View Full Version : White and Blue blazin'
I would like to start a (hopefully) lively thread on the pros and cons of blue and white blazing. I would especially like to hear from Lone Wolf and Baltimore Jack. I know it's all about philosophy but lets hear the arguments.
Footslogger
11-15-2003, 18:31
I guess this is more of a question than a comment but ...why would you want to blue blaze, unless the main trail was dangerous or impassible due to really fould weather or serious blow down ??
Maybe I'm missing something here ...
pros and cons only please. (something tells me you "missed" a lot)
I'm apprehensive about touching this one, but here's my opinion anyways. The trail is not the same trail is was when it was created. Period.
Every year, this trail changes its route due to different reasons. The trail you hike this year is not the same trail hiked 10 years, five years, or even 12 months ago. These changes are organized and completed through the various AT trail clubs. My belief is that there is nothing "holy" about the official route of the AT for that specific year. It doesn't bother me to blueblaze. It doesn't bother me that others whiteblaze. Sometimes these new relos make no sense whatsoever and are based on political reasons only. I just heard that the AT will be bypassing Pearisburg soon.
I blueblaze if there are other things I want to see (MarHar Trail, Ribble Trail) or because I find a shorter route that makes more sense than the AT does (road walk along the Housatonic River instead of setting foot back into NY, Sherburne Pass Trail). It doesn't matter to me that I missed parts of the AT. I know I walked from Georgia to Maine and had a great time. Don't let others tell you how to hike. Authorities like WF have no business dictating how others should hike.
I would like to find out how much or which parts of the trail are still part of the original route. Also, would like to see a good map of the original route and how much of it would still be possible to hike.
First off, I am somewhat "blessed" with OCD. I do EVERYTHING at 110% to 120%
I love the views & stuff off the blue blazes. I regret missing some of them, like the waterfall ones, & Mt Cammerer.
I will pass every white blaze that is current when I section hike. And about 10 years from now when I get to thru, I will Obsessivly pass EVERY white blaze. No yellow blazes ever, even if a shelter has 2 blu blazes, I will back track which ever one I came in on.
Doctari
Lone Wolf
11-16-2003, 01:52
No argument. I do what I do. Jack does his thing. The main thing to remember is, the AT was never meant to be thru-hiked. It's all about being in the sticks.
Youngblood
11-16-2003, 10:29
Take the trail that takes you where YOU want to go.
Youngblood
max patch
11-16-2003, 11:04
Don't let others tell you how to hike. Authorities like WF have no business dictating how others should hike.
Thats a BS comment Ganj and I think you know it. WF doesn't give a flying fornication how you spend your six months on the trail.
What WF says...and so does the ATC...is that if you report your hike your hike to the ATC and claim 2000 miler status you need to hike past every white blaze on your trip except for the rare instance when dangerous conditions require you to skip the official white blazed route in favor of a blue blazed alternate. Claiming 2000 miler status when you have not hiked all of the official AT makes one a liar.
The pros for both are you are hiking your own hike...so what can the cons be????
illininagel
11-16-2003, 13:15
Everyone should hike their own hike. However, if you decide to complete a hike without passing the white blazes, just don't claim "official" 2000 miler status...seems simple enough.
If it's not important to a hiker to use the white blazes, then it shouldn't be important for that same hiker to tell others that he/she completed an "official" thru hike. It diminishes the accomplishments of those hikers that decided to do their own hike by passing the white blazes.
Blue and yellow blazing is cheating, only if they are used to skip the AT because it's faster.
Blue Blaze, White Blaze, for record keeping it may be important to 'stay true to the trail' but in my opinion, anyone who walks the width of the continent, in the wilderness, has made quite an accomplishment, and should be recognized for it. If you want to blue blaze all the way to Maine, go for it. And my hat is off to you.
Don't forget about those two roads diverging. It might make all the difference....
I always saw the trail as a tool to help you enjoy the outdoors. I was never one to paint inside the lines and I remained that way on the trail. I like the freedom to choose the route I think is best. A blue blaze route can be better because it is more beautiful, or different, or easier, or it just feels a little decadent. If you do choose your own path, I think you should consider carefully before you sign a document saying you hiked the official route.
Blue and yellow blazing is cheating, only if they are used to skip the AT because it's faster.
So, blue blazing to go over another peak is OK?
It doesn't matter if you white blaze, blue blaze, yellow blaze, rainbow blaze, aqua blaze, gee how many other kinds of blazing are there? You really should hike your own hike.
You don't need to do pass every white blaze (barring emergency TRAIL situations) EXCEPT if you plan to report your thru or section hike to ATC to get recognition in the form of a certificate and a listing in the ATN as a 2,000-miler. It's ATC's standard; they're the ones you'd be applying to for recognition, so you oughta follow their rules.
Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
Virginian
11-16-2003, 21:44
Ok, my opinion and I always have one. If you want to get out of your car and hike through the Walmart parking lot thats your bussiness. Thats hiking your own hike. If you want to take side trails, Blue blazes or no trail at all, its up to you. But hiking the AT for the reason of a "Thru Hike" is different. And it shouldnt be cheapend by folks that wont do it right but claim to. To me its the same as all of the Army wearing black berets ,or people who aren't handicap using thier Grandmas tag to get a good spot at the mall. And while we're at it. I think "slacking sucks too" You see, I didnt "slack" the AT. I "hiked" it. That made the difference to me. :jump
"White Blaze/Pack on Back"
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 08:48
It diminishes the accomplishments of those hikers that decided to do their own hike by passing the white blazes.
Exactly how is it, in any way possible, for some one to diminish anyone else's accomplishments. This is flat out BS, and I am sick of hearing it. How does 10,000 people hitchhiking around the entire state of Virginia have any effect what so ever on my or any one else's hike? Where did this insane idea come from?
illininagel
11-17-2003, 10:02
Again, I have no problem whatsoever with hikers hiking their own hike. I could care less if someone prefers to fly from Georgia to Maine. My only issue is that if someone wishes to complete a thru-hike by not passing the white blazes, he/she shouldn't then feel compelled to claim that they did pass the white blazes. It's simply a matter of honesty.
When everyone can make up their own "rules" to claim a 2,000 miler certificate, it cheapens the value of the certificate. It's just a matter of supply and demand. The supply of supposedly qualified 2,000 milers increases artificially. So, more certificates are issues making the accomplishment and recognition less unique.
Again, I could care less if someone chooses to skip a whole state for that matter. What difference does it make to me? I just don't agree that it's OK for that same person to make false claims that they accomplished what's stated on the certificate. If they don't think it is such a big deal to pass all of the white blazes, then why do they think it is such a big deal to claim that they did and acquire the certificate stating such?
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 10:48
It's just a matter of supply and demand. The supply of supposedly qualified 2,000 milers increases artificially. So, more certificates are issues making the accomplishment and recognition less unique.
Supply and demand are economic terms for commodities. Hikers and thruhikes are clearly not commodities. To call us a commodity is far more insulting to me than a few fun loving hikers having a good time and being looked down upon by some over serious hard ass. A thruhike per say, is not unique, children have done it, a blind drunk guy falling on his dog every 10 feet has done it. Each individual thruhike is unique, and you have no right to comment on it. As a commodity, under your system each purist hiker also cheapens your hike, under some BS "supply and demand".
Again, I could care less if someone chooses to skip a whole state for that matter. What difference does it make to me? I just don't agree that it's OK for that same person to make false claims that they accomplished what's stated on the certificate. If they don't think it is such a big deal to pass all of the white blazes, then why do they think it is such a big deal to claim that they did and acquire the certificate stating such?
Exactly.
It only matters if you DON'T follow ATC's standards--but then go right ahead and apply to ATC for the certificate and acknowledgement in ATN that you did in fact hike the whole A.T. when you didn't. If you don't apply, then it doesn't matter how many white blazes you missed, and you can still be proud of your accomplishments. Hell, you may have even had a "better" hike because you took a few more interesting blue blazes, but you cannot (honestly) claim to have hiked the whole AT, at least not in a representation of same to ATC.
Personally, I would be embarrassed to have my name in print next May if there were folks I hiked with, or who knew of my hike, who realized that I didn't actually hike the whole A.T. They'd rightfully be able to point to my name and yell "Fraud!"
If I didn't hike the whole, white-blazed A.T. I would still be proud of my accomplishment and would be very willing to talk about it among friends--but I would not apply to ATC for recognition until I went back and did any white-blazed section I missed.
As a matter of fact, after summitting Katahdin on 8/15 this year, I had two "holes" to go back and finish. I did that, and actually finished on 8/18 at Caribou Valley Rd. It was kinda anti-climactic compared to that beautiful Class 1 Day on Katahdin, but I can look myself in the mirror, and no one can legitimately yell "Fraud!" when they see my name in print.
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 11:20
As a matter of fact, after summitting Katahdin on 8/15 this year, I had two "holes" to go back and finish. I did that, and actually finished on 8/18 at Caribou Valley Rd. It was kinda anti-climactic compared to that beautiful Class 1 Day on Katahdin, but I can look myself in the mirror, and no one can legitimately yell "Fraud!" when they see my name in print.[/QUOTE]
You are making my point for me. If I was a purist (oh the horror) following you I would note the sections you missed. I would have no way of knowing you went back and hiked the few miles you missed and would gleefully shout out your guilt. This whole purist game is the fraud. You always say you don't care, then you say......................, clearly showing you do.
And while we're at it. I think "slacking sucks too" You see, I didnt "slack" the AT. I "hiked" it. That made the difference to me. :jump
"White Blaze/Pack on Back"
Not to take away your right to your opinion, but what it's really about (in my opinion) is whether someone has a legitimate right to apply to ATC for the Certficate of Completion and recognition in ATN.
ATC doesn't distinguish between thru-hikes and section hikes, what direction you hike in, whether it's a continuous journey or broken up, or how much weight you carry on any particular day. ATC only expects hikers to be honest in that they hiked the entire white-blazed A.T. as it exists at the time they encounter it, with exceptions made for TRAIL safety issues that require blue blazing (high water, lightning on balds, forest fires, etc.).
Doing all the whites in a continuous, unbroken journey carrying a full backpack is probably the most "pure" way to do the A.T., but it's actually more than ATC expects in order to claim 2,000-miler status. "Merely" passing all the white blazes, any way you can, qualifies.
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 11:26
I my opinion any one who uses trekking poles is cheating (since I don't use them). I am sooooo much better than the rest of you. Clearly that is what the purist philosopy is all about, being able to be superior to other hikers.
You are making my point for me. If I was a purist (oh the horror) following you I would note the sections you missed. I would have no way of knowing you went back and hiked the few miles you missed and would gleefully shout out your guilt. This whole purist game is the fraud. You always say you don't care, then you say......................, clearly showing you do.
Yes, you could say I didn't go back and fill in the "holes," but you'd be wrong. And I could prove you're wrong if it came down to it, not that it would.
But you're right about this: I guess I do care, at least a little, how others view my honesty, character, etc. regarding any application to ATC that I in fact hiked the whole A.T. More importantly, I care that I can look myself in the mirror. And I can.
Again, it's really only about being honest when applying to ATC. Other than that, it doesn't matter. IMO of course.
smokymtnsteve
11-17-2003, 11:29
you are SOOO RIGHT blue jay ...only bipeds should be allowed to even be on the trail...nevertheless get a certificate....
Rain Man
11-17-2003, 11:29
Supply and demand are economic terms for commodities. ... a blind drunk guy falling on his dog every 10 feet has done it....
Hey there... just a hint: If you want to nit-pick terms, then you might want to use your own terms and analogies with more precision. Otherwise, it strikes folks as a rant and not an intelligent argument.
Bill Irwin, author of "Blind Courage," was not a drunk hiker. He was and is an alcoholic, who gave up drink. Thus, he did not hike the AT "drunk" falling on his dog every ten feet.
I'd say he raised the bar (pun), rather than lowering it as you imply.
From what I've read on WhiteBlaze, there are too many drunks and alcohol-guzzlers on the AT, but Bill Irwin wasn't one of them.
On the commodities question, or the supply-and-demand question (which are not the same), ... personally, I'd say the more thru-hikers there are, the more they do become fungible, in more ways than one! LOL
Rain Man
warren doyle
11-17-2003, 11:41
This is an interesting topic and one that has been discussed every year since 'blue-blazing' became in existence from the late 1970's on with the relocation of the trail due to land acquisition efforts and in some instances, where the old trail was still on public, protected land, blue blazes were painted over the white blazes. The publication of the "Philosophers Guide" listing these blue blaze routes as 'shorter and easier' alternatives to the new official route gave a certain written legitimacy to taking them.
In my observation over the last thirty years, I have learned the following:
1) Most blue-blazers take alternative routes because they are shorter and easier than the original route. Three areas come to mind:
a) Pond Mt./Laurel Gorge
It can be discouraging to someone who takes the longer and harder Pond Mt. AT route to arrive at Watauga Lake LT on a rainy day to find it completely occupied by 'thru-hikers' who took the much shorter/easier route out of Laurel Gorge.
b) Iron/Straight/Fork Mountain - Virginia Creeper
same circumstances at Lost Mt. Shelter
c) Grayson Highlands State Park - Pine Mountain/Ridge Trail
same circumstances at Old Orchard Shelter
In my opinion, I don't think walking the Appalachian Trail from end to end is about 'shorter and easier'. It is also my opinion that many of the world's pain and hurt (i.e., corporate greed, violence, substance abuse) are caused by a 'shorter and easier' philosophy.
Ultimately, the debate over blue-white blazing can only be answered by the person you see in the mirror. I feel good that the person I see in the mirror has walked the white blazes all the way and will continue to do so.
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 11:43
Rain Man,
1) That was a rant. Since I am not intelligent, I cannot perform an intelligent argument.
2) I know exactly what alcohol smells like.
3) I had to get a better dictionary for fungible, so I could laugh at your joke. You don't often hear economic humor, thank you.
Warren, you continue to just do the White Blaze exclusively? After one time you are allowed, even by purists, to try the Blue and others. They are a nice alternative, more waterfalls, animals, lakes and ponds.
[QUOTE=Rain Man]Bill Irwin, author of "Blind Courage," was not a drunk hiker. He was and is an alcoholic, who gave up drink. Thus, he did not hike the AT "drunk" falling on his dog every ten feet. I'd say he raised the bar (pun), rather than lowering it as you imply./QUOTE]
Absolutely.
As I finished the northern parts of my section-hike, in New Hampshire and Maine, hardly a day went by that I wondered, "How the HELL did Bill Irwin and Orient do THIS?" But apparently they did, under conditions that would have stopped most of us.
Raised the bar indeed.
Lone Wolf
11-17-2003, 11:52
I AM the King of blue-blazing! :cool:
illininagel
11-17-2003, 12:39
Supply and demand are economic terms for commodities. Hikers and thruhikes are clearly not commodities. To call us a commodity is far more insulting to me than a few fun loving hikers having a good time and being looked down upon by some over serious hard ass. A thruhike per say, is not unique, children have done it, a blind drunk guy falling on his dog every 10 feet has done it. Each individual thruhike is unique, and you have no right to comment on it. As a commodity, under your system each purist hiker also cheapens your hike, under some BS "supply and demand".
It seems like we are talking about two different things. I'm addressing the issue of hikers that "claim official thru-hiker status" and apply for the certificate without having completed the hike.
I'm not commenting on anyone's hike. Personally, I haven't completed an official white blaze thru-hike. Does that make me a bad person? I hardly think so. But then again, I haven't applied for the certificate. I think it's more an issue of integrity. I wouldn't feel proud to display the certificate in my home until I have completed the hike.
If someone doesn't want to complete the hike---obviously that's not a problem or something for me to judge. No one is twisting anyone's arm to even be on the trail in the first place. Hikers should make their own choices about how they wish to enjoy their recreational experience. But, why would that same person want to claim that they completed the official thru-hike and apply for a certificate that recognizes that they did it? Would it be right for thousands of people to be "certified" that they climbed Mount McKinley when they might have just flown over it? I'm sorry...it just doesn't make any sense to me.
It's like me applying for one of those doctoral degrees offered on the inside of a matchbox cover. What value is the degree if I didn't earn it? Why apply for it in the first place?
:confused:
Lone Wolf
11-17-2003, 12:46
The certificate you get from the ATC ain't no different from the degree from a matchbox. ANYBODY can get one. Patches and rockers are easy to get too. Lotsa posers out there. Join me at an ALDHA gathering and I'll point out the patch wearin, certificate bearing phonies. :D
The certificate you get from the ATC ain't no different from the degree from a matchbox. ANYBODY can get one. Patches and rockers are easy to get too. Lotsa posers out there. Join me at an ALDHA gathering and I'll point out the patch wearin, certificate bearing phonies. :D
You're absolutely right. Every year there are people whose names appear in the ATN who many of us know did not adhere to ATC's standards but yet applied to ATC for recognition that they hiked the entire, white-blazed A.T. (as it existed at the time of their hiking).
So the real question is, should such dishonesty become the new defacto standard, or should the issue be raised? ATC does not have the staff, resources, or the stomach to "police" this, so peer pressure is about all we've got left. Will everyone care about such peer pressure? Doubtful, but they should hear it anyway.
One more time: it only matters if you're going to apply to ATC for the certificate and published notice that you hiked the whole A.T. If you don't want to do the whole A.T., it's simple, just don't apply. You can still be proud as hell of your accomplishment(s), whatever they were.
Lone Wolf
11-17-2003, 13:18
This discussion is a non-issue really. There's only a handfull that really give a ******.
I am thinking that it should be an issue.
Fact is, nearly everyone who hikes from GA to ME will demand to be listed as a "2000 Miler". Whether they thought so before thier hike or not. For some, signing thier name to an application which details requirements that they did not meet will be no big deal. For others, signing thier name will be a bit troubling, but something that they can rationalize away. For a few, signing thier name will bug them. A very few people will see the application and decide not to put thier name to something that is untrue, even as thier best friends who may have yellow blazed sign in front of them. Some of those will care less, and others will wonder about thier friends' choice, and how it could be so very different from thier own.
So what?
To my way of thinking, when you haven't been on the trail very long and have blue blazed into town, and are hiching back to the next AT crossing, the last thing on one's mind is a stupid form. That's the way it should be. You'll be thinking of the pizza, and your blisters and take pride in how well you are moving down the Trail. You will think of spending time with thier friends.
But if you are one of the 20% who does make it to Baxter, you will almost certainly demand to be listed as a "2000 Miler". Not sure why, but me thinks that is fact that can't be argued. For some people, it would be wise to think of how you will react to seeing that form, with pen in hand.
Rick B
Jack Tarlin
11-17-2003, 14:57
Like just about everything else on an individual's hike, the decision about strictly adhering to the Trail in the course of ones journey is up to that individual.
If it's important to you that you hike the ENTIRE trail, then you know what you have to do. If this goal is not important to you, or if you decide at some point in your trip that it no longer is an issue, well that's fine, too.
I think the problem over the years is the folks that wish to have it both ways, i.e., the folks who voluntarily made the decision NOT to hike the entire trail, but still wish to be known and recognized as thru-hikers. The convolutions and contortions these people go thru is both amusing and sad, because you CAN'T have it both ways....by just about anyone's definition (but certainlyt he ATC's), a thru-hike is a hike of the entire Appalachian Trail. "Entire" is a fairly simple word, and it doesn't leave much room for wriggling, so when it's acknowledged that a thru-hike involves hiking the entire trail, this does not mean "except for the parts I've done before" or "except for the 20 miles I skipped in order to catch up with my friends" or "except for (fill in the blank)" Entire means entire. If you want to say afterwards that you've thru-hiked the A.T., then this means you've walked the whole thing, assuming of course that it is in fact imprtant for you to claim to yourself as well as to others that you have in fact done so.
