Limit of People on Summit

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I've also run into a number of college outing clubs that have done the same thing. I ran into the MIT outing club a couple years ago on Moosilaukee. I think they had about 30 people in their group. They were strung out over a half mile but blocked trailheads and basically wouldn't let anyone pass. I use them as an example just because they were the worst I came into contact with, but certainly not the only outing club.
 
craig said:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bashing AMC, I’m just suggesting they should lead by example.

I agree. They are as much an educational institution as anything else they do, and absolutely they should be exemplifying the gold standard for outdoors ethics.

While at the other end of the spectrum, VFTT groups should NOT be used as examples!
 
I've also run into a number of college outing clubs that have done the same thing. I ran into the MIT outing club a couple years ago on Moosilaukee. I think they had about 30 people in their group. They were strung out over a half mile but blocked trailheads and basically wouldn't let anyone pass. I use them as an example just because they were the worst I came into contact with, but certainly not the only outing club.
That's private property (at least the DOC Side is), but hopefully the same basic 'etiquette' should apply. As for not letting people pass, I do not let people block my passage. If they can let you pass coming the opposite direction, they can let you pass in the same direction. If politeness fails, be impolite! Or bushwhack for 50 feet! :D
 
I guess I understand that the AMC has various leaders doing their own thing, but I'd like to think as long as they are carrying the AMC flag, they are following the AMC direction, and as stewards of the mountains, they'd practice LNT principals.

As we have seen, I'd sooner wish for a backpacking trip to Venus than this happening. Practice LNT, as long as it doesn't affect the bottom $$.

As for Mt. Washington summit, it's not in a wilderness area, it's a state park, so all bets are off.
 
I was advised after being involved in the FOT48 that there is a National Forest or Leave No Trace rule that there should be no more than 10 people on a summit at once. I cannot find this on any website. Does anyone have any insight on this?

How or has this ever been enforced? Anyone have personal experience to share?
 
As has been mentioned here before, the AMC isn't a monolithic organization. Nearly all the trips are run by semi-autonomous activity committees inside regional chapters with little or no oversight by the AMC corporate offices. There are some hard and fast rules (you can't violate Wilderness Regs) and some required by insurance (all leaders are certified by the committees using agreed upon requirements) but the rest is all advisory, such as LNT.

Why can't group size be one of the hard and fast, club-wide rules? I suspect that it isn't directly about money, but that the AMC has a long tradition of unlimited-sized group outings and that there is a faction of club that feels that this is an integral part of what makes the club great. Essentially, they are living with the past and, as others have suggested, prioritize tradition over being a leader in environmental stewardship. It's a case of walking the talk.

The Boyscouts of America and are guilty of the same crime. VFTT would be too, except that my impression is that some people on the forum could care less about LNT and/or wilderness ethics.
 
Last edited:
How or has this ever been enforced? Anyone have personal experience to share?

I know of only one incident, and that involved an AMC NH Chapter trip leader. The ticket might have been avoided had the individual treated the park ranger differently.

As for AMC-sponsored activities, there's often a difference between chapter-lead activities and (for lack of a better term) corporate-led activities.

The 10 person limit applies to the WMNF. Other NF's have different limits for group/camping sizes in NF's. The limit is more often 15, and sometimes 12, in my experience.
 
I have never seen enforcement of a limit of number of people on the summit. My theory has been that If I dont want to see crowds, I make sure I am the summit before 11 AM or after 2PM.

Lincoln Woods used to be famous for enforcing the group of ten rule and the outfiltter/guide permit. When I was working with the local boy scouts many years ago, we got asked to show them our permit 2 years in a row at the bridge. I know of a few groups that were turned away due to group size or lack of permit. On another trip we were shadowed by a ranger all of the way to the Bondcliff junction late one afternoon. He waited until we took a break at the junction and then sped up to us to make sure that we werent camping at the closed off area (we werent planning to).

