View Full Version : 2010 Appalachian Trail Circle Expedition
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 13:04
I would like to announce my eighth, and probably last, group expedition up the entire Appalachian Trail.
It is a highly task-oriented group committed to a 100% completion rate.
It will be 127 days long (May 1, 2010 to Sept. 4, 2010).
It will be van-supported with approximately 10 days spent backpacking.
This is not 'slack'packing though - our first scheduled full rest day is in Hanover, NH (day # 96).
This is a non-commercial, 'folk', 'labor of love', volunteer endeavor.
There are five, four-day planning/practice hike sessions from 5/14/08 to 4/5/10 that will include a total of 307 miles of practice hikes (mostly backpacking) and 30 hours of logistics/planning.
If you are an individual who is looking for a specific trail experience like this, than contact me at the below e-mail address (or check out my website below by the end of August) to get more info.
May the circle be unbroken.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
I cannot imagine the kind of and amount of PMs Dixie gets behind the scenes. :rolleyes:
Bless her heart. :sun
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 13:45
Post #2, #3, #4
Wow! I just noticed that #2 and #3 have already been handled.
There is actually a new day dawning on Whiteblaze!
Thank you!
Jack Tarlin
07-14-2007, 13:50
Just to change the subject, what is a "folk" endeavor, by the way?
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who hasn't the faintest idea what Mr. Doyle is talking about.
And if only 10 days of this 127-day "Expedition" are going to involve the use of a backpack, as stated above, then how can this NOT be considered primarily a slackpacking adventure?
Just curious. :D
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 14:47
Two questions asked in a civil spirit deserve two answers in a civil spirit.
Q: Just to change the subject, what is a "folk" endeavor, by the way?
A: The best way I can explain why I use the term 'folk' is this example:
In my opinion, a 'folk' musician , as opposed to a 'commercial' musician, is one who plays and/or sings for the intrinsic satifaction it gives them. They are not interested in selling CD's or getting paid to do what they enjoy doing. They just have an intrinsic desire to share their talents to inform, inspire and entertain others without expecting a monetary reward in return.
Q: And if only 10 days of this 127-day "Expedition" are going to involve the use of a backpack, as stated above, then how can this NOT be considered primarily a slackpacking adventure?
A: The term "slackpacking" was introduced to the AT experience by O.d. Coyote. a north-bound thru-hiker in 1980. He has one of the most creative and entertaining narratives of a thru-hike that I know of "Chained Dogs and Songbirds: The World's Slowest Traverse of the Appalachian Trail". I subscribe to his definition of the word since he is the one who first coined it. I do not subscribe to the more 'modern' definition of the word which is more widely known in today's AT hiker culture.
The dictionary definition of "slack" (and the one that O.d. based his original term on) is as follows:
1) slow; idle; sluggish
2) barely moving
3) characterized by little work, trade, or business
4) loose; relaxed; not tight, taut, of firm
5) easily changed or influenced: weak; lax
6) careless; neglectful; indifferent
I see little, if any, of these terms in our 127-day, group traverse of the entire Appalachian Trail under a schedule that doesn't change; under the expectation that one cannot fall behind schedule; and, under another expectation that once one commits to the circle (symbolic of the task of the expedition) that one cannot quit/stop unless for an unavoidable chronically debilitating injury and/or death/serious illness in the intermediate family back home. The additional fact that we only have two full rest days on the entire journey also doesn't reflect the above definitions of the word 'slack'.
We are not carrying the physical burden of a full backpack by any means; however, we are carrying the emotional burden that comes with a trusting commitment to the other expedition members that we either all get 'there' or none of of us do. I feel the latter burden is a more challenging and difficult burden to bear; and therefore, a more satisfying accomplishment.
I have finished two of my AT hikes alone; one with friends present; five with family members present; and six with people who I started with on Springer and traveled with the entire distance. All of these journey endings were joyfuly satisfying, but none so substantive and vibrant than the six unbroken circles.
The expedition is not for everyone, but some have and will choose this way of walking and experiencing the trail.
Jack Tarlin
07-14-2007, 15:05
I appreciate Mr. Doyle's reply, but can't help but point out that most of today's hikers have never heard of O.d. Coyote and are unfamiliar with his original definition of the word "slackpacking." If, as he says, Mr. Doyle has no interest in subscribing to or recognizing the more modern definition of the word, well that's entirely up to him, but when the vast majority of modern-day hikers hear about group hikes where participants walk packless for 110 out of 127 days, well, the fact remains that these journeys are going to be considered extended slackpacking adventures. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Oh, and I could add that that Mr. Doyle's description of the slavish devotion that happens "once one commits to the circle" makes his venture sound positively cultish.
But that's another post, I guess. This one is about slackpacking. And if someone spends 110 out of 127 days on the Trail without a backpack (which is around 86% of their time on the Trail!) then denying that this is an extended slakpacking trip is an exercise in self-delusion.
Warren, is the 1980 trip a book? Is it available?
When you do a trip like this, where does your group spend most nights?
Do you charge a fee to be in the group?
How are expenses handled?
I am truly curiuos, and not trying be a troll or flame you. Sounds interesting.
Lone Wolf
07-14-2007, 15:44
my first trail name back in 1986 was "The Yankee Slackpacker". slackpacking had nothing to do with hiking without a pack and staying at a hostel for days on end partying while getting shuttled to hike packless just to cover miles. slackpacking was walking with a full pack doing low/slow miles, setting up camp at noon, taking days off in the woods.
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 15:48
Some more civil questions asked in a civil spirit....
Q: Warren, is the 1980 trip a book? Is it available?
A: Yes, it is a book. There were limited editions (107 copies), self-published by O.d. I had the honor of receiving copy #2 (after Ed Garvey).
I don't know if any are available. Last address that I have for O.d. is in the 2002 ADHA Directory: Andrew Page
111 SE 11th St.
Long Beach, NC 28465-6506
Q: When you do a trip like this, where does your group spend most nights?
A: Mostly at road crossings. Optional indoor lodging happens about once every ten days.
Q:Do you charge a fee to be in the group? How are expenses handled?
A: A $20 annual donation is requested to cover expenses incurred during the 2.5 preparation period. For those folks who decide, after a 2.5 month preparation period, that they want to participate in the expedition, a donation to cover expenses of the expedition (i.e., gas, support van upkeep, group supplies, campground fees, etc.) is requested within a month of the expedition's start. Suggested donation is set by prevailing gas prices and the number of participants. Either I, or the support van driver, keep receipts of all expenses and if there is money left in the donation pool at the end of the trek, it is refunded to the expedition members if they want it.
I am truly curiuos, and not trying be a troll or flame you. Sounds interesting.
If you are still curious, I suggest you e-mail me (below) and I'll send you some info.
Thanks for the info Warren!
One more question...how big is your group normally?
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 16:29
The largest group was 19 in 1975.
The smallest group was 7 in 2005.
The 1977, 1980, 1990, 1995, and 2000 expeditions were in the 12-15 person range.
There is no 'quota'. It all depends on who still wants to make the commitment after going through all of the 20-day preparation period.
Jack, I'd like to chime in if I may and say that I recognize the earlier definition of slackpack(er) which is clearly different from how most A.T. hikers use that term today. You may recall I mentioned here before I hiked in 1980 too.:) I prefer the neutral term day hiking to the term slackpacking as used by most A.T. hikers today.
Unlike most other A.T. hikers in 1980, I had the opportunity to hike with The UConn Expedition twice. When they caught up to me the second time at Pinkham Notch, I was feeling pretty down for a variety of reasons. It really lifted me to see them again and to hike with them the next day.
Warren offered to transport my pack in his support vehicle to US 2 where the expedition would meet it the following day. I thought hard about his offer as I greatly enjoyed their company and I could stay at Rattle River Shelter to think about how I might best proceed.
I opted to hike to Rattle River with my full pack instead because I was not comfortable with committing to the entire distance given my physical ailments at that time as well as my state of mind. I wanted the option to stop earlier if needed and I always felt awkward even when I hiked only a short distance without my pack. It had become a part of me in a way some here will understand.
That night Warren's group camped near U.S. 2 and I stayed at Rattle River Shelter. It never occurred to me I had accomplished anything more or less than The UConn Expedition and still don't believe I did. They hiked the A.T. their way and I hiked it mine.
I recently reread one of Jean Cashin's 'Up Front' columns published late in 1980 or early 1981 in which she referred to 1980 as the year of everybody. It was a good year to be on the A.T. Those who can should read Jean's article.
Jack, I think The South Georgia Heathens would probably acknowledge the definition Warren cites above too.:D
I've got other things I must do and likely won't post to WhiteBlaze again today. Y'all behave!:rolleyes:
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 16:43
...for another pleasant pre-1995 AT thru-hiking memory.
I think this is good for some but I got to agree with Jack. It seems to be a way to say you did it without mentioning that you didn't carry a pack. Thats a huge difference. How can this come close to the same accomplishment?
Why does each accomplishment have to be the same??
What may be an accomplishment for me.....may not be for you....OR vice versa.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-14-2007, 17:23
Why does each accomplishment have to be the same??
What may be an accomplishment for me.....may not be for you....OR vice versa.::: Dino kisses Slimer on the toes for having a wonderful attitude :::
Like Warren has said, you just got to be content with the man in the mirror.
Too many sheeple.
Jack Tarlin
07-14-2007, 17:28
Chache:
In my experience, people that hike in this fashion NEVER volunteer the information that they essentially hiked packless. Quite the contrary,they keep this information hidden and are quite uncomfortable talking about it. And there's nothing wrong with hiking with little or no weight; after all,to each their own. But people who slackpack almost the entire Trail know quite well that this is NOT what most people picture in their minds when they hear about someone hiking the entire A.T. The common perception is, of course, of a backpacker, i.e one who relies primarily on their own fortitude, strength, and resourcefulness, and not on the leisure and comfort provided by the presence of a support vehicle or group leader. People envision thru-hikers camping by streams and on mountaintops, and not cooking dinner and making camp by a roadside within safe sight and sound of a van or road. In Post #9 above, Mr. Doyle stated that most nights on his outdoors expedition, people in his group camped by road crossings. This is, of course, NOT what most people envision when they hear about someone hiking the whole A.T. Nor, of course, is it what most people want from their trips, but this, of course, is up to the individual. It's a free country.......if people wish to walk the AppalachianTrail with near-constant vehicular support; if they wish to sleep most nights next to a road; if they wish to have but two zero days off; and most of all, if they wish to spend less than 15% of their journey actually backpacking on the A.T., well this is, of course, up to them. The marvelous thing about living in a free country is the right to do
what most folks would consider foolish, and a terribly lost opportunity to discover what one is capable of achieving on one's own. But if people want to hike someone else's hike, and follow someone else's plan, itinerary, and vision, and not pursue their own, well, that's fine, too.
I wonder if people who hike the Trail these days volunteer how many days they sleep in hotels, B&Bs and other such refuges.
Hardly seems like hiking to me.
Geesh.
:sun
Jack Tarlin
07-14-2007, 17:33
I seem to remember you last did a long hike many, many years ago.
Lots of things probably seem different to you.
Why does each accomplishment have to be the same??
What may be an accomplishment for me.....may not be for you....OR vice versa.
Nobody's saying they have to be the same. What I am saying is that you know its the easy way to say you did the same thing and you know damn well they will say they did the same thing. There is no denying that one way is harder than the other. So don't give me that PC crap about "what may be a accomplishment for me may not be for you. What he's doing is all fine and well. This conversation started because he denies what Jack says is slack-packing.
Of course people may not mention they hiked this way because of people looking down on them or criticizing them when they do mention it. Just a thought.
Hiking this way would drive me crazy, but how other people complete their hike really isn't of much concern to me.
HYOH. :sun
Of course people may not mention they hiked this way because of people looking down on them or criticizing them when they do mention it. Just a thought.
Hiking this way would drive me crazy, but how other people complete their hike really isn't of much concern to me.
HYOH. :sun
And its not a concern for anybody else. This conversation was about denying that it was easier than carrying your pack all the way.
warren doyle
07-14-2007, 17:53
It's nice to read a thread where there can be differing viewpoints without resorting to disparaging name-calling.
I like it.
Keep up the good work WB administrators as you guide WB into a more gentler and kinder future.
Chache:
In my experience, people that hike in this fashion NEVER volunteer the information that they essentially hiked packless. Quite the contrary,they keep this information hidden and are quite uncomfortable talking about it. And there's nothing wrong with hiking with little or no weight; after all,to each their own. But people who slackpack almost the entire Trail know quite well that this is NOT what most people picture in their minds when they hear about someone hiking the entire A.T. The common perception is, of course, of a backpacker, i.e one who relies primarily on their own fortitude, strength, and resourcefulness, and not on the leisure and comfort provided by the presence of a support vehicle or group leader. People envision thru-hikers camping by streams and on mountaintops, and not cooking dinner and making camp by a roadside within safe sight and sound of a van or road. In Post #9 above, Mr. Doyle stated that most nights on his outdoors expedition, people in his group camped by road crossings. This is, of course, NOT what most people envision when they hear about someone hiking the whole A.T. Nor, of course, is it what most people want from their trips, but this, of course, is up to the individual. It's a free country.......if people wish to walk the AppalachianTrail with near-constant vehicular support; if they wish to sleep most nights next to a road; if they wish to have but two zero days off; and most of all, if they wish to spend less than 15% of their journey actually backpacking on the A.T., well this is, of course, up to them. The marvelous thing about living in a free country is the right to do
what most folks would consider foolish, and a terribly lost opportunity to discover what one is capable of achieving on one's own. But if people want to hike someone else's hike, and follow someone else's plan, itinerary, and vision, and not pursue their own, well, that's fine, too.
Ya ,What he said.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-14-2007, 17:58
Fellows, everyone knows day hiking with a light pack is easier than hiking with a heavier multi-day pack. However, hiking 2100+ miles is an accomplishment regardless of how it is done. HYOH and let others hike theirs.
Jack Tarlin
07-14-2007, 18:13
Geez, where has anyone said it's NOT accomplishment, F.D.??
All people are saying is that it's a very different one from that of most thru-hikers, and that it's different from most people's perceptions of what they envision a thru-hike to be.
And how is commenting on someone else's journey not letting them hike their own hike?
Of course they can hike their own hike. As I said more than once, it's a free country.
But if people bring up alternative ways to hike the Trail, and most of all, if people initiate threads or discussions here whose sole purpose is to talk about alternative ways to hike the Trail, well this opens the matter up for discussion. And when people state or imply that these alternative methods are as meaningful and difficult ......or perhaps more meaningful and difficult....than other hikes or hikers, well you better believe this will invite a response.
Lastly, I remind you that Mr. Doyle said flatly that he felt that the trials and difficulties of those on his Expedition were "a more challenging and difficult burden to bear" and it is THIS comment that I thinks some folks dispute and wished to comment on.
And they have every right to do so. Disputing some of the comments posted above in no way,shape, or form prevents anyone from "hiking their own hike." All people are doing is commenting on the ways some folks choose to do so.
Fellows, everyone knows day hiking with a light pack is easier than hiking with a heavier multi-day pack. However, hiking 2100+ miles is an accomplishment regardless of how it is done. HYOH and let others hike theirs.
There is no disagreement with everyone hiking which ever way they chose. Your the first to finally address the original premise of this conversation( that not carrying your pack 85% of the time was not easier).
Chache,
My question to you was not "politically correct"...although you seem to want it to be.
I'll give you the last word.......you're gonna need it.
I will now shut up on this subject and wish Warren a successful and happy trip.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-14-2007, 18:32
We are not carrying the physical burden of a full backpack by any means; however, we are carrying the emotional burden that comes with a trusting commitment to the other expedition members that we either all get 'there' or none of of us do. I feel the latter burden is a more challenging and difficult burden to bear; and therefore, a more satisfying accomplishment.WD has acknowledged that the hike he leads is different from the traditional AT thru-hike. He appears to see it as a group bond experience done at a challenging pace with very few zero days - WD sees the emotional aspects of doing that as more difficult than carrying a multiday pack while walking fewer miles whenever one feels like it, taking zero days as needed and not having to be bothered with the needs of the group.
To me, comparing these two experiences is like comparing having your house burn down to having your career go down the tubes. Both would be difficult and I wouldn't even try to say which is more difficult. I would think it would depend on the individual.
This conversation was about denying that it was easier than carrying your pack all the way.
When you carry your pack, you get to go at your own pace. You can stay in town and eat-- or go on a bender. You can visit you SO for a few days or weeks. Or skip a section that "realy doesn't matter". You can watch TV and movies and such. You can ditch those whose company bugs you, and seek the company of like minded souls.
Seems easier to me.
But who knows. Pehaps its just different.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that leading a group of strangers on a relatively fast schedule in such a way that most (and many times all) end up doing what elludes 80% of those who start will fail to do-- ie. walk from Springer to Katahdin-- is an achievement in leadership that stands in its own catagory.
Is hard to fathom, really. Not that some people on these trips make it all the way, but rather that so many do.
shelterbuilder
07-14-2007, 20:12
We are not carrying the physical burden of a full backpack by any means; however, we are carrying the emotional burden that comes with a trusting commitment to the other expedition members that we either all get 'there' or none of of us do. I feel the latter burden is a more challenging and difficult burden to bear; and therefore, a more satisfying accomplishment...All of these journey endings were joyfuly satisfying, but none so substantive and vibrant than the six unbroken circles.
The expedition is not for everyone, but some have and will choose this way of walking and experiencing the trail.
Like Shades of Gray, I, too, had the opportunity to meet some of the members of one of the UCONN Expeditions (I believe it was 1980) at the old Earl Shaffer shelter in Pa. Every single member of that group was dedicated to the concept of "their thru-hike", which, at the time, was a concept of thru-hiking of which I had never heard. But, given the explanations that day, I could understand why, even if it was not MY concept of a thru-hike, it was a valid concept nonetheless. I would describe the attitude, not as "cultish", but highly disicplined. The members of the group have committed not only to the hike, but also to each other. "May the circle be unbroken" is very much akin to "No man left behind". That's a burden willingly assumed, and it can be just as heavy emotionally as a full pack can be physically. HYOH.
minnesotasmith
07-15-2007, 00:10
Baltimore Jack said:
"In my experience, people that hike in this fashion [slackpacking, as Warren's groups do almost the whole way] NEVER volunteer the information that they essentially hiked packless. Quite the contrary,they keep this information hidden and are quite uncomfortable talking about it."
I was open about and volunteered on the infamous "MinnesotaSmith Update" thread (over 220,000 hits, BTW) in detail about my slackpacking as I did my thruhike last year. I did several days of it around Miss Janet's, at least one at Kincora, most of a day near Waynesboro, my first day in the Whites (Mt Mooseliauke), over half of Maine (much of it was done as 1- and 2- night "lightpacking", as I call it), much of Vermont, and several days at least in Mass.
But, then, I'm an honest person.
warren doyle
07-15-2007, 00:25
I enjoyed the recent three posts (FD; rickb;shelterbuilder). They were thoughtful, insightful and reasonable.
There have been seven circle expeditions (1975, 1977, 1980 - were mostly college students with a sprinkling of high school students and workers in their 20's; 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 - were people of all ages ranging from 18 y.o to 68 y.o.). Only one of the seven groups had a broken circle, meaning six had a 100% completion rate of those who made the commitment.
If a group day-hike up the entire Appalachian Trail in a continuous stretch is 'easy', why then haven't there been other groups to have achieved it with such a high completion rate? I can count on two hands the number of other group hike attempts. Most of these 'imploded' along the way.
ferryman
07-16-2007, 06:29
I have to agree with Lone Wolf on this one! (is this really happening?) I hiked with OD Coyote and Skocumchuck, starting at Joe's Hole lean-to at East Moxie, all the way to the summit of Katahdin in 1980. His version of a slower, more exploratory hike with full pack, is a far cry from the modern day slackpacking phenomenon. We had the opportunity to hike, camp and survive the November weather in Maine at anytime and anywhere along the Appalachian Trail. When we arrived to Baxter, some Millinocket friends watched his dog while we summitted Katahdin on November 17. You can fool some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. It has been my privilege to ferry some of your circle expediton members across the Kennebec River in Caratunk. Steve the ferryman
Pedalsndirt
07-16-2007, 09:38
Um,
What was this thread about again? =]
Dazed and Confused...
dixicritter
07-16-2007, 09:53
This thread is about one of Warren Doyle's upcoming Circle Expedition Hikes.
Pedalsndirt
07-16-2007, 09:54
Wow,
Ok I see what's up here, I think.
Thanks for the warning. Us newbs (myself particularly) were getting very confused.
Back to my research. LOL :P
J
Unlike most other A.T. hikers in 1980, I had the opportunity to hike with The UConn Expedition twice.
I the "small world" category, I am friend's with one of the members (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=13520) from that year.
On the night this picture was taken, he entertained some of us with the stories of the Uconn's CDT expedtion shortly thereafter. The CDT was a bit different in the mid 80s to say the least. :) When I was in Lincoln,MT and looked over the nearly 30 yr old PO register, sure enough..they had signed in there, too. Good stuff.
warren doyle
07-16-2007, 16:30
The first group to walk the entire AT was the 1975 UC0NN Appalachian Trail Circle Expedition (19 people - 100% completion rate; 110 days). Mike Hinckley was a member of the 1980 UCONN Appalachian Trail Circle Expedition (14 people - 100% completion rate; 109 days).
Most of the members of the first group to do the PCT in 1977 were members of the 1975 AT Expedition.
Most of the members of the first group to do the CDT in 1984 were members of the 1975 and 1980 AT Circle Expeditions.
The PCT and CDT expeditions were under the capable leadership of Kirk Sinclair 'Diggerfoot' , one of the early Triple Crowners.
Kirk is organizing a van-supported PCT group hike in 2010.
Jim Adams
07-16-2007, 16:56
10 days of backpacking and a continuous 117 days of "day hiking" is not a thru hike. You simply traveled the miles and IMO missed the whole reason to be out there in the first place. It may be a different experience but one with quite abit of missed trip experiences.
The reason 80% fail on thru hikes is because it IS far more difficult to complete while carrying a full pack.
geek
dixicritter
07-16-2007, 17:05
Let's all remeber to HYOH ok? :)
10 days of backpacking and a continuous 117 days of "day hiking" is not a thru hike. You simply traveled the miles and IMO missed the whole reason to be out there in the first place. It may be a different experience but one with quite abit of missed trip experiences.
The reason 80% fail on thru hikes is because it IS far more difficult to complete while carrying a full pack.
geek
Here we go again
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-16-2007, 17:07
The ATC does not specify that a pack must be carried to attain thru-hiker status - only that the entire AT must be hiked in a single season - so WD's successful participants are indeed thru-hikers by the ATC definition.
WD has noted that the experience is different from the non-assisted thru-hikes attempted by others. Some of the requirements for a non-supported hike (carrying everything one needs pretty much the entire length of the trail, planning one's own meals and sleeping arrangements, etc.) are absent while some of the requirements for WD's hike (the group dynamic, the number of miles hiked, the rigid schedule, the fewer than normal days off) are absent from a non-assisted hiker's burden.
As I said earlier, each is hard in its own way and which one is harder will depend on the individual.
dixicritter
07-16-2007, 17:08
Actually FD as I've been corrected many times past, the ATC doesn't recognize thru hikers at all only 2000 milers. ;)
I've learned that part by heart...LOL
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-16-2007, 17:13
Actually FD as I've been corrected many times past, the ATC doesn't recognize thru hikers at all only 2000 milers. ;)
I've learned that part by heart...LOL::: Dino blushes :::
Perhaps I should say the ATC says nothing about what you carry on your back to be a 2000 miler.
I've done some fairly decent long distance hikes and I personally think it would be much harder mentally to do a traditional thru-hike than WD's circle expedition. Think about it, as the expedition hikes, they know that at the end of the day there will be a known place to camp and a van waiting for them with whatever they may need. There is a lot of security and stress relief in that situation. Plus, you have a commitment with a large group of people every day that will bolster you and keep you going when things get tough. Solo thru hikers don't have that commitment to a larger group, they're on their own, regardless of the strong bonds they made.
Which brings me to a query of mine. I wonder what the correlation is between completion rates and the kind of friendships that are built on the trail. I wonder if the ability to form strong bonds has any relation to completion rate. People give all kinds of reasons why people quit the trail, but I don't recall seeing anyone talk about people quitting because they can't make friends. I'm betting it happens a lot. The strong bonds formed by the circle expeditions, combined with the security each night, I think would make the thru easier and account for the completion rate. I'm curious Warren, the one expedition that didn't have 100% completion, was that because of conflicting personalities or some other reason?
The reason 80% fail on thru hikes is because it IS far more difficult to complete while carrying a full pack.
What if you carry a merely half-full pack BUT a box of wine and make some no-bake cheese cake?
Of course, some times I carry a 3/4 full pack and don't make the cheese cake. I do carry the wine, though. Have to keep up the standards afer all.
(Hmm..maybe there should be a fudge factor? Perhaps a 7/8 full pack and perhaps a mere cup of wine?)
Warren, I enjoyed reading your group-thru-hike history post. I recently pointed out to someone off-board how many thru-hikes I thought 1980 UConn Expedition members completed before their 1980 hike. I believe the circle atop Katahdin in 1980 may have had far more to do with experience than anything else. What do you think?
:-? You know, I wish A.T. hikers would use the terms day-hike(er) and day-hiking. I find it odd the terms slackpack(er) and slackpacking could both be antonyms of themselves. I don't know if that's possible or if I even constructed my last sentence correctly. Maybe I should consult an English instructor or post on other topics.:o :D
:-? I'm glad it's all hiking anyway and doesn't really matter to many if not most hikers. The others may still find a more constructive way of looking at such things someday. I think ATC sorted out that part of what consistutes a 2000 miler long ago as did many who post here.
I ran into WD's group in 2000, though not the man himself. Thought their method of hiking a little strange, but hey, each to his own! They seemed to be having a good time and no different than other hikers, except for the crazy asian guy hiking nekkid. No biggie (pun intended)!
What if you carry a merely half-full pack BUT a box of wine and make some no-bake cheese cake?
Of course, some times I carry a 3/4 full pack and don't make the cheese cake. I do carry the wine, though. Have to keep up the standards afer all.
(Hmm..maybe there should be a fudge factor? Perhaps a 7/8 full pack and perhaps a mere cup of wine?)
On my upcoming JMT hike, I'm carrying a full pack AND either MH Blueberry Cheesecake or Raspberry Crumble for almost every night out. In a freakin' bear canister, no less. (No wine, though. We all have our priorities.)
Do I get extra points? Does it make up for my extensive use of shuttle services and cooperative friends on my AT hike?:D
Seriously, I completely disagree that carrying a full pack in and of itself defines the difficulty of a hike. The relentless pace the circle expeditions set, combined with the fact that you have agreed to keep up, no ifs ands or buts, sounds very hard. If I were offered a choice of joining the Circle or hiking my own hike carrying my full pack every day, I think the second option would be easier for me.
I say that as someone who did quite a lot of light-pack hiking last year. I eventually decided that it was often easier to have a heavier pack and a more flexible schedule than to leave weight behind but have to be a certain place at a certain time. Don't get me wrong--I love hiking with a day pack and showering and sleeping indoors at the end of the day--but it's not always the easiest option, especially if you make yourself do long miles when you're day-packing it.
Marta/Five-Leaf
There is no way in hell I could put up with the constraints and dynamics of a rigid group hike.
If you walked all the miles on the AT then in my book you have hiked the AT. And we each get to choose how we want to walk it. Everyone is getting their own thrill out of it, and I never really have seen the point of comparing my chosen adventures with anyone else's.
For the people who choose to do the AT in this style - good luck. It sounds too much like the job I'm leaving behind for my tastes, but to each his own.
Hikerhead
07-16-2007, 20:41
There is no way in hell I could put up with the constraints and dynamics of a rigid group hike.
If you walked all the miles on the AT then in my book you have hiked the AT. And we each get to choose how we want to walk it. Everyone is getting their own thrill out of it, and I never really have seen the point of comparing my chosen adventures with anyone else's.
For the people who choose to do the AT in this style - good luck. It sounds too much like the job I'm leaving behind for my tastes, but to each his own.
I agree with Rumbler. It sounds like another 9 to 5 job to me. Who wants to be dictated on how many miles you have to walk, where you're going to camp, day after day. Its not for me but for somebody else, it might be the hike made in heaven.
fiddlehead
07-16-2007, 21:28
Having done thru hikes both with support (triple crown attempt 2001/2002) and carrying a full pack (all my other thrus), I'd say in retrospect that it is a lot easier with the van support. Especially in the winter.
When you finish your hike at the end of the day, you know you have a great big meal coming up. complete with sausage, potatoes, desert, etc. while listening to a good stereo out of the rain. In the morning, we usually had a dozen eggs and a lb of bacon for the 2 of us, along with a huge pot of real coffee while we planned our day via our computer and printed out the days maps.
We rarely (weren't always at the van) had to get up and pound into our frozen running shoes, putting on yesterdays wet and cold or frozen socks. (oh, it's the 5th day of rain, now all my gear is wet, i wonder where the next laundromat is and how long a hitch it will be, damn i wish i was hiking with a girl so i could get a ride easier)
If we were craving "little debbies" that's what our driver would pick up for us at the next store they saw, and we'd most likely have them that night.
In the winter time, i was able to sleep in a -30 deg. bag or had the choice of a 0 deg bag or a +20.
I had clean clothes, satellite radio through a 300 watt amp, and if i wanted a side trip to Vegas one day, no problem, no hitching, just go there and enjoy their AYCE. (it was only a 4 hour drive from cottonwood creek, ca)
The problem with the support van is that you don't get to build fires because you need to stay warm, keep walking because the tentsites have all turned into a mud puddle, stop and enjoy a place because you like it too much, get to a town and hope that they have your maildrop, favorite lipton, a hamburger joint, or bar.
And most importantly, there's not that sense of being in the wild nearly as much. It's more like hiking day to day rather than resupply to resupply.
minnesotasmith
07-16-2007, 21:38
The ATC does not specify that a pack must be carried to attain thru-hiker status - only that the entire AT must be hiked in a single season - so WD's successful participants are indeed thru-hikers by the ATC definition.
WD has noted that the experience is different from the non-assisted thru-hikes attempted by others. Some of the requirements for a non-supported hike (carrying everything one needs pretty much the entire length of the trail, planning one's own meals and sleeping arrangements, etc.) are absent while some of the requirements for WD's hike (the group dynamic, the number of miles hiked, the rigid schedule, the fewer than normal days off) are absent from a non-assisted hiker's burden.
As I said earlier, each is hard in its own way and which one is harder will depend on the individual.
The ATC also does not consider any hiker classification higher than 2000-miler to exist. I agree with them on both issues, BTW.
The ATC does not rank being a 2000 Miler as being higher in clasification than being a day hiker or a weekender. It is, what it is.
shelterbuilder
07-16-2007, 22:09
There is no way in hell I could put up with the constraints and dynamics of a rigid group hike...For the people who choose to do the AT in this style - good luck. It sounds too much like the job I'm leaving behind for my tastes, but to each his own.
I would assume that Warren's 2.5 (month?) preparation period serves to get everyone on the same page, in much the same way that basic training would get new recruits "up to speed" - not only with their equipment, but functioning as a cohesive group under "adverse" conditions. Those that can't make the grade simply "wash out", while those that can, are able to handle the constraints and dynamics of a hike of this kind.
Personally, I think that I would prefer the latitude to be able to wander down a blue-blaze trail without regard for how it might affect my daily "white line" mileage, or to be able to do a zero day at a great shelter/campsite, or stay in town an extra day, and not have to worry about getting off-schedule. That's my perfect world. :D HYOH!
Having done thru hikes both with support (triple crown attempt 2001/2002) and carrying a full pack (all my other thrus), I'd say in retrospect that it is a lot easier with the van support.
Makes sense.
But let me ask you this: If on each of your hikes you were faced with the additional challenge of either making together with the same 8 or 10 people you started with, how do you think you would have fared?
No lets supose those 8 or 10 people were not hand picked former LD hikers, but rather a bunch of first timers.
You think you would have made it all the way? Together?
My personality type is an introvert. There have been studies done by a branch of the State University of NY that most thru-hikers are introverts. Having said all that, I have also been on retreats where a team concept was employed, and have had a rewarding experience. I'm betting that is exactly what Warren is doing with the pre-hike team-building that goes on before the actual hike.
I'm hoping Warren will chime in here, but I'm also betting that if you asked the participants of his thru-hikes, they will tell you they had a unique life experience and made life-long friendships.
And finally, whether you carry a pack or not, walking the entire trail is an accomplishment that needs no qualification.
warren doyle
07-17-2007, 09:12
I have enjoyed the posts on this thread - differing opinions that are thoughtful and civil. Thanks to the WB editorial policy, people can finally post their thoughts/opinions without feeling intimidated. Like I said, the circle expedition isn't for anybody nor does it have to be. Individuals need to form a relationship with the trail that they feel the most comfortable with. I feel it is important that people know the many types/possibilities of trail experiences that they can choose from.
And now to answer two questions:
Lilred post #49 (very insightful post)
Q: I'm curious Warren, the one expedition that didn't have 100% completion, was that because of conflicting personalities or some other reason?
A: It was not about conflicting personalities. The circle was broken at the base of Bromley Mt. in southern Vt. when one of the members felt/thought they could go on no longer - so it was more like a personal psychological barrier to the task.
Shades of Gray post #51
Q: I recently pointed out to someone off-board how many thru-hikes I thought 1980 UConn Expedition members completed before their 1980 hike. I believe the circle atop Katahdin in 1980 may have had far more to do with experience than anything else. What do you think?
A: The 1980 UCONN AT Circle Expedition consisted of 13 hikers and one support van driver.
The breakdown of the 13 hikers prior backpacking/hiking experience before the expedition preparation period began in September 1979 for a mid-May 1980 start at Springer (all hikers were self-selected):
3 people had extensive long distance backpacking/hiking experience
1 person had limited long distance backpacking/hiking experience
9 people were 'newbies'
The 'success' of the circle expeditions (i.e. in terms of completion rate)primarily rests in two areas: the preparation period and leadership/organizational skills.
'Newbies' (before the preparation period) have comprised from 70-90% of the expedition members.
Pedalsndirt
07-17-2007, 10:03
Please excuse the "N3wb" question.
Why do experienced hikers try to force their opinions of what a thru-hike is and how it should be done? This, IMO, is an attempt invalidate another persons attempts to bring the love of the AT, unity and friendship to people whom have never put a foot on the trail and help the love for the trail grow to many more people which, will allow the trail to survive whatever may come in the future.
I personally have JUST come to feel a draw to the trail and I gotta tell ya these types of "comments" serve to do nothing but discourage a rookie.
I am NO rookie to forums and websites, having authored a few myself and I know that your going to run into differing opinions and that is what makes this method of communicating great. My only concern is to the "experienced" "vocal" few on this site. Please be mindful of what you say, there are n3wbs about who, can easily misunderstand, get discouraged and drop the whole thing. I know its not your responsibility to "Molly Coddle" someone, but if your looking to discourage people from joining the Love you have found on the AT keep it up, you'll get what you want for certain, along with some undesired consequences.
I'm not looking to "slam" anyone I think everyones comments to a large degree are necessary, even the less than nice ones. They are all valid and no one should be invalidated or censored. All "attempted, assistive" opinions should bevoiced and heard.
Myself, I think it would be an awesome way to prepare me (and any other n3wb) for the trail and learn some of the details of a thru-hike with this type of a trip. I personally would be honored to be with experienced backpackers taking their valuable personal time to teach me the "Love". I havent done day one of backpacking and have only hiked small mile long or so sections of the AT. Once, hopefully, having completed this type of a trip (or at least participate to my fullest abilities) I would feel extra confident to complete the AT on a bona fide old school ("old school" being relative to the individual) thru-hike.
Thats one n3wbs perspective, I mean no harm, just another opinion from someone watching in the background.
To all: Hike long and Hike often.
I am just learning this, you experienced ones are lucky in my book. and my hats off to you all. :)
Warren,
I know you indicated in an earlier post that you found the Circle hikes to be the most rewarding, compared to your solo hikes, once you reached Katadin. I guess I'm wondering, what about day to day, in the middle of the hike? Which method of hiking is more fun/rewarding on a day to day basis?
Maybe, with the extensive investment in time and effort you have put into the Circle tours, this is no longer a fair question to ask you. We all know that in many situations, while we are experiencing something we are also dreading/annoyed/discouraged by it, but after we complete it, then we experience the great rewards for persevering. Is this what you find with the Circle tours, that the greatest reward is at the end, when it's over?
Why do experienced hikers try to force their opinions of what a thru-hike is and how it should be done
I have not heard anyone on this thread try to force their opinon on how a person should hike. There is varing opinion on what the term "thru-hike" means. What got this thread going, like all threads that mention Mr. Doyle, is his saying, "this is not slack packing", when it clearly is by today's definintion of ther term.
A person's hike is a lot like their golf game. I do not care (unless there is money on the line) how many rules a person breaks while they are on the course, but if a person claims to shoot par, when in reality they didn't, I will have a lower opinion of that person, and probably not want to associate with them.
Same with hiking. IMO it would be very challenging to slack pack the AT, however, it is not as challenging as carrying a backpack the whole way, and sleeping in the elements most nights.
If a person slackpacks, the AT, and tries to hide, the fact, and portray themselves as a backpacker, well IMO, they are like the golfer mentioned above, I probably would not enjoy sharing a campfire with them.
If a person slackpacks, the AT, and tries to hide, the fact, and portray themselves as a backpacker, well IMO, they are like the golfer mentioned above, I probably would not enjoy sharing a campfire with them.
Man..have you ever tried to get a campfire going on a golf course?
As soon as you have the fire lit, some maniac in a cart tries to run you over. Sigh...
Alligator
07-17-2007, 13:07
It seems like both definitions regarding the term slackpacker have been presented, which was somewhat pertinent to Warren's future trip. Whether or not the modern definition of slackpacking or backpacking is harder is best covered in another forum. Please start another thread if there is to be any further discussion on that matter. Thank you.
Creek Dancer
07-17-2007, 13:28
:-? If we aren't suppose to discuss anything other than what WD wants to discuss, perhaps this thread should be in the "Straight Forward" category.
Alligator
07-17-2007, 13:35
:-? If we aren't suppose to discuss anything other than what WD wants to discuss, perhaps this thread should be in the "Straight Forward" category.It's in the hooking up forum, which is about trip plans. The suggestion was that if people are interested in a more general discussion, to simply have that discussion in a more appropriate place. Periodically, old trip plans are removed from this forum.
Pedalsndirt
07-17-2007, 13:52
Anyone trying to minimize anything I do is an attempt at "forcing an opinion" and I for one don't appreciate it.
Having said that, ima move on. I am looking forward to hiking/backpacking the AT and many others, as soon as I learn how to do it properly and safely. I think this is a good start.
Thanks everyone, your ALL tops in my book.
It seems like both definitions regarding the term slackpacker have been presented, which was somewhat pertinent to Warren's future trip.
Words do change definition over time. Webster's dictionary is filled with alternate definitions for words. #1 is always the most current and used definition for any word. Slackpacking's most current and used definition is one who hikes the AT without a full pack, as if one is going on a day hike. Ask anyone on the trail, who has done this, what it is called, and they will tell you that they 'slackpacked that section'. So, Warren's group would rightfully be called a slackpack of the AT, not backpacking the AT, by today's AT community. Trail magic is another term that has changed over the years too. If I tell today's hiker that a cooler of drinks left on the side of the trail is not trail magic, they'd think I was nuts.
Lilread, perhaps you should have read Alligator's post in it's entirety before posting.:rolleyes: I'm referring especially to the portion you omitted from your quote.:D
Pedalsndirt
07-17-2007, 18:41
Thank you for the explanation and trail history information. I understand more each day.
:)
It's in the hooking up forum, which is about trip plansSo this forum isn't about hooking up?
Alligator
07-17-2007, 19:44
So this forum isn't about hooking up?Funny the talk about changing definitions. It's about making trip plans with other people. Not the more modern definition.
Alligator
07-17-2007, 19:55
Words do change definition over time. Webster's dictionary is filled with alternate definitions for words. #1 is always the most current and used definition for any word. Slackpacking's most current and used definition is one who hikes the AT without a full pack, as if one is going on a day hike. Ask anyone on the trail, who has done this, what it is called, and they will tell you that they 'slackpacked that section'. So, Warren's group would rightfully be called a slackpack of the AT, not backpacking the AT, by today's AT community. Trail magic is another term that has changed over the years too. If I tell today's hiker that a cooler of drinks left on the side of the trail is not trail magic, they'd think I was nuts.And sometimes people use terms in their older context. Warren stated the definition he was using, and his use was supported by both Lone Wolf and Steve the Ferryman. Regardless, this isn't an English Language site. This forum isn't to debate language. It's to connect hikers who wish to hike together. If you have other issues, move them to the appropriate forum. That's the last time I will ask.
It's in the hooking up forum, which is about trip plans. The suggestion was that if people are interested in a more general discussion, to simply have that discussion in a more appropriate place. Periodically, old trip plans are removed from this forum.
Sorry guys, my bad. I thought I was staying on topic talking about the definition.... didn't even realize what forum I was in. :o
In 2006 I slackpacked somewhere around 10 days. First time being around 20miles southbound into Erwin, TN; again leaving Damascus, from the Dutch Haus, the entire state of CT, 3 days in VT, and once in Maine. I remember very well passing Beauty Spot Gap and thinking what a great campsite I was missing out on.
Overall, hiking with a full pack is obviously more physically demanding. At first I loved the freedom of having the weight off my back and legs. I could really fly if I wanted to. And I usually had to since I always got stuck talking to my fellow northbounders who were out there carrying a pack going in the right direction. Id take longer breaks, knowing I could do the miles in good time and always just made it back in time. It was a little nicer walking into Damascus southbound since I didnt have to meet a pick-up van.
As my trip went on, slackpacking became stressful. It was nice to have the weight off in CT and VT, but my legs and feet hurt a lot anyway by that point. Luckily in CT we were able to call from the trail and alter our arrangements with our pick-up person. Knowing we had to get to a certain point at a certain time began to feel a lot like work. Travelling with that freedom on your back to be able to set up just about anywhere and call it home for the night was dearly missed.
Did we make up good miles slackpacking? Yeah for the most part.
Was is easier? Physically it was, but it was mentally stressful knowing where you had to get to and when you had to get there. I didnt enjoy 75% of my slackpacking experience and probably won't do it again.
And sometimes people use terms in their older context. Warren stated the definition he was using, and his use was supported by both Lone Wolf and Steve the Ferryman. Regardless, this isn't an English Language site. This forum isn't to debate language. It's to connect hikers who wish to hike together. If you have other issues, move them to the appropriate forum. That's the last time I will ask.
This thread has 76 posts in it. How are people reading and responding to posts on the first or second page page supposed to know about this post by you? It was left unmoderated too long to start now IMO. You'd have to go back and edit warren's and lone wolf and jacks and ferrymans comments that you let slide ealier to be fair about it.
But hell, do you read Lil Red's entries? I doubt it. If you did, you would know she is a positive addition to these boards.
And I thought with LW on the Long Trail, some positive hiker talk could occur.
dixicritter
07-17-2007, 22:42
This thread has 76 posts in it. How are people reading and responding to posts on the first or second page page supposed to know about this post by you? It was left unmoderated too long to start now IMO. You'd have to go back and edit warren's and lone wolf and jacks and ferrymans comments that you let slide ealier to be fair about it.
Alligator wasn't the one that let those comments slide this weekend I was. Alligator is the mod for this forum and when a mod posts a warning on this site you are not to argue with them.
dixicritter
07-17-2007, 22:47
But hell, do you read Lil Red's entries? I doubt it. If you did, you would know she is a positive addition to these boards.
And I thought with LW on the Long Trail, some positive hiker talk could occur.
Again, read what I just posted above... When a moderator on this site posts a warning, they are acting on the administrators' behalves because we can't be here 24/7. They are just doing what we have asked them to do.
Alligator wasn't the one that let those comments slide this weekend I was. Alligator is the mod for this forum and when a mod posts a warning on this site you are not to argue with them.
Edit LW? No, he gets away with all the snarkiness he wants. He's a "legend" this site needs for cache. But Lil Red and her pissant 700 miles, well, let's just damn her to hell.
You are not to argue with them? Are you serious? What is this the Bush White House? Am I going to banned? Lose my talking privileges? Gimme a break.
End the damn thread, but don't selectively choose who you are going to jump on based on their trail miles.
Keep posting Lil Red.
Alligator
07-17-2007, 22:51
This thread has 76 posts in it. How are people reading and responding to posts on the first or second page page supposed to know about this post by you? It was left unmoderated too long to start now IMO. You'd have to go back and edit warren's and lone wolf and jacks and ferrymans comments that you let slide ealier to be fair about it.Reading the entire thread before posting avoids misunderstandings .
It was moderated from the beginning. However, I was not the one moderating it earlier. The hooking up forum has a very simple purpose. To connect hikers wishing to travel together. That's a fairly simple concept. Admin has chosen to more vigorously enforce a no bashing, no pot-stirring policy. Here it is again.
"From now on all posts that are meant as either bashing or pot stirring (even if by Warren himself) will be deleted. If this behavior continues everyone who participates will be placed on moderated post status for a period of one week (Warren included). If this doesn't solve the problem y'all would leave us no choice but to leave you on moderated post status, meaning every post y'all made on WB would have to be approved prior to it being seen by the public.
You gentlemen are really leaving us with no choice in the matter. We can't have these actions on the site."
dixicritter
07-17-2007, 22:51
Edit LW? No, he gets away with all the snarkiness he wants. He's a "legend" this site needs for cache. But Lil Red and her pissant 700 miles, well, let's just damn her to hell.
You are not to argue with them? Are you serious? What is this the Bush White House? Am I going to banned? Lose my talking privileges? Gimme a break.
End the damn thread, but don't selectively choose who you are going to jump on based on their trail miles.
Keep posting Lil Red.
Have you not been paying attention in the last few days?? LW has been edited plenty.
And yes Keep arguing You'll go on moderated post status. You have been warned.
Alligator wasn't the one that let those comments slide this weekend I was. Alligator is the mod for this forum and when a mod posts a warning on this site you are not to argue with them.
I was not arguing with him. Just pointing out ahead of time why people who may be edited in futer posts may find the actions unfair. Just trying to help, see? That's all. Call it what you want. Fine. You da boss. You are always right...
:rolleyes:
Warning heeded. Check out my post #'s. I don't do it often and only get pissy in reply to LW.
If you check the snark, I will be a rainbow eating icecream in a jello pool.
I did miss the new editorial policy. And am very curious to see how it plays out.
My god, I've been warned. It makes me laugh just to read it.
It's starting to resemble "Trailplace" around here! :eek: Not there yet but on the edge of the slippery slope.
I totally agree Lugnut. As someone who once was a member of that site, long long ago when it was in its earliest forms, I can see where you are coming from. But there is one difference. No Dan Bruce. Trailplace was/is his baby and if you don't agree, you're gone. I don't get that the mods here want people to agree with them, just talk in a civil manner.
Hopefully the new editorial policy achieves that.
dixicritter
07-17-2007, 23:24
It's starting to resemble "Trailplace" around here! :eek: Not there yet but on the edge of the slippery slope.
You know it's people like you that make me wonder why I even care about this site at all sometimes.
Dixi,
Don't let 'em get you down. You're doing a great job. Thank you.
Alligator
07-17-2007, 23:33
It's starting to resemble "Trailplace" around here! :eek: Not there yet but on the edge of the slippery slope.If that's your worry, why throw fuel on the fire?
This thread was started with a legitimate, limited purpose. Yet time and again, posters have entered the thread to wreak havoc. What have you chosen to accomplish with some of these posts? All you are doing is encouraging heavier moderation. If you don't want it to become like Trailplace step away from the edge of the slope. Admin is fed up. They've said so. You aren't giving them much leeway when you are insulting them. They work for free. They don't need to put up with this.
I guess I just don't like censorship. I've been on this site longer than most and have seen all the flame wars and bickering. Most of us can recognize when a post is petty. Most of us know that when WD posts anything at all a few will drag out the dead horse and beat it some more. Rather than addressing that situation it seems that we all have to pay. I just hate seeing one person choosing what is appropriate for the rest to read. It's always been a free wheeling site, and that is what has made it the very best AT related site. Stiffling everyone won't help. Sorry I upset you Dixie. My comments were not directed toward you but rather the situation. You do a great job and we all appreciate it.
If that's your worry, why throw fuel on the fire?
This thread was started with a legitimate, limited purpose. Yet time and again, posters have entered the thread to wreak havoc. What have you chosen to accomplish with some of these posts? All you are doing is encouraging heavier moderation. If you don't want it to become like Trailplace step away from the edge of the slope. Admin is fed up. They've said so. You aren't giving them much leeway when you are insulting them. They work for free. They don't need to put up with this.Wise words. Are any of the complainers really paying attention? Small potatoes located in the wrong area of the garden.:rolleyes: Root around somewhere else.:)
Alligator
07-18-2007, 00:20
Wise words. Are any of the complainers really paying attention? Small potatoes located in the wrong area of the garden.:rolleyes: Root around somewhere else.:)I have to disagree Ed, this thread has been checked in on by a variety of people.
I know, I only have this small piece to tend. Between you and me, I honestly don't see how it needs this level of attention:( .
birdygal
07-18-2007, 01:31
I was planning on taking my motor home if I still walk the miles does that count
Pedalsndirt
07-18-2007, 08:31
I have to say, the thread all though strayed "off topic" gave me great insight to the differences in hiking the AT.
WhiteBlaze staff: IMO your doing a great job and I apologize if I "assisted" in the thread getting off track. As I said, I did learn something though.
warren doyle
07-18-2007, 22:36
Lyle post #64
"I know you indicated in an earlier post that you found the Circle hikes to be the most rewarding, compared to your solo hikes, once you reached Katahdin."
Q: "I guess I'm wondering, what about day to day, in the middle of the hike? Which method of hiking is more fun/rewarding on a day to day basis?"
A: Walking the trail by myself or with friends is more fun/rewarding on a day to day basis.
"Maybe, with the extensive investment in time and effort you have put into the Circle tours, this is no longer a fair question to ask you. We all know that in many situations, while we are experiencing something we are also dreading/annoyed/discouraged by it, but after we complete it, then we experience the great rewards for persevering."
Q: "Is this what you find with the Circle tours, that the greatest reward is at the end, when it's over?"
A: Yes. Being a social change educator, an unbroken circle on Katahdin is the most productive endeavor I can accomplish. It symbolizes what I believe in. The unbroken circles have been the most powerful moments in my life as an educator/humanist.
"One must know the end to know that one must win the end."
"The sheer joy of perfected achievement."
PS: I'm going "off-line" and "on-trail' for most of the next three weeks.
Happy trails!
TJ aka Teej
07-19-2007, 07:36
This thread was started with a legitimate, limited purpose.
Some might see that differently, Alligator.
Tha Wookie
07-19-2007, 11:12
Some might see that differently, Alligator.
oh come on Teej, we all know you just want to be invited on a circle expedition.