WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 400
  1. #261

    Default

    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.

  2. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TD55 View Post
    Why should the MATC want to cooperate with WHL? Because being pissed off is not a valid excuse for a responsible entity to punish a third, uninvolved party, specifically, hikers who miss the WHL access trail or get lost looking for it. The statement that WHL is just complaining is unfair in my opinion. Negative comments have been made and they have every right to respond and tell their side of the story. The statement that WHL has not shown a bit of cooperation is just inaccurate.
    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.

  3. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fascinated View Post
    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.
    What HE said!
    Don't let your fears stand in the way of your dreams

  4. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fascinated View Post
    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.

  5. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kanga View Post
    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?

  6. #266
    Registered User
    Join Date
    07-29-2008
    Location
    REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
    Age
    72
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fascinated View Post
    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.

  7. #267
    Registered User bulldog49's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-27-2004
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Age
    74
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fascinated View Post
    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.
    It ain't wilderness when you have a maintained blazed trail to follow. If you are so bothered by a sign why not take down all the shelters, privy's and treadways, not to mention the hundreds of "approved" signs already in existence. You don't have a valid point.
    "If you don't know where you're going...any road will get you there."
    "He who's not busy living is busy dying"

  8. #268
    Registered User wcgornto's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-01-2008
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    611
    Images
    1

    Default

    This whole debate seems like North Going Zax vs. South Going Zax.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNbii3mbhM

  9. #269

    Default

    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.


    .

  10. #270
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    AMC got no favoritism, at all.
    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

  11. #271
    trash, hiker the goat's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-27-2005
    Location
    the timbers of fennario
    Posts
    2,834
    Images
    4

    Default

    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

  12. #272
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john gault View Post
    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.

    .
    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

  13. #273
    Registered User Phreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-21-2005
    Location
    Lake Saint Louis, MO
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,708
    Images
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the goat View Post
    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?
    I agree. I had a great time at WHL back in 2007. Definitely worth the side trip IMO.

  14. #274
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-17-2009
    Location
    t1r10
    Age
    68
    Posts
    73
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    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
    thats funny when the pres.hiked in and said he would bring it up at the meeting,for a sign, it was turned down real fast,why is that,so 10 years later what makes you think things will change?

  15. #275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    AMC got no favoritism, at all.
    That's the funniest thing you've ever typed.
    Teej

    "[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.

  16. #276
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camp mom View Post
    thats funny when the pres.hiked in and said he would bring it up at the meeting,for a sign, it was turned down real fast,why is that,so 10 years later what makes you think things will change?
    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.

  17. #277
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-15-2005
    Location
    White Mtns
    Age
    66
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    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


  18. #278
    Registered User weary's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-15-2003
    Location
    Phippsburg, Maine, United States
    Posts
    10,115
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJ aka Teej View Post
    That's the funniest thing you've ever typed.
    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

  19. #279
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-17-2009
    Location
    t1r10
    Age
    68
    Posts
    73
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fascinated View Post
    Camp Mom, when you contact the NPS, tell them you want to apply for an official side trail connecting to the AT in Maine.
    that was the side rd. used to get to the logging camp in the 30's by a.t. hikers

  20. #280
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-17-2009
    Location
    t1r10
    Age
    68
    Posts
    73
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weary View Post
    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.
    ok weary!!! this is the first time you are talking to me,thank you i thought you were ignoring us . nice to speak with you.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •