Hey all,
I think maybe the biggest issue about the Huts is the cost and the lack of cheaper alternatives in those immediate areas. When a thru-hiker gets to the Whites, whichever direction he or she is going, that hiker is used to a plethora of options for free or, in a few cases, (ie. some Green Mtn. shelters) low-cost camping. Yes, there IS throw-down camping in the Whites. Yes, there ARE shelters and tentsites with caretakers, which are available for $6-7 dollars (and that’s not a fee I think worthy of complaint), but the Huts are ten times more ($60-70). That’s quite a lot for a stay in the backcountry, although no one is forcing anyone to take advantage of it. What WOULD be cool, imo, is if there were “regular” shelters AND tentsites right in the vicinity of those huts. A first-come, first-serve thing, just like everywhere else. Charge that nominal fee, but give the option. As it is, one can’t legally camp within a quarter-mile of the Huts and beyond that 1/4 mile in many cases, you’re above treeline or in areas where throw-down camping is tough to find. I do believe Mizpah hut has a tentsite area very close by, so that’s nice. If Galehead Hut–the most remote in the Whites–would have tentsites right there around the hut, that would be great. There’s room there for that. And such alternatives would help to concentrate use, which is certainly a goal of the A.M.C. Isn’t it? I just think additional options for low-cost camping in that tough terrain would be a great thing and help to diffuse some of this kind of dissent. But anyhoo…
ramkitten (debralauman.com)
ramkitten