Re[2]: [at-l] AMC huts operated by people!

[Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> (Bob Cummings)]

"... so that can't be the AMC's excuse for not having shelters."

Aside from totally different climates and environmental fragility, the decision
on new shelters above the timberline in the Whites is not the AMC's. Even if
they wanted to have shelters -- which they probably don't for the same reason
Baxter Park doesn't want thru hikers at Daicey Pond -- they couldn't create them
without a major fight with the Forest Service and most of the environmentalists
in the Northeast.

 AMC does not run the White Mountain National Forest. They have a permit from
 the US Forest Service for the huts. They have an agreement with the National
 Forest to maintain trails and to run some of the back country campsites. Some
 one needs to run them or they would be totally trashed.

 Recent Congresses and Presidents have refused to appropriate enough money to
 pay for such things as campsite caretakers and other recreational uses of the
 National Forests. Caretakers are needed in the Whites for the same reason the
 Maine Appalachian Trail Club spends $40,000 each year hiring caretakers for the
 trail in Maine. The trail and campsites were being misused, so we scrounge the
 money each year to hire protection.

 Being wiser and more bureaucratic than MATC, the AMC charges $6 to defray the
 caretaker costs, raising the ire of thru hikers. Most hikers are pretty
 responsible. Unfortunately, someone has to pay for the slobs.

 Why does Congress appropriate money each year to subsidize forest harvesting,
 but refuses to pay for public recreation. Hikers like to spend their time in
 the outdoors. They don't like messing around with politics and boring meetings
 and writing boring letters. We chat a great deal about Rucks and the alleged
 deficiencies of the kids running the AMC huts. But we spend relatively little
 time debating ways to keep the trail wild. We set our priorities and we must
 live with the results.

 Timber industries don't mind hiring people to mess around with politics and
 boring meetings, and boring letters. They get 1000-1 returns on their
 investments. I hate cliches. But it's true. Squeaky wheeels get greased.

 BTW, the analogy with the Smokies is not terribly appropriate. National Forests
 are not National Parks. The two agencies have different agendas and purposes,
 and supporters face totally different lobbyists with totally different issues.
 Some of us think the White Mountains should be a National Park. But it is
 unlikely to happen unless hikers are willing to be more active than they have
 to date.

 WEary