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

Marc801 wrote: New York to Develop Hut-to-hut Trail System in Adirondacks

From that article -

"In New Hampshire, the Appalachian Mountain Club operates a backcountry "hut-to-hut" system for through hikers on the Appalachian trail."

Fucking vomit... I don't have that much experience with the huts, but passing by Greenleaf, which happened to be dinner time, having the first drone fly over my head, having the dinner bell go off, watching the hordes of obesity cases shuffle in for their prepared meal, less than 2 miles up the trailhead, watching a child who clearly needed his energy depleted and overhearing his father say "yeah we didn't make the summit today, but we might try in the morning, but probably just go home", it just makes you sick to your stomach. They're selling the outdoors and we're all losing... "Backcountry"

I don't mean to be elitist or exclusionary, but they just take the wilderness from us, and sell it to these ppl, and just start busing these idiots in. And its not even a gateway for them, it's an attraction to be visited. Sorry for offending you with my rant.

Tom Sherman wrote:Sorry for offending you with my rant.

Offending me??? Hardly.
I have no dog in this fight.

Marc801 wrote: New York to Develop Hut-to-hut Trail System in Adirondacks

That article doesn't really state anything that's of any use. The proposed plan is to develop new and existing trails to connect mostly existing hotels/lodging in the region.

Try this article instead:
adirondackalmanack.com/2014…

"Ultimately the idea is that a visitor would be able to step out of their hotel door and walk down the street to a trailhead. From there, they would be able to do a multi-day loop or traverse to another village."

They're not talking about backcountry lodging.

Additionally, they are not proposing this in the KV/LP High Peaks region. They are proposing this in the central ADK (Hamilton County) with hopes of boosting the economy there (seriously, when was the last time you drove through Indian Lake? An economic boost is much in need). I think, if executed properly, this is a fantastic idea. It could be used year round for trail running, backpacking, XC skiing--similarly to the Jack Rabbit from KV to Saranac Lake. The plan seems similar to the original idea of ripping up the the old railroad and turning it into a rail trail for a tour-de-ADK, or "town-to-town" venture--but unfortunately this is not happening to the extent that the community hoped it would.

Don't jump to conclusions :)

ClimbLikeAGirl wrote: That article doesn't really state anything that's of any use. The proposed plan is to develop new and existing trails to connect mostly existing hotels/lodging in the region. Try this article instead: adirondackalmanack.com/2014… "Ultimately the idea is that a visitor would be able to step out of their hotel door and walk down the street to a trailhead. From there, they would be able to do a multi-day loop or traverse to another village." They're not talking about backcountry lodging. Additionally, they are not proposing this in the KV/LP High Peaks region. Don't jump to conclusions :)

Actually, that is precisely one of the major components.
From your linked article:

...creating a network of trails that would link with new and existing lodging facilities...

...use existing trails, and potentially new ones, to create the networks.

The proposed lodging facilities would range from temporary yurts to existing five-start hotels. However, Dadey said he would like a majority of the facilities to be affordable, perhaps $35 per night, if possible. They would be within a day’s hike of each other and provide meals or kitchens for users.

ACTLS has prioritized where they would like the structures, new and existing, to be located. Private lands are at the top of the list, followed by private easement lands, existing buildings on the Forest Preserve, and temporary yurt-like structures on Wild Forest lands. The latter two uses are currently not allowed.

However, there are other backcountry buildings they would like to inquire about, including the one owned by the Open Space Institute on Preston Ponds in the High Peaks Wilderness.

Although ACTLS would look to change some rules that environmentalists might view as weakening protections for the Forest Preserve, Drury and Dadey believe the result would be that more users get to experience the backcountry and appreciate it.

"In New Hampshire, the Appalachian Mountain Club operates a backcountry "hut-to-hut" system for through hikers on the Appalachian trail."

Bullshit... it is a hotel system for tourists that allows SOME thru hikers to beg and work for left overs and a place to sleep on their floor. Definitely not built for them and definitely not catering towards them.

Just received a great update on the petition. Things have slowed down and a couple of major news outlets have shown interest.

NHPR to air story today!

nhpr.org/post/controversy-o…

Good going, Chris!

I just signed, close to 1,000 now

The Associated Press has run an article:

bigstory.ap.org/urn:publici…

1,000 signatures!

Nice work to everyone who voiced their concerns. This proposal has been withdrawn: outdoors.org/articles/newsr…

Alissa Doherty wrote:Nice work to everyone who voiced their concerns. This proposal has been withdrawn: outdoors.org/articles/newsr…

THIS IS AWESOME!!!

Hope it doesnt come back in some re-incarnated mutated form.

Nolan Huther wrote:I signed it as well. I've hiked for years, and slowly come to loathe the JBL compound in the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks- whether I'm getting a near sleepless night in my tent or pushing through the tail end of 20+ mile day, passing JBL where people grilling hamburgers and playing jenga before they turn into their beds makes me realize how little the appreciation of the wilderness is as a result of the lodges and huts. The thought of another one of these lodges carving up a portion of the forest is disgusting, here in the Dacks or in the Whites.

