Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

[Mike P.]

Mountain Lions should only scare the little (under 5'6" or shorter & under 150 pound hikers) as they seek smaller prey. This is why female joggers running distances - as opposed to just starting out & being happy to go around the block - & kids under 15 are preferred targets.

Or more hikers would be packing heat, 30% less hikers & 100% more firearms, more solitude with more of a chance of being accidently shot.

 

[woodstrider]

Speaking of Galehead Hut...

Within the last 10 years this hut was rebuilt and had to conform to "handicapped accessibility" guidelines as some Federal monies were used and it is located in a "National Wilderness". Does anyone else see the irony in this? I guess this is off topic- and should be the start of another thread. But I thought I would stir the pot.

 

[David Metsky]

Within the last 10 years this hut was rebuilt and had to conform to "handicapped accessibility" guidelines as some Federal monies were used and it is located in a "National Wilderness". Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Actually, it's not in the Wilderness Area, it's in regular National Forest. All new buildings on Federal land must conform to the ADA regardless of where the money comes from. This includes things like door handles that are easier to use, wider hallways, and many other things that are useful for any number of hikers with disabilities. In addition, two groups of wheelchair users have made it to the hut.

I guess this is off topic- and should be the start of another thread. But I thought I would stir the pot.

But you're right, this is another topic and should not be continued in this thread. If you want to have this discussion (and we've had it about a dozen times) please start a new thread. I'll delete or move any further postings on ADA from this thread.

-dave-

EDIT: Sorry to sound so harsh about this, that wasn't my intention. But it really is off topic and we've been down that bitter road many times.

 

[DougPaul]

Within the last 10 years this hut was rebuilt and had to conform to "handicapped accessibility" guidelines as some Federal monies were used and it is located in a "National Wilderness". Does anyone else see the irony in this? I guess this is off topic- and should be the start of another thread. But I thought I would stir the pot.

Uhhhh...

There is a whole history on this one. Mostly OT (lots of room for flaming, etc). I suggest you start a new thread if you want to go into it.

Doug

edit: Looks like Dave and I dualed on this one--at least we are in agreement.

 

[arghman]

argh... mantra: I don't have time to get sucked into this thread, I don't have time to get sucked into this thread...

Just a comment, I do have sympathy for where the OP is coming from... there at least 2 streams (maybe 3) that I will not go canoeing on, because the experience of canoeing in undeveloped places has been spoiled by development at only one or two points along the stream... the Androscoggin between Gilead & Bethel is a great place but some @#%@#% built a McMansion right along the riverbank in 2001 or 2002. Cedar Creek in the NJ Pine Barrens is lots of fun but the take-out where I went puts you nearly right smack dab into suburbia. (the "maybe" is the Saco between Swans Falls and Fryeburg/Bridgton, although sometimes busy w/ people, isn't too bad but then at the take-out there's all sorts of trash & it's overcrowded while people are waiting for the shuttle pick-up. I don't mind people overcrowding as much as I do overdevelopment of structures esp. the new suburban kind.)

I know that theoretically I have plenty of other options & can avoid the overcrowding, but I generally don't go canoeing unless it is flatwater/quietwater with a select few very close friends/relatives & that limits me to the Bethel/Fryeburg area or southern NJ. My choice to constrain myself, but it's also disappointing to see my enjoyment of an undeveloped journey shattered by a developed area that is <5% of the trip length.

So I am trying not to be hypocritical here (really) ... the areas I mentioned above occur in private land where development is unfortunate, but there's no expectation that it stay undeveloped unless we do something about it.

Back to the WMNF:

The way I see it, we are talking about 2 issues:
(1) overuse = ecological damage
(2) aesthetics

I said:

I vote for the permit approach. Designate certain areas as low-density backcountry recreation, no more than X people per day. Not sure what X is, but it should be ecologically-driven rather than by subjective aesthetics.

My esteemed colleague, what and where are we discussing? The entire WMNF? Why do we need a permit system? I see no problems with the status quo, and I definitely don't want to ask for official permission to dayhike the Bonds. "Sorry, but today was sold out months ago. Put your name on the list and hope for nice weather that day."