In recent years, there's an increasing number of folks who've claimed to have thru-hiked, and have reported into the ATC office that they've completed a thru-hike when in fact they have not done so. And there are more of these folks than you think.
In stating the above, I'm not being mean or judgmental......I really don't care what someone does out there, where they hike, how far, how fast, how much they carry, etc. It's not my hike, therefore it's not my business. If you choose to hike the entire trail because it's important to you to do so, well I think that's great, and I salute you. If this is not important to you, well that's great, too. But what is not great, and what is more than a little sad, is folks who insist on gaining public recognition and acknowledgment for something that they have not, in fact, achieved. And I don't want to hear the tired, old nonsense like " Well, I hiked the OLD A.T." or "I hiked parallel trails" or "I hiked from Georgia to Maine so it's the same thing." It ISN'T the same thing: Each year, the A.T. is a very unique, very defined entity, clearly mapped, marked, signed, and blazed: You know when you're on it, and you absolutley know when you've left it. It runs from from Springer to Katahdin. If you wish to be considered a thru-hiker, then this is your pre-set and clearly defined pathway. If you voluntarily choose to deviate from it, that's perfectly OK, provided, of course, that at a later date, you don't indignantly insist that you achieved what you clearly did not.
I always looked at the term "thru-hiker" as having a flexible definition.
For one thing, it only applies when you are on the Trail. In my case I was a thu-hiker, but I am no longer one. If I am out for a weekend hike in the Whites and run into someone who walked there from GA, I consider them a thru hiker, whether or not they strayed from the white blazes, and even though they have not reached Katahdin.
On the other-hand, I always looked at the term "2000-Miler" as something that was defined by the ATC. They publish the definition and it is what it is. (Except for those who argue otherswise ;-) ).
Thats just a semantic distinction, whether I am right or not, who knows.
Rick B
Blue Jay
11-17-2003, 15:28
I give up, clearly many people need to think a piece of paper sent to the ATC hurts them in some strange way. I can understand being afraid of tax forms, indictments, divorce papers or bears or even man eating plants. An ATC application fear is just clearly beyond my ability to understand. It must be wonderful to check all the names on the ATC list each year and find someone to condemn. This year try reading the list of the names of those lost in Iraq.
Jack Tarlin
11-17-2003, 15:40
Geez, Blue Jay, I don't know why this whole issue troubles you. All I was saying is that while I could care less what someone chooses to do out there in the course of their hike, I don't think it's proper for people to seek out recognition and acknowledgement for something they haven't actually done. Filing a false completion claim with the ATC in order to receive a certificate, patch, permanent listing in their archives, or for any other reason is untruthful; to tell other folks you've hiked the entire A.T. when you actually didn't is equally dis-honest.
I suspect most folks would agree with this, even if you evidently think it's fine.
OK, here is the excerpt from the ATC website:
How does ATC define thru-hiking?
We don't. ATC uses the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience. ATC defines a "2,000-miler" as anyone who has hiked the entire trail between Springer Mountain in Georgia and Katahdin in Maine. We don't consider issues such as the sequence, direction, speed or whether one carries a pack. We do expect that persons applying for inclusion in our 2,000-miler records have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail.
The problem with this purity/non-purity deal is that nobody outside of the AT hiking community gives a hoot. Talk to anyone outside of the hiking community about purity and 2000-miler status and whatnot and they will look at you like you have 3 heads. Like it or not, in the common lexicon, thru-hiker has come to mean someone who has hiked MOST of the AT. And by their admission, the ATC wants nothing to do with defining that term.
What they do attempt to define is a "2000-miler". So all you purists that get hung up on people calling themselves thru-hikers when they didn't pass every white blaze... well, sorry, you are getting upset over nothing. Now if someone applies for their certificate, or starts spouting off about hiking the ENTIRE trail and hasn't... well, thats grounds for being upset.
Now, as for the original topic of the thread - pros vs cons? There is just one pros of hiking a pure thru-hike, IMO, but its a big one. While you are out on the trail, it will be tempting to cheat a bit, to skip a small section here, to take a shortcut there. However, if you go out with the intent of being pure, the longer that you stick to the white blazes, the harder it will be to stray from them. This is a cumlitive effect... sometimes lasting years. Just ask Jack! :)
As for the pros of blue blazing, well there are many. I am never one to stick to someone elses rules, and when I see a logical decision, I make one. For example, a "purist" will walk out the same blue blaze to a shelter, just so they don't miss any of the trail. There might be a second blue blaze heading north, and the distance of the 2 blue blazes is almost certainly longer that the official trail, but a purist is bound to hike south to hike north. This boggles my mind, and everytime I saw it I just shook me head.
Also, it allows some flexibility, and some sense of exploration. When you are on the white, you have absolute certainty of where you are heading. When you veer off the trail, it gets a little more uncertain, and a little more wild. I liked that, I liked getting lost occasionally, I liked walking and not sure of where I was going to pop out. Not all the time, mind you, but it was a nice break.
There are countless examples of blue-blazing making more sense than the official trail. There is the Sherbourne Pass Trail, which descends off Killington right to the Inn at Long Trail. The reloed the AT on fears that future expansion of the ski area would ruin the trail.. then they made the new trail the official AT beacause if they didn't, NOBODY WOULD HIKE IT. I know this because I talked to a crew leader at the Inn at LT back in 99, days before they opened it up. She said it was beautiful, but it went so far out of the way that unless they white-blazed it, nobody would hike it. Then there is the Shelbourne-Moriah trail on Mt Moriah in NH. The official AT heads down a ridge bringing you miles from Gorham, while the old AT drops you right into town. There is another blue-blaze that heads out from the opposite side of town that will meet back up with the AT. Total distance is about the same, but with the blue-blaze, you don't have to hitch into town. Oh, and its a heck of a lot nicer going north into town (I've hiked both several times).
Bottom line - there are pros and cons to both. I can understand the purists because I take a similar approach when I go for runs. I don't take ANY shortcuts, I run right back to the place that I started. If I make a change in my route, its either longer or harder. I can't see the point to going out for a run and then cheating myself. However, with hiking I take a different approach, and I like to make logical decisions. However, if you are the type of person that would start on a slippery slope of skipping and cheating once you veer from the white paint, than by all means stick to the AT. But regardless what you do, if you hiked most of the way from Georgia to Maine, you're a thru-hiker. You just might not be a 2000-miler.
Jack Tarlin
11-17-2003, 19:13
I like Chomp. I think Chomp is a great hiker. Chomp is one of my best friends in the Trail community. I generally agree with Chomp.
That being said, while there was a great deal of sense in his post, there was one remarkable statement that has to be commented on:
Chomp told us that "In the common lexicon, thru-hiker has come to mean someone who has hiked MOST of the A.T."
I don't know who he's been talking to, but I have to disagree with him. In the common lexicon, i.e. in the minds, language, and sensibilities of most folks in the hiking community, the phrase "thru-hiker" refers to someone who has hiked ALL of the A.T., and it does not refer to folks who, for whatever reason, opted to skip sections they found too difficult, onerous, or merely inconvenient. The phrase is also used by folks who are actively hiking the whole Trail, to describe themselves and their enterprise, although, amusingly enough, it is frequently used by hikers on the A.T. who have NOT hiked the entire Trail and have no intention of actually doing so.
However, the phrase refers specifically to those people who are in the process of hiking the whole thing, or have done so in the past. By Chomp's definition, someone who has hiked most of the A.T. by walking from Springer to Central Pennsylvania, or from Northern Virginia to Katahdin, in the common lexicon, is considered a thru-hiker.
I don't think so, and when you put it like this, I don't think Chomp thinks so, either. "Most" does not mean entire or complete---by this logic, Chomp, if someone runs 25 1/2 miles of the Boston Marathon but chooses to skip the last 1/2 mile because they live in downtown Boston and have run that stretch twenty times previously, does this mean they've completed a Marathon? Or if someone sets out to summit Everest but turns around 900 feet short of the top because of fatigue or bad weather, can they in all honesty claim to have climbed the world's highest peak? I don't think so.
By the way, and I address this to the folks who are actively planning a thru-hike: You can see how contentious this discussion can get, and how seriously some folks can be about the issue. There's a very simple solution: If it's important to you that you hike the whole Trail, and if you don't wish to feel dis-honest or disingenuous about your achievement later on, then there's a very simple expedient, and that's to hike the whole thing. But be aware that in the common lexicon, to use Chomp's phrase, a thru-hiker is one who hiked all the way thru, i.e. it's someone who's done the whole thing. To pretend that the term means anything less than this is to be mistaken.
illininagel
11-17-2003, 19:32
Maybe this whole dispute could be resolved if hikers could apply for one of three certificates.
The first certificate would be for "thru-hikers"---those hikers that have completed the entire trail that season.
The second certificate would be for "most-hikers"---those hikers that completed most of the trail that season.
The third certificate would be for "part-hikers"---those hikers that completed part of the trail that season.
:jump
I give up, clearly many people need to think a piece of paper sent to the ATC hurts them in some strange way. I can understand being afraid of tax forms, indictments, divorce papers or bears or even man eating plants. An ATC application fear is just clearly beyond my ability to understand. It must be wonderful to check all the names on the ATC list each year and find someone to condemn. This year try reading the list of the names of those lost in Iraq.
Yeah, that's right. When you're not doing well in a debate, completely change the subject. Politicians do it all the time. I think I'm perfectly capable of reading BOTH the ATN <and> mourning the loss of our service men and women. I can't imagine why you'd even bring that up in this discussion, except to change the subject.
And who is "afraid" of an ATC application? Not me. Most likely not a single one of us taking a view different than yours. I'm not even "afraid" of the dishonesty inherent in someone claiming that he or she hiked the whole A.T. when that wasn't true. But I am kinda pissed that it goes on, not "afraid" but rather disappointed that integrity takes a back seat. If I'm "afraid" of anything it might be that such a lack of integrity is becoming more the norm in our society, not just the Trail.
so if you blue blaze. you can't get the patch and can't claim "thru hiker" status. what about the GA>ME designation that usually goes with the hiker's name on register entries.
Virginian
11-17-2003, 22:57
If this subject is such a non-issue, why then did you post on it? The bottom line is,certificate or not, if you MADE THE CLAIM ,but did NOT do what you claimed, then you are a fraud. Its become so easy to ride on coattails in this country. So dont feel as though you have to defend yourself. Just be what you are. A fraud. I mean if you dont cheap,then why defend it at all ? :bse
White blaze/pack on back
So, blue blazing to go over another peak is OK?
Sure, as long as you back track and pick up where you left off at on the AT. :jump
The certificate you get from the ATC ain't no different from the degree from a matchbox. ANYBODY can get one. Patches and rockers are easy to get too. Lotsa posers out there. Join me at an ALDHA gathering and I'll point out the patch wearin, certificate bearing phonies. :D
Yeah, like Bill Bryson who wrote a book about it. What a joke, he's a LOSER.
If this subject is such a non-issue, why then did you post on it?
What are you talking about?
smokymtnsteve
11-17-2003, 23:25
Yeah, like Bill Bryson who wrote a book about it. What a joke, he's a LOSER.
and a very rich loser at that :sun
bill bryson did what he set out to do...write another best selling book.
and a very rich loser at that :sun
bill bryson did what he set out to do...write another best selling book.
White Blaze Fever by William Schuette, is a good read.
I don't know who he's been talking to, but I have to disagree with him. In the common lexicon, i.e. in the minds, language, and sensibilities of most folks in the hiking community, the phrase "thru-hiker" refers to someone who has hiked ALL of the A.T., and it does not refer to folks who, for whatever reason, opted to skip sections they found too difficult, onerous, or merely inconvenient.
This is fun, I usually don't disagree with Jack, so I'll dive in head first on this one. Actually, I don't think that we differ too much on opinion, but rather on symantics. Here goes.
When I provided my definition as to what a thru-hiker means in the common lexicon, I did NOT mean just the hiker community. I meant the general public, or more specifically the general public that is aware that there is such a thing as the Appalachian Trail. When talking to these people (friends, relatives, etc..) this whole notion of blue-blazing, faded-blazing (old AT), aqua-blazing, etc... is completly foreign. Usually all they want to know about is if you hiked from Georgia to Maine. Heck, you could even say that you skipped a 100 miles or so and their opinion of your achievement would not change.
However, the phrase refers specifically to those people who are in the process of hiking the whole thing, or have done so in the past. By Chomp's definition, someone who has hiked most of the A.T. by walking from Springer to Central Pennsylvania, or from Northern Virginia to Katahdin, in the common lexicon, is considered a thru-hiker.
OK, not quite, and I guess you have me here, Jack. When I said a thru-hiker means someone having hiked MOST of the trail, I didn't mean 60%. More like 95%, somewhere around that number. And of course here is the problem with my arguement - there is no hard, fast rule. Its wishy-washy. With Jack's definition, its easy - you either hiked every blaze, or you didn't. With mine, its very subjective.
However, remember that I am talking about these terms in general. Anyone who tried to pass themselves off as a 2000-miler to the HIKER community, and has not in fact hiked the entire AT is in fact doing a diservice to themselves and to those who have actually completed such a hike. But that is among us hikers more than anything - no among the general public.
"Most" does not mean entire or complete---by this logic, Chomp, if someone runs 25 1/2 miles of the Boston Marathon but chooses to skip the last 1/2 mile because they live in downtown Boston and have run that stretch twenty times previously, does this mean they've completed a Marathon? Or if someone sets out to summit Everest but turns around 900 feet short of the top because of fatigue or bad weather, can they in all honesty claim to have climbed the world's highest peak? I don't think so.
Ahh, but on this point I have you, Jack. The ATC has decided not to define the term thru-hiker. It can't state that more clearly. To claim that you finished the Boston Marathon is NOT equilivant to saying that you are a thru-hiker, it is equilivant to saying that you are a 2000-Miler. Now, for someone that didn't hike pure to claim that they are a 2000 Miler (to a hiker or to the general public), THAT would be a good analogy. However, for someone to claim they are a thru-hiker, when they might not have passed every white blaze, and might have missed a small section or two, well I honestly don't seem the harm. Even among the hiking community. We know that more people that not do not hike every white blaze. I also know that most people who are 2000 Milers are proud of their achievement, and usually add something like "Every blaze from GA to ME" or "Hiked it white the whole way through."
Here is the basic problem. There is a clear definition for a day hiker. There is a clear definition for a section hiker. And there is a clear definition for a 2000 Miler. But there is no clear definition for a thru-hiker. Now I propose a question for you, Jack. If someone completes 2140 miles of the AT in one year, takes 3 blue blazes and skips 2 ten mile sections and slackpacks a handful of times... what do you call them? Do you seriously propose that you call this person a Section Hiker? (and before anyone jumps down my throat, this is NOT a knock against section hikers...) Afterall, the definition of a section hiker is someone who hikes small to medium size chunks of the AT over the course of several years. At least in my mind.
While you could make an arguement that the person that I created is in fact a section hiker, I think that title is insufficent and misleading to describe this particular achievement. Again, I understand that the question "How much can you skip to be considered a thru-hiker?" is a subjective one, and that can be problematic. However, the ATC has clearly stated that the term 2000 Miler is someone who hiked the entire trail, not thru-hiker. I submit that if you don't like people using the term thru-hiker to describe an incomplete "2000 Mile" hike, than you at least need to provide another term other than Section Hiker to define what they have accomplished.
Tag, your it.
-chomp
Lone Wolf
11-18-2003, 04:02
Dee, You're pathetically ignorant. Have a nice day.
steve hiker
11-18-2003, 05:02
Pure to the Appalachian Trail, and impure to God?
Don't worry about Blue Blazing. Make sure you're not blazing a path to HELL.
Blue Jay
11-18-2003, 08:13
We don't need trail monitors! Remember this is still a free country. However, I personally will continue to pass every white blaze if I should thru hike again because this is my personal preference. :) Lighten up people please, a persons hike is there own and if they want to lie about it that is there bag! :bse
Just my thoughts! I first heard this speech from "let it be" three time triple crowner. :clap Hike for yourself not glory. If glory is what you seek go to Bagdad!!! :o
Thank you soooooooo much Alpine, you said it much better than I did. Comparing the AT to the Boston Marathon clearly shows why this is an issue. Many people think a thruhike is a competition, a way to prove superiority. I simply do not agree.
Youngblood
11-18-2003, 09:50
When I used to do day hikes with a group, I would often state that it was not a race, and then mumble "unless I finish first". I did this in jest. Often we see things differently. To some folks a hike from Georgia to Maine is an adventure they want to enjoy as much as possible on their own terms and they see the 'certificate' as a nice momento of their trip. Other folks hike from Georgia to Maine as if it were a mission and they follow more stringent rules on how they want to do it and they view the 'certificate' as a 'proof of performance'. I believe the latter group is in the minority, however, I also believe that they are often more vocal and passionate in their beliefs. At some point, and I think we have already reached it on this thread, we need to apply the old saying that "you are wasting your time trying to reason with fanatics or idiots" and just let it go. It is for each of us individually to decide who is the 'fanatics' and who is the 'idiots'. I think we all know. :-?
Youngblood
:banana I am proud to say I am Hiker Trash 100%. I do not see any harm in one person choosing to take a Blue blaze. In fact many times they are old trail and have just as much history than perhaps a relocated trail, relocated as already mentioned, due to trail corridors and politics. In 2000 I was one of only two (this includes myself) that did the Aqua blaze then returned to actually hike the part of the trail I missed. I wanted to experience both adventures. For me my hikes are adventures, It is my choice and they are my feet. I could care less about a certificate from the ATC. It is the experience and the people I meet along the way that I cherish. I will definatley agree those that yellow blaze and then claim to have hiked should be the ones most to recieve criticism. For those who want to hit every white blaze - go fot it, its their quest. When I first began long distance hiking I thought it was important to hike the whole trail and recieve that rocker as I did on the PCT. My hikes since have been for me and not others to make judgement. One of my favorite comments related to this subject of thru-hiking was made by a friend of mine that had gotten off the trail and mentioned he was through hiking - simply that done hiking. [COLOR=Navy]
Blue Jay,
Do you remember Rosie Ruiz? She was the woman who took the subway as part of her Boston Marathon run. It was hilarious.
If Rosie had been a family member or even a running partner, I would most certainly have felt differently. As it was, she was a complete stranger. Intellectually I may have disapproved of her lie, but I didn't really care.
When I hear that long-distance hikers make false representations to the ATC, I have got to admit that it does bug me, though. I think its because I feel a bond with that group as a whole. In some way, these reports chip away at that bond. Funny, but it does.
Its the yellow-blaze lies that chip away the most. Whether or not one walks across the highway after a hitch matters little to me. And while I tend to see things in black and white, the ATC was OK with Earl’s first “2000 Miler” claim, even though he wrote to them took alternative trails in the Whites , because his maps arrived in the mail too late. If they can offer him a bit a flexibility, I don't see why that's such a bad thing.
Anyway, that's my take.
Rick B.
(That, and the fact that NO THRU HIKER should be surprised by how the current 2000 Miler Application reads. For thier own sake, not mine.)
