Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

[RoySwkr]

Huts in inappropriate locations

Two preambles:
* I remember when a caving group bought a cave the owner had closed. Their fund raising was like "Help buy XXX to keep it open". Then they found that a rare bat lived there.

* Several years ago Gene Daniell had a letter published in an AMC publication saying that huts tended to attract underprepared and inexperienced people who would not be there otherwise. This attracted a flurry of responses of the form "We must keep the huts or I/XXX couldn't go there" which exactly proved his point. Gene later said the same thing was true of trails.

Lakes of the Clouds Hut is located in a particularly sensitive area which perhaps wasn't known when it was built. There is no doubt that it concentrates use in an area that should be left alone. Many polluting industrial facilities which were legal when built are shut down every year and I predict that Lakes will be gone in 20 years. The Forest Service cleverly issued it a 40-year lease so nobody around today would have to work on the renewal, but that can be revisited if standards change. But more likely the AMC itself will decide to remove it. As its membership grows, a decreasing percentage of AMC members actually stay at huts or know anybody who has, and many of the new members feel that the AMC should be more proactive on environmental issues. The AMC fired Joe Dodge when they thought it was time for the hut system to change, and they will close a hut if necessary.

 

[sleeping bear]

The huts are kinda like the auto road, they enable people who otherwise might not be able to, to go there. They provide safe lodging, food and sanitation for folks who may not be capable of it on their own. It is, after all, a national forest, who's agency mission reads "caring for the land and serving people". And it's public land, we all own it, they manage it with the intention of benefitting the most people. The huts aren't actually in the designated wilderness areas, and there have been peoriodic discussions about the structures that are in wilderness areas.

I also think that for the most part, mountains are not/will not be wilderness areas. Why? Because they're frickin cool and people want to go there. The exceptions are remote places, Alaska, for example. But people go there too. True wilderness areas are found where the majority of people don't want to go, and in places that are hard to get to. Mt. Lafayette three hours North of Boston and four miles up does not fit the bill.

 

[Paradox]

True wilderness areas are found where the majority of people don't want to go, and in places that are hard to get to. Mt. Lafayette three hours North of Boston and four miles up does not fit the bill.

Aaaayup. Get accustomed to lots of people.

 

[sierra]

I am not a fan of the huts for many reasons but Im not in the mood and the points pro's and con's have been made, BUT I will say this, I have come to accept them as part of the Whites ie. auto road, cog and such, its like complaining that the sun comes up every day, a complete waist of energy.

 

[forestgnome]

Yup ... am headed on a trip so will miss the juicy parts, but, I'll get this started with ... Mattl, the reasons the status quo will be maintained is:

1) The AMC believes that the more people who see the woods the more supportive, in general, they will be towards wilderness issues. So, since the huts draw people to the woods, they are a good thing.

2) The AMC is in the destination resort business. Fortunately, point number 2 draws strength from point number 1.

3) The AMC has all the money - if not as an organization, then key members are able to 'support' politicians, etc. It's all about the money. People aren't on the AMC Board of Directors because they're world-renowed hikers, mountaineers, conservationists, etc. It's because of their business contacts. Don't get me wrong - they're fine people in their own right, but ... when you read their bios, and try to match them up with what many of us perceive are the 'proper' goals of the AMC, you tend to scratch your head ...

OK, next?

Great post...

I think the idea in point #1 is completely bogus. More people at the huts means more impact, according to their own statements. How many people who hike to the huts had no previous concerns about environmental protection? Gimme a break. Also, people go ballistic at the mere mention of drilling for oil on a tiny patch of frozen tundra that they will never, ever see.

On the other hand, the traffic on Franconia Ridge on a summer Saturday has to be seen to be believed. This traffic has nothing to do with any hut, and it requires a strenuous dayhike, but you'll see masses of people. The scree walls on the trail (built by the AMC) has deminished the impact, but I just can't buy the idea of environmentally uninterested people hiking all the way up there and having some magical conversion to protectors of the environment because the view was pretty.

