New backpacking signs in Mt Washington Summit House

We hiked Washington Saturday and were surprised when we went into the summit house and found the attached sign. Fran asked the ranger managing the front desk about the downstairs hiker area, which was closed, and was told that they weren't opening it due to the lack of traffic. Most of the main cafeteria area was roped off to backpacks with no area for hikers available to put their gear. When she asked the ranger about the new policy he said it was because hikers were taking up too much space, sometimes filling entire tables with gear and crowding out paying customers. The threat of bad weather kept the Auto Road empty and the Cog had very few passengers so the summit house was mostly empty except for hikers, who were piling their packs on the floor in a corner. In general it seems like over the past couple of years it's becoming less and less hospitable to hikers. We were surprised that even when we talked to the rangers we got the impression that no one wanted us there. Has anyone else noticed the changing attitude toward hikers?

The drive for "enhanced revenues" continues ...

Any retail store manager knows to the penny the average sales per square foot. Looks like NH State Parks has been analyzing similar figures, which for a public agency supposedly dedicated to public recreation is a pretty strange way of managing access to its facilities.

EDIT: It seems very likely to me that this is driven by the financial results for 2012 – Division of Parks and Recreation 2012 Fiscal Year Financial Report.pdf. The figures for Mt. Washington State Park show a deficiency between revenues and expenditures of $73,848.00. At an agency where "profit and loss" is used in financial reporting instead of the customary "revenue and expenditures" for a public agency, a sign barring the backpacks of "underspending" hikers and the closing of an "underperforming" hiker area are probably inevitable, however lamentable they might be.

Now that they've banned packs from "upstairs", maybe there would be more traffic "downstairs"?

adamsNH said:

In general it seems like over the past couple of years it's becoming less and less hospitable to hikers. We were surprised that even when we talked to the rangers we got the impression that no one wanted us there. Has anyone else noticed the changing attitude toward hikers?

Click to expand...

I haven't been there the past couple years but prior to that they were certainly friendly enough. One time I wanted to make a phone call and didn't have enough or correct change, so asked the guy at the desk if there was some way to get change for a dollar. The concession stand was closed and apparently they had locked the change drawer where he couldn't get at it, so finally he took the useless change I had which included pennies and gave me me the amount I needed from his own pocket - I tried to give him the whole dollar bill but he refused it. I'm sure those people don't make a lot of money so was quite impressed with this service.

sardog1 said:

The figures for Mt. Washington State Park show a deficiency between revenues and expenditures of $73,848.00.

Click to expand...

Wonder if this includes the 24-hr summit presence which I figure must cost $200k/yr, or roughly the same as the SAR deficit everyone yells about.

My personal opinion, the summit house isn't for backpackers. I am not sure if I've ever set foot in there. I think we did in the old house years ago. If I was the type who paid good $$ to go to a tourist location and couldn't find a seat because it was taken up by someone's backpack, and that was were I had intended to purchase and eat my lunch, I'd probably be a little peeved. Now, it's not my thing, but it has it placed in NH Tourism, and it's not leaving.

A major part of the experience they're selling to the people hauled to the top by car, van and Cog is the interaction with hikers and the history of hiking. In harsh economic terms, it seems counter-productive to discourage hikers from entering the premises, but in an era when most people have far more knowledge of joysticks than trekking poles, I suppose it's to be expected. Perhaps they can contract with Disney to provide some costumed hikers ...

Why couldn't the sign read: "Please check your backpacks at the hiker room downstairs"? Hikers would feel more welcome, their stuff would be secure, and the "enhanced revenues" from hiker purchases made upstairs might even defray the cost of hiring a minimum wage checkroom attendant. Who knows, you might even turn a "PROFIT" on the enterprise.

Good points, sardog. I guess I don't mind the message, but do have concerns with the delivery. Maybe they could put the hikers behind a glassed in room and draw the curtain back every fifteen minutes to we could perform. Of course, to get the real, true experience, should vent that room into the viewing area so they could get the smells as well!

I have stopped by there a few times after summitting and I do spend a few bucks on a gatorade, brownie, or a chili dog, whatever strikes me at the time. And I have had conversations with the "tourists" who are interested in "where are you going?, how long did it take?, etc." There definitely is interaction between tourists and hikers. Now with the new management attitude, I will likely just use their toilet, fill my water bottles and leave, thus, instead of them making a couple of bucks off me, they would now be in a net loss position with me. That is just not good business. If the problem is with hikers taking too much seating, I would suggest installing signs like "Please be courteous so others may sit to enjoy the experience"

sardog1 said:

EDIT: It seems very likely to me that this is driven by the financial results for 2012 – Division of Parks and Recreation 2012 Fiscal Year Financial Report.pdf. .

Click to expand...

Thanks for providing the report, very interesting reading about all of the NH park's finances.

adamsNH said:

In general it seems like over the past couple of years it's becoming less and less hospitable to hikers. We were surprised that even when we talked to the rangers we got the impression that no one wanted us there. Has anyone else noticed the changing attitude toward hikers?

Click to expand...

It is a two way street. I have witnessed plenty of disdain of the non-hikers from the hikers. And I have read about a tons more, especially from the AT hikers. Remember we are all tourists up there.

And I have been in the summit building a number of times when it is mobbed and hikers do take up a disportionate amount of room. I am certainly guilty of putting my day pack in the chair next to me, laying out my map, etc. That said, I always eat a lot of food up there, does that make me a paying customer?