It is for each of us individually to decide who is the 'fanatics' and who is the 'idiots'. I think we all know. :-?
Youngblood
I don't even know who you're meaning to call an idiot here, but you should practice a bit of grammar yourself before calling others idiots LOL
:)
illininagel
11-18-2003, 12:41
I would like to start a (hopefully) lively thread on the pros and cons of blue and white blazing.
Well, I guess you got your wish. The thread has certainly been lively...
:clap
steve hiker
11-18-2003, 16:57
Not a word about blue blazing to church on Sundays?
Looks like you're all Red Blazing to HELL!!!
Looks like you're all Red Blazing to HELL!!!
HEY HEY HEY!!! Billville has already clearly established the exclusive rights to the Red Blaze! Associating Billville with going to Hell... well, thats just accurate.
micromega
11-18-2003, 17:34
I would like to start a (hopefully) lively thread on the pros and cons of blue and white blazing. I would especially like to hear from Lone Wolf and Baltimore Jack. I know it's all about philosophy but lets hear the arguments.
[FONT=Times New Roman
When all is said and done, the only thing thats important about a long distance hike is that the hiker comes away satisfied with result. Whether it's white blazes, blue, yellow, or any mix, nothing else really matters in the end.
Much of the acrimony about blazes centers on the conception that yellow and blue blazes are usually shorter and easier, thus used to 'cheat' by covering the same mileage or more with less exertion than those who stick with the white blazes. It's usually true that those trails are shorter and/or easier. And those who work harder on the AT will look down on those who skip the tough sections. But it isn't always true that a yellow or blue blaze trail is shorter or easier. One example - the yellow blazed Nuclear Lake Loop around Nuclear Lake near Pawling NY is not only more rugged, but also more scenic. If you stick with the AT at that section, you will walk along an old graded road and not really see all that much. Anybody who hikes all the way from Georgia and still has the cojones to tackle a tougher trail than the course given by the AT, my hat'll be off to them and heck with the blazes. It's a personal choice that each and every hiker will need to make for themselves.
And yet, the very definition of thru-hiking the AT is that you hike the entire length of the trail. By definition, white blazes all the way. That is a point of honor; if you say you are going to thru-hike the AT and especially if you crave the official recognition and attention for completing it, you really do need to hike the whole trail. You really do need to follow the white blazes.
Any argument on trail relocations is irrelevant to the subject because you can only hike the AT at the time of the hike. You can't hike the AT of last year, or next year. You can only thru-hike in the present, for better or for worse. Anything else belongs in the realm of wishful thinking.
For myself, I plan to someday do my own thru-hike. My intention at present is to do white blazes. That isn't to say I won't ever go on a blue or yellow trail, especially if there's something worth seeing down one of them. But I'd make a point of always coming back to the AT exactly where I left it.
I'm a realist, though, and I realize that such pure thougths are likely to suffer along the way. Whatever my intentions at the start, I expect the hike to grow and evolve along the way. If I felt the white blazes were constricting the experience, in some way stunting the growth of the hike, I don't doubt I would take measures to rectify the problem, even if those measures were blazed blue or yellow... As I said, the only meaningful and important thing in the end is how I feel when I look back. I do not crave the attention. I will not really need a piece of paper that tells me what I will already know.
But I won't say I thru-hiked the whole trail unless I actually did pass every white blaze. And I very likely will feel a twinge of disdain for those who didn't, but bask in the glory of a false accomplishment nonetheless. Which is not to belittle the accomplishment of anyone who hikes that many miles, because that is an accomplishment to be proud of. But to taint it with dishonesty in the end is a shame.
Youngblood
11-19-2003, 00:28
I AM the King of blue-blazing! :cool:
Lone Wolf,
These are serious questions. You have a lot of interesting history as the King of blue-blazing that I for one would be interested in knowing a little bit about. When I did my thru-hike one of my goals was to visit and spend some time in the towns along the way. Now, I am curious about other interesting ways of making the journey and am aware of efforts by organizations to offer alternate paths for major chunks of the AT. It is my understanding that this is being done to alleviate some of the overuse of the AT and to add some variety for hikers. I know the Benton MacKaye Trail Association is working on about a 250 mile trail network that connects to the AT at Springer and will reconnect in the Smokies. I also believe there are several other long parallel trail networks in the works. Anyhow, I think that blue-blazing can be a pretty interesting way of doing a thru-hike, especially if one has already been the 'white-blazing' route. Shucks, in some ways you are like an explorer or a scout finding new and interesting routes. It would be appreciated if you would share some of them. Maybe you can publish a trail guide to blue-blazing?
First question: What is the most blue-blazing miles you have put in on a single hike of the Appalachian Mountains in the USA?
Second question: What are your favorite blue-blazes? Why?
Third question: Are there any blue-blazes that you haven't done and want to do?
Fourth question: What is your longest continuous blue-blaze?
Fifth question: Do you know of anyone who has started in South Carolina and used the Foothills, Chattooga and Bartram Trails to connect to the AT and then continued northbound along the Appalachian Mountains? (This would make it a 15 state tour and was something I had in the back of my mind as a good start if I every get the chance to do an extended blue-blaze of the AT.)
Sixth question: What is the maximum number of states that you can visit on a blue-blazing hike of the Appalachian Mountains in the USA?
Thanks,
Youngblood
wow, this did get a lot of attention and i knew it would. the reason i posted this thread is because i hiked the AT in 2002 and i wanted to make a point. you see, i never intended to hike the AT as a purist. there was too much i wanted to see and the AT never really got off the ridges. so i went to a lot of different places (like cades cove, matthews arm trail, etc.) , that hooked back up with the AT (and some that didn't at all). i never applied for the certification. that was for the those who followed only the white blazes. i hiked for a wilderness experience and not a certification. my best advice to someone who is thinking about hiking the trail is "don't worry about the miles, because everyone will talk about them every day. oh and it's okay to blue blaze and explore a little. because there is a lot of pressure out there for you not to do so. and most certainly have fun." The pressure can sometimes override the experience for some and they bail out. i consider this a "social problem" and it should be fixed for future hikers. geek once told me in his first thru hike with ziggy that people would write in the registers if people left the shelter on a differnt path that they walked in on. Is that the kind of trail someone new wants to hike? as far as the nit picking bull**** goes with certification and all i'd have to agree with chomp. It's not in ATC's guidelines, so you can thru hike a town if you want to. and i don't think you should get the patch if you didn't follow the white blazes. but i also don't think you should hike from georgia to maine for a patch anyway. ...toodeloo...
Blue Jay
11-19-2003, 08:45
geek once told me in his first thru hike with ziggy that people would write in the registers if people left the shelter on a differnt path that they walked in on. Is that the kind of trail someone new wants to hike? as far as the nit picking bull**** goes with certification and all i'd have to agree with chomp.
I do believe some of you are starting to get it.
Rick, once again and again and again, the Trail is not a marathon, a race or even a competition. The more harmful fraud that continues in this argument (rant, whatever), is hikers who claim "I don't care" and then immediately start to explain exactly why they do care. Hiking from GA to ME for a certificate is just plain sad. Maybe some of you who enjoy ratting out other hikers should start to run races then you'll have a new group of people to watch.
"Rick, once again and again and again, the Trail is not a marathon, a race or even a competition."
It all of the above. Spending 4, 5 or 6 months out hiking is a marathon. At least by some definitions of the word. Its also a race. Those that finish push onward even though the conditions may suck and they have blisters and everything hurts. Its not a walk in the park whether you do the AT in 4 months or 6. People race against Baxter's schedule, the prospect of snow in the Smokies, and the dwinding balance in thier checkbook all the time. Not a competition? Perhaps not with others, but it sure is with yourself.
You can repeat again and again that hiking from Maine to Georgia just for a certificate is "just plain sad". But have you ever met ANYONE who did that. Not me. You need a different kind of motivation to walk 2000 miles.
But I'd wager you have met people who started out with a dream to hike from ME to GA who don't think of the trail as a marathon, or a race, or a competition with themselves, who decided skip sections. Thats OK. Really it is. But when these same people decide they want a certificate saying they hiked the entire AT, I find that "just plain sad". Its sad because by asking for a certificate it suggests that what the certificate says holds importance to them, and just hiking thier own hike wasn't enough.
And despite all those who say now they won't demand to be listed by the ATC as a 2000 Miler if they don't hike the whole Trail, I say just wait. You will. While it boggles my mind, that certification seems to hold exactly the same importance for those who did not do what it says as for those who did. You can say it should not matter at all, and I would agree with you 100%, but nearly everyone who starts at one end and gets to the other (somehow) demands one.
OK, if nothing else this thread does illustrate why this topic is the third rail if you are out in a shelter. Best to think abbout these things privately or post on the net (and maybe even not there), but not get sucked into these discussion when out hiking. I don't think that can be stressed enough.
Rick B
Jack Tarlin
11-19-2003, 14:39
Blue Jay seems to think there's something wrong with objecting to folks who lie about their trips....he refers to this as a "harmful fraud". You're missing the point, Blue Jay. The actual frauds are the ones who opted to take the easy way out, but then indignantly insist to friends, family members, other hikers, the ATC, etc., that they did something they actually didn't. Very few people care about what other people do out there Blue Jay; very few care about where someone goes, how he gets there, or what he's out there for. What a lot of folks DO care about, however, is people who feel the need to feel good about themselves by claiming to do something they haven't actually done, either because they were too tired, too lazy, or quite properly didn't feel at the time that it was a goal that mattered to them. The objection comes when these folks change their minds and demand to be recognized for an achievement that they simply didn't earn. And speaking of this matter or commenting on these fraudulent claims isn't "ratting "anyone out, as Blue seems to think; it's simply pointing out a very simple truth: Most of the folks who've claimed to have hiked the entire A.T. in recent years, and have gone out of their way to let the A.T.C. know this, have not actually done so.
And to Chomp, who asked "If someone completes 2140 miles of the AT in one year, takes 3 blue blazes and skips 2 ten-mile sections and slackpacks a handful of times....what do you call them?
Well, Chomp, I wouldn't call 'em anything.....this isn't about name-calling. But if you want to know how I'd DESCRIBE them, then I'd say that they were accomplished and dedicated hikers who should be commended for exploring places in addition to following the blazed Appalachian Trail; I'd also say that if they wish to claim to have thru-hiked the A.T., then they need to go back out for a few days and fill in some holes. "Entire" means just what it says....why is this simple word so difficult to understand? (And speaking of words and meanings, Chomp, in discussing our differences of opinion, you mis-spelled the word "semantics" which was pretty funny, considering what was under discussion!)
Blue Jay
11-19-2003, 15:46
"And despite all those who say now they won't demand to be listed by the ATC as a 2000 Miler if they don't hike the whole Trail, I say just wait. You will. While it boggles my mind, that certification seems to hold exactly the same importance for those who did not do what it says as for those who did. You can say it should not matter at all, and I would agree with you 100%, but nearly everyone who starts at one end and gets to the other (somehow) demands one.
Rick B
I've done every inch of the AT three times, except 100 miles between Lehigh Gap and the Doyle and 60 miles north of Perisberg which I've done twice. I have never and will never apply for the Matchbook Cover Diploma (thank you Lone Wolf) that is the ATC "Certificate". Now an ATC membership card, that is a valuable and important piece of paper. Do all of you purists have one of those? I hope so.
I now realize that I do not deserve the ATC recognition. It is not right for me to have a certificate that states I hiked the ENTIRE trail when I did not hike the ENTIRE trail. Having the certificate makes me a FRAUD, a LIAR, and a CHEATER. I certainly do not have an excuse for this, other than at the time I had assumed that 99% was good enough. I have contacted the ATC office via email to remove my name from 2,000-miler status and will destroy my certificate when I get off of work tomorrow morning. If you have the May 2003 issue of ATN then go ahead and mark my name off (page 15). I’m not being sarcastic or angry here. Just trying to correct something I did wrong. I really regret signing up for the certificate. I would like to comment on some of the points brought up however.
Max Patch, you can defend WF all you like. However, in the past four years I have seen him attempt to dictate how others think and what they say. His website, his trail. Given the opportunity, I’m sure he would dictate how people hike. It’s about perception and you won’t change my mind.
Virginian, if I cheapened your hike then I am sorry.
Warren Doyle, according to you Blue Blazes = shorter and easier routes. Shorter and Easier is responsible for the world’s pain and hurt (i.e. corporate greed, violence, and substance abuse). You have just equated blue blazers to drug addicts and violence. Makes about as much sense to say that the fast food/need it right now/immediate gratification attitude of our society is equal to those who do speed hikes and don’t take their time to enjoy the trail. Truth is, you could pave a concrete flat sidewalk between Springer and Katahdin, throw on a pack and it would still be a hard journey. If I really were going for shorter and easier then I would have stayed at home. I believe that you probably have more experience with the AT than anyone here, but completely disagree with your logic.
When I finished I did look forward to having my name in print and getting my certificate. An official piece of paper to symbolize the hike. Now I know that if I have the certificate or not, it does nothing to affect the hike that I had. I have no intention on hiking the 10 miles of AT I missed due to blue blazes. To do it over again I wouldn’t change my hike, but I wouldn’t have signed the form. I made a mistake.
It’s almost humorous that two people can take a nearly identical journey for six months. The difference in mileage may only be as much as 7 miles. However, the one that hikes the ENTIRE trail sees a much greater difference over the “lesser” one.
………….off to redblaze a path to hell.
Blue Jay
11-19-2003, 16:15
My last post was stupid. Of course purists are members of ATC. It's the only way you can get the sacred list so you can rat out infidels like Ganj (sarcasm here, Ganj is a thru in ever sense of the word). I work at Xmas time at EMS. A few years ago a young woman who worked with me "confessed" almost in tears to me she had missed a few miles on her thru. She was truly upset about it and was thrilled that I wasn't a purist. Purism is a disease that hurts hikers and must be stopped.
I've done every inch of the AT three times, except 100 miles between Lehigh Gap and the Doyle and 60 miles north of Perisberg which I've done twice. I have never and will never apply for the Matchbook Cover Diploma (thank you Lone Wolf) that is the ATC "Certificate". Now an ATC membership card, that is a valuable and important piece of paper. Do all of you purists have one of those? I hope so.
Let's see, BJ, you missed some miles but hiked your own hike, and that's a good thing. And you did not apply for the certificate, and that's a good thing. Seems like we're all on the same page now.
Oh and yeah, I've been an ATC member for about a decade. And PATC (lifetime member). And ALDHA. And even Rails to Trails.
Nightwalker
11-21-2003, 22:41
Not a word about blue blazing to church on Sundays?
Looks like you're all Red Blazing to HELL!!!
Will, you should really shut your hateful, spiteful, blaspheming mouth. Believe it or not, God even loves people like you!
Frank, trying to "be angry and sin not"
Will, you should really shut your hateful, spiteful, blaspheming mouth. Believe it or not, God even loves people like you!
Frank, trying to "be angry and sin not"
:confused: :-? :confused:
Blue Jay
11-24-2003, 08:43
Let's see, BJ, you missed some miles but hiked your own hike, and that's a good thing. And you did not apply for the certificate, and that's a good thing. Seems like we're all on the same page now.
No, you may be on the same page but you didn't read what you EVEN QUOTED. No wonder you have trouble understanding anything.
No, you may be on the same page but you didn't read what you EVEN QUOTED. No wonder you have trouble understanding anything.
BJ, I'm not sure why most everything you write has to be tainted with so much acrimony. It's not the way most folks on the A.T. talk or behave. But it's a free country.
From what I read (and quoted) it seems you missed the miles between Lehigh Gap and Duncannon and SINCE YOU DIDN'T SAY OTHERWISE I'm going to assume that would be on all three of your hikes. It seems you missed some miles north of Pearisburg on one of your hikes but in this instance you DID mention that you got them in on two of the three hikes. That's fine, you hiked your own hike. Didn't feel like doing Lehigh Gap to Duncannon, or couldn't for some reason. Cool.
Also cool that you didn't misrepresent yourself and apply to ATC for recognition. You'd certainly qualify for one certificate/listing in ATN if you went back and did Lehigh Gap to Duncannon, if I read your post accurately. ATC doesn't care if you did it all the same year, and doesn't even differentiate between thru-hikers and section hikers. We're all 2,000 milers to them (not a term to be taken literally BTW, just the traditional, historic designation that one has hiked the entire A.T. that goes back to the days when the A.T. was indeed closer to 2,000 miles long). Whether you choose to apply is, well, something you choose to do or choose not to do. The American way.
That's what I meant by saying I'm glad we're all on the same page--you hiked your own hike, a good thing; and you didn't misrepresent yourself, also a good thing.
Nightwalker
11-24-2003, 13:04
:confused: :-? :confused:
It's a Bible verse. That insano might or might not know it. Threw it in as an ironic-type quote, but it was kind of lame. :)
Just a few more thoughts about "misrepresenting oneself".
First, I strongly believe that a person contemplating a through hike should take a look at the "2000 Miler" application form before they hit the trail. The words on it shouldn't come as a surprise when they are given one in Baxter State Park. Not much more to add to that.
Second, people can justify anything they want to.
Third, The ATC didn't always have a form. In my case, my dad sent in a newspaper article. The ATC (and most everyone else) has no clue how I hiked the Trail, but they sent me a nice certificate. They didn't think to ask. When Earl Schaffer sent in his written report, it was subject to great scrutiny. And guess what? He went out of his way to tell the ATC that HE DID NOT hike all the official trail. WHy? Was it because he needed to bushwack? No. Was it because the trail was hard to find? No. It was simply because he had good maps to one of the most clearly mapped area (the Whites) sent to the post office late. He screwed up. Did the ATC care? Heck no. He was considered by all to be a 2000 Miler.
Fourth. Did the ATC EVER care about people taking one blue blaze into a shelter and another out of it when confiring 2000 Miler status on the hikers of the 60's and early 70s? I don't know. Perhaps Warren does. I doubt it, however. Plenty did it, but it was always a personal thing. Like Nomar with his gloves.
Fifth. There are two separate ways of looking at things. One is a legalistic, form generated approach, and the other is all about the spirtit of thu-hiking. For those of us who like to split hairs, it can be a fun but an "absurd" discussion. But it can also be hurtfull even if that is not our intent.
What is more "wrong": A person who feels he can not register as a 2000 Miler because he hiked the same kind of hike that Earl and countless other celebrated 2000 Milers hiked before him, or one who does register even if he does not meet the narrow definition of the current application but walked the whole way in the spirit of Earl Schaffer? I don't know. Does anyone? Can anyone?
Should we petition the ATC to revoke Earls' calim to be the first person to become a 2000 Miler on a thru hike? I don't think so!
Sixth. People who have yellow-blazed the AT should not ask to be registered as 2000 milers.
Seventh. Whether one agrees with the way the current 2000 Miler Application reads or not, many (most) people listed as 2000 Milers over the past 50 years could not meet its legalistic requirments, and an increasing number probably couldn't meet the spirit of those requirements.
Rick B
illininagel
11-24-2003, 14:18
First, I strongly believe that a person contemplating a through hike should take a look at the "2000 Miler" application form before they hit the trail.
