Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

[Mattl]

Those loud spooky noises we "thought" we heard were actually several black bears that were very hungry and aggressive. I couldnt agree with you more, but we did however make a big mistake rather then just calling us inexperienced. Add on all of the other horrible stories about being lost, almost getting killed by a bull moose while camping alone near stillwater during rutting season, and many more, and I say. Thats not inexperienced thats just dumb. Then again, I wouldn't have written a book and for magazines if I didn't do those dumb things. Yes I made mistakes, and I have learned by them, but it sure was a exciting time. -Mattl

 

[AOC-1]

Sorry, AOC-1. I don't find the ADK's any wilder than the Whites. The stench of human habitation is pretty strong around Marcy dam, Colden, etc - worse than the huts because of the lack of sanitation systems. About the only public area that appoaches wilderness in the East is Baxter.

Kevin, step outside the Eastern High Peaks and you can certainly find wilderness in the Adirondacks. Solitude awaits those who venture into the Cold River valley, Five Ponds Wilderness area - West Central Region, and many other places in the 6 million acre park. I'm not trying to diss the Whites. I hike there regularly. But I don't go there looking for solitude.

 

[arghman]

Galehead is the real problem. It was a poor placement issue that creates people that think they want a wilderness experience, not people who really do. Why not just put a hut on Guyot then? While we are at it. Its not in the wilderness. There is a sliver that runs down that area that is just outside.-Mattl

I'm going to try not to get sucked into this thread, I'm just going to state that I disagree & get a few thoughts over with.

Galehead has been my favorite hut experience so far; it and Madison are the longest slog from the road & it tends to attract more self-reliant people than Zealand or Lonesome Lake. I don't know what gives people the idea that the huts are out of place & don't belong there. It's not right on the main trails the way Lakes or Madison are. If you really don't want to see it, ask WMNF to relocate the AT so it's a little further away, I think that's a reasonable request. (though probably impractical) IMHO the huts (and shelters) should have been located a small but significant distance from trails, something like 1/4 mile or so.

I'm not sure I would have made it to Bondcliff if I could not have stayed at Galehead. Does that mean you don't want me hiking out there? Should I be told I have to backpack there or not go there at all? I've been dealing with musculoskeletal problems for 12 years & have felt the accessible world contract drastically. I look at a map and can literally get a sense of what's accessible for me & what's not based on my stamina at the time. The huts impact a very small area of land & have enabled me to get some places where I otherwise might not have gone. Backpacking cuts my hiking range down almost to where it's a moot point, what's the point of carrying enough weight that I can only hike 5-6 miles and my knees and ankles hurt at the end of the day?

It would be great if we could all hike wherever we want, with all the positive stimuli (nice people, good weather, neat animal & plant sightings) and none of the ones that we consider negative (no cars / roads / advertising / overcrowding / machinery / smoke / noise / etc.) -- but if this extends to the number and type of people that hike in the woods, there's a bit of elitism here. These are public lands. I just think it's too much to expect that everyone everywhere is going to be a quiet, courteous rugged individualist that carries everything they need on their back. There are thousands of acres in the WMNF out there & if you want the solitude go find it.

 

[TDawg]

Naw, i think he's saying they wouldn't be there period but for the huts...

Nope.

Would you prefer to compete with them for space at Guyot or 13 falls (or Garfield)? (if the hut wasn't there)

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Kevin, step outside the Eastern High Peaks and you can certainly find wilderness in the Adirondacks. Solitude awaits those who venture into the Cold River valley, Five Ponds Wilderness area - West Central Region, and many other places in the 6 million acre park. I'm not trying to diss the Whites. I hike there regularly. But I don't go there looking for solitude.

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.

 

[Jeff-B]

Huts are limited traffic..

No one has mentioned that the Hut system is a "limited traffic" control in all cases at every location. They can only book 40 or so a night at each, so there will always be this control for the masses.

This is certainly NOT the case with backpack camping, and it is only going to get worse.

I have camped nearly everything possible in the Pemi region, hundreds of overnights, going back 30 years.
I have seen some huge changes as well.

13 Falls was a very different place then, and now, only due to the increased use has it fallen to "designated camping areas" with use of bear boxes, ect.
FACT: Overuse of camping regions = BEAR PROBLEMS

Guyot never had an "overflow" camping region on the ridge until its tent platforms became crowded. Now the upper ridge area is getting trashed and probably quite unsanitary.

Camp 16 on the Wilderness trail was totally relocated due to over use, now its quite far from water. This site will get rotated every 10 years or so for revegitation and will probably fair OK. But Guyot overflow will NOT.

I have done a considerable amount of backpacking in the Sierras, where backcountry permits are mandatory, regulated, and must be reserved months in advance, or wait at ranger stations for the dailys, starting by sleeping out in line the night before.

I suspect that as the Whites get more use, that a backcountry overnight permit system shall be required.
I'll give it 10 years.
You already need a daytrip pass to 13 Falls now!

So, for a vote in favor of the huts, I am in.

Not that I gave up backpacking, I just go to areas of less use.

