[at-l] Smoky back country fees
sloetoe at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 17 11:11:37 CST 2012
### I'm not sure I get your point, Gabby, but it seems you think I am conflating the AMC and WMNF. I am not. I am a hiker (vis AMC) and a taxpayer (vis WMNF) who objects to paying through the nose for the opportunity to walk the Appalachian ridge (AMC) or to camp in the forested lowlands (WMNF) with my children -- none of the three of us having much in the way of a measurable impact, but ALL of us entangled in a regulatory scheme assembled over decades to justify, protect and fund the sponsoring entities (whether AMC, WMNF, or both).
FWIW, I first analyzed the WMNF Plan back in 1981 for a undergraduate paper (got an A) and completed a two-semester graduate analysis on the AT "Trailway" (and the ATC and the AMC) in 1984-85). Nothing in the "ills" column has changed since then, and as far as the ATC/AT goes, what I predicted had pretty much come to pass. Ugh.
--- On Thu, 2/16/12, Art Cloutman <Art at crystalacresnh.com> wrote:
> The hut system in the Whites existed long before the AT was even
> conceived. The trails that the AT follow in the Whites also existed
> before the AT was laid out. Most of the trails were made by the AMC
> back in the 1800's. The AMC was largely responsible for getting the
> Whites declared a national forest. The parking fees in the Whites
> are adminstered by the National Forest Service. None of those fees
> go to AMC. The AMC built and maintains the huts. AMC has
> professional staff to maintain the over used trails and shelters in
> the Whites. There are millions more hikers in the Whites than thru
> hikers or even AT hikers. The charges imposed by the AMC are aimed
> at those people not AT hikers but how do you make that determination between one and the other. Allowing some hikers to stay in the huts
> and shelters for work to stay helps some what. It is a real problem.
More information about the at-l