Should the AT be moved? [Archive]

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 20:54

The question: Should the AT be moved from areas that are ecologically sensitive and areas that are overcrowded?

This question came to my mind during the discussion of stealth camping and the reasons given by those who feel adhering to the letter of the law is an absolute must. Since we all know that everyone isn't going to camp where they are told, perhaps it would be better if the AT and its annual crowd of thru and section hikers were not routed through these areas.

Let me make it clear I am not saying move every mile of the trail -- only those that are currently in eco-sensitive areas and those that are massively overcrowded.

Footslogger

12-01-2007, 20:56

Well personally ...I'd like to see it moved a little closer to Wyoming !!

'Slogger

rafe

12-01-2007, 20:57

Where you gonna move it to? The corridor is already precious narrow in most places, and it's already hemmed in by roads and housing developments everywhere else...

Cuffs

12-01-2007, 20:58

Move it to where? Yes, the amount of people is an issue. No, people dont always follow the rules. I dont see any place to move it, unless you make an urban trail out of it. So who then gets to use the scenic areas of the trail? Only those who promise to follow the rules?

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 20:59

Terrapin, I am mainly concerned about the ecologically sensitive areas and the overcrowded areas. The most overcrowded areas are GSMNP and the Whites - alternatives exist in those areas.

Doughnut

12-01-2007, 21:00

move it north to south, so it's not so far between Maine and Ga, Who really needs Pennsylvania and West VA anyway?? LOL

I think what's best for the ecology is what should happen.

Lugnut

12-01-2007, 21:03

It gets moved all the time by relocations. Sometimes only a few feet and sometimes significantly like the relocation done over the last few years south of moreland gap; and sometimes it adds 4 1/2 miles to the trail. :p

Cuffs

12-01-2007, 21:04

How do you control the amount of people in any given area? Charge admission? All areas are ecologically sensitive... every square foot is its own micro-climate.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:05

Exactly, Lugnut. How hard do you think it would be to get the ATC to consider offering an alternative to the current route thru the GSMNP and the Whites -- and maybe an alternative to Baxter.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:07

Cuff, while that is true in theory, in fact some areas are far more sensitive than others. I know from experience that some areas could be stealth camped without much damage - others would be devastated according to some in the stealth camping thread so maybe the AT needs to not go thru those areas????

wrongway_08

12-01-2007, 21:09

I say move the towns/easy access trailheads and people further away from the trail.

I dont know where it would be moved, would be nice to protect the fragile areas more.

The Old Fhart

12-01-2007, 21:14

rafe

12-01-2007, 21:15

Terrapin, I am mainly concerned about the ecologically sensitive areas and the overcrowded areas. The most overcrowded areas are GSMNP and the Whites - alternatives exist in those areas.

Well, I'll at least suggest that "serial" thru hikers consider taking blue-blazes through those areas after having walked the official route once or twice. But I'm a hypocrite... I've walked the Franconia Ridge umpteen times, and hope to walk it umpteen more times.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:20

There is absolutely no problem with the A.T. being where it is and the suggestion of moving it is ludicrous at best. The only hikers who have problems with where the trail is now would have problems with it wherever it goes.

As to going thru 'sensitive' areas like GSMNP, the Whites, and Baxter, there is no problem with the trail, just with some hikers who won't respect the trail.TOF, what would be wrong with changing the offical AT route from the current one to less used BMT or better yet making both routes available to those seeking 2000 miler status.

emerald

12-01-2007, 21:27

Exactly, Lugnut. How hard do you think it would be to get the ATC to consider offering an alternative to the current route thru the GSMNP and the Whites -- and maybe an alternative to Baxter.

There already is an option pointed out many times before. If it doesn't suit you, don't hike it.

End your A.T. hike at Abol Bridge. Take a good look at Katahdin and think how silly you are being before you go home.:D

The Old Fhart

12-01-2007, 21:28

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"TOF, what would be wrong with changing the offical AT route from the current one to less used BMT or better yet making both routes available to those seeking 2000 miler status."Frolicking Dinosaurs what would be wrong with leaving the official AT route as the current one and letting hikers choose if they want to blue blaze, as many have done for years. Some are using the BMT already. To suggest moving the trail away from some of the most spectacular scenery in the east makes no sense at all. If you want to walk around the Whites on interstate highways and back roads, go ahead, I certainly won't be one to stop you.;)

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:29

SOG, have you ever wondered how the changes to the current AT route come about?

Lugnut

12-01-2007, 21:30

Exactly, Lugnut. How hard do you think it would be to get the ATC to consider offering an alternative to the current route thru the GSMNP and the Whites -- and maybe an alternative to Baxter.

While I have never hiked in the Whites it wouldn't bother me much if they had a shuttle service around the Smokies. Too many people and too many restrictions.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:30

TOF, are you saying tramp right on thru this sensitive area - it is your right because it is scenic?

saimyoji

12-01-2007, 21:31

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:31

While I have never hiked in the Whites it wouldn't bother me much if they had a shuttle service around the Smokies. Too many people and too many restrictions.If He-Dino didn't want the patch I wouldn't even consider doing the GSMNP portion - yuk!

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 21:33

The trail is relocated quite a bit, and most of the time because of eco reasons. If you tried to relocate the trail to "save" the whites in particular you would need to not go through the whites at all. anyone who has been here knows the loads of people who tear through all year long (especially summers). people should just respect the places they inhabit and not stealth camp or know appropriate places that would not be a big impact. but most importantly just suck it up and pay the fees so the trail crews can clean up the mess.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:34

You fellows are all pretty resistant to the idea of change just for the sake of not changing -- only TOF has put forth a valid argument - the most scenic parts - so far. Come on, you guys can do better than this. I've been in the political forum with some of you :D

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:35

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 21:46

there are more than just thru- hikers using the AT in the Whites. the percentage of people who play in the whites that are thru-hikers is less than one percent of the total hiker population. so the thru- hikers are of less consern than the tens of thousands who come from MA and CT and other states.

weary

12-01-2007, 21:46

The Old Fhart

12-01-2007, 21:46

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"TOF, are you saying tramp right on thru this sensitive area - it is your right because it is scenic?"Never said that, never implied that. You obviously know from reading these threads that isn't my position at all. If I didn't know you didn't drink I'd suspect you'd had one too many.;)

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 21:54

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:55

.....thru-hikers is less than one percent of the total hiker population.Excellent point - exactly the sort of thing I hoped would come to light in this discussion.

The narrow trail corridor through which the trail winds was established by an act off the US Congress. And thus can only be moved any distance by Congress.Hmmm....
::: Dino seen looking up info of Congressman :::

The trail though the Whites strike me as about the optimum for beautiful ridgelines with long range views, though there are a few alternative trails through the Presidentials that would make the AT both more difficult and nicer.

There's only one Katahdin. And the AT to the summit is pretty much ideal, over used, but still ideal for the things most hikers seek.

For the rest of Maine, I spend many hours every week working to create buffers for the narrow footpath that could make possible new relocations if use expands very much.

Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)Glad to see you in this discussion, Weary. You have certainly paid your dues to be heard on this subject.

Weary, is there any way that the bottle neck at Katahdin / Baxter could be remedied?

I also saw some room for routing the AT in the Presidentials away from the most used routes to more difficult trails - trails that would seem to provide even better scenic views than the current path.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 21:59

another way many hikers could help preserve the trails is to put the little rubber nubs on the bottoms of your hiking poles so they kick up less dirt. this will help not erode the trail. those poles create little holes of upturned dirt on the edges of trails which promptly erodes come the next rain, thus widening the trails.I hike with two off-set canes so I'm using some especially wide rubber tips :D. Seriously, I have done a lot of maintenance and seen first hand the damage done by hiking pole tips.

Tipi Walter

12-01-2007, 22:01

Cuffs

12-01-2007, 22:05

If you want an alternative to the AT, hike here... http://www.greateasterntrail.org/maps.html

Tipi Walter

12-01-2007, 22:14

The narrow trail corridor through which the trail winds was established by an act off the US Congress. And thus can only be moved any distance by Congress. I've only hiked the Smokies 3 or 4 times so I can't really comment intelligently. It's a big place and I've only seen tiny bits of it.

The trail though the Whites strike me as about the optimum for beautiful ridgelineswith long range views, though there are a few alternative trails through the Presidentials that would make the AT both more difficult and nicer.

There's only one Katahdin. And the AT to the summit is pretty much ideal, over used, but still ideal for the things most hikers seek.

For the rest of Maine, I spend many hours every week working to create buffers for the narrow footpath that could make possible new relocations if use expands very much.

