Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

Raymond said:

I guess it's up to me to point out that the person who began the thread by decrying the existence of the huts was himself a guest at one.

Click to expand...

Isn't a person allowed to change their wy of thinking? Some call that "learning."

Stick to the message, not the messenger.

In my last 3 ADK outtings over the Dix Range, Santanoni's and Cliff/Redfield, I saw a total of probably 15-20 people. And thats a lot of miledge/mountains.

The Adirondacks feel far, FAR more remote (with the obvious exceptions) IMHO.

(Not that I don't appreciate the Whites, I finished my 48 and had a great time doing it.)

yep - I also see the same theme rearing its head - too many people - but let me in.

Restrict the access, as long as I can get in. Those folks are wearing sneakers, they don't belong here.....

I don't know, I have only stayed at an AMC hut once off season, b/c they are to much $$ for me. But - my time at RMC huts, hermit lake, harvard cabin, etc.. - there is just something fun about the sharing stories with like minded folks, etc.. Most of the time, I like meeting people on the trails and hearing there plans, etc.. - its fun.

hiking/climbing is a recreational activity - and as someone pointed out - for everyone -

this is a good thread though. I like it

elhefe007a said:

In my last 3 ADK outtings over the Dix Range, Santanoni's and Cliff/Redfield, I saw a total of probably 15-20 people. And thats a lot of miledge/mountains.

The Adirondacks feel far, FAR more remote (with the obvious exceptions) IMHO.

(Not that I don't appreciate the Whites, I finished my 48 and had a great time doing it.)

Click to expand...

You musy have gone in high season.

Just kidding. I hope this discussion dosn't totter over the edge of a "my sandbox is better that yours" discussion.

The question as to whether the huts are bad because they bring too many people, and inexperienced one's at that, into the Whites could easily go on forever and ever and...

I know if I was king of the world they'd all be gone by nightfall but until that happy event (me becoming king) I would recommend making the best of them , as opposed to the worst.

I'll fess up to this: I stayed in Crag Camp a few years ago and when I awoke to the sound of pouring rain drumming on the roof I was real glad that roof was there.

Neil said:

I'll fess up to this: I stayed in Crag Camp a few years ago and when I awoke to the sound of pouring rain drumming on the roof I was real glad that roof was there.

Click to expand...

I hear you. After making an attempt to get to the Bonds in the winter, and in the pouring rain, we pulled into Zealand for lunch. We stayed for 20 hours. I lost all motivation to leave....

David Metsky said:

A ten mile hike isn't enough to keep the masses away; there are just too many people living close by who want to travel up there. How would you keep them away?
-dave-

Click to expand...

Permits....

Jeff-B said:

Guyot never had an "overflow" camping region on the ridge until its tent platforms became crowded. Now the upper ridge area is getting trashed and probably quite unsanitary.

Camp 16 on the Wilderness trail was totally relocated due to over use, now its quite far from water. This site will get rotated every 10 years or so for revegitation and will probably fair OK. But Guyot overflow will NOT.

Click to expand...

I haven't yet read the whole thread, but just wanted to add my "I'll second that" to Jeff-Bs post is his thoughts mimmick mine. I've been hiking for 25 years (and I'm only 29) and don't ever recall having to worry about getting a site at Guyot on a weekend in the mid 80's, before the overflow was created. It's not that the hut have suddenly become en-vogue. I do remember staying in a near capacity Lakes and Greenleaf back then. The difference is the huts aren't building additions to house more people, so their impact on the environment gets more favorable every time a Campsite 16 or Franconia brook has to be closed or relocated due to over-use, or another Guyot overflow is created.

And don't be too quick to judge those staying at the huts. I stayed in a few at the ages of 5, 6, and 7, and have plans to bring my own kids should they have the desire to go. You'll surely notice me. I'll be the "inexperienced one" wearing cotton t-shirts and "dragging his kids up and down trails to relive his failed childhood through his children".

giggy said:

yep - I also see the same theme rearing its head - too many people - but let me in.

Restrict the access, as long as I can get in. Those folks are wearing sneakers, they don't belong here.....

Click to expand...

nod.

This is why I strongly favor permit systems and is closely related to why I am so strongly against parking passes.

Permit systems generally limit access (and do a bit of lite education) while ensuring equal access. You and I and everybody else all have the same chance of climbing Whitney, for example. Restrictive but fair.

Fee based passes on the other hand limit access to those who can afford to pay. I'm not opposed to some services and wild lands being managed on a for fee basis. I've no problem with the National Parks using a fee based structure for example. But, I really hold dear the language in the Wilderness Act, which establishes Wilderness Areas as a part of national heritage. IMO, fee based access to something this near and dear is as wrong headed as fee based access to public education or fee based access to public libraries. If any trail heads should be left free for all citizens, it should be those that access Wilderness Areas (so long as they got a permit).

