Re: [at-l] About White Lies

How do the huts minimize impact? What's their logic on that one? It seems
to me that shelters (or ZERO structures, only minimal campsites) would do
more to encourage minimum impact, because huts will, by their nature,
attract many people that simply wouldn't go to the woods otherwise, and
since their less likely to go to the woods, those same people are probably
more destructive out of ignorance than those of us that actually backpack
for fun.

On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Ben Wright wrote:

> 
> --- WHHAWKINS@aol.com wrote:
> > 1. It is not mandatory to stay in them. However not
> > using them will require some long hiking days to get
> 
> > from one camp site to another one.
> > ...
> > 3. You will be very very very luckly to stay for
> > work. it is up the the croo 
> > at each hut.
> 
> IMO, extremely long for thru-hikers and section hikers
> alike considering that the tentsite at Mitzpah Hut is
> also by reservation, the terrain, weather, etc.  The
> problem is that the peak hiking season for
> "hut-to-hut'ers" is also the peak season for
> thru-hikers.  There are officially only 2
> work-for-stays available at each hut each night. It
> depends on the croo whether they allow more. At Lake
> of the Crowds, they did when we went through last
> year. They also rented out the tables for $6 a pop.
> The night that I was there on my thru-hike there were
> around 20-ish thru-hikers and the full complement of
> other folks at Crowds Hut. Madison's croo, at that
> time, was the tightest with only allowed 2 working and
> no table rentals. The heresay at the time was that
> croo got slightly in trouble for sending out a
> thru-hiker late in the evening who subsequently got
> hurt...once again grapevine heresay.
> 
> There are a number of well-known "stealth sites"
> before
> and after some of the huts that a couple of
> thru-hikers chose to use. I stayed at only 1 hut,
> that being Crowds for lack of a viable alternative.
> The rest of the time through the Whites I stayed
> at the AMC tentsites (not including Mitzpah or Valley
> Way which is below Madison off the A.T.). But, a
> person
> not conditioned already for long mileage and big
> climbs is going to have a big challenge on their hands
> if they can't or don't want to stay in the huts.
> 
> IMO, the problem is that the huts enable what they
> supposedly are there to prevent, which is impact and
> safety issues, since people choose or are forced to
> camp elsewhere.  Part of the huts original mission and
> their recent re-permitting, as I understand, was for
> safety purposes and to lessen impact. I'm not sure how
[ *** too many quoted lines.  automatically truncated *** ]

* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================
To:            at-l@backcountry.net