Weary www.matlt.org (http://www.matlt.org)

I have a question that only an idiot-mutant would ask, but here goes: Is it true that after backpacking 2000 miles and camping for 6 months, a person finishing at Katahdin rarely carries his/her pack to the top and instead does a non-overnight dayhike? I've looked at pictures of Katahdin Mt and there looks to be many tentsites on the long ridge and on the rest of the mountain top. It just seems anticlimatic to finish your trip with a dayhike.

CoyoteWhips

12-01-2007, 22:14

You could flank hike the entire trail, get off about 100 yards on either side and start walking. In 2000 miles you wouldn't see another human except at road crossings.:) I FLANK-HIKED THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL!! Look good on the nylon resume, maybe even put you up there with the speed hikers.

In my experience with the thick local mountain laurel, I'm often lucky if I can get off the trail far enough for a little private privvy time.

Trails tend to be organic creations -- mostly the path of least resistence modified by economic and political pressures. The four-lane highways of today were footpaths in past centuries. A church at the crossroads becomes the center of a major city. Making any change risks a cascade of unforseen consequence. Probably best to make those changes incrementally, carefully and slowly.

Bob S

12-01-2007, 22:16

If you move it you create a position that the next time it’s decided that any area is being over exposed that all you have to do is move it again. Once you start down this road, it becomes the way it will be done from that point on. It will be impossible to stop. Kinda like taxes, you say yes to a temporary tax and when it’s up, they renew it saying those famous lines “This is not a new tax” and we are forever stuck with it.

Better to focus on education of how to act in the environment then to take it away from people.

Question

What is it that makes this area in jeopardy, what are the eco reasons to move it in this section?

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 22:22

If you want an alternative to the AT, hike here... http://www.greateasterntrail.org/maps.htmlActually, some of that may end up in a corridor model at some point if the AT goes in that direction. Cuffs, what is your major objection to the idea of movement or multiple corridors?

napster

12-01-2007, 22:22

The trail is relocated every year for some reason or another but it is the AT old school I love best. I prefer the "MOST" scenic route possible myself.The ecosystem is screwed already by man on the mountain peaks and in the valley. Leave the At route the way it is.Blueblaze iffin ye are a purist tree hugger or/and like myself to see all the better views. HYOH .
N.......

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 22:22

there is no good eco reason to move it in the whites realy, since the thru-hiker is superfluece to the detriment of what is there because they are the least amount of visitors.

sasquatch2014

12-01-2007, 22:23

Well personally ...I'd like to see it moved a little closer to Wyoming !!

'Slogger

I am all for Wyoming but maybe not Laramie too Windy.:rolleyes:

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 22:25

I am going to thru starting this march. I would like to see Wyoming!

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 22:25

You could flank hike the entire trail, get off about 100 yards on either side and start walking. In 2000 miles you wouldn't see another human except at road crossings.:) I FLANK-HIKED THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL!! Look good on the nylon resume, maybe even put you up there with the speed hikers.You are one of the few people I know who would likely be capable of doing this.
.... Making any change risks a cascade of unforseen consequence. Probably best to make those changes incrementally, carefully and slowly.Excellent observation - again, the sort of ideas I hoped would come forth.
If you move it you create a position that the next time it’s decided that any area is being over exposed that all you have to do is move it again. Once you start down this road, .....Better to focus on education of how to act in the environment then to take it away from people.

Question

What is it that makes this area in jeopardy, what are the eco reasons to move it in this section?
excellent observations again. Glad to see some thinking people are in this discussion.

sasquatch2014

12-01-2007, 22:30

I am going to thru starting this march. I would like to see Wyoming!

wtmntcaretaker its real easy as you come through PA take the yellow blaze trail to the west and saty on that for about 1700 miles.:D

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 22:31

AT-West in Wyoming... I like it :D

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 22:34

I think I will take the route to maine. maybe if I dont run out of money I will start south and head west. :)

Cuffs

12-01-2007, 22:36

Montego

12-01-2007, 22:37

Well personally ...I'd like to see it moved a little closer to Wyoming !!

'Slogger

As a former resident of Rock Springs, I have to second that. Just bring plenty of sun screen. :D

Seriously, reading the posts on WB, it seems that the problems with the eco-sensitive areas and other damage has more to do with the vast amount of day hikers and photo happy tourists, than with the section hiker or thru-hikers who go by the creed of LNT.

Hmmm - just wondering if there would be a practical way of regulating the numbers of day hikers and tourists (Montego dons his flame-retardent suit).

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 22:38

the key is education. trying to bring bubba up to wilderness budda

sasquatch2014

12-01-2007, 22:45

As a former resident of Rock Springs, I have to second that. Just bring plenty of sun screen. :D

And people complain about the rocks in Pa and the Black flies in Me. Is there anything in Rock Springs that isn't rock that doesn't sting, stick or bite?

Now the Big Horns that is a good area. And if you even think of saying Jackson you should be sent to Evanston for an Evaluation.:-?

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 22:46

and trying to fix my spelling. :D

Tipi Walter

12-01-2007, 23:00

I have no objection to multiple trails paralleling each other.

I take huge objection to urban growth encroaching on public lands. Im glad lands were put aside for public use, so they wont be developed, but how do you educate EVERYONE on its proper use? Unless you can do that, you will have people who abuse the lands (LNT stuff.) The 2 Wilderness areas here in AL probably have more use than any other Forests or state parks. You put the "wilderness" name on it and people think they are really roughing it even tho their car is only 100yards away. I see more mess left behind in the "wilderness" than any other areas, despite signage and other people trying to teach them...

To me, every area is a sensitive eco system. If you move the trail from one area to help that ecosystem, your re-route is just going to disturb another area. I dont see any given place on the trail as having more priority over another in terms of the ecosystem, its all a delicate balance. If you truly want to protect the ecosystem, you need to keep out the human entirely.

In your post there's the problem and the solution: "Their car is only 100 yards away". Closing road access is probably the biggest thing that can be done to protect an area. In the Slickrock wilderness(NC), there's a 6 mile road(Big Fat) that travels into the heart of the area, giving quick access to Slickrock Creek on a 1.5 mile trail. At the bottom of this trail there is more garbage than anywhere else in the wilderness. Why? Road access.

Ed Abbey was a proponent of closing road access to various areas. To me it sounds like a workable, solvable solution. People should have to earn the right to visit some places, earn the right by sweat and an element of risk. That's why wilderness areas do not have roads, even though they may be surrounded by roads. To give an extreme example, there's no road to the top of Mt Everest. To climb to the top involves risk and possible death. Isn't that what wilderness is all about?

But all this is moot as we grow to 450 million people by 2050, along with 300 million cars zipping into every nook and cranny. I pity the future backpackers . . .

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 23:04

I agree with that. in that case we shout shut down I-93, 302 and rt. 16

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 23:06

tee hee;)

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 23:11

And I-40 at Davenport Gap....

I have witnessed what Tipi talks about with the 1.5 mile trail at Big Fat -- the area is trashed regularly because people don't want to carry their garbage back up the somewhat steep mile of the trail back to the parking lot. :rolleyes: That said, when I was a weekend warrior I loved the Big Fat parking lot because I could be in the middle of the wilderness on Friday night :o

Montego

12-01-2007, 23:15

And people complain about the rocks in Pa and the Black flies in Me. Is there anything in Rock Springs that isn't rock that doesn't sting, stick or bite?

Now the Big Horns that is a good area. And if you even think of saying Jackson you should be sent to Evanston for an Evaluation.:-?

The only thing that now BITES in Rock Springs, is that they changed the law to eliminate "go-cups" Ahhhhh - the memories...........................

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:32

I think the ideal situation would be that the AT be more than just a single corridor. It should be at least two trails in parallel with numerous interconnections, in other words, a WIDER coridor all the way from Georgia to Maine. There should also be green trails not just connecting you to other trails and trail towns, but going right through the nearby trail towns. The best defence for development encroaching closer and closer to the trail, the trail needs to breakout and counter-attack. We should have green walking, and multi-use trails EVERYWHERE, not just on the AT. This can't happen overnight, but that's eventually where we need to go. There are already some very good examples of this in Europe, and in North America also. We need more of it in North America is all, not just special places like the AT and natinal parks and wilderness areas. Another way to say it is that we need to push back overdevelopment by redeveloping underdevelopment. Also, reduce traffic density by using parrallel trails, and alternative trails.

