"Guided tour" AT thru-hiking slackpacking (ONLY $10,120)

[NotYet]

We can clarify this discussion by outlining what is being said:


The first question is whether Benton MacKaye planned an inseparable wilderness ethic into his Trail.

The next question was how does ATC reflect this original purpose in its guidelines.

Next is how is the Trail Community expected to conform to this ethic.

Finally, is my view that the Trail Community is generally unaware of this imperative and treats it negatively...


Thank you for these well-stated thoughts. They help me see your questions much more clearly. And therefore, I believe my response can now be more clear and direct.

Statement 1 from above) I agree that from what I've read, MacKaye did plan a wilderness ethic into "his Trail". However, the trail we currently have is not just "his Trail". The AT evolved from his original plans, and therefore was practical enough to become a reality. That said...there is still an important wilderness ethic that should guide the use and management of the trail. Due to the much higher population and advances in science and technology, modern-day wilderness ethics have also evolved since the early 1900s.

Statement 2 from above) My possibly simplistic view is that MacKaye had a vision of a long, connected footpath through wilderness. He stated that the purpose for one to hike on this trail was "to walk, to see and to see what you see." I certainly can't claim to know all of the ATC's guidelines and policy statements. But from what I do know, the ATC guidelines seem to acknowledge and respect the original purpose by protecting the land in the corridor, allowing much of it to re-vert to a more "natural state" and by pursuing the purchase and protection of additional lands, thereby helping to create and protect a wilderness through which to walk. The current guidelines seem to balance the historical goals of visionaries like MacKaye with the practical reality that everyone doesn't share the exact same vision. Yet, we can all share a path "to walk, to see and to see what you see" and we can work hard to preserve this path and its environs.

Statement 3 from above) I don't believe that you can expect everyone to see things exactly the same way, however, I do believe that you should expect people to respect each other, the trail and the rules that are in place to help protect the trail. As most of us have seen in our own lifetimes, wilderness ethics have changed. I have no doubt that they will continue to change, and in the future we will probably be shocked by some of the things that we currently consider proper wilderness techniques and etiqette. :)

Statement 4 from above) It's more than likely that most users of the trail are not heavily informed as to the detailed history and current policies of the ATC. And I can say from personal experience that many users of the trail are unaware of current "Leave No Trace" wilderness practices. However, I have also found that educating unaware hikers in a respectful way often has good results. I believe most in the AT Community do care greatly for the trail and have a deep and real desire to respect and protect it. Therefore, I do disagree with your statement that the AT Community treats the trail or the imperative to protect it in a negative way.

[Jack Tarlin]

Rocks, you really are a piece of work.

I haven't responded to Rick's comments because, believe it or not, this whole thread has started to bore the bejazsus out of me.

I also can't help but note, with more than a little amusement, that you indignantly demand that I respond to Rick's comment when you yourself have ingored any number of requests from other posters.

And I can't believe you're in a snit about my comments breaking the rules here when each and every one of your recent posts insults other people. (I think I covered some of your more colorful recent epithets in post #196). And now your knickers are in a twist because someone has responded in kind? Please grow up.

To re-cap your behavior here the past few weeks for the two or three people that actually give a rat's ass:

*You've made repeated comments regarding what MacKaye wrote, said, and felt, and yet despite more requests than I can count, you've NEVER been able to back up any of your statements with quotes, letters, documents, or anything else. Your "expertise" on MacKaye obviously exists only in your mind. It's obvious to everyone here that you've either never bothered to read what he actually wrote, have no idea of what he actually intended, or mis-interpreted or forgotten the few things you actually read. In any case, whatever you might feel or think, you can't produce a solitary shred of evidence to support your contentions.

*When other folks have responded to your bleatings by actually producing what you've been incapable of----actual quotes from Benton MacKaye----you've ignored them (see O.F. excellent post, #221, above). So in addition to failing to provide any documentation of your own, your response when other folks produce material that directly contradicts your points, your mature and seasoned response is to ignore them, despite direct requests from other folks to comment. So not only are you ignorant of MacKaye's actual writings, but you ignore the commentary of folks who've actually read his works and are capable of quoting from them.

*Your defense of your inability to come up with a shred of material that supports your views is to fob this off by demanding that I reply to Rick. Well Rocks, while I respect Rick, HE is not the one that has posted to this thread thirty-odd times. YOU have. And it's pretty childish of you to avoid acknowledging that you're incapable of supporting your arguments on your own by supposing that Rick has proven all your points, which, incidentally, he hasn't. We're still waiting for YOU to buttress your own argument Rocks. Except it's obvious that you can't, because it's equally obvious that the quotes you're seeking are not to be found. Oh, wait a minute, I seem to remember that you suggested that all the answers are in a magazine that you can't seem to locate. Geez, Rocks, we're all adults here. Isn't it a bit too late to blame the dog for eating your book report? Good lord, you can be ridiculous.

*Lastly, you publicly admitted that you don't finish what other people have written, which, needless to say, puts you in a rather interesting position when responding to them. You comments, criticisms, and denunciations of what other people have written here would hold a helluva lot more weight, Rocks, if you actually bothered to read what folks have actually said. Have you ever considered that some of your rambles, inanities, and non sequitors could be avoided if you actually read what people have actually said BEFORE responding?

*Lastly, Rocks, you're right. I look forward very much to future correspondence with you wherein I'm not tempted to refer to you as an idiot, a fool, or the prominent back end of a southbounding equine.

*I also look forward to world peace, a McCain presidency, a candlelit dinner with Uma Thurman, knees that don't hurt all the time, and winning the lottery.

*In other words, I realize that all of these things might take awhile. Til then, Rocks, you are what you are, and I'll happily leave you that way.

[Lone Wolf]

Jack, youre feeding the vermin. Starve it.

[steve hiker]

A fool is born every minute.


I bet these hucksters have looked at the completion rate and figured that very few of the suckers who bite for their scam will stick with it, then they'll have their $10,000 without having to wipe their butts and breast feed them all the way to Maine.

Hell, all you need is 10 suckers a year to be raking in six figures.

[Jack Tarlin]

Wolf:

By God, you're right. Time to go to work on something useful, like the Re-supply article, which is why came to the library in the first place.

[The Old Fhart]

RnR, post #241-
(TJ aka TeeJ)"In Regional Planning, MacKaye does not mention "national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York."“The ATN Anniversary Issue of 2 or 3 years ago says this. I can't find my copy.”LOL, RnR, you can’t find your copy! I thought you slept with it under your pillow to try to absorb the essence of Benton. Be that as it may, what did MacKaye say about regional planning, National Forests, and integrating fire towers, farms, lumbering, etc., on the trail? Here is another of those “dangerous” MacKaye quotes you so avoid.

Benton MacKaye (1928) talks about the forest engineer, the agriculturalist, hydro engineer, etc., developing a plan for land use then says (emphasis mine):
MacKaye-“The town planner may be required to lay out a prospective permanent lumber town to be located at the entrance to the valley. In addition, the landscape architect may be called in to aid in developing, through a system of trails and cabins and facilities for mountain campers, that further natural resource called “environment.” (Through the special efforts of the Forest Service to develop this particular resource, the National Forests are being made to serve the purpose in a large measure of the National Parks.) The various plans and visualizations of these specialists must then be integrated into a plan for the whole valley, or region, whereby the highest use is secured from its natural resources as a whole.
A plan of this kind is called a regional plan. It is the product of the “composite mind” of several engineers: it is the product, that is, of a single engineering. Thus we may call it “regional engineering,” or by the more usual name of “regional planning.”

[The Old Fhart]

RnR post #216-“This is very simple. If you've read about MacKaye yet don't bother to quote him you are negligent in your offerings.”
LOL, Rants N Ravings, you are so predictably pathetic! In my post #221, after I give a lengthy MacKaye quote, something you have been incapable of doing, I said back then: “ Poor Rnr, now he’ll have to say Benton wasn’t forceful enough and that he really is the only one who knows what MacKaye meant.” What do you do-exactly that! I gave you an exact quote of what MacKaye said and you say: “Oh, I didn’t mean THAT MacKaye, I meant the other one that only exists in my warped little mind.” That explains your inability to quote anything MacKaye has ever said.

First you say:
Old Fhart is dangerous because he is quite capable in his references. The only person these quotes are dangerous to is you, RnR, because they continually show how you go to any length to lie or distort what MacKaye actually said. Please, RnR, explain how an exact and lengthy quote can be false. I’m sure your reply will be a real knee-slapper.

Next you say:
Old Fhart is remarkably capable of accessing obscure ATC policies on commercial permits Are you really trying to look stupid? This shows how absolutely clueless you are. This is the law of the land. I once worked for the USFS, but the fact that commercial permits are issued by the USFS and has nothing to do with the ATC, is no secret or obscure fact. NotYet has stated that he has complied with these requirements which shows he is being thorough and responsible in following these obvious rules. By the way, as a trip leader for the NHAMC, I have held an outfitters permit as required by the law. The only person the rules are obscure to is you. Ignorance of the law is no defense for your abject stupidity.


RnR-“I have explained at least a half dozen times why Old Fhart's misquotes from MacKaye are wrong.Classic RnR! The only way those exact quotes of MacKaye can be wrong is if Mackaye was wrong. This is why you, once again channeling MacKaye, say you are the only person who understands what he meant (in spite of what he actually said) and you are the only one who cares about the “wilderness.” Oh, I have to totally agree with Lone Wolf’s succinct post #230


This thread is about supposed to be about guided hikes and NotYet has explained very well and quite patiently what he is doing and I applaud him for that. Other posters, like myself have explained our views about whether we would want to go on a guided hike, or not. Only one poster, you, RnR, has tried once again to highjack the thread for your own bizarre view of the world that only exist in your mind.

RnR should open his own thread in “off topic” entitled: “why everyone picks on me.” :)

[SGT Rock]

Or open his own website with forum, all the threads can be about what he wants to talk about.

[SGT Rock]

Oh, and in fairness to Not Yet and those that wanted to talk about the guided hike, I started to split this thread, but it is like trying to straighten a plate of spaghetti. I will offer this compromise, I'll just move the whole damn mess to off topic and rename it to something else if someone starts a new legit thread about the hikes, I will take it as a dead issue and a thread to die on the vine if no one starts the new thread.

[orangebug]

Or open his own website with forum, all the threads can be about what he wants to talk about.Ryan Brooks provided him this in TA-L (Trail Advocacy List) to get the same crap off of AT-L. A very few, brave and masochistic souls participated. I think it can still be found on Ryan's archives, but I find it much more fun to pull out my toenails with pliers.

Hijacking topics is nothing new. WB's experience with this is pretty tame compared to early 2000 (I believe) archives.

[SGT Rock]

That is sort of why I prefer a forum to a mailing list. At least with a forum I can generally avoid a thread all together or put a user on ignore if they annoy me enough. But with a mailing list the crap just fills up my in-box. :datz

[Kim Clark]

Why all the discussion about what Mr. Benton thought or didn't think or wrote or didn't write or wanted or didn't want? I don't get it.

The Trail that was finally built wasn't what BM dreamed. Big deal. Abe Lincoln heped found the Republican Party but did Bush run on Abe's campaign platform? I don't understand why everyone is arguing about what BM wanted or didn't want. It's irrelevant.

Should the ATC be expected to manage a Trail according to a vision that was never realized and never will be?

Bee Em was a great guy, I'm sure. He had a wonderful idea. They ought to name a trail in his honor or something. (...oh, wait...) But what Bennie thought he could get and what was eventually built are two entirely different things. That may be the only thing that has been made clear on this thread.

