rickboudrie-“As for the question: "Do you disagree with the rules that so many dedicated people spent countless days to define?"
My answer would be no. Including the part of that 199 page document that reads: "Use of the Appalachian Trail by large groups, commercial outfitters, sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions generates impacts that are inconsistent with the concept of a simple footpath.”Let’s be more exact, Rick. I thought I’d made it clear in post #244 that I referred to the ATC, USFS, and other sources, about the current rules, laws, and regulations regarding trail use. USFS laws and rules trump ATC and it is the laws and rules governing the USFS that determine who gets SUPs. I am a little familiar with this because, as I previously mentioned, I carried an Outfitter Guide Card (WM-2700-25 7/00) issued by the White Mountain National Forest to allow me to lead NH AMC trips in the WMNF. Whether for profit or not, any group, Boy Scouts, church group, etc., is considered a commercial outfitter and has to have a permit or card authorizing them to lead trips in the National Forests. Note group size is limited to 10 people and fines have been issued to individuals who violate the law. So commercial outfitters are indeed allowed on a case-by-case basis.

As to Wilderness I quoted from the ATC’s LMPG, section 5(I), in post #73 but you apparently missed it. The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, says:
Special exceptions may be provided for the following activities:
*Existing private rights;
*Measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area;
*Activities and structures that are the minimum necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness;
*Use of aircraft and motorboats, where already established;
*Measures necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases;
*Any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment;
*Continued application of the U.S. mining and mineral leasing laws until December 31, 1983;
*Water-resource development authorized by the president where he determines that such use will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial;
*Livestock grazing, where already established;
*Commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas;
*Adequate access to surrounded state and privately owned lands (or such lands shall be exchanged for federally owned lands);
*Access to surrounded valid mining claims and other valid occupancies.

In post #116 I also quoted the many uses that have been allowed on the trail from the ATC’s LMPG sections 4(D), 4(H), 4(I) which states: HUNTING The Trail passes through many different state and federal jurisdictions, most of which allow hunting. More than 1,000 miles of the Trail cross National Forest lands that are open to hunting. Additionally, approximately 150 miles of the A.T. are located on state gameland units that are specifically administered for game species and hunting. Hunting also is permitted on more than 100 miles of state lands administered by state forests. Additionally, on many privately owned lands adjoining the Trail, hunting is a well-established use.

SUP The National Park Service A.T. Park Office presently administers more than 50 special-use permits that authorize use of corridor lands along the Appalachian Trail. The majority of these permit agricultural uses, including grazing, haying, and crop production. Most (though not all) permits exist to maintain natural open areas or historical pastoral scenes for the benefit of Trail users. Some permits have been issued to accommodate preexisting uses, including maple sugaring and a hang-gliding site [see Chapter 4(M)]. Other permits have been issued for temporary uses, such as a weekend horseback event that required a short crossing of the Trail corridor or a wedding on Trail lands in the center of the town of Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania.

UTILITIES & COMMUNICATIONS Natural-gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, telephone trunk lines, communications towers and many smaller utility-distribution lines of all types already cross the Appalachian Trail in many locations. There also are microwave dishes, cellular transmission towers, airport hazard beacons, and wind-power generation towers that dot the landscape. Frequently, the most desirable location for these communications facilities is on the highest available terrain, often in direct conflict with the route of the A.T.

So whether something is allowed or not depend on carefully reading and understanding ALL the rules and laws and by reading and understanding I do not mean reading between the lines or interpreting them, just purely understanding them. As to on trail use, everyone is in agreement that foot power is the approved method. However there is no pack weight requirement or minimum distance requirement to anyone who uses the trail. Also you are correct that sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions are out. This does not mean that the occasional individual who tries to do the trail in under 60 days is breaking any laws, no matter how silly I view their effort.

The NPS A.T. Comprehensive Plan states:

• Commercial endeavors designed to profit from visitor use are not an acceptable component in the Trail corridor.

___________________

The above is a direct quote from the 199 page ATC document that was posted by another person in this thread to help us better understand the ATC.

Context? Decades of care for the Trail, I think.

Rick B

Let’s be more exact, Rick. I thought I’d made it clear in post #244 that I referred to the ATC, USFS, and other sources, about the current rules, laws, and regulations regarding trail use. USFS laws and rules trump ATC and it is the laws and rules governing the USFS that determine who gets SUPs. I am a little familiar with this because, as I previously mentioned, I carried an Outfitter Guide Card (WM-2700-25 7/00) issued by the White Mountain National Forest to allow me to lead NH AMC trips in the WMNF. Whether for profit or not, any group, Boy Scouts, church group, etc., is considered a commercial outfitter and has to have a permit or card authorizing them to lead trips in the National Forests. Note group size is limited to 10 people and fines have been issued to individuals who violate the law. So commercial outfitters are indeed allowed on a case-by-case basis.

As to Wilderness I quoted from the ATC’s LMPG, section 5(I), in post #73 but you apparently missed it. The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, says:


In post #116 I also quoted the many uses that have been allowed on the trail from the ATC’s LMPG sections 4(D), 4(H), 4(I) which states:

So whether something is allowed or not depend on carefully reading and understanding ALL the rules and laws and by reading and understanding I do not mean reading between the lines or interpreting them, just purely understanding them. As to on trail use, everyone is in agreement that foot power is the approved method. However there is no pack weight requirement or minimum distance requirement to anyone who uses the trail. Also you are correct that sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions are out. This does not mean that the occasional individual who tries to do the trail in under 60 days is breaking any laws, no matter how silly I view their effort.
So tell me, Old Fhart, which of these exceptions do you think will in any way impact the typical AT hiker.

Weary

Geez, you can be an insufferably annoying old duffer, Weary.

And since you're interested, no, I don't read everything here at Whiteblaze. I lack both the time and the interest.

But I do go to some pains to take the time and trouble to actually read the posts that I intend to respond to.

You might want to try it yourself sometime, unless you want to continue chiming in and commeting on remarks that you yourself have admitted you're too lazy to actually read, yet you chime in anyway.

For reasons that escape me, you seem to think that you're scoring some sort of debater's points by advertising how ill-informed you are before posting here.

Thanks for finally admitting what many of us have long suspected, but I fail to see how this admission elevates your contributions here, especially when you're so quick to criticize the contributions of others.

Maybe if you took the trouble to read a bit more before sounding off, your remarks would come off better: Sounding like you haven't done your reading before you start squawking is bad enough; it merely makes one ignorant. But bragging about it, as tho self-admitted ignorance was somehow a good thing, well that's insufferable.

Geez, you can be an insufferably annoying old duffer, Weary..
I resemble that remark, Jack!

Well at least you didn't dispute it.

Weary-"So tell me, Old Fhart, which of these exceptions do you think will in any way impact the typical AT hiker."LOL, Weary, my post #251 that so confused you was to reply to rickboudrie's claim that commercial uses were prohibited. I was pointing out that that wasn't necessarily true. Please, at the very least, read the name of this thread which is "AT trail guidelines." You seem to have forgotten what the thread was about, even though you started it. Sorry we're boring you. :D

"rickboudrie's claim that commercial uses were prohibited. I was pointing out that that wasn't necessarily true. "


Perhaps I think too much like I lawyer (I'm not), but to my way of thinking I never made that claim.

Not if you read carefully.

Rick B

Edit: Just to make things real clear, let me add that I can't say enough good things about everyone on this list.

Edit #2: Ok, here is the :)

LOL, Weary, my post #251 that so confused you was to reply to rickboudrie's claim that commercial uses were prohibited. I was pointing out that that wasn't necessarily true. Please, at the very least, read the name of this thread which is "AT trail guidelines." You seem to have forgotten what the thread was about, even though you started it. Sorry we're boring you. :D
No. I understand that commercial uses are not prohibited. I'm now asking how these required permits might affect typical AT hikers, if at all.

Weary

rickboudrie-"Use of the Appalachian Trail by large groups, commercial outfitters, sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions generates impacts that are inconsistent with the concept of a simple footpath.TOF, to Weary-"rickboudrie's claim that commercial uses were prohibited. I was pointing out that that wasn't necessarily true."rickboudrie-"Perhaps I think too much like I lawyer (I'm not), but to my way of thinking I never made that claim.

Not if you read carefully."Oh, I read the quote carefully. I noticed you had put commercial outfitters in bold to emphasize it. That bold certainly wasn't in the original quote, you put it there to illustrate your point.

One more thing, besides changing the quote, you took it out of context. Also in section 3b, I think, you will find this a few paragraphs down:Although large-group use is generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Trail and should be discouraged in most cases, occasions might arise when such uses serve desirable ends and can be considered as a permitted use. In these instances, local A.T. managers should consider various approaches for minimizing the impacts of the proposed use upon the Trail environment and the experience of other visitors.redirect? (that's lawyer speak) :D

Please be careful with your use of quotes after my name, OF.

"Use of the Appalachian Trail by large groups, commercial outfitters, sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions generates impacts that are inconsistent with the concept of a simple footpath"

Is something with which I agree, but the words are not mine. These words also don't say that commercial uses are prohibitted. Do they?