Sorry, I made a couple of assumptions w/o listing them & didn't give context. There was some discussion of overuse at Guyot campsite. "dave.m" mentioned the permits idea & I think it would be an effective way of combating overuse. I'll repeat: The definition of overuse should be ecologically-driven rather than by subjective aesthetics. I did not mean to imply that a permit system should apply to the entire WMNF, only to the spots identified as problematic for ecological reasons, and from some of the descriptions of Guyot, that sounded like one of them.

If you absolutely had to apply aesthetics as a standard for overuse, I would rather see permits regulating total numbers than things like 10-person rule, which I don't believe is an effective cost-benefit gain (e.g. the ecological/aesthetic benefits of limiting groups in the 11-15 range, vs. the costs to recreation of doing so).

If you get away from the major peaks you can find some truly wild areas for New England standards. Taking out desolation shelter caused quite a few people to not visit that area as often. Which makes me believe that with the absense of a place to feel secure and stay people simple will not visit. I still have not seen a hiker while being near stillwater. A perfect example.-Mattl

(My emphasis.) Why is that a good thing? Again, where's the cost-benefit gain?

Aren't there enough wild areas in the Whites already, with sufficient guarantees they're likely to stay that way, that we don't have to apply more restrictions that are aesthetic in origin rather than objective?

I had some more comments but this post is long enough already & so I'll stop here unless the topic I had in mind comes up.

 

[griffin]

My biggest beef with the whole LNT movement is the dispersed impact theory that underlays it. I'm sure some folks will argue that it works in the far, trailless reaches of, say, the Wind Rivers or the deep dark Cascades. But it definitely doesn't scale when the size of the area is relatively small and the number of visits goes up.

For what it's worth, the official LNT party line now agrees with you. I recently took part in a training that included an LNT segment - and they suggested pretty much what you just did. That in less-used areas, the idea was to disperse, but that in the Whites and other, more heavily used areas, the idea was to concentrate use to minimize impact (ie, staying on the trail, even through mud, etc.)

As for the huts, and whether they bring in too many (of the wrong kind of) people...I guess the thing about a public resource is that you have to share it with other memebers of the public.m Me, I'd rather see all those kids out on the Bonds, and learning to appreciate the value of the woods, than parked in front of a video game.

 

[Bob]

I don't understand why the AMC doesn't copy a page from the High Sierra Camps in the Yosemite backcountry. There they have established campsites in the same area as the huts. They keep all the use in one hardened area, and already have caretakers at the huts to keep an eye on things. And bear lockers or lines to store food.
Oh yeah, and they're FREE, (so I gue$$ I just an$wered my own question...)

 

[--M.]

I don't understand why the AMC doesn't copy a page from the High Sierra Camps in the Yosemite backcountry. There they have established campsites in the same area as the huts. They keep all the use in one hardened area, and already have caretakers at the huts to keep an eye on things. And bear lockers or lines to store food.
Oh yeah, and they're FREE, (so I gue$$ I just an$wered my own question...)

So, AMC-philes, why aren't there tent platforms alongside the huts? I would have used (and paid for) such resources at certain times.

Anyway, I'm glad to see how this thread has remained a constructive dialogue, the upshot of which seems to be a recognition that the Whites are near an enthusiastic and very LARGE population.

--M.

 

[David Metsky]

So, AMC-philes, why aren't there tent platforms alongside the huts? I would have used (and paid for) such resources at certain times.

There are platforms at Mizpah. There are platforms just below Madison. There is a shelter and platforms above Lonesome Lake at Kinsman Pond. Carter Notch has gone caretaker yearround. There's the Dungeon at Lakes.

The AMC doesn't control backcountry permitting, the USFS does. I don't think they would allow platforms above treeline (Lakes/Madison/Greenleaf) and there already many camping options below treeline near most of the huts.

-dave-

 

[Woody]

I'm not going to get too philosophical here. I will just say that:

1. I have stayed in most of the huts.
2. I enjoy staying at the huts at times.
3. They are expensive, but when you consider what you get, especially the amount of food, I think it is a reasonable value.
4. I like being able to stop in at the huts to fill up on water, or to get out of the storm.
5. I enjoy spending nights out in my tent, but I will never get my wife to camp in a tent with me. I have convinced her to try a night at Lonesome Lake Hut with me in early October. I think she will enjoy it.
6. I would be opposed to any permit system because I often make plans at the last minute and often start hiking in on the trail after dark and set up my camp late at night. I wouldn't want to lose that flexibility.