Jeff

 

[Bluethroatedone]

In general what I would most want in the whites and other places is as follows:

Highly accessible from my house (i.e. great highway access from a major city
But... no traffic on said highway
Few other people...
But I have to be able to go there, no problem getting permits, tent site etc.
Few signs of other human beigns (huts, trails, shelters, tent sites)
But enough so that I can have a place to camp where I need it...

Etc. Etc.

I'm not sure whether I disagree or agree with your specific point about Galehead but I did want to raise a few points.

Wildnerness involves significant conflicting goals and is therefore all about trade-offs. Clearly the least impact on a wilderness area would be to prevent all human visits. On the other hand, maximizing human enjoyment of said wilderness might be to make it most accessible to humans. Finding the right balance requires understanding different people's values and interest and striking compromizes that don't please all fully but leave everyone with a part of what matters to them.

The compromizes made differ highly by region of the country/world. In the east we rely primarily on a few dedicated improved areas to provide some availability but limiting numbers. We hope that the annoyment at arriving at a full campsite, or finding a couple weekends before that the hut is full will keep numbers down to a "manageable" level.

In the West, where there are many more places to camp than the # of individuals desired, the National Forests and Park Service use a system of trailhead permits. As a result of this system there are today 1/2-1/3 only of active campsites than existed 20 years ago. Unfortunately, horses, grazing and not snowmobiles keep alive the Access vs. Conservation debate.

Fundamentaly where we end up reflects both political interests and the evolving mores of a society struggling to weigh multiple goals against each other. I do believe that our best way to deal with such things is to engage in cronstuctive debate with each other and via the political process, both sharing our own personal views but also listening to others' and seek to find pragmatic compromizes.

 

[trailbiscuit]

there's a bit of elitism here.

I agree completely. Just because someone chooses to visit the mountains in a way you choose not to (in a perfectly legal fashion), it's not right to ask that their access to the experience be removed. If hut is the only/best way for someone to experience the Whites, then why would I want to deprive him or her of that experience. I've only stayed at a hut once. It was definitely a different experience, but not better or worse than any other.

In the past week I drove the Mt. Washington Auto Road for the first time and hiked a viewless section of the AT in NH in the pouring rain - two completely opposite experiences. But, you know what? They were both awesome. And, for totally different reasons. The common denominator? Being outside. It's better than sitting here at this desk. So, why complain about different types of people and different types of experiences? Enjoy it while you can.

 

[funkyfreddy]

In an essay in Backpacker maybe 20 years ago, Dave Foreman suggested that some wildnerness areas should be left unmapped so as to not dillute the true wilderness experience.

I'm all for this..... if not unmapped then no trails, huts, or rescues! There should be some areas left like this, essentially undisturbed..... areas that if you chose to explore, then you do it on your own w/o a safety net......

If this seems elitist, so be it! Some times elitism can be a good thing, as opposed to the child proofed McWilderness so many of us have become accustomed to, with it's roads, crowds, and regulations....

 

[dave.m]

... there's a bit of elitism here.

You hit the nail on the head.

I am reminded of an old George Carlin joke. "Why is it that people who drive slower than me are inconsiderate jerks but the people who drive faster than me are reckless idiots?"

So rephrasing, "Why is it that people who want less access to the bc are hardcore zealots but the people who want more access than me are disruptive idiots?"

'Course, recognizing these sorts of ambiguities and trade-offs is sort of a buzz-kill that drains all the fun out of defending the One True Way (tm).

In the West, where there are many more places to camp than the # of individuals desired, the National Forests and Park Service use a system of trailhead permits

I would support limiting access to the Wilderness Areas based on a permit system.

You already need a daytrip pass to 13 Falls now!

No, no. That's not a daytrip pass. That's a parking permit, which is a very different animal. The parking passes are an absolute travesty. I refuse to get them and willingly pay any fines associated with them. If I wanted a fee-for-use experience, I would go Disney Land or a National Park.

 

[Ed Poyer]

Franconia Falls Day trip pass

For the past couple of years, one needs a WMNF day pass (available at Lincoln Woods) to visit Franconia Falls. This is due to overcrowding & sanitataion problems. I suspect the writer meant Franconia Falls, not 13 Falls.

Ed

 

[dave.m]

Well, sho'nuff!

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/waterfalls/

I learn something new everyday. I'm actually glad to see permits starting to be implemented.

The passes though.... That is just horrible
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/passes/

 

[--M.]

I was just there this past weekend, and I was amazed at all the very young kids and people who I know would not be there if not for the hut.

My family and I drove our minivan up Whiteface on vacation a couple weeks ago, and there were bikers on Harleys there. I mean with beards and everything. They shouldn't be allowed in my nice family-oriented spot.

And when a friend and I 'thru-hiked' from Franconia Ridge to Mt. Madison last year, we saw a guy coming the other way in flip-flops! Disgrazia! He said something about Maine or Georgia or something, but I was too busy thinking he shouldn't be there.

The WMNF is a community sand-box, not a personal playground. I have plenty of opinions about what could be better, but what right do I have to expect to have the place to myself? I can even lobby for what I think is appropriate (like, say, keeping snowmobiles out of the Pemi) -- and I don't denigrate any for doing it -- but to decry what allows the general population to get out there just strikes me as a little myopic.