I agree that barring the backpacks makes the gear room more neccessary. This situtation is going to break down first when there is a big hiker presence on a summer weekend.

There are tons of summits with no summit house. Most hikers go there, drop their pack on the summit, and seat and eat their lunch - no problem. On one of the few mountains with a restaurant and amenities on top, hikers gripe because they aren't being catered to? When trampering through the woods, why expect anything from a man-made outpost?

The whole Mt Washington outfit is a money making enterprise. It was ever since the Crawfords were hauling Boston tourists up back in the day.

An ever changing complexsion. IMO not a big deal. Can't say I blame them. Grab what you need from your pack and go sit down and have lunch. Competition for the consumers buck has been going on for a long time atop the Rock Pile.

http://whitemountainhistory.org/uploads/Stone_Hotels_2__NXPowerlite_.pdf

At this point we should be grateful we as hikers are permitted on the Summit.

"The hotel would be three stories high, it would be star-shaped and made of stone and steel and plate glass, there would be 100 guest rooms and many would have private baths, and there would be a dining room seating 400. There would be a wine cellar, a barbershop, a billiard room, a grand lobby, and a rotunda 150 feet in diameter. There would be an observatory with a circular walkway on the roof, and above that there would be a searchlight so powerful that it could be seen from the ocean. Most remarkable of all, the
summit of Mount Washington itself would rise up through the floor of the grand lobby so guests could climb to the top of the mountain without first climbing almost to the top of the mountain."

http://www.ohcroo.com/keenan.cfm

My two cents is the autoroad didn't really expand the number of guests on top substantially but the Cog did. With the conversion of the Cog to diesel they can make more runs per day therefore the expanded number of paid tourists on top is higher than before with no expansion of the interior space. The sign doesn't say no backpackers but only backpacks which as noted tend to occupy space. If they fit in more tables and reduce the space between tables, those with packs have good chance of bumping folks with their packs when getting up and down. Given the crowds on top, I don't think I would leave a pack unattended for long and not sure how well a pack check would work.

For those who don't like it, there is always the west side trail.

In terms of increasing revenues on Mt Washington's summit - I did a loop hike up Washington a few weekends ago, the same weekend as a Canadian 3-day holiday. There was a LARGE number of hikers on the trails that day - mostly our Canadian neighbors - plus lots of backcountry skiers on both sides of the mountain. As I was nearing the summit via the Crawford Path, I asked a group of young men descending if the cafeteria was open, they replied "Yes, but they didn't have any burgers or cheeseburgers. Just hotdogs". They were obviously disappointed. A bit later I confirmed that, and noticed the selection of sandwichs, wraps and other items seemed slim. The seating area was packed with hikers and tourists who'd arrived either by train or vehicle. It seemed to me that there was a large opportunity loss in terms of food service revenue due to the minimal selection.

Does anyone know whether NH Parks has ever considered subcontracting food service on the summit? Personally, I think the rangers and other staff who work on the summit do an excellent job in terms of what we traditionally expect of rangers. But, maximizing profits from food service is not a reasonable expectation as far as I'm concerned.

Hiker or tourist, I think it's rude to take up seating for your gear if there is high demand (and this goes for any location - I see it all the time on the train even when there is handy storage above the seats). The sign is a little abrupt, but I get the intent. A gear room would be ideal - this is very common in the European huts (even though the Summit House isn't a traditional hut).

I guess I should have looked more carefully to see if the packroom was open yesterday. The family & I actually took our first (for some of us, last) Cog ride yesterday. With bike Week starting and many hikers out in nice valley conditions, (the top was 45 with a 35-45 MPH wind & wind-chills in the 20's and wet) it was quite busy. We started to stand when we ate but a table far from the windows opened up - nothing to see mind you. Surprised actually at how many hikers there was yesterday at the summit with it being kind of miserabel above 4500 feet or so.

(When you ride up, you miss the I worked this hard to get almost there attitude plus the extra heat so it might have felt pretty good, I probably would have been there too, not sure I would have brought my kids though - conditions were too dreary and poor for them, their "fun" meter isn't as broadly set as mine. )

Agree with Sardog, the message should be nicer but people should not be taking table space for wet packs. The pack room downstairs should always be open, I always think of it as an escape from the frenzy.

I actually like the food set up. I could see it being tough on a contractor. Busiest on weekends, very inconsistent traffic pattern, very weather dependent (just like Hartford, our building cafe is booked when it's raining, empty on a good day but that's more predictible than Washington) The contractor would probable need to run a ski area concession so they had an annual flow even though that two only has two very busy days a week outside of holidays.

Isn't being leered at by the non-hikers part of joy at the rockpile? The fact that in many cases the car or cog only clientele don't get the joy of hiking? Washington's hasn't been a wilderness experience in generations, many generations. As long as they don't start eyeing some other summits, I don't mind being in the exhibit. In our lifetime, it's never been confused with Katahdin, West Bond, Bondcliff, Haystack or Skylight or Franconia Ridge for that matter. (has been compared to Whiteface, NY)

Mike P. said:

Isn't being leered at by the non-hikers part of joy at the rockpile?

Click to expand...

My mother has a story from many years ago of rock climbing in Huntington Ravine and deciding to go on to the summit. Once there, they decided to send postcards to friends with the summit cancellation but of course hadn't brought any money on the climb. No problem, just pose for photos with tourists holding your ropes and carabiners and you get plenty of contributions for postcards and stamps.