View Full Version : Interesting AT editorial...
atraildreamer
11-08-2008, 14:01
Found this in "T^he Providence Journal" on 11/06/2008. Thought it would be of interest to WB's:
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_wyss6_11-06-08_9SC3K34_v16.3e2a706.html
Bob Wyss: Is the Appalachian Trail being loved to death?
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, November 6, 2008
I’M HIKING a small portion of the fabled Appalachian Trail, the 2,176-mile route that runs from Georgia to Maine.
The autumn foliage today is a combination of Virginia pine evergreen and hickory and redbud that are turning brilliant hues of yellow, red and orange. Bear, deer, bobcat and turkey are hiding here beyond the mountain laurel and dogwood. The sky is slate gray, the forecast calls for rain later, but who cares, I’m one with nature.
Yes, one; except that I am a party of about 50 climbing this famous ridge toward McAfee Knob. We’re environmental journalists out to both enjoy the trail for a day and to find out if all of us in this country are destroying the nation’s great natural landmarks, including the AT.
We have all been accused of loving our great natural resources to death.
The perils to the national parks are well known. Many now recall the congestion of cities, clogged as they are with automobiles, choked with exhaust and threatened by pollution. Wildlife, including many fragile species, are threatened.
The dangers extend further. The day after my hike I attend a session about the impact off-road vehicles are having on federal and state lands. Officials complain that drivers have carved out unauthorized trails in pristine areas, eroded existing trails, polluted streams and killed wildlife. Encounters between law enforcement officers and unrepentant riders have become increasingly hostile and violent.
Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, calls the destruction “an abomination and an embarrassment.” He adds: “It’s the top threat to the nation’s environment.”
Conditions on the Appalachian Trail are not as dire, yet many are worried.
David Startzell, executive director of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, which helps maintain the trail, said a recent audit found that up to 2,000 endangered species live along the pathway.
He said his organization, in concert with federal and state agencies, are working to acquire as much land along the trail as possible. Catawba Mountain was once privately owned and off limits to the Appalachian Trail. It took years of negotiations and litigation for the federal government to acquire this land. The trail was moved here to take advantage of the famous McAfee Knob viewpoint.
More property needs to be acquired, but easements and conservation deeds are the best Startzel can hope for. “We will never buy it all,” he said. “We could not afford it.”
Scientists such as Jeffrey Marion, who is also on our hike today, are also helping. Marion, who works for the U.S. Geological Society, is a recreation ecologist. “I study visitor impacts in natural areas,” he explained.
Marion and his colleagues have found that the number of visitors to a natural resource may not be the most important criteria to protecting it. Short visits of a day or more have less impact on vegetation and wildlife than longer stays in an area.
He cited a tent site as an example. Setting up a tent for one day is far different than for a week. Less vegetation is trampled, less fire wood needs to be gathered, and far less wildlife disturbed.
“It’s about the amount of use,” he explained, “it’s not just about the numbers.”
As we hike Marion points out that the Appalachian Trail is always changing and moving. For instance, we are about two-thirds of the way to the summit when Marion remarks that this section is only about five years old. The switchbacks installed here replaced the more direct grades on the old trail, because they are less prone to erosion.
Marion said he has never worked with off-road vehicles owners but he would enjoy the challenge. While many in the environmental community are put off by the noise, pollution and destruction of the machines, Marion believes that better management can overcome any problems in a natural area.
By the time we near the upper ridgeline we have climbed nearly 1,200 feet and my legs ache. We pass 20-foot-high boulders of brown Silurian sandstone, relic of this range, which 250 million years ago was higher than the Himalayans.
And then, finally, we’re there.
More than 5,000 journey to McAfee’s Knob each year to witness this spectacular panorama.
The rock surface at the summit juts in a craggy spit over the cliff. Below, more than a thousand feet, is the Catawba Valley. It is a patchwork of cultivated fields and tiny houses surrounded by forests of green and autumn amber that climb North Mountain and Tinker Cliffs. A hawk circles below.
Roger Holnback takes in the view. Holnback is executive director of the Western Virginia Land Trust, which has been working to acquire and preserve much of this land .
“I’m seeing twice as many houses down in that valley as I first saw 20 years ago,” he said. “And in 20 years there will be twice again as many.”
He does not say very much else. He does not have to.
Bob Wyss is a journalism professor at the University of Connecticut and a former reporter and editor for The Providence Journal.
Jack Tarlin
11-08-2008, 14:50
Well, for starters, the author might wish to know that it is suggested that groups on the Trail limit themselves to 10 persons or fewer.
For someone to take part in a 50-person hike and then decry the fact that the Trail igets too much use and is being loved to death is more than a little amusing.
ATC suggests limiting day-hiking groups to 25. Group size is an important concept associated with Leave No Trace (LNT). For more information about groups on the A.T., see ATC's Groups on the A.T. (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.811341/k.A8E6/Groups_on_the_AT.htm)
A link to ATC's site or LNT's site would have been a good addition to the article.
Jack Tarlin
11-08-2008, 15:04
Even that's too much.
Would you want to be on McAfee Knob with 25 other people?
It wouldn't be my preference, but the purpose of assembling the group was to help reduce impacts in the longer term. Sometimes, such group activities can be justified when costs and benefits are considered.
StarLyte
11-08-2008, 15:15
Well, for starters, the author might wish to know that it is suggested that groups on the Trail limit themselves to 10 persons or fewer.
For someone to take part in a 50-person hike and then decry the fact that the Trail igets too much use and is being loved to death is more than a little amusing.
I agree Jack.
I've never seen nor heard of any groups that size hiking together.
Somewhat absurd as well.
Am I the only person who noticed Jeff Marion was present and may have helped organize this activity? I believe these people knew what they were doing, both understanding their impact and doing everything possible to minimize it.
To fully appreciate the AT, one must experience it first-hand. It's not the same as viewing a PowerPoint presentation.
I must report to work. It's time to make the doughnuts! I'm sure someone else will be happy help carry this conversation forward into productive territory. Many who contribute here have experience planning and leading group activities and grappling with the issues involved.
Jack Tarlin
11-08-2008, 15:21
Shades:
I understand what the group's purpose was. But for someone to be marching down the Trail along with dozens of other folks, and then commenting on crowding and over-use, well that's kind of amusing, no?
The Trail might not seem like it's being loved to death if one walks with fewer than fifty companions. :rolleyes:
So the only thing that we have gotten out of this article is the paradox of a 50 person group that went up a small section of the trail for a few hours to assess the state of the trail is...............amusing
I find that to be amusing..............
I presume this hike was part of meeting of resource management professionals to which at least some journalists were invited. How exactly do you go about telling 80% of the people in attendance, they are unable to participate in the hike?
Do you assign them to one of five groups of 10 and tell groups 2-5 to find a book or something else to do while each group in succession completes the laboratory portion of the meeting? Kind of makes it hard to compare notes in the field when most of the participants aren't present.
Jack Tarlin
11-08-2008, 15:46
I don't know what one would do, Shades.
All I know is that assembling a crowd of 50 people on the Trail and marching them to one of the most popular and most visited spots on the Trail, in order to re-inforce the idea that the Trail is too crowded, too popular, and too visited.....well, sorry, this is sort of funny.
[quote=Jack Tarlin;721727]Well, for starters, the author might wish to know that it is suggested that groups on the Trail limit themselves to 10 persons or fewer.
Every party needs a pooper thats why we invited you..................
( children's rhyme )
Damn people from RI acting like they know about the outdoors.. :D
(Before the lightning bolts start, most people know where I am from originally ;) ).
As a person who organizes many trips for my outdoor group, I have grappled with similar issues. A balance between exposing people to the outdoors vs. "loving the outdoors to death". Lately, I've been having lots of TRIP IS FULL announcements for trips I lead. I've been asked about that..
Here is what I wrote at:
http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/trip_is_full.html
TRIP IS FULL?
I've recently been a bit more strict about the size of trips I organize. Some members of the outdoor group to which I belong have questioned this TRIP IS FULL designation. Some seriously, some teasingly, all wondering.
Here is my response.
Recently, I've been asked and/or teased about the TRIP IS FULL designations for the trips I've organized.
Though it is mild teasing, I believe there is some kidding on the square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidding_on_the_square) involved.
So, why all the TRIP IS FULL designations lately?
Why not just organize another group that happens to meet up with us (wink, wink. nudge, nudge.) or just let everyone on the trip?
There are several reasons why I cap off trips.
The idea of having another group that "just happens to meet up with us" is still one large group of thirty people.
So what is wrong with large groups in the outdoors?
