White Mountain National Forest Gets Stimulus Money

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
$100,000 to rebuild steep trails.

Shall we hypothesize on which ones?

Kinsman Ridge going up Cannon immediately comes to mind but that's state land, same with other Cannon Mtn. trails which I've heard are a luge track in spots. Darn Conway Granite and it's grus-like soils weathering too fast for sturdy trails!
 
Steep and Rocky

I was thinking more like the stretch from Galehead Hut up South Twin. That fits the "steep and rocky" criteria.
 
How about help with the mortgage for a night's stay in a hut? No, haha, just kidding. I like the idea of stimulating the North Country economy by hiring "local workers." Nobody doesn't come because of the parking fee
($3). As we know, not everyone pays the parking fee. And hard core hikers come regardless of the parking fee. In any event, it's hardly a lot of money, but I wonder who "porked" this one in. How long until John Q writes in to the Union Leader about "lazy hikers" who want easy trails, never having heard of erosion and its evils?
 
As a stimulus it is a trifle but it can serve an additional purpose in developing job skills and habits among young people entering the work force, like the CCCs, in which case it should focus on other types of improvements since the art of trail building and maintenance is not a path to a long and financially rewarding career.

How about installing water, waste, and energy savings devices at Forest Servce facilities or installing small photovoltaic systems? Now those are skills that should be in demand.

Just a trifle, but we've got a $ trillion worth of such trifles going out with perhaps as little thought or true benefit. These trails will serve our needs just fine and those that really need upgrading will get it in its own due time. Let's see the Forest Service leverage it in a way that better serves the economy, the environment or the unemployed ... or all three.
 
How about paving the Wilderness trail to the Pemi Boundary and putting a parking lot at the end :D:p;)

Brian

Funny that you should suggest this idea, as before the 1964 Wilderness Act and the designation of the Pemi Wilderness later in the 1960s, there was a strong lobbying effort to build a road right through the Pemi, on top of the Wilderness, Shoal Pond, and Ethan Pond Trails, through Zealand Notch, to join the Zealand Road. These were some of the same lobbyists who succeeded in getting the Kancamagus Highway built a few years earlier.
 
Last edited:
Funny that you should suggest this idea, as before the 1964 Wilderness Act and the designation of the Pemi Wilderness later in the 1960s, there was a strong lobbying effort to build a road right through the Pemi, on top of the Wilderness, Shoal Pond, and Ethan Pond Trails, through Zealand Notch, to join the Zealand Road. These were some of the same lobbyists who succeeded in getting the Kancamagus Highway built a few years earlier.

Wow, lets be thankful that never happened!
 
I don't think they could have done the Shoal Part, it's way too boggy, think about how bad that would flood in the spring, and I could only imagine maintaining those roads. Man am I glad they didn't do that. I wish the Kanc was never built either just to shoot wishes into the wind, combine the Pemi with the Sandwich Range!
 
How about help with the mortgage for a night's stay in a hut? No, haha, just kidding. I like the idea of stimulating the North Country economy by hiring "local workers." Nobody doesn't come because of the parking fee
($3). As we know, not everyone pays the parking fee. And hard core hikers come regardless of the parking fee. In any event, it's hardly a lot of money, but I wonder who "porked" this one in. How long until John Q writes in to the Union Leader about "lazy hikers" who want easy trails, never having heard of erosion and its evils?

Do hard-core hikers contribute to the local economy while they are up there? I generally do not. I will not buy gasoline up north because it costs 10-25 cents/gallon more. If I was desperate, I'd put in $5 or $10 worth. In doing the any-season 48 and half of the winter 48, I've stayed over one night in a 1-star motel in Gorham. I've eaten at Mr. Pizza twice, The Common Man in Lincoln 2 or 3 times, and the Woodstock Station once. In some 35-40 or so trips north, I've spent money on about 5 of them. Of course I'm the type who always brings lunch to the ski area too.

My point was to encourage more tourists who will spend more money. That may be outside the charter of the forest service and beyond the scope of this stimulus money. Maybe free parking is not the best idea for this. How about "White Mountain National Forest Day" - to introduce it to new groups. I'm sure they could get volunteers to lead local shorter hikes for the casual visitor.

Wait, wait - I got it - put it into SAR! They sure could use it.

Of course if I really had my say, it would be "give it back to the tax payers".

Tim
 
Do hard-core hikers contribute to the local economy while they are up there? I generally do not.

yes (tho I am not a hard core hiker by any means) - the group that I hike and climb with - we tend to make weekends out of it due to long drives from MA. I don't camp much in winter, so make use of hotel rooms. This also typically includes food - both in mornings and at night. This usually also includes adult beverages. Sometimes, I may stay with a freind that has a place up north, but thats probably 25% of the time at best.

In spring, summer, fall - tend to camp. make use of local campgrounds, same deal - food, beer, etc.. We do a bit of family camping in summer, so again making use of local campgrounds.

I usually have to fill my tank once up there on any trip. I also make it a point to NOT stay at the AMC when possible. I would rather support a local business when possible - just my opinion.

I think your generally right though, most hikers seem to do the in and out, "bag and tag the peak and go home" trip.

I used to do that when i first started, but after 10+ years, the drive gets to you..and I have good freinds now that I hike with - and its fun to spend non hiking time with them as well..:)

I agree - I haven't researched this - but 100K seems a complete waste of taxpayer money - but with the new admin - seems to be lots of waste and I guess, I would rather see it wasted in the mountains - but what good does that do the average american?
 
Last edited:
How bout the ski areas using stimulus money to put up a few wind turbines on their slopes. With the cost savings in utility electrical usage they could lower ticket prices.

Surely, that would stimulate the economy by getting more folks to the North Country.

Of course the lower carbon emissions by power plants would be offset by the increase in emissions from the travelling public.

Jeez, it’s just a big circle. I’m getting a brain cramp. Let go hikin….
 
Do hard-core hikers contribute to the local economy while they are up there?


Good stuff.

"Land of Many Uses" is the theme up there, and hikers are not (imo) the major contributors per se, but the skiers, if you're gonna try to pin one demo, but there are many. Especially skiers with families who build/buy second homes and come every weekend. Also snowmobilers and other heavy users. Many users.

But I definitely pump money into the local economy. Sometimes just for gas & supplies (campground fee, last-minute gear or food), but sometimes on purpose, like stopping in at Krusty's (subs), The North Country Angler (flies and more, and more), the Mountain Wanderer. I frequent these places and talk them up on purpose, so as to help them who helps me.

I can't buy a whole second home and pay thousands in tax money, but I can bring my family and spend our discretionary dollars there.
 
Top