Here's what the application states:
"ATC recognizes anyone who reports completion of the entire trail as a '2000 Miler.' The term '2000 Miler is a matter of tradition and convenience, based upon the original estimated length of the Trail. Conference policy is to operate on the honor system, assuming that those who apply for 2,000 Miler status have hiked all of the A.T. between Katahdin and Springer, not just 2,000 miles of it. In the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed high elevation stretch, blue-blazed trails or officially required roadwalks are considered viable substitutes for the white-blazed route. Issues of sequence, direction, speed, length of time, or whether one carries a pack or not are not considered. ATC assumes that those who apply have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail, even if they did not walk past every white blaze. Please respect those standards! It is essential to the ATC's practice of recognizing the true achievements of end-to-end hikers."
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/thru_hike/after.html
warren doyle
11-24-2003, 14:48
[QUOTE=rickboudrie]
Fourth. Did the ATC EVER care about people taking one blue blaze into a shelter and another out of it when confiring 2000 Miler status on the hikers of the 60's and early 70s? I don't know. Perhaps Warren does. I doubt it, however. Plenty did it, but it was always a personal thing. Like Nomar with his gloves.
Rick,
To the best of my knowledge, the ATC 2,000-miler certification committee was disbanded after the 1972 hiking season because of the increase of thru-hikers.
As I stated before in this thread, there were not many shorter and easier blue-blaze alternative trails until the NPS AT land acquisition kicked into gear in the mid-to-late 70's.
In my opinion, there was a stronger 'honor the white blaze' mentality among my fellow thru-hikers in the early 70's. I also feel that many hikers would feel that there is a difference between 'skipping' 100 yards of the AT because of different trails to and from a shelter as opposed to the three examples of common blue-blazing contained in my initial reply to this thread (which has been a fascinating read - thank you whiteblaze.net!)
(which has been a fascinating read - thank you whiteblaze.net!)
what? whiteblaze.net? didn't i post this thread? where's my credit? why didn't i get a patch? :p
TJ aka Teej
11-27-2003, 22:45
I tried to stay away from this thread, honest I did.
Hike your own hike. Just don't fib about it.
You might end up being quoted in a book saying you had 10 thruhikes. Then starting a website saying you had 7 and that gave you the right to judge other people's hikes. Then saying 6 when you have 7 framed certs on the wall. Then saying maybe kinda sorta not all your hikes were 'pure' after all. Then never explaining how you could hike so many miles over so many years without meeting very many people. It's a long trail but a small world, y'know.
Warren listed some famous sections that are skipped by thruhikers, and I'll add a few from up around here. 1) Mt Washington. Every year lots of AT hikers ditch down Tuckerman's Ravine and take the gondola up Wildcat. 2) Gorham. The famous hitchhike in/hitchhike out option - down to Rte 2 after Madison hitching North into town, and hitching North outta town to the Trailhead. 3) Monson. Keith Shaw is notorious for picking up hikers after the ford South of town and later delivering them up the highway where the 100 Wilderness starts.
Want to know why the Birches at Katahdin is for "Long Distance" hikers, and not "Through Hikers"? To stop involving the Park Rangers in the bickering between so-called purists and alledged blue blazers over who had a "right" to stay there. So now the rule is simple: Hike in from Monson and you can stay.
I've hiked past lots of white blazes, some of them dozens of times. Will I ever hike past every single blaze tween Springer and Baxter Peak in one season? Nope, I have no intention of doing that. If you've done it, super. If you've tried, wonderful. If you want to, even better. It's an amazing acomplishment, one that very few AT hikers have been able (or willing) to do.
Here is the response I recieved from the ATC when I asked to be deleted from their 2,000 miler list.
.
.
.
.
.
Hi, Jason--
We appreciate your honesty and integrity in informing us that
you blue-blazed twenty miles of the A.T.
For a few years that ATC said we expected that those applying
for 2,000-miler status had "hiked every mile of the Trail."
We later dropped this phrase, because we realized how
unrealistic that criterion was. Many of even the most serious,
well-intentioned hikers end up missing or skipping a few
miles here and there. Rather than removing you from our
database, we'd rather you make an honest effort to make up
those missing miles as soon as it is reasonably convenient,
however long that may take.
And, practically speaking, we have no formal procedures for
revoking 2,000-miler status. Your name has already been published
in the Appalachian Trailway News, and we can't reverse that.
We could remove you from our database, but that would
cause unwarranted confusion in our record-keeping.
Frankly, you would have to have blue-blazed more than twenty
miles to make that worthwhile.
Let this be an excuse to do just a little more hiking on the A.T.
Sincerely,
Laurie Potteiger
Information Services Coordinator
Appalachian Trail Conference
Harpers Ferry, WV
(304) 535-6331
mailto:
[email protected]
http://www.appalachiantrail.org
TJ aka Teej
11-27-2003, 23:33
Let this be an excuse to do just a little more hiking on the A.T.
I like her attitude, ganj! A very thoughtful, non-judgemental, and quite reasonable response.
The Old Fhart
11-28-2003, 00:15
[quote-Jack Tarlin}
“Each year, the A.T. is a very unique, very defined entity, clearly mapped, marked, signed, and blazed: You know when you're on it, and you absolutely know when you've left it. It runs from from Springer to Katahdin.” (for NOBOs, Jack)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
I’m afraid I’m only going to muddy the waters further but here is my take on this topic. I would say that by the pure definition of hiking the entire official A.T. that there is probably no one who has ever really done it. Jack’s statement above is false as well. When I thru-hiked in ’98 I made every effort to follow the white blazes, not because I thought that it would make me a better person, but because early in my previous A.T. hike I stayed at a shelter and went back on the same half of the shelter loop I hiked in on because there was a spring at the loop’s junction with the A.T.. The person I was hiking with thought I had hiked back out the same way so I wouldn’t miss one inch of the trail and started ranting about being a purist, etc.. I got so much pleasure out of yanking his chain that I continued to hike out the same way each time just so I could enjoy watching his reaction. I continued to do this and it became a habit I couldn’t, and didn’t want, to break. So in ’98 I made great effort to follow THE trail. Unfortunately the trail didn’t cooperate. At one paved road crossing I had to turn right then take a left back into the woods and I am very careful to watch for blazes as it is very easy to miss one and continue down a road too far. I saw my white blaze that lead me down over a bank and several more white blazes that took me over some rather rough trail until I hit a woods road in about 100 yards. To my surprise, the woods road was white blazed in both directions, the right leading back to the paved road I just crossed, and the left continuing north. What I found was not one but two white blazed sections about 100 yards long. A SOBO would have followed the woods road, which was obvious from that end, but a NOBO could, by chance, hit either one. The Lemon Squeezer in NY is another place where there are 2 parallel white blazed trails that the guides acknowledge. There are always several sections on the trail where there are relos and the trail crews have just painted over the first blaze or two on the old section of trail, not realizing that someone hiking in early spring could see far enough through the open woods to see the third blaze, and take the old trail which quite often isn’t brushed out.
When the bridges north of Laurel Falls were washed out in early ’98 there was a note posted on the trail saying the blue blazed side trail to the shelter was the “official” trail and to use that and the old railroad bed to where the A.T. went over Pond Mountain even though it wasn’t white blazed. Jack is familiar with this section because he was one of the volunteers helping Bob Peoples construct ladders and clear that old section of railroad bed. In ’98 the Konnerock trail crew was working on a relo that turned left just north of Trimpi shelter and rejoined the A.T. about 1 mile north near an old farm. The relo wasn’t blazed white but hikers were instructed to use that as the official trail and I know people who have hiked either way. I could go on and on and I’m sure everyone can think of another example as well. I won’t even get into the legality walking around blowdowns or cutting switchbacks.
Although we don’t need trail monitors there is one well-known hiker who put his own register on the trail in the middle of a swamp near Front Royal that was commonly skipped by a short road walk to check on who would sign in or skip that section.
Three of us hiking north had to get to the P.O. in Harpers Ferry before it closed for the long Forth of July holiday. We got a ride in and back at RT 7 from a day hiker who knew the area and picked us up where the A.T. hit RT 7 from the south and let us off at where the trail leaves RT 7 to the north. There is a couple of hundred yards of road walk that we would miss so I backtracked so I could say I did it. The others didn’t and I saw nothing wrong with that but missing a short section like this is a very common practice when getting off and rejoining the trail. How many people do you think miss the section from the bath house/ boat launch to the Fontana Hilton shelter? That short section shows a lot less use than the trail on either side of it.
The most blatant case of blue-blazing I saw was when I started in 2000 and Nimblewill Nomad had given me a ride to USFS 42, 0.9 miles N of Springer, and walked to the summit and back with me. As we were in the parking lot saying goodbye a shuttle dropped off a father and his 2 sons who immediately started hiking north. This puzzled us so we talked to the driver who said that, against his advise, they were thru hiking north but didn’t have enough time to hike to the start of the trail at Springer. Their very first decision on their thru hike was to skip what, to many, is the most important part.
If there isn’t one unique trail but several choices along the way and even the best intentioned purist could miss a turn and follow a section that rejoined the trail a few yards, or a few hundred yards, ahead; can you still say that they are a 2000 miler? If a hiker unintentionally and unknowingly makes a minor mistake but makes their best effort to follow the white blazes can they say that they are a 2000 miler? If that is the case, and Jack is wrong stating there can be no wiggle room on the definition of “entire”, then being a 2000 miler is subjective because each hiker’s effort and skill will be different than the next. Even if a hiker knowingly skips a section it doesn’t necessarily cheapen their hike, only the way others may view it. They may be perfectly comfortable with their decisions.
So am I saying I hiked the whole trail? No, but I feel that I’ve probably come as close as humanly possible and I’m satisfied with that and view no one else’s hike any less worthy than mine. This is a question like: “how many angels can stand on the head of a pin”. I realize that there are a couple on the forum who possess THE TRUTH and probably can (and will) answer that rhetorical question but the rest of us mortals will be stuck discussing the finer points of hiking until we get back on the trail and we forget about all this minutiae.
I'm not trying to drag on, just add a quick thing about Old Farhts post. He is correct. Even if one has the best of intentions, you could never really say you walked every inch of the way, its almost impossible. There must be a certanin amount of luck in it.
For instance:
I walked with two guys who were anal purists. If they by chance missed a few feet they would walk back and rehike it etc. Well, one day they were eating at the Bear Mtn Inn and made sure they finished lunch before the Zoo closed. Well for some reason the Zoo closed a half hour earlier. The official AT is blazed thru the zoo. There is an alternative route around the zoo after its closed. Point is, they had to walk around, which I believe does not have white bllazes (ive never hiked it). After that there so called purism was ruined in their minds.
and yeah those 2 white blazed options at Lemon Squeezer is weird. Its a bit disconcerting to drag your butt up that steep cliff and then see a white blaze trail right around it. I always hike the fun way anyway :)
Simply, do what you want, HYOH and lets end this thread!
Nightwalker
11-28-2003, 19:19
Simply, do what you want, HYOH and lets end this thread!
This is the thread that will never end!
:-)
Frank
Rain Man
12-01-2003, 01:46
Simply, do what you want, HYOH ...
May I play dumb and ask what "HYOH" means? This is one I haven't run across!
Thanks! :)
Rain Man
Uncle Wayne
12-01-2003, 08:14
May I play dumb and ask what "HYOH" means? This is one I haven't run across!
Thanks! :)
Rain Man
Hike your own hike. :D
Blue Jay
12-01-2003, 08:49
May I play dumb and ask what "HYOH" means? This is one I haven't run across!
Thanks! :)
Rain Man
This is a mythical term. Very few "Hike Their Own Hike" as this thread proves. It's actually HYOHB..... (hike your own hike but.....).
Rain Man
12-01-2003, 13:29
This is a mythical term. Very few "Hike Their Own Hike" as this thread proves. It's actually HYOHB..... (hike your own hike but.....).
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh...... Hike Your Own Hike. Of course! DUH.
Thanks!
Rain Man
This is a mythical term. Very few "Hike Their Own Hike" as this thread proves. It's actually HYOHB..... (hike your own hike but.....).
It's hike your own hike, but don't force anyone else to hike your hike.
Lone Wolf
12-01-2003, 17:47
"Hike your own hike. But I'll talk about you behind your back to other hikers and call you a cheater". :cool:
-Type A purist hiker
warren doyle
12-02-2003, 10:04
[QUOTE=A-Train]
I walked with two guys who were anal purists. If they by chance missed a few feet they would walk back and rehike it etc. Well, one day they were eating at the Bear Mtn Inn and made sure they finished lunch before the Zoo closed. Well for some reason the Zoo closed a half hour earlier. The official AT is blazed thru the zoo. There is an alternative route around the zoo after its closed. Point is, they had to walk around, which I believe does not have white bllazes (ive never hiked it). After that there so called purism was ruined in their minds.
When I get to the zoo and it is locked, I step under the gate and then either go around the fence (or climb over it) and step on my previous 'footstep' and continue through the zoo until I surmount the final fence in a similar fashion. Along the way I talk to Walt (Whitman) about the 'song of the open road', especially emphasizing the part about 'the long brown path before me leading wherever I choose.'
It is just a question of how much we as animals want to be trapped in cages and how much we want to be free
"either go around the fence (or climb over it) and step on my previous 'footstep' and continue through the zoo until I surmount the final fence in a similar fashion."
Thank God you were able to stick you foot through ;-).
What do you think about taking a boat across the Kennebec? I hear its got a blaze painted on the bottom of it now, but it didn't always. Did your approach to crossing the river change when the ATC did that?
In your 12 hikes I am assuming there must have been a time or two when logging wiped out all evidence of the Trail. What did you do, guess?
Did there ever come a time in the Whites when it was so foggy that you hiked from cairn to cairn without regard to whether or not you left the marked footpath by a few feet? Thats probably more of an issue for those hiking with snow on the ground but I can see it happening in traditional thru-hiker season; I am just wondering.
Ever wait out a rattlesnake? Or refuse to walk around a hive of bees?
Any other stories (my greatest curiosityis with regard to your approach over the Kennebec).
FWIW, to me this is the "fun" part of a discussion over purism. Just so long as we are able to laugh at ourselves and with our friends in good humor. These questions are posted in that spirit.
[QUOTE=rickboudrie]"either go around the fence (or climb over it) and step on my previous 'footstep' and continue through the zoo until I surmount the final fence in a similar fashion."
Thank God you were able to stick you foot through ;-).
What do you think about taking a boat across the Kennebec? I hear its got a blaze painted on the bottom of it now, but it didn't always. Did your approach to crossing the river change when the ATC did that?
In your 12 hikes I am assuming there must have been a time or two when logging wiped out all evidence of the Trail. What did you do, guess?
Did there ever come a time in the Whites when it was so foggy that you hiked from cairn to cairn without regard to whether or not you left the marked footpath by a few feet? Thats probably more of an issue for those hiking with snow on the ground but I can see it happening in traditional thru-hiker season; I am just wondering.
Ever wait out a rattlesnake? Or refuse to walk around a hive of bees?
Any other stories (my greatest curiosityis with regard to your approach over the Kennebec).
FWIW, to me this is the "fun" part of a discussion over purism. Just so long as we are able to laugh at ourselves and with our friends in good humor. These questions are posted in that spirit,
Rick B
(Who was waiting to be picked up at at Springer exactly 20 years ago, this minute. My folks were at the bottom of the hill, but no way was I going to walk all the way down there. I was done.)
warren doyle
12-02-2003, 11:23
Hello Rick,
1) Bear Mt. Zoo - actually I step under the gate/fence not 'through' the fence since my feet are size 12.
2) Kennebec River crossing - I have always forded the Kennebec (almost all thru-hikers did up to 1985). It is important to me to walk under my own power between the summits of Springer and Katahdin. The 'trail' crossing of the Kennebec was moved about 300 yards downriver in the mid-80's so the canoe would have deeper water to navigate in making it more dangerous (ironically)for someone who wants to walk the entire trail to ford it.
How I ford the Kennebec? I walk into the water's edge where the 'trail' goes into the river. I then walk along the river bank about 100 yards upstream where under the proper river level conditions (almost always in the early morning) I cross the river utilizing the 'rock bars' that extend more than halfway across the river. After fording the river I walk 100 yards downstream to where the 'trail' comes out of the river and continue on.
The logic/rationale behind the white blaze on the canoe's bottom is flawed in my opinion and counter to my desire to walk under my own power the entire distance.
I consider the 'fact' that the Kennebec River is unsafe to cross a 'myth' conjured up by 'liability-fearful' organizations that just want to cover their respective rear ends. I put it in the same overreacting 'mind-frame' as the 'duct-tape/plastic sheeting' institutional response to terrorism and the 'duck and cover'/bomb shelter mentality of the 'Communist' threat. By the way, both my children forded the Kennebec for the first time when they were 8 and 10 y.o. respectively. "Learn wildness and you don't fear anything, except people afraid." Thoreau.
3) I never had the experience of logging wiping out the whole trail. I have negotiated some natural disaster damage caused by hurricanes/tornados/landslides.Obviously you cannot follow the actual trail footpath in these situations but I have never walked a road around the 'damaged/destroyed' section. I saw it as a challenge that would take more time to do but which also would make me more aware of the power of nature which I respect and trust more than the power of our societal institutions.
4) Above timberline up north in 'white-out' conditions? I go from cairn-to-cairn.
5) Seeing I am allergic to bee stings, I walk around bee nests as I would walk around a blowdown and a stubborn rattlesnake.
6) I agree with you Rick that it should be fun and that we should laugh at ourselves. Anyone who has attended my storytelling sessions or "The Hiking Game"/"Trail Jeopardy" game shows I emcee at the Gatherings would attest to that.
Happy trails!
"How I ford the Kennebec? I walk into the water's edge where the 'trail' goes into the river. I then walk along the river bank about 300 yards upstream where under the proper river level conditions (almost always in the early morning) I cross the river utilizing the 'rock bars' that extend more than halfway across the river."
Hmmm.
When you walk so far up stream to find an easier/more convenient/safer place to cross the river, do you make certain not to, at the very least, leave the protected/designated AT corridor?
Is that something that would even be important to you? Staying within the coridor, I mean. Seems to me, I've heard that from people who take different paths into and out of shelters.
I am thinking that if you walk down stream far enough you will come across a bridge. Would that be much different? Plenty of bridges right on the AT.
I suppose one could do much the same thing when walking into and out of a town, and skip the part of the AT that most directly connects the blazes on two sides of a highway. So long as you really didn't feel compelled to hike the whole AT, I mean. ;-).
Rick B
(FWIW, new hikers should be aware that one hiker drowned on the Kennebek in 1986, before the Ferry was designated to be part of the official route by the ATC. More than a few others have gotton a scare there. A Dangerous place? Everything is relative. I am guessing that Warren didn't send his kids up on ahead to cross the river (so as to experience the joys of route finding and self reliance) as he enjoyed another helping of blueberry pancakes, however. Then again, who knows? Them pankakes are good.)
warren doyle
12-02-2003, 14:43
"When you walk so far up stream to find an easier/more convenient/safer place to cross the river, do you make certain not to, at the very least, leave the protected/designated AT corridor?
Is that something that would even be important to you? Staying within the coridor, I mean. Seems to me, I've heard that from people who take different paths into and out of shelters."
I don't worry too much about the 'corridor' theme. I just follow the white blazes as common sense dictates, with 'a clear, and present danger' to myself (as I define it - not someone else)and the people I'm responsible for as the deciding factor. As to the Kennebec, I don't know whether it is possible to have a finite corridor in a river bed.