If the OP wants to minimize impact on the 13 Falls area, my suggestion would be to start writing the USFS to advocate an expansion of their permitting system.

dave.m said:

nod.

This is why I strongly favor permit systems and is closely related to why I am so strongly against parking passes.

Permit systems generally limit access (and do a bit of lite education) while ensuring equal access. You and I and everybody else all have the same chance of climbing Whitney, for example. Restrictive but fair.

Fee based passes on the other hand limit access to those who can afford to pay. I'm not opposed to some services and wild lands being managed on a for fee basis. I've no problem with the National Parks using a fee based structure for example. But, I really hold dear the language in the Wilderness Act, which establishes Wilderness Areas as a part of national heritage. IMO, fee based access to something this near and dear is as wrong headed as fee based access to public education or fee based access to public libraries. If any trail heads should be left free for all citizens, it should be those that access Wilderness Areas (so long as they got a permit).

If the OP wants to minimize impact on the 13 Falls area, my suggestion would be to start writing the USFS to advocate an expansion of their permitting system.

Click to expand...

Dave - you make a great point that I failed to see - and one that I have to consider more closely. Great explanation.

Some thought - being a non profit, would you consider the high price of the huts actually restricting access to some folks. I think I might. it would be near 300 dollars per night, for family of 4 with 2 kids under 15. I will be honest - I could not afford that for a weekend - and I make a decent living. I think that is extremely restrictive. This is not a bash, just making a point.

AMC huts and the wilder Whites

Threads on the AMC huts usually get a lot of responses, even luring lurkers to say something.
The huts evoke passions...and ambivalence.
A recent trip to Lakes of the Clouds found so many camp girls making so much (happy) noise in the hut that I had to leave quickly and find my quiet place by the lake. Then again, no doubt that some of my best moments in the mountains have been at Lakes of the Clouds. As far as the issue of the impact of the AMC huts on the environment, it probably is best to differentiate and consider history and irony. There was a building, often shabby, in Carter Notch long before the AMC built its hut. Lonesome Lake got its start as a private fishing camp. (Some of the RMC buildings also started as private cabins). Madison started as an RMC-like shelter for more than 20 years before it slowly evolved to "full-service" with a "hut keeper", mainly to keep campers from burning the nearby scrub (and the hut shutters and floorboards). The AMC's purchase of the site of Madison hut and much of the lower Snyder brook valley approach saved that lovely forest from the logging that took much of the lower forest on the Northern Presidentials (and sent JR Edmands sadly away to make a trail on Mt Pleasant). Galehead and Mizpah occupy the sites of former shelters that had become foul eyesores, esp. Mizpah.
IMHO the huts have done more to protect the fragile environment than to hurt it, maybe inadvertently. Without Madison, Lakes, Zealand and Greenleaf huts, the area around Star Lake, Lakes of the Clouds, Zealand Pond, and Eagle Lakes would have been long since demolished by campers before anyone had the notion or the regulatory ability to restrict above-treeline camping. Even today, while many people hike to those sites, they usually go to the huts, not to the lakes.

The good news is that things have been getting better for quite a while.

The White Mountains, so close to so many millions of people, may be the only mountains in the US that are wilder now than they were years ago, when lumber barons laid their tracks and started fires, when hotels crowned several summits, when private camps were high on the N. Presidentials, when the B&M was about to build an electric trolley up Caps Ridge to the summit of Washington (you can still find some survey markers), and when federal planners envisioned a skyline drive on the S. Presidentials. Whew, so glad we escaped that!
If you want mountain camaraderie, go to the huts. If you want mountain solitude, well, as many have posted here, there's no lack of choices.
It's still possible to sit on a rock high on Mt Washington and see a view like the one seen by Darby Field.

smitty77 said:

I haven't yet read the whole thread, but just wanted to add my "I'll second that" to Jeff-Bs post is his thoughts mimmick mine. I've been hiking for 25 years (and I'm only 29) and don't ever recall having to worry about getting a site at Guyot on a weekend in the mid 80's, before the overflow was created.

And don't be too quick to judge those staying at the huts. I stayed in a few at the ages of 5, 6, and 7, and have plans to bring my own kids should they have the desire to go. You'll surely notice me. I'll be the "inexperienced one" wearing cotton t-shirts and "dragging his kids up and down trails to relive his failed childhood through his children".

Click to expand...

GREAT! I am glad I reached somebody out there who witnessed first hand the changes I saw with overuse backpacking in the Pemi, Bonds and Guyot.

So, with all the "bushwhacking" going on as an acceptable practice to gain solitude, how long will it be before we have herd paths everywhere?

The Whites are just too small to handle the increased masses in general.
Lets blame REI, EMS for outfitting folks in urban areas...right?

I think the author of this thread just has a total double standard ethic and believes all hut folks as just plain "inexperienced."
Oh, just Galehead folks...sorry....

