[at-l] Could we lay off the hut-bashing please?

[AThiker@smithville.net (Felix)]

Bob Cummings wrote:

> "...The fact the huts are there is what makes it the most heavily used section."
>
> This is frequently claimed, but I doubt very much if it's true...
>
> ... The Whites are crowded because they are
>  incredibly beautiful mountains with a beautiful trail system within a day's
>  travel of 100 million people.
>
> ... but I'm pretty sure that less than one in a hundred hikers in the
>  Whites ever stay in the huts, probably less than one in a thousand.

This discussion seems to be pretty broad. Does anyone actually know what we are
talking about? I don't. Are we talking about removing the huts? The way the huts are
operated? The people on the trail? The amount of use? Day use? Night use?

I agree that the Whites are crowded because of the beauty. But, you can't tell me
that the 'hikers' (someone define the hikers that we are talking about) that do stay
in the huts would be staying there if it were only a shelter, or campsite. How many
people would walk from the summit of Washington to the site of Lake of the Crowds if
the hut wasn't there?

I also have never understood why they can't build a regular AT-type shelter, or put
in a tentsite at all the huts. Let us stay there and we'll let them stay there.
What's wrong with that?

In the bigger picture, The AMC and their huts would probably not be 'bashed' nearly
as much if their elitist arrogance wasn't the first thing they shove in your face.
Maybe it's just my hick from the sticks bringin' up, but I don't feel that people
should be treated the way the AMC, or its people,  has treated me...on several
occasions.


--
Felix Navidad
ME-->GA '98
"Your Move"
http://Felixhikes.tripod.com/