"(FWIW, new hikers should be aware that one hiker drowned on the Kennebek in 1986, before the Ferry was designated to be part of the official route by the ATC. More than a few others have gotton a scare there. A Dangerous place? Everything is relative."
Yes danger is relative. More people have been murdered on the AT than have drowned in the Kennebec yet the murder sites have not been declared an 'unofficial' part of the trail. And how about the section of AT from the shelter on Cove Mt. (just south of Duncannon) to Harpers Ferry that the double murderer hiked undetected by NPS/ATC for several days after his crime until tracked down by concerned members of the thru-hiker community who were later praised a citizen-heroes by the PA and FL State Police but were described as 'vigilantes' by the ATC?
As I stated before, this white blaze on the bottom of the canoe/official route logic is just a politically and liability charged solution. If other hikers don't want to walk the 100 yards or so across the Kennebec they have a safe and sound solution. I consider fording the Kennebec a safe and sound solution for myself - one that I find challenging, exhilarating, memorable, refreshing, adventurous but never scary (even at 2am in the morning).
"I am guessing that Warren didn't send his kids up on ahead to cross the river (so as to experience the joys of route finding and self reliance) as he enjoyed another helping of blueberry pancakes, however. Then again, who knows? Them pankakes are good.)[/QUOTE]"
Your guess is correct. I am a better judge than the government of what is safe or not for my children. By the way, I never had the blueberry pancakes.
The Old Fhart
12-02-2003, 14:44
Warren Doyle quote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I get to the zoo and it is locked, I step under the gate and then either go around the fence (or climb over it) and step on my previous 'footstep' and continue through the zoo until I surmount the final fence in a similar fashion. Along the way I talk to Walt (Whitman) about the 'song of the open road', especially emphasizing the part about 'the long brown path before me leading wherever I choose.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you have the wrong Whitman poem; you must mean “Song of Myself” which opens with: “I celebrate myself,” because what you are describing, once again, is an illegal self-centered act. The zoo is closed and you describe breaking and entering as a perfectly logical course of action because the laws do not apply to you and only interfere with your goal to do the trail your way. I can not believe that you continually feel that you can put yourself above the law while preaching to others to follow the rules. Hike your own hike doesn’t mean you can disregard any thing you like. With freedom comes responsibility and to control sociopathic behavior like yours is why we have rules, laws, locked gates, and police.
Good points about the Kennebec crossing. Knowing a little more about the river now, I'd probably do thing differently next time I need to cross there.
Reading your comments, Warren, I wish that the Companion or Wingfoot would point out the alternative to the canoe crossing. And also that the water usually doesn't come up before mid morning because that's when the open the gates upstream for the rafting crowd.
Pancakes? you never had breakfast at Harrison's Pierce Pond Camps?
TJ aka Teej
12-02-2003, 18:02
As I stated before, this white blaze on the bottom of the canoe/official route logic is just a politically and liablity charged solution.
A free canoe service (http://www.matc.org/matcq&a.htm#ferry) ferries A.T. users across the Kennebec River at designated hours from late May through mid-October, and is the Trail's official and historic route. The A.T. was routed here by Myron Avery to take advantage of exisiting boat traffic ferrying people to sporting camps. If you want to say you've traveled the official route of the A.T. for the ENTIRE trail, you must take the canoe ride. If you don't, it's not honest to say you've done the ENTIRE trail. If you choose bypass the official route and claim you've done the ENTIRE trail you're just another blue-blazer trying to justify your actions.
Your values may vary.
Bankrobber
12-02-2003, 18:35
Warren,
I would like to hear the story about hikers capturing murderers.
TJ aka Teej
12-02-2003, 19:00
I wish that the Companion or Wingfoot would point out the alternative to the canoe crossing. And also that the water usually doesn't come up before mid morning because that's when the open the gates upstream for the rafting crowd.
Fording directions were in the Philosopher's Guide and were posted at Pierce Pond lean-to even before that. Maret took the directions out of the guide after Alice drowned, and dedicated the next year's guidebook to her memory. Fording directions will not be put in the Companion as long as I write this section. WF doesn't include them? Good for him!
Dam releases this year varied from 4500 cfs to 8000 cfs, from one to three times a day. On the first release an actual wave comes down the river, resulting in an additional depth of 8-10 feet in 15 minutes.
There were only a handful of near drownings this year, with one hiker being rescued over a mile downsteam after a man mowing his yard noticed him clinging to a midstream boulder.
Thanks TJ. I stand corrected. I only say the crossing at low water. I never say it at high water, or when the 8 to 10 foot tidal wave came down stream. I really comes up that much?
Lone Wolf
12-03-2003, 09:50
I've hung out many times at the crossing and never saw a "wave" coming down the river. It just doesn't happen. I've forded that river a bunch of times in both directions. Nothing to it.
Even if you were to hang out by the river many times, I am not sure that one would be in a position to draw any conclusions.
If I am not mistaken, releases vary not only by season, but by day of the week (in an effort to satisfy those who enjoy rafting on the river). On top of that, I think they have at least one very large release during the summer to test the turbines.
I guess what I am saying is that Wolf would have to sit by the river an awfully long time before I'd accept his conclusions regarding the river. What ever one's decision regarding the Kenebec, it should be well informed.
Its not so much that any one indivisual's risk is huge, but rather that with so many individual's crossing the chance that one of them will get unlucky is.
I am glad TJ was able to post one recent example. I'll bet there are plenty more.
Rick B
" If you want to say you've traveled the official route of the A.T. for the ENTIRE trail, you must take the canoe ride. If you don't, it's not honest to say you've done the ENTIRE trail. If you choose bypass the official route and claim you've done the ENTIRE trail you're just another blue-blazer trying to justify your actions.."
TJ,
I have no problem taking the canoe or fording, but I wonder why you are so vehement about insisting that hikers cannot hike from Springer to Katahdin. I notice in your post that you carefully avoid using the word "walk" or "hike" saying that if one wants to TRAVEL the entire trail, one must use the canoe. Many of us want to WALK from Springer to Katahdin. Why must we sit on our butts in a conveyance being CARRIED over part of the trail in order to say we hiked from GA to ME, but if we actually hike from GA to ME we must not be allowed to say so? There is a logic problem here.
You are also incorrect in your statement that if we don't do the canoe thing we are just another blue-blazer trying to justify our actions, though I think you are aware of this falsehood. There are different possible philosophies at work here, and none may be 100 percent correct, but ridiculing a differing opinion or manipulatively assigning a contemptuous reason for another's thought process is not helpful to those of us who are honestly trying to make sense of the situation and come to the conclusion that best fits our hike.
It sounds from an earlier post that you are in some sort of official capacity in the ATC? Do you mind telling me your connection with the ATC?
Lumber Jack
The point that TJ is making is valid, and I agree. The ATC has decided that the official trail is the canoe. That is pretty much the end of the story, there is no debating this fact.
Me personally, I took all sorts of interesting detours. Anybody remember the 2 wire bridge in Maine? Its gone now (so I have heard) but its not the official trail, yet I took it. I also forded the Kennebec, which was a great experience. The river depth was not a problem, nor was the current particularly strong. But those rocks! Those slippery ricks made for a very interesting time! It certainly can add a certain element to your hike.
However, if you ford the Kennebec, you will no long be a 2000 Miler. Just like hiking an old section of the AT (Faded-Blazing) is not considered acceptable for 2000 Miler status, neither should fording the Kennebec. Again, its fun, and I'd recommend it, but its not a purist thing to do.
You can disagree with the ATC's reasoning for moving the trail from the ford to the canoe, but you cannot dispute the fact. If you forded the river, you have not completed the entire AT. That is a fact.
If this is unpalitable to you, or doesn't make any sense, then fine. However, than you have no ground to stand on and judge those who take several blue blazes and still apply for 2000 Miler status. You are no different then them, you just draw different lines in the sand. Its all or nothing with the 2000 Miler status, and the official trail is a canoe. Either you have to accept that blue-blazers (not yellow blazers) can in good faith apply for a 2000 Miler status, or that your own 2000 Miler status is invalid. One or the other, you can't have both.
Bankrobber
12-03-2003, 11:28
When I went thru this summer, I heard from locals that the dam gates are not opened up until around 9 am. If you get there early enough, you can get across. I wouldn't know, considering that I took the canoe across. I didn't meet any Northbounders who successfully forded it. A few told me that they tried, but turned back before they got too far out.
If ATC really does not want people to try to cross, they are going to have to have the canoe run almost all day. This might be financially impossible. Thru-hikers feel invincible at that point, and I don't see them waiting around for almost four hours for the ferry. Inevitably some of them are going to try to cross in the high water.
Blue Jay
12-03-2003, 11:40
Oh, now we have the purest of the pure. Not only do you hike every inch of the trail but you HAVE to ride in a canoe. Hundreds of purists have just been wiped out. They are no longer thruhikers. I am soooo sad for them, they came so close.
illininagel
12-03-2003, 14:09
However, if you ford the Kennebec, you will no long be a 2000 Miler.
Wow! And I thought I was supporting the purist's view. If I forded the river, I would definitely have no problem whatsoever applying for the certificate. I would have covered the exact same route. The only difference is that I elected to take the more difficult method of crossing one of the rivers rather than taking a ride across that river.
The only reason that the official stance is to not award a certificate here is to minimize the risk assumed by hikers. They certainly wouldn't want to feel responsible in any way for people drowning because the canoe would negate their "official" hike.
I'm assuming that the direction that this thread is heading is intended to be more of a joke. No one would deny someone their certificate for fording the river versus taking the canoe---would they? :D
Blue Jay
12-03-2003, 14:24
Wow! And I thought I was supporting the purist's view......No one would deny someone their certificate for fording the river versus taking the canoe---would they? :D
I would, those damn slackers. Anyone refusing to use the sacred canoe should be chloroformed, tied up and forced to paddle the canoe with their teeth. The nerve of some people. I have a new pet peive (what the hell is a peive anyway, and why would you want to pet one?)
The only reason that the official stance is to not award a certificate here is to minimize the risk assumed by hikers.
I'm assuming that the direction that this thread is heading is intended to be more of a joke.
First off, I am NOT joking, I am totally serious. Those who believe strongly in those who claim to have thru-hiked and apply for 2000 Miler status have made their case very well known.. and I agree. But once you make your case that applying for the certificate means that you have hiked the ENTIRE trail, well there is no leeway in that statement.
you can't then go accepting different BLUE BLAZES as part of the ENTIRE trail just because you don't like the decision on where the trail goes.. in this case, over a canoe. For example, the GMC moved the AT/LT off of Sherbourne Pass and down the road a bit. I know for a FACT that the ONLY reason that they relocated the trail was the potential for future development on the Killington/Pico ski areas. That is the ONLY reason. So, if someone was to take the Sherbourne Trail down to the Inn at LT and back out, clearly Blue Blazing, can that person apply for a 2000 Milers certificate?
From the responses on this thread, I'd say that the answer is clearly no. So if you're not going to make exceptions for instances like that, then you CANNOT make an exception on the canoe.
As I said before, I am not a purist and I did not take the canoe. I am just saying that you can't be a purist AND ford the Kennebec. And if you somehow resolve these two things in your head, then you are a hypocrite.
Lone Wolf
12-03-2003, 14:57
What if use your own flotation device? A friend in 88 carried an inner tube and pump. When he got to the river, blew it up and floated across.
Blue Jay
12-03-2003, 15:02
Chomp, I'm glad you brought that reloc up. You are correct, the reason for that reloc which took the trail off the ridge (a much more scenic to say nothing about HISTORIC) trail, was the POTENTIAL for FUTURE development. It also by passed the Inn At the Long Trail, in my opinion one of the must go to (if only for the beer) historic places on the trail. You are right, the poor purists must hike the stone boring reloc for such a sad reason. Purism, like most religions is one of extreme sacrifice.
TJ aka Teej
12-03-2003, 15:21
Peaks - the wave is 3-4 feet with the following body of water accounting for the sustained increase in river depth, the rafters think it's fun to be on the water when it comes. You're right about release results varying. River depth and rate of flow are 'fluid' figures due to the nature of nature, too.
L. Wolf - yup, the first release produces a wave,
Frosty Lumber Jack - I volunteer to write for the Companion. I do the section from south of Caratunk to Katahdin. The ATC, not me, has designated the Canoe Ferry as the official route of the A.T.
Chomp - Oh yeah, those river bottom rocks are greasy! The trick there is to aim for the eroded cut in the 'north' riverbank, there's a hole just before it though.
Bankrobber - I think the solution is a footbridge, built cable-style like the old one that was above Abol Bridge.
Blue Jay - how can they be 'purists' if they didn't follow the official route?
Illininagel - no one denys certificates at the ATC, if you send in for one, they'll send one back.
And about 'purists' while we're at it - the A.T. was put across the Kennebec at Caratunk to take advantage of the existing boats there. The early hikers took boats across the river, as they did at several ponds in Maine. To take the canoe is to be true to the 'old school' A.T. :O) And, if going under your own power concerns you, there's always an extra paddle.
Lone Wolf
12-03-2003, 15:26
There may be a wave at the release point but you ain't gonna see it by the time the water reaches the AT crossing.
Bankrobber
12-03-2003, 15:45
After maintaining a strong lead initially, it looks like the purists have been defeated in this thread.
Bankrobber
12-03-2003, 15:47
Sorry for that obnoxious post. I couldn't help myself.
illininagel
12-03-2003, 15:55
After maintaining a strong lead initially, it looks like the purists have been defeated in this thread.
Well, even purism has its degrees, I guess.
TJ aka Teej
12-03-2003, 16:22
After maintaining a strong lead initially, it looks like the purists have been defeated in this thread.
I'm not sure about that :O) What is 'purism' after all? Is it the hiker who makes the effort, due to personal conviction, to hike past every white blaze? Is it holding the opinion that only those who hike the entire route are true 2000 milers? Is it boycotting the ATC certification because they give certs to blueblazers? Is a single season hike 'purer' than a ten year section hike? Is an I-carried-my-full-pack-every-mile hike even purer? Is it holding a chest thumping 'purist' to a higher standard? Is purism seeking out faded blazes because you don't agree with the reroute? Did the hiker who hiked an extra 100 miles of blueblazes to see summits, ponds, and waterfalls, and who forded the Kennebec have a "less than pure" hike?
Or is purism just a technicality after all?
Bankrobber
12-03-2003, 18:10
The Purism that I am talking about is the condescension shown towards those who didn't hike exactly the way you did. It is the attitude that says "you can hike however you want, just don't apply for two thousand miler status." It is Wingfoot saying "for those not interested in 2000 miler recognition, you can miss 1/2 mile of the AT by taking the Gulf Hagas cutoff."
First off, I am NOT joking, I am totally serious. Those who believe strongly in those who claim to have thru-hiked and apply for 2000 Miler status have made their case very well known.. and I agree. But once you make your case that applying for the certificate means that you have hiked the ENTIRE trail, well there is no leeway in that statement.
As I said before, I am not a purist and I did not take the canoe. I am just saying that you can't be a purist AND ford the Kennebec. And if you somehow resolve these two things in your head, then you are a hypocrite.
Let me get this straight if I can: Applying for a certificate means you hiked the entire trail and you can't apply for the certificate unless you don't hike the entire trial, but rather ride part of it. I'm not sure I can resolve those things in my head
I think the canoe is a good thing for those who wish to avail themselves of it (and it is available to them when they need it), and I think that fording is fine for those who wilsh to hike from GA to ME, and I simply cannot see what difference it makes and how either hiker or canoe rider is more or less of a thru-hiker.
My two cents only.
Jack Tarlin
12-03-2003, 20:07
The Kennebec canoe ferry is not in place because the powers that be are afraid of getting sued. After all, nobody can be prevented from trying to get across the river on their own (foot) power, and the "powers that be" have very clearly marked and signed the crossing (as well as the Trail approaches to it, shelters and trailheads nearby, etc.) so that any hiker that arrives there knows about the ferry, and the need for it. They are also aware of the potential risk in NOT taking the ferry. Anyone who was aware of these repeated and very blunt warnings but then independently chose to ignore them would have a difficult time suing anyone for negligence.
This isn't about lawsuits and liability. It's about common sense. The ferry is in place because attempting to ford the river is a manifestly unsafe thing to do, that has resulted in several near tragedies and at lest one drowning. Recognizing this risk, the canoe ferry was put in place years ago precisely to prevent this sort of unnecessary tragedy.
I'm sure I'll hear from all sorts of folks that fording the river is simple, painless, and risk free, if you're smart about where, when, and how you do it. I don't really want to hear this. The people that know the river best are ALL in agreement that attempting to ford the Kennebec is dangerous, no matter one's knowledge, trail experience, or familiarity with the area. Anyone that doubts this should talk to Steve Longley, the former Kennebec River feryman, who personally rowed over 14,000 folks across the river, undoubtedly saving many lives in the process. Steve knows this crossing better than anyone alive, and he also thinks that fording the river here is not a particularly bright thing to do. Does he know the best places to ford, and the best times and conditions? Of course he does, but he doesn't advertise this information because, plain and simply, he doesn't want to help encourage behavior that he knows is dangerous and potentially lethal.
In short, avoiding the "official" route of the Trail, which is in fact, the canoe ferry, is a foolish thing to do. Advising folks to do so, either by telling them how simple it is to ford, or by exerting peer pressure of any sort in order to encourage folks to ford, is reckless, irresponsible, and is a dis-service to folks in search of sound, sensible Trail advice.
* * * *
P.S. I'm not going to re-hash an old argument that's been dealt with before, but climbing over locked or gated faces; committing criminal trespass or worse; and then bragging about this sort of behavior by announcing one's refusal to be caged, is also not the sort of thing that merits emulation or admiration. Breaking into places that are clearly closed or off-limits doesn't make one a free spirit or rebel; it merely makes one a criminal. I find it extraordinary that Mr. Doyle spent all sorts of energy on multiple posts some weeks back regarding alcohol consumption, and lecturing us about the need to obey posted rules and regulations of the places we visit or pass by, even when it interferes with our full enjoyment of the day. Yet in bragging about such activities as bridge jumping in West Hartford (illegal and dangerous) or breaking into the Bear Mountain Zoo after hours (also illegal), it seems apparent that Mr. Doyle is determined to obey only the rules and regulations that he chooses to, while ignoring the ones that prove inconvenient to him. Yet this doesn't prevent him, on other occasions, from staking out a spot on the moral high ground by hectoring folks about the need to respect laws and rules regarding alcohol use in Pipestem, WV or elsewhere.
The hypocrisy here is outrageous. If Mr. Doyle wishes to preach on this forum, I respectfully suggest he adopt more consistency in his comments and actions. Berating folks on how they should behave, when it's manifestly clear that he behaves any way he wishes to, irregardless of established rules and laws, is the height of hypocrisy. In telling folks to "Do as I say, but not as I choose to do!" he does not inspire much respect for himself from the folks he's lecturing to. Moral instructions from Puritans is merely annoying; moral instructions from proven hypopcrites is worse.
The Old Fhart
12-03-2003, 20:13
Jack, for once you've said something I can totally agree on with you. Well said!
Lone Wolf
12-04-2003, 00:05
One has a better chance of being raped or murdered on the AT than drowning while fording the Kennebec. That's a fact. Jack, you don't know the facts. Your disdain for Warren clouds your thinking.