As for being out of context, one line taken out of a 199 page document is by definition out of context. In that same document you will read comments on large groups (which you have pointed out, thanks) and also this:

"The NPS A.T. Comprehensive Plan states:

• Commercial endeavors designed to profit from visitor use are not an acceptable component in the Trail corridor."

That's a direct quote that people can ponder or ignore as they please. It was presented without comment other than to suggest that it sprung from decades of interest in the Trail.

Rick B.

Who is right, but doesn't mind if you think you are. :D :D :D

Weary-"I'm now asking how these required permits might affect typical AT hikers, if at all."Weary, now you're boring me. How does anything in your post #1 affect typical AT hikers, if at all? How do all your pleas for help for your land trust affect the typical hiker? Your very first sentence when you started this thread was: "What's the modern day "purpose" of the trail?" You started this thread to discuss A.T. guidelines and this is what most of us are doing. Your question is inane. If you really need an answer it is this: the people who read and understand the meaning of the guidelines, laws, and and rules affecting the A.T. will be better stewards because they are more likely to obtain the required permits (like myself and NotYet) that the certain posters here that try to push their warped agenda.

OF,

Thanks for reminding us of your work with the AMC. While some of us might argue in another thread that it is a for-profit enterprise, its not really.

That's important.

Rick

rickboudrie-"OF,
Thanks for reminding us of your work with the AMC. While some of us might argue in another thread that it is a for-profit enterprise, its not really.
That's important."What is important is I am not an employee of the AMC-let's make that very clear. The NH chapter, and all other local chapters of the AMC, are volunteer. I have put in countless thousand of hours over 23 years without any pay whatsoever, even my travel comes out of my own pocket. If you have a problem with Joy Street or the huts, complaign to them. The local chapters are not paid, only the hut "croo" and other staff who actually work for, or out of, the AMC headquarters. Local chapter trip leaders are no different than any other of the 90,000 dues paying members.

Good post TJ. (Edit here, originally my fingers put in Jack's name)

Seems like you and Weary argee that MacKaye can't be defined by a single article.

That was my point too,

Ah, yes - but - Ben's thinking at different times in his life *can* be defined by what he wrote and when he wrote it. The supposition "Wilderness Preservation was the reason the AT was founded," is not supported by fact. Larry Anderson wrote this about MacKaye's Regional Planning: "Among the readers who responded enthusiasticaly to the sweep of MacKaye's vision had been his erstwhile boss, Gifford Pinchot. 'I have just been over your admirable statement about an Appalachian Trail for recreation, for health and recuperation, and employment of the land,' wrote the former Forest Service chief, who went on to compliment MacKaye on the clarity of his vision." That's from a man who acually knew MacKaye, and who was reading his words in the same era they were written.

I'd like for Rick to explain how making a case for the AT's wilderness ethic, then selling out to every use or development that compromises it, stands as anything other than backing development of the Trail? What's the next step Rick? Figuring out how to make near-trail condos more liveable? What are you saying?


And Weary, why is that a "wise post"???

*Commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas;

Sounds like an oxymoron.

I realize Old Fhart views the AT as a place to commercialize as much as possible until stopped. If you follow his posts, he isn't seeking to define the AT's wilderness ethic or its roots, he's looking for rules and regulations that allow him to ignore this.


I would ask Old Fhart why he thinks ATC discourages commercialization?


The most important question, however, would be asking him what he thinks increasing use of these loopholes will do to the Trail? I mean the Trail designed to retain as much wilderness as possible in an ever-encroaching environment? A Trail designed to immerse a nearby large population in a deliberately-designed wilderness experience?

Old Fhart's quote above is important. It makes us ask "what is the wilderness purpose of the AT?"

Weary's more interested in mind games, so we'll leave him at the softball level he prefers...

RnR, are you just so absolutely stupid that you think anyone else here believes your lies and BS! (total misquote by RnR) -
"Quote:
*Commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas;


Sounds like an oxymoron.

I realize Old Fhart views the AT as a place to commercialize as much as possible until stopped. If you follow his posts, he isn't seeking to define the AT's wilderness ethic or its roots, he's looking for rules and regulations that allow him to ignore this.


I would ask Old Fhart why he thinks ATC discourages commercialization?
…………………………………………………………….
Old Fhart's quote above is important."Your total ignorance is appalling! What is you major malfunction? Why can't you even read the simplest statement without distorting it? I am not defining anything! The unattributed quote above, which you “claim” is mine is from the ATC! The quote is from the ATC’s LMPG, section 5(I), quoting The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577 which states one of the exception to “Wilderness” is: *Commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas, stating that this exception is within the law and guidelines of the ATC. If you have a problem with that quote, argue with the ATC or your congressman because it is the law of the land, not my opinion.

If, for instance, they have a photo op to announce the opening of a bridge across the swamps in NJ and there are reporters, TV people, and a crowd there, that would be a commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas. You fanatical zealots would cut off your nose to spite your face. These laws, rules, and regulations, with their exceptions, are there for a very good reason.

So, RnR, the next time you say “quote,” say where the quote is from, otherwise it is only worth as much as the rest of your total unsupported BS. RnR, that is the proper use of the word “unsupported.” :D

The Appalachian Trail is to this Appalachian region what the Pacific Railway was to the Far West—a means of ‘opening up’ the country. But a very different kind of ‘opening up.’ Instead of a railway we want a ‘trailway’...But unlike the railway the trailway must preserve (and develop) a certain environment. Otherwise its whole point is lost. The railway ‘opens up’ a country as a site for civilization; the trailway should ‘open up’ a country as an escape from civilization…. The path of the trailway should be as ‘pathless’ as possible; it should be the minimum consistent with practical accessibility. —BENTON MACKAYE, founding meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference, March 2-3, 1925

The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be. The idea is a foot trail, and if there is a wheel on it at all, there is no point in the Appalachian Trail. People should get that through their heads…. –BENTON MACKAYE, AIA Journal interview
.
What I find interesting about the helpful quotes that TeeJ has supplied is that as early as 1925 was urging the wildest possible trail. At least that is what I take these words to mean, "The railway ‘opens up’ a country as a site for civilization; the trailway should ‘open up’ a country as an escape from civilization…. The path of the trailway should be as ‘pathless’ as possible; it should be the minimum consistent with practical accessibility."

As for the apparent inconsistency between the 1925 and 1971 quotes, I don't know the context. I don't remember what ATC's 1971 push for a trailway involved. Certainly the quote makes clear that by 1971 Mackaye was pushing for a "wilderness strip" as much as several miles wide.

I suspect that Mackaye did not use the word wilderness in the 1920s because the word had a different meaning then as compared with now. In the 20s people thought of the vast open spaces of the west as the only wilderness. With the agitation for and the passage of the Wilderness Act, the definition has greatly broadened.

The goal of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is for a protective buffer a mile on both sides of the trail corridor. I somehow think Benton would have been pleased.

Weary

While Weary talks of doing real-world protection here I go off on another tangent...

Quote:

"It is not only the quality of the landscape and visible land uses which affect the Appalachian Trail experience, however. Noise pollution, degradation of air quality, and that intangible, the human community along the Trail, all affect the enjoyment of Trail users.

End Quote.

Yes, the emphasis is mine ;-)

You guys are welcome to read anything into this you want. Its out of context, but if anyone is interested it came from the NPS Comprehensive Plan. But its interesting, I think.

With out passing judgement on any individual's choices or motivations for hiking, at a minimum its interesting to ponder how (as a group) the intangible, human community's wilderness/social values might be changing. If indeed they are.

Rick B.

Who is right, but doesn't mind if you think you are. :D :D :D Sorry, Rick, but your going to have to change your :D :D :D to :confused: :confused: :confused: because you are actually wrong. The original quote which bothered you was: "Use of the Appalachian Trail by large groups, commercial outfitters, sponsored spectator events, and races or endurance competitions generates impacts that are inconsistent with the concept of a simple footpath." Rick, a quote is a quote only if it is exact and unmodified. When you changed the words “commercial outfitters” in the quote above to bold, it was no longer the original quote at all but now was yours. If your going to change a quote to emphasize a point, like you did, then you have to acknowledge it by saying “(emphasis mine)” or otherwise indicating you have changed the nuance of the meaning to stress your point. The owners of the original quote didn’t emphasize “commercial outfitters,” you did. Is that clear now?

As to your concern with my use of the word “prohibited,” the actual phrase in the quote was “inconsistent with” which in context means basically the same thing. If it will make you feel better I will change that so my statement to Weary now reads: “…."rickboudrie's claims that commercial uses were inconsistent with the rules. I was pointing out that that wasn't necessarily true." You said:Please be careful with your use of quotes after my name, OF.Notice that nowhere did I use quotes after your name as you imply, I simply paraphrased what you said. Sorry you misinterpreted that but I’ll stand by what I said.

