[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Issue in the Whites

Daniel Chazin said:
>Comments
>have been made about the overcrowding and resource damage at the shelters and
>campsites in the area in the 1960s and 1970s, but times have changed, and most
>campers now have a much higher regard for the environment.  It seems to me
>that if they are properly supervised (with caretakers), there is no reason why
>campsites cannot be located within a reasonable distance of the huts, thus
>making it possible for everyone to enjoy the splendor of the White Mountains,

While I'd certainly agree that a higher percentage of today's hikers are
environmentally conscious, the sheer volume of hikers has increased so much
that I'd bet there are as many (or more) sloppy campers out there as there
ever were. This is particularly true in high-use areas like the Whites. I
think the most depressing part of my thruhike was the stretch through
Harriman State Park near Bear Mountain, NY. That whole section was so
beaten down by casual hikers and campers--trashed shelters, litter, rutted
trails, mountain bikes on the AT--that the illusion of wilderness was
completely gone. The AT there is no more than a glorified urban Greenway,
with all the attendent problems. I'd hate to see the trail in the Whites
suffer a similar fate.

And the fact is, we're really only talking about one stretch where huts are
hard to avoid: the one long above-treeline stretch across the
Presidentials, where there isn't any place to camp unless you leave the
ridgeline, or "stealth camp" above treeline, or stay in a hut. I *don't*
think that unsupervised camping above treeline should be encouraged there.
Sure, it can be done responsibly, but it invites damage to the ecosystem
and puts ill-equipped or inexperienced campers at some risk to their lives
in bad weather.

I camped below treeline at Naumann Campsite (Mizpah Hut) and the next day I
walked from there all the way past Lake of the Crowds, over Mt. Washington,
and along the northern Presidentials to Madison Hut, where we worked for
our stay; that was a long day, but not impossibly so: I could have gone
farther, if necessary. The point is, in decent weather most thruhikers--and
compared to others I was not a very strong hiker--could easily make the
Presidential traverse in a day if they started early, followed the white
blazes (no peak-bagging on the side) and didn't dawdle at the summit of
Washington. Dayhikers and weekenders, whose conditioning isn't as good,
probably couldn't--but they're the ones the huts are meant for, anyway.

I don't think it's a problem. In the Presidentials, which are dangerous and
where use is high, I see no good alternative. Elsewhere in the Whites there
are plenty of campsites other than the huts.



--Rhymin' Worm

(Robert Rubin) GA>ME '97 -- RHYMWORM@MINDSPRING.COM
Newsletter Editor, Piedmont Appalachian Trail Hikers (PATH) 


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

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