The Old Fhart
12-04-2003, 00:26
I'm afraid L.Wolf is comparing apples to turnips. The question isn't the likelyhood of being raped or murdered vs. drowning crossing the Kennebec but whether a hiker, knowing what the A.T.C.'s position is and the potential dangers involved, would, or should, tempt fate. Even the Marines teach you to go with your best shot and obey the rules.
You could close your eyes and walk across the Taconic State Parkway on the A.T. and survive but a sane person would look both ways and cross when it is safe. No matter what L. Wolf thinks Jack's reasons are for his post, Jack's reasoning makes perfect sense.
Lone Wolf
12-04-2003, 09:31
I'm afraid Old Fart is kissing Jack's butt. Crossing that river early in the a.m. poses little threat to one's safety. All the near drownings/drowning happened when the water was way up, later in the day.
That's a fact. Jack, you don't know the facts.
FACT: The canoe is the official trail, NOT the ford.
http://www.campstorent.com/rivertrails/rivert2.html
FACT: The canoe is a safer option crossing the river than the ford.
FACT: One hiker has died fording the Kennebec, and several swept downstream. None have been killed or swept downstream on the canoe.
FACT: Not everyone is as big and strong as Lone Wolf, therefore fording the Kennebec even in the early AM is not a safe endevor for all hikers.
OPINION: Lone Wolf's distain for Jack clouds his thinking.
QUESTION: Lone Wolf, if there was a ferry service instead of a bridge over the Hudson, would you wait for the ferry or would you try to swim?
Lone Wolf
12-04-2003, 10:29
SHADDUP! Get back to work.
It's disDAIN not disTAIN. Also, FACT: 6 murders have taken place at shelters/campsites in the past 20 years. We need armed guards at all shelters to insure safety.
And another thing, my little 120lb girlfriend forded with a 40lb pack with no problem so being big and strong has little to do with it. You're wimpy obviously.
The Old Fhart
12-04-2003, 11:41
+++++++++++++++++++
L.Wolf:
I'm afraid Old Fart is kissing Jack's butt. Crossing that river early in the a.m. poses little threat to one's safety. All the near drownings/drowning happened when the water was way up, later in the day.
+++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for your interest in my personal life, L. Wolf, but I assume you were speaking euphemistically. The questions are: 1)Does the ATC recognize the canoe as the official white blazed trail-Yes. 2) Is it more dangerous to ford the Kennebec-Yes. 3)Are you, as an individual, free to ford the river and claim you hiked the whole trail-Yes.
Not every hiker has attained elite status and, especially old and feeble hikers like myself, may need to select caution over testosterone-fueled bravado. I have waded the Kennebec once and taken the canoe twice and I’ll stick with the canoe.
Also, as was mentioned in a previous post, I checked my 1936 ME guidebook and it describes; “Moxie Pond must be crossed by rowboat or canoe” ($0.25 fee) as well as describing 2 alternate white blazed routes from Pierce Pond to Mt. Bigelow and ferrying across the Kennebec. Not having one unique trail isn’t something new and neither is using boats or canoes to cross bodies of water. Justification of risking the Kennebec ford cannot be based on history or the “official” A.T.C. recognized trail but only by an individual’s perceived need to do it their way. If any one wants to ford the river-fine; but don’t preach that as THE way and try to convince others that they should do it your way or they are lower than whale spit.
SHADDUP! Get back to work.
It's disDAIN not disTAIN. Also, FACT: 6 murders have taken place at shelters/campsites in the past 20 years. We need armed guards at all shelters to insure safety.
And another thing, my little 120lb girlfriend forded with a 40lb pack with no problem so being big and strong has little to do with it. You're wimpy obviously.
Well, you have edited your post three times now, LW, care to go for a fourth?
I know that I can't spell, but apparently you have problems with reading comprehension. I did say that I forded the Kennebec twice in this thread. (forded it once, said it twice. This is three times I guess). But thanks for calling me wimpy!
As for your analogy to the murders? Well, there have been no deaths on the Kennebec since they installed the canoe. There might have been quite a bit more since 1986 if the ferry wasn't available to those 14,000 who have used it.
micromega
12-04-2003, 17:56
What I consider to be some of the best examples of what long distance hiking is all about can be found in the various books by Colin Fletcher. In those books, there is a strong theme that bears a lot of relevance to this discussion.
He often refers to his trips as 'journeys', both implying and frequently indicating that they exist on various levels. I think this is a concept that anyone contemplating a thru hike should bear in mind - to hike the trail simply to hike the trail (and by extension the whole white/blue blaze concept) reduces the journey to a one dimensional shell, a fleshless skeleton that cannot reach its full potential. If the white blaze route is where the journey takes you, fine. But why restrict it unneccesarily, and thus diminish it?
Another theme in those books is what he calls the 'continuity' of the journey, something he takes great pains to ensure. His definition of the continuity is something he personally defined for himself, as every hiker must for themselves. This dovetails nicely with the recent discussions about deciding whether to ford or ferry (as well as the more general blue/white discussion). It really depends on how one defines the continuity of their journey and how strongly. Keep in mind that Mr. Fletcher struggled with the decisions on when the continuity should be sacrificed for safety or other reasons (and more than one time he did make that sacrifice).
Lastly, there is the concept of maintaining the integrity of the journey as opposed to making an exploit out of it. To me, doing a thru hike for the certificate, for the recognition, the fifteen minutes of fame, for a record of any sort, comes down more as exploit than journey. Why go through all the trouble, just to reap the surface rewards and never delve deeper?
It was mentioned several times in this thread that getting a certificate when you don't 'deserve' it reduces the significance of the certificate for those who do 'deserve' it. I struggle to understand this concept. If you completed your journey, by parameters of your own definition, whether you get a certificate or no, whether you 'deserve' it or no, then how can what ANYONE ever says or does diminish the value of your accomplishment?
Lone Wolf
12-04-2003, 18:01
Nice. You're the only one that makes sense.
illininagel
12-04-2003, 18:15
micromega,
I guess I'll just never understand why it's so important for someone who didn't complete the entire hike to receive a certificate saying that they completed the entire hike.
All I'm looking for is some consistency here. I don't disagree with what you wrote. But, if someone wishes to define their own journey (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that), then why would that same person wish to certify that they chose to go the white blaze route?
I also agree with you that anyone who chooses to devote several months of their life in an effort to achieve a piece of paper is probably missing the point of the hike. However, is there really anyone out there that would do this? They must have some other motive for completing a thru-hike---sense of achievement, love of nature, etc.
Here is a question that no ever seems to be able to answer. Or even be willing to guess at.
Of the 600 or so people who demand to be listed as 2000 Milers each year, how many:
A) Hiked the entire white blaze route
B) Hiked the entire white blaze route except for when it
would require backtracking ones blue blaze to a shelter or overlook
C) Hiked a continuous, unbroken line from ME to GA, but took blue blazes
D) Hiked an unbroken line most of the way, except when not doing so meant
avoiding a hitch back to the Trail.
or
E) Hitch Hiked around sections because they were boring, it was rainy, they
were sick, wanted to be with friends, or whatever-- perhaps many, many
miles.
I am genuinely curious. Especially about the percentage that fall into catagory "E". Just a guess, I mean.
If the percentage that fall into catagory E is more than trivial, its time for the ATC to stop bothering with their 2000 Miler list.
Rick B
micromega
12-04-2003, 18:53
All I'm looking for is some consistency here. I don't disagree with what you wrote. But, if someone wishes to define their own journey (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that), then why would that same person wish to certify that they chose to go the white blaze route?
It comes down to reaping rewards. Whether simple or more meaningful ones, surface or deeper, I think you should reap all the rewards of the journey that you can, or want to. So if one qualifies, and wants it, certification is an acceptable, if simple, reward. So long as it isn't the be-all and end-all.
I would be surprised if anyone ever made it far on the trail with only the certificate as motivation. However, the thread here seems to say that the certificate is more important at the finish. It just looks to me like many who have contributed to this discussion are, to some extent, defining the hike by the certificate? Otherwise this thread would never have been so lively, with so many varied opinions on whether white or blue blazes are right or not. Nor so many views on who deserves the certificate or not. So the certificate touches on a nerve, and has, IMHO, a little more significance than it really should.
It would just seem to be a shame if that certificate and it's unwarranted value should end up overshadowing the REAL rewards...
illininagel
12-04-2003, 19:26
It just looks to me like many who have contributed to this discussion are, to some extent, defining the hike by the certificate? Otherwise this thread would never have been so lively, with so many varied opinions on whether white or blue blazes are right or not.
I think that this thread is so lively, in part, because it goes deeper than the certificate as a piece of paper. The certificate represents recognition of an accomplishment.
Those that elect not to pass every white blaze obviously feel that their feat of hiking from Georgia to Maine is an accomplishment (which it is!) that they would like recognized via the certificate. Perhaps they view the certificate as a deserved form of recognition or maybe it only serves as a memento of the experience.
The "purists", however, think that the certificate should only be requested by those that comply with what's stated on the application. Obviously, I happen to be in that camp. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I will elect to hike the AT in that manner. I'll probably fail to retrace my steps when returning from a shelter and I'll most likely try alternate blue-blaze trails of interest. I'm only a "purist" to the degree that I won't be interested in applying for a certificate which states that I chose to hike the white-blaze route when in fact I didn't!
Perhaps those that do not complete the entire hike should seek other ways to commemorate their hike. For example, after completing longer hikes in the Rockies or the Grand Tetons, I sometimes buy a map. I then highlight the route and frame it as a memento. I would certainly do this again if I should someday complete a thru-hike.
Rain Man
12-04-2003, 19:27
.... as long I as don't have to hike with any of you people bickering over this "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" issue!!!!!!!!!!!!
:(
The Old Fhart
12-04-2003, 19:31
Rickboudrie wrote” Here is a question that no ever seems to be able to answer. Or even be willing to guess at.
Of the 600 or so people who demand to be listed as 2000 Milers each year, how many:
A) Hiked the entire white blaze route”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back on 11-28-2003, 04:15 I wrote:
“I would say that by the pure definition of hiking the entire official A.T. that there is probably no one who has ever really done it.”……………………………………..
………“What I found was not one but two white blazed sections about 100 yards long. A SOBO would have followed the woods road, which was obvious from that end, but a NOBO could, by chance, hit either one. The Lemon Squeezer in NY is another place where there are 2 parallel white blazed trails that the guides acknowledge. There are always several sections on the trail where there are relos and the trail crews have just painted over the first blaze or two on the old section of trail, not realizing that someone hiking in early spring could see far enough through the open woods to see the third blaze, and take the old trail which quite often isn’t brushed out.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think I answered your question A) by stating that by the pure definition no one has really hiked every inch of the entire trail but you may have missed that point in my post. That is probably the easiest one to answer because no honest person could possibly say they absolutely did the whole trail, no matter how well intended they were or how close they really came. The other questions are much harder to answer because if you ask any hiker few are going to admit they missed a few feet or a whole state. I’m not saying they are lying, just that all of us like to interpret the truth in the best light. And besides, their goals may not be the same as ours. We can’t have check points along the trail or monitors so I don’t think the rest are answerable or really have to be answered. Anyone who has hiked the trail gets a pretty good idea of how the hikers around them are doing the trail. I think that most hikers make what they feel is a good faith effort and that is probably as far as we should go in answering this.
+++++++++++++
Micronega quote: “Keep in mind that Mr. Fletcher struggled with the decisions on when the continuity should be sacrificed for safety or other reasons (and more than one time he did make that sacrifice).
++++++++++++++
Again I don’t think the majority of hikers would disagree with that statement and certainly wouldn’t condone breaking in the zoo near Bear Mt. or committing any other illegal act to complete their hike while disregarding the rights and property of others.
When a hiker starts at Springer (or Katahdin) I don’t believe they really know what they are getting into and their philosophy of hiking the trail develops as they continue toward their goal. It probably doesn’t occur to most hikers until they stand at the very last blaze that the sign they see before them isn’t the goal, the journey itself is the goal.
30seconds2000
12-04-2003, 19:56
HEY HEY HEY!!! Billville has already clearly established the exclusive rights to the Red Blaze! Associating Billville with going to Hell... well, thats just accurate.
Red Blazers forever.
Micromega has the right attitude and will take that with me to the PCT in a few months.
Besides, there are no white blazes out there (thank god!).
Bankrobber
12-04-2003, 21:00
I think that everyone look back to the response ganj received from ATC. It is post 84 on this post. It seems like dragging this legalistic aspect into trail culture is detrimental. Didn't quite a few of us hike to escape an overly legalistic society?
I would like to start a (hopefully) lively thread on the pros and cons of blue and white blazing. I would especially like to hear from Lone Wolf and Baltimore Jack. I know it's all about philosophy but lets hear the arguments.
well you got your wish :)
Actually, the thrust of my question was just to get a handle on what percentage (if any) of thru hikers who demand 2000 Miler recognition have yellow blazed significant sections of the trail.
Seems like no one dares to ever venture an opinion on that. I would if I had any basis for one, but I don't.
"When a hiker starts at Springer (or Katahdin) I don’t believe they really know what they are getting into and their philosophy of hiking the trail develops as they continue toward their goal."
In my case, going SOBO, I face a decision right off the bat. I had no concept about purism, but I knew I wanted to hike the AT.
After crossing Katahdin with a full pack, I was told Katahdin Stream CG was full. The ranger took pity on me and offered me a ride to the only legal place for me to camp at the time a couple miles down the Trail. The next morning I had to decide on whether or not I should backtrack, or head on into the Wilderness. What my decison was is not really important, except to the extent that it wasn't an easy one, but was one that had a profound effect on the rest of my hike.
To my way of thinking, thinking about one's philosophy (as you put it) before hitting the Trail might be a good idea. In part because one's choices have the potential to help one continue towards their goal. At least for people like me. Before you get in your own groove, making the best choice (for yourself) may not be so obvious, and may be a lot harder than you think.
Rick B
Kinda new to the AT, but have covered the GA sections and plan to thru-hike when I retire from the Army...just didn't realize I was hiking for a certificate! Received lots of certificates while in the Army...they really don't mean very much. :D
Not to prolong the discussion, but I'd like to throw one question at Baltimore Jack.
Here's a fellow that has hiked the trail several times, probably a dozen times by now. And I know that he believes in hiking the whole AT, not just most of it.
Jack, if I were to hike the AT multiple times, I'd look for different ways to do it. Sure, I'd be sure to catch the views that I missed because of poor weather the last time, but I would also probably take out my map, and maybe wonder where this trail goes, or what's along this trail, and take that some trails that are not the white blazed route. For example, I might choose to follow the Carter Moriah Trail into Gorham, and then go out again on the Mahoosuc Trail rather than follow the Rattle River Trail to Route 2, hitch into Gorham, and then hitch back again to the Cenennial Trail.
So, Jack, do you always follow the blazes all the way, or do you change the route slightly (other than relocations) each time?
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2003, 17:06
Peaks---
First off, I just want to make it very clear that I've long believed that how someone chooses to hike on the A.T. is their own affair----I don't have any problems with folks who want to blue-blaze, take side trails, take the old A.T., skip sections they've already done, skip some sections altogether, etc. This is up to the individual and I could care less how someone else wants to spend their six months or whatever out there. I do, however, have a fundamental problem with people who refuse to be honest about what they've done after their trip is over; i.e., if you want to be known and recognized as a thru-hiker; if you want this to be noted and archived by the ATC; if you wish to be publicly acknowledged as one who has hiked the entire A.T., then I think that in the interest of integrity, then this is what you should do. In short, if you wish to be acknowledged as one who has hiked the entire A.T., then it's incumbent upon you to hike the entire A.T.!
I know many folks, and have many friends who've blue-blazed extensively while hiking on the A.T. Most of these folks have been associated with the Trail a lot longer than I have; some of them have more A.T. miles than I do. Some of them still have sections of the actual Trail left that they've never hiked; some of them have still never done an actual uninterrupted thru-hike. I have absolutely no beef with these folks.....what they do out there is their business and I have the utmost respect for them as hikers.
As to your question, while I've always gone out of my way to be something of an ultra-purist (i.e. making sure I cover the entire Trail, don't skip sections, enter and leave shelters by the same route, etc). I also take a ton of side trips, blue blazes, etc, but these are done IN ADDITION to the white blazes, instead of as an alternative to them. It's a rough guess (I'd have to check my journal to be sure) but I probably hiked something like an extra 100 miles at least this past year due to side trips, blue blazes, checking out waterfalls and scenic views, etc. A great deal of this was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, where some of the key peaks and views are actually OFF the A.T., and if one doesn't wander off the Trail now and then, one will miss out on these altogether. Also, some of, if not the best parts of the Smokies aren't on the A.T. In Southwest Virginia, the best parts of the Grayson Highland/Mt Rogers Recreational Area are also off the Trail. There are numerous other examples up and down the Trail.
I always try to allocate extra time so I can take side trips and hikes, some of them to places I've been before, and every year, I try to find things I've missed, and places I've never seen. After all, it'd get kinda tiresome to hike EXACTLY the same trip each year, but happily, I've never done that. There's always something down a side trail that's worth checking out, and I urge other folks to do so. Whether or not they choose to do this in addition to hiking the white blazes, or INSTEAD of hiking them is something I leave up to them.
* * * * *
Lastly, I don't want to re-enter the Kennebce River argument, I think I expressed my views pretty well. Note to Wolf: I never said that fording the Kennebec can't be done, if you're smart and if you know how and when. What I said was that I simply don't think it's a particularly intelligent thing to do, considering the risks involved, and considering that most forders are NOT as informed as you are as far as where and when they should be fording. As I said in my post, I defer to Steve Longley, who knows that river better than anyone alive. Steve thinks that for most folks, fording is a lousy idea. I agree with him, and I stand by what I said earlier.
As to Wolf's other comment, I assure him that there's nothing cloudy about my mind or judgment. Whatever reservations I have about Mr. Doyle (you can call it disdain if you wish) have entirely to do with the fact that he has the annoying habit , at least here on Whiteblaze, of badgering and hectoring people about how they should behave, but then he repeatedly lets us know that in so far as rules, regualtions, and expected behavior are concerned, he continually chooses to obey only the rules he wishes to and ignores the ones that prove inconvenient. I feel that to crow about this, and to encourage folks to do likewise is not particularly prudent advice for first-time thru-hikers, nor do I think it wise or responsible for a hiker of his stature and reputation to advise people to do things that are potentially dangerous. The fact remains, Wolf, that at least one young person ended up paralzed by jumping off a bridge that Warren thinks is fun to leap off of, and at least one person has died attempting to cross a river that Warren and others feel is not only easily forable, but that SHOULD be forded. I think this is a lousy way to counsel and advise prospective thru-hikers; I think it's irresponsible, and I think there's an obligation on the part of folks who have more Trail experience to NOT encourage behavior or activity that could get folks hurt or worse. You may feel differently, Wolf. You're entitled to your opinion. But my "disdain" over Mr. Doyle has to do with his posts here, and his "advice" to prospective hikers. I think that some of it stinks. And once again, I assure you that there's nothing clouded about my feelings on this.
[QUOTE]he continually chooses to obey only the rules he wishes to and ignores the ones that prove inconvenient. I feel that to crow about this, and to encourage folks to do likewise is not particularly prudent advice for first-time thru-hikers, nor do I think it wise or responsible for a hiker of his stature and reputation to advise people to do things that are potentially dangerous.... I think this is a lousy way to counsel and advise prospective thru-hikers; I think it's irresponsible, and I think there's an obligation on the part of folks who have more Trail experience to NOT encourage behavior or activity that could get folks hurt or worse.
