PDA

View Full Version : Gathering 2004



warren doyle
10-21-2003, 12:40
The 23rd Gathering of ALDHA will be held at Concord College (Athens, WV) and the Appalachian South Folklife Center (Pipestem, WV). Tentative date is Columbus Day weekend October 8-10, 2004.
It should be noted that both Gathering venues have a no-alcohol policy. It will be strictly enforced at the folklife center so folks who need alcohol to enhance their Gathering experience are not welcome to camp at the folklife center.

I might suggest that the long distance hiking alcohol users, since there appears to be sufficient numbers now, organize themselves and have there own 'gathering' someplace else.
Examples:

#1 Damascus, VA why should the town's campground being only used once a year for Trail Days?
#2 Erwin, TN easy interstate access; national forest campgrounds
#3 Caledonia State Park
or
Pine Grove Furnace State Park - central location; enough campsites
#4 Fahnestock (sp.) State Park NY
#5 Gifford Woods State Park VT

This way everyone can be happy.

Anyone who would like to share their trail experiences (i.e, workshops, slide shows, etc.) with others at the Pipestem/Concord College 'no-alcohol' Gathering ,
should contact me at [email protected]

Happy trails!

Jack Tarlin
10-21-2003, 13:39
There has always been social drinking at ALDHA Gatherings, and there's no reason why this can't continue, with the exception of places where it's specifically prohibited.

The idea of a separate Gathering for drinkers is patently absurd, unless of course, Warren wants to cut down the attendance at his lectures and dances by about 50%.

Incidentally, there are many folks in the Long-Distance hiker community who feel that we are principally a group of BACKPACKERS, and that those whose A.T. mileage consists primarily of vehicle supported slackpacks and speed hikes don't really fit in with the rest of us. Perhaps it'd be best if this group of glorified day-hikers who'd evidently prefer sleeping next to a van than on a mountaintop should think about forming their own separate group, and gathering elsewhere, as their hiking philosophy seems so different from the majority of us.

Still wanna fracture the group, Warren?

TJ aka Teej
10-21-2003, 13:45
The person who posted this today:


Originally posted by warren doyle
It should be noted that both Gathering venues have a no-alcohol policy. It will be strictly enforced at the folklife center so folks who need alcohol to enhance their Gathering experience are not welcome to camp at the folklife center.

Also posted this today:


Originally posted by warren doyle
As an educator, rather than a regulator, I always question rules and regulations. I do not preach/teach blind obedience (neither did our founding fathers).

Doublethink, or double talk?

Jack Tarlin
10-21-2003, 13:56
You're right, Teej, it does indeed seems confusing. Think he was drinking, maybe?

chomp
10-21-2003, 14:25
We is too drunk to *hick-up* organazize ourselves! We'zz too smashed for sucha undertakin'. Thanks to ALDHA, we dunt hav to.

tribes
10-21-2003, 14:31
Sniff...sniff. Smells like controversy to me....

Lone Wolf
10-21-2003, 14:35
Naw. It's just Jack, chris and TJ hate and/or are jealous of Warren. Pretty childish really.

chris
10-21-2003, 15:18
Where's the love, Larry?

chomp
10-21-2003, 15:43
Posted this in the wrong thread - whoops.

Lilred
10-21-2003, 16:51
Warren, we've never met. I'm relatively new to this forum and have only recently started hiking, with the AT in mind next summer. I cannot tell you how taken aback I was by your statement about people who drink not being welcome.

"so folks who need alcohol to enhance their Gathering
experience are not welcome to camp at the folklife center."

Honestly, you could have been a little more polite. Perhaps by asking them to camp elsewhere. Telling people they are not welcome is just plain mean-spirited. Then, suggesting all the people who 'need' alcohol to gather in other towns is just inviting trouble. From what I've read, some hikers leave a bad taste in some towns, and now you suggest the drinkers all gather in one of the hiker friendly towns to ruin it for the others?

From the posts I'm reading, I think I'll pass on future gatherings of this type.

I just want to hike, y'all can have the drama.

warren doyle
10-21-2003, 19:06
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack Tarlin
[B]"There has always been social drinking at ALDHA Gatherings, and there's no reason why this can't continue, with the exception of places where it's specifically prohibited."

Warren's response:I believe the first Gathering that Mr. Tarlin attended was either the 1993 Gathering in Pipestem or the 1994 Gathering in Hanover. Mr. Tarlin was not present at the first eight Gatherings in Pipestem (1982-1989) and the three subsequent Gatherings in Hanover and Pipestem (1990-1992).
I was the last person to leave the folklife center (I lived there from 1981-84) for the first eight gatherings after checking the grounds and buildings. I also attended all the campfires held at the first eight Gatherings. Based on these actual observations, I can confidently say that there was no evidence of drinking alcohol at the folklife center from 1982-1987 and just a little evidence of alcohol use from 1988-89. I have also attended all of the Damascus Trail Days except the first one. Based on my observations there and in conversations with the various organizers at Trail Days, it appears that drinking has increased since the early Trail Days.

(Jack Tarlin)"The idea of a separate Gathering for drinkers is patently absurd, unless of course, Warren wants to cut down the attendance at his lectures and dances by about 50%."

Warren's response:I said a separate Gathering for people who need alcohol to enhance their Gathering experience. I don't think the idea is absurd at all. And, the audience I attract to my presentations would not be cut in half since the majority of the folks attracted to an alternative Gathering would not be attending my presentations, or the dances, anyway at the regular Gathering.

(Jack Tarlin)"Incidentally, there are many folks in the Long-Distance hiker community who feel that we are principally a group of BACKPACKERS, and that those whose A.T. mileage consists primarily of vehicle supported slackpacks and speed hikes don't really fit in with the rest of us. Perhaps it'd be best if this group of glorified day-hikers who'd evidently prefer sleeping next to a van than on a mountaintop should think about forming their own separate group, and gathering elsewhere, as their hiking philosophy seems so different from the majority of us."

Warren's response:Yet another vitriolic statement by Mr. Tarlin.
By the way Jack, I already did that. It was called the Gathering in March 1982 which led to the formation (March 1983)of the Appalachian Long Distance Hikers Association (ALDHA). Just what part of that title do you not understand? Why don't you just start a group for BACKPACKERS only?

Lone Wolf
10-21-2003, 19:13
Too funny. I bet Jack has never BACKPACKED the full length of the AT. He's notorious for SLACKPACKING. So who's pussin out, Jack?

bunbun
10-21-2003, 19:25
A comment on this mess - that both Caledonia State Park
and Pine Grove Furnace State Park are PA State Parks. For those who are getting insistent on "obeying the rules" - the"rules" at both places say NO ALCOHOL.

How about Fahnestock and Gifford Woods? Anyone know?

Now - how about those who were at the Ruck last year? Wanta tell me you didn't drink?

Seems to me there's something about the mote in thy brothers eye and the log in thine own eye? It ain't a pretty sight when y'all attack someone for breaking rules - when you've been doing it yourself for years. Are we talkin' ego or self-justification here?

Hmm - I wonder if anyone here would claim that they ALWAYS obey the speed limit? I wonder if anyone thinks I'd believe they do?

Skyline
10-21-2003, 19:31
I recall there's a state park near the folk life center that I think you pass enroute from the college (or at least it's close by). Is alcohol permitted there? If so, could not drinkers be strongly encouraged to camp/party THERE instead of the folk life center?

And if booze is not permitted at the state park, might not there be some kind of commercial campground within a half hour's drive of the college? Or a small motel with some land adjacent that would like to make some extra $$$ that weekend? Or something else? I dunno, just asking...it would seem a shame to eliminate a large segment of the Gathering's traditional participants at the other events due to a no-alcohol policy at one of the venues, but at the same time that policy should be respected as ALDHA is its guest.

warren doyle
10-21-2003, 19:47
Pipestem Resort State Park is the same distance from Concord College as the folklife center.
There are large, uninhabited but car accessible, public lands down on the New River about 3 miles from the folklife center.
The beautiful Dismal Falls area in the Jefferson National Forest is about a 40 minute drive away from Concord College.
I disagree that this is " a large segment of the Gathering's traditional participants". That analysis might be true for the Damascus Trail Days 'traditional participants' but not for the ALDHA Gatherings.

TJ aka Teej
10-21-2003, 21:37
Originally posted by Jack Tarlin
You're right, Teej, it does indeed seems confusing. Think he was drinking, maybe?

Could be a head injury suffered during his recent confessed criminal activity.
He said here that the law forbidding jumping off the bridge didn't apply to him. That's just not sober thinking. Thank God no one was hurt, or that would've been the end of Dartmouth Gatherings. Someone should inform Warren about the Endangered Services campaign.

icemanat95
10-21-2003, 22:17
I have no idea how so much bad blood arose between Jack and Warren, but it is unfortunate.

Both make some good points, mudslinging aside. There has always been some drinking, pot smoking etc. at various gatherings of hikers whether it be Traildays, Ruck, or the Gathering. The culture has, for good or ill, associations with the hippy thing, counter-culture, flower children etc. and drugs and altered states of consciousness as well as general irresponsibility are endemic to that movement. Even if it's not the main body of participants, there are enough who look at hiking and long distance hiking through that filter to have an impact.

MOst people who imbibe at the Gathering or Trail Days don't get out of hand. ANd it seems unfair to ban all alcohol from The Gathering when most people are responsible about it, however...

Warren also has a valid point that things have gotten worse in many respects. The youth in our culture are largely uncontrolled and uncontrollable for whatever reason, and as they have grown older, a good many of them have failed to learn that at some point you either learn to control yourself, or society will do it for you out of self-protection. These people do not accept any limits on their behaviors and will impose none on themselves. These are the troublemakers at any gathering. These are the ones who will decide to try to march topless, or bottomless down the main street of Damascus in the hiker parade, and can't understand why the police chose to detain them. They are the ones who will pound drums all night long not 100 yards from a residential neighborhood, and stumble down the middle of the street drunk pissing in people's flower gardens. These are extremes of behavior, but this stuff is precisely the kind of things that were happening in Damascus to cause the town council to call in the cops. And it's precisely the sort of behavior that ALDHA wants to avoid becoming epidemic at The Gathering.

So I guess I am taking a middle ground here. I think the no-alcohol policy is a bit extreme, but I also understand where it comes from. Recognizing that some folks are going to drink anyway, they should either be prepared to pay the consequences for their disobedience (including potential arrest) or be smart and conscientious enough to keep it cool and low.

Respect the wishes of the college, the folk life center and ALDHA, and if you feel you must drink or want to have a couple beers, keep it under control, clean up after yourself, and don't rub it in anyone's face. And if someone from ALDHA comes up and tells you to pour out the booze or take it elsewhere, respect that, don't cop and attitude, you are a guest there.

Skyline
10-21-2003, 23:33
Originally posted by warren doyle
I disagree that this is " a large segment of the Gathering's traditional participants". That analysis might be true for the Damascus Trail Days 'traditional participants' but not for the ALDHA Gatherings.

OK, maybe it's only 10% or 20%, or maybe it's 33% or 50%--I don't think any of us has ever really counted beer cans--who drink at the Folk Life Center. It would still be a shame if these folks didn't come to the Gathering due to a no-alcohol policy at one of the venues. Hopefully an alternative camping arrangement can be identified and promoted.

icemanat95
10-22-2003, 09:02
I think it would be a tragedy if folks decided not to come to the Gathering because of a no-alcohol policy,...but not tragic in the way some think. I think it is tragic that some folks can't enjoy something like The Gathering without alcohol, and that alcohol would be so important to their experience that they felt it was a pre-requisite for a good time. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I think the policy is a bit extreme, but the vigor of the resistance against it is also extreme.
Folks who can't live without a drink at The Gathering might be well advised to seek out an AA meeting.

Ankle Bone
10-22-2003, 09:12
Iceman: I couldn't have said it any better, so I won't.

chris
10-22-2003, 09:18
I can live without a drink. What I dislike, in the extreme, is when a group which is dedicated to personal freedom (what else is a long hike?) decides for me that a personal choice is wrong and can't be done. When a group which is for freedom restricts it. Now, Pipestem has a no drinking policy (but not a no-drunks policy), which puts one in a quandry. Should one follow the rules (as Warren says) or should one rationally debate the issue, think it through, and make up one's own mind as to what course to follow (as Warren does)? I stand with Warren on this.

max patch
10-22-2003, 09:44
Originally posted by chris
Now, Pipestem has a no drinking policy (but not a no-drunks policy), which puts one in a quandry. Should one follow the rules (as Warren says) or should one rationally debate the issue, think it through, and make up one's own mind as to what course to follow (as Warren does)? I stand with Warren on this.

A lot of church hostels have a no alcohol policy. A policy which, unfortunately, has been violated in every hostel I ever stayed at. And what is the ramification? Many churches have gotten out of the hostel business.

What one should do is obvious and is not a quandry. When you stay at a church or other hostel you are in effect a guest of the host. As a guest you obey the posted rules. Period. And if you can't obey the hostel rules you shouldn't stay at that hostel. Because if you do your selfishness will only ruin it for the thru hikers that follow.

Sermon over.

smokymtnsteve
10-22-2003, 09:55
know I don't drinK alkyhol,,,I smoke the other...

but wouldn't a total no alkyhol policy be kinda like holding a MASS without communion wine?

sdoownek
10-22-2003, 10:11
Originally posted by icemanat95
I think the policy is a bit extreme, but the vigor of the resistance against it is also extreme. Folks who can't live without a drink at The Gathering might be well advised to seek out an AA meeting.


I don't think it's as much a matter of having a drink or not having a drink as it is being told what one can or cannot do, further exacerbated by being in an environment surrounded by free-willed, independent thinkers.

chomp
10-22-2003, 10:19
The following response was generated NOT under the influence of alcohol. I managed to hold off on my morning nip long enough to write it:

First off, this whole tragedy line of thinking is way off. I can’t obviously speak for everyone, but I do not need to drink. I never drink during the week (with the possibly exception of heartbreaking Red Sox games) and don’t regularly drink on the weekends. However, when I am among friends, I enjoy drinking. Can I survive without it? Sure, absolutely, but I survive without it most of the time. At special events with people who are special to me, I enjoy having a few drinks. Last time I checked, consuming alcohol was an entirely legal thing to do, and if done in a controlled manner, it is quite enjoyable. This stereotyping of people that oppose the no-alcohol policy purported by ALDHA as drunks and unable to have a good time without being intoxicated is unfair, unfounded and narrow-minded.

Now obviously, ALDHA is a private organization and it can choose when and where it holds its events, specifically at The Folk Life Center. There is a no alcohol policy there, and that should be respected, as it is private property. I said before that I have stopped people from drinking at The Place, and I think that the same should be true for The Folk Life Center. However, I am very disturbed by the implications that those who want to drink need to be ostracized from the group. What happened to all this talk of community that gets thrown around at The Gatherings? Is this just so much spin? Seems to me that the ALDHA Community is only those hikers that conform to what the ALDHA ideals are – and apparently one of these ideals is a sober life.

Not that there is anything wrong with NOT drinking, I certainly don’t look down on those who choose club soda over Coors, but I do resent this attitude that those who choose the Coors are somehow the bad guys. I enjoy the Gathering, I enjoy the presentations, I enjoy the community, and I really enjoy all the cool new gear at the Hiker Fairs. I enjoy long walks in the woods, up over mountains, along streams and to remote lakes. I enjoy hot summer days, and cold winter mornings. I enjoy living in a tent, cooking in a shelter and sleeping under the stars. But yet, somehow, since I ALSO enjoy beer, I am considered to be less-than-worthy in the eyes on ALDHA. You know, I may not like Contra Dancing (OK, I detest Contra Dancing, I’ll be fair), and it has NOTHING to do with hiking, but if people are enjoying themselves, what do I care? I don’t look down on people who Contra Dance (ok, I do a little) and certainly don’t consider them less of backpackers for wanting to do it.

This issue reminds me a lot of another group that I was a member of – Trailplace. For those of you who remember (and judging from the thread, there’s a lot of you), that was an online community of AT hikers. You were totally welcome and considered part of that community, as long as you believed exactly what the webmaster did. Those who agreed with him we praised and given some sort of Avery Award. Those who did not agree with him were either blasted as not know the history of the trail, blasted for being ignorant, or cut off from the community. Despite Trailplace being a great resource for information, I left that community because I didn’t appreciate the exclusiveness, I didn’t appreciate being made to feel ashamed for carrying a cell phone or for providing Trail Magic for thru-hikers.

Now granted, alcohol is different from cell phones and contra dancing in that no one is going to get belligerent from using too much cell phone. I realize that the analogy only goes so far. However, not everyone gets drunk and throws up and makes a scene when they get drunk either. In fact, only a select few do that. IMO – banning drinking at the Gathering because some people might get rowdy is akin to banning alcohol as a nation because some people drink and drive. Drinking and driving is wrong, and those who do it should be punished, but is it reason to ban all alcohol?

So far, in the past weeks, ALDHA has made it clear that those who drink are not welcome and should start their own “gathering.” It has also made it clear that those who oppose the ILLEGAL bridge jumping event listed on the official program should also start their own “gathering.” I can’t help but thinking that in the next few years ALDHA will ask those with cell phones and cigarettes to also find another place to camp. Which again, it totally fine, since ALDHA is a private organization. They can have whatever policy they like. I would, however, suggest changing the name to ALDHNDIBJA, or Appalachian Long Distance Hikers and Non-Drinkers and Illegal Bridge Jumpers Association. This way, everyone will know exactly what kind of community ALDHNHIBJA is and they can choose to join or not based on that or not.

Trailplace lost a LOT of members when its webmaster started instituting a policy of acceptance for his beliefs as a qualification for acceptance into his community. Sure, his community is very small now, but I do believe that he is happier for it, and those who did not agree with him found another place to go (right here, actually). Maybe ALDHNHIBJA would be a happier organization if it posted its “Core Beliefs” on their website and asked those who do not agree with the “Core Beliefs” not to join the organization and not partake in their events. At least this would be an upfront approach, and one that I would respect.

Tim “Chomp” Scott

bunbun
10-22-2003, 10:26
Originally posted by icemanat95
I think it would be a tragedy if folks decided not to come to the Gathering because of a no-alcohol policy,...but not tragic in the way some think. I think it is tragic that some folks can't enjoy something like The Gathering without alcohol, and that alcohol would be so important to their experience that they felt it was a pre-requisite for a good time. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's tragic that some folks need alcohol to enjoy "anything" - the Gathering, the Ruck, the Trail, a ball game - even a weekend at home.


Originally posted by icemanat95 I think the policy is a bit extreme, but the vigor of the resistance against it is also extreme.[/B]

The "policy" is not policy - yet. It hasn't been stated as such by the ALDHA Board. But the attitudes are definitely hardening. In part because of the same attitudes and actions that you touched on in your previous post. There comes a time when the abuses by a few make it necessary to change the deal for everyone. I think that time may have come. Not because some of us really want that, but because there are those who refuse to "police" themselves - or their friends.

When I was a Marine there were people who made the same arguments as are being made here - and then couldn't hold their liquor. I cold-cocked more than one of them and then carried them back to the barracks. I cared - not about their so-called "rights" - but about them. I cared that they not hurt themselves or someone else, that they not end up dead or in jail, that they not burn down the town or piss on the General's lawn. Not that I cared about the General's lawn, but it was a sure way for them to end up in a brig.

There are those who claim immunity under the banner of HYOH. Bullhockey. HYOH doesn't mean there are no limits - it doesn't mean infinite freedom - it doesn't mean you can piss off the neighbors or burn down the shelter - or drink in defiance of the rules.

There was at least one alcohol-related incident at Hanover that had a large potential for tragedy. Sometime in the last day or so, someone on this forum talked about thruhikers being "family." Well, IMO - the thruhiking "family" needs to care enough about its brothers and sisters to teach them that there are more important things in life and on the Trail than alcohol and irresponsibility. And that there are times when alcohol is both unwelcome and inappropriate. And to cold-cock those who get out of line when they need it. But I've seen damn little of that kind of caring in this discussion.

What I have seen is - what? Ego, certainly - very large egos. But also a large measure of the "my rights override any other consideration" attitude - without any apparent realization that whatever "rights" any individual has - there are responsibilities that accompany them. So - if you have a "right" to drink - or get drunk - you also have a responsibility to not drive and kill someone else, to not piss of the neighbors so much that we can't use the campsite next year, to not piss on the General's lawn, - to not run over everyone else's "rights" in the exercise of your own.


[/B][/QUOTE]Folks who can't live without a drink at The Gathering might be well advised to seek out an AA meeting. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is an AA meeting at the Gathering. Every year.

Lone Wolf
10-22-2003, 10:36
Semper Fi, bunbun. The rest of you stop your silliness.

Blue Jay
10-22-2003, 10:51
To my horror, I find I must agree with the "No Drinking" on private property group (I say to my horror because that group includes Max Patch (the human, not the place)). I do love this site. Where else can you find heated discussion about jumping off bridges, giant man eating plants, and types of water treatment. In the past I would have agreed with the "Drink Responsibly" group but FUBAR and others has since convinced me that many hikers are completely unable to drink responsibly.

bunbun
10-22-2003, 10:54
Originally posted by chris
I can live without a drink. What I dislike, in the extreme, is when a group which is dedicated to personal freedom (what else is a long hike?) decides for me that a personal choice is wrong and can't be done. When a group which is for freedom restricts it. Now, Pipestem has a no drinking policy (but not a no-drunks policy), which puts one in a quandry. Should one follow the rules (as Warren says) or should one rationally debate the issue, think it through, and make up one's own mind as to what course to follow (as Warren does)? I stand with Warren on this.

There's a LARGE difference between personal freedom and license. What you're calling a "personal decision" becomes license when your "personal choice" negatively affects others. And the alcohol abuse at the Gatherings and other places on or related to the Trail has consistently and repeatedly negatively affected the Trail and the thruhikers - and the neighbors. That alcohol abuse was perpetrated by people who used exactly the same arguments that you are using.

What's been overlooked here is that use of the Folklife Center is DONATED --- to ALDHA. Not to you. As a member of ALDHA, you're welcome to camp at the Folklife Center - free. As long as you follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, then you're welcome to either not attend the Gathering - or just camp someplace else.

There is no quandary, there is no choice - the Folklife Center prohibits alcohol. Period. If you don't like that - then don't stay there.

That doesn't mean "Don't attend the Gathering." It means - find someplace else to stay. There are campgrounds and motels in the area, there's a State Park down the road.

I find it strange, but not unbearable, that I agree in detail with Max Patch - if you're invited to stay - free - in someone's house and you insist on ****ting in the middle of the living room floor, your arguments for your right to do so - or to make your own decisions about whether or not to do so - just don't impress me.

chris
10-22-2003, 11:03
Originally posted by bunbun
There's a LARGE difference between personal freedom and license. What you're calling a "personal decision" becomes license when your "personal choice" negatively affects others.

So, as long as my personal choice does not negatively affect others, there should be no problem with my exercising that choice? There is a big difference between being invited into someone's home and emtying one's bowels on their floor and sipping on a can of beer next to a campfire in an open field. I'm not advocating burning down Pipestem or converting the Folk Life Center into a brothel for the weekend. I'm advocating the position, just as Bunbun is, that as long as my personal choice does not negatively impact others, I should be allowed to exercise it. If we are not allowed to exercise personal choice in such areas, then we have lost that which makes life special and worth living.

chomp
10-22-2003, 11:03
bunbun wrote:


That doesn't mean "Don't attend the Gathering." It means - find someplace else to stay. There are campgrounds and motels in the area, there's a State Park down the road.


But thats not true. Waren Doyle stated in the very first post in this thread:



I might suggest that the long distance hiking alcohol users, since there appears to be sufficient numbers now, organize themselves and have there own 'gathering' someplace else.


and also


Anyone who would like to share their trail experiences (i.e, workshops, slide shows, etc.) with others at the Pipestem/Concord College 'no-alcohol' Gathering


So those that want to drink are NOT welcome at the Gathering. He (ALDHA) is not saying that there is no drinking at the Folk Life Center. He is saying that those who want to drink are not welcome to the Gathering - period.

bunbun
10-22-2003, 11:15
Uh - Chomp? - Who told you that Warren "is" ALDHA?

Warren is the founder of ALDHA. But he's not the entire governing body. And that governing body has NOT said those things. Not to say that it may never happen, but it won't do so if I can help it.

He also suggested the same things that I have - that there are other places to stay/camp at the Gathering.

Don't tell me that you've never written anything in anger that you didn't mean literally.

TJ aka Teej
10-22-2003, 11:31
What the ENTIRE topic boils down to is this: Will the extreme anti-alcohol personal prejudice held by a few ALDHA elders that any *use* is *abuse* become official policy? And where will that lead? Breathalizers at the gates? Placing local restuarants off limits if they have a wine list? Random cooler searches by ALDHA patrols? Sobriety checks before meetings? Censorship of slideshows? Banning books that don't conform to 'policy'? Removing stores that sell beer from the Companion?

If that's the ALDHA you want, you can go jump off a bridge.

Sly
10-22-2003, 11:52
If they included heavy duty trash bags in the Gathering info packs that said, "Turn your radio down after 1am!" we wouldn't be having this discussion. LOL...

bunbun
10-22-2003, 12:31
Originally posted by chomp
First off, this whole tragedy line of thinking is way off. I can’t obviously speak for everyone, but I do not need to drink.
.................................................. ......................
However, not everyone gets drunk and throws up and makes a scene when they get drunk either. In fact, only a select few do that. IMO – banning drinking at the Gathering because some people might get rowdy is akin to banning alcohol as a nation because some people drink and drive. Drinking and driving is wrong, and those who do it should be punished, but is it reason to ban all alcohol?

Chomp - damn, we're gettin' long-winded today - so I'm gonna just hit the highlites here - first - I'm glad "you" don't "need" to drink - but there are those who do. And they've done a lot of damage to the Trail, to ALDHA - and to themselves. Don't take it so personally. It ain't narrow-minded - it's self defense.

Second - regardless of what any individual has said here - the ALDHA Board has NOT said anything about ostracizing anyone. But if the next Gathering at Pipestem goes like the last one did, the Folklife Center may not be available to ALDHA again - so there won't be another Pipestem Gathering. If you or anyone else can't live for the weekend without drinking at the Folklife Center, then you (or they) have become a cancer on the body of the organization. You do understand that cancer needs to be excised, don't you?

Third - COORS??? C'mon, man - get a life - drink something worth drinking. :)

Fourth - neither ALDHA nor I care whether you carry a cell phone or an umbrella - or provide Trail Magic - or belong to Trailplace - or smoke (as long as you don't do it around me). "We" as a group DO care when the Coors gets out of hand and threatens the existence of the organization. And it has. Maybe not yours in particular - but enough in general that it's become a major operational problem and actually does threaten the organization. I know a lawyer who's presently litigating two cases where alcohol was the cause of death of teenagers - because those organizations ignored the alcohol abuse - just as ALDHA has for the last dozen years or so. He WILL win - in both cases.

Fifth - the bridge jumping doesn't threaten the Trail, the organization or any individual. The drinking does. The bridge jumping is immaterial . It's a separate issue that's been blown so out of proportion that its become institutionalized stupidity. Drop it.

Finally - to answer your last question - YES. It is a reason to ban alcohol in those places and at those times where it affects the organization. If you and the other members of the ALDHA organization and the Trail community (meaning ALL of us) had cared enough in the past to limit the flow of alcohol to some reaonable level, to control those who got drunk and rowdy, to clean up after ourselves, to not assume that "freedom" meant that the rules don't apply to us - then we might not be in a place where this kind of thing would even be talked about. But when was the last time you saw a hiker make any attempt to control a friend who was drunk and disorderly? To paraphrase what someone said - if we don't control ourselves, then society will impose that control on us.

ALDHA is a hikers organization - is you're a hiker, you're welcome. But don't tell me that ALDHA should put up with any kind of BS that any hiker cares to perpetrate. Or that the organization should fall on its collective sword to protect your or anyone elses right to get drunk and piss off the neighbors.

chris
10-22-2003, 12:41
Originally posted by bunbun

Fifth - the bridge jumping doesn't threaten the Trail, the organization or any individual. The drinking does. The bridge jumping is immaterial . It's a separate issue that's been blown so out of proportion that its become institutionalized stupidity. Drop it.



The logic that you employ to show that drinking is harmful to ALDHA can be used equally well to invalidate point 5. For example, the bridge jump is advertised in the ALDHA Gathering program. Some one goes to the bridge jump and gets hurt. The hurt person the sues ALDHA because they promoted the event even though it was illegal and ALDHA knew it was illegal.

I am not a lawyer, perhaps some of our legal friends on the board can comment on this, but I see little legal difference between ALDHA turning a blind eye towards teenage drinking (or of-age-excessive drinking) and promoting an illegal, potentially dangerous (if cool) event. Both seem to be ground for lawsuits from injured parties.

Bringing up the bridge jumping episode is perfectly valid: It illustrates the double standard of ethics and reasonning that some on this board employ in an attempt to win an argument.

bunbun
10-22-2003, 13:15
Originally posted by chris
So, as long as my personal choice does not negatively affect others, there should be no problem with my exercising that choice? There is a big difference between being invited into someone's home and emtying one's bowels on their floor and sipping on a can of beer next to a campfire in an open field. I'm not advocating burning down Pipestem or converting the Folk Life Center into a brothel for the weekend. I'm advocating the position, just as Bunbun is, that as long as my personal choice does not negatively impact others, I should be allowed to exercise it. If we are not allowed to exercise personal choice in such areas, then we have lost that which makes life special and worth living.

There's no difference at all if you're sipping your beer in a field that belongs to someone else and they don't want you doing it there. Then you ARE negatively impacting their right to have no drinking in their field. Now if you want to sip that beer in YOUR field or in a campground or motel down the road - knock yourself out. But the Folklife Center is NOT your field.

Tell me - would you walk into the house of someone you knew was a reformed alcoholic with a six-pack in your hand and then drink your beer in their living room? There are places where some things are inappropriate. And your personal choice - or lack thereof - is not the overriding consideration in those times and places.

In fact, IMO, on a scale of ethical values, "personal choice" in the terms you seem to define it doesn't even rate in the top five. There are a lot of more important considerations - even on the Trail.

Hmmm - to answer your next point - bridge jumping hasn't closed any hostels or pissed off the neighbors - drinking has. And if you want to talk about dangerous - hiking is a dangerous activity. So are skiing, skateboarding and Tiddlywinks. As well as sitting in a darkened room watching slideshows. Ask your insurance company ---

You're also ignoring the fact that ALDHA had no way of knowing that the bridge had peen posted like that. To my knowledge, and that of at least most of those on the Board, in 1991, neither the sign nor the law existed. There was no reason for ALDHA to know about it or to NOT promote it. Beating someone up with a Nerf club is pretty useless unless you need the exercise.

Now - about that brothel idea ............................ :D

For better or worse, my wife would object. So how does that fit with your concept of personal choice? :)

bunbun
10-22-2003, 13:35
Teej - Use IS abuse if it's done in inappropriate places at inappropriate times.

Part of my job right now is to help plug the holes so the ship doesn't sink. If the ship sinks, then this is all moot. And if ALDHA fulfills your vision, the ship will have sunk and I'll be long gone.

TJ aka Teej
10-22-2003, 14:13
Originally posted by bunbun
Part of my job right now is to help plug the holes so the ship doesn't sink.

Excellent. Then if ALDHA sees the need to publish a "rule" about member's behavior I suggest this wording:

*As an ALDHA member we trust that you will represent our organization in a mature, responsible, and law-abiding manner.*

chomp
10-22-2003, 14:27
bunbun –

I actually think that we are closer on this issue that our debate would lead people to believe. Let me try to make some sense of all this.

First – Coors is NOT my choice of beer, just the first generic name I could think of. I am more of a Guinness and Sam Adams type of guy personally.

Second – My impression is that Warren Doyle IS ALDHA, and its one that many people have. While I have heard time and time again that this is not the case, history has shown that WD is the spokesman for the organization, and I have never heard ALDHA speak out against him. And there is at least one time that I know of that it should have. So if he is putting forth ideas not held by ALDHA, then ALDHA needs to speak out against that. If he is putting forth ideals held by ALDHA, then ALDHA needs to have these ideals listed on their website.

As for the Folk Life Center, you have no argument from me on this. Never have I said that people should be allowed to drink here. All I said was that absolutely no alcohol should be allowed, even the “quiet beer or two around the fire.” Its just as wrong to have a couple of brews as it is to have a six pack, or more. To tell yourself otherwise is to enact that kind of personal entitlement that you were referring to. At the Folk Life Center, ALDHA should take the stance of no alcohol, no exceptions. To take any less of a stance on this would be wildly hypocritical.

So now that we have the issue of the Folk Life Center out of the way, there is the issue of drinking in general. As the Voice of ALDHA has proclaimed that drinking is not welcome at the Gathering. This is apparently supported by the organization as a whole. I did not notice this page until after the Gathering, but this is all but a ban on alcohol at the Gathering:

http://www.aldha.org/drinking.htm

So like I mentioned before, ALDHA is a private organization, and it can make its own decision on what direction it wants to go. If it wants to be a sober organization, that it fine. If it wants to support a sober thru-hike, that is fine as well. I just want this issue cleared up, since I am clearly in disagreement with the organization on this matter. I’ll grant you that drinking has caused a lot of problems on the trail, but I submit that the problem is more with the people than with the drinking. There have been other problems as well that have had a negative impact on the trail. Just this year there was a kid stealing stuff and hitching up the trail. There was also somebody wanted for armed robbery hiking the trail. Youth is youth, and the problem people will always find a way to cause trouble.

But that is really not the point. What I want to know is if ALDHA is going to take the stance that drinking is an evil of society. They highly discouraged any drinking at the Gathering this year (including at bars in town) and also are apparently taking the stance of discouraging drinking while hiking the AT. Yes, I know that some people who drink can cause problems for the trail, but this is not a philosophy that I can agree with.

So what do I want? I want ALDHA to take a strong position on this, rather than this “discourage” stuff that it places three clicks deep on its website. I want ALDHA to make it part of its mission to discourage drinking in general, especially when hiking a long distance trail. Like I mentioned earlier, I can respect the position of any organization, but I would like that position to be upfront. This could provide a rallying point for ALDHA, an issue to pull the organization together. At the same time, it would be pretty obvious to people like me that it is not an organization with which I can identify. They would no longer have a problem with people drinking at their events because their membership would not support that kind of activity. Why haven’t they done this yet?

Well, I have two guesses. Either they haven’t felt the need to do this until recently, or they know that by doing this they would lose about half of their membership. I’d say the latter is the case. By officially leading the charge against all drinking on the trail (and ALDHA events), my conservative guess is that they would lose about 25% of their membership. However, then ALDHA would have a strong identity, and just like Trailplace, I think that those in charge would be much happier.

If they do, I am sure that another hiker organization will appear to pick up the slack. I wouldn’t join the Knights of Columbus just because I wanted to give something back to the community. That organization has Christian ideals and goals that I do not share with them. Instead, I would choose to join the Lions Club, or the Rotary, or some other organization with different values. I am a hiker, but I am also a drinker, and I don’t want to belong to a group that thinks less of me for that.

As for the bridge issue, granted it is an easy dig, but I think that chris has a good point. If (when?) someone gets injured doing this, and its found out that ALDHA was promoting an illegal activity, you don’t think the lawyers would be just as vicious? But that is getting off track…

Finally, as for your question as to when I saw a hiker try to control someone who is out of control, my answer is all of the time. At Trail Days, there is usually a fair amount of moonshine making the rounds, and I have seen quite a few people go from “happy” to “hammered” in no time. I have helped people to their tents, put people in their cars (without the keys, of course) and assisted in any way I can. No, this doesn’t happen all the time, again there are some inconsiderate people out there. But to say that this never happens is absurd. In fact, I’d claim that it is more often the case that hikers help their friends when they have had too much to drink than what you are suggesting. This is just personal observation, so I don’t know who is right here.

To conclude, no, ALDHA should not fall on its sword for the sake of people that would destroy it, I am not saying that. However, I do believe that ALDHA should welcome those who enjoy a few drinks just as much as they welcome those who prefer to abstain. While this is not possible at the Folk Life Center, they could provide an alternate camping location for those that want to drink. I’d even be willing to pony up some extra cash for the alternate site, given that the Folk Life Center is donated. Say $10-$15 per person for the weekend. Either that, or ALDHA should proclaim that as an organization it is against drinking and does not approve of it on the trail or at its events. I think that this is a reasonable request, and one that would clear up this issue entirely.

chris
10-22-2003, 14:38
Originally posted by bunbun
There's no difference at all if you're sipping your beer in a field that belongs to someone else and they don't want you doing it there. Then you ARE negatively impacting their right to have no drinking in their field. Now if you want to sip that beer in YOUR field or in a campground or motel down the road - knock yourself out. But the Folklife Center is NOT your field.

Tell me - would you walk into the house of someone you knew was a reformed alcoholic with a six-pack in your hand and then drink your beer in their living room? There are places where some things are inappropriate. And your personal choice - or lack thereof - is not the overriding consideration in those times and places.


There is a significant difference in your two examples. I would probably not drink in front of a recovering alcoholic, as that might negatively impact directly on a human being. Note that I say might, because if my example if enough to push them over the edge, then they would have fallen off eventually anyways. But, the point you make is that my action would directly and immediately affect another person. In your other example, I would be disregarding the wishes of a thing, an it, not an human being with a soul and a mind. So, I see no ethical problem with doing so. Note, this does not mean that I would drink if I was invited into a _person's_ home and asked not to.
Additionally, I would not drink if I felt it would end the Gathering, as that would negatively affect others; namely, there would be no Gathering. However, sipping on a beer disceetly (and hauling out the empty) or drinking a rum and coke, and remaining completely in control, does not threaten the Gathering.


Originally posted by bunbun

In fact, IMO, on a scale of ethical values, "personal choice" in the terms you seem to define it doesn't even rate in the top five. There are a lot of more important considerations - even on the Trail.


Personal choice is not an ethical value, as in and of itself it has no relation to ethics. The ability, or lack thereof, to make a choice has no underlying ethical content (it is what the choice is between that does) and so would not make a list of anyone's ethical values. It is, however, something that I (and others) find makes life special and worth living. Having control over one's life is definitely desireable, but not ethical.


Originally posted by bunbun

Hmmm - to answer your next point - bridge jumping hasn't closed any hostels or pissed off the neighbors - drinking has. And if you want to talk about dangerous - hiking is a dangerous activity. So are skiing, skateboarding and Tiddlywinks. As well as sitting in a darkened room watching slideshows...


Perhaps I was not completely clear on why I brought up bridge jumping. I did not bring it up because I thought the activity was any more or less dangerous than another activity. I did not bring it up because it closed any services down or angered any neighbors. I brought it up because your primary contention against drinking at the Gathering is that it is dangerous _legally_. I brought up bridge jumping because it is equally, if not more, dangerous from a legal standpoint. Yet one is sanctioned by ALDHA and the other is frowned up and, probably soon, banned by ALDHA.


Originally posted by bunbun

You're also ignoring the fact that ALDHA had no way of knowing that the bridge had peen posted like that. To my knowledge, and that of at least most of those on the Board, in 1991, neither the sign nor the law existed. There was no reason for ALDHA to know about it or to NOT promote it. Beating someone up with a Nerf club is pretty useless unless you need the exercise.


1991 was, at last count, 12 years in the past, a rather lengthy time. I do not know when the ban was put in place. However, almost nowhere is bridge jumping legal, despite being fun. I'm not quite sure what the Nerf club refers to. I may not be sharp enough to pick up on your reference.


Originally posted by bunbun

Now - about that brothel idea ............................ :D

For better or worse, my wife would object. So how does that fit with your concept of personal choice? :)

While I am not an expert in marriage, and feel slightly embarassed explaining this to a married person, I believe that the concept includes a subordination of one's own desires to the those of the other. In that case, you've already chosen to get married and that choice supercedes your desire to go to a brothel. Of course, if you no longer wish to stay married, then visit the brothel.

As I was writing this, Chomp wrote out a very good response. I would like to add a word of support to something he mentioned at the end. I would pay $10 or $15 for an alternate campsite, particularly if ALDHA would make the choice between the two public. That is, make it very clear that one site is sober and the other you can drink or not drink as you see fit, although you have to pay for the privilege.

Spirit Walker
10-22-2003, 15:21
ALDHA consists of about 1200 members at this time. Warren has his ideas about public consumption of alcohol, BunBun has his, I have mine, TJ has his, Chris has his -- there is room for a lot of diversity of opinion.

To date, the only ALDHA 'policy' has been to discourage public drunkenness and discourtesy at trail events because of the way it can and has impacted the hiking community. I haven't seen Stacy or the ALDHA Board declare drinking a bad thing per se, they are just trying to discourage the kind of behavior that makes hikers unwelcome in some places. The rules at the Folklife Center are not a question of ALDHA policy, but Folklife Center policy. If we are their guests, it is only polite to follow their rules. Same with the church hostels on the trail. Whatever Warren said, he doesn't speak for all 1200 members of ALDHA. He is voicing his opinion.

Right now, of the two venues for the Gathering that we have available, one allows alcohol at the campsite and one doesn't. It isn't that difficult. If you don't like not drinking at the Folklife Center, there are alternatives. The kind of partying that went on last year is likely to get us kicked out of there though, and then we will all be screwed. I wish there were more venues. I don't like Dartmouth much. I liked Carlisle, but some folks disliked the busyness of the place so we haven't been back. Finding places that provide cheap classrooms, a large auditorium that can hold 500 people, and inexpensive camping isn't easy. Most colleges charge big time for use by outside groups. If you can find one that is cheap, available, near the AT and has no problem with alcohol use - then let the board know. I'm sure they'd be interested. In the meantime, we have to deal with the rules of the places we have available. Which means be responsible at Dartmouth, and don't drink at the Folklife Center.


ALDHA is a very open organization. If you have an opinion on whether there should be a drinking policy - or not - it would be a lot more effective to show up at one of the many steering committee or general membership meetings and discuss it there, rather than on a forum that is not a part of ALDHA.

warren doyle
10-22-2003, 15:23
Wow! I am continually amazed at how people can interpret the same words so differently from the original author's intent.

I'll try to make it simple.

1) The two main venues for the 2004 Gathering allow no alcohol.
This will be strictly enforced at the Appalachian South Folklife center. Alcohol consumption on the Concord College campus could jeopardize ALDHA using its campus in the future. We have a had a very beneficial relationship with this campus since 1982. If you care about ALDHA and the Gathering, then you know what you have to do.

2) However, if this simple fact is too disagreeable to you and you are unwilling to change your behaviors for three-four days out of respect for the organization/event, then no one is stopping anyone from organizing an event more to their liking at another location. This suggestion was made in the same spirit as the suggestion I made to Ray Jardine on Katahdin which resulted in the creation of ALDHA-West.

3) There are alternative campsites in the Pipestem/Concord College area that have already been posted here. No one is stopping anyone from contacting these areas on their own as individuals. In all probability, the only site that ALDHA will be officially sponsoring will be the folklife center.

4) This 'bridge-jumping' has been blown way out of proportion. This is the first time in 22 years there have been written objections to it. If it would make some folks less unhappy, it doesn't make any difference to me if it isn't listed in the Gathering program. I don't want 'bridge-jumping' to cloud the more important issue contained in #1 above.

Happy trails to all!

Lilred
10-22-2003, 17:01
Originally posted by icemanat95
I think it would be a tragedy if folks decided not to come to the Gathering because of a no-alcohol policy,...


I'm not sure if this is a response to my post, but just to set things straight, I don't drink. I'm not choosing to pass up gatherings because of a no drinking policy, I choose to pass them up because of the bickering and rationalizations about who can do what and when and why. Sorry, but telling people to have their 'own gathering' simply because they might want to have a social drink is.....uppity. If there are a few exceptional rowdies, then call the police and have them arrested for drunk and disorderly. Do that a few times and the extremes will get the message. But don't go telling people they aren't welcome just because they like to have a drink or three. And please don't tell the extreme drunks to gather in a hiker friendly town. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite their face.......

Peaks
10-22-2003, 17:33
It may not matter, but the jump was published as a "Cliff Jump" at a nearby swimming hole. Maybe the leader decided to change the location to a bridge somewhere.

In any event, I don't know how long the signs have been up on the Connecticut River bridge (I assume that's where they went, but don't know for sure).

icemanat95
10-23-2003, 01:25
If I post my property "No Tresspassing" and I catch you on my property, I'm going to tell you to leave as quickly as you can. If I find damage from your activities on my property I am going to have you arrested and I will prosecute and sue for damages. If you refuse to leave, I will have you arrested and removed from the property. These are my rights as a property owner, unlike your "right" to drink, my rights as a property owner are established in Constitutional and case law. Now, Concord College and The Folk Life Center have no-alcohol policies on their property. As property owners their property rights trump your personal choice to violate their published rules every...single...time.

It's real simple, those facilities and ALDHA don't want drunken slobs disrupting things on their campuses, so they have enacted rules against it. So the bottom line is this...if you feel you must drink, do it elsewhere and don't attend ALDHA events drunk or otherwise chemically altered. If you do and they catch you, expect to be told to leave, and then do so. If you want to attend ALDHA events at the Gathering, but want to unwind a bit at night with friends, go to another camping area. Don't disrespect ALDHA, and the Folk Life Center by violating their rules.

Personal freedom REQUIRES personal responsibility and fulfilling that responsibility and exercising that freedom demands that an individual also exercise sound judgement, often choosing not to gratify one's wishes because it is not responsible to do so. Unfortunately we live in a time where the responsibility and judgement sides of the equation have been lost to litigious assertions about what the definition of "is" is.

For decades now, ALDHA has allowed hikers to exercise their personal freedoms and choose to drink or not and trusted them to do so responsibly. There have been Gatherings since LONG before many of us thru-hiked and since before many here were even born. It is only in the past year that ALDHA started discouraging drinking. Why? Because in recent years, hikers have shown themselves to be unwilling to restrain their own behaviors and the behaviors of their fellows FORCING the organization to take a stand. It's that simple. Some folks here are acting like this is coming out of the blue. It ain't. It's been brewing for years, and it finally got bad enough that the organization finally has to do something about it. I can guarantee you that this is not some personal whim or Warren's. Warren may be important to ALDHA and it's spiritual leader if you will, but he's no dictator. I've attended meetings where proposals from Warren have been voted down or virtually ignored, so I KNOW that Warren doesn't exercise that sort of personal power within the organization. No, I submit that this measure has been enacted out of necessity, probably because of repeated discussions with Dartmouth College, Concord College, The Folk Life Center and other concerned people. I would put money on the likelihood that on many occxasions ALDHA, as an organization, has gone to bat for hikers and convinced host organizations and municipalities that "it's just a few bad apples and we can control it without heavy handed rules" only to be proven wrong again and again.

