Mountain Project Logo

change.org petition against the AMC's new Crawford Notch hut/ update NHPR story to air today

Original Post
chris magness · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 590

Announcements about this project have been pretty quiet, thus opposing voices have been quiet. Hopefully people with more clout and expertise will become involved, but a derailment effort has to start somewhere. You're effort in spreading the word and your signature are both valuable:

change.org/p/forest-users-w…

Zac St Jules · · New Hampshire · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 1,188

$200 a night per person? Where is this # coming from?

Zac St Jules · · New Hampshire · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 1,188

"Issues Already Identified to Meet Criteria Several issues have been identified including: 1. Impacts on the alpine zone; 2. impacts on Threatened and Endangered species; 3. impacts to cultural resources 4. impacts on native plants and animals; 5. impacts on water resources; 6. impacts on soil"

Now I dont really have much of an opinion on this but the above quote was taken directly from one of the articles linked on the petition page. Looks to me like theyve considered the issues of concern.

Another quote: "The forest access and educational opportunities created at this hut are not broad based as intended..."

How do you know this?

...

I am genuinely interested in this and would be willing to sign with a little more info.

chris magness · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 590

$100 per night, per adult person. Exact figures won't be known until after construction. Could be $80, $100, or $120. Whatever the cost, it will be excessive. Use will not be broad based because the cost is prohibitive.

Also, the format of this hut will be a bit different. It will cater to guests in a hotel style format, it will not be a simple bunk room.

chris magness · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 590

Yes, those issues have been identified, but studies and surveys have not been completed. Construction need has not been established and the Parks System is already on board.

I can't provide raw numbers because they simply don't exist. I did attend the Wiley House informational and ask these questions. The AMC does have data on the number of forest visitors that sleep over night in the huts and it's a VERY small percentage. I was also told that they haven't built a hut in 50 years. That hardly seems like a justification to me.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616

"It has provided no statistical analysis stating that this is a beneficent project, that this hut is the best possible use of this land for the greatest number of forest users. The initiative for this project could very well be profit driven."

Welcome to 'Merica, commie.

lol

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
chris magness wrote:Announcements about this project have been pretty quiet, thus opposing voices have been quiet. Hopefully people with more clout and expertise will become involved, but a derailment effort has to start somewhere. You're effort in spreading the word and your signature are both valuable: change.org/p/forest-users-w…
The info on that page link is even more vague - sounds like a typical knee-jerk reaction. So there's a new hut on what, a whole half acre footprint? And an enlarged roadside parking area at an existing trailhead in an area of the Whites that is hardly anything even remotely approaching natural, pristine, or wilderness.

I don't see the outrage or the need for derailment.
Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

Oh no!! The AMC is building another hut for families who pump money into the local economy.. Let's get out the pitch forks and torches!

Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

In the backcountry? Not even.. Exploitation? Nope.. That hut is a solution to the ever growing population that wants to experience the outdoors.

You wanna play that small violin.. Check out Jumbo ski resort. That was sad to witness.

DavidLG · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 20
Bill Kirby wrote: In the backcountry? Not even.. Exploitation? Nope.. That hut is a solution to the ever growing population that wants to experience the outdoors. You wanna play that small violin.. Check out Jumbo ski resort. That was sad to witness.
Just wondering what you are basing your opinion on?? You do not live up here so is it from personal experience or based on some study that you can produce? I do live up here and my experience is that it is not needed. In fact IMO they are trying to create a need in order to produce a profit. There are many other org.s up here that maintain trails and they are not proposing new huts. So please explain your position with facts and details that can be vetted. I am truly interested. Make sure your facts are not produced by a money trail as that is not the intended purpose of our National Forests.
Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
DavidLG wrote:Make sure your facts are not produced by a money trail as that is not the intended purpose of our National Forests.
Nope. National Forests were never intended to make money.
foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Pu…
Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

Really? You've never walked in any Congo lines up to Tuckermen's in the spring? Heard people bitch because there's no parking. How bout complaining that all huts are booked that one weekend the whole family was able to get out? I've heard or experienced every one of the above. Face it the Whites are becoming more crowded so more huts are needed.

How many times have you taken West Side Road to bypass ski traffic last winter?

I spend three weeks in North Conway every winter. i won't in the summer because of the crowds. If you were to propose this in the Adirondacks I would feel the same way you do but the Whites are crazy busy! I'm sorry if my experiences aren't good enough but opinions are like @ssholes right?

DavidLG · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 20
Marc801 wrote: Nope. National Forests were never intended to make money. foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Pu…
I stand corrected but AMC is a non profit org.

