New AMC Hut in Crawford Notch???

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Peaks said:
Hut business must be good if AMC wants to build another one in the White Mountains
Click to expand...

That is one reason. A NH Chapter member attended one of the info meetings and presenters did state visitation at AMC huts is up significantly. There is also talk of increased opp's for hut-to-hut trips (via ski in winter?) Other comment about this being a big bold initiative for this AMC generation is sound. Increased outdoor opportunities for families is also key. The location could serve as new gateway to one of the more remote areas of the Pemi. BC skiers could hike in and stay overnight and ski out to Lincoln Woods the next day. I wouldn't be surprised we start to hear talk of keeping Mispah hut open in Winter. We all know interest in winter hiking is growing tremendously. I say why not?
 
Looking at Jazzbo's post brings up an interesting point. If AMC is interested in utilizing this area of the Pemi will they bring some horsepower to the Thoreau Falls bridge removal? They were pretty quiet with respect to the bridge over the Pemi a few years ago but now it is probably to their interest to oppose its removal.
 
I definitely do not support the building of yet another AMC $100+ hotel in the White Mountains. I agree with Sierra: enough is enough.

The AMC's mission statement from their website:
"The Appalachian Mountain Club promotes the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the mountains, forests, waters, and trails of America’s Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.
We believe these resources have intrinsic worth and also provide recreational opportunities, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. Because successful conservation depends on active engagement with the outdoors, we encourage people to experience, learn about, and appreciate the natural world."

The definition of conservation (Google) is "the action of conserving something, in particular the
preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife."

How is the building of a new hut protecting the natural environment? I think if we could query the critters and plants already living onsite, they would opine that it is not.

On the plus side, it would spice up the one-day hut traverse!

Sorry I cannot make this meeting. (Parents' 55th anniversary dinner!)
 
Stinkyfeet said:
"The Appalachian Mountain Club promotes the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the mountains, forests, waters, and trails of America’s Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions
...
How is the building of a new hut protecting the natural environment? I think if we could query the critters and plants already living onsite, they would opine that it is not.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate for a second here... perhaps the hut falls under "promotes... enjoyment and understanding..." assuming that the guests enjoy their stay and surroundings and that they have a naturalist or other educator there for the understanding part.

Tim
 
At $100/night with 50 customer capacity, this is an income stream for the AMC. Trails, trail maint, etc., are all costs. It is easy to see why this is a priority for the AMC rather than using its influence to keep trails and bridges open (such as the Thoreau Falls bridge situation).

Let's see, approx 20 weekends, 2-ish nights/weeknd (nevermind the weekday customers - let's assume that pays for hut staff, food, etc), the profit is essentially around 20 x 2 x 50 x $100 or about $200,000 per season. Yeah, those are just approximations/ballparks, and, you can argue any part of that calculation, but, it's easy to see what's going on here..... we are talking millions of dollars of income over the lifespan of this and every other hut.
 
Becca M said:
Let's see, approx 20 weekends, 2-ish nights/weeknd (nevermind the weekday customers - let's assume that pays for hut staff, food, etc), the profit is essentially around 20 x 2 x 50 x $100 or about $200,000 per season.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that the weekday customers cover all expenses and the weekend is 100% profit. That's a pretty big assumption.

Everything I've seen from AMC financials shows "lodging" as a loss. Huts are not broken out separately in the summaries that go out to all members, and I haven't asked for more details.
 
jniehof said:
You're assuming that the weekday customers cover all expenses and the weekend is 100% profit. That's a pretty big assumption.

Everything I've seen from AMC financials shows "lodging" as a loss. Huts are not broken out separately in the summaries that go out to all members, and I haven't asked for more details.
Click to expand...

I have to assume someone is cooking the books. There is no way possible that $100 a night for full lodges is operating at a loss.

I did a rough calculation at 90% occupancy at $100 a night for a 13 week season. Gross, per hut, is around $400,000. Which means, somehow, someway, the AMC is mismanaging $3million a year.
 
Last edited:
egilbe said:
I have to assume someone is cooking the books. There is no way possible that $100 a night for full lodges is operating at a loss.
Click to expand...

The books are open to public viewing, feel free to point out where they are cooking them.
 
They make a few helicopter trips to each hut every spring and fall as well. They might be including the rent (or taxes?) on their Boston office in the 'lodging' line items, too.
 
Non-profits, such as the AMC, need to move money (all legally) to make sure over X years (with carryover allowable by law) there is no "profit." As a result, there are enormous (but, I'm sure, "competitive" as far as non-profits go) salaries for the big brass. That's the way it works. The books are open, but, you would need to be a CPA or close, to see where the money is going. I would doubt the huts are operating at a "loss", especially if you know anyone who has ever worked at a hut....