As to your gleefully quoting : "The NPS A.T. Comprehensive Plan states:

• Commercial endeavors designed to profit from visitor use are not an acceptable component in the Trail corridor." It may come as a surprise to you but nowhere in any of my posts have I mentioned the NPS. All the SUPs and commercial outfitter’s permits I have referenced are from the USFS. Go to http://www.fs.fed.us/ to see the mission statement of the USFS, which is under the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, or to http://www.nps.gov/ to see the mission statement of the NPS, which is under the U.S. Dept of the Interior and is entirely different. I worked for the USFS in the WMNF so I know the difference so don’t feel too bad that you got them confused. The NPS issues licenses to concessionaires in places like Yellowstone and Yosemite that are allowed to sell their services to the public so they are saying that if you try to open a Rick’s ice cream stand in a national park, that is “not an acceptable component “ of their policy. NotYet may be better able to give you the details of leading a group through a Nation Park on the A.T. but I'm sure it is allowed-just no ice cream trucks. :D

However, the AMC huts and many other commercial endeavors exist on the A.T. in the National Forests and commercial outfitter’s permits exist. As to your NPS quote being taken out of context, it certainly was. Check some of the other complex rules and regulations on the A.T. through State Parks, game lands in PA, etc.. Click here (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2660/sort/1/cat/500/page/2) to see a daylight only restriction of the A.T. or here (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2320/sort/1/cat/500/page/7) to see a restriction that won’t allow overnight camping if you to go onto and off the A.T. using the same trail. The rules governing the use of the A.T. are complex so make sure you know what part of the trail you are referring to when you “quote” references like the NPS policy that only apply to a piece of the trail.

Weary,....How do all your pleas for help for your land trust affect the typical hiker? .....
Depending on how successful we are I like to think the typical hiker will benefit greatly from the preservation of some of the wildness that most seem to think makes the Maine trail especially pleasurable. We have already protected the summit ridge of Abraham, which is reached via a blue-blazed side trail from the AT, and an important buffer on the slopes of Saddleback.

Protection of Abraham had been an ATC goal for many years. We succeeded in achieving that goal. Even if no one ever again walks the blue blaze to the summit ridge (highly improbable) we will have protected an important trail viewshed.

Those who choose to contribute will certainly gain a great deal. There is an incredible feeling of satisfaction in helping to preserve an important wild mountain. Abraham will remain and be enjoyed by thousands over the coming centuries because of our efforts in these early years of the 21st century.

Weary www.matlt.org

I have long since tired of this increasingly pointless thread, but I will not stand idly by and see god people vilified and insulted. And the problem with not responding to these worthless posts is that if you don't do so, their authors seem to think that their commnts are somehow justified. So here goes:

Rocks 'n Roots:

You recently said "I realize Old Fhart views the AT as a place to commercialize as much as possible until stopped."

I've known O.F. for many years.

Your comment is many things, including witless, vicious, ignorant, mean-spirited, and most of all, utterly false.

Who the hell do you think you are to talk about people like this? Are you incapable of criticizing people without insulting them? And if you must speak ill of people, is it too much that you occasionally say something that's actually true?

I'd like to know what the hell YOU have done for the Trail in recent years.
You evidently don't live near the Trail at present. I know you don't hike much on it. Nor do you help maintain it. If you have any formal connection with a local maintaining group, I'm unaware of it, and it seems you'd have boasted about such a connection if it in fact existed. And if you attend any Trail gatherings, functions, or official meetings, I'm unaware of that, too.

So what the hell have you done for the Trail lately? Seems to me is all you do is hang out on the Internet and vent your blowhole while using a cute pseudonym, so you can say any damned thing you please to people whom you've never met, and you repeatedly say things here that you'd never deign to say to someone's face. Typical gutless internet cowardice by someone whose sole present connection to the Trail is evidently a computer.

If you wish to maintain a tiny vestige of respect here at Whiteblaze, stop inulting people every time you write. Or if you must say something unkind, is it too much to ask that you actually say something is true? Lastly, you might want to consider using your real name on your corresponence if you're going to be so consistently negative. I've said many things here over the years that folks have disputed, but I've never been afraid to stand up for what I'm saying, which is why I insist on putting my real name on my posts: I'd never say anything here that I'd be ashamed, or afraid, to say to someone in person.

You owe O.F. and the members of this site an apology, tho needless to say you're not about to provide one. A guy that's too much of a chicken**** to even tell us how much hiking he's actually done on the Trail is obviously too little a person to admit he's done anything wrong.

O.F. has probably done more for the A.T. in the last two years than you've done in your entire life. Find another target, or better yet, put a sock in it for awhile. All you do in regards to the Trail, as far as I can tell, is pollute
A.T. Internet sites. I notice that virtualy NONE of your posts here are ever directed towards newcomers seeking help, advice, counsel. In recent weeks, have you given any advice on gear, scheduling, finances, staying healthy, great places to camp, places not to miss? No, all you're ever interested is spouting politics; saying the same damned thing 99 times; insisting you're the only person alive who knows anything about the Trail or cares about its future; insulting anyone who disagrees with you; and running for cover any time you're asked a direct question, or anytime you're asked to back up something you've said with proof, background corroboration, quotes, or anything else that can prove you have an inkling of what you're talking about.

Geez, one of the great things about heading out to the woods in a few weeks is the knowledge that the Trail, of all places, is probably the place I'm LEAST likely to run into you.

Funny thing. Florida's the only state in the Eastern U.S. I've never had any interest in visiting. I've had all sorts of reasons for this. Now I guess I have another.

Old Fhart: - Your verbal abuse as an introduction protests too much. (You doth protesteth too much)

You're not answering the question. I asked why ATC discourages commercialization? You didn't answer. Your example of a swamp bridge construction egress isn't relevant. I think we've long ago established your inability to recognize the conceptual Trail - which only proves my point. What we are talking about here is the long term effect on the Trail's wildness of incremental increases in commercial or support services - or any other type of activity that compromises previously existing wild surroundings. Your total avoidance of this (or inability) proves my point whether you recognize it or not or agree with it or not...



These points were also extremely important and went unanswered:


The most important question, however, would be asking him what he thinks increasing use of these loopholes will do to the Trail? I mean the Trail which is designed to retain as much wilderness as possible in an ever-encroaching environment? A Trail designed to immerse a nearby large population in a deliberately-designed wilderness experience?

Anyone notice how I get slammed for my "style" while certain members are allowed to go off freely with verbal abuse?

Also, Old Fhart seems to be a top expert at Trail regulation references. Does anyone believe his claim that he knows nothing about MacKaye's wilderness plans when he is obviously so well-referenced when it comes to that which serves to weaken them?

The goal of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is for a protective buffer a mile on both sides of the trail corridor. I somehow think Benton would have been pleased.

Weary

Benton would be pleased with a large buffer, but he'd be upset that somebody defending his designed trailbed experience was mistreated by somebody pretending to be aware of his wants. The buffer is one half, the designed wilderness experience and psychological function is another. Something, sadly, Weary fails to adequately define while demeaning those who do...

Why do I keep opening this thread? Someone please just shoot me.

Come on Frosty, admit it. It is one of those guilty pleasures like watching Oprah, or eating that last piece of valentine chocolate. :D

Come on Frosty, admit it. It is one of those guilty pleasures like watching Oprah, or eating that last piece of valentine chocolate. :DIt must be. I just can't help myself, even when I know this thread was started only to cause trouble, and everyone involved has stated their positions at least three times, I STILL keep opening it :)

RnR- Maybe you could suggest some of the access points along the AT where you think day use hiking is inappropriate.

I think the ATC discourages commercialization because they want hikers to have the opportunity to use and access the AT without being FORCED to deal with commercial enterprises as much as possible. I believe they would oppose any further attempts to FORCE hikers to pay money to stay along the trailbed itself. I regard resupply services that are arranged for beforehand as a hikers business. If you will look past the commercial aspect here and respond to the day-use question then I will better understand your viewpoint. I may actually agree with more than you wish to believe. My question above reflects an attitude you seem to convey about trail use in more remote areas. Please clarify this so I can move beyond it in our discussions on the guidelines. If you do not believe that day use conflicts with the guidelines than say so. Thanks in advance. edbell

RnR-“These points were also extremely important and went unanswered:” If you consider these points so important you ought to try reading the countless well thought out and documented replies for a change. You claim these points are so important to you but you have admitted you are too bored to read the replies, just how ignorant can you get!RnR-“Also, Old Fhart seems to be a top expert at Trail regulation references.” Anyone who takes the time to read the rules, regulations, laws, history, and goals of the A.T. to see what they are, can do the same. Unlike you, I have access to the documents that affect the trail and its use. Unlike you I didn’t lose my copy of MacKaye nor claim there are some fictitious MacKaye tomes only available to a few of your imagined A.T. priesthood.RnR (about me)-“Does anyone believe his claim that he knows nothing about MacKaye's wilderness plans…..”LOL, RnR, I never claimed I knew nothing about MacKaye. On the contrary, I claim I actually DO know quite a bit about MacKaye. It is you who has proved, over and over again, that you know nothing about MacKaye, you can’t even find one of his books or supply a single quote from the man. Indeed, you have shown, time and time again, you don’t even understand what a quote is! You really ought to try reading a least something that MacKaye actually wrote. Even if you are incapable of understanding what he wrote, it would keep you occupied for a few weeks and the rest of us could have a discussion on topic.

