Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

[Mattl]

It's not that I have a problem with all of the huts in the whites, it's more a select few that I really feel should not exhist. Places like lonesome lake are a perfect place for them because it is an easy hike and a family place..Galehead is not. Galehead is 5 miles one way and gives great access to the Bonds and surrounding area. From there one can tromp right down to 13 falls, or be at the Bonds and back before afternoon. I have a problem with this. Our largest wild area, would be nice, if it stayed wild. The hut causes people that wouldn't normally backcountry camp to suddenly have an amc hotel that they can lounge at and get great meals. 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. I know complaining isn't going to help, but I just want people to realize that without the hut I bet you would cut hikers to the Bonds and that area by 50% or more. That is substantial. I know I am not the only one that notices the Bonds have a lot more people then even 5 years ago. I would even compromise with hut being much more rustic. Another place is Zealand, that area would be quite a bit more remote if not for that. But fine, theres Zealand, so why then do they need Galehead? One can almost hike between every hut without having to camp now..I think this causes too many inexperienced hikers to go into more wild areas that they definetly would not..-Mattl

 

[Gris]

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.

That's the whole idea (insert pic of person beating dead horse)...

 

[TDawg]

Places like lonesome lake are a perfect place for them because it is an easy hike and a family place..Galehead is not.

Another place is Zealand, that area would be quite a bit more remote if not for that. But fine, theres Zealand, so why then do they need Galehead?

Zealand is a nice easy hike too. What makes Lonesome a family place and not Zealand? Just the lake? I see your point on Galehead, and I'm not a huge fan of the huts either, but how is any one person more entitled to these areas than another?

Don't get me wrong, I love complete solitude, but seeing other people while hiking in the Whites is a fact of life.The AMC huts aren't going away any time soon. (For you Gris )

Perhaps the more exposure for the general population to these areas will increase awareness and support for conservation. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise, who knows. My $0.02.

 

[dvbl]

Hang on...let me grab a snack and put my feet up...this is gonna get good

 

[DrJJFate]

At The Least. . .

You know where the families and inexperienced folks congregate. And, you can avoid the huts or not stop if you choose.

Inexperienced people (and families) are going to hike. Look on the bright side: If Galehead was not there, would you prefer to complete with them for space at Guyot or Thirteen Falls?

 

[giggy]

agree 100% with the tdawg here. if we are being totaly honest - I slag the huts when sitting at the computer - I love the huts when I want to get water, shelter from rain/wind, or SLI74 is feeing me or lakes is really nice when coming up the ammo in winter and provides quick shelter from the wind - then I love the darn things.

I was thinking of buying one from the AMC and making "gigs alpine studio 54"

cash bar, go go dancers, lights, - gonna make some real money.
have a prototype set up already

hike all day party all night


seriously, it is what is - whites are less than 200 miles from millions of people - there ain't no wilderness anymore huts or no huts,. Its all good tho - saw a huge group of city kids at greenleaf this past weekend - nothing bad about that in my book.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Hang on...let me grab a snack and put my feet up...this is gonna get good

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?

 

[TDawg]

If Galehead was not there, would you prefer to complete with them for space at Guyot or Thirteen Falls?

Or Garfield? Great point.

 

[Gris]

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

 

[dave.m]

The hut causes people that wouldn't normally backcountry camp to suddenly have an amc hotel that they can lounge at and get great meals.

Heh.

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. Others might suggest a .22 rifle and a 5 lb bag of rice.

The other problem is the disconnect between one's personal wilderness ideals, and the land management policies of a given Wilderness Area. Remember, none of the huts are in USFS Wilderness areas.

I think this causes too many inexperienced hikers to go into more wild areas that they definetly would not.

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

 

[giggy]

Man - do I think Kevin has hit the nail on the head here on point 3.

here is a one to consider - the RMC have huts up there for years as well - but much less "action" around them. Some people don't even know about about them until years after they start hiking - why is this? Becuase they are self serve, because the RMC doesn't have a huge marketing budget - or is just a different type of org (I won't say better or worse) all together.................................... and lets face it - different crowd at RMC huts in general as well.

As far as "experienced" and "not experienced", for the amount of people that hike the whites and the amount of rescues,etc... its really not an issue - is it, the huts aren't adding to any of that.

I might even stay at them if they weren't so expensive.

should be a good discussion..

 

[grouseking]

For me, this isn't beating a dead horse. I think most things on this website are talked about many times, and there is nothing wrong with that, especially since people's opinions and views change over time. Just like me ....

My views on the huts have changed drastically since I started hiking and learning more about the area. I hated the thoughts of Zealand, Galehead and Lonesome Lake huts for a couple reasons. One, they were on the border with the Pemi Wilderness and I thought that wild meant no structures period. Number two...I didn't want to think about having tons of people staying in these "remote" places all the time. But then I visited these places and my attitude started to change. For one thing, they don't stick out like a sore thumb and many of the huts basically blend in with the surrounding scenery, so they are aesthetically pleasing. More importantly, hiking is a part of our culture and so is awareness, and what not a better way of raising awareness than having an educational hut along the trail. And it's not like these huts are in the wilderness boundries...they are on the Appalachian Highway.