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:43

I would also suggest a lot of private land will need to become National Trust, or Nature Trusts, or some such thing. Not by expropriation, except in extreme cases. There are already good movements underway for people to donate land to such trusts, and receive compensation in the form of tax deductions etc. Usually it is blocks of land, for nature preserves and whatnot, but I can't see why it can't be corridors also. With climate change in particular such corridors are supposed to be essential for migration of plant and animals species North and South, and also up and down in elevation, in response to climate changes. Another thing that should be encouraged which would enhance all of the above is hedgrerows, along property lines, waterways, trails, and roadways. One thing I would like to see less of is empty lawns, and oversized, and overplasticized housing. The AT is a great idea, it just needs to be reinvented, refined, and extended outwards into our neighbourhoods and daily lives.

The Old Fhart

12-01-2007, 23:43

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"I have witnessed what Tipi talks about with the 1.5 mile trail at Big Fat -- the area is trashed regularly because people don't want to carry their garbage back up the somewhat steep mile of the trail back to the parking lot."But that is just hikers exercising their 'right' to ignore the rules. Isn't that exactly what you've been asking for?:D I know, I know, obeying those pesky laws and regulations is just so, so, "inflexible".:D

FatMan

12-01-2007, 23:44

Move the trail? No. Add to the trail yes.

[rant]I agree that education is important. However overuse, even by those educated does damage to the trail corridor. And overuse is the clear culprit of the problems in my neck of the woods. And unlike many parts of the trail, the majority of the users with the greatest impact are those attempting to thru-hike. Four months from today, the annual pilgrimage of hikers will begin from Springer. Those attempting thru-hikes may count in the thousands over a 2.5 month period. Add to that the day hikers, section hikers, no-clue hikers, and youth groups and what you end up with is a massive herd on the trail. The herd does what herds do. They tear up the earth. They will destroy much of the young spring foilage as they set up tents on any almost level space available. They will compress the soils to the point where nothing will grow. They will kick up the rocks that have held the dirt in place for centuries. It is not that they are not sensitive to the trail, there are just too many in a limited space.[/end rant]

The scenario above is what I see out my back door at Grassy Gap, near Gooch Gap and Woody Gap. And it is representative of the 30.7 mile stretch of trail from Springer to Neels Gap. However, at the exact same time of year, hikers can hike 35 miles from Springer to Neels Gap using the BMT and Duncan Ridge Trail and it is likely they will see less than a handful of other hikers on the trail from the time they leave the AT at Three Forks and arrive back to the AT at Blood Mountain. This section of trails is challenging and IMO more beautifull than the AT section.

The problem in the spring is not the number of people hiking, it is the number of people hiking the same path. I would like to see the ATC take a more broad approach to AT hiking by thinking more in terms of an AT system of trails, not just an AT trail. I cannot speak for the Whites as previously discussed in the thread, but there are plenty of trailways down south that could be developed into alternate routes and incorporated into the system. I know alot of feet will get stepped on in the various trail groups, but the consolidation would be a win-win for the hiking community as a whole in my opinion. At the same time where the AT is struggling to handle the throngs of hikers, these other trail organizations have a desire to increase trail usage. Moving AT hikers to other trails will benefit everyone. And, by creating a system it would allow damaged sections to be closed for periods without having to do complete relocations.

So move the trail? No. Add to the trail yes. Create an Appalachian Trail System, not a single trail. And any hike from Springer to Katahdin within the trail system would qualify for a thru hike.

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:46

Stealth camping is not littering.

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 23:46

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 23:48

I do agree though that a greener way of living is good to spread into the towns and cities. walking is a good way to get around. :)

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 23:52

But that is just hikers exercising their 'right' to ignore the rules. Isn't that exactly what you've been asking for?:D I know, I know, obeying those pesky laws and regulations is just so, so, "inflexible".:DDarn your ornery hide, I have not advocated breaking the rules - I am advocating re-examining the rules and the corridor. Keep up, you old Fhart :D

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:54

I'm not sure you need to consolidate trail groups. You only need to connect them, and add to them. The trail systems don't all need to be standardized either. Some can be more primitive. Some more parkish. Some walking only. Some multi-use. The net effect however should be to reverse overdevelopment and extend space and corridors for natural habitat to re-establish and spread itself. The answer to excessive trail traffic is more trails, not more restrictions. But something has to give and that is overdevelopment. That might require a lower impact and lower intensity economy, which might be coming anyway. Population growth is still an issue, and that will have to be dealt with eventually also.

wtmntcaretaker

12-01-2007, 23:56

fatman maybe the south has a larger percentage of thruhikers using the AT than up north but as I have said and you too. It is not primarily the thru hikers it is everyone else "day hikers, section hikers, no-clue hikers, and youth groups" and in the north evryone else does use all the other trails available.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-01-2007, 23:57

JAK, I really like what you are suggesting. The idea of multiple corridors with various levels of primitive aspect is brilliant.

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:57

I think the best trail systems and trail groups should simply serve as archetypes for other trail systems and trail groups to follow. There is no one size fits all, and every region is different.

JAK

12-01-2007, 23:58

JAK

12-02-2007, 00:00

JAK, I really like what you are suggesting. The idea of multiple corridors with various levels of primitive aspect is brilliant.Not my idea of course. I first picked up the notion from something the Rock was saying about his plans to hike the AT, but in some parts not technically on the AT itself.

wtmntcaretaker

12-02-2007, 00:01

right. there is actually a nice program up here to aid farmers and land owners with taxes, who are beeing preasured to sell to developers. They let their land get used by hikers and skiers and such and they get their land and a tax break and the people get some space to play. I like the idea quite a bit. the org is called SPACE.

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 00:08

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"Darn your ornery hide, I have not advocated breaking the rules - I am advocating re-examining the rules and the corridor. Keep up, you old Fhart"Well if it will make you feel better, the hikers that didn't carry out their garbage 're-examined the rules and the corridor' and chose to leave it there. If you can 're-examine' one rule, others can choose what rules they want to 're-examine.:rolleyes:

EWS

12-02-2007, 00:09

I think highly concerned hikers, should use an alternative trail routed through Kruger Park, the scenery is diverse, the wildlife amazing, and few people hike through it. Bear baggin ain't nothin'.

wtmntcaretaker

12-02-2007, 00:10

where is kruger park?

EWS

12-02-2007, 00:18

South Africa.

wtmntcaretaker

12-02-2007, 00:22

:rolleyes::D

rafe

12-02-2007, 00:43

JAK

12-02-2007, 00:47

I think limiting access is sometimes neccessary, but should be a temporary measure. It should lead to more parks and green spaces. If we are restricting access because there is too much demand, we need more supply, meaning more green space and natural habitat, which means less overdevelopment. Of course ultimately we may need fewer people also. But you are right. Sometimes some places need to be closed, or restricted. But that should not be considered a final solution.

EWS

12-02-2007, 01:02

Don't force/heard people down tiny corridors through immense areas and sensitive areas won't people as impacted.

freefall

12-02-2007, 05:51

While I am not at all against alternate routes on the AT, I think this should be seen as a last resort. Based on previous arguments against (setting precedence, etc...) relocation, other alternatives might be worth trying first. Education seems to be a good deterent. The ATC boasted this year of a record numbers of volunteers: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.3588013/k.448E/ATCs_Banner_Yaer_for_Volunteers.htm

And I could not find a link but I thought that the ATC said something like since they have gained protection for 99% of the AT corridor so their mission is changing from one of aquisition to one of preservation. (If I'm wrong, my apologies, I tried to find the quote but could not but I swear I read it in an ATC publication.)
Would not education be a from of preservation? Use some of those volunteers at trail heads educating users of LNT and other location specific information during peak times. I am not saying trail construction/ relocations will not be needed in the future, but when they are not, see if the volunteers wouldn't be willing to hang out at the trail heads and talk to hikers as they pass by. Some of the wisdom they pass on just might prevent, or at least delay, some maintainence relocations if nothing else.

Just a thought.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 06:54

Well if it will make you feel better, the hikers that didn't carry out their garbage 're-examined the rules and the corridor' and chose to leave it there. If you can 're-examine' one rule, others can choose what rules they want to 're-examine.:rolleyes:TOF, if you honestly cannot tell the difference between the idea of requesting a re-examination of the rules and disobeying rules then I suggest professional help. However, I think you are attempting to lump everyone on the other side of this argument into a single basket and then find the least-desirable characteristics of the lot and use that to define the entire group so you will have a legitimate defense. If you must resort to such tactics to defend your ideas, may I suggest re-examining your position?

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 07:01

dont you think by widening, you are asking for more people more trash. if there is heavy traffic on a 2 lane freeway you do not make it a 4 lane freeway . 5 years later there will be traffic jams on the 4 lane road.Caretaker, are you suggesting what terrapin suggest - limiting use - or are you suggesting there be so few trails avialable that people choose not to to use them because of overcrowding or something entirely different. I don't understand your statement.

sasquatch2014

12-02-2007, 07:19

The only thing that now BITES in Rock Springs, is that they changed the law to eliminate "go-cups" Ahhhhh - the memories...........................

I remember when I first lived out there and asked how far it was from Laramie to Rock Springs The true answer that I got back from this guy was "oh ....about a six pack":eek:

Montego

12-02-2007, 07:32

I remember when I first lived out there and asked how far it was from Laramie to Rock Springs The true answer that I got back from this guy was "oh ....about a six pack":eek:

Hmmm - Good mileage! :-?

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 08:27

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"TOF, if you honestly cannot tell the difference between the idea of requesting a re-examination of the rules and disobeying rules then I suggest professional help. However, I think you are attempting to lump everyone on the other side of this argument into a single basket and then find the least-desirable characteristics of the lot and use that to define the entire group so you will have a legitimate defense. If you must resort to such tactics to defend your ideas, may I suggest re-examining your position?"What I have presented (using quotes from regulations, ATC, ALDHA, USFS, etc.), is what the overseers and protectors of the A.T. have developed as a workable management plan that is fair for all. What you and others have suggested is pie-in-the sky unworkable plans that would add needed complexity and countless more regulations to the trail as well as perhaps doubling its length and the number of people required to maintain it.

What you continually fail to see is that (as I have pointed out) is the entire state of Maryland, for instance, is more Regulated than the Whites. Are you also going to suggest the A.T. go around Maryland to avoid those pesky regulations you see as such a problem? Once you set foot in the real world from your flawed utopia you should realize that these pipe dreams are just that-totally unrealistic, unworkable, and as expensive as our foreign policy.

I would suggest if you can't see the difference between the well thought out plan for the A.T. worked on by thousands of knowledgeable people over decades, and your suggestions that we create another parallel alternate universe A.T., then you are the one that needs professional help. Perhaps as you gain some knowledge of the A.T. and the programs put in place to protect it from the lawless you might change your mind but that would require actual effort on your part to understand why the trail has developed over the years to what it is today and realization that the present system isn't just there to annoy or restrict the few thru hikers who tramp it every year. The A.T. is there for all the people who use it every year not just an elite few who feel they are special because they are thru hikers and therefore they can do anything they want no matter how destructive it is to the trail and the environment.

If the whiners would actually put down their paranoid distrust for everyone who protects the trail, many of whom are thankless volunteers, perhaps they won't need professional help either, but that is about as realistic as your alternate A.T. Plan. Perhaps you should try the novel idea of working within the system to improve it rather than working outside the system(and the law) trying to destroy what so many have worked so hard to create. Try becoming active in the ATC, ALDHA, or local maintaining clubs to get the other side of the story.

rickb

12-02-2007, 08:47

I think you would have to define exactly what your concern for these "ecologically sensitive" areas is first.

They do exist along the AT to be sure. If you stray off the Trail above treeline, for example, you can destroy some rare lichens and such. Not good.

That said, the ecology along the trail is rather robust. At least with respect to the damage that can be done by hikers.

The impact of hikers is primarily on the feeling of wildness. How pretty things are. Aesthetic stuff. Rutted trails and trashy looking campsites really don't matter mush to an ecosystem.

All that's important to be sure. But when talking of protecting "ecologically sensitive" areas, that's a whole other thing. One that deserves to be better defined.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 08:52

TOF, what you have continually done is hold up the ATC as an unquestionable steward - and what I am saying is that I believe it can and should be questioned. A lot of people who hike aren't real happy with some of the more recent stewardship.... and people like you who hold that the organization's thoughts and actions can never called into question are actually helping erode the respect for the agency.

I like what JAK said about multiple corridors under the control of a variety of agencies - giving any one agency too much control has been shown to be problematic - the ATC is but one example.

JAK

12-02-2007, 08:54

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 08:57

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"A lot of people who hike aren't real happy with some of the more recent stewardship.... and people like you who hold that the organization's thoughts and actions can never called into question are actually helping erode the respect for the agency."What I ACTUALLY suggested is that you work within the system. If you want to change it, become active, complaining here is just that, complaining.

Jim Adams

12-02-2007, 09:01

Well,.....people are people are people!
This has been a VERY interesting read to say the least.
Limiting dayhiker and section hiker use because that is alot heavier than thruhiker use?....a little elitist don't you think?
The damage is already done so nothing needs changed?
Everyone should be kept out of all these sensative areas from this point on?
Make the corridor wider and add more trails to reduce impact on the current system?
Need to join all groups together for better answers and protection?

I am NOT advocating use of ATV, dirt bike or snowmobile use within the AT corridor and NEVER will but now you all know how offroad riders feel when an area that has been used for riding for years is being taken away!

geek

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 09:02

TOF, since people like you have presented the ATC as a-power-to-be-obeyed-and-never-questioned, I'm thinking that maybe the time has come for either a separate agency or for the ATC to re-think its position in all this. If you want the people to work within the existing system, then the system must be responsive to the needs of the people.

rickb

12-02-2007, 09:09

Once the the Government puts a restrictive rule in place, very little can ever be done to turn the clock back. The functionaries will defend all restrictions like a black bear will protect the food back they just stole from you.

Look at the restrictions on backpacking in National Parks out West!

Too restrictive? I think so, but I suppose that could be argued. No point in argument though. The government will never loose up their grip.

By accepting the regs that do exist along the AT without question, and mouthing old bromides about needing to walk 200' into the woods to pee and such, we invite more.

And more is not always better.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 09:15

rickb

12-02-2007, 09:21

Good point!

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 09:24

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"TOF, since people like you have presented the ATC as a-power-to-be-obeyed-and-never-questioned, I'm thinking that maybe the time has come for either a separate agency or for the ATC to re-think its position in all this. If you want the people to work within the existing system, then the system must be responsive to the needs of the people."Once again you are not reading because I never said that. You can continue to sit here and complain rather than becoming active (like I suggested) and nothing will change.

"People like you" continually complain about regulations but your laughable 'solution' is to double the length of the trail thru alternate routes and double the number of agencies overseeing the A.T., yet it never crosses your mind that each new section of trail and each new agency will have its own rules and regulations and just further complicate matters. Perhaps you should consider some realistic approach like having a separate A.T. for each and every hiker so no one will disturb the others 'wilderness' experience. Perhaps it can run across your front lawn and they can exercise their 'right' to camp in and trash your flower garden. :rolleyes:

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 09:28

those of us who do not know of the sensitive areas will always tred upon these areas unknowingly. those of us who know of these areas will knowingly avoid them.. those of us who know about these issues and continue to destroy these areas will continue to do so[they live like this at home] are just plain jerks that i find repugnant and want no part of..these types are found in our everday life[bush/cheany lead the pack]....

Lone Wolf

12-02-2007, 09:42

The question: Should the AT be moved from areas that are ecologically sensitive and areas that are overcrowded?

there ain't no ecologically sensitive areas left on the present AT. it's a mess. don't move it

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 09:44

The AT should be moved to Delaware. Every bit of it.

Peaks

12-02-2007, 09:45

Interesting discussion, but not one that's going to be solved on this forum.

As I recall, part of the rational for the Tuscarora Trail was to get people off the AT, but that's never happened. (How many are even aware of the Tuscarora Trail?)

Relocate the trail? Been done and still being done. The trail gets longer every year.

Congested areas? Thru-hikers are a small minority of the total users.

Want an alternative? Use the East Coast Greenway.

Finally, how's it an alternative trail going to be maintained (and protected)? I suspect that ATC and the maintaining clubs have enough to do without expanding the things.

Want to hike on less traveled trails? Try the Long Trail north of Sherburne Pass, the Cohos Trail, Long Path, Monadnock Sunapee Greenway, just to name a few.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 09:46

if we are moving the AT we need to make sure it comes thru northeast connecticut and northwest rhode island..just dont blink because you will have hiked rite thru RI....:eek:

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 09:49

if we are moving the AT we need to make sure it comes thru northeast connecticut and northwest rhode island..just dont blink because you will have hiked rite thru RI....:eek:

Isn't it already in Rhode Island? That's my favorite AT state. Next to Delaware. And South Carolina.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 09:52

Isn't it already in Rhode Island? That's my favorite AT state. Next to Delaware. And South Carolina.

I ONLY WISH IT WERE IN RI. WE HAVE THE NORTH SOUTH TRAIL[79MILES] AND SOME OTHER SMALLER TRAILS....