RnR-“Something, sadly, Weary fails to adequately define while demeaning those who do...”For as annoying as I find Weary some of the time, (well, maybe more than just some :) ), I have absolutely no doubt that Weary really cares for the A.T. and its principles. Unlike you, RnR, although he may get overzealous, he has actually done, and continues to do, something to back up his words, all your rhetoric is hollow.

For as annoying as I find Weary some of the time, (well, maybe more than just some :) ), I have absolutely no doubt that Weary really cares for the A.T. and its principles. Unlike you, RnR, although he may get overzealous, he has actually done, and continues to do, something to back up his words, all your rhetoric is hollow.
I have absolutely no doubt that R'nR really cares about the AT. I just wish he would learn to express his concerns more effectively. Mackaye ranks among my heroes. He had a great idea and helped bring it to fruition. And like a lot of dreamers went off and sulked for a couple of decades when he saw his dreams were not entirely being fullfilled.

I think Mackaye would have applauded our efforts in Maine. Frankly we are finding the effort more difficult than we had envisioned. A lot of people talk a good game, but fail to come through with the money and support needed to carry it out.

There's been a revolutionary change in land ownership in Maine in the last few years. Land around the trail corridor, which used to be managed to supply timber and pulp wood to Maine mills, now is mostly bordered by real estate investment companies, one of which has just announced two major resorts and a thousand new house lots.

The trail corridor in Maine ranges in width from 200 feet to at most a mile around the shoreline of a couple of wild ponds. The average width of the corridor lands purchased by the National Park Service is just 1,000 feet.

The wildness that so many see on their Maine hikes will disappear if wider buffers are not somehow created.

Weary www.matlt.org

It is sad to see both sides of a serious issue, each having important points to make, reduced to ad hominem attacks and regrettable epithets. Neither does themselves honor, and each diminishes the value of their opinions.

The Weasel

"No, Weary, he didn't. He's never, to my knowledge, said this. If I'm wrong, then he can say it now, if he wishes to.", said Jack regarding Rock's failure to share more about his own hiking experiences.
_______________

The question has got me wondering, some. But not so much about R 'n R.

For decades, it seems like former thru hikers have not been the driving force behind the great work at the ATC.

It also seems like more and more former thru hikers are assuming formal leadership roles at the ATC. Those I am familiar with are all great people, and doing great work.

With that long set up, I am wondering what are the special perspectives and insights that thru hiking might bring to a leader at the ATC? Love of the trail, to be sure-- but that's already there in abundance at Harper's Ferry and seems rather independant of one's thru hiking experience.

And the follow up questions: "Would having more former thru hikers/2000 Milers in the highest ranks of ATC leadership bring anything new (or different) to the organization that will allow it to do an even better job?"

Rick B

You certainly don't need to be a thru-hiker to be an "expert" on the trail. What thru-hikers offer is a "window" into the world of long distance hiking. SInce many folks are fascinated by the idea, a thru-hiker who has the ability to convey the beauty of the trail through words and photos can serve as a wonderful ambassador on behalf of the AT (or whatever trail they have chosen to hike).

Some of the folks that I know who are doing vital work on behalf of the trail (and other trails) have no desire to ever thru-hike. Remember, thru-hiking is not for everyone. Like it or not, it's about making miles, and many folks don't like that kind of hiking.

Similarly, anyone who has walked a large chunk of the trail (or any other trail) in sections, or in one big bite - can help advocate for the trail(s)- simply because they bring some level of credibility that the non-hiking tax paying public respects & admires.

Rick asks what would 2000-milers bring to the ATC leadership? Passion, determination, and an ability to see things through to completion. Of course, non 2000-milers can also have these traits.

Some negative things they might bring along is wanderlust, an independent streak, and the idea that because they thru-hiked, that somehow they know better.

Unlike you, RnR, although he may get overzealous, he has actually done, and continues to do, something to back up his words, all your rhetoric is hollow.


More smears. The topic is the guidelines, which has been sub-topic-ed into discussion of the AT's wilderness ethic as it is reflected in the guidelines.

Old Fhart's (and other's) ad hominem method more than shows his incapability towards the topic. This sort of proves what I was saying.

The topic is not R&R's approach, nor is it a discussion of my 1985-86 end to end hike. The refusal to stay on topic here, again, proves my point that AT internet members are averse to, if not flat out ignorant of, the AT's history and philosophical purpose and their responsibility towards it. They treat it like an enemy...


Old Fhart doesn't answer my specific questions for a reason (here comes another string of smears from Old Fhart)...


Later on we should discuss what needs to be done if any semblance of a wilderness ethic is to be preserved on the AT. The commumity's attitude seems to be use up what's there until it's gone and move on...

LOL, RnR, I never claimed I knew nothing about MacKaye. On the contrary, I claim I actually DO know quite a bit about MacKaye. It is you who has proved, over and over again, that you know nothing about MacKaye

Which kind of explains why you refuse to quote MacKaye yourself. I hope people reading this realize the hypocrisy of demanding quotes from MacKaye coming from a person who says he is well versed in MacKaye. It's obvious that, if you did, it would be impossible to deny his strong plans for an AT wilderness ethic (meaning a planned use where hikers were supposed to recognize, understand, uphold, and protect a sense of wilderness). Your contention seems to be that MacKaye never said or did this. That's one of the worst crimes anyone could commit against the AT...

It's more than obvious that the HYOH mob is ignoring the examples when given. I love TJ. He brings quotes from MacKaye as evidence of his lack of intention when the quotes themselves show how important he considered "the trailway into that which removes civilization". So it sort of doesn't matter what you show to vulgar people who aren't really interested in admitting what is there. It's this agenda and its motive that I'm getting at...

RnR-"The refusal to stay on topic here, again, proves my point that AT internet members are averse to, if not flat out ignorant of, the AT's history and philosophical purpose and their responsibility towards it."Seeing you, as you say, are an "AT internet member" and you post more than anyone else, then you have proved your point that you are the prime example to being "averse to, if not flat out ignorant of, the AT's history and philosophical purpose and your responsibility towards it." By the way, when are you going to start posting anything that is a A.T. guideline and not a fantasy of yours?

Rants n Raves (to me, as usual)-"Which kind of explains why you refuse to quote MacKaye yourself."Gee, just when I thought you couldn't get any more absurd, you surprise me! I have 2 pages of direct MacKaye quotes on these threads and you have yet to post a single word that he has spoken! No one has to try to make you look asinine, you take care of that all by yourself.

....For decades, it seems like former thru hikers have not been the driving force behind the great work at the ATC.
It also seems like more and more former thru hikers are assuming formal leadership roles at the ATC. Those I am familiar with are all great people, and doing great work.
With that long set up, I am wondering what are the special perspectives and insights that thru hiking might bring to a leader at the ATC? ... And the follow up questions: "Would having more former thru hikers/2000 Milers in the highest ranks of ATC leadership bring anything new (or different) to the organization that will allow it to do an even better job?"
Rick B
Excellent questions, though I doubt if I have any good answers. I think knowledge of the trail and experience on the trail are critical to those who assume ATC leadership.

But also needed are people interested in and willing to look at a broad range of issues relating to the trail. In my experience these qualities are only rarely found in typical thru hikers. The Maine Appalachian Trail Club differs from most maintaining groups because it has no social activities, no organized trail hikes. It's sole function is the maintenance of the trail, so my experience may have given me a distorted picture.

MATC is also a very democratic organization. There is always more work to be done than people to do that work. I've never known anyone who aspires to the top leadership of the club to be rejected. The presidency is a very demanding job, and a difficult position to fill. In my 35 year experience with the club no thru hiker has ever been elected to the presidency, nor, as far as I can tell, has ever wanted to be president.

The top rungs of our leadership tend to be filled by devoted trail maintainers, not devoted hikers. I think my experience is probably typical. I maintained my rather small section of the trail for many years, and after hiking most of the trail in 1993 agreed to be overseer of the Whitecap District, which meant I was responsible for 60 miles of the trail. I never thought I was a very good overseer, and I'm positive no one else thought so either.

I gave up overseeing a couple of years ago and became editor of the club's newsletter. I'm far prouder of my newsletter work, than my overseeing work. But it isn't a leadership position. It's simply a technical job that I enjoy doing.

Similar is my job with the MAT land trust. I was recruited because I had founded a local land trust in my town and had helped raised quite a bit of money and played a small role in protecting a rather amazing set of properties. The land trust needed someone with land trust knowledge and experience, so I joined. I'm a director, but not an officer. Four legitimate thru hikers sit on the land trust board. Only one of those is an officer, our secretary.

What were the questions again? I know I haven't provided answers, but perhaps some hints at possible answers.

Weary

"The topic is not R&R's approach, nor is it a discussion of my 1985-86 end to end hike."

:-?

Rocks,

Good to be reminded where of part of where some of your pasion comes from. Next thing you know you will be telling us about enjoying the wilds of Alaska and climbing Popo and to taking care of the some of the Trail in NY.

Rick B

I think Mowgli's above post (#285) is one of the best things I've seen on Whiteblaze for some time.

In short, everyone potentially has something to offer to the Trail.

Off the top of my head, I can think of all sorts of folks who've contributed a very great deal to the Trail but who have never thru-hiked, and in all likelihood, never will. (Right away I'm thinking of Bob and Pat Peoples in Dennis Cove, TN, and Janet Hensley in Erwin). Most of the extraordinarily dedicated full-time staff at the ATC headquarters in Harpers Ferry haven't either.

There are all sorts of folks who have so much to offer to the Trail who lack the time, the ability, and frequently, the desire, to thru-hike.

Likewise, there are are many folks who HAVE thru-hiked yet haven't given much back.

A good start for one and all is to join the ATC and contribute to their work in any way you can----volunteer labor, some free time, or thru financial support in whatever ammount you can comfortably afford.

I love TJ. He brings quotes from MacKaye as evidence of his lack of intention when the quotes themselves show how important he considered "the trailway into that which removes civilization".
Sorry R&R, I only date humans.
And, to absolutely no one's surprise, you have both misunderstood and misquoted MacKaye.
It's become quite evident you are not qualified to be in a discussion about the Appalachian Trail's history, present, or future. You have offered no insight that reflects any personal experience with the Trail or the Trail community. You have never shown any evidence that you are capable of participating in the Trail in any way other than posting on the Internet. Your revealed ignorance about even the most common Trail knowledge, about well known Trail personages, and about information readily available in Trail publications, show clearly that you possess not even a basic understanding of the Appalachian Trail. Perhaps some day, if you ever visit the AT, if you ever meet a member of the Trail Community, and if you ever read about the Trail's history, you might be able to contribute in a positive manner. Until then, you'd do yourself a favor if you left the conversation to people who know what they're talking about.

...The topic is not R&R's approach, nor is it a discussion of my 1985-86 end to end hike...

Referring to yourself in the third person - I didn't realize you were a professional athlete. :D :D :D

No, I suspect he has the delusion he is the second coming of the Creator himself.

Although I doubt that MacKaye would have been as arrogant, even if he was opinionated and stubborn.

No, I suspect he has the delusion he is the second coming of the Creator himself.

Although I doubt that MacKaye would have been as arrogant, even if he was opinionated and stubborn.
OB. As an allegedly educated professional, you manage to say some incredibly assinine things.

Weary

Perhaps it was assinine. You have your opinion. I offered mine. I accept responsiblity for it.

BTW, just how arrogant do you suspect MacKaye was?

Perhaps it was assinine. You have your opinion. I offered mine. I accept responsiblity for it.

OB. This continuing talk of channeling and "second coming" is not a helpful contribution to what should be a legitimate discussion. I don't know whether you do it because you are dumb or because you get your jollies when you manage to stir up the ignorant.

Weary

Ah, but calling people you disagree with asinine, or speculating on how dumb they might be somehow elevates the dialogue and is a "helpful contribution" to legitimate discussion, eh, Weary?

Geez, at least show some consistency. Twenty minutes ago you're calling folks all manner of names.....now you seem to think that this sort of thing poisons the debate here.

Or could it be, Weary,that you're suggesting that insulting folks is OK as long as you're the only one who's doing it?

Sure glad I'm managing to pretty much steer clear of this thread. It gets sillier every day.

When message #206 becomes inappropriate, then we will all know that this has become "a legitimate discussion".

It has been suggested by others that RnR is unable to help himself. I have chosen to hope that he is simply trolling or provoking a discussion for a benefit for that trail community. Thus far, I've seen no benefit. I've seen no recognition that arson is a felony that shouldn't be endorsed as a wilderness ethic strategy. I seen no recognition that MacKaye was a complex personality with many agendas and demons pursuing his life and career. I've seen no intercourse of ideas - only abuse heaped upon those who are active or have remained active in promoting the trail and the opportunity to learn more about self reliance.

And, I hope you have noticed that others have suspected "channeling" long before my off-hand observation.

Perhaps RnR and you get your jollies by stirring up the literate and competent.

It's obvious that, if you did, it would be impossible to deny his strong plans for an AT wilderness ethic (meaning a planned use where hikers were supposed to recognize, understand, uphold, and protect a sense of wilderness). Your contention seems to be that MacKaye never said or did this. That's one of the worst crimes anyone could commit against the AT...

It's more than obvious that the HYOH mob is ignoring the examples when given.

RnR:

Lets accept that MacKaye had strong plans for a wilderness ethic - planned into the Appalachian Trail.

This leads to several important questions.

1. What could or should the ATC or NPS do (if anything) to try and manage what is essentially a subjective reaction to experiencing the trail corridor?

2. Or do you reject the notion that a "sense of wilderness" (your words) is subject to different interpretation by different legitimate trail users?

3. Please share with us what the term "sense of wilderness" means to you personally. Should we all hold your view, and if so, why?

4. Clearly you don't consider yourself a member of the "HYOH mob". You seem to indicate that there is a different - better way to hike. Please explain that.

5. How could an interpretaion of MacKaye's vison and plans (that doesn't square with your interpretation) be considered "one of the worst crimes anyone could commit against the AT"? How does that compare to riding an OHV on the trail corridor? Or littering? Is there really any valid comparison here?

Thanks (in advance) for your thoughtful reply.

I've seen no intercourse of ideas - only abuse heaped upon those who are active or have remained active in promoting the trail and the opportunity to learn more about self reliance.


Case in point. The AT internet community is in contempt of serious AT discussion. The question then is how do you deal with that?

How should YOU deal with it?

Since you have such a low opinion of the Internet community, Rocks, you could always elect to leave it.

For a community you profess to despise, you sure manage to spend a lot of time here. Ever wonder why that is?

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that what Weary said about cooler heads and smiling faces getting better results isn't necessarily true.


A few years ago groups of land rights goons falsely accused AT protectors of threatening their jobs. Soon after they got a sweet deal on Saddleback and have now been handed the AT's head on a silver platter in Maine in the form of Plum Creek.


In Brazil a 74 year-old Amercian nun who was organizing rainforest protection and sustainability for the local peasants was shot in the face and killed by logger hit men. This pro-logger group organized protests in towns using barricades and burning buses. Brazil soon opened up tracts they had planned to preserve to these rogue loggers. They had large numbers of town folk on their side. These same logging companies hold employees as slaves by charging them exhorbitant rates for room and board at the jungle logging camps. Fees they can't possibly earn by their work. Workers who try to escape are shot...


Brazil recently discovered a way to make rainforest soil fertile for soy beans. A huge wave of farming development is now enveloping vast areas of Brazil close to the major Amazon forests. A sort of gold rush is happening now...

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that what Weary said about cooler heads and smiling faces getting better results isn't necessarily true.
A few years ago groups of land rights goons falsely accused AT protectors of threatening their jobs. Soon after they got a sweet deal on Saddleback and have now been handed the AT's head on a silver platter in Maine in the form of Plum Creek.
In Brazil a 74 year-old Amercian nun who was organizing rainforest protection and sustainability for the local peasants was shot in the face and killed by logger hit men. This pro-logger group organized protests in towns using barricades and burning buses. Brazil soon opened up tracts they had planned to preserve to these rogue loggers. They had large numbers of town folk on their side. These same logging companies hold employees as slaves by charging them exhorbitant rates for room and board at the jungle logging camps. Fees they can't possibly earn by their work. Workers who try to escape are shot...
Brazil recently discovered a way to make rainforest soil fertile for soy beans. A huge wave of farming development is now enveloping vast areas of Brazil close to the major Amazon forests. A sort of gold rush is happening now...
The Saddleback fiasco happened because Wingfoot had made so many enemies that only Trailplace supporters joined his effort. That, plus worries that the Bush administration would negotiate an even worse deal.

Otherwise, in none of the instances you cite would yelling and insulting the miscreants have done anything useful and might have made the situation worse.

As far as the trail goes, our leaders in Washington are not going to do much that is significant to provide additional buffers. Even with a supportive administration, significant additions to the trail corridor would be unlikely anyway along much of the trail.

In Maine, because the situation has changed so dramatically in such a short time, we still have a chance. But it's not going to happen by government fiat or by persuading the owners to donate there lands, or by telling potential supporters that they don't understand Mackaye's vision. We simplly have to raise the money to buy wider buffers.

The land is available. There are willing sellers, even eager sellers.

Weary www.matlt.org

In Brazil a 74 year-old Amercian nun who was organizing rainforest protection and sustainability for the local peasants was shot in the face and killed by logger hit men. This pro-logger group organized protests in towns using barricades and burning buses. Brazil soon opened up tracts they had planned to preserve to these rogue loggers. They had large numbers of town folk on their side. These same logging companies hold employees as slaves by charging them exhorbitant rates for room and board at the jungle logging camps. Fees they can't possibly earn by their work. Workers who try to escape are shot...