Thanks Marc for the accurate response.
DavidLG · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 20
Bill Kirby wrote:Really? You've never walked in any Congo lines up to Tuckermen's in the spring? Heard people bitch because there's no parking. How bout complaining that all huts are booked that one weekend the whole family was able to get out? I've heard or experienced every one of the above. Face it the Whites are becoming more crowded so more huts are needed. How many times have you taken West Side Road to bypass ski traffic last winter? I spend three weeks in North Conway every winter. i won't in the summer because of the crowds. If you were to propose this in the Adirondacks I would feel the same way you do but the Whites are crazy busy! I'm sorry if my experiences aren't good enough but opinions are like @ssholes right?
Bill you may be confused by not living up in the area full time. What you are talking about doesn't address this specific area or hut. Since camping in the entire Nat Forest is free the hut is not necessary esp in an area that is not being demanded by the people to be developed but by an organization.Car traffic will not change by adding a hut except possibly in a negative way. Huts are not ever needed in Spring,Summer or Fall. The only time that they might be needed is in the Winter which it is implied by your statement to not be the busy season. You are going by the theory of build it and they will come. If we follow this and start do the Daks the same way they will become the Whites. AMC has done a lot of good but in their development of huts they have created a need that did not exist. Sounds more like strategy for a profit org. to follow. I am still interested in some details of why this hut should be built along with a new trail in an area that might already be in decline through use. I am not trying to shut you down just trying to bring out more information and discussion.
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

The AMC is a non-profit organization, with a CEO that pulls down 350K. They have a long history of understating costs of their projects, which then come in for 50% more. Highland Center was proposed to cost 9 million and came in at 14.

There are unused beds at Highland Center nearly every weekend. The only thing people actually do there is pee and park. The AMC is a power hungry organization who, once they get control then attempt to dictate what you can do. There are plenty of stories of hutkeepers calling Fish and Game on people bivying in the Whites.

Once this " hut " is up and running they will start the process anew on the next one. Sorry Mr. Kirby, the hut users are not even vaguely critical to our local economy. Every 100 dollar overnight at a "hut" is one not at a B&B, and two meals not eaten locally anyway.

Environmentally, they are at best sum neutral. The majority of hut users would not be bumbling around above treeline without the hut system as support. Many people drive up Washington then coast down to a hut.

The proposed hut is within easy walking distance of the Highland Center, which the AMC put right smack in the Notch.

The AMC thinks they own the Whites, plain and simple. Stop them before it's too late.

Come up and enjoy a weekend day of climbing at Echo Crag while the AMC re-stocks Greenleaf with helicopters and be sure to have your hand and rope tug signals worked out beforehand.

Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480
DavidLG wrote: Bill you may be confused by not living up in the area full time. What you are talking about doesn't address this specific area or hut. Since camping in the entire Nat Forest is free the hut is not necessary esp in an area that is not being demanded by the people to be developed but by an organization.Car traffic will not change by adding a hut except possibly in a negative way. Huts are not ever needed in Spring,Summer or Fall. The only time that they might be needed is in the Winter which it is implied by your statement to not be the busy season. You are going by the theory of build it and they will come. If we follow this and start do the Daks the same way they will become the Whites. AMC has done a lot of good but in their development of huts they have created a need that did not exist. Sounds more like strategy for a profit org. to follow. I am still interested in some details of why this hut should be built along with a new trail in an area that might already be in decline through use. I am not trying to shut you down just trying to bring out more information and discussion.
The AMC is also building more parking. The parking is crazy at Frankenstein on the weekends. Huts are great year round. It's nice not to have to carry a tent and cook sometimes. I can see where that would draw more people out and how you see that as a bad thing. You're misinterpreting.. I'm not saying build it and they will come. I'm saying the people are already there so give them a hut in another area to stay in.

No hard feelings here. I understand we have different opinions is all.
DavidLG · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 20

The following is a quote from Jack Tarlin which adds some support to what both Tom and I have stated;

"Actually, I give the AMC decidedly mixed reviews as to their care and protection of the White Mountains.

This is an incredibly over-used and fragile location, yet the Club spends thousands of dollars a year on glossy brochures and ads that encourage ignorant and ill-equipped folks to enter these areas; I personally don't think it's wise stewardship to entice people to visit a threatened, fragile area, unless they're properly equpipped and know what the hell they're doing.

