I expect that they are shifting back to the whites as the Maine huts have reportedly been less than successful. Crawford Notch on the other hand is relatively fast drive from Boston close to a road so its lot easier to fundraise for it and easier to fill.
New AMC Hut in Crawford Notch???
- Thread starter J&J
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
It's always fun to bash AMC. But, in all seriousness, I'm sure that the review process will sort out all the impacts. As I see it, the proposed location not where there is currently high usage, so it may be an OK place to encourage more use. Better here, than say in the Presidentials.
Jazzbo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,197
- Reaction score
- 163
Non-profit is not what most people think. It has been in news recently that the National Football League is contemplating change in tax status from non-profit to for-profit. High level managers have multi-million dollar salaries. Many health insurance companies are non-profit in eyes of IRS. AMC is probably pretty clean player compared to many other so-called non-profits businesses. Tax code needs major overhaul.
I guess I am in the minority on this thread. There are plenty of people with different expectations of the use of a NH state park and the proposed hut meets the expectations of some portion of the population. An AMC hut is potentially a way of children and new folks to being introduced to the outdoors and I expect most would agree that AMC does advocate a responsible approach to outdoors, there are far worse ways to be introduced to the outdoors. There are also older individuals that are no longer able to get into the backcountry and this allows them to still have the hut experience for a few more years. I also expect that there is potential to make this hut accessible for those with disabilities.
Unlike the other huts with the exception of Carter Notch, the proposed hut is not right in the middle of the AT, if someone wants to go there, they have to take a blue blaze, otherwise they can walk right by. The trails in this area get extensive day use by mostly casual hikers to see the waterfalls and its not a bad thing to have AMC in the area as they do tend to improve the trails near the huts.
I consider the impact of the hut far less than the extensive damage currently being done to Franconia State Park at Cannon Mountain and unlike Cannon the general public is not banned from access to hundreds of acres of state park land which is the case at Cannon for much of the year. At least the proposed hut is net revenue to the state unlike Cannon which operates at a lost subsidized by the Sunapee Ski area.
Unlike the other huts with the exception of Carter Notch, the proposed hut is not right in the middle of the AT, if someone wants to go there, they have to take a blue blaze, otherwise they can walk right by. The trails in this area get extensive day use by mostly casual hikers to see the waterfalls and its not a bad thing to have AMC in the area as they do tend to improve the trails near the huts.
I consider the impact of the hut far less than the extensive damage currently being done to Franconia State Park at Cannon Mountain and unlike Cannon the general public is not banned from access to hundreds of acres of state park land which is the case at Cannon for much of the year. At least the proposed hut is net revenue to the state unlike Cannon which operates at a lost subsidized by the Sunapee Ski area.
surf88
Member
This is on land owned by the people of the State of New Hampshire. I have always bristled at the fact that Lonesome Lake Fee's are more for a NH resident (NH member) than for an AMC member from Massachusetts even though it is supposed to be a collaborative deal. I am not a "hut person" or an "AMC person" if anything I'm hypocritically antiAMC. I say hypocritically because I use trails maintained by them so much, but I really don't have much choice on that one. I'm mostly sad the huts are not what they once were. Mountain Bothies are what they once were. Now they more closely resemble slopeside condos. I point to the recent upgrade of Madison Hut. What an eyesore it is now when compared to the stone building it once was.
Stan
Well-known member
I agree, the tax code is long overdue for an overhaul but not sure what changes are needed in regard to non-profits.
Most non-profits exist to serve some public good (e.g. environmental, humanitarian, educational) but there are also non-profits which serve certain interests like trade and labor associations. Donations to the first are tax deductible, to the latter not except perhaps as a business expense in some cases. In either case, net income unrelated to the purpose of the organization can be taxable.
Governments tend to want to amass power and a fear among non-profits is that government will try to determine what gets private support instead of individual donors making their own choices. An example of misuse of government power is the imbroglio over conservative PACs. Whether you agree with PACs or with the politics of any given PAC is not the issue; government abuse of its power should be the warning we need to heed when it comes to "reform".
loanshark
Active member
I don't really see the need for another hut, Particularly in this location. Enough is enough.
sierra
Well-known member
It's not about being a snob. It's about putting a structure in the middle of beautiful and peaceful woods, attracting hundreds of people to turn those trails into a conga line everyday. If people NEED a hut to go out into the woods and enjoy nature, I'm sorry I don't support that. The Highland Center is perfect for such people and its in the right place to serve them. They have the amenities they need and access to the woods at the same time. They can have the best of both worlds and " graduate" to the current huts when they are ready. I purposely avoid "hut" trails on the weekends, so as not have to a hundred kids and older folks, clogging up the trail.
sierra
Well-known member
I do not think putting Huts in area's that have low usage is an augument many long time hikers would not agree with, ok, let me rephrase that, I don't agree with it. These area's of "less use" are hidden Gems. I mean walk Shoal Pond trail, you get that remote feeling that is not found on the main trails. Those trails behind the Willey range are nice, you can find some really nice days out there during the week to find some peace, seeing an occasional hiker here and there. That Hut goes in, forget it, that's gone. The AMC has " encouraged " use on the trails to the 8 Huts out there now, that ship has sailed, lets not " Busy up " more area's. My own 2 cents.