If someone wants to imagine that they are back in Mac's time, or hiking a Trail built Bennie's way, great. Everyone's free to daydream. Pretend away! You can also imagine that Disneyland's "It's a Small World" is a worldwide cruise for all anyone cares. Why should I adopt someone else's illusion?

Today the Trail isin't what Bennie wanted. Isn't that why he walked away from the project when he did? He's history now, an important presence in the past but now just an interesting footnote. Reading his writings will help someone understand how the Trail came to be, same as reading about G. Washington will help someone understand American history. Today's Trail ain't what BM would have wanted but then today's federal governement ain't anything that George would have wanted either. Get over it.

So here's the disconnect that frustrates Rocks'n'Roots: The Trail today isn't what Benton Mac wanted and few people seem to care.

But so what?

[Rocks 'n Roots]

This thread has gotten off-track with too many points to answer at once. I ask that people making unrelated comments stop in order to keep the topic manageable.


The issue can be resolved with one simple example. Here is a comment I made that went unanswered:




To prove how wrong Old Fhart's view of MacKaye is we can simply go to the point where he left the Project. That was in the Shenandoah when the government decided that the AT was to have a road literally built over the top of it. That was Skyline Drive. This road would allow a large park to be built for people to drive to. If MacKaye was the big developer Old Fhart suggests why did he leave his life's dream when its wilderness plan was violated in the form of Shenandoah "recreational" development?


Ask yourself why these so-called experts refuse to answer this simple question.

One simple example asking for one simple answer. None was given. But let's understand why none was given. None was given because this clearly shows how vital MacKaye considered wilderness and its inclusion into the Trail as a main component of its being. It's obvious that people who are demanding proof of MacKaye's wilderness plan and how it was meant for the Trail who are then shown and ignore it aren't really looking for the answers they ask. We can't get to higher examples from MacKaye literature if people refuse to acknowledge the obvious and immediately apparent. But face it, these are people who don't even acknowledge ATC-level guidelines and their meaning...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I don't understand why everyone is arguing about what BM wanted or didn't want. It's irrelevant.

Not really. I believe Benton MacKaye and his original plan for wilderness experience are key to the AT's future just as much as they were key to the Trail's creation.


The single most relevant thing to the Appalachian Trail is Benton MacKaye and his purpose for his Trail and Project. That's why I focus on him because his separation was the starting point for the diluting and blurring of the Trail's purpose.

Benton MacKaye is far from irrelevant on today's AT. Just because he isn't on a chat list cheerleading get togethers doesn't mean he doesn't have any bearing on today's Trail. If read accurately the ATC guidelines Weary linked are a direct embodiment of MacKaye's posited wilderness imperative - but more importantly AT wilderness EXPERIENCE. This experience portion of the AT and what it was planned to be are what have been forgotten since MacKaye's plan was diverted.

What we are really talking about is how increased use and popularity are affecting the Trail. And how these serve to drown out more important Trail aspects MacKaye intended. But we are also talking about a basic definition of the AT and how Trail users respond to it...

[JoeHiker]

The single most relevant thing to the Appalachian Trail is Benton MacKaye and his purpose for his Trail and Project. That's why I focus on him because his separation was the starting point for the diluting and blurring of the Trail's purpose.
His purpose has been quoted directly.

If you could just for the love of GOD produce a one single source, quote, reference ANYTHING to back up what you say was his purpose the trail -- something to refute his actual words quoted here -- then you might even have a point.

[orangebug]

Oh, your basic idea is to make the AT less popular and less used. That will somehow make AT users better AT users.

Again, I suggest you go back to the original essay and see that MacKaye's vision was a regionally planned, populated, semi-industrialized area that invited sprawl as a cure for the evils of metropolitan living. The AT as it has been developed by Avery and others has become much more of a flexible living recreational resource for millions, even if only a small percentage have ever heard of the ATC, much less joined it.

I am not opposed to the AT, only to the pipe dream that would have been a disaster socially and environmentally. I understand your fanatical monomania (that was probably redundant) interest, but it is pretty empty given MacKaye's lack of recognition of the adverse consequences of his initial plan, just as you fail to recognize the adverse consequence of building a home on a barrier island.

[orangebug]

BTW, back to the original meaning for this thread.

Supported slackpacking is a fine way to help urban dwellers approach an environment they may find intimidating and dangerous. It is no more and no less incongruent to the AT than the commercial businesses of Amicalola Falls Lodge, Bear Mountain Inn, the trail towns, the bridges, the ferry and other services that enhance our experience.

It is definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but it does provide access to our recreational resource. The marketplace will determine if this idea is timely or an unfortunate pipe dream.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Gentlemen:


You didn't answer the question...

(post #263)

[A-Train]

I could go to Springer, hike to Katahdin and get back and this would probably still be going on and on and on....

This thread makes me wanna run for the hills

[Lone Wolf]

He's just your typical troll pushing buttons.

[TJ aka Teej]

Supported slackpacking is a fine way to help urban dwellers approach an environment they may find intimidating and dangerous.
That was exactly what Benton MacKaye proposed in "Regional Planning."
Any honest reader clearly sees his intent was to provide an infrastructure whereby city dwellers could have a supported interlude in the woods.

[Kim Clark]

Gentlemen:


You didn't answer the question...

(post #263)
Was the question why BM left the AT project?

It's obviously because it wasn't being built the way he wanted. The Trail that has been built is obviously not the Trail that Benton wanted. It never will be.

So what?

[TJ aka Teej]

MacKaye's 'Regional Planning' version asked for national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York - to give you and idea of what he was planning.
In Regional Planning, MacKaye does not mention "national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York." In fact his only mention of New Jersey involves a communal farm there that he'd like to use as a model for his AT farm camps.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/pdfs/MacKaye.pdf
The ATN Anniversary Issue of 2 or 3 years ago says this. I can't find my copy.
The ATN anniversary issue does not say "MacKaye's 'Regional Planning' version asked for national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York,"
Here is a link to the entire 64 page "Trail Years" marvelous overview of Appalachian Trail history published in the July-August 2000 ATN Anniversary Issue: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/history/trailyears.html

Just as an aside to anyone still reading this stuff - Years back, and just a few months after dozens of at-l members attended a splendid seminar on Benton MacKaye given at an ALDHA Gathering (his biographer was there as a presenter), TrailPlace's R&R began posting that at-l members were worthless Trail-haters because they didn't have the deep understanding of Ben MacKaye that he did, that we all were destroying the Trail by not approving of trail advocacy in any form. He posted exactly the same stuff back then to the at-l that he is now posting to WhiteBlaze. Same crap, different forum. But when people defended their list and confronted R&R with MacKaye's actual words and other information from the MacKAye seminar, R&R cried foul - that we were being unfair to him by using quotes. Then, when asked if he had ever read 'Regional Planning', he muttered that he had not, but that WingFoot had read aloud to him the passages from Regional Planning that mattered most. General merriment ensued. Undaunted, R&R redoubled his attacks on the list members. Then some senior members of the at-l concocted a 'trail advocacy' list called ta-l, where R&R was invited to educate the lesser members of the trail community. After several months of relative peacefulness on the at-l, I took a look at the ta-l list and found that not once, not ever, not even in passing, had R&R proposed a single item of trail advocacy. It seems that R&R has one song, no matter where he types, and now he's brought his tired act to WhiteBlaze.
I've had enough. He's now on Ignore.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

The ATN anniversary issue does not say "MacKaye's 'Regional Planning' version asked for national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York,"
Here is a link to the entire 64 page "Trail Years" marvelous overview of Appalachian Trail history published in the July-August 2000 ATN Anniversary Issue:

Brilliant TJ. That changes nothing about the point I was making. The article indeed discusses those national forest borders in NJ/NY. TJ, of course, acting with his usual sense of veracity decided not to tell you that as he focused on a semantic technicality that isn't even accurate. That's just dishonest and I hope people discount his views because of it.

The proper way to relate the ATN reference (and one TJ will never do) is to admit that yes the article does cite MacKaye's intention for a national forest-sized corridor. And therefore his original plan would have had room for both wilderness and camps.


I think we can fairly say internet users are in contempt of AT wilderness and its background. If we can't discuss it intelligently, we can just accept that the people who frequent the AT internet are hostile towards anyone who voices this critical Trail issue and are even hostile towards the issue itself...


"So what?"

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to just about everything that's been written here...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Statement 1 from above) I agree that from what I've read, MacKaye did plan a wilderness ethic into "his Trail". However, the trail we currently have is not just "his Trail". The AT evolved from his original plans, and therefore was practical enough to become a reality. That said...there is still an important wilderness ethic that should guide the use and management of the trail. Due to the much higher population and advances in science and technology, modern-day wilderness ethics have also evolved since the early 1900s.

NotYet: Am I reading this correctly or are you emphasizing the need to separate MacKaye from the present Trail? May I ask what the main importance is in this approach? Is it, perhaps, the need to separate his strong wilderness ethic? Grant you the Trail is not the original version he intended, but much of his wilderness ethic still survives in ATC's description. Is part of the "evolution" of modern day wilderness ethics you cite a need to diminish MacKaye's wilderness purpose? Don't the recent pressures you cite call for a need to protect wilderness more than anything else? Your point seems incongruous.



Statement 2 from above) My possibly simplistic view is that MacKaye had a vision of a long, connected footpath through wilderness. He stated that the purpose for one to hike on this trail was "to walk, to see and to see what you see." I certainly can't claim to know all of the ATC's guidelines and policy statements. But from what I do know, the ATC guidelines seem to acknowledge and respect the original purpose by protecting the land in the corridor, allowing much of it to re-vert to a more "natural state" and by pursuing the purchase and protection of additional lands, thereby helping to create and protect a wilderness through which to walk. The current guidelines seem to balance the historical goals of visionaries like MacKaye with the practical reality that everyone doesn't share the exact same vision. Yet, we can all share a path "to walk, to see and to see what you see" and we can work hard to preserve this path and its environs.
Woah woah there. What exactly are the views of "those who don't share the exact same vision". Where are they quoted? Where were they reviewed and examined for validity? The AT has the writings of MacKaye and a whole history. Besides backing down from and weakening MacKaye's plan where is the history and writings of this group? Where are they organized? Who are they?

"To see and to see what you see" seems awfully vague. I think a better determination is had from seeing what specific ideas MacKaye had for wilderness and how they exist in today's Trail guidelines.




Statement 3 from above) I don't believe that you can expect everyone to see things exactly the same way, however, I do believe that you should expect people to respect each other, the trail and the rules that are in place to help protect the trail. As most of us have seen in our own lifetimes, wilderness ethics have changed. I have no doubt that they will continue to change, and in the future we will probably be shocked by some of the things that we currently consider proper wilderness techniques and etiqette. :)

Again: I'm not sure if I'm not hearing an indirect apology for wilderness ethics decline. If this isn't what you were saying, then I'm not sure it answers the point I was making. That point was to what degree do we need to recognize and back ATC wilderness imperatives? With the AT the answer should be as much as possible in order to maintain the Trail's purpose. I'm sorry, but I don't see that in your answer. Can you give me an example of a case where we should promote decline of the Trail's wilderness? (And the justification for it?) I don't think such a case exists.

We will outline those imperatives from Weary's ATC guidelines post.





Statement 4 from above) It's more than likely that most users of the trail are not heavily informed as to the detailed history and current policies of the ATC. And I can say from personal experience that many users of the trail are unaware of current "Leave No Trace" wilderness practices. However, I have also found that educating unaware hikers in a respectful way often has good results. I believe most in the AT Community do care greatly for the trail and have a deep and real desire to respect and protect it. Therefore, I do disagree with your statement that the AT Community treats the trail or the imperative to protect it in a negative way.