About wilderness experience, we can hike for days without witnessing any people or manmade structures in the WMNF. If you know how to read a map and compass, just hike off trail. Forget the idea of "goal-oriented" and "peak-bagging" for just once in your life if you want to hike in solitude. Other people are bagging peaks so don't go there if you want solitude. Some people think they want wilderness, but what they want is a well-maintained trail, devoid of other people, that passes mossy brooks through pretty woods, with the sounds of birds and a visit from a moose with calves. This can be found in the WMNF, but not if you're "striving to achieve your goal of bagging a 4k peak" on a summer Saturday.

Happy Trails

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

...About wilderness experience, we can hike for days without witnessing any people or manmade structures in the WMNF. If you know how to read a map and compass, just hike off trail. Forget the idea of "goal-oriented" and "peak-bagging" for just once in your life if you want to hike in solitude. Other people are bagging peaks so don't go there if you want solitude. Some people think they want wilderness, but what they want is a well-maintained trail, devoid of other people, that passes mossy brooks through pretty woods, with the sounds of birds and a visit from a moose with calves. This can be found in the WMNF, but not if you're "striving to achieve your goal of bagging a 4k peak" on a summer Saturday.

Happy Trails

Right On!

I've only encountered other hikers once while bushwhacking...and they were lost. They were using an old map and attempting to follow a trail that had since been abandoned.

 

[ChrisB]

CB's Non-Wilderness Top Ten List

Hi folks,

Here are the top ten ways to tell you are not in a wilderness area:

10. You are East of the Mississippi.
9. You constantly hear a train whistle.
8. The woods smell like a paper mill.
7. A guy in sneakers just passed you carrying a cooler.
6. There is a fresh roll of toilet paper in the privy.
5. You can't hear birds because of the motorcycle noise.
4. Your map has trails drawn on it.
3. You get really good cell phone reception.
2. A pepperoni pizza is a day's hike away.

And the number one way to tell you are NOT in the Wilderness....

1. You are not worried about encountering an animal more dangerous than you.

 

[TCD]

I shake my head every time this thread comes up. (It has different names, but it's always the same thread.)

I love people. I love sharing a spot in the woods with people, experienced or inexperienced, young or old, big group or small, dogs, music, and all. (The only people I don't care for are deliberately destructive or harmful people, but they are truly very rare.)

I also love solitude. I love sitting alone at night on a bushwhack, eating an energy bar by moonlight, with no one around.

And what's great about our woods and mountains is that I can have either experience, any time I want to, just by choosing where I go. (It's even kind of nice, as far as I'm concerned, that we don't have a lot of large dangerous predators!)

If you go to a place, and you find it's not suitable for what you wanted to experience, don't complain. Just go somewhere else that is suitable, and be happy.

Why is that so hard for folks?

TCD

 

[forestgnome]

My last post was a bit cranky because I had just been scolded for allegedly trashing the kitchen and raiding the brownie mix.

The huts are here to stay, but they can't build any more.

There are places and times for wonderful experiences in the WMNF.

Happy Trails

 

[Gris]

"people go ballistic at the mere mention of drilling for oil on a tiny patch of frozen tundra that they will never, ever see."

You haven't changed a bit Nome.

 

[Neil]

Hi folks,

And the number one way to tell you are NOT in the Wilderness....

1. You are not worried about encountering an animal more dangerous than you.

What about if you are in Antartica?

 

[roadtripper]

It's so easy to get a wild feeling in the whites in my opinion:

~ hike early (leave at 5am)
~ hike late (leave at 4pm)
~ bushwack anywhere
~ hike at night
~ hike midweek in September
~ hike any day in winter
~ hike any day before Memorial Day
~ don't hike any of the all-star peaks
~ stay away from the Appalachian Trail
~ read the "White Mountain Guide" and pick trails that stay "seldom used" or "rough, scarcely maintained"

almost guaranteed solitude:
~ North Woods
~ Evan's Notch

I can name you 10 awesome features (swimming holes/waterfalls, etc.) in the Whites that I've never shared with another person. I've also had Mt. Osceola & Bondcliff to myself for hours at a time. You just can't hike a ridgeline at 9am on a Saturday during July when it's 75 degrees out.