Just my thoughts and opinions here. Thanks

 

[--M.]

There are platforms at Mizpah. There are platforms just below Madison. There is a shelter and platforms above Lonesome Lake at Kinsman Pond. Carter Notch has gone caretaker yearround. There's the Dungeon at Lakes.

The AMC doesn't control backcountry permitting, the USFS does. I don't think they would allow platforms above treeline (Lakes/Madison/Greenleaf) and there already many camping options below treeline near most of the huts.

-dave-

Good answers, thanks. I was specifically referring to Zealand, but I see there's a variety of resources (and had I remembered, I would have noted that I used the tents at Mizpah. Duh.).

 

[Rob S]

I'm not going to get too philosophical here. I will just say that:

1. I have stayed in most of the huts.
2. I enjoy staying at the huts at times.
3. They are expensive, but when you consider what you get, especially the amount of food, I think it is a reasonable value.
4. I like being able to stop in at the huts to fill up on water, or to get out of the storm.
5. I enjoy spending nights out in my tent, but I will never get my wife to camp in a tent with me. I have convinced her to try a night at Lonesome Lake Hut with me in early October. I think she will enjoy it.
6. I would be opposed to any permit system because I often make plans at the last minute and often start hiking in on the trail after dark and set up my camp late at night. I wouldn't want to lose that flexibility.

Just my thoughts and opinions here. Thanks

Very interesting thread. I pretty much agree with Woody48. A lot of great responses and information in this discussion. The only other comment I would make is my surprise that anyone would consider the huts expensive. Assuming an "average income", unless a person has financial problems, I don't think a night or two in a hut would break anyone's bank. While it's true the huts cost more than traditional camping, they are certainly a lot cheaper than most hotels. Stay somewhere like the Bellagio in Vegas and the huts will seem downright cheap! (Seriously, if ya dig true luxury once in awhile, book a room there, you won't regret it ..... but I digress) And like Woody48 mentions, the amount of food you get at the huts makes it a reasonable value. We often remember our trips partly by how much food we gorged ourselves on at a particular hut. I most definitely understand and respect those with negative opinions of the huts. It would be great for many reasons if the huts did not exist. But they do. And we have enjoyed them before, and, from time to time when we want to backpack lighter, we will enjoy them again. Just have to remember the earplugs.

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.

Very well stated. Thanks.

 

[Mattl]

Guys I was pleasently surprised with some of the views we had on here. Everyone for the most part kept on track and never went over the line, I have seen many that did not. No one is going to agree on this issue because everyone has different opinions on what makes an experience for them in the White Mountains memorable. I just want places for everyone, and there are for the most part. It just seems the Bonds used to be one of the those places that was much more quiet. That is also due to the large increase in hikers as well I guess. -Mattl

 

[Sheomet]

Good thread, I have no problem with the huts.

 

[Quietman]

The only other comment I would make is my surprise that anyone would consider the huts expensive. Assuming an "average income", unless a person has financial problems, I don't think a night or two in a hut would break anyone's bank.

For me, it would be quite expensive when traveling with myself, 2 brothers, 3 kids(2 older than 15), that would add up to over $450 per night even at member rates.
I have nothing against the huts, nor the people that stay in them, but when I can get out, swinging under the stars in my hammock is the ticket for me.

 

[Rob S]

........ that would add up to over $450 per night even at member rates.

My apologies, you are right ..... that is quite steep ...... I was thinking about a single person or a couple. Given your scenario, I would be in a hammock as well (as long as it's not too windy ...... I got "seasick" last time I tried sleeping in one )

 

[Paradox]

I hiked the border swath (Maine/Canada) from Cupsuptic to Boundary Mountain this past weekend and saw only four people working on their hunting structure on the Saturday morning of a holiday weekend. I hiked N. Kennebago Divide and White Cap and saw no one at my campsite or on the trail. If you are looking to just get away from people for a bit, you might try this area.