By letting large numbers of people into the outdoors, are we not introducing more people to the outdoors? Exposing others to something we love?
In the past, while I have not necessarily endorsed this view, I could at least understand it.
But it is a view I can no longer believe in.
There are often regulations in place that limit the size of trips. Whether you agree with these limits or not, they are the limits set by the local agency. It is a limit I would like to respect.
As any educator can tell you, a large group limits the lessons that can be taught. A far better way to introduce someone to the wilderness is in a smaller group.
For purely selfish reasons I tend to enjoy an outing, even on social trips, when the group size is smaller.
A small group is something I can manage. A small group is where I can talk to people. A small group lets me enjoy the outdoor experience more fully.
I'd like to think others enjoy the outdoor experience more, too.
Finally, it is for philosophical reasons why I mainly limit group size for trips I organize. I just do not think it is right to bring hordes of people into the outdoors, especially for backcountry trips. A large group has not only an environmental impact, but a wilderness impact as well.
Twenty plus people on a backpacking trip changes the environment. Rather than a wilderness experience, it is a social experience. A cocktail party in the woods.
I obviously enjoy the camaraderie the can be fostered in the backcountry.
I've been known to make a nice fire, enjoy some wine and tell jokes. Even on the very large trips.... But, I feel uncomfortable on these trips. Our enjoyment may, and has, impacted upon others.
As a group do we want a wilderness experience? Or do we want a party with a nice view? Is it right to impose our impact upon others?
In the past, I've been flexible on this position due to wanting to be inclusive and/or other friends wanting a social experience in the back country.
However, I am starting to be less flexible about this trip size limit.
Obviously, some trips have a different feel of what constitutes a smaller trip versus another (e.g. a remote valley vs an Open Space trail), but the philosophy is the same. By limiting group size, we not only enjoy the views. We not only enjoy the camaraderie. Or enjoy the challenges. But we are also experience something a little more wild. A little more intense. A trip that is more intimate. Something more than just a cocktail party in the woods.
It is an ethic I've aimed for. It is also an ethic I've not always achieved. But it is an ethic I plan on holding myself to more strictly.
On trips, we want some wildness to go with our wilderness. Large groups in the backcountry do not allow this sense of wildness.
It is a view that I don't expect all members of the group to share, but it is a view that I hope others will understand.
Further reading:
Walking by Henry David Thoreau (http://thoreau.eserver.org/walking.html)
Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey (http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Solitaire-Edward-Abbey/dp/0345326490)
Wilderness Ethics: Preserving the Spirit of Wildness by Guy and Laura Waterman (http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Ethics-Preserving-Wildness-Appreciation/dp/0881502561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222376147&sr=8-1)
...
BTW, I strongly suggest the WILDERNESS ETHICS book. Asks many questions. It was written at the cusp of cell phones being affordable and ubiquitous. Nearly 15 yrs after this book was written, the questions and discussion in the book are probably more pertinent now.
Do we want WILDness to go with our wilderness? What is wildness? What is wilderness?
I'd say a 50 person trip (or a 25 person trip) is definitely not wildness. And, as other said, to say the trail is being loved to death..while on a 50 person trip, is rather...odd.
sheepdog
11-08-2008, 16:57
Mostly the AT is not wilderness. It's a recreation area.
Mostly the AT is not wilderness. It's a recreation area.
Well, I agree it is not WILDERNESS, there are parts that are "wilderness". However, 50 people still does have a big impact upon this terrain. Furthermore, 50 people have an impact upon the WILDness. I'd also say because it not WILDERNESS,what little there is needs to be protected that much more. A fifty person hike certainly does not contribute to protecting the wilderness...or the wildness.
Rather than repeat myself, I'll just copy and paste what I wrote as a comment in this article:
Wondering "Is the trail being loved to death?" is certainly a valid question. As open space and lands become a rarer commodity (esp. in the very populated East Coast), the pressure on such places as the Appalachian Trail will be increased.
However, to report about a trail being overused, while hiking the said trail in a group of FIFTY seems rather odd.
The Appalachian Trail Conference suggests groups be no bigger than 25 at the most.
A smaller group size not only protects the wilderness, but the WILDness as well.
The AT may not be the outback of Alaska; but protecting the sense of wildness may be even more important on a trail such as the AT.