I like this thread too, because it just shows how damn judgmental some folks are.

Jeff-B said:

I like this thread too, because it just shows how damn judgmental some folks are.

Click to expand...

I think your judgement is right, in a that's-so-circular-it-makes-my-head-spin sort of way!

dave.m said:

I think your judgement is right, in a that's-so-circular-it-makes-my-head-spin sort of way!

Click to expand...

"You can't take a measurement without affecting the measurement"........

Who said that?
Newton?

That's the Hawthorne Effect,which is the name of a study of experiments done at GE and is not the name of anyone in particular.

Hawthorne Effect

JohnL

giggy said:

Some thought - being a non profit, would you consider the high price of the huts actually restricting access to some folks. I think I might. it would be near 300 dollars per night, for family of 4 with 2 kids under 15. I will be honest - I could not afford that for a weekend - and I make a decent living. I think that is extremely restrictive. This is not a bash, just making a point.

Click to expand...

It is very expensive - but to the AMC's defense it is expensive to run...the staff have to be paid, food bought, many helicopter runs in the spring etc.

An earlier post mentioned that the huts (Lakes at least) would be gone in 10 years...seeing the AMC's influence and the money that the huts bring in lotso $$$$$. If Lakes is open four months, sleeps 100 (?), and charges $85/head that is over $1,000,000/year - that is a significant chunk of their $15,000,000 budget. I do not see anyway Lakes will be gone, nor do I want it to be gone. I like the water, bathroom, emergency shelter, etc - I do not have to sleep there. I do think it may be the only way to get my wife to the region and for that I am thankful.

Jeff-B said:

"You can't take a measurement without affecting the measurement"........

Who said that?
Newton?

Click to expand...

Schrödinger.
More or less.

When you say too many roads..and no large blocks of forest I beg to differ. I know the Adk have very wild areas but so do the whites. Did you just hike 4000 footers? The Pemi region is the second largest roadless block in New England next to Baxter at 126,000 acres or so, then the next few largest in a row are in the Whites. The whites hold the largest total large blocks in New England. For some thats good, others its not. It means that logging isn't practiced enough people think, for successional forest. This can take a toll on wildflife. If you get away from the major peaks you can find some truly wild areas for New England standards. Taking out desolation shelter caused quite a few people to not visit that area as often. Which makes me believe that with the absense of a place to feel secure and stay people simple will not visit. I still have not seen a hiker while being near stillwater. A perfect example.-Mattl

giggy said:

Dave - you make a great point that I failed to see - and one that I have to consider more closely. Great explanation.

Some thought - being a non profit, would you consider the high price of the huts actually restricting access to some folks. I think I might. it would be near 300 dollars per night, for family of 4 with 2 kids under 15. I will be honest - I could not afford that for a weekend - and I make a decent living. I think that is extremely restrictive. This is not a bash, just making a point.

Click to expand...

Giggy, I can't take credit for this line of thinking. My thinking on this was very much influenced by a pithy little book called "Filters Against Folly" by ecologist Garritt Hardin. I'm eternally grateful to Eugene Miya (rec.backcountry) for suggesting the book to me. Well worth finding the book. Interesting examples to consider are tolls on roads, parking meters and side walks.


I see the AMC fee structure as being seperate from the issue of USFS fees for trailheads to Wilderness Areas. I really do see designated Wilderness Areas as being unique in the pantheon of land management policies. AMC huts aren't in Wilderness Areas and aren't even managed for the public good by the government.

Mattl said:

When you say too many roads..and no large blocks of forest I beg to differ. I know the Adk have very wild areas but so do the whites. Did you just hike 4000 footers? The Pemi region is the second largest roadless block in New England next to Baxter at 126,000 acres or so, then the next few largest in a row are in the Whites. The whites hold the largest total large blocks in New England. For some thats good, others its not. It means that logging isn't practiced enough people think, for successional forest. This can take a toll on wildflife. If you get away from the major peaks you can find some truly wild areas for New England standards. Taking out desolation shelter caused quite a few people to not visit that area as often. Which makes me believe that with the absense of a place to feel secure and stay people simple will not visit. I still have not seen a hiker while being near stillwater. A perfect example.-Mattl

Click to expand...

Mattl, first off - Congats on toughing this thread out, I don't mind the huts personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I believe you are citing above the 1999 AMC study which sought to identify the remaining roadless areas in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, not including The Northern Forest which includes the Adirondacks.

sapblatt said:

It is very expensive - but to the AMC's defense it is expensive to run...the staff have to be paid, food bought, many helicopter runs in the spring etc.

Click to expand...

yes - I know that, but still don't believe they are not making huge profit from the huts and that doesn't change the fact that that it restricts many families from going. I think its borderline inapproriate for a non profit to behave that way. I think they are sold out most weekends so I guess it doesn't matter.