Regarding the Huts in the Whites -- Illegal to Turn You Away?

[Sly]

Very well said. I've often wondered why thru-hikers think they are entitled to special treatment. Thru-hikers are just hikers on a long hike and are not entitled to any special treatment. The same rules for services and work-for-stay-or-pay should apply to them.

You must have missed the part where I said the Hut was closed for the season. I wasn't expecting special treatment, nor was I expecting someone there to throw me off the mountain. What made me the angriest is that the dude let another healthy hiker stay a couple days later. God forbid you get injured and told to take a hike.

[Trailbender]

3 days before my major heart attack i had a stress test at our local hospital. i failed miserably. the cardiologist didn't seem too concerned. the techs were very concerned. they said consut with a cardiologist ASAP. 3 days later, major attack, over 90% blockage in 4 arteries. tried the lawyer thing. they wouldn't touch it

That sucks, a human life is more important than money.

[JollyMaiden]

You must have missed the part where I said the Hut was closed for the season. I wasn't expecting special treatment, nor was I expecting someone there to throw me off the mountain. What made me the angriest is that the dude let another healthy hiker stay a couple days later. God forbid you get injured and told to take a hike.

I did miss the fact that you were injured. To me, any injured or ill hiker, regardless of ability to pay should be allowed to stay and certainly should not be forced to leave the area even if forced to camp near the hut due to overcrowding.

Did you reported this to the NPS? As I understand it they have vendors running things these days and they are not going to know about problem vendors unless we report them.

[Slo-go'en]

I did miss the fact that you were injured

Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

[rickb]

Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

Not fair to either the hiker or the hutman to have policies in place that lead to the turning away of anyone indicating distress and seeking refuge.

Hutmen are not trained for it, and should not have this burdon.

If a hutman thinks a person who has indicated distress is well able to move on, they should limit themselves to sharing regulations, and offering advice and encouragement where appropriate. But they should do so respectfully and also make it clear that ultimately these kinds of decisions only the hiker can make.

If the hiker makes a decision that the hutman doesn't like, he can and should radio in to the Froest Service.

In this case it was just a thur hike cut short. Not a life. Still sucks and didn't have to be that way.

[Sly]

Thats because he wasn't injured at the time he was camped in front of the hut. Tired and sore, but not injured. The injury occured on his way down to the tent platforms later, but was still able to hike all the way down to the road. Bascially, he was lazy and tried to get away with illegally camping above tree line. But he was caught and paid a price.

.... interesting conclusion for someone without a clue.

[Sly]

Well, we know the situation with Sly - he was attempting to illegaly camp in front of the hut and got caught doing it. We have no idea what the situation with the other guy was. No doubt it was a completely different set of circumstances, or the caretaker was in a better mood, or what ever.

Playing attack dog today? You don't have to believe me, and from now on I don't expect you to. Do a search and see if Wingfoot's Trailplace journals are archived (late Sept. '97), you'll see how even though the hut was closed for the season, the caretaker allowed Goldfinger to stay. It was only two nights after he refused my plea.

[Slo-go'en]

Playing attack dog today?

Sorry to keep beating up on you Sly. Really, it isn't personal.

Just tell me one thing - were you in fact camped in front of the hut when the caretaker showed up? It would make a hugh difference in the way the caretaker would react to you if you were simply sitting on the door step resting or even cooking dinner, then it would be if you had a tent set up or bed roll spread out.

I'm sure there is a really good reason the caretaker made you move on while he let the other guy stay. It is quite possible the other guy was able to make a much better first impression with the caretaker then you were able to. The caretaker was under no obligation to let either of you stay, but for what ever reason, liked the other guy better. No sense in staying bitter about it.

[Trailbender]

Well, I was in the Army as a medic, so unless a hut croo member or whatever has more medical knowledge than me, I would take my own judgement in regard to injuries over what anyone else says. If I developed an injury where I knew I needed to stop, then I would stop there, independent of signs or what someone says.

[Sly]

Sorry to keep beating up on you Sly. Really, it isn't personal.

Just tell me one thing - were you in fact camped in front of the hut when the caretaker showed up?

No. It was still too early to even consider stopping, camping, or stealth camping. Nor was I resting at the doorstep. I was resting near the hut, along with a bunch or others hiking that day, trying to determine my next move, when about 30-45 minutes later the caretaker showed up and I asked about staying there.

The thought of asking for a work stay didn't occur to me as the hut was closed, nor was it mentioned. He asked if I had a tent, and I told him of course. That's when he said if it were later in the day or I didn't have a tent, he'd let me stay. I told him again, my knees were screaming and I really didn't want to dropped 500 feet. He repeated, if I didn't have a tent.... (unprepared days hikers get preferred treament?)

The caretaker allowed Goldfinger to stay in exchange for doing dishes. It doesn't bother me any more, it was a long time ago. I was just relaying a story related to the OP.

You can come up with all the excuses you want to defend the caretaker(s), I realize you guys are probably tight. But you ought to consider what can happen when sent someone away, that's not cute, or cool. or able to do your job for you.