Raven
Well-known member
Most prudently it would be nice to see an extension of the " Comment Period " either side of the fence your on with this situation. This is a big fork in the Road.
http://www.vulgarianchronicles.net/vulgarianchronicles.net/Home.html
Last edited:
RollingRock
Active member
I was there last week using the trailhead to hike up Mt. Willey. The parking lot was full with cars parked along both sides of the road. I saw families heading over to Ripley Falls, backpackers heading over to Ethan Pond and hikers like me going up Mt. Willey. Even spoke with one thru-hiker walking by. It felt to me the area was popular.
It certainly will not be much of a hike to get to the where the hut will be so I think it will make it very popular so it makes sense that they need to build a bigger parking lot/trailhead. It has to be near water so it will probably be near Avalanche Brook. I can see the Hut being popular with families to make jaunts to Ripley and/or Arethusa Falls and for folks who want to hike the AT using the hut system they now will be able to do so with this Hut.
I personally don't have a problem with it. It will bring more people to spend a night in the greater outdoors so they can support efforts to protect it. There will be plenty of backcountry left for all of us to enjoy with one more hut added to the system.
I find that regardless of the sensibilities behind a given change, I tend to get a sense that change of any kind is generally frowned upon, be it removing a bridge, or building a hut, or removing a trail. I don't see much advocacy for adding new bridges in the wilderness, or removing existing structures, power lines, roads, etc. I'm sure there are some people that feel that way, but the general vibe I get is 'I don't see the need for this change, so don't make it', and although it may be true, it's worth noting that arguing from ignorance is not a strong argument. 
That said, I find the variety of points being made to be interesting - I think it's a testament to the many different experiences people seek out in the mountains, which is something I strive to appreciate. I like the 'public resource' argument, which suggests that we should be open to sharing our woods with others, so long as the resource as a whole is able to be shared with future generations.
That said, I find the variety of points being made to be interesting - I think it's a testament to the many different experiences people seek out in the mountains, which is something I strive to appreciate. I like the 'public resource' argument, which suggests that we should be open to sharing our woods with others, so long as the resource as a whole is able to be shared with future generations.
I'm sure there are some people that feel that way, but the general vibe I get is 'I don't see the need for this change, so don't make it', and although it may be true, it's worth noting that arguing from ignorance is not a strong argument.
.
Ignorancy manifests itself wearing many different faces.
"He repeated a comment he made at all three sessions, saying the state, the town and the AMC are at the beginning of the process and that the AMC does not yet have all of the specifics regarding land use and design plans for the hut."
"Responding to another charge in the petition that the AMC has “not done proper research indicating anticipated use, impact or erosion and has provided no statistical analysis stating that this is a beneficent project,” Cunha reasserted that the project is still in the early stages and that the AMC was awaiting word from the state regarding the process.
“It’s not that the process will not be forthcoming — we’re just not there yet,” said Cunha"
Last edited:
Greg YEAH!
New member
So the AMC is supposed to be about preservation and conservation, I would tend to disagree. I am sure most of us have been to the huts and noticed the devastation of the landscape that surrounds these huts. It is the trampled alpine vegetation and cigarette butts lying around Lakes and the large number of trees cut down at Lonesome Lake to provide high paying customers a chance to enjoy the view that makes me highly skeptical of AMC's preservation mantra. Also, there is nothing like the smell of fresh septic as I hike up the Ammo Trail or around Lonesome Lake. The last thing the Whites need is another eyesore of torn down trees, trampled vegetation, litter and the awful stink coming from the huts.
Instead of building a new hut to help "educate" the public why not put that money to paying some summit stewards (ADK and GMC both have summit stewards and they are less popular attractions) to educate the thousands of people who picnic on the alpine vegetation of Pierce and Lafayette, or any of the other popular areas in the Whites.
I used to donate to the AMC until I finally came to my senses about what the AMC really truly stands for, and I don't think it is preserving the land.
Instead of building a new hut to help "educate" the public why not put that money to paying some summit stewards (ADK and GMC both have summit stewards and they are less popular attractions) to educate the thousands of people who picnic on the alpine vegetation of Pierce and Lafayette, or any of the other popular areas in the Whites.
I used to donate to the AMC until I finally came to my senses about what the AMC really truly stands for, and I don't think it is preserving the land.
Great Post. I agree. Also thank you for not just making your points but also suggesting some alternative solutions. There still is an open petition against The AMC's proposal for a new Hut in Crawford Notch and you can sign it here. Even if you do not agree with or sign this petition I encourage you to read the comments of those that have.
https://www.change.org/p/forest-use...ium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
Last edited:
Greg YEAH!
New member
I signed the petition and posted some comments. Thanks. I don't know if it was a good thing that I was number 666.
If it was another entity building anything else in the Whites I can guarantee the AMC would do everything in their power to prevent it. Do as I say, not as I do.
If it was another entity building anything else in the Whites I can guarantee the AMC would do everything in their power to prevent it. Do as I say, not as I do.
Have there been any other proposals that the AMC has opposed? What do you base this on?
