View Full Version : The AT: An uncertain path
http://www.roanoke.com/news/wb/88468
So the ATC has a new mission now? One that has nothing to do with hiking? Now the AT is going to be a mega-transect, a cross section of environmental health.
Maybe I'm out of my mind, but isn't it true that the hikers themselves have an impact on the land the trail runs through? Isn't a heavily traveled footpath going to be different than a secluded ridge or valley? How then could this be used as an environmental cross section? I don't see how non-hiker environmental types getting control of the AT, could ever be a positive thing.
Pokey2006
10-29-2006, 15:26
I did like the quote about how the ATC can lose sight of its mission if it goes too far into "la la land."
freefall
10-29-2006, 16:31
So the ATC has a new mission now? One that has nothing to do with hiking? Now the AT is going to be a mega-transect, a cross section of environmental health.
Maybe I'm out of my mind, but isn't it true that the hikers themselves have an impact on the land the trail runs through? Isn't a heavily traveled footpath going to be different than a secluded ridge or valley? How then could this be used as an environmental cross section? I don't see how non-hiker environmental types getting control of the AT, could ever be a positive thing.
The ATC's mission statement:
Our mission is to ensure that future generations will enjoy the clean air and water, scenic vistas, wildlife and opportunities for simple recreation and renewal along the entire Trail corridor.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.715457/k.DEFE/About_ATC.htm
So, I really don't see a signifigant change coming based on the information in the article. This is just another way of conitinuing the vision.
The ecosystems on the top of the mountains are more suseptable to pollution damage than lower elevations, so the AT corridor is actually the perfect place to base observations.
While hikers do impact the trail corridor to an extent, it is minuscule compared to the impact of pollution blown in from the mid-west and from invasive species choking off native vegetation.
Cookerhiker
10-29-2006, 17:24
So the ATC has a new mission now? One that has nothing to do with hiking? Now the AT is going to be a mega-transect, a cross section of environmental health.
Maybe I'm out of my mind, but isn't it true that the hikers themselves have an impact on the land the trail runs through? Isn't a heavily traveled footpath going to be different than a secluded ridge or valley? How then could this be used as an environmental cross section? I don't see how non-hiker environmental types getting control of the AT, could ever be a positive thing.
I did like the quote about how the ATC can lose sight of its mission if it goes too far into "la la land."
OK what do you guys think the ATC's mission & proirities should be? Ignore the threats like air pollution, invasive species, global warming, rampant real estate development? Concentrate solely on "hiking" even though 50 years from now much of the hiking will be on a narrow strip surrounded by sprawl? The whole point of the ATC's focus on environmental issues is to make the hiking experience as enjoyable in the future as it has been now and in the past. How on earth in this day can you support "the AT" and "hiking" and not be concerned about environmental issues?
Pokey, you referred to the quote about the ATC going off into "la la land." Well, I think those who ignore Trail threats and think we can manage as we did 50 years ago and stay non-political with their heads in the sand regarding environmental issues are in their own "la la land."
Pokey2006
10-29-2006, 17:51
No, I don't think ANY threats to the AT should be ignored. However, one organization should not try -- or be expected -- to do everything. The ATC should not be responsible for fixing all the problems of the world, only for protecting a hiking trail. Too broad of a focus can be the death knell for any organization. I think the AT organizations and clubs have their hands full with issues directly related to the trail -- maintenence, safety, shelter construction, etc. -- as it is.
I think this project is interesting, however. And it is important. I am very much concerned about larger issues of air pollution and water contamination and global warming. So don't get me wrong on that.
Here is some related info from the ATC site:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.1563613/k.BE20/Monitoring_Updates.htm
and here:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%7D/ATEMI%20report%2005.pdf
I am merely expressing my concern over what I perceive as a shift in leadership to non-hikers. The AT is not now, nor should it ever be an environmental experiment. It is a hiking path. Adding new restrictions and plans from people in Harvard does not serve the hiking community. If the restrictions placed to protect the land become to extreme, they will interfere with hiking. Imagine briefly the idea of permits and sleeping only in shelters along every mile of the AT. Not a good thing.
That being said, I fully support fighting against threats from sprawl and pollution.
Jack Tarlin
10-29-2006, 19:02
Disney:
Don't be so quick to dismiss plans or ideas from Harvard men.
Benton Mackaye, the father of the Appalachian Trail, graduated from there in 1900, and got his degree in forestry there five years later.