^^^ this!!!

AT thru hiker here.

There wasn't too much more that disgusted me on the trail besides people that I caught littering along it than the huts throughout the whites. They are overpriced and bring people into alpine areas that have no business being there. For instance, this New Yorker I caught taking a shit on top of a rock leaving the TP mushed on top and walking away as I proceeded to "be so kind" handed him a bag and "asked" him to pick it up right the fuck now.

I also got to meet a very scared couple who thought they were staying in a nice hotel room at 150 a night a person, so she wore heels. This was at the base of Garfield. How in the hell she made it out there I don't even care enough to think about. But, hearing that click heel sound at the spot was quite the mind fuck.

What pissed me off the most is having these kids "hutties" that carry 80lb + packs full of canned food for these city folks who have no business being there anyway. These hutties are paid slave wages.

I'm very glad this got shut down as these huts as for my experience with them and as previously mentioned by Nolan, bring people who have zero appreciation for these areas and belong at the local KOA for camping and burning marshmallows. Lets not forget these are the fuckers that whip their lit napalm-marshmallows out.

I have mixed feeling about your comments. I don't entirely disagree, but the AMC has been a great supporter of buying new land to protect climbing (Farley, and Rumney Final Frontier, for example).

Lake of the Clouds hut was my first introduction to "big mountain" hiking at age 10, and the talks on protecting fragile alpine terrain still resonate with me today.

I think that we can all agree that there has been enough development on Mount Washington, and that no more should be allowed except in unusual circumstances.

Ward

ward smith wrote:I have mixed feeling about your comments. I don't entirely disagree, but the AMC has been a great supporter of buying new land to protect climbing (Farley, and Rumney Final Frontier, for example). Lake of the Clouds hut was my first introduction to "big mountain" hiking at age 10, and the talks on protecting fragile alpine terrain still resonate with me today. I think that we can all agree that there has been enough development on Mount Washington, and that no more should be allowed except in unusual circumstances. Ward

I understand what you are referencing to. I do also support the AMC, I recently made a thread on one of the forums here: mountainproject.com/v/amc-a….

I do not agree with the alpine huts though.

Tylerpratt wrote: I do not agree with the alpine huts though.

I would've if you were around 20-25 year ago. A much different scene in the Whites and the Adirondacks. Too many people enjoying the outdoors today. That's the root of the problem with development

Bill Kirby wrote: I would've if you were around 20-25 year ago. A much different scene in the Whites and the Adirondacks. Too many people enjoying the outdoors today. That's the root of the problem with development

I can see that being the case.

ward smith wrote:I have mixed feeling about your comments. I don't entirely disagree, but the AMC has been a great supporter of buying new land to protect climbing (Farley, and Rumney Final Frontier, for example).

There's a misconception that AMC's corporate initiatives are reflective of the entire organization, when in reality, the AMC is a complex organization with many constituencies. I am a member of the AMC Boston Chapter's Mountaineering Committee and the programs that we run are entirely not-for-profit and completely driven by volunteers. We charge a fee for our rock and ice instructional programs and that fee goes back to club equipment or support for the climbing community. The governance of the programs and donations is always decided by a committee vote and, as climbers, we are particularly drawn to support for climbing access.

When Ward refers to our donations to Farley, Rumney, and Eagle Bluff, those funds were secured through our group's program fees and we voted to allocate it to these causes. We do try to rally support from other AMC chapters for fundraisers that we're passionate about, but we aren't generally involved in initiatives that aren't specific to climbing in the New England area.

Just wanted to give a little background since the AMC is often painted in broad brush strokes. There are plenty of AMC-affiliated climbers out there who are fighting for climbing access, donate hundreds of volunteer hours to the climbing community, and are opposed to developing protected lands.

Alissa Doherty wrote: There's a misconception that AMC's corporate initiatives are reflective of the entire organization, when in reality, the AMC is a complex organization with many constituencies. I am a member of the AMC Boston Chapter's Mountaineering Committee and the programs that we run are entirely not-for-profit and completely driven by volunteers. We charge a fee for our rock and ice instructional programs and that fee goes back to club equipment or support for the climbing community. The governance of the programs and donations is always decided by a committee vote and, as climbers, we are particularly drawn to support for climbing access. When Ward refers to our donations to Farley, Rumney, and Eagle Bluff, those funds were secured through our group's program fees and we voted to allocate it to these causes. We do try to rally support from other AMC chapters for fundraisers that we're passionate about, but we aren't generally involved in initiatives that aren't specific to climbing in the New England area. Just wanted to give a little background since the AMC is often painted in broad brush strokes. There are plenty of AMC-affiliated climbers out there who are fighting for climbing access, donate hundreds of volunteer hours to the climbing community, and are opposed to developing protected lands.

+1