The fact of the matter is that the perceived freedom of the trail is one of the greatest threats to it's survival. The rules of civility and the laws of the land do not cease to exist or cease to bind you just because you have chosen to chuck the daily grind and go on a long hike. In practice municipalities, businesses and individuals cut thru-hikers a heck of a lot of slack during their hikes...hitchhiking is illegal in many jurisdictions, and your average thru-hiker is a walking talking health violation in a restaurant. But they are just cutting you slack, they are not absolving you of responsibility to common courtesy, the rules of the house or the law, and damned sure that any leeway you may have received when you hiked 8 years ago has worn off by now. As a responsible member of society you are responsible to obey it's laws, even if you don't agree with them. If you choose otherwise, then you are also responsible to pay the consequences. This basic element of the social contract has been lost in recent generations. People play happily in the ethical gray areas, avoiding responsibility through legalistic trickery, playing ethical mind games with themselves to preserve their "self-esteem" and claiming violations of their rights when most of them haven't got the foggiest notion of what a right actually is. Your rights stop when they impact on the rights of others. At that point, responsibility kicks in and you have the obligation to make a choice between your own wishes and respecting the rights of others. Now here's the rub where drugs and alcohol are involved, having made the decision to indulge in mood altering substances, your judgement is impaired and your ability to make rational and responsible choices is eroded. A sufficiently drunk person is not capable of the ethical arithmetic necessary to determine whether their choices respect the rights of others or not. You cannot trust a drunk person to make the right decisions, so you have to make that decision for them.

The Folk Life Center and ALDHA have been forced to do that for the Gathering in 2004 When you drive onto their grounds, you check your "right" to drink and take drugs at the edge of the property, it ceases to be an issue.

bunbun
10-23-2003, 09:43
Originally posted by Lilredmg
I'm not sure if this is a response to my post, but just to set things straight, I don't drink. I'm not choosing to pass up gatherings because of a no drinking policy, I choose to pass them up because of the bickering and rationalizations about who can do what and when and why. Sorry, but telling people to have their 'own gathering' simply because they might want to have a social drink is.....uppity. If there are a few exceptional rowdies, then call the police and have them arrested for drunk and disorderly. Do that a few times and the extremes will get the message. But don't go telling people they aren't welcome just because they like to have a drink or three. And please don't tell the extreme drunks to gather in a hiker friendly town. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite their face.......

I won't repeat what Iceman said, he said it well and I'll thank him for that. But I will add a couple things, the first being that these "discussions" rarely happen at the Gathering or any other hiker function. They happen on the email lists and forums. Judging the Gathering by what's been said here would be equivalent to judging a beauty contest blindfolded.

Secondly - none of this is new, the "no drinking" message has been "suggested" for a lot of years. And the "extremes" DON'T GET THE MESSAGE. They've been told politely that drinking is unwelcome for at least a dozen years that I know about and they've simply ignored the message. The "no-drinking" request has been printed in every Gathering program for at least that long. So --- your "Theory of Social Drinking Control" doesn't work. As someone once said - insanity is continuing to do something that doesn't work and expecting different results. As Iceman said - it's time to do something different.

Finally - you've said you intend to thruhike. I presume you know that the "success rate" is between 10 and 15 percent? What you might not realize is that one of the ways to improve your incdividual probability of completing a thruhike is to attend a Gathering. Or a Ruck - or even Trail Days. Being on this forum will certainly help - but not nearly as much as "face time" with those who have already done it. Last I heard, Warren Doyle's ATI graduates enjoy a "success rate" in the 75% range. He can correct me if I'm in error.

TJ aka Teej
10-23-2003, 09:53
Originally posted by icemanat95
As a responsible member of society you are responsible to obey it's laws, even if you don't agree with them.


Originally posted by warren doyle
Since we were jumping off very quickly at 6:50am on a fall Sunday morning, when the traffic was very light, the regulation didn't apply to me.


Originally posted by warren doyle
As an educator, rather than a regulator, I always question rules and regulations. I do not preach/teach blind obedience (neither did our founding fathers).


Originally posted by TJ aka Teej
...if ALDHA sees the need to publish a "rule" about member's behavior I suggest this wording:
*As an ALDHA member we trust that you will represent our organization in a mature, responsible, and law-abiding manner.*

I agree with most of Iceman's post. I see that Iceman foresees ALDHA enforced sobriety checks in his post, as did I in my post yesterday. Should ALDHA post guards at local bridges, too? And, following Iceman's suggestion, should then ALDHA also tell bridge jumpers to leave the Gathering if they are caught?

TJ aka Teej
10-23-2003, 10:19
Originally posted by bunbun
Judging the Gathering by what's been said here would be equivalent to judging a beauty contest blindfolded.

I agree. From these threads, you'd think that drinking at the Gathering this year caused a problem of some sort. You'd also think that someone was proposing that drunkeness, or violating Folklife Center rules was acceptable.

There was only one criminal act, presumably by sober people, at this year's Gathering that anyone has reported.

bunbun
10-23-2003, 10:34
Originally posted by chris
There is a significant difference in your two examples. I would probably not drink in front of a recovering alcoholic, as that might negatively impact directly on a human being. Note that I say might, because if my example if enough to push them over the edge, then they would have fallen off eventually anyways. But, the point you make is that my action would directly and immediately affect another person. In your other example, I would be disregarding the wishes of a thing, an it, not an human being with a soul and a mind. So, I see no ethical problem with doing so. Note, this does not mean that I would drink if I was invited into a _person's_ home and asked not to.
Additionally, I would not drink if I felt it would end the Gathering, as that would negatively affect others; namely, there would be no Gathering. However, sipping on a beer disceetly (and hauling out the empty) or drinking a rum and coke, and remaining completely in control, does not threaten the Gathering.

Let's take this a piece at a time - first that you presume that "they would have fallen off eventually anyways." That's an unwarranted assumption on your part that only serves to absolve you of responsibility. It's a copout.

Then - you say "I would be disregarding the wishes of a thing, an it, " That's another copout, particularly with respect to the Folklife Center because at the Gathering you are "allowed" to use the space - and asked not to drink. Iceman seems to have covered this aspect quite well so I won't belabor it.

And then - "sipping on a beer disceetly" most certainly DOES threaten the Gathering. It sets an example that says "It's OK to drink." And that message then degenerates to exactly what you've indicated your attitude to be, that "It's MY decision whether I drink or not." Which then degenerates to - "I can do anything I want." And it all started with one discreet beer. The process is well established, proven and repeatable.



Originally posted by chris
Personal choice is not an ethical value, as in and of itself it has no relation to ethics.

No. Every "personal choice" you make in ANY area of life that affects other people (and that means nearly every choice you make) is based on ethical considerations - on your values and beliefs and respect (or lack therof) for other people, for law, tradition, convention, etc. "Having control over one's life" as you put is a wonderful concept - but when it conflicts with the rights, happiness or well-being of others, then insistence on "your" personal freedom is not freedom, but license.



Originally posted by chris Perhaps I was not completely clear on why I brought up bridge jumping. ............. I brought it up because your primary contention against drinking at the Gathering is that it is dangerous _legally_. I brought up bridge jumping because it is equally, if not more, dangerous from a legal standpoint. Yet one is sanctioned by ALDHA and the other is frowned up and, probably soon, banned by ALDHA.[/B]

That was ONE consideration - it was NOT a primary consideration. As for banning any particular activity - not likely.



Originally posted by chris 1991 was, at last count, 12 years in the past, a rather lengthy time. I do not know when the ban was put in place. However, almost nowhere is bridge jumping legal, despite being fun. I'm not quite sure what the Nerf club refers to. I may not be sharp enough to pick up on your reference.[/B]

My bad - that should have been 2001. And yes - I do know that it wasn't there in 2001. I think you should justify the statement that "almost nowhere is bridge jumping legal." What supporting evidence do you have for that staement?

LOL!!! You don't have any kids, huh? And never played with a Nerf ball?



Originally posted by chris While I am not an expert in marriage, and feel slightly embarassed explaining this to a married person, I believe that the concept includes a subordination of one's own desires to the those of the other. In that case, you've already chosen to get married and that choice supercedes your desire to go to a brothel. Of course, if you no longer wish to stay married, then visit the brothel.[/B]

Uh - what you don't seem to be sharp enough to pick up on is humor. Loosen up.



Originally posted by chris As I was writing this, Chomp wrote out a very good response. I would like to add a word of support to something he mentioned at the end. I would pay $10 or $15 for an alternate campsite, particularly if ALDHA would make the choice between the two public. That is, make it very clear that one site is sober and the other you can drink or not drink as you see fit, although you have to pay for the privilege. [/B]

That likely will be the choice, although I won't guarantee that the price will be that low. It'll likely be in that range (or more) "per night." Will ALDHA "provide" an alternate place for those who want to party? Not likely. Will ALDHA advertise those places as "alcohol tolerant" camping? I seriously doubt it. ALDHA "may" advertise a list of alternate campsites - but you'll have to make your own arrangements and I'd strongly suggest that you inquire about alcohol when you do. Otherwise you could find yourself on the wrong side of a set of jail bars. Not all campground owners will tolerate the kind of noise, mess and behavior that ALDHA has tolerated in previous years.

Chomp's post was good - but largely uninformed. I'll try to get back to hm, but at this point it won't be until at least this afternoon.

Sly
10-23-2003, 10:50
Pipestem State Park campgrounds are $15. I think two cars are allowed in each. They also have rooms and cabins if you want to splurge. No mention of alcohol, but quiet hours are 10pm.

They also have a golf course! Anyone else bringing their clubs? LOL...

Lilred
10-23-2003, 11:40
Originally posted by bunbun
They've been told politely that drinking is unwelcome for at least a dozen years that I know about and they've simply ignored the message. The "no-drinking" request has been printed in every Gathering program for at least that long. So --- your "Theory of Social Drinking Control" doesn't work.

