[at-l] Smoky back country fees

Tom McGinnis 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 mailing list