[rambunny]

Simple-if you didn't do the trail before The Trail (like make enough $ to do it),don't expect to be treated like someone who has.Act accordingly & stealth,LNT,and go on-quit whining & hike!

[rambunny]

Sly-sorry-even caretakers can be di-ks

[Trailbender]

Simple-if you didn't do the trail before The Trail (like make enough $ to do it),don't expect to be treated like someone who has.Act accordingly & stealth,LNT,and go on-quit whining & hike!

What does making enough money have to do with what he was talking about? Also, you shouldn't be treated better just because you have money, unfortunately, people do.

[Slo-go'en]

No. It was still too early to even consider stopping, camping, or stealth camping. Nor was I resting at the doorstep. I was resting near the hut, along with a bunch or others hiking that day, trying to determine my next move, when about 30-45 minutes later the caretaker showed up and I asked about staying there.

Okay Sly, I apologize. It really helps to have the whole story. Now, were the other hikers also still there when you asked about staying at the hut? If so, I can see the caretaker thinking "if I let this guy stay, the whole gang will want to".

No, I'm not tight with anyone in the AMC, but I was a RMC caretaker for 9 months up at the near-by Crag Camp and Gray Knob. As such I was charged with at least trying to enforce the rules and one simply has to make judment calls once in a while.

[Fredt4]

Here's my story, I arrived at Mizpah Hut Saturday before Irene (Sunday) and the only croo member was unhappy with my presence. He requested, recommended, suggested I leave and hike out of the Whites several times due to the park closing. I declined each time and we finally came to the understanding that I was not leaving. The main reason I was not leaving was that in my experience all the hostels (and hotels) fill up during a major storm and it is sometimes diffucult to find a place to stay. I was prepared to camp in my tent or my bivy if necessary but given the circumstances I thought it would be best to be indoors. A croo member arrived late Saturday, just around dark, and later made a phone call. Sunday morning it was raining by day break. I asked if I could use the phone which he agreed to. I located a place to stay in Gorham and in Lincoln should I be able to get there. The croo member informed me of the AMC Highland Center and assured me that I would find shelter there. I decided to hike out via the Crawford Notch trail because the AT didn't seem safe and there wouldn't be any stream crossings. Several stream crossing later I arrived at the AMC HIGHLAND Center on US 302, where I stayed Sunday & Monday night. Looking back on the experience I would say that the croo members didn't have the experience or judgment to make the decision ass to whether I should stay or go. I made the decision since it was my life and only left a safe placs when I had the information I needed of where and how. As to the orginal question of whether they could legally require me to leave, I don't know, but they can't use force, no ranger was going to show up and enforce any request for me to leave and ultimately I made the decision based on my terms. Yes Irene was an exceptional situation, but every day is a unique situation in it's on terms. I understand that more accidents happen on a pretty day than during bad weather. As to the issue of thru-hiker's expectations and privileges I found the current hut system to be a barrier as formidable as the mountains. Perhaps some thing like the sign up as is done at the Birches in Baxter State Park would be helpful. But my hat's off to the croo s and especially to the staff at the AMC Highland Center that put me up for two days.

[Hoofit]

Too many people think they are ENTITLED to special treatment on the trail - hey, you chose to be there, right!? If you're out of money, call 'Mummy' or go home and earn some cash,it's that simple!
If you're not injured, move on or pay up
And don't go up a mountain without some kind of fair weather forecast..
Isn't that just common sense?

[Trailbender]

Looking back on the experience I would say that the croo members didn't have the experience or judgment to make the decision ass to whether I should stay or go. I made the decision since it was my life and only left a safe placs when I had the information I needed of where and how. As to the orginal question of whether they could legally require me to leave, I don't know, but they can't use force, no ranger was going to show up and enforce any request for me to leave and ultimately I made the decision based on my terms.

Agreed. I am the one that can make the best judgement on safety calls, and my own personal medical conditions. Any decision or recommendation to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible.

[Trailbender]

Agreed. I am the one that can make the best judgement on safety calls, and my own personal medical conditions. Any decision or recommendation to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible.

I meant to say, "any decision or recommendation contrary to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible".

[tdoczi]

I meant to say, "any decision or recommendation contrary to my own judgement will be disregarded, as politely as possible".

so that includes being allowed to judge that you should stay in a privately owned building if youre asked to leave?

[hikerboy57]

what i dont understand is the entitlement issue that still seems to pervade this forum. the huts were there before thru hiking became "popular", the rules have never changed, and some of the examples already cited showed two sides, both helpful and non helpful cru members. Its a very simple message, dont count on a free stay at the huts even if conditions are "dangerous", yes it does take a little logistical planning to get through the presidentials, but its not exactly impossible, and finally, check the forecast. If you're determined to see how to cheat death, then its ridiculous to assume that others should help in your endeavor.I thought freds story was about as realistic a depiction of the croo members as Ive come across.