Why isn't it appropriate for those kids to hike out there?

I'll agree that the AMC is steeped in irony.

--M.

 

[dms]

I'm all for this..... if not unmapped then no trails, huts, or rescues! There should be some areas left like this, essentially undisturbed..... areas that if you chose to explore, then you do it on your own w/o a safety net......

If this seems elitist, so be it! Some times elitism can be a good thing, as opposed to the child proofed McWilderness so many of us have become accustomed to, with it's roads, crowds, and regulations....

Such a place exists! The Beaudry Road area, more than 30 peaks over 3,000 feet, almost no trails, no permits needed, no rangers, no red tape, this is heaven on earth for those in need of total no strings backcountry adventure.

 

[sardog1]

Personally, I'm all for uprooting the national interstate system for the same reason.

Dickerman pointed out this weekend in his column that the Hancocks used to be among the most remote of mountains, requiring a multi-day trip to get there. Until the Kanc.

So, where exactly is that line gonna get drawn? Or rather, the more important question (really, the only important question on ANY subject): How will it get decided? (Rooney and I agree on his answer to that one . . . )

 

[Jeff-B]

For the past couple of years, one needs a WMNF day pass (available at Lincoln Woods) to visit Franconia Falls. This is due to overcrowding & sanitataion problems. I suspect the writer meant Franconia Falls, not 13 Falls.

Ed

Opps, you are right, I meant Franconia Falls or otherwise known as "the chutes".

There is only one problem with trailhead permits and that is to enforce them with enough backcountry rangers, which is kind of a wasted resource at that point.

Yosemite is a perfect example of extremes where you not only need a backcountry permit, but you need an agenda for exactly where you plan to stay, then the rangers actually "book" areas in the woods to disperse the backpackers around, dictating to you, "don't go beyond such-n-such place until such-n-such date"

Out there, most of the rangers efforts work towards crowd control.


Which brings me back to my argument in favor of the Hut system!
Hey, after you have backpacked enough like me, its really nice to upgrade to a hut experience, especially at the drop of a dime for a quick hut trip.
Benefits being:
No need to pack camp/tent gear
Only clothes required
No food required
No need to worry about finding a campsite
Get to stay above timberland at Lakes and Madison
Climb Mt. Madison at sunset, down with headlamps
Get fed all you can eat breakfast and dinner
Play games at night
Sleep in relative comfort
Go anytime in the nastyest weather
Get a morning start above timberline to do Presi traverse all day
Meet fun loving people that smell as bad as me......

 

[dr_wu002]

Walked by them a lot of times.

One time I walked by Cloud Hut while doing Crawford Path and it was covered with snow.

Another time, I walked by and this time it was snow free and open. There were a bunch of guys playing frisbee on the lawn. I did go in to use the bathroom. I looked in the toilet because this was around when Gary Moody pulled his stunt on the Kanc and I was curious if anyone was in this one.

-Dr. Wu

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

Those loud spooky noises we "thought" we heard were actually several black bears that were very hungry and aggressive. I couldnt agree with you more, but we did however make a big mistake rather then just calling us inexperienced. Add on all of the other horrible stories about being lost, almost getting killed by a bull moose while camping alone near stillwater during rutting season, and many more, and I say. Thats not inexperienced thats just dumb. Then again, I wouldn't have written a book and for magazines if I didn't do those dumb things. Yes I made mistakes, and I have learned by them, but it sure was a exciting time. -Mattl

Let's see if I have this right, you attracted "several black bears" to your campsite? You must have stunk pretty bad!!!

As far as the initial post in this thread, I can't decide if it's trolling or, as mentioned previously, a severe case of ELITISM.

One time I walked by Cloud Hut while doing Crawford Path and it was covered with snow.

Another time, I walked by and this time it was snow free and open. There were a bunch of guys playing frisbee on the lawn. I did go in to use the bathroom. I looked in the toilet because this was around when Gary Moody pulled his stunt on the Kanc and I was curious if anyone was in this one.

-Dr. Wu

Here's how it ended.

 

[dr_wu002]

Reason to Keep Them!

A friend of mine also mentioned seeing a bunch of the hut girls nekkid. Up close too, I think.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Snowflea]

Matt, I don't completely disagree with you here, but on a purely selfish level, the huts DO make great "aid stations" during hut traverses and other really long hikes. The chocolate-coconut frosted brownies at Galehead last Saturday were to die for.

As for the wilderness thing, we should be thankful that cattle--which John Muir referred to as "hooved locusts"--aren't allowed to graze (and poop ) in the Pemi like they are Out West!! I experienced this first hand in the La Garita Wilderness of Colorado this summer--couldn't believe it was legal, but ah, the power of the burger-and-steak lobby! (How's THAT for pulling this thread off on a tangent?)

Back on topic... my favorite hut quote was from a friend of mine from Tennessee who, after spending a night at Mizpah, stated "I've never paid so much to sleep so little."

Stinkyfeet, who's too cheap to spend that kind of money on lodging (especially if there's not even a shower!)