Cohos Trail adding huts - what do you think?

[jrichard]

Among other things, the Cohos Trail Association is thinking about adding hostels to the trail (quote from CT newsletter below). Peter and Lainie Castine are proposing using an existing structure as the first hut.

What do you think?

For some time, the association has been kicking around the thought of
developing a rustic point-to-point hut system designed to draw hikers, bird
and moose watchers, trail and road bicyclists, lake and river paddlers,
cross-country skiers and snowshoers, anglers, rock and ice climbers and
others to the forests and mountains of the Great North Woods.

 

[vegematic]

There's not much detail there so it's hard to form an opinion either way. I might be interested to see some RMC-type caretaker huts available at low cost, as long as there were still places to camp for free at reasonable intervals along the trail. I think that free, unsupervised huts would unfortunately be prone to vandalism, even in the northern reaches of the trail.

I would not be interested in seeing AMC-type huts or price tags.

-vegematic

ETA: Ah, I didn't notice the link to the full article last night. It looks like they are thinking of modest, RMC-type facilities.

 

[Silverfox]

Huts on the Cohos trail

I guess I wouldn't be interested in seeing the somewhat exclusive AMC type huts on the Cohos system..nore do i think they would be busy enough to survive..might be nice to have some RMC or LT type situation with 3 or 4 sided structures with outhouse and water source..perhaps caretaker....it works there...why not here...it would certainly open up the north country and its wonderful hiking

 

[forestgnome]

I wouldn't use any hut, but putting some up there wouldn't bother me. I'd just tent elsewhere. If huts would draw more non-motorized activity to the area, that's fine.

I really don't think many of us are going to be interested in winter because it is a snowmobile heaven.

The first one proposed in Pittsburg is fine. It's private property. Also, it is an existing structure. I'm not fond of new structures on mountain tops or ledges.

happy trails

 

[jrichard]

I wouldn't use any hut, but putting some up there wouldn't bother me. I'd just tent elsewhere.

One of the benefits of the huts is that tenting is not allowed in the northern sections of the CT where it goes though privately owned land.

 

[Mattl]

I guess I just think of that area for having a tent. That always baffled me across the north and Whites. Gets down to what your preference is I know, but I guess I just see the outdoors away from roads to be a primitive situation, and should stay primitive. -Mattl

 

[jniehof]

They're talking about very minimal roadside structures, which sounds great to me: lower backcountry impact, inexpensive, and a (relatively) large pool of potential users. I wonder how they'd afford staffing, though: being roadside, they'd almost need a full-time caretaker at each.

 

[dug]

Why dont people just camp in a tent...thats why I thought the whole idea was. That always baffled me across the north and Whites. Gets down to what your preference is I know, but I guess I just see the outdoors away from roads to be a primitive situation, and should stay primitive. -Mattl

Maybe people can't afford a tent? Maybe people are afraid to? You are right, it is your preference. I have never stayed in a hut or shelter, but that doesn't mean I'm going to prevent someone's right to. Sheesh

 

[RoySwkr]

I think roadside structures will be more attractive to car campers than backpackers, and will surely be trashed like those once on the Long Trail

 

[Stan]

I like the concept and it is one that is certainly spreading. As they say, the devil is in the details.

I think there are two forces at work that would encourage this concept. The high cost of gas and diminished travel to remote hiking places may be offset if people can conveniently and economically stay longer without the additional burden of backpacking. Likewise for the aging baby boomers who may be able to enjoy remote areas later into their retirement.

 

[Peaks]

I question the necessity for huts/shelters at this time along the Cohos Trail. In this day of lightweight tents, there isn't the need shelters as there was in the past. Shelters are expensive to build and maintain, both in terms of materials and labor. I'd much rather see the effort be put into improving the footpath and blazing, etc.

That being said, nothing beats a dry shelter on a rainy night.

 

[jrichard]

I'd much rather see the effort be put into improving the footpath and blazing, etc.

I would too... but one of the big concerns in northern parts of the CT is that there are no shelters*. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the private companies that own the land don't allow tent camping.

* There are currently two nice CT shelters and one tent site.

 

[peakbagger]

"I would too... but one of the big concerns in northern parts of the CT is that there are no shelters*. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the private companies that own the land don't allow tent camping."