RnR, until now I thought you were just a verbose and somewhat annoying conservasionist, but I grudgingly respected your tenacity towards your chosen subject. After reading the above applied to the AT I realize that you have utterly and completely lost touch with reality and should turn all your misspent passion towards securing a rational and much more realistic realm of existence.

Nuns getting shot in the face over the AT. My, my my my my...

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that what Weary said about cooler heads and smiling faces getting better results isn't necessarily true.


A few years ago groups of land rights goons falsely accused AT protectors of threatening their jobs. Soon after they got a sweet deal on Saddleback and have now been handed the AT's head on a silver platter in Maine in the form of Plum Creek.

Brazilian shotgun stuff snipped...

So, the groups of "lands rights goons" who complained of job losses received proceeds from the purchase of the Saddleback land? These same groups who complained of job losses are now going to profit from the conversion of the privately held forest production lands to residential and resort use? These same groups have been or will be paid by Plum Creek's developers? It's just one big ole conspiracy?

The decision to convert the Plum Creek parcels from privately owned timber and pulp lands to residential and resort development uses has nothing, I repeat, nothing to with the AT. As others have mentioned, it's been coming for years. The only thing that Plum Creek developers realize is that they must provide just enough land for the AT to obtain approval for the project. How much will that be? 37,000? 3,700? Less? More? Perhaps we can have a say in that, but not with the hyperbole of ranting that any group has delivered "the AT's head on a silver platter". Are the developers of Plum Creek evil? Are they seeking something illegal? You may villify them on this list as you insult those here who are working to make a difference, but the reality is that they are pursuing legal development. Reality.

Since its inception, the Maine AT has benefited from vast, private tracts of surrounding lands. It's only because of cruel winters and muddy, buggy spring and early summers that the yankees haven't long overrun the area. Would that Florida have black flies. The transition of Maine lands from pure timber production to multiple use is coming. Weary's land trust is doing what it can, and the ATC will do what it can. AMC type purchases are far better than the long range plans of Plum Creek.

There will be continue to be contentious issues regarding land use along the AT. Weary's point that, in reality and real world negotiations to achieve real results (not in an electronic world of rants and overstatements), it is better to approach things with cooler heads is wise and learned. You, Rocksnroots, operate in a theoretical, electronic Walden that requires of you no discipline from consequences or expects of you no real results or production. In reality, I don't know if your Mommy does your laundry or if you hold your nose when you head out through high density development to Walmart, but your online demeanor is abominable.

"For a community you profess to despise, you sure manage to spend a lot of time here. Ever wonder why that is?"

Another good question. I'd like to see Rocks answer that.
_________

While we are waiting for R 'n R to answer, perhaps the question could be broadened to something some of the more "experienced" posters also could answer. Here is my question:

For an individual (meaning R 'n R), many here profess to find irrelavant, misinformed, antagonistic, unable to grasp reason and reality and who has never added much of value, you guys sure manage to spend a lot of time in one-one-one debates. Ever wonder why that is?

Some possible answers (only applies to those who have been engaging R 'n R mano a mano in a thread like this 18 Months or more-- seriously 18 months or more):

A) To protect the list
B) To bond with your buddies (a common enemy is a sure way to do that)
C) To Kill time untill Dr. Phil come on
D) To build your own self esteeme with the knowledge that you are "smarter"
E) To show your buddies how smart you are
F) To punish R n R
G) To change R n R
H) To hone your writing skills, and clarify your own values for yourself
I) To examine human nature and interpersonal dynamics
J) To engage in productive dialog

Perhaps I have missed some. Surely there must be some good reason?

Rick B

"For a community you profess to despise, you sure manage to spend a lot of time here. Ever wonder why that is?"

Another good question. I'd like to see Rocks answer that.
_________

While we are waiting for R 'n R to answer, perhaps the question could be broadened to something some of the more "experienced" posters also could answer. Here is my question:

For an individual (meaning R 'n R), many here profess to find irrelavant, misinformed, antagonistic, unable to grasp reason and reality and who has never added much of value, you guys sure manage to spend a lot of time in one-one-one debates. Ever wonder why that is?

Some possible answers (only applies to those who have been engaging R 'n R mano a mano in a thread like this 18 Months or more-- seriously 18 months or more):

A) To protect the list
B) To bond with your buddies (a common enemy is a sure way to do that)
C) To Kill time untill Dr. Phil come on
D) To build your own self esteeme with the knowledge that you are "smarter"
E) To show your buddies how smart you are
F) To punish R n R
G) To change R n R
H) To hone your writing skills, and clarify your own values for yourself
I) To examine human nature and interpersonal dynamics
J) To engage in productive dialog

Perhaps I have missed some. Surely there must be some good reason?

Rick B

That has the makings of a new poll...

That has the makings of a new poll...
Except it needs to be a multiple answer poll. Are we set up to do a poll "on a scale of 1-5, with one being most important, grade the following answers."

Weary, who sees merit in at least five of the proposed multiple choice answers.

Tim Rich-"That has the makings of a new poll..."Agreed. Definitely off topic.

People like Old Fhart are very dangerous for the AT because they sound like they know what they are talking about when they don't.How can talk and chit-chat be "dangerous" for a trail? Next thing you know, there'll be ATTT'ers (AT-Trail-Terrorists) abound!

:eek:

Yeah... this is somewhat of a dig on the current administration's "society of fear" philosophy....
;)

Rick seems flabbergasted that some of us have been attempting to engage R&R in threads like this for more than eighteen months.

Yeah, that WOULD be pretty remarkable, Rick, except for the chance that he's only been inflicting himself on this website since November of last year, so we're actually talking about a mere three and a half months.

It only SEEMS like a year and a half, Rick.

For an individual (meaning R 'n R), many here profess to find irrelavant, misinformed, antagonistic, unable to grasp reason and reality and who has never added much of value, you guys sure manage to spend a lot of time in one-one-one debates. Ever wonder why that is?
Rick, again, what the hell are you doing? I have repeated many times that this thread is not an R&R bashing thread. Stay on topic. You're only playing to those who wish to divert the topic...


Oh, and Jack, where did you ever "engage the topic" as you say above besides trying to take the thread into a personal attack...


Waco: Don't worry, Weary won't correct your total misreading of what I wrote. He's thinks the Land Trust will do better if wrongly-accused Trail supporters are left flapping out in the wind while he warms up to people he doesn't really respect. I accept your apology...

Rocks, have you ever considered that EVERY thread you contribute to (either once or sixty-five times) eventually becomes an R&R bashing thread?

Has it ever occured to you just why this happens?

You don't want to get criticized here?

Three very simple solutions:

*Post less.
*Post better.
*Don't post!

Got it?

Tim Rich:


As I said before, from your writings we can see where your disagreement comes from. Some reactionaries feel perfectly comfortable imposing their anti-environmental agenda on the AT. They make an attempt to pose themselves as realists taking a reasonable view, that their conception of the AT and that which impacts it is more mainstream and acceptable. They don't notice how that doesn't quite fit.

As I've said numerous times before, the best way to defend the AT is to take an AT position. As Tim shows us, many seem to believe that the best way to defend the AT is to justify those who are about to destroy the best remaining place on the AT as if it were normal and part of an acceptable practice. Developers love seeing these right-wing oriented Trail member's views. As a matter of fact I saw the race track builder quote the exact words of these people in defense of his Trail-impacting development. He said, "The AT isn't wild anyway, it has road crossings and facilities." Weary, of course, while currying-up to these "normalists" doesn't criticize their attitude and the impact it has on the AT.

The AT was founded by a man who was very active in citing and recognizing the threats to the AT and why it needed to be protected. Because of this he managed get the Project built and got the correct cooperation of government. This new business as usual attitude is nothing but a sell-out of the original commitment that got the Trail built. If we took this vacuous attitude and its denigration of people who voice the true, larger issues involved and applied it to MacKaye's day the Trail would never have been built. It's the non-answers to this that speak the loudest. Their main flaw being the fact that they don't see themsleves as possessing conflicting or underserving attitudes towards that which can honestly be said to have motivated the AT. This isn't a bureaucratic matter Tim, it's a war. MacKaye understood that. Plum Creek and its proponents are committing a nightmare. They're going to destroy the Trail's best place.



I'd like for Tim Rich or Weary to explain to me what valid reasons stopped the US from arranging a Shenandoah-like park (without the Drive) over the 100 Mile Wilderness stretch? The proper perspective of this is that the US has undergone record sprawl rates since the last large AT addition. If things are "fair & balanced" in America, then the previous deal which got the AT surrounded earlier in its existence should have continued and resulted in protection of the Congressionally-protected national corridor. Why didn't it? You can say "reality dictates" or "times have changed," but you're only backing the logic that justifies backing away from previous AT contracts.