And hiking in a group of 50 certainly does not help this sense of wildness or esp advocating not "loving the trail to death".
Lone Wolf
11-08-2008, 21:29
Damn people from RI acting like they know about the outdoors.. :D
(Before the lightning bolts start, most people know where I am from originally ;) ).
i was born and raised up in R.I. and i do know more about the outdoors by accident than most rhode islanders do on purpose. i've only thru-hiked 5 times though :)
And hiking in a group of 50 certainly does not help this sense of wildness or esp advocating not "loving the trail to death".
Right on. Consider the folks they impacted that day. Strange way to draw attention to an issue.....just become part of the problem.
[quote=Mags;721762]Damn people from RI acting like they know about the outdoors.. :D
(Before the lightning bolts start, most people know where I am from originally ;) ).
As a person who organizes many trips for my outdoor group, I have grappled with similar issues. A balance between exposing people to the outdoors vs. "loving the outdoors to death". Lately, I've been having lots of TRIP IS FULL announcements for trips I lead. I've been asked about that..
Here is what I wrote at:
http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/trip_is_full.html
TRIP IS FULL?
I've recently been a bit more strict about the size of trips I organize. Some members of the outdoor group to which I belong have questioned this TRIP IS FULL designation. Some seriously, some teasingly, all wondering.
Here is my response.
When you say "trip" are you saying:
Day Hike
Overnighter
Multi day Hike.
( I have never been on one of your "trips" so I don't know )
The article or a better term "media event" sounded like a few hours walking up and then back.
Are we comparing apples to oranges?
Toolshed
11-09-2008, 08:03
".... except that I am a party of about 50 climbing this famous ridge toward McAfee Knob. We’re environmental journalists out to both enjoy the trail for a day and to find out if all of us in this country are destroying the nation’s great natural landmarks, including the AT.''
Hope you could get it all done in a day so you could get outta the wilderness and back to your safe cozy life before dark.
Whatja learn in a day???
What did the other 49 learn?
It was destroyed the day the first shelter was built. What it does do, though, for the tens of thousands of citified, suburbanited people that live along the megalopilis who, beyond what the discovery channel provides, need "wilderness" along with their cellphones, Ipods, nice smelling perfumes and colognes, is to herd into an area where they can be contained, titillated and enthralled by the wildlife that a group of fifty see and still be back in town to stop at the cleaners and also at Boston Markets to pickup a chicken for dinner..:-?
My point being you need to spend time out there and really get to know wilderness. Really get to know yourself. It's like a person who buys a new piece of gear and before even using it raves at how "Good" his gear is on forums. I'd rather hear about it from the guy who slept in it, cried in it, tore it, dropped it, taped it up, jury rigged it, pee'd on it, spilled food on it, cussed it, and/or embraced it.
Let's establish a lottery, and only allow 10 people a day on the entire length. Just kidding. Food for thought: As recently as 10,000 years ago the entire AT down to PA was covered with glacier ice. There was a time when the Appalachian mountains were the tallest on the planet. Man as we know the species today first appeared on the planet 40-60,000 years ago. We will be gone easily within that time, and the odds are the entire AT will be uninhabitable by then due to another glacier, global warming, or nuclear fall out from some terrorist's dirty bomb. Treat it with respect while we have it, but enjoy it while it is here. Everyone. That is my two cents worth.
jaywalke
11-09-2008, 13:11
There's a reason that the parking lot on 311 holds fifty cars: McAfee's in the most popular AT hike in the area by a very large margin. If you go south from that same trailhead, you'll see almost no one until Dragon's Tooth. Ditto if you continue past the Knob, rather than turning around like everyone else. There's also the forest road that most people take on one leg of the trip, so the AT is only getting part of the total traffic.
I'm glad to see dayhikers out at all (feets=votes), and the fact that they confine themselves, with no herding necessary, to one 4-mile stretch of the 100 AT miles close to Roanoke is gravy. To hike just that chunk, however, to ask the question, "Is the AT being loved to death?" is disingenuous.
Consider the folks they impacted that day. Strange way to draw attention to an issue.....just become part of the problem.
I hear the points made by both sides and have participated in hikes on and off the AT which involved groups. Most groups when hiking don't hike in a line seperated by a pace or two. Someone leads, someone brings up the rear and the people in the middle get spread out based upon their respective paces and other factors which tend to break up the group into smaller groups.