Seems to me he served the hiking community pretty well in spite of his years in Cambridge. :D
Jack Tarlin
10-29-2006, 19:13
Oh, and come to think of it, Myron Avery, the man most responsible for getting the Trail constructed, was Harvard Law 1923.
So come to think of it, Disney, maybe we could use MORE input from there and not less!
Amen.
And as a more recent example, don't forget that it took the leadership of A Harvard man to take a relatively small organization and build the AMC into the organization it is today.
freefall
10-29-2006, 19:38
I am merely expressing my concern over what I perceive as a shift in leadership to non-hikers.
This is an easy one. All the ATC board members are elected by the membership at large. The current board has only 3 people that do not list hiking or hiking organizations in their bios. The members of ATC need to take an active role in the electing of officials to make sure the focus remains on hiking.
As far as permits and increased regulations, I don't want to see this either. The best way to avoid this is to make certain we hikers are not part of the problem. We can do this by increasing awareness of LNT and other zero/low impact practices.
While many seem to see the AT as a right, i look at it as privilege akin to a driver's license. As long as you follow all the rules, you get to keep your license but if you choose to break the rules (too many tickets, dui, etc...) they take that privilege from you. Same with the AT. As long as we do our part to protect it, the AT will be there to enjoy. But if we (hikers in general) leave trash everywhere, shortcut the trail, cut down trees, clustered camping, etc... then rules will have to be implemented to mitigate the impact.
I see this as a positive step for the AT and ATC. It will increase awareness with the general public which in turn will bring much needed money and support for all the various projects the ATC is working on.
Well, I guess I have two comments.
First, Benton Mackay never invisioned that the AT would be just a hiking trail. I think he invisioned it to be much broader.
Second, one of ATC's problems is that while everyone has heard about the AT, very few know about the ATC and the various maintaining trail clubs. The new ATC is trying to change this.
Second, one of ATC's problems is that while everyone has heard about the AT, very few know about the ATC and the various maintaining trail clubs. The new ATC is trying to change this.
I see no reason why ATC couldn't grow to have 250,000 members. Especially if a certain film is made as planned.
That would dramatically increase the organization's capacity to protect the AT, and that would be a good thing IMO. A very good thing.
the Combined Federal Campaign is under way. Regardless of any worries I may have about "mission creep", I still made a donation to the ATC. It's the most direct way to put my money to work preserving the AT.
Regardless of any worries I may have about "mission creep", I still made a donation to the ATC. .
Mission creep is always a concern for any non-profit, but ATC has taken a very methodical approach with their last strategic plan. They also have very capable leadership in place.
LostInSpace
10-29-2006, 22:44
Wasn't "mission creep" perpetrated by the Spanish during the 1600's?
Pokey2006
10-30-2006, 01:41
I'm with MOWG in saying that the ATC can certainly grow. A movie would raise awareness...though that's another issue. One of my other big impressions of this link was that I was really impressed that a mainstream newspaper is covering issues concerning the AT -- that's a good thing.
Johnny Swank
10-30-2006, 08:05
I am merely expressing my concern over what I perceive as a shift in leadership to non-hikers. The AT is not now, nor should it ever be an environmental experiment.
One of my old advisors is on the ATC board. He's a thru-hiker, built/maintained/managed hundreds of miles of trails for several orgs, written policy for mulitple govt. entities, and in has the best interest of the trail at heart. I think your assertion is off base.
As to the historical vision of the AT, it might serve you well to read about Mackaye's ideas of what the trail should be. (http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/Appalachian.htm)
Take awhile an digest the original source document, An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning (http://www.fred.net/kathy/at/mackaye.html) (Mackaye, 1921, Journal of the American Institute of Architects.)
So the ATC has a new mission now? One that has nothing to do with hiking? Now the AT is going to be a mega-transect, a cross section of environmental health.
Maybe I'm out of my mind, but isn't it true that the hikers themselves have an impact on the land the trail runs through? Isn't a heavily traveled footpath going to be different than a secluded ridge or valley? How then could this be used as an environmental cross section? I don't see how non-hiker environmental types getting control of the AT, could ever be a positive thing.
I personally think if the ATC can stay to the plan of things instead of wandering into "la-la" land then the trail will be maintained as it was visioned years ago. It is evident when I do go out on the trail of the encroaching pollution upon the trail.
The AT is a very diverse ecosystem, but unfortunately it has become damaged and sooner or later it will be of no use, but for sections of it, for a scenic hike. Thats when the builders of suburbs will encroach and so on.
From what I read in the article, I like the idea.
Jack Tarlin
10-30-2006, 18:43
Johnny S:
Thank you VERY much for what you just posted. It's remarkable how many hikers and former thru-hikers have never read much about the early Trail and its planners, or what they really had in mind. I haven't read MacKaye's 1921 article in a very long time, but I look forward to re-reading it now.
I very strongly suggest that folks print up what Johnny has sent along and take the time to read it. If we want to intelligently discuss where the Trail or its caretakers are going, or the direction we THINK they should be going, it's really important we know where its been.
Jack Tarlin
10-30-2006, 18:54
No, it probably won't. It's always been a lot lower key and less confrontational. I think over 75 years, they've discovered they can accomplish more that way.
That being said, the Sierra Club does great work.
More power to 'em.
Cookerhiker
10-30-2006, 18:57
.....That being said, the Sierra Club does great work.
More power to 'em.
Well, that partially answers my question from the "impeachment" thread!:o
Johnny S:
Thank you VERY much for what you just posted. It's remarkable how many hikers and former thru-hikers have never read much about the early Trail and its planners, or what they really had in mind. I haven't read MacKaye's 1921 article in a very long time, but I look forward to re-reading it now.
I very strongly suggest that folks print up what Johnny has sent along and take the time to read it. If we want to intelligently discuss where the Trail or its caretakers are going, or the direction we THINK they should be going, it's really important we know where its been.
An excellent idea. But read also the 60-page history of the trail, first published in 2000 in Trailways News, and now available on the internet (I think) and from the ATC mail order trail store.
Weary
fiddleburn
10-30-2006, 22:54
Let the "sky is falling" crowd get hold of the AT and it will exponentially accelerate its trend; toward becoming a place you don't want to go, in order to escape them. There are lots of wonderful wilderness places left in Appalachia, where you can go and enjoy the earth without having to suffer these zealots. By the time thay ruin the trail completely, it may be ocean front property. Time marches on.
Cookerhiker
10-31-2006, 10:16
Let the "sky is falling" crowd get hold of the AT and it will exponentially accelerate its trend; toward becoming a place you don't want to go, in order to escape them. There are lots of wonderful wilderness places left in Appalachia, where you can go and enjoy the earth without having to suffer these zealots. By the time thay ruin the trail completely, it may be ocean front property. Time marches on.
I'm not sure just who you're characterizing as "the sky is falling crowd" and "zealots" but the most likely "exponential" cause of the Trail "becoming a place you don't want to go" or "ocean front property" will be unchecked and unregulated real estate development & sprawl.
... As to the historical vision of the AT, it might serve you well to read about Mackaye's ideas of what the trail should be. (http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/Appalachian.htm)
Take awhile an digest the original source document, An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning (http://www.fred.net/kathy/at/mackaye.html) (Mackaye, 1921, Journal of the American Institute of Architects.)
These should be permanent links in the articles section on WB's front page.
fiddleburn
10-31-2006, 13:58
My fear of unchecked regulation, foisted on the rest of us by eco-fascists and their well-intentioned, but sadly misguided "useful idiots" of the bleeding heart, tree hugging persuasion, requires that I speak up in the name of liberty and good science, to decry the notion, that our nation, and "the hiking community", would be well served, to stifle the pursuit of "enlightened self interest", which has served us so well, in favor of the anti-capitalist agenda so thinly cloaked, behind the veil, of many of our most politically inclined conservationists. Sorry, I did not mean to be so vague in my earlier post. The AT is a grand achievement of those who value the liberty to knock about the coutryside in pursuit of healthful recreation. I would dearly hate to see it taken over by a bunch of liberty hating socialists, hiding behind a potent combination of bad science and emotionalism. I am all for good science. Our climate is changing as it always has and always will. Let us continue to improve our air quality, water quality, and stewardship of what we have. It is not good stewardship to abbrogate liberty in favor of institutionalising a radical left wing agenda. "The road to serfdom" lies down that trail.
Cookerhiker
10-31-2006, 20:34
My fear of unchecked regulation, foisted on the rest of us by eco-fascists and their well-intentioned, but sadly misguided "useful idiots" of the bleeding heart, tree hugging persuasion, requires that I speak up in the name of liberty and good science, to decry the notion, that our nation, and "the hiking community", would be well served, to stifle the pursuit of "enlightened self interest", which has served us so well, in favor of the anti-capitalist agenda so thinly cloaked, behind the veil, of many of our most politically inclined conservationists. Sorry, I did not mean to be so vague in my earlier post. The AT is a grand achievement of those who value the liberty to knock about the coutryside in pursuit of healthful recreation. I would dearly hate to see it taken over by a bunch of liberty hating socialists, hiding behind a potent combination of bad science and emotionalism. I am all for good science. Our climate is changing as it always has and always will. Let us continue to improve our air quality, water quality, and stewardship of what we have. It is not good stewardship to abbrogate liberty in favor of institutionalising a radical left wing agenda. "The road to serfdom" lies down that trail.
To get back to the real world.....
You're railing against a straw man caricature. There's nothing on the horizon in the ATC or elsewhere that comes close to your alleged nightmare of socialistic wacky enviros. Meanwhile, the much more powerful and decidedly unsocialistic private sector in the form of real estate developers marches on closer to the Trail thereby rendering "the liberty to knock about the coutryside in pursuit of healthful recreation" more a memory than a real experience 50 years from now.
Rain Man
10-31-2006, 21:28
My fear of unchecked regulation, foisted on the rest of us by eco-fascists ....
Should we take it that, like our President, you have no idea what the definition of "fascist" is?
But thanks anyway for the funny post! It was hilarious!
Rain:sunMan
.
fiddleburn
10-31-2006, 21:42
Kyoto, and the current proposal, by the Blair administration, to solve global warming by heaping new taxes on everything that moves, are very real world threats to sensible deployment of private capital for entrepreneurial purposes. People who entreat me to allow them to confiscate some of everyones resources, under the threat of the force of law, so that they can deploy it for the "common good" make me very suspicious. That said, I value the work that freedom loving people have done voluntarily to make the trail possible, and to clean up our badly abused environment. I draw my line at forcibly re-deploying the resources of others to accomplish the empowerment of people who do not hold liberty to be in the public interest. Such people represent the greater threat to the well being, and continued improvement of the planet. The threat is very real.
The AT is a grand achievement of those who value the liberty to knock about the coutryside in pursuit of healthful recreation.
Actually, the AT is MUCH more than that. It is the most biologically diverse unit of the National Park Service. The trail corridor contains more species of rare & threatened plants & animals than any other unit of the park service. So you see, it is much more than someplace to recreate. There are also tremendous historical resources along the length of the trail.
Some would gladly despoil the treasure that is the AT under the banner of "liberty" and "freedom" and other labels. The ATC is trying to protect this treasure for future generations, so that it doesn't end up as a trail between subdivisions filled with non-native invasive species. For that, they should be applauded and IMO supported.
fiddleburn
10-31-2006, 21:51
Rain man.You are one funny guy. Fascism would be dictatorship, based on some arbitrary system such as nationalism, racism, theology, or idealism. The key word being dictatorship, which entails forcing others to act against their own best judgement under the threat of violence. Not very funny really.
fiddleburn
10-31-2006, 22:05
Mowgli, I am all for the ATC and their noble efforts to preserve something of immense value. I support them and laud their good work. I do not find it necessary to turn a blind eye to the possibility, that something fishy may be afoot with this new effort to co-op the trail as a centerpiece of the "global warming hysteria crowd." They bear watching. Nuff said.
freefall
10-31-2006, 23:10
I do not find it necessary to turn a blind eye to the possibility, that something fishy may be afoot with this new effort to co-op the trail as a centerpiece of the "global warming hysteria crowd." They bear watching.
If you were to read the article on the ATC's web site, there is only one mention of global warming and it is listed as a monitoring benefit only. I do agree with you that the the earth's climate warms and cools naturally on a fairly regular basis. But if you then throw artificial factors on top of that naturally occuring event, what might the outcome be? No one knows for certain so it bears watching.
Us "treehuggers" as you put it, are a fairly savvy bunch and we stand up for what we believe in. If the ATC ambles down a path we don't agree with, you can believe we will let them know about it in a way they can not ignore. You might also want to read the bios on the ATC directors, they are on the whole, a well educated and accomplished group of hikers. Do we take everything they say on blind faith? Of course not. The ATC members as well as the general public will be watching them to see what they do.
Here's the link to the articles for ya:
Here is some related info from the ATC site:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.1563613/k.BE20/Monitoring_Updates.htm
and here:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%7D/ATEMI%20report%2005.pdf
Sorry, I did not mean to be so vague in my earlier post. .
Soooooooooo....... How long have you been a Rush Limbaugh fan?
fiddleburn
11-01-2006, 09:48
Krewzer, I've been a fan of liberty for much longer than Rush Limbaugh has been a recognizable name. I will continue to be a defender of liberty for as long as I breathe. If that offends some; so be it. I'm new here and haven't earned any credibility in this venue. I hope though, that this is a forum for the free exchange of rational ideas, as it seems to be. Recognizing that many here may disagree with me, I submit that that is okay. That is what liberty is all about. Thanks for your thoughtful input.
halftime
11-02-2006, 01:30
I will continue to be a defender of liberty for as long as I breathe. If that offends some; so be it. I'm new here and haven't earned any credibility in this venue. I hope though, that this is a forum for the free exchange of rational ideas, as it seems to be. Recognizing that many here may disagree with me, I submit that that is okay. That is what liberty is all about.
Welcome fiddleburn: I am fairly new to this forum as well and have found it to be quite enlightening and very open to the free exchange of ideas (both rational and irrational)
One question about your post: Does the idea of "the liberty to knock about the coutryside in pursuit of healthful recreation" apply to those who believe is their right to run their dirt bikes up and down the AT from Georgia to Main?
If so I guess I may have to fold my flag and join the ranks otf those "misguided 'useful idiots' of the bleeding heart, tree hugging persuasion".
Disney:
Don't be so quick to dismiss plans or ideas from Harvard men.
Benton Mackaye, the father of the Appalachian Trail, graduated from there in 1900, and got his degree in forestry there five years later.
Seems to me he served the hiking community pretty well in spite of his years in Cambridge. :D
Jack:
many HARVARD types were there for the "Birth" of the Appalachian Trail...
i fear that many will be there for it's demise as well.
fiddleburn
11-02-2006, 11:48
Halftime, Let the dirt bikers ride where they and their likeminded compatriots have worked, voluntarily, to establish places to do so legally. Liberty is of no use to people who lack moral maturity , which I take to include respect for the law and the rights of others. That said, liberty is the most precious asset of our people. What remains to be seen, is whether or not we have the moral maturity to protect it, from those who find it standing in the way of their agenda. Don't fold your flag yet. By the way, my tree huggers of the HH persuasion haven't seen nearly enough use lately. Think I'll pay Ottie a visit tonight. Happy Halloween all!
freefall
11-02-2006, 22:09
By the way, my tree huggers of the HH persuasion haven't seen nearly enough use lately. Think I'll pay Ottie a visit tonight. Happy Halloween all!
Good to see someone else thinking of Ottie around Halloween. I actually left him a rubber duck the night I got into Punchbowl shelter so he'd have something to do instead of spooking us that night. It worked.
I just hope I never see a dirtbike on the trail. This (the AT) is our space. There are plenty of places for them to ride witout taking over the AT. I already get into fights with horse riders that try and get on the trail. Actually thought I was gonna get killed when I confronted one this year at Deep Gap(?) this year. AsI was telling him it was for foot travel only, and he was getting pissed off, 6 of his friends showed up on horses. Luckily there were ladies present or I woulda been hurting! :eek:
halftime
11-04-2006, 10:09
I just hope I never see a dirtbike on the trail. This (the AT) is our space. There are plenty of places for them to ride witout taking over the AT. :eek:
Something to be concerned with. Check out this article.
http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/penobscot.aspx?articleid=142619&zoneid=183
Also check out this picture of Big Cypress National Preserve in South Florida. Illustrates the damage that ATV's can do to a natural environment.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=13713
Something to be concerned with. Check out this article.
http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/penobscot.aspx?articleid=142619&zoneid=183
Also check out this picture of Big Cypress National Preserve in South Florida. Illustrates the damage that ATV's can do to a natural environment.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=13713
While I don't like ATVs on my hiking trails, I am of the opinion that they do need legal places to ride. Where that is? I don't know.
Plus, the damage to Big Cypress is not just from ATVs. It's also from MONDO 4-wheelers that are all the rage with certain folks. That's a different kind of beast.