You disagree because hikers respond to litter clean up? Maybe, but I don't think that's what we are talking about. I think what you said can be disproven by this thread alone. I don't think you would have an easy time convincing anyone - even the most mannered and tolerant presenter that is true if you look at this thread and many others. Weary for example is fairly kind and tactful, he's basically ignored. I've seen him make very legitimate and factual responses detailing the importance of the AT's wilderness ethic, it has virtually no effect. The result is an endless loop of your first sentence. But for those more familiar with the effort, it's a little more, shall we say, strongly felt than you portray. Unfortunately the feelings are against the AT's wilderness imperative and those who speak of it. If you could please show me where this general dislike of understood AT wilderness ethics represents a "real desire to respect and protect it" I'd like to be educated...

Viewing this thread I'm not exactly seeing the "respect" you appeal for being honored by those criticizing the topic. Nor do I see them cited for it...

[rickb]

"He's just your typical troll pushing buttons."

If so, lets give credit where credit is due. Seeing as how much energy is being put into this discussion, R&R must be one of the world's best.

I have another take...

If a skunk comes into a shelter do you question the skunk, or do question those who can't help but toss sticks at it? And lest R&R take offence, let me make clear that I mean no disrespect by the comparison; those who know me understand that I value skunks.

To my way of thinking, the Benton MacKaye part of this thread is nuts. We use it to frustrate Rocks-- no one in his right mind would ever judge the heart and soul and values of a man by a single article. That's why MacKaye's life meritted the book which none of us have read cover to cover. Come on, I am right about that aren't I?

As for the importance of core wilderness values, when you see a committed hiker (or is that a hiker who should be committed) suggesting that that "supported slackpacking is a fine way to help urban dwellers approach environment they may find intimidating" on thier first thru hike, you really have got to wonder.

Ok, I have that off my chest. I feel smarter than all you boobs and morally superior as well. That's why we are all posting here, right?

Rick B

[NotYet]

NotYet: Am I reading this correctly or are you emphasizing the need to separate MacKaye from the present Trail? May I ask what the main importance is in this approach? Is it, perhaps, the need to separate his strong wilderness ethic? Grant you the Trail is not the original version he intended, but much of his wilderness ethic still survives in ATC's description. Is part of the "evolution" of modern day wilderness ethics you cite a need to diminish MacKaye's wilderness purpose? Don't the recent pressures you cite call for a need to protect wilderness more than anything else? Your point seems incongruous.

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I'm not emphasing the need to separate MacKaye or to focus on MacKaye. I am simply stating that the trail that was realized is not the trail he originally wrote about. But we do need a strong wilderness plan for the trail that we have. When I mention that wilderness ethics have evolved, I am not trying to separate the ethics or weaken them. In fact, wilderness ethics have been strengthened and broadened since MayKaye's time, in part due to the pressures that you mention.



Woah woah there. What exactly are the views of "those who don't share the exact same vision". Where are they quoted? Where were they reviewed and examined for validity? The AT has the writings of MacKaye and a whole history. Besides backing down from and weakening MacKaye's plan where is the history and writings of this group? Where are they organized? Who are they?

"To see and to see what you see" seems awfully vague. I think a better determination is had from seeing what specific ideas MacKaye had for wilderness and how they exist in today's Trail guidelines.

I think its safe to say that no two people in the world share the exact same vision. The history of the ATC includes many people, including those who had direct disagreements with MacKaye. I'm sorry if this is overly vague, I was just making that general point.

Although it may be vague, the above quote of MacKaye's stated purpose for hiking on the AT simply speaks to me. On many levels, I think it's why I like to hike. I think the ATC guidelines do incorporate the ideas of MacKaye, however, thay also incorporate the ideas of people since. I think that for any organization to remain viable and relevant, they must honestly review their original purpose, while at the same time, dilligently examine their present needs, concerns, and imperatives. If some change or modification is necessary, they shouldn't fear it.


Again: I'm not sure if I'm not hearing an indirect apology for wilderness ethics decline. If this isn't what you were saying, then I'm not sure it answers the point I was making. That point was to what degree do we need to recognize and back ATC wilderness imperatives? With the AT the answer should be as much as possible in order to maintain the Trail's purpose. I'm sorry, but I don't see that in your answer. Can you give me an example of a case where we should promote decline of the Trail's wilderness? (And the justification for it?) I don't think such a case exists.

I don't think there has been a decline in wilderness ethics. In fact, I think that what was once acceptable in the wilderness is no longer considered proper practice. A small example would be the "old school" practice of chopping down live trees and/or branches with a hatchet, or of trenching a tent site. Or on a larger scale, there is the argument between fire suppression and controlled burns. Yes, these are all small details compared to the overall concept of wilderness ethics, but they do exemplify how wilderness ethics evolve. Many of today's practices that we so carefully perform, will probably be improved upon in the future.

I do not promote a decline of the Trail's wilderness. I simply don't see the maintained and public roads that the trail crosses as "wilderness"; so I believe hikers have the right to use them to access the trail.



You disagree because hikers respond to litter clean up? Maybe, but I don't think that's what we are talking about. I think what you said can be disproven by this thread alone. I don't think you would have an easy time convincing anyone - even the most mannered and tolerant presenter that is true if you look at this thread and many others. Weary for example is fairly kind and tactful, he's basically ignored. I've seen him make very legitimate and factual responses detailing the importance of the AT's wilderness ethic, it has virtually no effect. The result is an endless loop of your first sentence. But for those more familiar with the effort, it's a little more, shall we say, strongly felt than you portray. Unfortunately the feelings are against the AT's wilderness imperative and those who speak of it. If you could please show me where this general dislike of understood AT wilderness ethics represents a "real desire to respect and protect it" I'd like to be educated...

Viewing this thread I'm not exactly seeing the "respect" you appeal for being honored by those criticizing the topic. Nor do I see them cited for it...

I am only stating that I believe in the innate goodness of people. I believe that most people that do harm do not do so intentionally. I also believe that people are open to new ideas and thoughts if it is presented to them in a respectful way. Although I have noticed people disagreeing on this site, it hasn't occurred to me that anyone here has a dislike for wilderness ethics, or that they wish to harm the trail in any way.

Foot Travel offers a service. We recognize that people have different goals and expectations, and we are trying to offer this service to people who might want to experience the trail in a different way. I believe people are in control of their own happiness; so I don't believe that our presence will spoil someone else's experience. However, if a hiker is worried about seeing us, it will be very easy to avoid us if we are running a trip.

I am not trying to prove or disprove anything here. I am only trying to state my opinion. I'm sorry that so many of my posts are so long, but because the initial thread concerns my service, I would consider myself irresponsible if I didn't at least try to respond to people's concerns.

[rocket04]

"So what?"

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to just about everything that's been written here... Actually, I think he might just have. Just because the trail wasn't built to MacKaye's liking in no way means that his focus was on wilderness preservation. You can not give a damn about wilderness preservation and still disagree on other issues. Some people here coud really let go of the "holier than thou" attitude. You're one of them.

And no, I'm not saying that Benton MacKaye didn't care about wilderness preservation. And no, I don't really give a **** what Benton MacKaye's intent was, and I don't think it matters. And yes, I've been paying attention to what's been written.

[orangebug]

...As for the importance of core wilderness values, when you see a committed hiker (or is that a hiker who should be committed) suggesting that that "supported slackpacking is a fine way to help urban dwellers approach environment they may find intimidating" on thier first thru hike, you really have got to wonder. ...I don't think I'd want to do that for my thru hike, but then I am a committed section hiker who has been known to slackpack and use the trail for raucous and thoughtful recreation.

Yet, I don't let other's hiking techniques spoil my day, even though some seem to find that hidden cell phones ruin their day. I do get bummed when I see others abusing the trail or the shelters, but I don't feel it advisable to do more than offer advice or to try to pick up after the louts. Even that can enhance my experience by letting me give something back to the trail.

Someone said something about worrying excessively about the mote in someone else's eye while ignoring the log in their own eye. I think that is what most mean by HYOH.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

NotYet:


In reading your answers I detect a disturbing trend of moving from specific AT wilderness concerns into vague generalities. For example I don't think it is exactly helpful or productive to say "I'm not really saying anything about MacKaye or needing to remove him from the Trail" when the obvious point being made is that a person with reasonable Trail interest doesn't really have a choice. MacKaye is clearly responsible for wilderness imperatives that are still key to today's ATC guidelines. In a situation that is being caused by lack of awareness I'm not sure it's a valid response to say "I'm not really saying anything about it" when the point being made is nobody is saying anything about it and that's why there's a problem. I mean if the complaint is that the Trail Community fails to discuss ATC wilderness guidelines I don't think it's valid to say "well I'm not really discussing wilderness guidelines". You're clearly avoiding the gist of the argument.

It's clear to me that what I'm seeing here is a legalistic type "taking the 5th" so-to-speak of not committing to unavoidable ATC wilderness guidelines lest how you intend to violate them becomes too clear. This isn't resolved by constantly steering necessary points and necessary relations into "I don't know", I'm not really sure", "All I know is" ect. To me, that is a clear pattern of resourcing Trail Community indifference to wilderness in order to get what you want. It's clear that in the end you are placing yourself as one of those "who sees it differently" or "has a different view" while carefully avoiding how that view conflicts with ATC's Trail goals. Or even defining what those differences are. I'm sure if those differences were detailed they would be simply ignoring or weakening the Trail's wilderness protections. I doubt you could show me anything that strengthens them from those obscure "people with different views" who you can't either name or describe the views themsleves.


I give rocket04 credit. At least he came right out and admitted he doesn't give a **** about Benton MacKaye, the man who gave us the AT and without whom there would be no Trail...



If we are allowed, I'd like to review commercial support as compared to the ATC guidelines.

[wacocelt]

If we could harness all the misspent passion from this thread and point it toward matters of conservancy, in relevant venues, which actually need such long winded and nit-picking responses we'de all be better served. I could be wrong, though doubt very seriously that any of the long winded diatribes presented here have been presented to the agencies which actually control the future of the trail and it's conservancy.

I suggest that instead of contiuing to contribute to an obviously dead horse debate on a public forum, that you point your good intentions in the direction of those who actually wield the power of change.

[rocket04]

I give rocket04 credit. At least he came right out and admitted he doesn't give a **** about Benton MacKaye, the man who gave us the AT and without whom there would be no Trail... No, that's not what I said. I said i didn't give a **** about his intent. I'm glad he was the driving force behind the AT and I give him credit for it. But I think trying to discern his intentions is pointless. If he wanted it to be there for wilderness preservation, good for him. If he didn't... good for him too! he's gone. What do YOU (and others here) want it for and why? That's what matters in the end.

[orangebug]

Don't sweat the fact that RnR channeled you. Simply recognize that RnR has chosen to spread his idolatry of MacKaye with anyone who might possibly read this sad, sad little belief system.

At least his message clearly states that he is not interested in being shown any possible interpretation of The Creator outside of his little single member cathedral.

This isn't all bad. When the AT-L was initially attacked by him, the list rioted and totally lost track of support and service toward newbies and candidate thru hikers. A stop was put to it, and many who noticed that we had lost our ethic toward support of hiking elected to raise funds for the ATC and The Place in Damascus.