It isnt the private companies that own the land as much as the town of Pittsburg NH, most of the land was bought by the state a few years back and some was resold with recreation easements. Pittsburg bans overnight camping under the guise that they cant fight the fires that may occur if a un supervised campsite lets a fire get away. Most locals will tell you its a means of forcing campers to stay in commercial campgrounds and use more local services.

 

[jrichard]

It isnt the private companies that own the land as much as the town of Pittsburg NH, most of the land was bought by the state a few years back and some was resold with recreation easements.

Very interesting. I think there's a landowners database at UNH. I should check it out. I'm pretty sure the land above Nash Stream is still privately owned, and that around Dixville Notch is owned by Balsams.

Pittsburg bans overnight camping under the guise that they cant fight the fires that may occur if a un supervised campsite lets a fire get away. Most locals will tell you its a means of forcing campers to stay in commercial campgrounds and use more local services.

The thing is that there aren't all that many private tenting campgrounds in Pittsburgh, are there? I only know of one, Spruce Cone, and like most everything else of that ilk in Pittsburgh, it seems to be mostly geared to cabins and snowmobiling. There are two decent state campgrounds, but I don't see that the town would be that concerned about visits there.

I'm not debating about the regulation, but... maybe I'm being myopic, but I can't see many people spending money on gas to drive up (or down) to Pittsburgh and then choosing to sleep in the woods, just to save a couple bucks. Maybe they've had trouble before?

 

[peakbagger]

I will point out that Nash Stream, owned by the state of NH, also has an overnight camping ban (although I beleive that the cohos trail may have worked out a deal on a site a few years back). There was an attempt to make overnight camping in the backcountry legit in the Pittsburg lands that the state bought, but in the political process, it was removed.

When you are checking ownership in the area, note that a large portion of the land that the state bought was resold to private timberland owners with a non development clause. Therefore you would have to go back to the land purchase era and determine what the state owneed at the time.

As for the "problems in the past" issue, that would require a much longer discussion. Nevertheless Maine seems to manage it pretty well without camping bans.

 

[rocksnrolls]

Anything to help ensure that this trail continues to exist sounds good to me.

 

[RoySwkr]

>The thing is that there aren't all that many private tenting
>campgrounds in Pittsburgh, are there? I only know of one, Spruce
>Cone, and like most everything else of that ilk in Pittsburgh, it
>seems to be mostly geared to cabins and snowmobiling.

I believe there are at least 3, I've stayed at one across from the general store

Note that the proposed drive-in hut competes more with cabins than campgrounds anyway

>but I can't see many people spending money on gas to drive up (or
>down) to Pittsburgh and then choosing to sleep in the woods, just to
>save a couple bucks. Maybe they've had trouble before?

They are very concrened about forest fires wiping out their economy, there are 2 full-time fire patrolmen who work that area rousting illegal campers and others who build warming fires

There is an old perception that all campers build fires and backcountry campsites offer more risk because they would take longer to reach, back in the last century the woods were often closed to hiking during high fire danger because everybody knew you couldn't hike without smoking and boiling tea for lunch

 

[CohosRidgerunner]

The responses in here to the proposed hut system are fantastic. We are currently going to do a year long study of the feasibility of the system. The board has approved the first of such huts here in Pittsburg on private property. We will use this hut to test whether we should continue or not. More info on the Pittsburg Hut (Mountain Bungalow) can be found at:www.cohostrail.org/bungalow.html
We look forward to hearing how the hiking public feels about our plans.

cohosridgerunner

 

[pbernard]

Keep the area wild and remote. Say no to the huts.

 

[pedxing]

As someone who has been thinking about trying a thru-hike of the Cohos Trail, my #1 concern has been the mileage of road walks. I don't think the hostels described would turn me away from the trail, but they would't attract me to thru-hiking or shorter backpacks.

Last Year, I thought seriously about thru-hiking the Cohos trail last summer (among other alternatives) and ended up re-doing the Long Trail. It was the road walks that put me off. The availability of shelters or huts isn't a big issue for me, although I think a shelter of any kind would be appropriate where there is long stretch of trail (8 miles?) without a legal place to camp.