PDA

View Full Version : More thought on rerouting



dperry
03-11-2006, 17:02
Judging from the thread below on rerouting, it seems like the consensus is that the Trail misses a lot of spots that are nicer then the ones it actually goes through. The question is, why can't it go through the nicer places, at least in those areas where public land is available? For instance, a lot of people have said that the nicer parts of SNP are off the trail. So why not take the trail off the ridge and go down to some of these nicer spots? I understand that there may be concerns with overuse, but still it seems like you ought to be able to get some of these places in, anyway. Who makes these decisions? Is it NPS, ATC, the local clubs, the local parks, forests, etc.? Could they be asked to give more thought to scenic values?

Sly
03-11-2006, 18:20
The thing is not to get hung up on hiking "official" trail. I haven't read the suggestions, but unless it's a major reroute which takes loads of manpower, money, never mind EIS's, anyone is able to take an exsisting loop, especially through the NP's and rejoin the the AT.

If the "patch" is the thing and it's one's first hike, some may prefer to stay with the AT as to not be deemed a cheater, but for most that have actually taken the path less traveled, it's been as equally rewarding experience.

MOWGLI
03-11-2006, 19:36
I understand that there may be concerns with overuse, but still it seems like you ought to be able to get some of these places in, anyway. Who makes these decisions?

Who makes the decisions? You do. You can follow the white blazes - or not. The picture in this post is on the Lakeshore Trail (BMT) - 6 miles from Fontana Dam in GSMNP. If you choose to walk up the ridge on the AT, you'll never see Eagle Creek. And you'll be poorer for that decision. But it's your hike, and you can do what you want. Ain't that great?

To answer your question to the letter. Routing is determined in partnership by the ATC, the local maintaining club, and the local land manager.

Mountain Man
03-11-2006, 20:10
Judging from the thread below on rerouting, it seems like the consensus is that the Trail misses a lot of spots that are nicer then the ones it actually goes through. The question is, why can't it go through the nicer places, at least in those areas where public land is available? For instance, a lot of people have said that the nicer parts of SNP are off the trail. So why not take the trail off the ridge and go down to some of these nicer spots? I understand that there may be concerns with overuse, but still it seems like you ought to be able to get some of these places in, anyway. Who makes these decisions? Is it NPS, ATC, the local clubs, the local parks, forests, etc.? Could they be asked to give more thought to scenic values?


The rerouting of the trail around places of over use is easier said than done. The truth is that it takes years of planning, getting approval from the USFS (here in Ga.) after studies of the plant life etc.along the rerout and not counting the thousands of hours of man power. Here in Georgia they are reroutes either in planning or construction every year. It's a slow go. Two different reroutes are under construction right now. Those that are concerned and would like to help out with the reroutes, if your not a member of a Maintaining Club you could join in and help out, or maybe a seasonal work crew or support in other ways. It just takes time but we are working on it here and I'm sure the other clubs are doing all they can.

Sleepy the Arab
03-11-2006, 23:43
I once asked Bob Peoples what it took to reroute a portion of the trail from start to finish. It was a long answer. Consider that many of the portions of the 19e to Moreland Gap relocations have been in the pipeline for years. After acquisition of land, there is scouting the location, tagging the proposed relo, and then the experts get sent in. In addition to the aforementioned studies on plant life (to make sure nothing endangered is being affected), the proposed relo is examined for threatened insects, birds, and assorted other creatures. Then the archeologists are sent in to make certain that no cultural remnants are to be had. One arrowhead, woolly spotted slug, or bald eagle can cause the process to start over again from the beginning. If all goes well, it's just a matter of getting it all together with the local trail club (in this case the TEHCC), and the ATC, and then assembling the volunteers.

Unfortunately, this is the best I can describe it: as distilled two year old memories. One would do best to ask him yourself as I cannot do it justice. It sounds like a facinating process though, and I wish I could get more involved in it.

fiddlehead
03-12-2006, 22:57
Every trail has it's own personality.
The AT, since it's beginning, has tried to hike the ridges or highest point of the Appalacians or White's, or whatever mt range they happen to be on. That was the thought's of it's originators and is what makes the AT the way it is. It's usually not near lakes, streams, or other spots that many may find more interesting. Instead it's up on top, where the views are better, but water is more scarce.
If you want a more scenic trail, try the PCT or CDT. They are much more scenic.

MedicineMan
03-12-2006, 23:21
i blue blazed a section in SNP to get to Humback Rocks (i think that is what it was), the former AT went to it but the current doesnt....no regrets, incredible vistas and an awesome rock formation...I believe that MacKaye and Avery wanted the AT to be a guideline anyway, a connector to many other trails...truly if you stick to every single white blaze you'll miss a lot, best example is Mt. Cammerer, think about how many have missed it, we even camped once at Cosby and used the Low Gap just to visit the tower. Such heavy decisions:-?

napster
03-13-2006, 00:25
fiddlehead quotes - Every trail has it's own personality.
The AT, since it's beginning, has tried to hike the ridges or highest point of the Appalacians or White's, or whatever mt range they happen to be on. That was the thought's of it's originators and is what makes the AT the way it is. It's usually not near lakes, streams, or other spots that many may find more interesting. Instead it's up on top, where the views are better, but water is more scarce.

Fiddlehead said it right,and one more important thing to remember is a lot of folks were forced into moving from their homes and their way of living years ago from the AT Mountains cause the goverment came in and said you ain't able to read, you don't got no privy,you ain't educated enuff and they were forced to move into the valleys to become more cilivized leaving behind generations of the ole homestead place,graves of loved ones, gardens and some of the best farm and pasture land ever. It had to be a hard thing to do and Im sure the double barrel ran hot.Im sure the stongman of the house was taken out so the rest of the family had to move with the changing of times. I love the At I would not want to change any more then has already been changed but unbe known to a lot of folks there has already been a HUGE price paid.Just something to think about next time you hike by an ole gravesite or delapidated cabin or eat lunch on top of a bald.
Napster