There is no chance of a productive conversation with an idolator. His belief system is fixed in concrete and unable to react to either reason or reality. Our efforts to cajole or persuade are in vain. The original focus on a controversial trail vendor has been lost, although NotYet has been valiant in his attempts to redirect the conversation.

It is time to move on, follow the threads on those about to leave on their real world experience. It is time to consider how we can help the real AT and the ATC in our own ways.

[Jack Tarlin]

Wow, it's finally happened. Rocks, of all people, after thirty-odd incoherent rambling contributions, is now whining that "This thread has gotten off track..."

Gee, what a stunning observation. Ever wonder how that happened exactly, Rocks? Ever wonder which thoughtless person was responsible for this?

It might interest Rocks to know that the thread was doing fine and dandy for over six months, with over 100 posts, many thought-provoking, that dealt with the original subject matter.

This changed radically when Rocks elected to join the discussion.

In the very first line of his very first post to this thread, he started in with a rant about the evils of "infrastructure creep." Then, he informed us that "The AT is a concerted effort to combat this tendency of development...."

Oh, really? I guess that's why MacKaye's original plan called for labor camps, sawmills, lumber camps, villages, stores, and other trappings of civilization. Gee, sure sounds like responsible development to me. If Rocks knows different, he's welcome to supply us with comments of MacKaye's that say otherwise. Oops. I forgot. Rock's collection of the writings of MacKaye got eaten by a pet or got lost in a move or something, thus rendering him incapable of even once giving us any sort of quotation or comment in MacKaye's own words. Gee, if Benton were alive, I'm sure he'd be glad to have a spokesman so informed, and a defender so staunch that he evidently does not own or cannot produce one word that MacKaye actually said.
Funny, I usually have easy access to the works of my favorite writers and philosophers. I guess Rocks has his favorite writers' words and wisdom all committed to memory. Most impressive!

Thus we see that in Rocks' very first post to this thread, he's spouting nonsense and untruths. He then goes on to expound on this theory in dozens of subsequent posts, all equally mistaken.

And he finishes his most recent post by saying, in his usual condescending tone, that "You people would do well to learn what the object of your interest is all about."

Wrong, Rocks. YOU should apply this lesson to yourself. From the minute you entered this dialogue, you've been spouting nonsense. And now, you of all people have your bowels in an uproar because the original subject of the thread has been sidetracked?

Gee, and who did that I wonder?

Good lord, your capacity to make yourself ridiculous here is absolutely boundless.

If you want to save a thread here from the dreadful fate of, as you put it, "getting off track", Rocks, here's a simple suggestion:

Stay out of it.

[TJ aka Teej]

many who noticed that we had lost our ethic toward support of hiking elected to raise funds for the ATC and The Place in Damascus.
Stupid at-l hiking community dumb ol' trail haters... they put up over $10,000.00 for a complete rehab of The Place, doing almost all of the sweat work themselves. Dumb ol' stupid AT Internet Trail Community...

[dperry]

That's why MacKaye's life meritted the book which none of us have read cover to cover. Come on, I am right about that aren't I?
Hi, Rick,
Actually working on that right now. Should be able to give a report in a week or 2, depending on how much RL intrudes.

[NotYet]

NotYet:
In reading your answers I detect a disturbing trend of moving from specific AT wilderness concerns into vague generalities. For example I don't think it is exactly helpful or productive to say "I'm not really saying anything about MacKaye or needing to remove him from the Trail" ... In a situation that is being caused by lack of awareness I'm not sure it's a valid response to say "I'm not really saying anything about it" ... I don't think it's valid to say "well I'm not really discussing wilderness guidelines".

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I do not remember writing the above quotes (boldface added be me) that you have attributed to me. After reviewing pages 6 through 15 of this thread, I still haven't been able to find them. If these are actually my direct words, would you help me find them by listing the post numbers so that I can see the full context of what was being discussed. This will help me respond to your concerns about my answers.



You're clearly avoiding the gist of the argument.

You are correct, in that I am not actually arguing at all. I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am merely trying to clarify my point of view in as careful a manner as this medium allows. I much prefer discussing things in person, though, because it allows for much deeper understanding. Hopefully, one day we will see each other on the trail and can have a good conversation while we hike! :)




If we are allowed, I'd like to review commercial support as compared to the ATC guidelines.

I think that this is an important point, and a thread that more directly addresses that concern started the other day. I think if that thread, "ATC Trail Guidelines" is utilized, then more people might see and participate in the discussion. Many people don't want to wade through a thread that is 15 pages long and nine months old, so they might miss most of your important points if the posts continue here.

[JoeHiker]

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I do not remember writing the above quotes (boldface added be me) that you have attributed to me. After reviewing pages 6 through 15 of this thread, I still haven't been able to find them. If these are actually my direct words, would you help me find them by listing the post numbers so that I can see the full context of what was being discussed. This will help me respond to your concerns about my answers.
The reason you don't remember them is because you never typed them. No-one did. They don't exist on all of Whiteblaze except in RnR's post. A search of the website reveals this.

He made them up.

[ed bell]

I remember reading RnR's post about Not Yet's alleged quotes and thinking to myself that I missed that exchange. I too looked it up and came to the same conclusion- fabrication. I am all for debating Wilderness ethics, legal use of the trail, abuse of the trail, the trail community's role in preserving the trail, and improving the wildness of the trail. I just think centering this debate around NotYet's buisness idea is unfair. More unfair is to fabricate quotes to back up your points. Even worse is to attribute fabricated quotes to NotYet. Start a new thread RnR. NotYet probably doesn't have the time or energy to keep checking to see if he is being misrepresented by you. I think he has gone out of the way to be respectful to you. WAY out of the way. NotYet should be removed as the centerpeice of this debate due to the subject line of this thread. A new thread would do just that. My 2 cents are in again.

Just a disclaimer- I don't know NotYet and he does not know me. I just felt that this thread is starting to be very unfair towards a legal business.

[weary]

...I just think centering this debate around NotYet's buisness idea is unfair. ...
I tried with "ATC trail guidelines," but the thread quickly died.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

Well, I reccomended a while back to start a new post about the buisness end for folks that want to talk about this, and we can rename this one. If someone wants to talk about NotYet's buisness I'm all for that discussion as a trail service and we have a section for that. I moved this one to Trail Issues, Concerns, and History a while back because IMO it wasn't about his service anymore, but about trail concerns.

[The Cheat]

By the way, NotYet is a she. :jump

[SGT Rock]

My bad. Sorry :datz

[Alligator]

What gave it away, the woman hiker avatar;) ?

[ed bell]

Sorry about that NotYet. I got confused. The avitar looks like a mullet, lol.:banana:banana:banana:banana

[The Old Fhart]

I appologize also, NotYet. Never paid any attention to the avatar. But then, my hair is about that long. :)

[NotYet]

It's okay y'all. I get called a lot of things, so fortunately I answer to most anything! :sun

[orangebug]

With luck, you have ended this thread. You will notice that RnR never responds to observations of "invented" quotes, much less the quality of his own efforts to reduce sprawl and environmental damage.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I'm not emphasing the need to separate MacKaye or to focus on MacKaye. I am simply stating that the trail that was realized is not the trail he originally wrote about. But we do need a strong wilderness plan for the trail that we have. When I mention that wilderness ethics have evolved, I am not trying to separate the ethics or weaken them.

I believe the paraphrases are accurate.


If read in correct context what I'm trying to say is that we are dealing with this on different levels. In fact, the whole problem is that ATC and hikers deal on different levels. One wilderness ethic respecting, one not. It seems clear enough to me. No person should have trouble understanding this.


My criticism of you, which you swung into a quote accuracy matter, was that you were swinging things away from the issue in your responses. You responded by once again swinging things away from the issue.

The point here is that we are talking of things directly gotten and apparent from both the Trail's history and current ATC guidelines. It is these specific things I am referring to when confronting the issue of motorized support for hikes. Therefore, when you give an answer that says "I'm not sure", or "I don't see that", in response to those specific points you are avoiding their significance. Benton MacKaye thought them significant, ATC thinks them significant, the main thrust of your replies seems to be "Well, not everybody sees it that way", or "some disagree with ATC". I asked you to cite those people (many people in here are interested in quotes and sources) and you didn't. I also asked you to list what exactly they believed - you couldn't. So the matter here is should non-cited unknowns be given equal weight to ATC and the Trail's creator?



I repeat, you're avoiding the gist...


The fatal flaw in your quote above is that you fail to realize Benton MacKaye embodied the "strong wilderness plan" you speak of and so thoroughly avoid...

[orangebug]

Sorry, I hoped too soon. At least he was true to form in avoiding veracity and hypocrisy.

[NotYet]

I believe the paraphrases are accurate.

Hi Rocks n' Roots,

I appreciate your acknowledgment that you were paraphrasing my posts instead of directly quoting me. In the future, I ask that you please don't place quotation marks around your paraphrasing of my words without making it clear in your post that it is indeed a paraphrase.

Being the writer of my own words, however, I do not agree about the accuracy of the earlier paraphrasing because I think they ignore the spirit and overall meaning of what I am saying.



If read in correct context what I'm trying to say is that we are dealing with this on different levels. In fact, the whole problem is that ATC and hikers deal on different levels. One wilderness ethic respecting, one not. It seems clear enough to me. No person should have trouble understanding this.

I'm okay with people having different perspectives. I do not think that because someone's perspective is different from mine then that makes them somehow not respectful of wilderness ethics.



My criticism of you, which you swung into a quote accuracy matter, was that you were swinging things away from the issue in your responses. You responded by once again swinging things away from the issue.

I believe accuracy in quoting is extremely vital in making sure that dialogue is open and honest; so to me it's not a minor issue. Again thank you for your acknowledgment that those were not direct quotes.

I do not believe I am shirking your questions or trying to steer the conversation away from your concerns. Instead, I believe I have been very direct with my point of view. I do, however, acknowledge that you do not find my answers to be satisfactory. As I mentioned before, I am not trying to argue a point; I am only attempting to clarify my position and trying to better understand the positions of others.



I repeat, you're avoiding the gist...


My understanding of the gist of your concern is that you believe that a supported hike on the AT is detrimental to the wildness and the wilderness ethics of the AT.

There is a multitute of writings concerning wilderness ethics. Earlier, I asked that you help me use the same information that you were using by providing the source for me to look up the specific wording that the ATC uses. This would help in creating an arena for open and clear discussion.

Earlier, I expressed that I do not understand how my vehicle being on a public and maintained road is more detrimental to the wilderness than any other hiker's, maintainer's or shuttler's vehicle that may be parked at the same place. To me, this speaks to the heart of the issue.

As to the various "Wells," and "I don't sees" in my posts...what can I say? I'm a Southerner, and I like to gradually and gently arrive at my point...kind of like gently walking your way up switchbacks to reach a peak! It's how the trails tend to be designed in the south and it's just how I tend to talk...I apologize if it leads to any confusion. :o

[NotYet]

I'm glad to see that the "ATC Trail Guidelines" Thread is being utilized again! There is much good information being posted there.

I don't want people to think I'm ignoring them if they want to direct a question or comment towards me. But, I will be unavailable to address any concerns or questions about our service for the next few days, because I will be away. Hopefully, anyone with questions also knows that we can be contacted at info@bighike.com. Using the e-mail address will get you a more personalized response. Thank you.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Being the writer of my own words, however, I do not agree about the accuracy of the earlier paraphrasing because I think they ignore the spirit and overall meaning of what I am saying.


Hmm, I'm fully aware of what you are saying (or very dedicatedly not saying). But talking about "missing the spirit of what is being said"! I'm sorry but what I read of your writings is that there are other viewpoints of the AT that somehow divert the need to respect ATC's guidelines and their origins. I asked you to please elaborate on those viewpoints and you didn't. But let's cut to the chase here, the viewpoints you are talking about aren't really established and recognized AT viewpoints as much as they are simple denials of the ATC guidelines. If we got you to describe those viewpoints they would simply be that which makes ignoring or denying ATC's wilderness guidelines OK amongst those who don't really know of them or respect them in the first place. This is no different than a developer's perspective. That is why I don't take your saying "I really hope to teach people a respect for wilderness" as valid when you are actively participating in diminishing it. Saying "I don't understand your how my vehicle parked on a public road is detrimental to wilderness" doesn't change that. Overall your answers are so vague and so avoiding of the more than adequately described AT wilderness guidelines that they can be considered non-answers and invalid to the discussion. In fact they can be considered a deliberate weakening of AT wilderness. Whereas developers are attacking and damaging the AT from outside the corridor, this kind of undoing of AT wilderness by hikers is from within. It's the "hard wiring" doing what it does unless checked by AT awareness.

It can be more than clearly shown how nightly road crossing support conflicts with the guidelines, not to mention discouragement of Trail commercialization. I also suspect that it would be in the interest of a person who intends to carry out a van support business to not "understand" (if I quote correctly)...

[The Old Fhart]

RnR-"It can be more than clearly shown how nightly road crossing support conflicts with the guidelines, not to mention discouragement of Trail commercialization."
RnR (post #34 ATC trail Guidelines)-“ATC makes clear the primary concern is foot travel including long distance hiking. Its first concern is not the overly vague "recreation" some people try to force, but foot travel in order to experience wild surroundings. Nowhere do I see mention of motorized support.” from the ATC publication "Local Management Planning Guide" (emphasis mine)

2(D) Trailheads
“ATC Policy—In general, ATC encourages development of small, simply designed Trailhead facilities in areas where use patterns clearly indicate a need.”
--------------------------
“Club Policy—The following are examples of club policy statements on Trailheads and parking that have been endorsed by ATC:
New York-New Jersey Trail Conference, Dutchess/Putnam Counties A.T. Management Committee (DPATMC)
DPATMC will use the following guidelines for managing existing parking areas or evaluating proposals for additional parking areas:
• Some form of designated parking will be provided by DPATMC at intervals not exceeding eight miles.
----------------------
“Carolina Mountain Club (CMC)
Trailhead parking areas of adequate size are desirable amenities at those road crossings that are major start/end-of-hike locations as well as at major side-trail locations, and where conditions for such areas can safely and aesthetically be provided. Where possible, all Trailhead parking locations should be visible from the road to discourage vandalism and littering.”

RnR, the above quote (which I've had to repeat because you can't answer it elsewhere), shows just how completely asinine you truly are. That is the ATC policy from their 199 page Local Management Planning Guide. This is the "Bible" on their policy and it clearly states they endorse trailhead parking lots. If you could read you'd see that in NY-NJ they endorse parking intervals not exceeding eight miles. That sounds like even you could do that in a day. So what you actually meant to say was:
"It can be more than clearly shown how nightly road crossing support DO NOT conflict with the ATC guidelines. Of course, where your head is, I wouldn't expect you to be able to read that, or even see light.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Old Fhart, who claims he can't find any MacKaye references to wilderness, [MacKaye was the founder of The Wilderness Society and his writings are extensive] manages to tweak some local trailhead policy into ATC approval of motorized van support for through-hikes.


First, since OF suggests the 8 mile interval plan is proof of my wrongness, I ask him to find the 8 mile interval plan for the Smokies Ridge or the Maine 100 Mile Wilderness. This man is such a good interpreter of ATC policy and its intentions, and quick finder of references, I'm sure he'll back up his sincere efforts with substantiating proof. (Unless, of course, it's proof of MacKaye or wilderness)



I sat on one of those committees in New York. In no way is the quoted policy reference equal to what Old Fhart is suggesting in his vulgar delivery. What they are talking about is places where cars are being parked along roads or on private property where increased use has put a strain on local abilities to provide parking for Trail users. In New York the "improved" trailhead could be as simple as a small parking area with a small sign. In no way is this suggesting official approval of commercial support hikes that reduce hiker's wilderness exposure. This is just more tricks that ignore what has already been shown.

It's kind of foolish to try to reduce this complicated topic into a roadside parking facility issue. It isn't a valid analogy. Nobody here was arguing against roadside parking on the AT. If one were to actually view the parking areas to which Old Fhart refers, they are usually built to NPS standards. This includes removing them from sight and conforming to AT aesthetic standards. Old Fhart won't tell you that ATC is also very active in REMOVING the trail from roads wherever possible.

Old Fhart's fatal mistake is his ignoring the ATC guideline passages outlining the specific intention to keep areas where wilderness prevails unchanged. But, he is murdering the parts about hiker experience he deliberately ignores. I've never seen a more dedicated attempt to destroy the most vital part of the AT than that from the AT internet community. This specific case is a weak attempt at using distorted references to undo what has already been shown. The main reason van support violates the AT's ethic is because it attempts to use motorized support in areas where the interval is the longest. Those are the best areas of the Trail. Hikers should fight to keep them that way - not the opposite.


I want Old Fhart to show me where the parking facility policy approves of commercial support vans? Or where quoting this policy overturns previous ATC guideline references to wilderness experience and the Trail's goals? Old Fhart is using parking lot references as a ploy to get around confronting hiker experience.

[cutman11]

Ok, as a neutral uninvolved party who has spent an hour or so scanning all the posts of this thread, can we end this with this one final post:

I told my wife about this $10000 deal, and she said since I would be doing a thru hike without the service, and would spend about $4000 (at 2$ per mi), that would mean I saved $6000 (10000-4000), and so she's gonna spend that $6000 in savings on anything but hiking gear during the time I'm gone. LOL Makes about as much sense as the rest of the posts in this one. Close it out. Goodnite all.

[The Old Fhart]

LOL, RNR, your replies are so predictable, laughable, and lame! You’ve really got to start taking your medicine. Let’s look at the latest of your psychotic delusions and outright lies.
Old Fhart, who claims he can't find any MacKaye references to wilderness, [MacKaye was the founder of The Wilderness Society and his writings are extensive] manages to tweak some local trailhead policy into ATC approval of motorized van support for through-hikes. RnR, it is YOU who can’t produce a single quote of MacKaye’s from his “extensive writings,” despite countless requests from everyone here. Remember you said you can’t find your copy of anything MacKaye wrote (as Jack said-the dog ate it). I have produced extensive and exact quotes from MacKaye, you have produced NOTHING. I have been the one who produced exact and extensive quotes from ATC’s own policy manual, you have produced NOTHING! You say:
This man is such a good interpreter of ATC policy and its intentions,……. News flash! An exact quote isn’t an interpretation, it is a QUOTE, it is you who try to distort what the NY-NJ chapter says. You say:
I sat on one of those committees in New York. In no way is the quoted policy reference equal to what Old Fhart is suggesting in his vulgar delivery. Well, if you were there (as you claim), explain how the ATC and NY-NJ are clearly stating what the actual policy is and you are saying exactly the opposite. The only “vulgar” thing here is your delusional lying, like your absolute lie that I suggested putting a hotel on Half Dome when you are the person who actually suggested that super stupid idea.

“I want RnR to show me where the parking facility policy disapproves of commercial support vans. Or quote where this policy overturns previous ATC guideline references to wilderness experience and the Trail's goals.” You, RnR, are totally ignorant of what wilderness is or what the true trail experience means. Your absolute stupidity, distortions, and lies are the biggest threat to the trail and only has a negative effect. You are an elitist who feels your way is the only way to hike the trail. You can’t produce a single piece of evidence to support your idiotic claims. You can’t even find a single person who agrees with you. The reason for this is everything you post is pure BS.

NotYet has answered all questions about the guided hike she would like to lead, fully and patiently, and everything she has written indicates she is following the rules, guidelines, and spirit of the A.T.. This guided hike certainly isn’t my cup of tea but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea as she presents it.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

LOL, RNR, your replies are so predictable, laughable, and lame! You’ve really got to start taking your medicine. Let’s look at the latest of your psychotic delusions and outright lies.


OK, this off-topic personal outburst in reply to specific and serious questions pretty much finishes off "Old Fhart" as any kind of person to be taken seriously. He couldn't answer the questions, simple enough.


We are now at the point where these threads fall off simply because we are at the place where those who challenge what is being said can't refute the obvious. It's obvious the general membership isn't really interested in the AT's most important guiding principle. This is why I say the AT internet community is a farce and a drag on the real AT...


If anyone is reading this thread, read my post from last night and then read Old Fhart's reply. No objective person would say he tried to answer my points besides personal slanders. No honest attempt is being made here at recognizing cited and established AT truths...

[Lone Wolf]

It's obvious the general membership isn't interested in your long winded BS there Scooter. :D Unlike you the majority of members actually hike.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

There's obviously a double standard in here. Apparently people who challenge AT wilderness are allowed to use vulgarities and slanders without answering the topic while those trying to discuss a serious AT subject are accused of not living up to expectations. Can we conclude that the AT internet community is ignorant of and hostile towards the AT's wilderness ethic?


Lone Wolf:

Do you post anything but one line flames? There's an intelligent on-topic serious AT subject in this thread. Why do you feel a need to attack it?

[Jack Tarlin]

Give it up Rocks. You're preaching to an empty chapel. Your congregation escaped long ago, and it amazes me that you're the only one who hasn't noticed. Believe it ot not, you don't have a captive audience here, Rocks.
Has it occurred to you that people are simply tired of you saying essentially the same thing sixty-five times?

Shut the computer off and go for a walk, Rocks. It'll do you a world of good.

When you come back, how about trying a new thread or a new subject, maybe one who's goal is to actually help new-comers to the Trail, or to answer their questions or problems. Believe me, you're neither reaching, informing, or helping anyone right now. You obviously have a love of the outdoors and you care about the Trail a great deal, but you're really contributing nothing of value to the website right now. There are dozens of other places to exchange information here, Rocks. Since nobody's reading this thread anymore, I suggest you consider another topic.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I bet you were waiting for that Jack.


I understand you can't address the topic. Thank you for proving everything I said.


When the facts come out about AT wilderness the AT community organizes to kill it. It's that assumed tone of actually having any AT credibility that Jack, TJ, and others take after avoiding the topic so conspicuously that stands out the most to me. I wonder how these people convince themselves that they are doing anything other than an ad hominem dodge of the topic and slandering of the presenter?


Clue to Jack:


When posting on a serious AT matter involving correctly-described Trail principles saying "give it up Rocks" isn't conducive to credibility. This schoolyard behavior is happening obviously because we have gotten to the point they don't want to hear...

[Lone Wolf]

Go away troll. :D

[Jack Tarlin]

Rocks, you don't understand jack****.

You haven't proven one single solitary point since you arrived here, your arguments are rambling, witless, and dis-jointed, and have been nothing but a cancer to this website from your earliest arrival. You do nothing but insult other people and their opinions, and you wail like an infant when people tell you what they in fact think of YOU. You've pretty much hijacked, side-tracked, and destroyed every conversation you've joined here, and people are sick of it.

In short, you are a classic Internet Troll, and deserve to be treated as such.

In several earlier posts, I gave my heartfelt opinion that you were a silly, pedantic, boring, horse's ass.

I withdraw that remark.

It's an insult to horses.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

AT internet members are obviously in contempt of serious AT discussion...