- Greg

 

[Periwinkle]

I see what everyone is saying, but I'm still so torn myself....

I started off so anti-hut. Hey, they didn't allow dogs. I couldn't see a purpose for them.

Then I stopped at Lakes on my way to Washington when the weather went to crap -- from zero to 60 in nothing flat. I've never been so glad to see a solid structure in my life. People were literally sleeping in the rafters. It was truly a refuge.

I completely changed my view of huts on my visit to Carter Notch: I did my first solo night hike to Wildcat A, then back down to the hut, with a bonus view of the Northern Lights above the lake on the return trip. The next morning I spent by myself with a red fox on the summit of Carter Dome.

The following spring I hiked to Madison -- scoring the summit of Adams all to myself for hours late in the day and the summit of Madison was all mine for a glorious sunrise the following morning.

Those "easier" trips are some of my more memorable hikes.

As for Lonesome, Galehead, and Zealand -- convenient places to pee. Greenleaf? A much needed water source on a very hot dry day on the Franconia Ridge. Would I ever stay at any of them? Might. Just because they're there. I've definately changed my tune.

 

[Artex]

One word: bushwhack.

 

[Mattl]

I agree with a lot of you, Bushwhacking is the way to go. I have had some very scary things happen while bushwhacking. Some people would be surprised how wild it is in certain areas. I also am trying to make it clear I am not downing all the huts in the White Mountains. Galehead is the only issue. That is because of excessability. I just love the Bonds, and there are the only mountains where I try and hope not to see a lot of people. Thats all. -Mattl

 

[David Metsky]

I just love the Bonds, and there are the only mountains where I try and hope not to see a lot of people. Thats all. -Mattl

When there are nearly 80 people staying at Guyot on a summer Saturday night the hut is the least of your problem. The Bonds aren't anything close to a wilderness, and haven't been for a long time. I'm afraid you'll have to find something a bit more remote or stay off the trails.

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-

 

[dr_wu002]

When there are nearly 80 people staying at Guyot on a summer Saturday night the hut is the least of your problem. The Bonds aren't anything close to a wilderness, and haven't been for a long time. I'm afraid you'll have to find something a bit more remote or stay off the trails.

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-

There's also plenty of things, just off trail, that are pretty spectacular. Some are super easy bushwhacks but I bet they get zero travel.

-Dr. Wu

 

[thuja]

Yes, you raise a good point. However - you can make similar observations about the Whites, particularly if you go further north like in the Percy's in NH, or into ME above Speck. Heck, even over in Evans Notch, for that matter.

Mostly when we hear 'ADKs' we think of the High Peaks area, and the 'Whites' a similar "core" area around the 4Ks which is rather similar in size and shape (if not access) to the High Peaks. In reality, solitude can be found if we use the perimeter of these areas.

I beg to differ. The Adirondacks are much wilder, and much more intact, from an ecological perspective. Nowhere else in the NE is there so much land in conservation status. I live in WA, where there is (by eastern standards) vast acreage of wild, empty country within a three-hour drive, and when I visit family in N New England (VT) I nonetheless always try to spend some time in the wilder parts of the Adirondacks. The whites, I have not much interest in visiting. Too many roads, trails, and people. No real blocks of empty country, no old forest, none of the low-and moderate-elevation wildlands which make the Adirondacks a much more complete wild area. Of course if you are obsessed with bagging 4000'ers, as many here are, the differences between the Adirondacks and whites are far less.

Interesting trivia, Bob Marshall, early wilderness guru (after whom the Bob Marshall wilderness in the northern continental divide is named), went to NY forestry school in Wanakena, on the northern fringe of the five ponds, and it was the only eastern area he came up with that satisfied his criteria for "wilderness"

By comparison with the Adirondacks, The "north country" of NH, and the highlands of western Maine, suffer from relentless industrial logging, and accompanying road networks.

 

[Raymond]

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.

 

[dug]

Not all the huts, just one(s) he doesn't like