Also since there is such a drive to complete 4000 footers I wonder if more people would camp illegally if there wern't huts along the main drag. It makes sense to me. The only thing between Greenleaf and Zealand would be Garfield campsite and Guyot...if Galehead didn't exsist, so there would be some creative camping along the way.

I hiked Galehead this weekend and saw a LARGE group of people heading up to the Galehead hut for a celebration. And they brought along dogs...lots of dogs....obviously a no-no. Well, that did make me upset, but what are you going to do? They will know from now on not to bring dogs and not to have such a large group of people. Also, when we arrived at the hut, well before the group did, there was no one in it at all...on a beautiful summer afternoon...so I still think this hut doesn't get as many visits as it could. I mean come on...its 4.6 miles from the shortest distance. What tourist is gonna walk 4.6 miles to a hut!?!

This is turning into a rant real fast. But I like the huts, they're here to stay. The real wild parts of the Whites like the eastern Pemi will stay wild because of limited trail maintence so if you're looking for solitude...go there! Mattl knows all about that region.

So my opinion has softened in my old age. Hike wherever you want, and do what makes you content with your life. And if you don't like huts...its like the saying....if you don't like what's on tv, turn it off.


grouseking

grouseking

 

[Gris]

There is an answer; it's called Winter hiking/back-country camping...

 

[Mattl]

I dont think that 13 falls and Guyot would get "all" the extra people. I do think that a small portion of the hut stayers would go somewhere else who do enjor camping, then the vast majority, that won't hike further with an actual tent on their back and gear will not travel any further. Simply put, if you have much more weight on your back, it will inhibit where and how far you go. It will severely limit the amount of people that travel to these areas. For the most part I am okay with zealand, even though it does creates a lot of people in that area, but it can stay in my mind. 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

 

[AOC-1]

There is another answer for those in search of wilderness. It's called the Adirondacks, where we burn down otherwise beloved backcountry ranger cabins as wilderness "non-conforming structures."

 

[dug]

Cell phones...don't forget about cell phones!

Seriously, the huts have been there longer than I have (OK, not Mizpah, or the rebuilt Galehead, but you get the point )

If you want solitude, you need to spread your horizons more. Mattl, no offense to you, but it seems you rarely get outside of the Pemi. Great place, but the days of it being solitude are gone. There was a brief window (a few decades) between it being trashed, stripped, and burned out to it being a popular place to go. Pemigewasset "Wilderness", as it used to be termed pretty much sums it up.

These mountains are within a five-hour drive of many millions of people. To think that that area can remain isolated in this day is naive. There are too many types of "hikers" with too many opinions what is considered "wild".

As for the comment "One can almost hike between every hut without having to camp now", well that was one of the points when they were built. You could go from hut-to-hut without camping.

I personally have only stayed in a hut once, Zealand in a February ice storm. I don't have a personal affection to them. I've never really thought about it. They are usually just another spot to grab a drink and move on from.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

There is another answer for those in search of wilderness. It's called the Adirondacks, where we burn down otherwise beloved backcountry ranger cabins as wilderness "non-conforming structures."

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.

 

[spencer]

this thread is directly related to the hoardes of "blah blah blah, Baxter sucks, how dare they keep us out, the lines are long, the red tape is ugly, the rangers are mean..." threads. See what many of us have been saying? It's a good thing...

you can't have your cake and eat it, too... If you want a peaceful, backcountry excursion where you can pretend you are in wilderness, don't go to the Whites (most of it anyway).

If you want a solid outdoor recreation activity where you can meet cool folks, listen to war stories from old hutmen, laugh about the snoring in the huts, ski to your heart's content, see magnificent views, follow others' tracks, get a fresh drink of water when you are running low, share in others' adventures, etc. then enjoy the Whites for what they are...

spencer

 

[sapblatt]

you can't have your cake and eat it, too... If you want a peaceful, backcountry excursion where you can pretend you are in wilderness, don't go to the Whites (most of it anyway).
spencer

Well stated - there are plenty of places to go for solitude - the huts are not one of them, nor is Mount Washington, Franconia Ridge etc.

Last weekend even some popular spots had little traffic (6am on Saturday morning there were no cars at the 19 mile brook trail head)...we saw no one on the Castle Trail, maybe 20 on Jefferson and about 5 more people the next 5 hours going around and down.

 

[dvbl]

...I think this causes too many inexperienced hikers to go into more wild areas that they definetly would not...-Mattl

"Inexperienced" is a very subjective word. A few years ago I read a "story" on the web about two guys who went on an overnight bushwack into Hellgate Brook in the Pemi. It was May, still lots of snow up high, and still cold at night. Well, it seems these two young men didn't have all the proper clothing. Also, they didn't hang their food, a serious no-no in the Pemi, resulting in what they thought were loud spooky animal sounds during the night close to their tent.

Just wondering...is that what you mean by "inexperienced"?