[The Old Fhart]

“We are now at the point where these threads fall off simply because we are at the place where Rants N Rumors can't refute the obvious. It's obvious RnR isn't really interested in the AT's most important guiding principle. This is why I say RnR is a farce and a drag on the real AT...” :D :D

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Which only proves that when members who weren't really serious in the first place are disproven they aren't above childish mocking in response. Case in point...


I think we've proven that the usual suspects aren't up to the topic, it's other more educated AT members who remain silent that are the most obvious omission here...

[Tim Rich]

Which only proves that when members who weren't really serious in the first place are disproven they aren't above childish mocking in response. Case in point...


I think we've proven that the usual suspects aren't up to the topic, it's other more educated AT members who remain silent that are the most obvious omission here...

I'll not wager that I'm more, or less, educated than those who have contributed to this topic. Since I've taken the bait, I ask only two simple question of Rocks N Roots:

1. Could you please provide any written reference of your assessment of current ATC policy on supported hikes?
2. Could you provide any direct, written attributions to BM that support what you've represented here as his stance? Something beyond "he started the Wilderness Society so he must have meant the same for AT"?

I consider these direct questions that can be answered directly. No barbs, innuendo, slander or personal insults attached.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

"Take the bait"???



1. Could you please provide any written reference of your assessment of current ATC policy on supported hikes?

See Weary's "ATC Guidelines Thread".



2. Could you provide any direct, written attributions to BM that support what you've represented here as his stance? Something beyond "he started the Wilderness Society so he must have meant the same for AT"?
It's well-known that MacKaye left the AT when his wilderness plan got so compromised that he felt it was damaged.

As for his exact writings I'd have to do more research using books unavailable to me here. His best descriptions exist in passages from books containing his correspondences with other Trail organizers. His contentious interchanges with formative Trail personalities are known to Trail scholars. He basically went through the same difficulty we are having here. People are thick-headed when it comes to wilderness organization.

Never the less, enough exists in the ATC guidelines to prove most of what we are saying. It's really nothing you should ever have to "prove" amongst Trail people. I mean it's basic that NPS and ATC care for the Trail under a predetermined set of wildness guidelines. The reason MacKaye is important is because he makes the Trail's functional philosophical purpose more clear...

[The Old Fhart]

Tim Rich (to RnR)-“2. Could you provide any direct, written attributions to BM that support what you've represented here as his stance? Something beyond "he started the Wilderness Society so he must have meant the same for AT"?

I consider these direct questions that can be answered directly. No barbs, innuendo, slander or personal insults attached.And now the edited quote as posted by RnR that left off a most important part of the question.
RnR’s misquote-“2. Could you provide any direct, written attributions to BM that support what you've represented here as his stance? Something beyond "he started the Wilderness Society so he must have meant the same for AT"? Woah! After crying incessantly about his claims that others take quotes out of context, RnR can’t even quote a short direct question without editing it to try to distort its meaning! "I consider these direct questions that can be answered directly. No barbs, innuendo, slander or personal insults attached" is important but you not only edit it out, you totally ignore it. But we wouldn't expect any honest reply from you. RnR, you are such a putz!

But let’s look at RnR’s laughable answer. His actual answer to Tim’s question is a resounding NO. He can not answer the question directly but he tries to do a two-step around the truth, avoiding an answer at all costs.
It's well-known that MacKaye left the AT when his wilderness plan got so compromised that he felt it was damaged.If it is so well known, produce one single reference (i.e., a real quote) stating this alleged event. You can’t because it only exists in your twisted little mind.
As for his exact writings I'd have to do more research using books unavailable to me here. His best descriptions exist in passages from books containing his correspondences with other Trail organizers. His contentious interchanges with formative Trail personalities are known to Trail scholars. He basically went through the same difficulty we are having here. People are thick-headed when it comes to wilderness organization.RnR, do you go out of your way to try to look stupider in each post you make?
RnR-“I'd have to do more research using books unavailable to me here” LOL! After saying you can’t find your own books by BM, you now say you’d have to do research on books unavailable to you! Even a one-celled animal can see how absolutely stupid that statement is!
Never the less, enough exists in the ATC guidelines to prove most of what we are saying. It's really nothing you should ever have to "prove" amongst Trail people. I mean it's basic that NPS and ATC care for the Trail under a predetermined set of wildness guidelines. Hey, moron, if enough exists, QUOTE IT. When you say:”that NPS and ATC care for the Trail under a predetermined set of wildness guidelines.” Where is your proof? I posted an exact quote from the ATC on their stand on wilderness (ATC Trail Guidelines post #73) and it doesn’t support your distortions at all. Baltimore Jack posted a link to the ATC web page that once again defines wilderness in great detail and that doesn’t support you either. You also make it very clear you don't know what wilderness is. There is a decided difference between "wilderness" with a small "w" and "Wilderness" with a capital "W." The latter is federally designated and is only about 100 miles of the trail go through or near true Wilderness. If you were a "trail scholar", or you read any of the many references cited, you'd know that, but you already admitted you don't read what others post.
RnR-“The reason MacKaye is important is because he makes the Trail's functional philosophical purpose more clear...’ So the BM books you can’t find and the books unavailable to you here make BM’s purpose more clear! You must stay up all night trying to look this stupid.
RnR post #280-“In reading your answers I detect a disturbing trend of moving from specific AT wilderness concerns into vague generalities.” You never cease to amaze us with the bottomless depth of your inanity. Everyone else is giving specific answers and you are giving vague generalities!

RnR, I suggest all your posts get transferred to “trail humor” or to “off topic” because you contribute nothing, absolutely nothing to the meaningful discussion of trail topics. You are just a piece of litter on the internet. Go get some counceling

[Tim Rich]

"Take the bait"???




See Weary's "ATC Guidelines Thread".



It's well-known that MacKaye left the AT when his wilderness plan got so compromised that he felt it was damaged.

As for his exact writings I'd have to do more research using books unavailable to me here. His best descriptions exist in passages from books containing his correspondences with other Trail organizers. His contentious interchanges with formative Trail personalities are known to Trail scholars. He basically went through the same difficulty we are having here. People are thick-headed when it comes to wilderness organization.

Never the less, enough exists in the ATC guidelines to prove most of what we are saying. It's really nothing you should ever have to "prove" amongst Trail people. I mean it's basic that NPS and ATC care for the Trail under a predetermined set of wildness guidelines. The reason MacKaye is important is because he makes the Trail's functional philosophical purpose more clear...

Rocks N Roots, thanks for directing me to the ATC Guidelines thread. There are some good posts over there. I looked at them all. Bottom line is that a supported hike is not disallowed in any manner by ATC. Any disallowance of supported hikes would also disallow consecutive-day dayhikers, or perhaps dayhikers in general. In my 17 years of section hiking, I've met a number of folks seeking to hike the entire AT in one day pieces. Why do they do it? Some have spouses who can't hike but share in their journey by being there at day's beginning and end. Another told me that he loved the trail but didn't enjoy the camping aspect. One told me that he and a friend used two cars and hiked a section each day, meeting and exchanging keys at lunch. Another told me that he was trying to hike all of the AT in PA, because he loved doing trail maintenance and wanted to see the part of the state that he hadn't supported. Each of these folks had a sense of adventure and true excitement over their personal AT goals. I felt no more important or noble because I had a number of day's supplies and overnight gear on my back (I did feel heavier). I've also met countless dayhikers out enjoying nature, communing with it in a manner that I sometimes miss during some parts of my hikes when the miles become a task instead of a discovery. When I come to a road crossing, I'm not concerned to see cars in a parking lot or on the shoulder of the road. I don't care if there's a van parked there, waiting on other hikers. Would you criticize the wonderful folks at the Cabin for waiting to take hikers in for the night? They, and other shuttlers, offer daily shuttle services over perhaps a one week or more hiking area, in essence providing a supported hike option.

By sending me over to a previously unvisited thread, you've convinced me that supported hikes are within ATC guidelines. In this thread, NotYet's diligent, courteous answers to all questions have convinced me that she poses NO threat to REASONABLE trail expectations.

As to your not providing any support from BM's actual writings, go to the library and have them transfer any books you need to you. It's a free and available service. Then you can answer the second question.

Probably not your intent, but thanks for addressing it.

Take Care,

Tim

[MOWGLI]

People are thick-headed when it comes to wilderness organization.


That's an oxymoron. What is wilderness, and how do you organize or manage it?

Until you address my repeated questions about wilderness, IMO, your entire thesis makes no sense whatsoever.

[NotYet]

That's an oxymoron. What is wilderness, and how do you organize or manage it?


Please forgive me as I change the subject for a moment...

Although I completely understand what is being said when the terms "wilderness organization" or "wilderness management" are used. The terms do remind of something that happened when I was giving a perspective student a tour of my college...I asked him what he was involved in at his high school, and he told me proudly that he was the "President of the anarchy club." I asked them if they had an election, and he said, "yes."

I just remember being tickled by the notion... :jump

[MOWGLI]

. The terms do remind of something that happened when I was giving a perspective student a tour of my college...I asked him what he was involved in at his high school, and he told me proudly that he was the "President of the anarchy club." I asked them if they had an election, and he said, "yes."



Was the student admitted to the school? Inquiring minds want to know!

[NotYet]

It can be more than clearly shown how nightly road crossing support conflicts with the guidelines, not to mention discouragement of Trail commercialization. I also suspect that it would be in the interest of a person who intends to carry out a van support business to not "understand" (if I quote correctly)...


Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

As to the first sentence in the above quote, I do not think that it has been clearly shown that support at road crossings conflict with the ATC guidelines. It is very important to us that we follow the guidelines; so that is what we are striving to do.

I also believe that taking one or two words from a sentence rarely represents adequately the meaning of the sentence from which they were taken. The way I am reading the second sentence from the statement above, the use of quotations around the word "understand" implies a note of sarcasm that I don't believe I deserve. If I misunderstood, I apologize for mentioning it.

I have been responding to your concerns as clearly and directly as I can, and I can promise you that I will continue to show you respect. My answers may still continue to be unsatisfactory to you. However, I think that is not because I am being overly vague or dodging the point or not being clear. But instead, it seems to be because I am not saying what you want me to say. There is a big difference.

[NotYet]

Was the student admitted to the school? Inquiring minds want to know!

I don't know, it was my senior year...but hopefully he took my advice and didn't bring it up at his interview! :clap

[weary]

What is wilderness, and how do you organize or manage it?
.
Pure wilderness is nature without the influence of humans, nature allowed to evolve without human influence. Yeah, I know, humans are part of nature. But wilderness is nature without humans.

Humans intrude into wilderness only as observers, not manipulators. If they build in wilderness, it is to minimize the impact of their human observation. Pure wilderness is rare. But wise humans can nurture it, manage it, if you insist.

They do that best by not interfering. Though pure wilderness is rare, I have found that even tiny places can provide a sense of wildness -- a hint of what true wilderness could be. Our land trust owns 253 acres along the eastern shore of a man made pond -- originally dammed to harvest ice.

We manage it by keeping motors away and by building narrow footpaths for observers. We allow the plants and animals to live and die without our help. We allow the trees to live and die. We are criticized for not harvesing mature trees, for wasting good valuable timber.

But our crop is not timber, but a place where nature reigns uninfluenced by man. Our 253 acres were once farm fields, woodlot and pastureland. Now it is dedicated to nature, to do as nature wishes. A bit of natural history. A museum of wildness.

A couple of miles up the road is a small historical museum, dedicated to preserving the artifacts of a tiny shipbuilding community in the age of wind power, now mostly a tourist, summer residence, and retirement community.