The federal government should be sued because it has negligently failed to protect the AT in Maine. The timber lands there were available for the most reasonable prices of any place along the Trail (this 'reality' isn't quoted). If anything, this zone was one of the easiest in the AT's history to acquire. Just the opposite was done. The political agenda Tim Rich identifies with was mainly responsible. Conservation has been politically negativized by these people without due cause. It's this agenda's culpability in this that I cite and ask people to recognize. That's why people like Tim who unquestioningly accept, and argue from, this agenda's perspective should understand its basic conflict with the AT. A simple rule applies - since Plum Creek doesn't give a *%$# ass about the AT, arguments based on their perspective shouldn't be used over those of the AT. The rule is: when supporting the AT use the AT's argument. It's simple common-sense that you don't start negotiating a deal (that is about to destroy the AT's best stretch) by justifying those who are doing the destroying. Somehow these "realists" don't accept this reality.

"It only SEEMS like a year and a half, Rick"

No Jack, years. Different bar, same band.

In its entirety - Tim Rich:

As I said before, from your writings we can see where your disagreement comes from. Some reactionaries feel perfectly comfortable imposing their anti-environmental agenda on the AT. They make an attempt to pose themselves as realists taking a reasonable view, that their conception of the AT and that which impacts it is more mainstream and acceptable. They don't notice how that doesn't quite fit.

As I've said numerous times before, the best way to defend the AT is to take an AT position. As Tim shows us, many seem to believe that the best way to defend the AT is to justify those who are about to destroy the best remaining place on the AT as if it were normal and part of an acceptable practice. Developers love seeing these right-wing oriented Trail member's views. As a matter of fact I saw the race track builder quote the exact words of these people in defense of his Trail-impacting development. He said, "The AT isn't wild anyway, it has road crossings and facilities." Weary, of course, while currying-up to these "normalists" doesn't criticize their attitude and the impact it has on the AT.

The AT was founded by a man who was very active in citing and recognizing the threats to the AT and why it needed to be protected. Because of this he managed get the Project built and got the correct cooperation of government. This new business as usual attitude is nothing but a sell-out of the original commitment that got the Trail built. If we took this vacuous attitude and its denigration of people who voice the true, larger issues involved and applied it to MacKaye's day the Trail would never have been built. It's the non-answers to this that speak the loudest. Their main flaw being the fact that they themselves don't see themsleves as possessing conflicting or underserving attitudes towards that which can honestly be said to have motivated the AT. This isn't a bureaucratic matter Tim, it's a war. MacKaye understood that. Plum Creek and its proponents are committing a nightmare. They're going to destroy the Trail's best place.



I'd like for Tim Rich or Weary to explain to me what valid reasons stopped the US from arranging a Shenandoah-like park (without the Drive) over the 100 Mile Wilderness stretch? The proper perspective of this is that the US has undergone record sprawl rates since the last large AT addition. If things are "fair & balanced" in America, then the previous deal which got the AT surrounded earlier in its existence should have continued and resulted in protection of the Congressionally-protected national corridor. Why didn't it? You can say "reality dictates" or "times have changed," but you're only backing the logic that justifies backing away from previous AT contracts.

The federal government should be sued because it has negligently failed to protect the AT in Maine. The timber lands there were available for the most reasonable prices of any place along the Trail (this 'reality' isn't quoted). If anything, this zone was one of the easiest in the AT's history to acquire. Just the opposite was done. The political agenda Tim Rich identifies with was mainly responsible. Conservation has been politically negativized by these people without due cause. It's this agenda's culpability in this that I cite and ask people to recognize. That's why people like Tim who unquestioningly accept, and argue from, this agenda's perspective should understand its basic conflict with the AT. A simple rule applies - since Plum Creek doesn't give a *%$# ass about the AT, arguments based on their perspective shouldn't be used over those of the AT. The rule is: when supporting the AT use the AT's argument. It's simple common-sense that you don't start negotiating a deal (that is about to destroy the AT's best stretch) by justifying those who are doing the destroying. Somehow these "realists" don't accept this reality.

Again, rants versus reality. A declared war on the heels of references to shotgunning nuns (shotnuns?) versus the reality that the trail is surrounded by private lands that can be legally used for residences (a nightmare) or logging (not a nightmare). A call for litigation against the gummint because they didn't buy you another national park versus actual government land purchases of over 3,000 small parcels to buy the trail and the mandated trail corridor (not to mention protection of over 22,000 acres through the AT Land Trust) - this done through the last eight presidential terms (three democrat, five republican).

Concrete question time: Mr. Rocksnroots, what do you specifically propose to combat the scourge of private land ownership in Maine? Do you propose the gummint buy it all? For a national park or forest? Eliminate logging altogether? Or a wilderness, plowing up the current network of logging roads?

I await a tangible, realistic, step by step response. By the way, have those MacKaye texts made it to your local library yet?

Do Take Care,

Tim

Rocks, in speaking of Benton MacKaye, says "Because of this, he managed to get the project built and got the cooperation of government."

Rocks, your ignorance of the life, writings, and work of MacKaye are so enormous that I don't know where to begin. It's apparent to me that you really know very little about him.

First off, MacKaye never managed to "get the project built" or completed and in fact, he essentially withdrew from the project before it was done. The folks who were primarily responsible for getting the project built were Myron Avery and Arthur Perkins, the various Trail Conferences, and the hundreds of unsung and unknown volunteers who worked on the Trail in the late twenties and thirties and brought MacKaye's dream to fruition. But for you to say that MacKaye "managed to get the project built" displays a level of historical ignorance that effectively renders any more of your comments on MacKaye moot: You obviously don't know a damned thing about him.

Rocks, why don't you limit your posts to comments you actually know something about?

Thuis would not only improve your writing, but greatly limit the frequency of your correspondence here.

Jack, I'm surprised at you. Don't you know Mackaye single-handedly built every inch of the A.T. and has telepathically named RnR as the only true protector of the A.T.? Oops, sorry, that was just in RnR's alternate delusional world.:D

private lands that can be legally used for residences (a nightmare) or logging (not a nightmare).

Tim suggests there's no difference between Maine timber lands and the largest township development ever built in Maine. That this new sprawl isn't going to require concrete highways and more traffic, maybe even through the Wilderness itself. (Great! NotYet can help people be, like, able to have the freedom to, like, make the choice to be, like, self-reliant more easily). Like I said in my post, Tim's non-answer speaks more than anything I could say. It's merely an attack on those who support the AT according to its purpose. Once again Tim completely fails to catch what was said and returns with an attempted character assassination as a response...

The way to figure people like Tim, who just can't see things in anything else but a pro-developer, anti-environmental view, is to ask him how the Shenandoah got made into a park and why? Ask Tim if he enjoys and benefits from Shenandoah Park as an AT hiker? When Shenandoah was formed we had a non-politicized respectable government that understood the need for preserved public parks in mountain lands. The correct AT (MacKaye) perspective here is to ask people like Tim what has changed since then and why? Ask Tim if the highest sprawl rates in history since Shenandoah was formed don't count for anything or if his petty points address this in any appreciable way? If a Shenandoah-like park were formed around the 100 Mile Wilderness would Tim enjoy that too? What would the cost be to his perspective? What happened with the Shenandoah was MacKaye's planned Project was chased off the Trail. What is happening with Maine is the next step, Regional Conservation is now being chased off the Trail. Don't doubt for one minute that the government that made Shenandoah Park, is now the government that is using the Maine AT as a political weapon. Something Tim's narrow rhetoric and heckling conspicuously fail to reflect...


I warned those who backed the windmills they were a trojan horse. See what they were meant for now?


But this is more easily answered. Anyone who reads what I wrote and answers "rant's vs reality" has exposed themsleves. Anyone with a greater sense of the AT wouldn't need to bypass the core values I described with such an insultingly shallow one-liner. What Tim is saying is he holds the AT and its purpose in contempt...

RnR-"What Tim is saying is he holds the AT and its purpose in contempt..."Once again, RnR, you have it completely backwards. What everyone here is saying is they hold the A.T. and its purpose in high regard, it is you we hold in contempt...

When Shenandoah was formed we had a non-politicized respectable government that understood the need for preserved public parks in mountain lands.
R&R, you obviously know NOTHING about the history of SNP.

If someone hit this guy in the back of the head with a 2 x 4, would it just keep on talking like nothing happened?

Sorry, I shouldn't had said that....back to the show.

I hope that TJ does not start having heart palpitations at having The Weasel agree, but Shenandoah is hardly an outstanding example of our Government at work. This merits explanation, since the Park is a prominent part of the AT.

Shenandoah was authorized in 1926, under an elitist Republican Administration that makes even current federal leaders look 'common people.' It was highly politicized, and antagonistic to what it considered the wretched hillbillies that, in fact, were proud and strong Americans (we now venerate the Anglo-Irish that settleed there before the Revolution). At the behest of the NPS, thousands of innocent small farmers were forcibly removed from property that their families had held for decades, even hundreds of years. Their homes destroyed - a few kept as "theme park rides" - and their towns, cemetaries, churches and entire culture desolated, they were given bare minimums for what was dear to them, and shunted aside for the Park. Much of the poverty of Virginia's Appalachia was a result. Herbert Hoover, however, got a nice "Summer White House" on those lands.

