Re: [at-l] Issue in the Whites

[Tim Hewitt <thewitt@spf.fairchildsemi.com>]

Slyinmd wrote:
[clip]
> I understand the AMC most likely needs this revenue, generated by the huts,
> for trail programs and maintenance, but is it cost effective and a detriment
> to the forest and the trail in this area.  I don't believe there's a need for
> "Hiker Hotels" on the trail itself and do believe that self-service facilities
> and other sources of revenue may be more appropriate.

Just a point of note. If you study the history of the AT at all, this is
_exactly_ what the original founders had in mind. The AT was envisioned as a
place where city folks could get away from the stress of their jobs and busy
lives and onto the trail - where they would stay in "Hiker Hotels" and not
have to worry abour carrying big packs, etc.  The first thru-hiker actually
carried only a day pack in Maine, as he was able to hike from one Sporting
Camp to another for most of the trail.

Just a point of interest.

I think the huts should come down as well...

-Tim  (Paddler GA>ME 99)
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================

---

• Prev by Date: Re: [at-l] Smaller backpack -- back problems
• Next by Date: [at-l] Thanks for the help
• Prev by thread: [at-l] Issue in the Whites
• Next by thread: Re: [at-l] Issue in the Whites
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread