that's not the practical world at all. in fact that is the antithesis of practical. that is the way of pitiful people who cannot earn anything on their own.
that's not the practical world at all. in fact that is the antithesis of practical. that is the way of pitiful people who cannot earn anything on their own.
So let me get this straight. Hikers need a sign to tell them the name of the road? And a sign to tell them where to get a hamburger? Whatever happened to self reliance? How come some hikers can find this place, and others can't? Could it be that some people need to improve their navigational skills? (insert lightbulb here) Enough with enabling hikers who can't find their own rear end - even with a map and compass.
One thing is worth mentioning... At either end of the so-called 100 mile wilderness, you will find signs urging you to carry 10 days of supplies. Nobody NEEDS a hamburger or a pint of Ben & Jerrys in this stretch. Backpacking is supposed to teach you the difference between needs & wants. This lesson is clearly lost on some folks.
holy crap! you mean this whole time i've been in the woods, enjoying the view, the peace, the excercise, the commune with good friends, i was doing it WRONG! jeez! i sure wish you had been around when i first started hiking. could have saved me a lot of wasted time.
heads up, there, fascinated. i have been aware of the difference between my needs and wants for quite some time. backpacking didn't teach me that. my parents did. please speak solely for yourself.
Congrats Ms. Snarky.
I was directing my comment to TD55. Not you. TD55 seemed outraged that some poor hiker might miss a burger or a pint of ice cream, and wanted the trail changed to avoid that possibility. Guess what? Some of us hikers think that the HIKER should be the one to change (ie: learn some navigational skills, spring for a map) rather than changing the trail to accommodate a commercial enterprise or a hikers whims.
How do you like them apples?
Why do you feel the need to exaggerate and take my comments and post so far to the point where you are just making stuff up? I'm not outraged. Just making some observations and adding my two cents worth. I never said anything about a poor hiker missing his burger or ice cream. I never said anything about changing the trail. I suggested a simple road sign would at the very least identify the road when the hiker gets to it. I suggested it didn't have to say anything about WHL. Just a little 6''x18" plain wooden sign that would say Mahar Tote Rd. I suggested that once that was done WHL could request a small sign be added.
The real issue has nothing to do with a sign. It is about the perpetuation of the fiction of the "100 Mile Wilderness". It's the gem that is promoted up there as the hundred mile section where you could not get a resupply. As you mentioned in a previous post, there are signs that warn hikers at each end of the section. There have always been camps up there and always been roads and always been ways to resupply and when a snowmobile, hunting, fishing camp decided to make their services available to hikers the powers that be freaked out at the thought that the myth would be busted. Instead of 'fessin up and adjusting they have acted like spoiled little children caught with their hands in the cookie jar and saying they were just looking at the cookies.
"If you don't know where you're going...any road will get you there."
"He who's not busy living is busy dying"
This whole debate seems like North Going Zax vs. South Going Zax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNbii3mbhM
I’m not going to talk about the sign issue, b/c I just don’t know enough about the history or the rules. However, since the wilderness issue pops up here and there, I just want to say, That ship has sailed! And it has nothing to do with WHL.
I went thru the 100-mile wilderness in 1981 and it was a wilderness then (well compared to what it is today). However, when I went thru in 2006 I was dismayed by all the tourist that have easy access to Gulf Hagas. They were all over the place. A bunch of loud mouth people in bright city clothes running around – I couldn’t believe it, I guess I was expecting it to be like 1981.
This is not a case of "Since it happens on this section of trail, then it’s ok on that section of trail". There is just no comparison between that gulf hagas tourist trap and WHL.
Just my .02 cents.
.
Let me just expand a bit, I wrote this in a hurry because I had to leave in two minutes to attend an all-day land trust conference.
Within a few weeks of purchasing it's first 37,000 acres in the so called wilderness, AMC notified the MATC of its purchase and asked for a person it could talk to from MATC as it began it's planning.
Some months later, AMC sent us maps of possible trail crossings by new AMC trails it might want to build and asked our comment.
We designated Dave Field, MATC supervisior of trails, former ATC President, and former MATC president as the contact.
Months later, maybe a year or more, I forget, AMC asked formal approval of a new side trail to it's Little Lyford Pond Camps. It was approved, and MATC and AMC maintainers built the side trail and installed an official MATC sign.
More recently, as I recall, AMC, asked for another connection to the trail from the old Chairback Mountain camps, which it was rehabilitating, as an alternative to new construction, which it's Maine chapter had opposed.
I think that was also eventually approved after a team of MATC directors inspected the area in question and found no reason to be opposed.
AMC simply followed the standard process that most everyone follows that wants signs and links to lands owned by others.
I can't predict what MATC might have decided, had White House Landing followed these common sense procedures, but I suspect this whole controvsersy could have been avoided.
MATC is in no way a bureaucracy. It exists to provide as wild a trail as possible for hikers, to provide trail signs as needed, and to follow the rules of the National Park Service that owns most of the trail corridor in Maine.
The National Park Service has transferred most of its management rights to ATC, which in turn has transferred primary responsibility to MATC.
Weary
the matc is selective in businesses they support, kinda rediculous to have to play politics with something so simple as a wooden sign in the woods.
weary, your claim that the the road was "reconstructed" is disingenuous at best, the trail going to WHL is so rustic, it's very easy to miss.
WHL is one of my favorite stops on the trail! good food, beer, resupply, run by good people in a beautiful location......what more could one ask for in the middle of nowhere?
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -TJ
I personally preferred Gult Hagas as it was in the late 60s when I first visited there. But the private landowners improved their roads, making public access easier. Had anyone asked when the AT trail corridor was laid out, I would have proposed a five mile buffer for the trail, not the mostly 1,000 foot wide corridor that the federal government actually purchased, despite a chorus of protests from some who objected to any federal buffer.
But these are decisions society makes in systems in which public views are listened to.
But the so called "wilderness" outside of the narrow Gulf Hagas area remains about as wild as the trail gets. Were it my decision the 100-miles would revert to genuine wilderness. Somehow, no agency has ever given me such control.
Though, I'm not sure how over use of Gulf Hagas has much to do with the dispute over illegal WHL signs.
Weary
Well, I don't remember all the details of MATC affairs that happened 10 years ago. But I vaguely remember board members being upset with the AT trail being posted with blatant signs, without first talking with the only on the ground representatives of the landowner.
We may have thought of you as a rogue business upset with the whole idea of rules and regulations, and federal ownership of the land surrounding the Appalachian Trail.
In a roundabout way, this thread has provided the best advertising exposure White House Landing has enjoyed in years.
......and it didn't cost 'em a dime!
Roland
What makes you think that, Teej?
I certainly, didn't post it as a joke. I was responding to speculation by a White Blaze member that MATC showed favoritism to AMC. If you have evidence that my comment was in error, say so. Don't just call it "the funniest thing " I've "ever typed," without explaining why you think so.
Your comment suggests you think I'm lying. So tell us your evidence.
Weary