In the end, the effect is ordinarily not unlike several smaller groups hiking the same stretch of trail. What occurred might not have been much different from any weekend day when the weather is inviting on that stretch of the AT. What I'm suggesting is it's no simple matter to determine how other hikers were impacted that day and the impact on the resource is not easy assessed by sitting at our monitors either.
Hoop Time
11-09-2008, 14:52
Before criticizing the writer for the question in the headline about the AT being loved to death, and "his" basing that on one day hike, you ought to know that he most likely did not write that headline. Those are usually written by copy editors. The good ones read the whole story so they can be sure the head is in context.
I noticed what he actually wrote was "We have all been accused of loving our great natural resources to death." That seems to me to be a valid observation that is not based solely on the one-day hike. I thought he actually did a nice job of framing the issue of AT land issues, ATVs and overuse of some areas with the story of his hike. But I don't think that headline is very well written.
".... except that I am a party of about 50 climbing this famous ridge toward McAfee Knob. We’re environmental journalists out to both enjoy the trail for a day and to find out if all of us in this country are destroying the nation’s great natural landmarks, including the AT.''
Hope you could get it all done in a day so you could get outta the wilderness and back to your safe cozy life before dark.
Whatja learn in a day???
What did the other 49 learn?
It was destroyed the day the first shelter was built. What it does do, though, for the tens of thousands of citified, suburbanited people that live along the megalopilis who, beyond what the discovery channel provides, need "wilderness" along with their cellphones, Ipods, nice smelling perfumes and colognes, is to herd into an area where they can be contained, titillated and enthralled by the wildlife that a group of fifty see and still be back in town to stop at the cleaners and also at Boston Markets to pickup a chicken for dinner..:-?
My point being you need to spend time out there and really get to know wilderness. Really get to know yourself. It's like a person who buys a new piece of gear and before even using it raves at how "Good" his gear is on forums. I'd rather hear about it from the guy who slept in it, cried in it, tore it, dropped it, taped it up, jury rigged it, pee'd on it, spilled food on it, cussed it, and/or embraced it.
"whatja learn in a day?"
Interesting question, did you read the rest of the article?
I'd rather hear about it from the guy who slept in it, cried in it, tore it, dropped it, taped it up, jury rigged it, pee'd on it, spilled food on it, cussed it, and/or embraced it.
Yeah, but he probably doesn't write for the local newspaper. Maybe later, he will make a public appearance or write a book which will be promoted by the local newspaper and people who read the article we're discussing will go to listen to him or read his book.
Toolshed
11-09-2008, 16:03
Yeah, but he probably doesn't write for the local newspaper. Maybe later, he will make a public appearance or write a book which will be promoted by the local newspaper and people who read the article we're discussing will go to listen to him or read his book.
;)
When you say "trip" are you saying:
Day Hike
Overnighter
Multi day Hike.
( I have never been on one of your "trips" so I don't know )
The article or a better term "media event" sounded like a few hours walking up and then back.
Are we comparing apples to oranges?
All three. A few hours with 50 people is still a HUGE impact.
Even if people seperate in "smaller groups" (wink, wink..nudge, nudge) the overall feel is still a big group and not say 10 groups of 5 out for a day. People will meet up, they will get together and they will change the trail environment for others. They, quite frankly, take over the trail. Can you honestly say even a GROUP of fifty is the same as fifty people on the impact they have upon the area and the people in the said area?
A few people here and there, NOT IN A GROUP, go to the overlook, eat a bit and leave. A group of 50, even if spread out, will all meet up at the same place and take over a place.
And if they "ration" their time and come in a groups of ten it seems more like Disney World (line up, take your ride, let others get on!) than a pretty place to enjoy some semblance of wildness. And they still take over an area. Is that right?
Part of my stance on smaller trips is because I've been part of these larger groups in the past.
One evening, I organized a night ski. A Friday night. A clear and full moon. Pretty warm for January. It was a non-RSVP trip.
FOURTY PEOPLE SHOWED UP! Sure we spread out. But it still felt like 40 people in a 3 mile stretch of trail. The equation was changed. It was not a group..it was a mob.
From that point on, I had people RSVP for trip and became stricter about group size. IT was an eye opener for me.
I would never take 50 people on a one week trip
I woul never take 50 people on an over nighter.
I would have never take 50 people on a few hours hike.
I have capped trips of only 2-3 miles long in length (a "social" day (or night!) hike of perhaps 3-4 hrs). People have asked me "Can't you take two seperate groups of even three? It sound like a cool hike!" The answer was NO.
Apples to apples. Oranges to oranges.
It is not just about preserving the wilderness..but a little part of the wildness, too.
Yeah, but he probably doesn't write for the local newspaper. Maybe later, he will make a public appearance or write a book which will be promoted by the local newspaper and people who read the article we're discussing will go to listen to him or read his book.
The article mentioned he did write for the ProJo in the past. He is indeed a local writer.
The article mentioned he did write for the ProJo in the past. He is indeed a local writer.
Good use of the quote feature in post #28.:clap I was not referring to that person, but rather the hypothetical person to whom Toolshed referred. See post #25 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=722155&postcount=25). Keep it up and we might end up improving reading comprehension around here.:rolleyes:
Your arguments have not been wasted on me Mags. Some of the largest groups I've seen showed up for spring wildflower and bird walks.:)
Would the impacts of these activities have been less and would they have been more enjoyable had group size been limited? My answer's yes, but less people would have benefited too. Most people didn't recognize their experience was diminished in any way versus what they could have experienced as participants in a hypothetical smaller group and they had a great time anyway.
I do think the best way to increase user levels on the AT and the benefits that accrue to the AT and society are to promote group day-hikes led by qualified leaders. These hikes should have an educational aspect although it need not be overt or overbearing. This hike we have been discussing did have that dimension.;)
All three. A few hours with 50 people is still a HUGE impact.
Even if people seperate in "smaller groups" (wink, wink..nudge, nudge) the overall feel is still a big group and not say 10 groups of 5 out for a day. People will meet up, they will get together and they will change the trail environment for others. They, quite frankly, take over the trail. Can you honestly say even a GROUP of fifty is the same as fifty people on the impact they have upon the area and the people in the said area?
A few people here and there, NOT IN A GROUP, go to the overlook, eat a bit and leave. A group of 50, even if spread out, will all meet up at the same place and take over a place.
And if they "ration" their time and come in a groups of ten it seems more like Disney World (line up, take your ride, let others get on!) than a pretty place to enjoy some semblance of wildness. And they still take over an area. Is that right?
Part of my stance on smaller trips is because I've been part of these larger groups in the past.
One evening, I organized a night ski. A Friday night. A clear and full moon. Pretty warm for January. It was a non-RSVP trip.
FOURTY PEOPLE SHOWED UP! Sure we spread out. But it still felt like 40 people in a 3 mile stretch of trail. The equation was changed. It was not a group..it was a mob.
From that point on, I had people RSVP for trip and became stricter about group size. IT was an eye opener for me.
I would never take 50 people on a one week trip
I woul never take 50 people on an over nighter.
I would have never take 50 people on a few hours hike.
I have capped trips of only 2-3 miles long in length (a "social" day (or night!) hike of perhaps 3-4 hrs). People have asked me "Can't you take two seperate groups of even three? It sound like a cool hike!" The answer was NO.
Apples to apples. Oranges to oranges.
It is not just about preserving the wilderness..but a little part of the wildness, too.
So what your telling me is that you organized a trip and more folks showed up then you anticipated. From then on you corrected your mistake and moved forward.
Could it be the same thing happened to the author? He attended a media event that did not expect such a large turnout?
Its good to point these things out. Corrections need to be made. But, how about looking at the glass as half full instead of being half empty. The tone of your message is a bit aggressive seeing how you made the same innocent mistake.
The tone of your message is a bit aggressive seeing how you made the same innocent mistake.
But I did not wear a sack cloth and ashes, talk about how we are loving the trail to death WHILE REPORTING ON A 50 PERSON HIKE.
And, thanks for admitting a 50 person hike is a mistake.
Keep it up and we might end up improving reading comprehension around here.:rolleyes:
As soon as vague writing improves, perhaps?
This hike we have been discussing did have that dimension.;)
So, in the end, a 50 person hike is OK? A 50 person hike is good?
So, in the end, a 50 person hike is OK? A 50 person hike is good?
A 50-person hike could result in some desireable outcomes, but is probably not the best of ideas.:)
Maybe Bob Wyss didn't really go on a 50-person hike after all. He might have just wanted to see if we had on our thinking caps. This time of year mine is fluorescent orange.