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 09:59

Peaks, what would you think of the AT becoming a corridor trail similar to other long trails (multiple routes can be used to complete the trail) and each of the organizations currently governing those trails stay in charge. This would not place any more burden on the the ATC and would give those who feel the ATC isn't all that and a side of fries an alternative.
Interesting discussion, but not one that's going to be solved on this forum.

As I recall, part of the rational for the Tuscarora Trail was to get people off the AT, but that's never happened. (How many are even aware of the Tuscarora Trail?)

Relocate the trail? Been done and still being done. The trail gets longer every year.

Congested areas? Thru-hikers are a small minority of the total users.

Want an alternative? Use the East Coast Greenway.

Finally, how's it an alternative trail going to be maintained (and protected)? I suspect that ATC and the maintaining clubs have enough to do without expanding the things.

Want to hike on less traveled trails? Try the Long Trail north of Sherburne Pass, the Cohos Trail, Long Path, Monadnock Sunapee Greenway, just to name a few.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 10:04

just leave the AT as is and make another trail that paralels the true AT. call it the alternative AT for all of the alternative hikers??????do as you please not as they rule...what did i just say?????i dont know!!

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:12

I ONLY WISH IT WERE IN RI. WE HAVE THE NORTH SOUTH TRAIL[79MILES] AND SOME OTHER SMALLER TRAILS....

Frank, when did you move from SC?

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 10:14

Mowgli, there are two nightwalker / nitewalkers - I think Frank is the other one.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 10:16

Mowgli, there are two nightwalker / nitewalkers - I think Frank is the other one.

correct.. i am the nitewalker from ct....the one and only....lol:D

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:25

Peaks, what would you think of the AT becoming a corridor trail similar to other long trails (multiple routes can be used to complete the trail) and each of the organizations currently governing those trails stay in charge. This would not place any more burden on the the ATC and would give those who feel the ATC isn't all that and a side of fries an alternative.

FD, it is what it is. Hikers already have the option of taking alternative routes. The only obstacle to people attempting a thru-hike doing that is IMO;

Tradition
A desire to stay in shelters (Some alternate routes like the BMT have only a few
Fear of hiking alone
Fear of hiking where data may not be as readily available as it is on the AT
A desire to get a patch and be listed in the ATC magazine as a 2000-miler
They know what they want, and that's a white blaze hike of the entire AT

People can take the trail that takes them where they want to go. Having walked many of the trails in the SE other than the AT, I encourage folks to get out and do the same. Or follow SGT Rock's adventure that starts next month, and see where that takes him.

The AT is great. It has all sorts of beauty and more rare plants and animals than any other unit of the National Park system. But for me, I like to step off and hike places I've never been. Where a photo of every rock, privy and shelter isn't posted online. That's why I like the BMT, Pinhoti, Foothills, Bartram, Mountains to Sea, Cumberland, and so many of the other trails out there. And the AT too! It's ALL good.

To each their own.

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:26

correct.. i am the nitewalker from ct....the one and only....lol:D

Aha! We have two Rainmen too. KMart sucks! These are definitely not my underwear!

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 10:29

This idea is not going to be popular, but how about limiting access, as is done at Baxter Park. I'm guessing here, but ISTM that may be one of the reasons that Baxter is indeed so pristine and special.

The "limited access" idea if implemented at all should probably apply only to deep backcountry and those "ecologically sensitive" areas.

Much as I'm saddened by the evidence of overuse at places like GSMNP, I'd rather have it that way than not used at all. I strongly believe that society benefits from more people in the woods and on the mountains, not less. Even if it's only for short walks. It's still a thousand times better than watching TV.

As I see it the major issues revolve around easily-accessible beauty spots, like the Whites and GSMNP. I wouldn't do anything to discourage people from visiting those places, but I acknowledge that they can be "loved to death."

I wouldn't ask or expect a prospective thru-hiker to avoid these places. They're well worth visiting, at least once. For me, personally, since I live close to the Whites, I do my overnight treks well away from the AT corridor, since I know my way around. I think that would be a wise choice for "serial" AT hikers, but I wouldn't ask it of first-timers.

You say Baxter has limited access? Uh, the Park Tote Road/Perimeter Road cuts right thru the park with a west and an east fork. Along this road there are KOA style car camping sites such as Abol, Datahdin Stream, Daicy Pond, Kidney Pond, Nesowadnehunk Field, South Branch Pond and Trout Brook Farm, etc. So,the Wheeled Tourists get their way, and out of 204,000 acres, the only place backpackers can camp is by reservation and in authorized campgrounds.

I agree that society benefits from more people in the woods, just not driving right up to the woods. The auto lobby has run amuck and the Wheeled Tourists want to go to the last wild places without much walking, their mantra being "Let's-go-see-the-forest-but-don't-make-me-get-out."

Overuse of a place is a direct correlation to the amount of road access that place has. There'd be a lot less people on Clingman's Dome if it didn't have a road to it, the Shenandoah Park would be alot more quiet and wild with no road and just hikers on that 100 mile stretch of ridge, Wilburn Ridge and Grayson Highlands would be a lot less crowded if the KOA style campground and the road up to Massie Gap were closed.

But how will we ever know the impact hikers and backpackers have on a place until we at least try to limit vehicle access first, and then see what happens. My solution to Smokies overcrowding is simple: Close all the roads in the Park, put large parking lots at various points outside the Park, and at all the trailheads have a sign that reads: "This is a vast unspoiled wilderness. No permanent mark of man's presence is allowed. Stay as long as you want, camp anywhere you want, and Good Luck."

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 10:35

A desire to get a patch and be listed in the ATC magazine as a 2000-miler....Or follow SGT Rock's adventure that starts next month, and see where that takes him. .....It's ALL good. No quarrel from the Dino on what you said except I'd like to see the ATC officially recognize2000 milers using trails other than the AT as a corridor between GA and Maine rather than the current single path. The AT is a beautiful trail and it does go thru some of the most scenic areas in the eastern US, but I feel the ATC oversteps its bounds when it insist that the 2000 miler experience will be exactly the way the ATC defines it - a trek down an overused path while using overused facilities and dealing with a mountain of regulations.

EWS

12-02-2007, 10:35

But how will we ever know the impact hikers and backpackers have on a place until we at least try to limit vehicle access first, and then see what happens. My solution to Smokies overcrowding is simple: Close all the roads in the Park, put large parking lots at various points outside the Park, and at all the trailheads have a sign that reads: "This is a vast unspoiled wilderness. No permanent mark of man's presence is allowed. Stay as long as you want, camp anywhere you want, and Good Luck."Something by Aldous Huxley would be suiting too.

SGT Rock

12-02-2007, 10:37

Hike the path you want to hike. There are many many trails out there.

From what I have learned about trail building based on the BMT experience (not first hand, but on the history of the trail I've been told and read): if the trail was supposed to go somewhere that was to ecologically sensitive - it would have been moved already. The BMT had to have all sorts of scientists and specialists check the trail route before it was put in to make sure no endagered critters and plants got stepped on or weed wacked.

rafe

12-02-2007, 10:39

You say Baxter has limited access?

Yes, that's what I said. You need a reservation to stay at sites like Chimney Pond. You can do day hikes all you want, but you need a reservation for an overnight stay. According to the rules, you must stay at one of the designated sites; "stealth" camping is not allowed. That also means that a climb to Katahdin summit requires a permit, unless you're you're a claiming to be a through-hiker or fit enough to do it as a day hike. FWIW, I've never used the "KOA style" campgrounds at or near Baxter.

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:42

Most AT hikers (including me) only see a fraction of what Baxter has to offer. I hope to get up there and explore some of the park I haven't visited yet. Including the Knife Edge.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 10:43

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 10:47

SGT Rock-"Hike the path you want to hike. There are many many trails out there.

From what I have learned about trail building based on the BMT experience (not first hand, but on the history of the trail I've been told and read): if the trail was supposed to go somewhere that was to ecologically sensitive - it would have been moved already. The BMT had to have all sorts of scientists and specialists check the trail route before it was put in to make sure no endagered critters and plants got stepped on or weed wacked."Excellent points. The Whites have been studied by scientist and specialists since the 1800s and there are studies going on today. The camping restrictions in the Whites are there to protect the environment and to 'make sure no endangered critters and plants got stepped on or weed whacked', despite what the 'free-range' hikers believe.

