Appalachian Trail expansion gets closer to linking with Alabama - al.com (blog)

[WhiteBlaze]

al.com (blog)

Appalachian Trail expansion gets closer to linking with Alabama al.com (blog) A low-profile, 25-year effort to extend the Appalachian Trail into Alabama got a boost this week when the state Legislature created the Alabama Appalachian ...

More...

[Lone Wolf]

pretty funny

[SGT Rock]

Please no. The Pinhoti and the Benton MacKaye don't need to turn into the Appalachian Trail.

[Lone Wolf]

it'll never happen

[SGT Rock]

I was thinking the same thing. But then again there is some funny stuff happening these days in Washington.

[Rockhound]

What would be so horrible about extending the trail? Might give Trek something new to do.

[FatMan]

It will never happen but it gets my vote. It would be the best thing for the trail in my neck of the woods. The silly season is about to begin and the trail will once again take a beating.

[white_russian]

My dad has an old slave building behind his house in Talladega that would make a nice hostel and he would be into it. It would get our votes.

[Cuffs]

Oooooo that article makes my blood boil!

1. The rep from Homewood didnt even know the proper name for the trail.
2. None of the AL reps are involved with any of the local hiking groups and likely have not even contacted them to see what their stance is on this connection project.
3. "lots of people" that would like to see this connection... who's that? Id like to know who these people are.
4. Pete Rogers of the Coosa CCC. Well, lets just say hes a male anatomy appendage. Ive been to the fire tower on Flagg several times. He and his group are not in it to restore the tower and cabins to their original glory. They did minor upgrades to the tower, like installing a satellite dish so they can take their buddies up there for game-day parties. Unless you have extensive liability insurance documentation, they refuse to let anyone near the tower. As only one of the 2 fire towers in the state (the other is at Cheaha State Park) built by the CCC, this is a historic location and could be better cared for and maintained by a historical society or such.
5. With the financial state of affairs in Alabama, I have a hard time seeing just where the funding for this new project and committee is going to come from... Let me guess... another unfunded mandate?

Ok rant off, but having working with all the major trail groups here, thru'd the Pinhoti, thruing the BMT this year, built several miles of the Pinhoti extension, maintained miles and miles of trail here... I just dont see who "all these people" are that are pushing for this and who all is the beneficiary if such a feat is accomplished. There is no mention of anyone asking the ATC what they feel about this. Might it be important to get their opinion? Oh, Im still ranting.

Going to get some coffee. Later.

[gunner76]

If it is approved does that mean all prior thru hikers will loose their thru hiker status and just be really long section hikers ?

[SGT Rock]

I understand how you guys feel, I felt the same way for a while myself. I am from Alabama originally and could see how having the AT going down into Alabama would be a source of pride for the state and open up hiking opportunities in Alabama to people that haven't considered it.

But then I got involved in the BMTA as a maintainer and was there when they opened the rest of the trail between US64 and Davenport Gap. I've thru-hiked the BMT and I write the BMT thru-hikers guidebook. I now think that this would be a terrible idea because not every trail should be like the AT.

The problems for people like me who maintain the BMT are a few. The BMT was specifically built to NOT be like the AT:

- We have only got two shelters: 1 was built on private land where the BMT crosses his land, and the section is a few miles long - so it was to avoid having people hobo camping in someone's back yard. The other we inherited because of the route through the Smokies.

- The style of trail maintenance is more in tune with leaving the trail narrow and a more wild feel than the AT. The AT maintainers would shudder at the way we leave the trail. And it is meant to be that way.

- Right now you get the feeling of solitude on the BMT precisely because we don't have any outhouse. There aren't signs all over the place telling you where the water is, and overall there are less "structures" like bridges (lots more fording on the BMT), blazes, etc.

The BMTA does not want to change that. They want the BMT to have it's own character and feel. If the BMT became part of the AT, there would be shelters, outhouses, and more bridges, etc. Basically the BMT would turn into something it is not supposed to be.

I don't know ANYONE in the BMTA that would like to have some in Alabama get their trail incorporated into the AT just so a couple of people in Alabama can now claim the AT goes into their state.

And this is the basic truth: The BMT has been connected to the AT since 1979. That section that they (these guys, not the ATC or the Pinhoti people) want to incorporate has been available for AT hikers to use for over 30 years now. Anyone that wants to hike it can, and has been able to for many decades - but unless you pay attention here on WB and listen to a few people like me, no one is beating the door down to want to hike the extra miles. The only thing adding it to the trail does is create a situation where AT purists will now have to get on in Alabama because that is now the "official" trail.

But the saving grace in all this is the fact that the AT is designated by Congressional act. You cannot just talk to the ATC and convince them to move the Terminus sign. Congress would have to amend the designation of the trail and start buying land if that were to happen. Normally I would say it wouldn't every have a chance. But lately, if someone's vote was needed for some bill and this got to be his or her pet project, I would say we would have a chance to have this shoved down our throats.

[SGT Rock]

If it is approved does that mean all prior thru hikers will loose their thru hiker status and just be really long section hikers ?

Nope. As long as you hike the designated trail the time you hiked it you are good.

[chief]

I say, go for it, if only for the entertainment value! Those entrenched AT and BMT organizations and clubs will likely fight tooth and nail to retain their turf. Should be fun to watch.

Anyone know how the GA Pinhoti people feel about this?

[white_russian]

If it is approved does that mean all prior thru hikers will loose their thru hiker status and just be really long section hikers ?

Why would anyone let some people in a tiny office in Harpers Ferry dictate who they are? I hope they would make you go back in do the extra just because some folks are worried about that kind of thing.

[Jeff]

Just hike guys.

[Lilred]

well, at first I thought this was a great idea. First of all, it does cover more of the Appalachian Range, and shouldn't the AT cover the entire range? Secondly, I think it would cut down on the amount of people attempting thru hikes, and wouldn't that be a good thing as far as wear and tear on the trail? It sure would help give a break to the first 300 miles as it stands now.

Then I read what Rock wrote and had to rethink my thoughts. Now, doesn't the AT share a trail in Vermont. The LT is still the LT, even where it merges with the AT. So couldn't the BMT still be the BMT and merge with the AT? Rock, couldn't it still be under the control of the BMT people, and then you could keep it as you want it?

If the Pinhoti people want to call it the AT, go for it. But I still think you could treat the BMT as a seperate trail, like the LT, even though they merge together. Especially since the BMT goes in a different direction at Springer.

If this does go before Congress someday, I hope we all join in and make our voices heard.

[Bearpaw]

This is a lot of noise about nothing. The Pinhoti is a wonderful trail. It is NOT the AT and it's not going to be. There is way too much red tape for something that is a bad idea any way.

I've seen the politics involved in building the Cumberland Trail here in Tennessee. It moved along decently until then-Governor Donald Sundquist made the CT a state park. His attempt to help the trail may have doomed it, as the requirements of a state park are so much more stringent that the building along the corridor has bogged down terribly. The trail may never be completed.

Why pollute a decent setup like the current PT uses by trying to merge it with the politics of a bigger, more cumbersome organization? Because that's really what this is about. It has nothing to do with enjoying a great trail.

A lot of noise about nothing.

[Sumone86]

well this is something i been hoping for. If pinhoti isn't connected to the AT i have no way to get to the AT other then road. I would much rather have a slight wilderness walk then a busy road. I don't see the big deal either. was this much noise made about the international appalachian trail being connected to the AT?

[SGT Rock]

well, at first I thought this was a great idea. First of all, it does cover more of the Appalachian Range, and shouldn't the AT cover the entire range? Secondly, I think it would cut down on the amount of people attempting thru hikes, and wouldn't that be a good thing as far as wear and tear on the trail? It sure would help give a break to the first 300 miles as it stands now.

Then I read what Rock wrote and had to rethink my thoughts. Now, doesn't the AT share a trail in Vermont. The LT is still the LT, even where it merges with the AT. So couldn't the BMT still be the BMT and merge with the AT? Rock, couldn't it still be under the control of the BMT people, and then you could keep it as you want it?

If the Pinhoti people want to call it the AT, go for it. But I still think you could treat the BMT as a seperate trail, like the LT, even though they merge together. Especially since the BMT goes in a different direction at Springer.

If this does go before Congress someday, I hope we all join in and make our voices heard.

I don't have the answers to all that. But the ATC does have it's maintenance standards and all. The BMT is not to those standards and I prefer it is a more wild, remote feeling trail. If the BMT were moved under the ATC for that section, then the ATC is the governing body in the eyes of the government and thus would set standards for the BMT section that would be incorporated if these guys get their way.

If you wanted to lessen the impact on the first 250 miles of the AT(the BMT is almost 300 miles long but gets to about MP250 on the AT) , then the ATC could simply change the "official" hike policy for 2000 miler status to say the BMT is an authorized substitute for the first 250 miles of AT. I would encourage that. I don't encourage taking over other trails just so the terminus of the AT can be moved to Alabama.

That said, if these guys from Alabama think this is such a great idea, they only need to build themselves a few more miles of trail to connect the Pinhoti and the AT, then they could call the trail they build themselves whatever they wanted to. I don't suppose they feel so enthusiastic about the plan that they would go out and build 65 miles of trail themselves. Better to take the credit for getting the AT extended - probably less work and more kudos.

This is a lot of noise about nothing. The Pinhoti is a wonderful trail. It is NOT the AT and it's not going to be. There is way too much red tape for something that is a bad idea any way.

I've seen the politics involved in building the Cumberland Trail here in Tennessee. It moved along decently until then-Governor Donald Sundquist made the CT a state park. His attempt to help the trail may have doomed it, as the requirements of a state park are so much more stringent that the building along the corridor has bogged down terribly. The trail may never be completed.

Why pollute a decent setup like the current PT uses by trying to merge it with the politics of a bigger, more cumbersome organization? Because that's really what this is about. It has nothing to do with enjoying a great trail.

A lot of noise about nothing.

Exactly. If someone wants to hike from Alabama to Maine, there is nothing stopping them. They don't have to rename all the trails to "AT" for the hike to somehow become possible.

Again, funny thing is, even though it is possible there aren't a bunch of people lining up to hike the trails that way.

well this is something i been hoping for. If pinhoti isn't connected to the AT i have no way to get to the AT other then road. I would much rather have a slight wilderness walk then a busy road. I don't see the big deal either. was this much noise made about the international appalachian trail being connected to the AT?

The Pinhoti does connect to the AT using the BMT. You can hike it now if you want to and I highly encourage people to do it. I like both the Pinhoti Trail and the Benton MacKaye Trail. I need to get back and do some more hiking on the Pinhoti and check out some of the completed sections.

But no one needs to wait for the Pinhoti and BMT to be absorbed into the AT.

[Rockhound]

Wait just a gawld darn second. I thought the A.T. went all the way to Argentina.