I have talked to couple of forest service folks over the years and limiting group sizes is very low on their priority list. They get bad PR and the fines rarely are enforced if challenged. The primary group they go after are commerical entities, and most of the time, when a commercial entitity applies for an outfitter guide permit, they put conditions on the permit to only allow small groups and limit where they can go (used to be evans notch, the kilkennys or the area south of the Kanc between chorcura and the Osceolas but I expect that has changed with the recent wilderness designations). THe llama bus that used to work Evans notch operated under one of those restrictions.

The hassle is defining a group, Is a church group anymore or less than a VFTT group? Is a meetup group more or less than a VFTT group?. Are a group of "friends" on facebook any more or less a group. Sure when a summer camp trucks 40 campers over to a mountain with paid staff members its cut and dried. Normally on popular summits, I dont think groups are really contributing to the crowds, there are far more unaffiliated day hikers than groups.

When doing a presi traverse this summer with a meetup group (less than 10) we played tag with an annual AMC presi traverse group which was closer to 20. They had two leaders and two coleaders but hiked as group until the end of the day when they stretched out.

As Bob and Geri pointed out, Meetup groups can get very large on occasion and are subject to derision by some. Their leaders are sometimes a bit clueless and some are fairly new to the woods and group sizes can be an issue. (the same could be said of VFTT groups long ago) On the other hand they are getting a lot of folks out into the woods that normally may not be and given the need for advocacy to keep funding intact for national forests, its probably not a bad thing to expand the user base or the number of trails being closed will just keep increasing. I find that most meetup leaders eventually figure out that smaller groups sizes work better. I also see that some of the meetup groups are doing trail maintenance and having wilderness first aid courses and members are going into other organizations so the net result is probably a benefit to the outdoor community.

Heck, I suppose the WMNF can adopt the Baxter State Park Rules and that will definitely keep the group sizes down.;)
 
I'm a NH AMC trip leader and was co-leading a hike up Whiteface a few years ago. We were met by a ranger in the parking lot and she looked for our leader(s) and could see she was counting the group. To joke with her, I said "I see you are hiking alone. We'd invite you to join us but are already at the allowed limit." She didn't "get" the joke...
 
Personally, I won't lead an AMC trip that has more than 12 total, and in winter even fewer.
How things have changed! I can remember when you wanted a dozen or more to break out the Garfield Trail, for example.

There used to be one well-known AMC leader who did not believe in the Wilderness size limits and did not keep a trip roster so he wouldn't know how many people had signed up. As he also let the group string out and just kept a good sweep, I'm not sure the rangers could have caught him.

A few years ago one of the summer camps was doing Lafayette-Lincoln (not a Wilderness) on a nice day. They sent half the kids each way and broke up into groups of 8 or so, so instead of 100 kids at once there were groups in white shorts and T-shirts all over the mountain. Is this really less impact?

My understanding of the camping rule is that you are supposed to share a site with other groups but the total must not exceed 10, and if an 11th shows up and camps there anybody who doesn't leave is eligible for a citation if the ranger shows up next.
 
As Bob and Geri pointed out, Meetup groups can get very large on occasion and are subject to derision by some. Their leaders are sometimes a bit clueless and some are fairly new to the woods and group sizes can be an issue. (the same could be said of VFTT groups long ago) On the other hand they are getting a lot of folks out into the woods that normally may not be and given the need for advocacy to keep funding intact for national forests, its probably not a bad thing to expand the user base or the number of trails being closed will just keep increasing. I find that most meetup leaders eventually figure out that smaller groups sizes work better. I also see that some of the meetup groups are doing trail maintenance and having wilderness first aid courses and members are going into other organizations so the net result is probably a benefit to the outdoor community.

It all comes to we are responsible to 'police' ourselves as a hiking community when it comes to group sizes knowing what's right for the environment and other hikers. I agree wholeheartedly that we want to encourage more use of the WMNF for the reasons noted and that is the quandary we face ~ do we really want to turn away newbies because the trip was full?
 
do we really want to turn away newbies because the trip was full?

Actually, that would be an excellent way to broach the subject and educate them on various backcountry ethics and LNT principles.
 
Last edited:
do we really want to turn away newbies because the trip was full?