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:48

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 10:50

MOWGLI16-"Even though houses are cropping up like mushrooms after a spring rain all along the AT corridor, we should still stay on the trail, not camp where you are asked not to, and refrain from building fires when asked. If AT enthusiasts like you & I disregard rules, how can we ask locals to obey the rules? And locals often have no awareness of LNT principles or ecological principles."Good gawd! Make a note, Mowgli and I agree on one point!:D

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 10:51

Yes, that's what I said. You need a reservation to stay at sites like Chimney Pond. You can do day hikes all you want, but you need a reservation for an overnight stay. According to the rules, you must stay at one of the designated sites; "stealth" camping is not allowed. That also means that a climb to Katahdin summit requires a permit, unless you're you're a claiming to be a through-hiker or fit enough to do it as a day hike. FWIW, I've never used the "KOA style" campgrounds at or near Baxter.

But how could it have limited access if cars are allowed? Or are you just talking about limited access to foot traffic and backpacking? Why not limit access to all cars in the Park?

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 10:54

Even though houses are cropping up like mushrooms after a spring rain all along the AT corridor, we should still stay :sunon the trail, not camp where you are asked not to, and refrain from building fires when asked. If AT enthusiasts like you & I disregard rules, how can we ask locals to obey the rules? And locals often have no awareness of LNT principles or ecological principles.

i should have specified that i respect all rules other than the stealth camping and maybe the occasional fire. i would never advocate walking/camping on fragile areas at all... most people cant even keep their own homes lnt nevermind the trails.. all we can do is keep pushing the lnt practice but our govt should be at the forefront not we hikers...it needs to start at the top not near the bottom......

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 10:55

I will likely be doing Katahdin a bit differently than most - staying in shelter beyond the crest rather than attempting to summit and come down in a single day because of my ortho problems. I really don't mind that as regulation of the backcountry is necessary in that area, but I do feel Baxter and Maine could do a much better job of dealing with thru-hikers at Baxter - either give them a place to camp outside Baxter or within without so many restrictions.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 10:59

Good gawd! Make a note, Mowgli and I agree on one point!:D::: Dino proclaims a holiday in honor of this momentous event :D :::

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 10:59

i should have specified that i respect all rules other than the stealth camping and maybe the occasional fire.

What does the "occasional fire" mean?

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 11:08

but its ok for the state of connecticut to fill in designated wetlands for the sake of building new houses.. tell me which is worse. one foot in the wrong spot for a second or the wetland being filled for a lifetime...[immorals=money which benifits someone other than the common man....happens all the time]money talks and BS walks

This is exactly my point, a point I've been trying to make using a deficient brain-pan coupled with my massively oversized ego.

It's like a backpacker cutting off the handle of his toothbrush to save weight while carrying a cinder block in his pack. He focuses on a tiny problem while completely ignorant of a much bigger one. One lowly humble backpacker spends an unauthorized night in the woods and the Tent Police jump, meanwhile a thousand jets pass overhead, the air pollution where that person camped is terrible, visibility is the worst in 200 years, traffic noise and motorcycle whine is constant from a few miles away, logging and development is fast approaching, and people are worried about stealth camping? For Odin's sake! What is going on here??

Jim Adams

12-02-2007, 11:15

Rick, if this is the case why are there discussions of worry that trails will be opened to ATV traffic where it was once barred? Why the concern about trails being opened up to horses and mountain bikes? If once a restriction is there, it cannot be moved, then these things should not be worries.... :D

FW,
Rick is correct. There are no NEW areas anywhere that anyone is trying to open up to ATV/offroad use. The current and past 20 year agenda is and has been just to keep those areas open that have always been open, not to open new ones. Once an area has been closed to offroad traffic, they NEVER re-open to it. Common thinking is: the change is made, why change back!:mad:

As Lone Wolf states the AT really has no highly sensative areas. It is a well worn and well used corridor that although it is maintained very well due to alot of volunteers, would take decades, possibly centuries to return to prestine condition IF it ever could.:-?

With all of the effort involved to maintain and protect what we already have and no chance of it returning to true wilderness...why would you want to construct a second one alongside? It would double the effort and cost and still have most people hiking the old AT just because it IS the AT.:(

Keep the path where it is, fight the constant wear and tear and let everyone enjoy the beautiful places that it now goes. It is NOT and NEVER will again be true wilderness.:)

The alternative?
Ladies and gentlemen. If you have made it to this sign you are one of the lucky few early enough to have obtained a permit to hike today. Please read and follow all rules and regulations concerning the Appalachian Trail to help us preserve its "wilderness" appeal.
1. Please stay on the paved path. The AT has been paved to stop erosion and provide a more secure footing for your pleasure and safety.
2. Please do NOT cross over the railing as the destruction caused by your foot steps will eventually lead to plant destruction. Do not let children climb on the railing as they may fall and be injured on the pavement.
3. Yard / meter markers have been placed at 100 yard and meter distances so that you can accurately record just how far you have hiked from the parking lot.
4. Beware of thru hikers jogging past on their way to Katahdin or Springer as bodily contact may cause a fall causing abrasions due to the paved surface.
5. If the vehicle traffic has been light to this parking area today you may have an incredible view from the lookout deck on top of White Cap Mountain just 200 meters hike from your vehicle.
6. Above all remember the ideals presented to you for this trail, that being: Hike Your Own Hike and enjoy your day on the Appalachian Trail.

geek

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 11:17

What does the "occasional fire" mean?

the occasional cooking fire;)

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 11:20

It's like a backpacker cutting off the handle of his toothbrush to save weight while carrying a cinder block in his pack. He focuses on a tiny problem while completely ignorant of a much bigger one.

Walter, I understand what you're saying. And I agree with you. Problem is.. you can't IMO use the larger issue for rationalizing doing whatever you want. Well, I suppose you can, but you won't convince me using that methodology. I'm much more apt to listen if you can make a fact based case against an existing regulation.

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 11:23

Tipi Walter-"But how could it have limited access if cars are allowed? Or are you just talking about limited access to foot traffic and backpacking? Why not limit access to all cars in the Park?"Once again, you are wrong. People entering by car are limited as well. If you took the little time and effort to check, you would find the 14th edition of the Maine A.T. guidebook says that Baxter: "...exercises a high degree of control over the number of visitors and their activities. Anyone entering the Park, whether by car or by foot, must register at one of the two entry gates or at the nearest campground. Once campground limits are reached, The Park gates are closed." Any one planning to pick up a finishing NOBO better be there between 5-6AM or they risk not getting in. I believe the limit is 750 people/day but I'm not absolutely sure.

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 11:26

the occasional cooking fire;)

I understand smoke inhalation impairs the decision making process. :rolleyes:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=19668&catid=member&imageuser=11226

Jim Adams

12-02-2007, 11:32

This is exactly my point, a point I've been trying to make using a deficient brain-pan coupled with my massively oversized ego.

It's like a backpacker cutting off the handle of his toothbrush to save weight while carrying a cinder block in his pack.

You can cut your handle and carry a cinder block if you want to...just follow the regulations and camp where you are allowed.:D

geek

Ewker

12-02-2007, 11:32

Most AT hikers (including me) only see a fraction of what Baxter has to offer.

You could change that to reflect the Smokies also. You hardly ever see any backpackers on the trails. Most tourons after getting out of their car barely walk a 1/2 mile up the trail.

pitdog

12-02-2007, 11:32

Sleep on the trail with your feet pointed in the direction one is headed.

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 11:33

FW,
Rick is correct. There are no NEW areas anywhere that anyone is trying to open up to ATV/offroad use. The current and past 20 year agenda is and has been just to keep those areas open that have always been open, not to open new ones. Once an area has been closed to offroad traffic, they NEVER re-open to it. Common thinking is: the change is made, why change back!:mad:

As Lone Wolf states the AT really has no highly sensative areas. It is a well worn and well used corridor that although it is maintained very well due to alot of volunteers, would take decades, possibly centuries to return to prestine condition IF it ever could.:-?

With all of the effort involved to maintain and protect what we already have and no chance of it returning to true wilderness...why would you want to construct a second one alongside? It would double the effort and cost and still have most people hiking the old AT just because it IS the AT.:(

Keep the path where it is, fight the constant wear and tear and let everyone enjoy the beautiful places that it now goes. It is NOT and NEVER will again be true wilderness.:)

The alternative?
Ladies and gentlemen. If you have made it to this sign you are one of the lucky few early enough to have obtained a permit to hike today. Please read and follow all rules and regulations concerning the Appalachian Trail to help us preserve its "wilderness" appeal.
1. Please stay on the paved path. The AT has been paved to stop erosion and provide a more secure footing for your pleasure and safety.
2. Please do NOT cross over the railing as the destruction caused by your foot steps will eventually lead to plant destruction. Do not let children climb on the railing as they may fall and be injured on the pavement.
3. Yard / meter markers have been placed at 100 yard and meter distances so that you can accurately record just how far you have hiked from the parking lot.
4. Beware of thru hikers jogging past on their way to Katahdin or Springer as bodily contact may cause a fall causing abrasions due to the paved surface.
5. If the vehicle traffic has been light to this parking area today you may have an incredible view from the lookout deck on top of White Cap Mountain just 200 meters hike from your vehicle.
6. Above all remember the ideals presented to you for this trail, that being: Hike Your Own Hike and enjoy your day on the Appalachian Trail.

geek

Love it . . . need it . . . want it . . . got it.

