change.org petition against the AMC's new Crawford Notch hut/ update NHPR story to air today

I despise every one of those AMC huts. They are not shelters for backcountry hikers. They are overpriced hotels in the middle of the best backcountry locations we have, where quiet and peace from civilization is sought, only to stumble upon a noisy crowded building packed with fools.

DavidLG wrote:The following is a quote from Jack Tarlin which adds some support to what both Tom and I have stated; "Actually, I give the AMC decidedly mixed reviews as to their care and protection of the White Mountains. This is an incredibly over-used and fragile location, yet the Club spends thousands of dollars a year on glossy brochures and ads that encourage ignorant and ill-equipped folks to enter these areas; I personally don't think it's wise stewardship to entice people to visit a threatened, fragile area, unless they're properly equpipped and know what the hell they're doing. It could also be added that the primary purpose of these ads is to encourgae city folks to stay in some of the AMC's high-end lodging, such as the "Hut" cabins found all thru the Whites, and the brand-new multi-million dollar facility recently opened at Crawford Notch. These facilities, by their very nature and cost, are elitist, classist, and exclusive, as the vast majority of folks who visit the Whites cannot afford to stay at them. One can quite easily question whether exclusive and exclusionary lodging places like these, which are essentially private clubs, are appropriate or have any place on public land. It can further be stated that the cCub's insistence on maintaining and expanding the operation of these high-end facilities comes at the expense of folks on a limited budget; for several years the club has been in the process of expanding their high-end lodging options while doing very little in the way of expanding or improving such options as shelters, care-taker tentsites, etc. Lastly, the club insists on operating out of a multi-million dollar turn of the century townhouse on Boston's Beacon Hill. The cost of maintaining this unnecessary facility is enormous, never mind the millions of dollars that could be immediately realized by selling the structure and moving to less opulent offices in a more appropriate location, such as New Hampshire. And lastly, they have a bloated, over-paid office staff; the salary of their executive Director approaches that of the U.S. President. In short, while the AMC does a lot right, it does a lot wrong. I personally can't justify sending them money so they can tear down decades-old hostels and replace them with luxury hotels, nor do I want my dues to pay for brie and chablis parties at their Boston headquarters (and yeah, I used to be a member of the Boston chapter so I know what I'm talking about here), nor do I want to help maintain a system of high-cost faux European "hiker huts" that exists solely to serve as money-makers for the organization, and to provide their wealthy members a high-country hideaway that is effectively off-limits to 95% of the folks who enter the White Mountains. To sum up: I'm no longer a member of the AMC and can't in conscience support them. I prefer to give extra time and money to the Appalachian Trail Conference, as I know the money will be spent wisely. Or failing the ATC, I'd sooner join or support such organizations as the Green Mountain Club or the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, two small organizations that do remarkable work with very limited financial and human resources. Or better yet, if you're interested in protecting the backcountry of Northern New England, I'd join them all. The AMC will have me back as a member when they stop building backcountry palaces, stop catering primarily to the wealthy, stop pretending that the White Mountains exist essentially to serve as a playground for their members. Or to put it another way: I'll re-join the AMC when they return to paying attention to their 130 year old mission statement, which speaks of providing wise stewardship for the forests, mountains, and rivers of Northern New England. When the AMC returns to its roots, I'll return to them. Otherwise, I think that there are other organizations more worthy of our time, money, and support."

All true. I worked for the AMC in the Whites for three years and have nothing but contempt for them. The AMC has lost sight of it's original mission as a mountaineering and conservation organization and turned into a hotel chain hiding behind non-profit status. What is there is not going anywhere but new huts are absolutely not needed.

Bill Kirby wrote:Whites are becoming more crowded so more huts are needed.

I've only been skim reading this thread... and literally started quoting this before finishing reading the paragraph where you said "if this were daks"

But think exactly that. The whites aren't the daks and its because of shit like this. If you cut up the daks and ran roads and amenities and all sorts of shit through it all piece-meal it would be the whites. So they build this hut, it becomes a success, what next, widen 302 for traffic & public safety?

I'll try to read more about this and become more informed, but I'm generally against development on National Forest or State Park lands.

Tom Sherman wrote: I've only been skim reading this thread... and literally started quoting this before finishing reading the paragraph where you said "if this were daks" But think exactly that. The whites aren't the daks and its because of shit like this. If you cut up the daks and ran roads and amenities and all sorts of shit through it all piece-meal it would be the whites. So they build this hut, it becomes a success, what next, widen 302 for traffic & public safety? I'll try to read more about this and become more informed, but I'm generally against development on National Forest or State Park lands.

While I'll wave the white flag in regards to the AMC's business model I do think there's much more people recreating in the Whites than in the Dacks. Hence all the development. The Whites are so close to major cities. I say that's the difference.

So you guys feel that development brings crowds? It's not the fact there's a exploding population on this Earth that wanna hike in NH?

I see a claim in the thread that the AMC CEO makes $350K a year and another says he makes $272K a year. The only thing I can find via a Google search says he makes $66K a year. What are your sources? I'm in agreement with you about it being built but if I claim a huge salary by the CEO I want to make sure it is accurate.

My data was from 2011 (probably sourced 18 months or so ago) and came from a website that gives you all the info you'd ever need in regards to "not for profit 501" organizations. It's in the public domain.

From memory when I googled this a couple sites that had not for profit info come up but don't remember which one I actually used.

272k or 350k - it's a huge salary. Not to mention the value of what they own.

According to charitynavigator.org, CEO John Judge receives a salary of $220,482. charitynavigator.org/index.…

It is certainly not unheard of for CEOs of large non-profits to draw considerable salaries, with many earning above a million a year. The average non-profit CEO salary comes in just above $100K. Judge's salary is certainly not unheard of, or necessarily out of line. That said, my experiences with the White Mountain huts have not been overly positive.

Mark NH wrote:My data was from 2011 (probably sourced 18 months or so ago) and came from a website that gives you all the info you'd ever need in regards to "not for profit 501" organizations. It's in the public domain. From memory when I googled this a couple sites that had not for profit info come up but don't remember which one I actually used. 272k or 350k - it's a huge salary. Not to mention the value of what they own.

Found it. I agree it is a lot of money but by not-for-profit standards it is not high. (Which, I realize, has nothing to do with the bad idea of the hut being built.) The actual amount of compensation for the CEO for 2013 was $233,883. This is from the AMC 2013 tax return.

eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/…

chris magness wrote:

You're the type that turns ducks and cairns into dust or makes little flat rings with them on trade routes aren't you?

I hate people that make ducks.

Tom Stryker wrote:I hate people that make ducks.

I am offended on behalf of all the neolithic peoples, though they may be dead, this was a sacred symbol to them.

Greg Petliski wrote: The Adirondacks have seen an explosion of hikers, but only in one area, the High Peaks Wilderness, mostly because of access. Look at the NPS model: 95+ % of visitors dont go more than a mile from the road. If you build it, they come. If you don't build it, they sometimes still come, but in way less numbers. Imagine the famous Angels Landing hike in Zion. Take away the chains, and you take away 90% of the crowds. Its like highways that are at capacity. Adding a lane would reduce congestion right? Wrong, sadly, it just seems to fill right up. Traffic engineers dont even often know where the extra flow comes from, but it comes.

100% greg...look at half Dome

Larger highways lure more drivers because they think that it will be faster to get through..wrong..all it does is lure more drivers.

john strand wrote: 100% greg...look at half Dome Larger highways lure more drivers because they think that it will be faster to get through..wrong..all it does is lure more drivers.

They widened 99 from Vancouver to Whistler. It's takes less time to get to Whistler. I'm not saying this is the norm but sometimes four lanes are better than two.

Fuck the AMC. I think everybody should boycott them and if they already have a membership cancel it and send your card in with a note that you don't support their hotel operations hiding under the nonprofit label and abusing the forest. There are plenty of private NH hotels, motels, B&Bs and hostels that could use the business.
They need to stick to trail stewardship, education and lobbying to protect the forest from too much business activity. I've got nothing against brie and Champagne parties, but no more hotels please.

+1 on what Mark Sprague said...actually, +1000..

Greg Petliski wrote:edit: just to beat the horse some more, you know that Grand Canyon skywalk? That stupid glass walkway jutting out over the canyon like some Niagara falls tourist trap? There was no public outcry to build one. Someone wanted to build it, and then enticed people to come to pay to see it. If, as if you are saying, that people wanting to go to a place comes before building that place up, why then all throughout the 19th and 20th century were there elaborate advertisements and schemes to get people up to the mountains, and to separate those people from their money? Seems to me that the idea comes first, then it is sold to people.

Just for the proper perspective: the Grand Canyon Skywalk was built by and is managed by the Hualapai Tribe and located on tribal lands, which constitutes a sovereign nation. If you've ever seen the tribal lands and reservations and the way the people live you realize how desperately poor and destitute the life is. They built it on their land to realize income. Just like the Indian Casinos in Connecticut.

hualapai-nsn.gov/about-2/

From Wiki:
"According to Hualapai officials, the cost of the Skywalk was $30 million.[5] Future plans for the Grand Canyon Skywalk complex include a museum, movie theater, VIP lounge, gift shop, and several restaurants including a high-end restaurant called The Skywalk Café where visitors will be able to dine outdoors at the canyon's rim. The Skywalk is the cornerstone of a larger plan by the Hualapai tribe, which it hopes will be the catalyst for a 9,000-acre (36 km2) development to be called Grand Canyon West; it would open up a 100-mile (160 km) stretch along the canyon's South Rim and include hotels, restaurants, a golf course, casinos, and a cable car to ferry visitors from the canyon rim to the Colorado River, which has been previously inaccessible."

It is not an apt or particularly germane comparison.

with you on that one M Sprague!

There really doesn't need to be a friggin hotel in the center of a wilderness area.
Between AMC and Randolph, there's plenty of lodging up there, and Highland is a farce.

I would much prefer if the AMC kept to constructions like those of the Randolph Club, simple, you're just there to sleep, go enjoy the wilderness.

ClimbingOn wrote:According to charitynavigator.org, CEO John Judge receives a salary of $220,482. charitynavigator.org/index.… It is certainly not unheard of for CEOs of large non-profits to draw considerable salaries, with many earning above a million a year. The average non-profit CEO salary comes in just above $100K. Judge's salary is certainly not unheard of, or necessarily out of line.

Another reality check....
Few people realize that the NFL is a non-profit and tax exempt. The commissioner of the NFL made $44.2M in 2012.

Marc801 wrote: Another reality check.... Few people realize that the NFL is a non-profit and tax exempt. The commissioner of the NFL made $44.2M in 2012.

I think we are off the topic. Salary was only relavant when it was in the equation of what AMC was all about and whether it played a role with their intentions of building a hut, which some of us thought was detrimental overall. Otherwise non-profit salaries are irrelavent. If we start bringing in the NFL on this we will only be blocking a meaningful conversation. Marc stop trying to do an end-around.

Thanks for this information. I'm only an occasional visitor to the White Mountains but I love hiking there and I've been in Crawford Notch enough to find it exceedingly silly to build a hut just down the road from the huge facility that is already there! I signed the petition.