It could also be added that the primary purpose of these ads is to encourgae city folks to stay in some of the AMC's high-end lodging, such as the "Hut" cabins found all thru the Whites, and the brand-new multi-million dollar facility recently opened at Crawford Notch. These facilities, by their very nature and cost, are elitist, classist, and exclusive, as the vast majority of folks who visit the Whites cannot afford to stay at them. One can quite easily question whether exclusive and exclusionary lodging places like these, which are essentially private clubs, are appropriate or have any place on public land.

It can further be stated that the cCub's insistence on maintaining and expanding the operation of these high-end facilities comes at the expense of folks on a limited budget; for several years the club has been in the process of expanding their high-end lodging options while doing very little in the way of expanding or improving such options as shelters, care-taker tentsites, etc.

Lastly, the club insists on operating out of a multi-million dollar turn of the century townhouse on Boston's Beacon Hill. The cost of maintaining this unnecessary facility is enormous, never mind the millions of dollars that could be immediately realized by selling the structure and moving to less opulent offices in a more appropriate location, such as New Hampshire. And lastly, they have a bloated, over-paid office staff; the salary of their executive Director approaches that of the U.S. President.

In short, while the AMC does a lot right, it does a lot wrong. I personally can't justify sending them money so they can tear down decades-old hostels and replace them with luxury hotels, nor do I want my dues to pay for brie and chablis parties at their Boston headquarters (and yeah, I used to be a member of the Boston chapter so I know what I'm talking about here), nor do I want to help maintain a system of high-cost faux European "hiker huts" that exists solely to serve as money-makers for the organization, and to provide their wealthy members a high-country hideaway that is effectively off-limits to 95% of the folks who enter the White Mountains.

To sum up: I'm no longer a member of the AMC and can't in conscience support them. I prefer to give extra time and money to the Appalachian Trail Conference, as I know the money will be spent wisely. Or failing the ATC, I'd sooner join or support such organizations as the Green Mountain Club or the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, two small organizations that do remarkable work with very limited financial and human resources. Or better yet, if you're interested in protecting the backcountry of Northern New England, I'd join them all.

The AMC will have me back as a member when they stop building backcountry palaces, stop catering primarily to the wealthy, stop pretending that the White Mountains exist essentially to serve as a playground for their members. Or to put it another way: I'll re-join the AMC when they return to paying attention to their 130 year old mission statement, which speaks of providing wise stewardship for the forests, mountains, and rivers of Northern New England. When the AMC returns to its roots, I'll return to them. Otherwise, I think that there are other organizations more worthy of our time, money, and support."

Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

Adding parking means only that. When the lot is full, go somewhere else. Making the lot bigger just increases the load on Frankenstein. Same goes for the Kanc pull-offs, the actual attraction can't be made bigger ( Rocky Gorge ), so increased parking just adds to the problem.

P.S., Which huts are great year round Bill? Most, if not all, are closed in winter.

Mark NH · · 03053 · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 0

From a post I made elsewhere in the last year:

This will open your eyes a bit - it did mine! For year 2011:

Operations
American Alpine Club - Revenue-$1,575,000 Expenses-$1,980,000 Income/Loss-$405,000 loss
Appalachian Mountain Club - Revenue-$29,541,000 Expenses-$20,181,000 Income/Loss-$9,360,000 profit

Highest Salary
American Alpine Club - $130,554
Appalachian Mountain Club - $272,110

Net Assets (property, etc)

American Alpine Club - $6,842,000
Appalachian Mountain Club - $105,000,000

Look at those assets! And most likely no property taxes paid on any of them. Though in NH the do pay PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) for the Highland Center. I looked for an article online that I had read once - couldn't find it - and from memory they pay less than 10% of what property tax would be for the Highland Center. Yet the town is responsible for providing all necessary public safety services (police, fire, etc). Plus I don't believe they have to pay NH "room and meals" tax either.

In regards to salaries you might say the American Alpine Club is out of line based on revenue. I'd pay that position twice that! It's our national mountaineering organization. And along with the Access Fund do more for climbing than the AMC probably has ever done.

Back to now - we don't need any more huts run by the AMC in NH.

john strand · · southern colo · Joined May 2008 · Points: 1,640

I have never thought there should be ANY huts in the White Mountains..In this case, what about highland Center, a couple miles away ??? That's got parking in a pretty dangerous setting I think

You know how adding lanes to highways just attracts more cars ? Well a new hut will do the same here.

"Well the huts allow us to only carry a daypack, like in the Alps" Fine, go to the Alps

I bet the AMC would want a via ferrata if they could get away with it and profit.

Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480

Wow, I didn't know that the AMC was like a big union. I guess greed can change any organization You guys certainly changed my mind.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "change.org petition against the AMC's new Crawf…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.