Asking politely?? Printed in pamphlets?? If they are drunk and out of control, call the police and have them arrested. How many times has that happened? How many times have drunks been put in a jailcell? If someone has to spend a weekend in a jailcell, chances are they'll rethink going to that function again. Perhaps ALDHA could go to the local police department and explain what they are trying to do and solicit their help in the matter. Until there are consequences for their behavior, things will likely unchange.

And I never said I intended to thru-hike. I'll be section hiking the trail during the summers. If I ever have the time to do a thru-hike, I'm sure I'll learn plenty from being on the trail in sections.

I will keep in mind your comment about judging the Gathering by these posts. Many new hikers, like myself, get a feel for the trail and the gatherings from these posts. The feeling I'm getting towards gatherings isn't a positive one. I have learned tons of useful information from your posts and others who have much experience on the trail, but all this talk about excluding an entire group of people because of the actions of a few are leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

max patch
10-23-2003, 11:49
Originally posted by Lilredmg
Many new hikers, like myself, get a feel for the trail and the gatherings from these posts.

The interactions on internet message boards and chat rooms are totally different than what you will experience on the trail.

chris
10-23-2003, 12:06
I've tried to respond to some of the more recent posts via PMs in an attempt to let this thread die out on its own. Or, atleast, not add fuel to the fire. I'm happy to debate this over PMs or email, with any who want to. I'm hitting the western Smokys for a couple of days to enjoy the end of the fall colors season, so won't get a chance to respond for a while. I haven't been over Gregory Bald or west of Cades Cove yet, so this is a brand new part of the park. Looking forward to it.

smokymtnsteve
10-23-2003, 12:40
hey chris ..no problem drinking in front of alkyholics....you can't protect everyone from alkyhol....it'in the world..it's there ..it's not going to go away....

littleredmg ...now there is the answer!

Blister
10-23-2003, 13:22
Just to make one fact clear. I coordinated two of the gatherings at Hanover. 97 & 99. I also typed and printed all the information handed out by ALDHA those years. Drinking was not mentioned in any of the print. The issue during those years were to come up with solutions for those who wanted to stay up and socialize not to bother those who wanted to hit the hay at 10pm. I was the first person to sit down with the Storrs Pond Campground people along with Rainman (AT89&92,PCT96) In 97 we were in the fields not far from Storrs Pond - with suburbia encroaching quickly to that area and complaints of traffic/parking on the streets and noise we moved to Storrs Pond in 99. I dodn/t know how much longer people can argue the same bull. How do I feel. This matter should be brought up at the general membership meeting at the Gathering. I have no quams about not drinking at the Folk Life Center - a rule is a rule. Not one person from 2000 can tell me I did not obey hostel rules. From Kinkora all the way to Shaws. Many of these hostel owners are still very good friends of mine, a rule is a rule. ANd so will go for the Folk Life Center. As for Storrs Pond - I am not aware of any illegal activity that went on - could someone enlighten me with the issues. And yes I am one who does enjoy a cocktail with friends. That should not be the point whether I can remain a member of ALDHA or not.

Sly
10-23-2003, 13:40
I've gone to the last 6 Gatherings. I never heard that alcohol was prohibided or discouraged until this year.

Maybe I wasn't looking!

BTW, I was suffering from cluster headaches all weekend long. I frequented Billville many times. When the noise got too loud I left, but when I got to the bottom of the hill I couldn't hardly hear it. I was camped nearby and wasn't distracted at all from any campers anywhere and I was up most of the night, in pain!

Billville was spotless when I left Monday.

Where's the beef? What were the problems? What were they based on?

I know this isn't an official ALDHA site but most all the people posting here are members.

chomp
10-23-2003, 15:31
Sorry to do this again, but apparently the Old Fhart really is an Old Fhart and can't figure out a computer. Actually, he sent an email about the problem and just hasn't gotten a response. He asked me to post this for him:

----------------------------------------------------

Warren wrote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Wow! I am continually amazed at how people can interpret the same words so differently from the original author's intent.
I'll try to make it simple."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, Warren, maybe you can make it simple for a poor old country boy like myself. Explain your statement: "If it would make some folks less unhappy, it doesn't make any difference to me if it (bridge jumping) isn't LISTED in the Gathering program." (emphasis mine).
I would like you to tell me, quite simply, and precisely, that your statement isn't political double speak and you actually mean: "I have seen that this is a violation of law and the Endangered Services Campaign and I will not list it nor will I actually do it on the sly". Your statement doesn't explicitly state that you will not bridge jump, only that you won't list it openly. I want you to elucidate because as you have stated previously: "Since we were jumping off very quickly at 6:50am on a fall Sunday morning, when the traffic was very light, the regulation (it's a LAW Warren) didn't apply to me."
A logical law abiding person would conclude that if this is illegal then I can simply change the venue to Storrs Pond and just jump in the pond thereby preserving the tradition and complying with the law thus making everyone happy. No one questions your right to get wet, just the illegal and potentially dangerous method that you and ALDHA condone and flaunt.

Icemanat95 wrote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These are my rights as a property owner, unlike your "right" to drink, my rights as a property owner are established in Constitutional and case law. Now, Concord College and The Folk Life Center have no-alcohol policies on their property. As property owners their property rights trump your personal choice to violate their published rules every...single...time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on target! Now simply replace "Concord College and The Folk Life Center have no-alcohol policies" with "The town of Hanover has a law against bridge jumping" and it reads"

+++++++++++++++++++++++
"These are my rights as a property owner, unlike your "right" to [bridge jump], my rights as a property owner are established in Constitutional and case law. Now, [The town of Hanover has a law against bridge jumping] on their property. As property owners their property rights trump your personal choice to violate their published rules every...single...time.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Now let me make it simple, Professor Doyle, drinking is not the problem, excess drinking and violation of no drinking bans is. We all should respect the rules at Folk Life Center and not drink at the campground-period. This applies to members of Billville (who have said they will comply) and to ALDHA elders. No one should consume any alcohol at the campground or at the college. Having a drink at Storrs, however, is not banned and having a drink there is not a violation. Overuse of alcohol or rowdiness is not permitted and cannot be allowed. Having a drink does not turn a person from a Doctor Jekyll into a Mister Hyde as some of the overly pious have implied in previous posts by saying having a drink is the equivalence of being drunk and disorderly.
So I await a reply from Warren showing that he is willing to take the first of the 12 steps to be a model citizen and state emphatically that he will not bridge jump in Hanover and put the matter to rest once and for all. For my sake Warren, keep it simple .
---The Old Fhart

Lone Wolf
10-23-2003, 15:47
Another reason for not attending Gatherings. Too many mambie pampie, nitpickin whiners with fragile little egos. Dial whine one one for the whaambulance.:rolleyes:

smokymtnsteve
10-23-2003, 17:39
I came to believe that I was powerless over my bridgejumping and that my life had become unmanagable.....:D

Blister
10-23-2003, 23:53
Thanks LW - Gotta say, I have done for ALDHA, in a way I "thought " it was giving back to some of the people whom have helped me out in the past. I am not one to go out and ruin anyone's experiece. Be it on the trail and/or at a trail event. This whinning and crying by both sides is getting out of hand. I do not care if it is Warren, Jack, Chomp and there are many of you that I'm not sure if I've met. (Maybe I was cocked) lol. Anyways - Folk Life center - there is no drinking allowed - and by the way ALDHA is looking at it, we will finally obey the law. As for Storrs Pond - there will not be another Gathering there for a bit, hence, we can duke it out if needed at the next Gathering. As for myself, I will adhere to the requests of the Folk Life Center if I camp there next year and/or perhaps find alternate lodging. We are all adults and should act as the responsible people we are expected to be. The arguing is such a waste of energy.

bunbun
10-24-2003, 09:32
Originally posted by Blister
Just to make one fact clear. I coordinated two of the gatherings at Hanover. 97 & 99. I also typed and printed all the information handed out by ALDHA those years. Drinking was not mentioned in any of the print. The issue during those years were to come up with solutions for those who wanted to stay up and socialize not to bother those who wanted to hit the hay at 10pm. I was the first person to sit down with the Storrs Pond Campground people along with Rainman (AT89&92,PCT96)

Blister - Thanks for reminding me to check my boot size before sticking a foot in my mouth. Last night I went through all the Gathering programs back to 1990 - and you're mostly right. The "no drinking" line was dropped from the Gathering programs back in 1994. I'm not sure why. Nor am I sure why I thought it was in there all along - particularly since I also wrote and typed the Gathering program one year. Perhaps because the words have been spoken every year? Certainly because the words were on the Web site this year - and as I recall, were discussed on this forum. And then ignored.

However - that changes nothing in this pile of bullhockey. The only real point to this whole thing is what this started with - that drinking is prohibited at both the Folklife Center and Concord College and those who attend next year's Gathering will be expected to respect that and either not drink or camp elsewhere.



Originally posted by Blister This matter should be brought up at the general membership meeting at the Gathering. [/B]

Cool. Do it. Better yet - come to the Spring meeting and bring it up there.

Jack Tarlin
10-24-2003, 15:53
I think this discussion has served its purpose. It seems evident that there will be changes at next year's Gathering: Those who wish to drink socially at or near their campsites will voluntarily find alternative places to stay other than at the Folklore Center. This is fine---nowhere have I seen anyone say that this is unfair or unreasonable.

I think the problem here is the way the neo-prohibitionists joined the discussion: Telling folks to start their own get-togethers, or telling folks they aren't welcome or don't belong at certain events is neither kind nor productive.