Our preserve shares importance with the history museum. It is a place that is gradually reverting to the land as it existed when the first settlement was attempted and the first ship was built in 1607.

My other land trust, the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, is seeking to produce similar enclaves of wildness along the Appalachian Trail in Maine -- to preserve and restore a bit of the wildness that once existed in the country through which the trail passes.


Sadly, I find people in our small town have a greater appreciation of wildness than does the Appalachian Trail community. When our town land trust needs money to buy land to preserve a quarter of the town's population contributes.

Only a relative handful have contributed to our AT efforts. Despite that we have protected a wild mountain summit and the slopes of Saddleback. We have other purchase prospects as the land speculators that now own virtually all the land adjacent to the narrow AT corridor in Maine place land on the market.

Prices are still at the bargain level, compared with the rest of the east. You can learn more by opening:

www.matlt.org

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Tim Rich:


Let me see, you review a supported section hike in Pennsylvania, ignore just about everything I've written, then decide to give the Trail away because you'll feel it isn't prevented in writing? Hmm.


The most interesting thing you wrote was where you commented that ATC doesn't say anywhere that support hikes are disallowed. My question is, well what is the idea here? Are we to allow anything that isn't excluded? Is the thought process here one of trying to work wilderness-compromising activities in as long as they aren't specifically excluded? Or is the Appalachian Trail a place where the exclusion of wilderness compromising things is the basis of its being? Check out the ATC guidelines.

What is the Trail community doing here? Are they trying to battle the idea of organized wilderness preservation? Are they trying to get away with as much as they can unless stopped? Which is the main concern here? Trying to get approval for as many activities as possible until stopped, or trying to preserve the sense of wilderness on the Trail as much as possible? If you look at what the Trail community does, they most definitely are on the side of those who seek to challenge AT wilderness until stopped. Their arguments are not ones seeking the Trail's guiding principles, their origins, or meanings, their arguments are ones questioning the very Trail itself. When you ask these people which Trail protections they recognize they remain silent. In other words, they seek to have NO AT wilderness definition. What they want is free reign for anything to make it easier on themsleves. The price there is AT wilderness, but since they don't recognize it, it isn't any loss to them. This is organized anarchy. It weakens and damages the AT. The Trail community proves once again it is more interested in challenging AT wilderness than upholding it. The problem is the AT was formed because of an organized movement to create wilderness. This was a directed and concerted effort. It resulted in the Trail's creation. This new AT movement isn't based on anything but doubt and disconcern. It fails the original movement and damages its momentum. Tim, the idea of the AT is to preserve wilderness. Where is that in what you wrote?



NotYet:


Hmm, let me see? After all we have written here your response is still "I don't see where ATC says that"? - Come on...

[Tim Rich]

Tim Rich:


Let me see, you review a supported section hike in Pennsylvania, ignore just about everything I've written, then decide to give the Trail away because you'll feel it isn't prevented in writing? Hmm.


The most interesting thing you wrote was where you commented that ATC doesn't say anywhere that support hikes are disallowed. My question is, well what is the idea here? Are we to allow anything that isn't excluded? Is the thought process here one of trying to work wilderness-compromising activities in as long as they aren't specifically excluded? Or is the Appalachian Trail a place where the exclusion of wilderness compromising things is the basis of its being? Check out the ATC guidelines.

What is the Trail community doing here? Are they trying to battle the idea of organized wilderness preservation? Are they trying to get away with as much as they can unless stopped? Which is the main concern here? Trying to get approval for as many activities as possible until stopped, or trying to preserve the sense of wilderness on the Trail as much as possible? If you look at what the Trail community does, they most definitely are on the side of those who seek to challenge AT wilderness until stopped. Their arguments are not ones seeking the Trail's guiding principles, their origins, or meanings, their arguments are ones questioning the very Trail itself. When you ask these people which Trail protections they recognize they remain silent. In other words, they seek to have NO AT wilderness definition. What they want is free reign for anything to make it easier on themsleves. The price there is AT wilderness, but since they don't recognize it, it isn't any loss to them. This is organized anarchy. It weakens and damages the AT. The Trail community proves once again it is more interested in challenging AT wilderness than upholding it. The problem is the AT was formed because of an organized movement to create wilderness. This was a directed and concerted effort. It resulted in the Trail's creation. This new AT movement isn't based on anything but doubt and disconcern. It fails the original movement and damages its momentum. Tim, the idea of the AT is to preserve wilderness. Where is that in what you wrote?

The idea of the AT, as I tried to express, is in the enjoyment and recreation along the footpath known as the AT. That enjoyment comes from one hour dayhikes, full day treks, weekending, sectioneering and thruhiking. As I tried to clearly state, a vehicle parked at a road crossing does not intrude on wilderness values - the existence of the road itself precludes wilderness status. To say that day hikes or supported hikes diminish the wilderness feel of the AT because they require automotive traffic on established roadways is illegitimate.

Does a thruhiker who pays Bear to drop them off and pick them up on a particular day "giving the trail away"? Does Bear (I'm mentioning him because I consider him to be one of the finest providers of services along the entire AT) diminish the value of the AT because of the services he offers? I think he enhances.

The AT is as much about people as it is about land. I'm not saying ignore the land issues, I'm asking you to acknowledge that the people matter.

Take Care,

Tim

[The Old Fhart]

RnR-"When you ask these people which Trail protections they recognize they remain silent. In other words, they seek to have NO AT wilderness definition."There has been extensive policy statements on both wilderness and Wilderness made by the ATC and USFS presented here but you obviously didn't have any interest so you either didn't read these detailed definitions or you ignored them. RnR, do you have to practice to be so ignorant?

The biggest danger to wilderness is a fanatical idiot like yourself.
.

[Lone Wolf]

I think Wingfoot booted him from Trailplace. He hasn't been running his pie hole over there for awhile. Or nobody will feed his troll ass.

[MOWGLI]

Hmm, let me see? After all we have written here your response is still "I don't see where ATC says that"? - Come on...

Ya know, RnR, for someone who pisses & moans about how people avoid answering your questions - you sure are good at avoiding mine.

[NotYet]

NotYet:


Hmm, let me see? After all we have written here your response is still "I don't see where ATC says that"? - Come on...

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I'm assuming that you are referring to post #325, as that is my most recent post that relates to the topic (I've been gone several days). Once again, Please allow me to state that I do not think you are being careful enough with your quotation marks, or with your interpretation what I am writing.

I recognize that you do not agree with me on this or on several other ideas represented in this thread. I hope, however, that this will not keep you from treating me with respect. I am impressed with the passion that that you have for the trail...I, too, love the trail. We have a lot in common! ;)

[orangebug]

Don't worry about RnR's invented quotes of writers, living and dead. He has shown us the light of channeling meaning from thin air.

The thinner and more vacuous, the better.

There is nothing to see here, we should move along....

[Rocks 'n Roots]

The idea of the AT, as I tried to express, is in the enjoyment and recreation along the footpath known as the AT. That enjoyment comes from one hour dayhikes, full day treks, weekending, sectioneering and thruhiking. As I tried to clearly state, a vehicle parked at a road crossing does not intrude on wilderness values - the existence of the road itself precludes wilderness status. To say that day hikes or supported hikes diminish the wilderness feel of the AT because they require automotive traffic on established roadways is illegitimate.

So it has nothing to do with all the thoughts expressed by MacKaye or the guidelines? Sounds like you're trying to avoid something Tim. If you noticed, what you wrote does not preclude anything I said about the AT being designed wilderness. Next is yet another attempt at the old wilderness pureness argument. Because roads cross the AT does not mean any attempt to preserve its wilderness ethic are invalid. What you are doing is taking the position of those who fight the Trail. If the concept of wilderness gets in your way, simply challenge the concept of wilderness itself. Once again, another Trail member has it backwards. The AT is not a place to challenge whether or not the AT has a right to its cause, but is instead a place to challenge the civilization mentality. Some people just can't stand the fact that anyone would suggest that mankind might be doing something wrong. I think this is where this resistance comes from. This is what is "illegitimate" here. But what is really illegitimate is ignoring ATC's guideline distinction between those who hike and those who don't. Or ignoring the conceptual totality of the AT.




Does a thruhiker who pays Bear to drop them off and pick them up on a particular day "giving the trail away"? Does Bear (I'm mentioning him because I consider him to be one of the finest providers of services along the entire AT) diminish the value of the AT because of the services he offers? I think he enhances.


You're looking at it backwards. The AT wasn't designed to satisfy Bear (whoever he is). I don't know what he does, but if it provides a means that then results in a weakening or change in the previous wilderness ethic then he is the one who needs to be aware - not the AT! This is the whole problem here. I don't want to sound silly, but this is really a "don't ask what your Trail can do for you, but what you can do for your Trail" matter. Where it gets dangerous is when the Trail starts changing for the worse because of this conventional viewpoint.




The AT is as much about people as it is about land. I'm not saying ignore the land issues, I'm asking you to acknowledge that the people matter.

He says while completely ignoring the land (wilderness ethic) issues. I doubt there are many cases where people suffered because of AT wilderness. On the other hand I think we can agree the Trail is becoming less wild. If we build a MacKaye-level AT people will come...

[wacocelt]

I don't want to sound silly

Too late, Oh my goodness too late.

[The Old Fhart]

RnR-"I don't want to sound silly"...
......"The AT wasn't designed to satisfy Bear (whoever he is). I don't know what he does, but if it provides a means that then results in a weakening or change in the previous wilderness ethic then he is the one who needs to be aware - not the AT!"LOL, RnR, you once again prove how totally ignorant you are. Almost everyone who has hiked the trail in the last 8 years knows Honey and Bear. They, unlike you, are trail maintainers. They have given selflessly of their time, energy, and money, to maintain parts of the trail in Maine. They also have helped and provided services for thousands of hikers. Many of us here on WB are friends of theirs and hold them in high esteem.

There are many other places along the trail that supply support and/or shelter for hikers from Graymoor Monastery to Shaw’s Boarding House that are revered by thru hikers. These places are compatible with the ATC guidelines and "wilderness." Only a total idiot (like you) would criticize places like this that are such an important part of a hike to tens of thousands of hikers.

[Lone Wolf]

8 months and 337 posts. The bulls**t goes on and on... RNR has you fools in a tizzy. :D

[Tim Rich]

So it has nothing to do with all the thoughts expressed by MacKaye or the guidelines? Sounds like you're trying to avoid something Tim. If you noticed, what you wrote does not preclude anything I said about the AT being designed wilderness. Next is yet another attempt at the old wilderness pureness argument. Because roads cross the AT does not mean any attempt to preserve its wilderness ethic are invalid. What you are doing is taking the position of those who fight the Trail. If the concept of wilderness gets in your way, simply challenge the concept of wilderness itself. Once again, another Trail member has it backwards. The AT is not a place to challenge whether or not the AT has a right to its cause, but is instead a place to challenge the civilization mentality. Some people just can't stand the fact that anyone would suggest that mankind might be doing something wrong. I think this is where this resistance comes from. This is what is "illegitimate" here. But what is really illegitimate is ignoring ATC's guideline distinction between those who hike and those who don't. Or ignoring the conceptual totality of the AT.






You're looking at it backwards. The AT wasn't designed to satisfy Bear (whoever he is). I don't know what he does, but if it provides a means that then results in a weakening or change in the previous wilderness ethic then he is the one who needs to be aware - not the AT! This is the whole problem here. I don't want to sound silly, but this is really a "don't ask what your Trail can do for you, but what you can do for your Trail" matter. Where it gets dangerous is when the Trail starts changing for the worse because of this conventional viewpoint.





He says while completely ignoring the land (wilderness ethic) issues. I doubt there are many cases where people suffered because of AT wilderness. On the other hand I think we can agree the Trail is becoming less wild. If we build a MacKaye-level AT people will come...

Rocks N Roots,

My response to this thread doesn't constitute my manifesto on trail history, use, and protection. I'm not looking for converts to my way of thinking, so I don't have to regurgitate my gospel each and every post. I'm simply saying that 1) road crossings are a part of the AT, providing access points for recreational foot travel; 2) People who choose to stay on the AT for an hour, a day, consecutive day dayhikes, a week or six months all are within the guidelines of acceptable use; 3) If a person chooses to utilize a service provider (store, outfitter, shuttler, phone booth or lodging), that's their choice. They can go into town for resupply and lodging at every road crossing (or every tenth one, or none of them) and not be at odds with a "MacKaye-level AT".

If you want to talk about trail protection, start a thread asking everyone's view of what additional, realistic steps should be taken for AT protection. Heck, I'll start it now.

Take Care,

Tim

[The Old Fhart]

Lone Wolf-"8 months and 337 posts. The bulls**t goes on and on... RNR has you fools in a tizzy. :DAu contra, Wolf, it is more like a soccer game and RnR is the ball. The players get benefit from the game and enjoy it immensely but the ball just takes a beating. :D

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Rocks N Roots,

My response to this thread doesn't constitute my manifesto on trail history, use, and protection. I'm not looking for converts to my way of thinking, so I don't have to regurgitate my gospel each and every post.

OK, so now we're into slanders. Tim, where has anyone ever discussed this at all? You have no right to label a simple attempt at discussing basic Trail ideas this way. Again, your motive is obvious and you need to defame the attempt before recognizing its validity. People with real respect for the topic's legitimacy don't do that. These are serious Trail officials and scholars who recognize these things for what they are. Unfortunately, these same persons stay mute when the discussion arises. This lends artificial credibility to persons who should be challenged but aren't. The AT's wilderness ethic doesn't change. It is a constant thing existing perpetually. So, its continued mention isn't untoward or unreasonable. What keeps it having to be mentioned is the fact that so many people make illegitimate attempts at altering or discounting it.

The one-line flames you see here in response to otherwise soundly-expressed AT wilderness views are representative of the contempt and ineptitude most internet members show towards the topic.

They can't answer...


As to your response: You can't pretend to be answering my post if you continue to ignore the clearly-spelled out meanings I've spoken of. Specifically, I have repeated several times that the ATC guideline differentiating between hikers who walk to a remote location and those who don't is proof of a written and guarded AT wilderness ethic. You ignore it. Instead you insist on returning to an oversimplified review of road crossings and people's use of them. I've clearly discussed how wilderness immersion was a primary goal of the AT and its purpose. You ignore it. We can accept at this point that you refuse to acknowledge both the evidence of ATC wilderness ethics and their inextractable connection to the AT. Your labelling my attempt a "manifesto" speaks to me where the motivation for this ignoring is coming from. In any case, whether you recognize it or not, you're not only challenging my attempt at outlining the wilderness ethic - but you're challenging the ethic itself. This is just more proof of what I was saying about the AT community. It is more interested in seeking ways to attack AT wilderness at a conceptual level than it is upholding it. Discussing people's ability to access Trail-crossing roads is in no way a valid means of ignoring how that activity affects the AT and its purpose...

[The Old Fhart]

RnR-"They can't answer..."They have answered many times. Even shouted it. RnR, you are just deaf, dumb, and blind.

[Mountain Dew]

He kicks ...he shoots...he SCOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRES....... lmao :banana

[Rocks 'n Roots]

You're not quoting accurately:



The one-line flames you see here in response to otherwise soundly-expressed AT wilderness views are representative of the contempt and ineptitude most internet members show towards the topic.

They can't answer...

The response to which was more one-line flames (and the original contempt for the topic finally brought into plain view)

[HikerHobo]

If you want spell check for IE, there are some free downloads out there. I like ieSpellThanks, Rock for the tip on ieSpell. It is a great
addition to the IE browser, and one I'll use a lot.
Really like the dictionary feature too!
Sure can't beat the price for such a valuable tool.

:cool:

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I will consider doing this if I am unable to carry a backpack. I was badly injured in an ato accident last year and my right upper quad isn't rehabilitating well at all. It's quite possible that using a service like this is the only way I will be able to complete my section hike.

I'm sorry if some think this makes me less worthy than those who carry a pack - I'd do it if I could, but I can barely pick up my great-grandkids at this point and that's after a full year of physical therapy. Reality sucks sometimes, but I still have to play by its rules.

NotYet, I have a question. Do you have a special rate for couples travelling together? Note, my user name is plural.

[NotYet]

Hi Frolicking Dinosaurs,

I'm really sorry to hear that you were injured in an accident. I hope that you are able to eventually heal completely. It sure is frustrating when the process doesn't go as well as we'd like it to go.

Thank you for your question about our service. For the fully-supported thru-hike there is a small discount for each person signing-up with a spouse, relative(s), friend(s), etc. Each receives $250 off the price (so it would be $500 off for two people who are together). We've had a lot of folks expressing an interest in doing the fully-supported thru-hike, so we've decided to offer it for the 2007 season. If we get at least 8 hikers, the trip is a go.

You mentioned wanting to complete your section hike. We do provide fully-supported section hikes on many parts of the trail. These trips are more custom-designed and can be done for just one or two hikers. The price is per person per day...the longer the duration of the trip and the more hikers on the trip, the less we charge per person per day. If you don't want to do an entire thru-hike, this is one option you might want to consider.

Also, we have a service that we call our "shuttle-only" AT hikes. We don't have this described anywhere on our website, but what it involves is contracting out with us for a week at a time to be your shuttle. We'll meet you with the vehicles/gear where you choose each night, take you to whatever nearby town you'd like when you need to resupply or want a town day(s). You are in charge of your own meals, and you make the decisions about the pace of your trip, etc. A plus about this service is that you only have to commit to a week at a time; so if you need to leave the trail or want to switch to a traditional backpacking trip, you just let us know. This service varies in price depending upon the number in the group. We can provide this service for 1 to 7 hikers.

I hope this answers some of your questions. E-mail me at info@bighike.com or call toll free 1-866-BIG-HIKE if you want more details about any of our services.

Thanks,

NotYet

[NotYet]

Hmmmm,

Something strange has happened. I'm not real savvy when it comes to technology, but it appears that something is amiss. :-?

When I checked my e-mail a moment ago, there were 26 of those statements that e-mails sent out were undeliverable (none of these e-mails were sent by us). All of these e-mails seemed to have been sent from some sort of "fake name at bighike dot com".

I want to apologize if these fake e-mails have been a bother to anyone (I bet not, though, since they are undeliverable, huh? :datz ).

I mention this occurrance here because our site has a lot of traffic coming from this thread right now...the only thing I can think of is that someone is upset with my last post or our service, or that there is an error occurring.

Either way, if you'd like to contact us with a question or concern, please e-mail us. We'd be happy to reply.

[kyhipo]

well honey if you have the money its a dream, If your a hiker and besides after hiking for my little time it would be nice i wander if they could do that half the way and half the price:rolleyes: ky:dance

[Mala]

Why not? The AT was never blazed with the intention of being "thru-hiked" so one might as well slack it in comfort. I was thinking of offering the same sort of service.

That's Right Buddy! (Phatt Chapp)

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

This discussion ultimately comes back to "Hike your own hike" We all have to do this with whatever strengths, weaknesses or abilities we have been given.

For those willing and able to hike the entire trail in a single stretch with a pack, I am in awe. For those who hiked it in sections, I am also in awe. For those who have found a way to slackpack most of the trail and hiked the whole thing, I am in awe. No matter how you do it, hiking 2000+ miles is a great achievement.

[Belgarion]

would have figured after reading this thread that it was Minnesota Smith who started it. Look, do your thru-hike the way you want, but personally, if you do it this way you are a yellow-blazer to me. I mean why hike the AT at all this way? I could see getting support if your Bill or a handicapped person who needs it.
But the whole idea to me, of thru-hiking the AT is to challange yourself, to learn self-reliance, and to get back to nature. How are you going to learn these things if your running to meet your next pick up spot. How are you going to learn the enjoyment of sleeping in your tent with the winds howling, the rain pelting and your socks stinking so bad that they will probably just peel off your skin when you take them off? Or trying to get your MSR to light wen it's 20 degree's outside and the wind is again howling at 20mphs?
Maybe I can get in on this scam and mke some money. No, wait, i have a little more respect ofr thru-hiking and the AT for that.
Belgarion

Jeesh Lonestar, what happened with you and that goose last night at Nimblewell? she wanted to have your kids man.

[Frosty]

Look, do your thru-hike the way you want, but personally, if you do it this way you are a yellow-blazer to me. I mean why hike the AT at all this way?

the whole idea to me, of thru-hiking the AT is to ....That's the key, now, isn't it? The whole idea to YOU. Other people do things for different reasons. Their own reasons. They do not do them for your reasons, or my reasons.Their "whole idea of thruhiking" is not the same as mine or yours or anyone else's.

No, I would not pay $10,000 to do it this way, either. But let them hike the way they want, their own hike. Period. No "buts" just PERIOD. These folks will be hiking in the woods for a few months. They will have a great time. What could possibly be wrong with that?

(BTW, sorry to nitpick you, but slackpacking is not yellowblazing.)

[Lone Wolf]

would have figured after reading this thread that it was Minnesota Smith who started it. Look, do your thru-hike the way you want, but personally, if you do it this way you are a yellow-blazer to me. I mean why hike the AT at all this way? I could see getting support if your Bill or a handicapped person who needs it.
But the whole idea to me, of thru-hiking the AT is to challange yourself, to learn self-reliance, and to get back to nature. How are you going to learn these things if your running to meet your next pick up spot. How are you going to learn the enjoyment of sleeping in your tent with the winds howling, the rain pelting and your socks stinking so bad that they will probably just peel off your skin when you take them off? Or trying to get your MSR to light wen it's 20 degree's outside and the wind is again howling at 20mphs?
Maybe I can get in on this scam and mke some money. No, wait, i have a little more respect ofr thru-hiking and the AT for that.
Belgarion

Jeesh Lonestar, what happened with you and that goose last night at Nimblewell? she wanted to have your kids man.
I'm pretty sure nobody cares what you think.

[blindeye]

I can see it now,an escalator to mt. everest!!!!!!!! i will thru hike on my own schedule. REMEMBER: HIKE YOUR OWN HIKE!!!

[Tin Man]

I'm pretty sure nobody cares what you think.

Can we vote on that just to make sure?

I vote YES, I don't care. HYOH

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread (
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=116182&#post116182), I was having trouble rehabbing some injuries. The verdict is in and my injuries are permanent. I've been given a 15% whole body impairment rating due to a Trendelenburg gait (http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eanatomy/hip/hip%20clin%20correl/corr6.html) secondary to having lost the ability to move the vastus lateralis and partial loss of other quads in the right leg. I can't carry much weight or walk very far right now, but I'm still building up the muscles that are left. I will be hiking the AT with two offset canes instead of trekking poles. The male dino and I are shaving weight off our combined pack weight and he has bought an external frame pack to be able to carry more. There are some sections where I may consider supported hiking because the male dino is not a mule. Some sections are brutal - they may be too brutal for me to do at all, but only time will tell.