season, one AMC hut grosses about $35K a week.

[JustaTouron]

The link really answers a lot about the expenses. I wonder if that is a recent update.... or a few years old. Thanks for the helicopter rates. Come to think of it, I got my figures from an electric company pilot many years ago when I used to be a spotter when they patrolled large cross country power lines for broken/damaged/shot at insulators, or downed wires. I'm really dating myself when I tell you it was the late 1970's when I did that work. LOL

I figure in the peak season, one AMC hut grosses about $35K a week.

They cite the years 2011 & 2012 on the page so it can't be too old. They also mention that for the $8 campsites and shelters the fee pays 50% the expense with the rest coming from other sources. The huts might be breaking even or even making a profit.

If that is the case, then the weekend hikers dropping ~ $100 a night are subsiding the $8 a night thru hikers. Horribly elitist.

[wakapak]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.

[Lone Wolf]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.

you would think thru-hikers would know how to bed down for the night by the time they get to the whites without having to pay for a place. sadly, most don't. they really aren't comfortable in the woods

[wakapak]

you would think thru-hikers would know how to bed down for the night by the time they get to the whites without having to pay for a place. sadly, most don't. they really aren't comfortable in the woods

seriously.....

[Chaco Taco]

Sheeesh, I'm being reminded of why I don't come on here much anymore....

It's interesting to me that some of the more negative comments about the workings of the AMC and about how the ATC should take it over (even thought the AT through is such a small portion of actual trail in the Whites) are from those who don't live in this region, so truly may not have a concept of how much usage and how many trails there are in the Whites.

I was one of these people. I had my own opinion of the AMC after reading a bunch of stuff here, but when I actually got here and saw some of the BS the caretakers deal with, my opinion changed, quickly. Until you actually live up here and see how the AMC works aside from the AT, then you can make an informed decision and not be slightly ignorant, as I once was. There are some things I dislike about the AMC, but on the whole, the AMC is good up here. Id hate to imagine of they were not part of it and it was left solely to volunteers. Tourists and some, not all thruhikers would destroy the Whites.

[MuddyWaters]

In such a high-use area, someone has to keep the riff-raff in line.

[Tom Murphy]

In such a high-use area, someone has to keep the riff-raff in line.

The USFS makes the rules not the AMC. The huts are so easily avoided with a tiny bit of planning. Drop down off the ridge and there are plenty of legal places to camp.

[Nooga]

And to those saying the AT is hard to follow up here in The Whites, you just have to be able to read signs and a map truly, which is true backpacking. The trails in the Whites have been around way longer than the AT has, so they weren't going to be re-named just because the AT traverses over the same trail...

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

[Lone Wolf]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

dude, wakapak is a lady. the AT through the Whites is borrowing their trail. carry a map, pay attention and quit whining. otherwise just skip the 120 miles

[JustaTouron]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

How do you know the sharpe corrections were done by hikers and not by the AMC while the new signs were being made, to reflect the trail relo?

[Chaco Taco]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

Wow, maybe Im missing something but if you cant follow the AT through The Whites then you really shouldnt be hiking up here. There are more blazes marking the AT and more signs than any other trail up here. They add MORE signs EVERY year and more blazes. This thing with the sharpies is ridiculous. Ditch your guidebooks and buy a friggin map when you get up here and see for yourself how easy it is to navigate up here. 10 years ago, yea. It might have been more difficult, but TODAY, the trail might as well be paved in the Whites.

And yea, my lady is a lady, not a dude.

[Slo-go'en]

How do you know the sharpe corrections were done by hikers and not by the AMC while the new signs were being made, to reflect the trail relo?

There hasn't been any trail relo's in the Whites in many, many years. That's why thier all erroded down to bed rock. A better reason is someone "clarified" the direction as unless you know the trail name, you might not realise it's part of the AT. And above tree line, which way a trail goes is often not real obvious.

[wakapak]

Dude, how do you think we determined that the signs were wrong? The point is that either the signs were wrong when erected or the trail has been relocated, at which time the sign should have been changed. Either way, you need to heed the directions that are hand marked with a sharpie as opposed to the printed sign. Maybe selective memory on my part, but I don't remember this on other sections of the trail.

Can I ask you when the last time was that you were hiking on the AT up here in the Whites? I've been on quite a bit of it this year and haven't seen any hand-marked with sharpie on signs. Matter of fact there are quite a number of newer looking signs up here in the Whites, due to that constant trail maintenance the pesky AMC likes to do. As people have stated in other threads, it's always best to carry maps with you, especially up here where the AT borrows long existing trails as it winds through these mountains. On the AT maps are also the names of the trails it borrows and on maps of the Whites the AT is also marked. The signs I've seen up here this year do have either AT or Appalachian Trail also printed on them with an arrow indicating the direction. It may not be the heading or in bold print, but it's definitely on the signs.

[ams212001]

The OP does not respond to any posts and often posts about controversial topics. Perhaps he is a troll.