Geeeze. in this day and age when "it always someone else's fault" if anyone gets hurt or dies following Warren's advice, I know a couple of lawyers who would like to talk with him.
Warren is just saying what he does. No more, no less.
In Southwest Virginia, the best parts of the Grayson Highland/Mt Rogers Recreational Area are also off the Trail.
What are the best parts? I'm driving to Florida in mid-January and hope to take a day to hike in the Grayson Highlands on the way down. I've been up Mt Rogers, but with the spruce trees, rocks and roots, it looks like the White Mountains to me. The Grayson Highlands, though, were incredible on the AT. If you had a day to explore them, what trails would you hike?
Thanks Jack.
I could go on, but don't intend to prolong the debate.
I'll bet about 75%, maybe even 90%, of the "purists" in this discussion would be silenced IF those who feel they don't want or need to hike the white blazes would simply show some self-restraint and NOT apply to ATC for the certificate and NOT demand to be included as hiking the whole A.T. in the annual ATN list.
Most of us really don't care how others hike, we only speak up when folks make untrue claims that they did the same thing we did, but really didn't. Kind of like the guy with a military medal for bravery who in fact cowered behind a building while claiming credit for saving his platoon. Or the doctor with a framed license on his wall who faked his way through med school. Sure, hiking isn't on the same plane as those two examples, but I prefaced it with "KIND of like...". I think it makes the point many purists would like to make.
If there was an alternative recognition through some organization (probably not ATC) that hikers could apply for that says you ATTEMPTED to hike the A.T., instead of ACTUALLY hiking the WHOLE A.T. it would also go a long way toward ending this debate. Because even an incomplete hike of the A.T. is something to be very proud of, and deserving of some form of recognition--just not the exact same recognition as those who actually followed the rules, er, stated expectations if you prefer, of the organization giving out the recognition. Of course, it would still be incumbent upon each hiker to be truthful in deciding which recognition to seek.
It's not JUST about hiking 2,171+ miles for a piece of paper, as a couple of posts seem to be implying, because there are so many deeper reasons to endure and enjoy the Trail. It is, however, a side-benefit to a complete A.T. thru- or section-hike. An important one, too, that means something very specific--and that specificity is available in writing to anyone who cares to read it before, during, or after their hike. Come to think of it, that piece of paper MUST be fairly important; why else would nearly everyone apply for it?
ATC, the organization we look to for the cert and publication, expects we will do all the white blazes we can do safely--Laurie's note to ganj notwithstanding; let's not overlook she advised ganj to go finish those missed miles. But so long as there are those who don't do what ATC expects but still apply anyway, this argument will never end.
micromega
12-06-2003, 14:06
A great deal of this was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, where some of the key peaks and views are actually OFF the A.T., and if one doesn't wander off the Trail now and then, one will miss out on these altogether. Also, some of, if not the best parts of the Smokies aren't on the A.T. In Southwest Virginia, the best parts of the Grayson Highland/Mt Rogers Recreational Area are also off the Trail. There are numerous other examples up and down the Trail.
Jack,
I'd be very interested in seeing a list of those areas you mention, along the trail, of the best places off the trail that are 'must see' in your opinion. The places that can convince an ultra-purist to blue blaze I'd like to see... :D
I'm sure Jack can add his list.
Some of the blue blazed loops that I did include several peaks in the White Mountains that the AT doesn't go over.
I also didn't always go out from a shelter on the same path that I came in on.
I bushwacked up the top of Whitetop and down again in the Mt. Rodgers area.
There were probably several view points along the AT that I went in one way, and came out another way.
I did the blue blaze loop around Charlie's Bunyon in the Smokies.
For most other peaks, I dropped my pack and came out the same way I went up (for example, Killington).
Jack Tarlin
12-06-2003, 15:57
Frosty--
My favorite part of this section is the area near Masie Gap in Grayson Highlands State Park. There's all sorts of beautiful hiking near or adjacent to the actual A.T. including many side and loop trails. This is a spectacular place to hike, in fact something like 7 or 8 out of 10 thru-hikers will list the Grayson Highlands area as one of their favorite stretches of the entire Trail.
For more information, contact the ATC (www.atconf.org) or the Mt. Rogers A.T. Club at 24198 Green Spring Road, Abingdon, VA 24211. You might also want to search on the web to se if the Virginia State parks system has their own website; this might provide you with a more detailed map of the area than the one in the ATC guidebok which covers only the area immediately adjacent to the Trail. Your best source of info might be the Headquarters of the Mt. Rogers Recreational Area, which probably has its own guides and maps.
Also, there are folks here at Whiteblaze (like Lone Wolf) who are lucky enough to live very close to this area; maybe they might have some ideas on places to go and things worth seeing.
I would like to start a (hopefully) lively thread on the pros and cons of blue and white blazing. I would especially like to hear from Lone Wolf and Baltimore Jack. I know it's all about philosophy but lets hear the arguments.
Do the Blue and see the views!!! Why would any idiot follow only the White Blazes.
With one notable exception that I can think of, most blue blazes won't lead to anything most people would regret missing. This is not to say that some areas like the Grayson Highlands aren't incredibly beautiful, and lingering in them might not be a good idea, but...
In the context of a thru hike, what's another waterfall? Another view down the ridge? One might just as well choose to spend thier extra time contemplating the movements of a box turtle. Or leave the trail all together to track down a pileated woodpecker.
Many vistas along the AT simply can be missed, without missing a thing. If you go to museum, do you really need to see everything?
In the Whites some people have written about taking blue blazes so as to experience some of the summits thay are bypassed by the AT. Makes sense, right? But what they don't say is that either way, white or blue, you are above treeline and the views are hardly different. Sort of like the difference between views out your airplane window at different 5000 vs 5500 feet. (ther may be some trivial exceptions, but these work both ways. I paricularly like the AT over Mt Height, rather than the popular blue blaze around it, for example).
But to continue with the museum analogy, I can't imagine anyone going to the Louvre without seeing the Mona Lisa. On the otherhand, there is plenty of priceless stuff that most people, on thier first visit, won't mind walking right on by. Why bother?
On the AT, IMO, there is only one Mona Lisaesque blue blaze: The Knife Edge leading from the top of Baxter Peak. Most thru hikers miss it.
Rick B
In the Whites some people have written about taking blue blazes so as to experience some of the summits thay are bypassed by the AT. Makes sense, right? But what they don't say is that either way, white or blue, you are above treeline and the views are hardly different.
I agree with some of your post, Rick, but certainly not this part. Having spent quite a bit of time in the Presidentials (which is the area of the Whites that you are refering to) I really have to disagree.
The view from the top of Eisenhower is much different than it is from the trail, as it from the other summits that the AT does not pass over. Yes, the At is above treeline for 14 miles, however by not scaling each of the peaks, you lose that "top of the world" perspective. Standing on Ike and looking back the AT as follows the ridge toward Pierce is one of my favorite views. You simply don't get that from the AT.
Same thing with Mt Clay. If you bypass the summit you are cheating yourself out of roughly 45% of the views! Unless you are up there on a bad day, I highly recommend going over each and every summit along the traverse. If you have any kind of views, it is worth the extra effort to stray from the trail proper.
Jack Tarlin
12-10-2003, 17:40
I really find it remarkable that Rick found only one Blue Blaze---the Knife's Edge trail----worth his time and trouble. I can only suppose that he didn't deviate from the trail much to explore stuff off to the side, or he'd have never made this statement.
There are untold things worth seeing just off ofthe A.T., and the best way to discover these places is to follow a blue blaze. It's a pity most thru-hikersd are in too much of a hurry, or too determined to hike only the white-blazed trail.
To basically say "What's another waterfall, more or less?" to me defeats the whole purpose of going out in the backcountry in the first place----there's ALWAYS something worth seeing over the next hill or around the next bend, and many of these places are NOT on the A.T. You have take a few minutes to find them, but it's almost always worth the trouble.
I'm reminded of a quote of Spiro Agnew's, years ago, before he was driven from public life. In a notorious quote, that became legendary, he said that if you've seen one city slum, then you've seen them all. If you subsitute "waterfall" or "scenic view" for the word "slum" then you'll see my point. Anyone that can only name one place adjacent to the A.T. that's worth takingh a side trip for hasn't taken enough side trips.
"In a notorious quote, that became legendary, he said that if you've seen one city slum, then you've seen them all. If you subsitute "waterfall" or "scenic view" for the word "slum" then you'll ee my point. "
Fair enough. I prefer another twist on this quote, however. Not sure of the context, but I think it was told to a college kid who was eager to visit every country in Europe over the summer. It went something like this: "If you see them all, then you will have seen nothing".
There are plenty of things one can miss seeing on the AT. I just am not sure that a future thru hiker need concern himself that they might be down a blue blaze. They could be, of course. Just as they could be on the walk to a spring or up in a tree or under a log or at a Shaw's dinner table.
But you have been out there far more than I. And Chomp could well be right about that view from Eisenhower. I have heard others wax poetic on the net about Gulf Haggas in Maine, but I have fogotton it entirely.
My meager contribution is simply that there is one blue blaze that is most certainly magnificent, and that is the Knife Edge. I still think its in a catagory by itself. Glad to hear that you have found plenty of others that made your heart sing.
Rick B
a yellow blazer is alot like Lwollf and blue jay! It is when two thru hikers give each other a golden shower while sucking each other off!!
Lone Wolf
12-11-2003, 10:56
Silly Troll. Thought you were leaving?
**** you ass wipe! Freedom of speech goes both ways like your tongue bitch!
My meager contribution is simply that there is one blue blaze that is most certainly magnificent, and that is the Knife Edge. I still think its in a catagory by itself. Glad to hear that you have found plenty of others that made your heart sing.
Rick B
Well put, Rick, re Knife Edge.
Here are two others that were blue blazes in 1979, and I think in 1983:
Max Patch, NC (re-added to AT in '85?)
Grayson Highlands State Park, VA (added to AT sometime pre'86)
Three current blue blazes I'd not miss?
Charlie's Bunion (removed from AT ~1995?)
Macedonia Brook State Park, CT
Dark Entry
Cathedral Pines
etc, on the east side of the Housatonic/Connecticut AT, before the whole business was sanitized to the west side of the Housie ["WHO-see"].
Pico Peak/Camp down to Sherburne ("Killington") Gap, VT
Anywho, except for the Pico snippet, all the above ADD miles and smiles.
Blueblazetoe
Tramper Al
12-11-2003, 16:40
I guess I am a (New England) purist section hiker. I have put my sections together in one direction (Northbound), and I always come back to the same spot on the trail that I left it - whether I was gone for 5 minutes to look at a side view or for 3 months. Going through the Whites, I just climbed all the peaks and returned to the spot I left the trail. I don't really care how anyone else hikes, but I do think they ought to be honest about it.
Anyway, my question. How does the (Katahdin) Knife's Edge relate to blue blazing at all? Surely if you are hiking the Knife's Edge, you've either just finished the AT or you haven't yet started it, yes?
illininagel
12-11-2003, 21:48
I'm reminded of a quote of Spiro Agnew's, years ago, before he was driven from public life. In a notorious quote, that became legendary, he said that if you've seen one city slum, then you've seen them all. If you subsitute "waterfall" or "scenic view" for the word "slum" then you'll see my point.
Your quote reminded so much of Ronald Reagan's statement during the 1982 campaign when he responded to environmental concerns about protecting the California redwood forests...
"If you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all." --Ronald Reagan
How does the (Katahdin) Knife's Edge relate to blue blazing at all? Surely if you are hiking the Knife's Edge, you've either just finished the AT or you haven't yet started it, yes?
It relates to blue-blazing about as much as the Approach Trail does at Amacocola Falls. The Knife Edge is north (east) of Baxter Peak, and is an alternative trail down or up Katahdin. However, most thru-hikers slackpack Katahdin, and need to return to Katahdin Stream Campground for their gear. So, that generally means going up and back down the Hunt Trail which does not go over the Knife Edge. Car transportation around the base of Katahdin can be tough, unless it is pre-arranged.
I would have preferred to go over the Knife Edge and down the other side, but didn't have a ride back around. Plus, I wanted to bag Hamlin Peak (another 4000 footer) while I was up there. So, the Knife Edge awaits me for the next time I go back up there.
micromega
12-15-2003, 12:46
Many vistas along the AT simply can be missed, without missing a thing. If you go to museum, do you really need to see everything?
Rick B
Thats a great analogy. I agree that if you visit the Louvre, you don't need to view every single exhibit. But for many people, a visit to the Louvre would be a rare experience, a once in a lifetime thing (unless you live in Paris or visit often). So if it's quite possibly the only time you'll ever set foot in the Louvre, shouldn't you maximize the experience as much as you can?
I am planning a future thru-hike (date has yet to be specified). It is very likely that it will be the one and only time I do a thru on the AT, and there's a good possibility that many areas along the trail will never be closer to me than the day I walk by them. There are just too many places in this world I want to see for me to dedicate myself to thru-hiking the AT more than once. So I will try to see as much as I can along the way.
As you said, 'seen one, seen 'em all'. To an extent I agree -- the only places I'm likely to visit more than once along the AT are those close to home, and more importantly (to me anyway), the places that pluck at the heartstrings of my soul and make sweet music. And I don't want to walk within a stones throw of such a place, pass it by, and later say 'damn, I should've done that'.
when i started my hike i decided to skip katahdin. it was a long way up there and i didn't see the point in going if i just had to come back again. then i got a ride to monson. it was a tough 100 miles the driver had been hiking that morning and smelled something fowl had died. after that i said no more hitchhiking so i took a bus to hanover. i'd heard all about the notch and the whites and it all sounded like a pain in the ass to me so there i was at the border of vermont with two states under my belt. things were going much better than planned. from there i took a train to see my sister in NY and stayed there a few days (what a crazy city, to think from hanover to the big city what a reality check!!!). Then my sister dropped me off at the DWG where I stayed at a church hostel with a bunch of stinky hikers for a few days sharing laughs over free dinner of my adventures with the heads of house. after gizmo gave me a ride to harpers ferry, he told me to come back anytime and to avoid hiking in pennsylvania like the plague. what great people! i got my picture taken at harpers ferry then left as soon as possible. that place smelled like a zoo keeper's locker room. from there i took a trolly from town to the strip joint just outside of town. there i met a stripper named poison who gave me a "ride" on her harley down through front royal and along skyline drive and the blueridge parkway all the way to damascus. i had heard of some festival there and it was the in middle of may. driving into damascus you could see a mysterious brown cloud over the town. you have no know idea how dirty hikers are until they were all congregated in one mass setting. we got the **** out of there quick and she dropped me off in the smokies. there a guy on horseback gave me a ride to fontana dam. i got stuck there for a while and i can't think of a more expensive place to be stuck in. after nearly going broke there was only one thing left to do. i had to put one foot in front of the other and get to the ****in road and hitch a ride to springer. the couple that picked me up were a lively duo, having sex while driving and shots of mescal. we all had our fair share of drinkin and drivin that day. luckily, i made it alive to the lodge. where i met other thru-hikers and signed up for my certification. and since it only took me two and a half weeks i broke some record too. which i proudly display next to my ged at my corporate office. my next step is to write a book called the "official guide to the appalachian trail". i'm not sure what my pen name will be. i never had a trail name (but i really like the name "baltimore jack") . :p
screwysquirrel
01-19-2004, 02:30
Quote by Jack Tarlin (As to your question, while I've always gone out of my way to be something of an ultra-purist i.e. making sure I cover the entire Trail, don't skip sections, enter and leave shelters by the same route, etc) . By the way Jack, did you put in for a 2000 miler certificate in 2000? This whole post is like reading about how I can do it better than you can! It's really grade school, I know there is a lot of superior people out there that can do it even better than I can. If you really do every single inch of the AT, (which by the way I really don't believe with all the re-routes), you can hang that piece of paper up and be proud of yourself but I doubt that anyone has really ever done THE WHOLE THING. Just going into town, you've might just missed a foot or two in the white blaze corridor that you didn't make up coming back from town.
tarbubble
01-22-2004, 22:11
this is incredibly enlightening, but also rather despair-inducing. let's throw the certificate and the ATC 2000-miler status out the window, and then let me ask a question. remember, we're talking about NO certificate, NO listing in a newsletter. i'm not one for clubs & such, so all the formality involved with the AT is very foreign to me.
if i start at Springer and end up on Katahdin, and i walked every step of the way, but didn't follow every white blaze, is there a patch i could sew onto my backpack and NOT be denounced as a liar? i like patches. they're good conversation-starters. would i be shunned by white-blaze purists?
i guess "thru-hike" doesn't mean the same thing to all of us. to some folks, "thru-hike" has to be followed or preceded by a trail name, as in: "AT thru-hike" or "a thru-hike of the AT." to me, and i suspect to others, "thru-hike" means you had a goal in mind and you hiked the whole way.
TJ aka Teej
01-22-2004, 22:47
if i start at Springer and end up on Katahdin, and i walked every step of the way, but didn't follow every white blaze, is there a patch i could sew onto my backpack
Sew on the round AT patch if you want. But if you followed the official route the whole way you're entitled to a certificate and the 2000 miler rocker patch. Not everyone who has earned them registers for them, and not everyone who registers for them has earned them. Hike your hike, just don't fib about it.
Blue Jay
01-23-2004, 08:45
if i start at Springer and end up on Katahdin, and i walked every step of the way, but didn't follow every white blaze, is there a patch i could sew onto my backpack and NOT be denounced as a liar? i like patches. they're good conversation-starters. would i be shunned by white-blaze purists?
Here's what you do, hike your hike, sew anything you want on your pack, then shun purists. They won't mind, they shun each other. Each one has done it better than the last, either faster or lighter or no slack pack, compulsively touching each blaze or hopping on one leg the entire way. That way you're happy, they never are because they have to be compulsively checking for liars (oh the horror).
Sand Crab
01-23-2004, 10:39
Here's what you do, hike your hike, sew anything you want on your pack, then shun purists. They won't mind, they shun each other. Each one has done it better than the last, either faster or lighter or no slack pack, compulsively touching each blaze or hopping on one leg the entire way. That way you're happy, they never are because they have to be compulsively checking for liars (oh the horror).
Well said Blue Jay. As the great sage, Ricky Nelson, penned in his inspired writing of 'Garden Party', "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself"
screwysquirrel
01-23-2004, 21:07
Great answer Blue Jay. :banana :banana
smokymtnsteve
01-23-2004, 21:27
ah glory..you tell'em blue jay...
steve hiker
01-23-2004, 23:55
You're all going to HELL!
Sinners. Has even one of you given glory to GOD anywhere in this atheistic babble?
It's red blazes all the way for you pagens.
Lone Wolf
01-24-2004, 03:10
Arnold Layne had a strange hobby
collecting clothes
moonshine, washing line
they suit him fine
bearbait2k4
02-13-2004, 04:25
This has got to be the funniest thread I have ever read on this or any trail forum.
A serious question here though...
How many 2000 Miler certificates do I need before I can send in for my free candy bar?
TJ aka Teej
02-13-2004, 10:43
This has got to be the funniest thread I have ever read on this or any trail forum.
A serious question here though...
How many 2000 Miler certificates do I need before I can send in for my free candy bar?
10. Or maybe 7. Or 6. Oh heck Bearbait, just fire up the copier and send away for the 2000 miler Rocker Chair (as seen on the porch of your local Cracker Barrel.)