(I'm not a CPA but I do have *some* graduate-level financial education ;) )
 
Last edited:
peakbagger said:
This will reopen the wounds of the Twin mountain and other tourist businesses in that area that AMC is getting a free ride. It is interesting that the organization has shifted away from its policy that they enacted after the EIS debacle about only building on club owned land. Given the location, I expect they will have plenty of large donors that will want to participate. Having another easily accessible hut good for families is probably a target and being able to avoid federal regulations of the operations is probably real attractive to the club.
Click to expand...

I agree. More smoke and mirrors by the AMC. IMO this is a move to attract a different demographic amongst an already declining membership. On State Land no less. As a New Hampshire resident I would rather see the AMC's Treasure Chest opened and used for maintenance and repair of already existing infrastructure considering their operation contributes to the wear and tear on that infrastructure. It would be one thing to build a new hut on an existing trail but to have to cut a whole new trail just to get to and from the hut itself. Not on my land! Comment period ends on Saturday August 15, 2015. Get out your pens and paper. http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/input-sought-on-amcs-new-proposed-hut-on-state-park-land/34568924
 
I think a mix of accommodations, from primitive to luxurious, is acceptable and can think of perhaps a few other locations where the less than primitive "improvements" could attract responsible use. Remember, part of AMC's mission is educational and there are many hikers who get their first, if not only, introduction to leave no trace ethics and hiking safety. Places like huts also make it possible for some people to hike when they might not otherwise be able to enjoy such places. Are we such self centered snobs that those people don't matter?

At a time of increasing numbers of couch potatoes and virtual reality nerds buried deep in a digital screen, outdoors numbers are diminishing. If another hut contributes in a small way to reversing this trend and encouraging better fitness and more conservation awareness, I'm all for it.

As for the economics of the huts, there are three factors to consider. First, unless you've run a business you probably way underestimate the cost of operation. Second, there are many AMC activities that are not revenue producing and whatever produces revenue for activities such as education and conservation make those parts of its mission possible. Third, a non-profit is not defined by profits and losses but by its charter for a public good and the fact that it doesn't have "owners" who expect a return on their investment. No organization, profit or not, would survive for long without revenues in excess of their costs, no matter what you call it.

I second David's invitation to let us all know how the books are cooked. There are organizations that do it, unfortunately, and you'll find plenty of detail to work with in any non-profits' financials which are easily accessed by the public. I can assure you, there are brighter and more dedicated analysts than most of us looking at these things on behalf of major donors.
 
there are many hikers who get their first, if not only, introduction to leave no trace ethics
Click to expand...

Leave No Trace. Therein lies the irony. The AMC is being hypocritical.

Places like huts also make it possible for some people to hike when they might not otherwise be able to enjoy such places. Are we such self centered snobs that those people don't matter?
Click to expand...

There are already 8 huts in the White Mtns, plus Joe Dodge Lodge and the Highland Center, more than enough accommodation choices for "those people" (sic). I don't think it's snobbish to reject the building of a new hut, quite the contrary.

Maybe a good location for the AMC's next hotel should be in the Blue Hills or Middlesex Fells--SO much less gas would be consumed in contrast to driving all the way up to the Whites!

[/QUOTE]Comment period ends on Saturday August 15, 2015. Get out your pens and paper. http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/i...-land/34568924[/QUOTE]

You can also email [email protected]
 
Stinkyfeet said:
Leave No Trace. Therein lies the irony. The AMC is being hypocritical.



There are already 8 huts in the White Mtns, plus Joe Dodge Lodge and the Highland Center, more than enough accommodation choices for "those people" (sic). I don't think it's snobbish to reject the building of a new hut, quite the contrary.

Maybe a good location for the AMC's next hotel should be in the Blue Hills or Middlesex Fells--SO much less gas would be consumed in contrast to driving all the way up to the Whites!
Click to expand...
Comment period ends on Saturday August 15, 2015. Get out your pens and paper. http://www.wmur.com/escape-outside/i...-land/34568924[/QUOTE]

You can also email [email protected][/QUOTE]

Thanks Stinky for saying so. Totally agree. The area they are proposing is adjacent to (Arethusa Falls) is already one of the busiest places in Crawford Notch. No need to attract more people to an already over run area. The whole thing reeks of hypocricy on the AMC's part. The open in winter part is another farce. I'm sure there are a few down at Joy St. that have lerking in their agenda the idea of eventually opening Mizpah in the winter therefore potentially creating a winter loop. Enough is enough!
 
I think they should focus on Maine for new Huts or Vermont. They have pillaged the NH backcountry enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ear Drum
Strava acquires Fatmap 3D mountain mapper
Replies
7
Views
1K
DayTrip
DayTrip
P
Is it good to invite 17,000 people to go hike to a NH 4K on one day this summer?
Replies
14
Views
2K
peakbagger
P
P
RMC Cabin Fee Increase
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
skiguy
skiguy
P
A quick trip to Olympic National Park
Replies
0
Views
744
peakbagger
P
P
North Country News Big Greenhouse
Replies
0
Views
989
peakbagger
P

Latest posts

Top