As a leader, I can admit that it is really, really difficult to turn people away when a trip is full, especially newbies. The other side of that is people who sign up for trips don't always hold up their end of the deal -- they may just not show up and not call to say they won't be coming. I've also experienced people bringing friends who hadn't signed up. That hasn't happened when I've led a trip in a Wilderness area, but it is an awkward situation. The other thing I've encountered is when a participant or two will say, "Well, this has been good. We're leaving now. See you later." A perfect size group is of about eight, all of whom you know and, especially, whose company you enjoy. The temptation is always there to add just one more friend who has just called and, ah, hope that someone else drops out. Oh, in a perfect world...
 
Having been busted by a ranger on a VFTT trip I can say with some certainty that they do occasionally enforce the rules in the backcountry. I also know some AMC leaders that have been asked to produce their Guide Permits and have been given a big hassle if they didn't have it.

As to why the AMC doesn't enforce LNT principles it's because they are guidelines, not rules. Some will apply in most instances, others will not. Group size is appropriate for some trips and not for others; a blanket rule doesn't make much sense. It also runs counter to the spirit of the volunteer led organization which doesn't appreciate being micro-managed any more than anyone else does.

LNT are good guidelines and great points for education. They aren't, IMO, hard and fast rules that apply everywhere and in all situations. It wouldn't be appropriate for the AMC corporate to dictate an arbitrary size limit for the 1000's of trips organized each year.
 
I can't remember the ADK's group size limit.

15 day hike, 8 overnight.

I've done numerous hikes with meetup groups and it's very easy for the organizer to set the limit on the hike for whatever number they want. Of course it's not so easy to know how many will actually show up. For the most part however it's usually a few short of the listed amount; once, I think we had one or two extra show up.

I haven't hike with any other organized groups so don't know the composition of their groups but from what' I've seen concerning meetup hikes is a mix of experienced and newbie hikers. I view the group hikes as a great tool for getting people who wouldn't normally feel comfortable or know how to get out and enjoy the mountains a chance to do so in an easy and fun way. With our country having serious issues with sedentary lifestyles, having the opportunity to get people hooked on hiking is wonderful!

Now, depending on the meetup, many organizers are just people who love the outdoors and are willing to post hikes and have no "training" of any kind. I would hope that they invest the time to educate themselves and in turn those on their hikes. From what I've seen, given the chance to gain knowledge and learn about good stewardship most people will be receptive. The key is getting them out there...:cool:
 
The Boyscouts of America and are guilty of the same crime. VFTT would be too, except that my impression is that some people on the forum could care less about LNT and/or wilderness ethics.

It would be more correct to say Boy Scout "volunteers" are guilty. Also keep in mind the age group is tough to work with. As soon as they get good about LNT the are grown up.

Crime is a strong word to use, better suited for more serious infractions. :)
 
Backcountry use has skyrocketed and with the influx of new users comes the influx of people who are not sensitive to the limits and impacts they have on the backcountry. This is the nature of the beast, one poster before me suggested imposing "baxter rules", I hope I never see that day, regardless of what happens with increased use in the Whites. Baxter is a place I would not go back too, way to overegulated and so many rules. Ive had little issues with large groups and tend to not worry about it to be honest, sometimes you just need to help educate them. I remember one group of at least 20 teenagers I ran into on Pierce, they would not let me pass, I pushed my through anyway, I can be insensitive to and I had no intention on hiking behind them listening to them yammer on and on. Later that day on my return they where "resting" in the middle of the trail (crawford path) they had thier packs all in the trail as well as thier bodies and made no attempt to move themselves or thier gear. I stepped on at least 2 packs and maybe that many feet ( maybe more), frankly if someone is rude enough not to allow me to pass, Ill walk right over them to get by, sometimes a blunt point is worth making, if someone is that ignorant and impolite for that matter.
 
VFTT would be too, except that my impression is that some people on the forum could care less about LNT and/or wilderness ethics.

Yeah, people who are passionate about wilderness ethics probably don't spend a lot of time geeking out and posting on the internets. (Though they probably should.)
 
Top