At least here on WhiteBlaze we can have a thread like this, not like over on ********'s **********!
:D
bearbait2k4
02-14-2004, 16:57
Whoa. Nobody told me about the rocker.
My favorite point was when the canoe was brought up, and about it being the official white blaze path and the anger that ensued. Suddenly, at that point, it was stupid to have to follow all the white blazes...and why? Because some didn't do it. Huh.
Of course, a close second would have to be condoning breaking and entering, so you could get all the white blazes at the zoo. I guess laws are meant to be broken though...with the exception of the unwritten law of the white blaze.
Put it all into perspective. It's freaking hilarious.
It is probably too late in this thread to add this, but during my 2003 hike I took the old AT trail to The Long Trail Inn, understanding the circumstances of the re-route. I also took a weather detour around the Piscataquis river, which on October 16 was unfordable. Finally, the authorities at Baxter would only let us climb Katahdin via the Abol trail, the Hunt Trail being supposedly unpassable (it wasn't) on October 31 (after we had waited a week for snows to melt), so minding park orders we went straight up the slide rather than ascending via the then-closed Hunt trail.
Being concerned about these issues - especially after having read the discourse on this site - I wrote the ATC and asked them if they felt that I had met the requirements of a thru-hiker, and whether they had any thoughts as to whether I should apply for 2000-miler status. Here is their reply:
Our 2,000-miler application states that we expect those who apply for
2,000-miler status have "made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail, even if they did not walk past every white blaze."
On the one hand, we don't want to set unrealistic requirements that
cause hikers to obsess about blazes every moment they are walking on
the Trail. As Benton MacKaye said, the purpose of the Trail is "to
walk, to see, and to see what you see." We don't want hikers to be so
consumed with meeting a stringent standard that they aren't able to
enjoy and appreciate the beauty of the natural world around them. The
Appalachian Trail is about more than white blazes. The phrase "even
if they did not walk past every white blaze" is intended to give
people just a tiny bit of leeway, recognizing that even the most
conscientious, committed hikers end up, for one reason or another,
missing or blue-blazing a small section once or twice in the course
of a six-month hike.
On the other hand, we don't believe it's fair to recognize as
2,000-milers those who have intentionally skipped significant
mileage. It's not fair to those who have made an honest effort to
hike the whole Trail, and would demean and devalue the recognition.
For example, if someone tells us in their report they "aqua-blazed"
and canoed the Shenandoah River instead hiking the A.T. through
Shenandoah National Park, we don't consider that "hiking the entire
A.T." But substituting a blue-blazed trail that was formerly the A.T.
once in the course of five or six months isn't a big deal. It would
not be enough for us to reject an application, and your hike would
certainly still qualify as an "honest effort."
When unusual conditions such as fire, flooding, or electric storms
above treeline make the A.T. unsafe, it is acceptable and appropriate
to use an alternative route to circumvent the hazard.
As long as you feel comfortable doing so, it would be helpful to us
for you to report your hike. Since your hike appears to to fit our
definition of a 2,000-miler, it would help us have more accurate
numbers both for management purposes and for providing accurate
information to the hiking public and the media.
I hope this helps.
I don't expect there ever to be a consensus on this issue either on chat boards or among hikers. My opinion is that the ATC should probably be the ranking authority in this, which is why I wrote them.
I introduce this only to clarify the stance that the ATC has chosen to take.
ATC's reply is full of common sense and reasonable expectations.
It gives "just a tiny bit of leeway" for legitimate reasons but stops way short of encouraging anyone to apply for the certificate and published recognition if they have intentionally skipped sections without doing so for the reasons cited.
And that's the line in the sand that divides many of us on this issue: People who absolutely did not even attempt to do certain sections of the Trail only because it was inconvenient, too hard, or they had other agendas--who still think they deserve to be recognized the same as those who followed ATC's expectations.
Thanks for obtaining this clarification from ATC, and sharing it here.
i guess "thru-hike" doesn't mean the same thing to all of us. to some folks, "thru-hike" has to be followed or preceded by a trail name, as in: "AT thru-hike" or "a thru-hike of the AT." to me, and i suspect to others, "thru-hike" means you had a goal in mind and you hiked the whole way.
We're not really talking exclusively about thru-hikers here. We're talking about all varieties of A.T. hikers who did--or did not--walk the entire Appalachian Trail.
Single-year thru-hikers, multi-year section hikers, even day hikers may legitimately apply for ATC's published recognition, the certificate, and the 2,000-miler rocker bar if they indeed made the most honest of efforts to walk the entire Trail as it existed at the time of their hiking. ATC makes a few (very few) allowances for safety-related circumstances and will not get too exercised about one or two additional minor deviations in the course of a 2,173-mile journey but the main point is that you are expected to do the WHOLE trail.
While ATC doesn't have the staff or even the stomach to thoroughly investigate every reported completion of the Trail, it is good to know exactly what they expect of hikers thinking of applying to them for recognition.
Some people indeed cheat, and lie about their hike, and wind up having their name appear each May in ATN alongside those who earned it. But if they think they've succeeded at pulling a fast one, they need to realize that they can fool many people but they can't fool themselves. They know they didn't earn it, and they will forever have to live with that. Some will have no guilt at all, but some will. For the guilt-free, consider that many of the folks they hiked with or near who know the truth--because they were there--will see their name in print and lose a lot of respect for them. Again, some may not even care about that, but such peer pressure is about all we have--besides ATC's stated expectations--to encourage honesty.
TJ aka Teej
02-14-2004, 22:55
ATC's reply is full of common sense and reasonable expectations.
Yup, good sensible reasoning. Sounds like Laurie or Robert wrote it. The average AT hiker doesn't really care if you went over a peak in the Presidentials instead of around it, or if you didn't backtrack leaving a shelter. But some hikers do and like to wave their certs and screech that they've walked the ENTIRE trail, except for the part they didn't agree with..
If you hiked from Springer to Katahdin, and only missed white blazes because you went over peaks rather than around, or saw some waterfalls, or ran through a field of flowers, or because you looped to a waterfall or shelter - good on ya. Send away for the cert and rocker.
In Baxter the rules were that you had to be a thruhiker to stay at the Daicey Pond lean-tos. Not a big deal, until the spike in northbounder numbers in recent years. Then some hikers were complaining that "soandso got a spot but "everybody knew" they skipped around Monson", or "they're not flip floppers -they're just skipping ahead!", so kick them out and give me their spot. The Rangers at Daicey didn't want to/couldn't deal with it. That's why at the new Birches Lean-tos the rule is that they are for "long distance" hikers, and the Park defines that as anyone who has hiked the 100 Mile Wilderness.
The Ranger at Katahdin Stream tells me only about 75% of the finishing GAMErs take the ATC 2000 miler application when he offers it to them. That's pretty interesting, don't you think?
The Old Fhart
02-15-2004, 10:21
While I considered myself a “purist” it wasn’t to be viewed as better than any other hiker but rather the result of an accident. At one shelter I went back out the same way on the shelter loop because there was a spring at that end and I needed water. The guy I was hiking with at the time thought I had gone back out that way because I was trying to be a purist and he got very agitated and went on for some minutes about that. I enjoyed annoying him so much (in a good-natured way) that I made a point of not missing an inch of the trail just to get his reaction. Since then it has just become a habit.
Keep in mind that not everyone is out to hike the whole trail. I personally don't care how anyone hikes as long as they are up front about it and they aren’t breaking rules and laws. One guy I hiked with was a civil war buff and would stop at all the battlefields. To continue hiking with us, he'd hitch ahead and meet us up the trail. We appreciated his company and it was great to see him all showered with clean clothes waiting for us at the end of a hard section, asking what took us so long. In 1998 Ben and Gay were taking turns hiking alternate days while the other drove around so each was basically hiking half the trail. They let other hikers know what they were doing so I didn’t consider it a concern of mine.
I know some posters have made a big deal about “the way it used to be” and today’s hikers are more lax about missing parts of the trail or wimps for taking the canoe across the Kennebec River. However if you read the accounts of Eric Ryback SOBO 1969, Ed Garvey NOBO 1970, and countless others, you will find they didn’t make a big deal about being pure as long as they basically hiked the whole way. Ryback got a ride across the Kennebec in 1969 for $3 because no one had developed the strange idea that you absolutely had to wade across. In fact in my 1936 Maine A.T. guide it tells about several spots where you had to use canoes. I know Garvey has taken the canoe because I met him at the Kennebec crossing in 1990. Both these esteemed hikers mention in their journals missing sections of the A.T. because of taking the wrong turn or losing the trail, etc..
I believe that if you make a good-faith effort to hike the entire trail you deserve to get 2000 miler recognition. The ultra pure or the ones who go out of their way to break the rules and laws to prove a point or set themselves above the rest of the hikers are an aberration. Bill Bryson would not qualify for a 2000 miler patch because, despite stating: "I don't care what anybody says. We hiked the Appalachian Trail.", 870 miles doesn’t qualify.
Chef2000
02-15-2004, 17:46
That reply from the ATC seemd to relflect the way I feel now and when I HIked in 2000. Having done most of my research for my hike in the late 90s on Wingfoots Trailplace, I was aware of the controversey before I hiked. I made my best effort to hike the AT as it existed during that year. Well because I walked slow and took many zero days , only Made it Stratton MEbefore the snows came in and they closed Baxter all together.
I left ME and returned the following summer and finished my hike. When the names for 2000 came out I have to say I was pretty upset to see some people who missed entire states. Let alone just Aquablaze.
Kozmic Zian
02-15-2004, 18:21
:confused: :confused:
Again, I have no problem whatsoever with hikers hiking their own hike. I could care less if someone prefers to fly from Georgia to Maine. My only issue is that if someone wishes to complete a thru-hike by not passing the white blazes, he/she shouldn't then feel compelled to claim that they did pass the white blazes. It's simply a matter of honesty.
When everyone can make up their own "rules" to claim a 2,000 miler certificate, it cheapens the value of the certificate. It's just a matter of supply and demand. The supply of supposedly qualified 2,000 milers increases artificially. So, more certificates are issues making the accomplishment and recognition less unique.
Again, I could care less if someone chooses to skip a whole state for that matter. What difference does it make to me? I just don't agree that it's OK for that same person to make false claims that they accomplished what's stated on the certificate. If they don't think it is such a big deal to pass all of the white blazes, then why do they think it is such a big deal to claim that they did and acquire the certificate stating such?
Yea.....Blazin'. Here goes, ya'll. If you haven't hiked 2,200 miles from Springer to Katahdin, or vice a versa, then you shouldn't be commenting, negatively, about someone elses Thruy. Untill you yourself get out there and do what it takes to walk 2000+ miles, you can't be critical of someone who has. I say, a Blue Blaze is what it is. A trail that runs off of the AT to another location that the AT dosen't go to. It usually requires the hiker on the AT, to go out of his way, increasing his mileage. I guarantee you, when you're up there and you see a Blue Blaze leading off of The Trail, you'll think twice about taking it and adding miles on to your walk. S***, if I had milage credit for the extra miles I Blue Blazed in my '96 Thruy, I could probably have credit enough to do the IAT to Gaspe'. Forget about it....Hike your own hike....GA To Me is a long, long way. Wether or not somebody Blues a few miles don't matter one iotta. See Ya.............KZ@
freewheelinmilo
02-15-2004, 23:11
i cant resist chipping in. the purists keep referring to the lying to the self, like i cant sleep at night from shame like im involved in watergate or something. man, when i was out there i lived with that trail, it was about the pure journey, it was about joy and discovery with no regard to these entertaining discourses that get us though the off-season. i skipped quite a bit, about 160 miles in all. some great sections, too. i spent five days at the cabin, splitting wood, drinking, wearing flannel, watching football, and driving the slack shuttle. i skipped 80 miles. it was really, really fun. and of course when i got to baxter state park i filled out the form. i was, and am, a thru-hiker to the blood. a 2000 miler rocker to the blood, a cute certificate, the whole nine. since we forded the kennebec we thought we'd just continue cheating and hitch to monson. now some of you may wanna get the alka seltzer here, but i have no regrets of course about my trip, but furthermore about my name being published or any of that hoopla. i wouldnt have cared if it wasnt published. i just chose to express what was closest to my experience. i have since lost the patch and the certificate, but my friends and family knew i skipped some, but none questioned my considering myself a thru-hiker, or the tokens of my tainted achievement. in fact one of my favorite things to tell people about the trail is the "purists." people get a kick out of it. if i had known at the time that some people would feel hurt and cheated from my actions, well, i still would have gotten the thing, only with a sly grin. just know that no statistic or false achievements can detract from the uniqueness or the importance of your own great accomplishment. that stuff is in your heart, where i cant get to it to sew it on my backpack.
it is only appropriate that such a vital artery of america should bring with it such lively debate. i am glad you purists are out there with such enthusiasm, it vigorously expresses a passion for the trail we both share.
word up.
i i skipped quite a bit, about 160 miles in all. some great sections, too. i spent five days at the cabin, splitting wood, drinking, wearing flannel, watching football, ... it was really, really fun. ... we thought we'd just continue cheating and hitch to monson ... and of course when i got to baxter state park i filled out the form. ... now some of you may wanna get the alka seltzer here, but i have no regrets ....
And you shouldn't have any regrets. It is those "purists" who walk every mile of the AT (as it says on the form you signed) that are the real deceivers.
YOU walked 2000 miles for your 2000 mile patch. THEY are the ones who lied: they walked 2160 miles. Shame, shame on them.
Frosty
ps Do you know how much I can skip and still be a thruhiker because I "thruhiked" this year. I skipped the part from Springer to Caledonia in PA, but I walked all the way to Boiling Springs from Caledonia SP. Then I skipped the part up to Crawford Notch, but walked some tough miles in the snow on the Prezzie Ridge in NH this past Saturday. I'm going to skip the part to Katahdin, but in my heart I'm a thruhiker, and as you say, that's all that counts. So is there a place I can email to have the Thruhiker form sent to me?
i cant resist chipping in. the purists keep referring to the lying to the self, like i cant sleep at night from shame like im involved in watergate or something. man, when i was out there i lived with that trail, it was about the pure journey, it was about joy and discovery with no regard to these entertaining discourses that get us though the off-season. i skipped quite a bit, about 160 miles in all. some great sections, too. i spent five days at the cabin, splitting wood, drinking, wearing flannel, watching football, and driving the slack shuttle. i skipped 80 miles. it was really, really fun. and of course when i got to baxter state park i filled out the form. i was, and am, a thru-hiker to the blood. a 2000 miler rocker to the blood, a cute certificate, the whole nine. . . but furthermore about my name being published or any of that hoopla. i wouldnt have cared if it wasnt published. i just chose to express what was closest to my experience. . . but my friends and family knew i skipped some, but none questioned my considering myself a thru-hiker, or the tokens of my tainted achievement. . .
Hikers who hiked as you did should not feel badly at all about their journey. You had the experience of a lifetime, and your enthusiasm is refreshing.
At some time in the future, you COULD go back and cover the 160 miles you skipped and that would make your cert and publication and patch legit. Note I only referred to the cert/ATN notice/patch as illegitimate. Your hike--shortened as it was--is very legitimate, and something to be right proud of.
Kozmic Zian
03-09-2004, 15:13
Yea.....Blaze Debate! You hear an awful lot about this. I just don't know. I say hike you're own hike. If you walk 2,000 miles to GA or ME, all this crap about purism, goes out the window with the bath water. Sooooo.....mucchhh can happen, guys. I remember coming up a mountain in central VA outa' the Tye River valley, and then lookin' at my map (Map Lies!) phew...that blue blaze sure looks flatter than The Trail route. Well, let me tell you I busted my ass up this waterfall, straight up, rocky as hell, steep, phew, I paid my dues and wish I'd stayed on The Trail. Sometimes the Blue Blazed Trails were much harder due to blow down and lack o' maintainence compared to The Trail. I don't think it matters that much. Yea, I missed a little AT, I more than made it up in terms of Blue Blaze Side Trails off of the AT. Everytime you go for water at a Shelter, you blue blaze down a trail 1/2 mile or so, and back. That **** adds up, man. Everytime you visit something off of the Trail, you walk there and back to the Trail, on something other than a White Blaze. What about all the Town walking and Road Walking that's not on the Trail. I guess the purists won't be doing any of that either. There's no way to Walk all the way The Trail without missing a blaze here or there. Did I say period. You show me somebody who has on 1 thru hike. It's almost impossible, if not probable. There are just too many variables involved, hitching, weather, stress, maildrops, resupply, meetup, injury, gear problems, on, and on...................You gonna miss a mountain on a blue blaze,like I did coming down Mt. Moosilaukee in a complete white out. I came off the Mt on the wrong trail and ended up at a DOC Lodge, if anybody knows where that is. Way down the Mt. Think I was gonna' hike back up Moosilaukee to get on the White Blaze again, I don't think so....You do it! I put in my miles that day and ended up walking about 10 miles down this hard ass road, before I got a ride to Woodstock. More, miles than the other guys did to get to the notch. I went back to the Notch the next day, with everybody else. **** happens when you're on The Trail....The Best Laid Plans of Men and Mice....You'll see when you get out there.....The ATC has the rule about staying to The Trail to prevent cheaters from Yellow Blazing Up to Maine and claiming 'Thru Hiker Status'....but you better realize that NO ONE gets all the way without missing some blazes....if they do, it was a very concerted effort,but who cares anyway? I know in my heart that I walked from Springer to Katahdin in one continuous walk, and nobody, and no thing, can ever take that away from me. The combinations of Blue Blazes and White Blazes will get you to Maine/Georgia....It's a long way. You gotta stay 'On The Trail' in order to get there at all. If you Blue Blaze a Trail here or there to see something off trail, nobody gives a ship. Long as you come back on where you got off? What's the deal? Have a good hike, see what you can see, enjoy nature and Mother Earth, Hike 'The Good Hike', Make Lots O' Friends and Don't Yellow Blaze....That Should Be the Issue in the 1st Place......KZ@
flyfisher
03-09-2004, 15:45
The Ranger at Katahdin Stream tells me only about 75% of the finishing GAMErs take the ATC 2000 miler application when he offers it to them. That's pretty interesting, don't you think?
I've heard this statistic before. Do you think it is an indication they will not fill it out, or because they prefer to obtain the application later from the ATC?
I wonder what percentage of those who pick up the application fill it out? I wonder what percentage of those who are otherwise qualified for the 2000 miler just don't complete the form?
The question of White Blaze vs Blue Blaze, etc is easy. These are different trails. If I want to hike the AT I will follow the White ones any other color is another trail. Yes, one may hike from Ga to Maine and may have walked 95% (~2070 miles) of the AT and 5% (~110 miles) of all other trails or colors to get there. Bottom line is: The current trail with the WHITE Blazes is the AT. You can call your hike anything you want. I call walking by each White Blaze an "AT Thru Hike". Part White, part blue or other footpath color a "Thru Hike from Ga-Maine" If you "Yellow Blaze" (transported by any means except by the ATC santioned boat ride across the Kennebec in Maine). Then you have yet to "AT Thru Hike" or to "Thru Hike", I guess you could say you have "Thru Traveled from Ga-Maine". Hiking is Hiking the AT is the AT, Hiking and preservation of the AT is what we are about. Its great to know the AT and what it stands for can stimulate these absolute trivial discussions.