It's a beautiful park, and most of our National Park system have taken private property. But few have done so with as much damage to an entire culture, with so little payment, as Shenandoah. When we walk through Great Smoky Mountain National Park on the AT, we should listen for the sound of tears from the Cherokee ancestors; when we walk through Shenandoah, we should listen for the same sound...from our ancestors.

And that's the truth, folks.

Obviously, that 2x4 wouldn't hit any vital organs.

"a non-politicized respectable government" Guffaw!!!

When Shenandoah was formed we had a non-politicized respectable government that understood the need for preserved public parks in mountain lands.
Why yes, that same government that. . .turned around and built the Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway right on top of the AT.

Also, "non-politicized government?" Permit me to introduce you to the concept of an oxymoron. . .

I'll quote you in your entirety:

Tim suggests there's no difference between Maine timber lands and the largest township development ever built in Maine. That this new sprawl isn't going to require concrete highways and more traffic, maybe even through the Wilderness itself. (Great! NotYet can help people be, like, able to have the freedom to, like, make the choice to be, like, self-reliant more easily). Like I said in my post, Tim's non-answer speaks more than anything I could say. It's merely an attack on those who support the AT according to its purpose. Once again Tim completely fails to catch what was said and returns with an attempted character assassination as a response...

The way to figure people like Tim, who just can't see things in anything else but a pro-developer, anti-environmental view, is to ask him how the Shenandoah got made into a park and why? Ask Tim if he enjoys and benefits from Shenandoah Park as an AT hiker? When Shenandoah was formed we had a non-politicized respectable government that understood the need for preserved public parks in mountain lands. The correct AT (MacKaye) perspective here is to ask people like Tim what has changed since then and why? Ask Tim if the highest sprawl rates in history since Shenandoah was formed don't count for anything or if his petty points address this in any appreciable way? If a Shenandoah-like park were formed around the 100 Mile Wilderness would Tim enjoy that too? What would the cost be to his perspective? What happened with the Shenandoah was MacKaye's planned Project was chased off the Trail. What is happening with Maine is the next step, Regional Conservation is now being chased off the Trail. Don't doubt for one minute that the government that made Shenandoah Park, is now the government that is using the Maine AT as a political weapon. Something Tim's narrow rhetoric and heckling conspicuously fail to reflect...


I warned those who backed the windmills they were a trojan horse. See what they were meant for now?


But this is more easily answered. Anyone who reads what I wrote and answers "rant's vs reality" has exposed themsleves. Anyone with a greater sense of the AT wouldn't need to bypass the core values I described with such an insultingly shallow one-liner. What Tim is saying is he holds the AT and its purpose in contempt...

No contempt here, not even a (significant) urge to expose myself. Perhaps after my second cup of coffee. I'm sure your answers to my questions are in there somewhere, but I just couldn't find them. I'll ask them again, in their entirety, since my post was snipped: Concrete question time: Mr. Rocksnroots, what do you specifically propose to combat the scourge of private land ownership in Maine? Do you propose the gummint buy it all? For a national park or forest? Eliminate logging altogether? Or a wilderness, plowing up the current network of logging roads? I await a tangible, realistic, step by step response. By the way, have those MacKaye texts made it to your local library yet?

Take Care,

Tim

Thanks Weasel, your post indpired me to look this up again:

http://www.vahistory.org/shenandoah.html#ch5

Its a history of SNP-- not too long and not to short. There is even a tab that goes into the details of the removal of people from the Park.

Its worth reading.

Rick B

(And not so much as a critique as a statement of fact-- the evil involved with the removal of the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears may be a good thing to compare this to to in some sort of abstract way, but those horrors were of a diffirenet magnitutude entirely. I know Weasel would agree, but I couldn't help but add that obvious aside.)

Reparations are in order. Let them build more casinos. How about in the 100 mile wilderness?

(Great! NotYet can help people be, like, able to have the freedom to, like, make the choice to be, like, self-reliant more easily). ...

So I guess I'm, like, 14? :eek: ;)



Below is off-topic...though I guess my above comment is, too. :)

I just want to mention that, as in the SNP, there were also large communties and small farms, etc. in the GSMNP that were displaced when the Park was built. Those families had been there for many, many years as well. I think the Government maybe handled it a little better in the GSMNP, but it was still a very difficult time for those families!

As most of you probably already know, we are still dealing with the controversy of the displaced families in relationship to Fontana Lake and the GSMNP. My understanding was that after the Dam was built, the Park boundries were expanded to reach down to the lake's edge. The government had promised the displaced families a road to travel along the North Shore of the Lake. This "Road to Nowhere" project was abandoned due to the detrimental environmental effects it would cause and also the huge amount of money it would take.

The controversy is just now coming to a head (so many years later). Some are insisting that the road be built as promised, whereas others are trying to broker a settlement in which the county through which the road would have been built will receive a large amount of money. The settlement will hopefully compensate for the broken promise while preventing the environmental destruction of building the road.

If you live in Western NC or East Tennessee you might want to attend one of the meetings in the next few weeks...for more info see www.northshoreroad.info.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/history/index.html

Sorry to interject any logic into this thread, but some real-life, actual AT history and McKaye writings can be found here.

It might make the arguments easier to back up...

franklooper-"It might make the arguments easier to back up..."Thanks for posting that link. Three weeks ago in the "Guided Tour" thread, post #221, I had another link to the same article and quoted, at length, the 4 main parts of MacKaye's proposal but there were still some who wouldn't read the article or believe those were MacKaye's thoughts and writings.

In Brazil a 74 year-old Amercian nun who was organizing rainforest protection and sustainability for the local peasants was shot in the face and killed by logger hit men. This pro-logger group organized protests in towns using barricades and burning buses. Brazil soon opened up tracts they had planned to preserve to these rogue loggers.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612498

Brazil has now protected 8.2 million acres because of the brave nun and the lame loggers.

It has been over 48 hours without anyone stirring this compost.

Don't feed the troll.

It has been over 48 hours without anyone stirring this compost.

Don't feed the troll.
Yeah. But finally it became too much for OB to resist.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/history/index.html

Sorry to interject any logic into this thread, but some real-life, actual AT history and McKaye writings can be found here.

It might make the arguments easier to back up...
Hi Frank,
Many of us here on WhiteBlaze and the at-l have tried over the years to steer R&R toward the actual history of the AT and the writings of it's founders. As readers can see, he'd rather not discuss fact.
I've also recommended Larry Anderson's recent biography of Benton MacKaye, which tells Ben's personal story as it entwines with players and events big and small during the years when our nation's landscape was 'intelligently redesigned to benefit the masses'.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612498

Brazil has now protected 8.2 million acres because of the brave nun and the lame loggers.
More on the sister.

For rain-forest defenders, slain nun is martyr (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/world/10947079.htm)

1. What could or should the ATC or NPS do (if anything) to try and manage what is essentially a subjective reaction to experiencing the trail corridor?

They do this all the time in other national parks. Yosemite is constantly under adjustment. The best examples would be federal wildernesses. You ask a good question. Since we can see from internet sites that the AT's users generally refuse to intelligently recognize a collective wilderness ethic it then falls on the only realistic authority to decide what kind of enforcements should be installed to maintain this goal. If you look into NPS or even ATC you would probably find this would fall on bureaucrats or lower managers who would probably say "this is probably better handled by AT organizations." A good idea would be getting ATC, as part of its re-organization, to establish clearer guidelines based on upholding this ethic - as well on addressing the negative effects of increased popularity and use.



2. Or do you reject the notion that a "sense of wilderness" (your words) is subject to different interpretation by different legitimate trail users?

Looks like you are answering your own question. Any institution will always have a percentage of casual users who don't necessarily recognize its formal purpose. This is a good question because you will find that normally these people are discounted and those who have a more intelligent understanding of that institution's purpose are left to determine the best course for it. I mean you can clearly see that many who question this ethic don't really mount credible arguments or deal in respectful terms. The AT is a strange exception where its open nature is used as an excuse to avoid formal organization. I could detail political reasons why this is so, but it would be too long.

Ed Bell - If someone decides to run through the 100 Mile Wilderness in one day, did they spoil it for everyone? I may have an answer for that later this summer.:dance

I may have an answer for that later this summer.:danceSince we are revisiting some of the oldies, Here is a doozie. Oh, and did Tim do this?

Man, I can't believe that my GIS is running so slow I actually paged through this thread in search of content. Since I wasn't around this forum for this thread the first time, I didn't know any better. :(

My understanding is that trail maintenance of wilderness trails is done primarily for the protection of the land, not for the benefit of the hikers. I don't say this to impose any restrictions on the trail maintainers, only to make hikers understand what things like switchbacks are really for, and why we should be careful about walking around mud puddles and fallen trees.

I would say the purpose of a wilderness trail is to protect the wilderness while providing limited access on foot.

The purpose of trail organizations and trail authorities are a different thing altogether.
The real trail is the trail itself, separate and distinct from the organizations associated with it.