Lastly, and I find it remarkable that nobody has mentioned this yet, I personally find it extraordinary that Warren Doyle has the gall to lecture ANYONE on what constitutes proper, respectful public behavior, especially as regards consideration for the feelings and sensitivities of others. After all, this is the same Mr. Doyle who, at the 2001 Gathering in Hanover, took advantage of the possession of an open microphone and proceeded to harangue a captive audience of several hundred people with a political rant that was as offensive as it was out-of-place. I also recall that it took Doyle months to publicly acknowledge that he'd done anything wrong, and even then, in an ALDHA newsletter, his "apology" was self-serving, half-hearted, and insincere. For him to now presume he has the right to lecture or admonish others on proper public comportment is ludicrous in the extreme---he is the LAST person in our community who should be doing this, as his credibility on this subject is nil. In 2001, he forever forfeited his right to correct others on proper behavior at the Gathering or any other public event, as he gave ample evidence that he didn't give a damn about the feelings or sensitivities of anyone else, including the entire ALDHA membership which had to sit through his tirade. In short, Warren, give it a rest. There are many issues you are competent to talk about, but telling other folks how to behave in public isn't one of them.

ganj
10-24-2003, 17:07
I've only hiked the trail once so don't take me too seriously. But I heard that in waynesboro you could stay at the Fire Station there. I was told that they no longer offered these services due to one year Warren's group staying there, getting drunk and turning hoses on.

This came to me as second/third hand information in 2001. But I heard it regardless and if it is true I think it should be brought to light. If it is false, then I wanted to know. Anyone here around back then?

Lone Wolf
10-24-2003, 17:19
Totally false. The firehouse could no longer handle the sheer numbers of hikers anymore.

ganj
10-24-2003, 17:34
Thanks for clearing that up.
.

warren doyle
10-27-2003, 12:56
The AT circle expedition only used the Waynesboro fire station once (in 1977). They were kind enough to let us have a meeting upstairs. They continued to host hikers there for many years after that.
For the most part, 'partiers' aren't attracted to either the task, or the ideals, of the circle expedition.

Jack Tarlin
10-27-2003, 19:00
Re. the comment: "For the most part, 'partiers' aren't attracted to either the task, or the ideals, of the circle expedition."

True enough. But the same can be said of non-partiers. A full-length vehicle-supported slackpack of the entire Appalachian Trail, with pre-set daily hiking plans, an orchestrated and rigid schedule, and little latitude for flexibility, innovation, or deviation from the pre-ordained schedule and pace is not the sort of journey that appeals to most people, and for good reasons. Most folks prefer to plan and hike their own hike. The "task" and "ideals" of the "circle expedition" simply don't appeal to the vast majority of men and women dreaming of backpacking the entire A.T.; whether or not one is a "partier" has little or nothing to do with it.

Lone Wolf
10-27-2003, 19:11
The MAJORITY of men and women who make the dream come true to backpack the AT never make it, Jack. You do a major amount of slackpacking yourself so why bash Warren and his groups? 100% of them seem to make it and thoroughly enjoy it. "Hike your own hike", remember? The AT was never conceived, designed or meant to be "thru-hiked".

MOWGLI
10-27-2003, 19:17
Originally posted by Jack Tarlin
Most folks prefer to plan and hike their own hike.

Jack, I wonder if that statement is really true. People struggle with planning. They search for the answers for the most minute details before their hike, and they search for them with the help of others. True, some people really enjoy the planning process, but in todays fast-paced world, I wonder if the idea of having the planning aspect of a thru-hike taken care of by somebody else isn't appealing to the majority.

I agree that most people like to hike their own hike, but for some, that takes weeks on the trail before that can be accomplished.

Any thoughts...

Jack Tarlin
10-27-2003, 19:21
Wolf--

Please re-read my post. Nowhere did I mention the "completeion rate" of either expedition or non-expedition hikers; nor have I ever denied that I enjoy the occasional slackpack, tho I sure wouldn't want to do the whole trip that way.

However, I dispute your contention that the vast majority of folks who've participated in the various "expeditions" look back fondly on either the experience or their leader; I personally know of several who do not; also; I know of few "circle expedition" hikers who've stayed active in the thru-hiking community after their trips, who have become maintainers, members of the ATC or ALDHA, etc. I've also spoken with several who've gone back and hiked "traditional" long hikes on the A.T. and greatly enjoyed their experience, particularly their independence, and regretted that their first long hike was as part of a group, as opposed to an independent journey of discovery.

The purpose of my first post, Wolf, was not to bash Warren or his group slackpacking ventures; I was merely commenting on something that he said, which was that most partiers aren't interested in that sort of experience on the A.T. Well, neither are most NON-partiers.

You missed my point, Wolf. Warren seems hellbent on discussing the "partying" issue at each and every occasion; on this occasion, I don't really see that it's relevant.

warren doyle
10-27-2003, 19:24
Actually, the completion rate for circle members is more like 97%. Five of the six circle expeditions had a 100% completion rate.
Speaking only for myself, I believe the challenge of making a commitment to another person(s) success (in addition to your own) and fulfilling that commitment (after 127 days and 2,170 miles of walking) is a greater challenge for me than backpacking the entire trail on my own.

Jack Tarlin
10-27-2003, 19:34
I am delighted to see Warren acknowledging that on this particular subject, he is "speaking only for myself."

This admission on his part is long overdue, and is equally applicable to his pronouncements on other Trail matters as well.

But I'm glad to see him admit it, even if only once.

warren doyle
10-27-2003, 19:34
Mr. Tarlin (in response to your last sentence in your 10-27-2003 post at 18:21),
It was relevant to me since I was responding to the 'ganj' post of 10-24-03 at 17:07 describing some expedition behavior that simply was not true.
What are you so afraid of?

Sly
10-27-2003, 22:26
I believe I'd rather fail on my own, backpacking, then succeed with a bunch of "Doylies" doing what they do.

But hey, to each their own.

Lugnut
10-28-2003, 02:12
All this bickering is starting to resemble the modern day equivalent to the "Myron and Benton" show! :confused:

(with apologies to Avery and MacKaye)

Peaks
10-28-2003, 08:32
Hey, we all hike the trail our own way. Some like and need a supported hike, and some prefer the unsupported hike. Some like to slackpack, and others prefer to backpack all the way. To each their own. I'm sure that there are some that need the "circle" type of hike. Nothing wrong with that.

rickb
10-28-2003, 09:44
Exactly, Peaks.

Especially now that there are so many resources for each individual to educate him or herself about the AT, and how to hike it. While I don't know for sure, I suspect that before anyone signs up for one of Doyle's trips, the candidates are introduced to the range of alternatives, and resources where by those alternatives can be examined.

I expect all potential condidates have been introduced to the ALDHA, the ATC and a variety of web resources, as well as direct contacts with people who can help focus one's vision. If that's not the case, then I might have a different opinion about such groups. As a non-commercial enterprise, I just cant imagine things being handled otherwise.

The only thing that troubles me is how we all have the tendency to look at success of a hike to be measured by completion rates. Speaking from personal experience, I walked every inch of the AT, but my hike was in no way a success on many important measures.

It gets better as time goes on though ;-).

Rick B.

MOWGLI
10-28-2003, 10:03
Originally posted by rickboudrie
Speaking from personal experience, I walked every inch of the AT, but my hike was in no way a success on many important measures.



Care to elaborate Rick? I'm curious about your pre-hike expectations.

The Weasel
11-01-2003, 16:12
Great thread, people. Is this Trailplace?

The Weasel

chomp
11-01-2003, 22:07
whoops - wrong thread!

cabalot
11-02-2003, 17:00
Originally posted by icemanat95
I have no idea how so much bad blood arose between Jack and Warren, but it is unfortunate.


So I guess I am taking a middle ground here. I think the no-alcohol policy is a bit extreme, but I also understand where it comes from. Recognizing that some folks are going to drink anyway, they should either be prepared to pay the consequences for their disobedience (including potential arrest) or be smart and conscientious enough to keep it cool and low.

Respect the wishes of the college, the folk life center and ALDHA, and if you feel you must drink or want to have a couple beers, keep it under control, clean up after yourself, and don't rub it in anyone's face. And if someone from ALDHA comes up and tells you to pour out the booze or take it elsewhere, respect that, don't cop and attitude, you are a guest there.


I have to agree with iceman95, most people drink responsibly but there are the few that give us all abad name such as the public urinators and streakers. The pot smokers probably increase revenue at the concession stands and cause no trouble except for a few youths with a maturity problem.

i dont know about NY state parks but PA and NJ state parks do not permit alcohol:

but, i must say this, i always drink at PA and NJ, and NY parks and have not had a problem because i pour it into a plastic cup so it cant be seen and i am always on my best behavior.
the rangers know people are drinking and dont care as long as you keep it low and cool and dont leave your empties in the woods behind your campsite.

Alligator
11-21-2003, 15:52
Hi all, this thread looked to have died down, and I'm not trying to stir it up. I couldn't wade through all the previous posts. But, I got really excited to see that the Gathering was to be held at Concord, as I live right across the street! No, you can't all come stay at my house. I may not be living there next Oct.

I have never been to a Gathering so I can't evaluate this no drinking thing. It seems, though, that the hosting locations do have a no drinking rule. This should be respected. Perhaps the membership should be more involved with choosing a site if this is a problem. I don't know if there are any funding issues here, like the folk center receiving money.

I'm speaking up because I have excellent skills for finding campgrounds for groups of people who enjoy alcoholic beverages. I would be willing look into this if anyone is interested, I just need the number of people. Also, I would be willing to help out with any other arrangements or lend a hand next year (provided I am still working in the area). Pipestem state park is right across the street from the Folklife Center, but I don't know their alcohol policy. There are other campgrounds in the area.

If anyone needs local information, do not hesitate to contact me.