Your satirical bent matches mine, humor is about the last weapon I've got to express my bitterness sometimes.

To your list I would add:
7. If by some twist you end up more than 50 feet from you car, do not panic and make matters worse. Sit down(only on an authorized bench for this purpose)and collect yourself. Try to remember what you saw on your way in. Can you see your car from where you're sitting? If you say, "Yes! I see it! But how do I get back to it!??", then you are close enough to realize, as night approaches, that you probably will die right where you're sitting and there's no hope for you. All wilderness areas carry this sort of risk.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 11:33

SGT Rock

12-02-2007, 11:34

Love it . . . need it . . . want it . . . got it.

Your satirical bent matches mine, humor is about the last weapon I've got to express my bitterness sometimes.

To your list I would add:
7. If by some twist you end up more than 50 feet from you car, do not panic and make matters worse. Sit down(only on an authorized bench for this purpose)and collect yourself. Try to remember what you saw on your way in. Can you see your car from where you're sitting? If you say, "Yes! I see it! But how do I get back to it!??", then you are close enough to realize, as night approaches, that you probably will die right where you're sitting and there's no hope for you. All wilderness areas carry this sort of risk.
Now that is funny.

pitdog

12-02-2007, 11:36

as well as the fumes from ones stove.

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 11:36

I understand smoke inhalation impairs the decision making process. :rolleyes:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=19668&catid=member&imageuser=11226

just looked at the photo you provided. very nice.. the dude in question is reagen/el presidente a sobo i met in the shenandoahs....he was with a sobo train of 10 people.......

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 11:46

Once again, you are wrong. People entering by car are limited as well. If you took the little time and effort to check, you would find the 14th edition of the Maine A.T. guidebook says that Baxter: "...exercises a high degree of control over the number of visitors and their activities. Anyone entering the Park, whether by car or by foot, must register at one of the two entry gates or at the nearest campground. Once campground limits are reached, The Park gates are closed." Any one planning to pick up a finishing NOBO better be there between 5-6AM or they risk not getting in. I believe the limit is 750 people/day but I'm not absolutely sure.

Simple question: Why not close all car roads into the park, allow parking outside the park, and leave unlimited access to foot travellers? Monitor the situation for several years, and then tabulate use and impact?

I can hear some replies: But the park must be accessible to all people. It still would be, just not people in cars(or people in light planes or helicopters, or people on hang gliders, etc).

If the park wanted to exercise a high degree of control(and keep the land unspoiled),why not close the traffic roads? If you say, well, it's a business and they need the revenue, now that makes sense to me. But then the place becomes little more than a mini amusement park.

weary

12-02-2007, 12:01

....FWIW, I've never used the "KOA style" campgrounds at .... Baxter.
Probably because they don't exist. The park has no "hook ups," no piped water, no electricity. Wheeled vehicles and campers are limited in height and length. And most campsites won't accomodate them anyway.

My complaint with Baxter is the reservation system. I would limit over crowding by making all campgrounds "walk in" and move the parking lots further and further away as capacity began to be exceeded.

I would also abolish the 2000-miler patch and listing in the magazine, providing ATC can figure out another way to get the names and addresses needed to raise the money needed to protect the trail.

BTW Appalachian Trail rules and regulations are not really onerous. In a few places like Baxter and the Smokies the rules can be a nuicance. But for most of the trail you just walk and camp, mostly wherever you want. The problem is not too many rules, but the lack of enforcement of important rules like prohibiting ATVs and other wheeled conveyances.

Weary

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 12:25

Tipi Walter-"Simple question: Why not close all car roads into the park, allow parking outside the park, and leave unlimited access to foot travellers? Monitor the situation for several years, and then tabulate use and impact?"Other than being elitist that just won't happen. You obviously don't know but Baxter isn't a State Park in the usually sense of the meaning. Percival Baxter bought the lands with his own money and by "deeds of gifts and conveyances", allowed it to be held in trust for the people of Maine. The goals are:
1)To maintain the Park’s natural wild state in accordance with Percival Proctor Baxter's deeds of gifts and conveyances.
2)To provide a continuing timber harvest from the Scientific Forest Management Area by the application of exemplary and scientific forest management.
3)To secondarily provide for recreational use and enjoyment of the Park by people in a manner consistent with the Park's natural character.

Even during the large forest fire of 1977 they were not allowed to bring in heavy equipment to fight the fire because the regulations set up by Baxter didn't allow that. The Park isn't goverened directly by the State at all.

[QUOTE]Tipi Walter-"I can hear some replies: But the park must be accessible to all people. It still would be, just not people in cars(or people in light planes or helicopters, or people on hang gliders, etc)."Already prohibited, check your facts.

[QUOTE]Tipi Walter-"If the park wanted to exercise a high degree of control(and keep the land unspoiled),why not close the traffic roads? If you say, well, it's a business and they need the revenue, now that makes sense to me. But then the place becomes little more than a mini amusement park."As Weary already pointed out, there are no 'KOAs' or 'mini amusement parks' in Baxter and there never will be. I wish the posters who always have these emotional knee-jerk reactions would do even the least amount of research so they'd know what they are talking about.

Lilred

12-02-2007, 12:50

Dino, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're advocating is to have the ATC recognize a walk through the Appalachian chain as a thru-hike, instead of just a walk on the AT, giving patches of recognition to those that walked from Georgia to Maine, or vice versa. This way, folks could 'thru-hike' on whichever trails they chose. I'm all for this, and the change would be simple. Instead of saying, Appalachian Trail, just add an 's'. That way, we could talk about hiking the Appalachian Trails. Simple

EWS

12-02-2007, 12:56

Get rid of the patches and certificates.

Walk whatever paths you like, as far as you like, and be happy that there are some that stretch for thousands of miles.

rickb

12-02-2007, 13:00

As Weary already pointed out, there are no 'KOAs' or 'mini amusement parks' in Baxter and there never will be. I wish the posters who always have these emotional knee-jerk reactions would do even the least amount of research so they'd know what they are talking about.

KOA style campgrounds is a bit of an exaggeration, but I see the point.

FWIW, if any future thru hiker is considering having more genteel friends or relatives meeting you there, don't let them be scared off by reports of overly primitive accomodations.

You have great individual cabins for rent with pre-split firewood, indoor stoves and gas lights, canoes and communal meeting areas.

The tenting areas are like most decent car campgrounds, where you can enjoy the sight of other people's children frolicking around (its a big park but they make you camp close to others), and enjoy the smells of their steaks on the grill. So a relatives first camping experience need not be too scary.

Potentially more interesting than a motel in town, anyway.

Jim Adams

12-02-2007, 13:24

Simple question: Why not close all car roads into the park, allow parking outside the park, and leave unlimited access to foot travellers? Monitor the situation for several years, and then tabulate use and impact?

I can hear some replies: But the park must be accessible to all people. It still would be, just not people in cars

I'm sorry that I don't remember which hut, (the one after Mt. LaFayette and Garfield) but in 2002 when I was in the Whites on my thru I stayed at a hut that had just been rebuilt after it had burn down. Due to current building standards the federal regulations required the hut to have handicapped access and handicapped restrooms...and you want to limit car access and require walk-in only?....never happen!:eek:

geek

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 13:43

Jim Adams-"I'm sorry that I don't remember which hut, (the one after Mt. LaFayette and Garfield) but in 2002 when I was in the Whites on my thru I stayed at a hut that had just been rebuilt after it had burn down. Due to current building standards the federal regulations required the hut to have handicapped access and handicapped restrooms...and you want to limit car access and require walk-in only?....never happen!:eek:" You have it basically correct. That would be Galehead Hut (http://www.outdoors.org/lodging/huts/huts-galehead-rebuilt.cfm) and it didn't burn down, it was just so rotten at the base that it had to be rebuilt. Because it is on federal lands the law reads that it has to comply with ADA guidelines and there is a ramp for access and a MI (mobility impaired) stall in each bathroom. All this increased the cost of the hut by about 5%. Note that there was a lot of heated discussion regarding this rebuild.

There have been groups of MI hikers (http://webhost.bridgew.edu/jhuber/readings/trailblazing_in_a_wheelchair.html) that have visited the hut.

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 13:50

I'm sorry that I don't remember which hut, (the one after Mt. LaFayette and Garfield) but in 2002 when I was in the Whites on my thru I stayed at a hut that had just been rebuilt after it had burn down. Due to current building standards the federal regulations required the hut to have handicapped access and handicapped restrooms...and you want to limit car access and require walk-in only?....never happen!:eek:

geek

Why not? It's already happened in some wilderness areas. How much of this country is already open to car traffic? 90%? 95%? But thankfully most of the AT shelters do not have drive in access. Many places do limit car access, or at least people haven't got around to building roads thru them yet. And some people must be against traffic and understand this since the Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates areas where no cars are allowed. That's a step in the right direction. Now the National Parks need to stop pretending they're defacto wilderness areas and step up to the plate and become genuine wilderness areas, i.e. no roads. But then, how could people drive to the edge of the Grand Canyon, peer about, and then speed off?

If I drove 3 hours to get to the Smokies, I sure wouldn't mind parking in a lot outside the Park and get my tired butt in an upright position to do some exploring in a roadless landscape. Such areas should offer a large tract of land without the usual noise and stink we see on any given day: Cars and traffic. Don't we get enough of these machines as it is?

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 13:54

the handicaped hikers did make a point but realistically how many more times will they visit during there lifetime...i belive in all being equal but to cater to the very few is a waste of time...people only prove points just for the fact of proving the point then never prove the point again ....i love the idea of building a continual ramp from rte 2 up to galehead hut by way of north twin...is it really worth it.....women wated equal rites now that they have them it seems to be sliding back towards the way it used to be where women are not required to do what their opposite are required to do. not in all cases but most......

rickb

12-02-2007, 13:57

canerunner

12-02-2007, 14:09

But that is just hikers exercising their 'right' to ignore the rules. Isn't that exactly what you've been asking for?:D I know, I know, obeying those pesky laws and regulations is just so, so, "inflexible".:D

Inflexible? You got cahones using that one.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Tipi Walter

12-02-2007, 14:15

There was some serious talk about closing the road to Roaring Brook CG (best access to Baxter Peak from the North), but the fat and lazy lobby shot that down.

Or something did.

Not sure exactly.

Best place in the Park for people picking you up to drive in and get a guaranteed moose picture while they are waiting for you is a short easy walk from Roaring Brook, BTW.

Perhaps its a good thing they didn't close the road after all. :)

The President said we are addicted to oil. Maybe that's why the road wasn't closed.

Or looking closer, I bet it had to do with some city planners or some town council board member or tourist official or forest management official. Many of them love roads and road access, in their minds it's the veins and arteries that keeps the green blood flowing($).

There was talk years back about making the Smokies a real wilderness area, but the Gatlinburg honchos screamed at high pitch against it. Too restrictive, shutting off tourism, bad for business. Can I see their point? Well, I've been to Gatlinburg several times and no, I can't see their point. Instead, maybe Gatlinburg should be declared a National Sacrifice Area, or something opposite from a wilderness, like Tamed. It would have unlimited free access, just drive on in, but like Hotel California, once inside no one can leave. The perfect modern day motor park.

Old Hillwalker

12-02-2007, 14:24

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 14:38

Nitewalker-"...i belive in all being equal but to cater to the very few is a waste of time..."...so it be logical NOT to cater to the few thru hikers because that is a waste of time but design the outdoors experience for the section and day hikers, and RVs??:-?

Canerunner-"Inflexible? You got cahones using that one."Au contraire, I was just quoting FD's use of the term. If hikers were flexible they could bend to respect the trail and our environment rather than being "inflexible" and indulging in self gratification.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 14:43

...so it be logical NOT to cater to the few thru hikers because that is a waste of time but design the outdoors experience for the section and day hikers, and RVs??:-?

Au contraire, I was just quoting FD's use of the term. If hikers were flexible they could bend to respect the trail and our environment rather than being "inflexible" and indulging in self gratification.Old Fhart, you keep saying that those who question the wisdom of the ATC are self-serving or planning to trash the trail. Do you honestly think that no one can hold a different belief and still care about the trail? If so, the term inflexible is too flexible for what you are.

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 14:49

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"Old Fhart, you keep saying that those who question the wisdom of the ATC are self-serving or planning to trash the trail."Geez! Once again I have to remind you I have never said that. If you want to question the ATC, NPS, even GWB himself-go for it. When you go beyond questioning and commit physical acts that you know are illegal, harm the trail, and cast all hikers in a bad light, that is just plain lawlessness.

Sorry you still can't understand the difference between a question and an action.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 14:53

Old Fhart, do you represent the ATC or ALDHA?

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 14:59

Get rid of the patches and certificates.

Walk whatever paths you like, as far as you like, and be happy that there are some that stretch for thousands of miles.

Egggggggzactly!!!

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 15:02

Frolicking Dinosaurs, do you represent the lawless?:rolleyes: At one time or the other, or currently I have been in the AMC, ATC, ALDHA, MATC, GMC, WB, etc, etc., but that isn't the point unless you feel that your being a moderator on WB should hold you to a higher standard of conduct that the display you've put on here.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 15:08

Just asking because if what you have displayed here was what the ATC and ALDHA are all about then I wouldn't contribute one more red cent to them or support them in any way. Several people have privately told me you are way off what ATC and ALDHA feel in what you have said so I asked you directly if you represent them.

My status as moderator has nothing at all to do with my viewpoints. I have not engaged in any activity that is outside of the TOS of this site. Holding views similar to TOF isn't part of the requirement to be a moderator.

Bearpaw

12-02-2007, 15:20

You could flank hike the entire trail, get off about 100 yards on either side and start walking. In 2000 miles you wouldn't see another human except at road crossings.:) I FLANK-HIKED THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL!! Look good on the nylon resume, maybe even put you up there with the speed hikers.

I'm pretty sure this is satire :confused: .

If not, the environmental impact of folks ripping up the areas just off the trail tread (where this is even physically possible) would be horrific, especially after the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on hikers ripped open enough trail for other to trample into a bit of openness. Then instead of a 3-foot solid tread, we could have a trash-zone 100-200 yards wide with multiple criss-crosses and a wasteland of hiker abuse.

So unless there are a couple of feet of snow out there, let's not recommend this approach.

Bearpaw

12-02-2007, 15:33

If you want an alternative to the AT, hike here... http://www.greateasterntrail.org/maps.html

This sounds nice, except that most of this corridor is still an idea, not a reality.

Look at Tennessee. That nice solid black corridor that looks so real is the Cumberland Trail, which I have helped build since 2000. It is about 2/3's complete, but there are still YEARS left before it is a full corridor. Right now, the longest complete stretch is in the south where there are about 44 continuous miles.

Many potential corridors have been closed or dispensed with because of environmental concerns or conflicts with state or private agencies. But mostly we just need MORE bodies to help, particularly during Breakaway in the full month of March and during Big Dig in late May and June. So if you REALLY want folks to hike an alternative corridor, check out http://www.cumberlandtrail.org/ctc.html and see when you can help BUILD the alternative route.

I'm sure the same can be said for the Georgia corridor of the Pinhoti Trail and many of the other existing or soon-to-be portions of the Great Eastern Trail.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 15:39

....But mostly we just need MORE bodies to help, particularly during Breakaway in the full month of March and during Big Dig in late May and June. So if you REALLY want folks to hike an alternative corridor, check out http://www.cumberlandtrail.org/ctc.html and see when you can help BUILD the alternative route.A proactive solution - I like it. :)

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 15:44

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"Just asking because if what you have displayed here was what the ATC and ALDHA are all about then I wouldn't contribute one more red cent to them or support them in any way. Several people have privately told me you are way off what ATC and ALDHA feel in what you have said so I asked you directly if you represent them.

My status as moderator has nothing at all to do with my viewpoints. I have not engaged in any activity that is outside of the TOS of this site. Holding views similar to TOF isn't part of the requirement to be a moderator."Over a year ago in these forums you publicly stated your dislike for me was so intense that you wouldn't join any organization that I represented. I represent ALDHA, AMC, ATC, SCC, WB, and many other groups so your worst fears have come true. :sun

That you would care so little about the trail that you would let your personal hatred of me influence your possible support of the trail says a lot about your character. If your are sincere in your vindictiveness I'd expect you to resign from White Blaze as well. :D

And finally-My status as member of ALDHA has nothing at all to do with my viewpoints. I have not engaged in any activity that is outside of the TOS of that organization. Holding views similar to FD isn't part of the requirement to be in ALDHA, ATC, AMC, or the human race for that matter.

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 15:47

Reeeeeeooooowwwwwrrrr!!!! 100 years, all new people.

Bearpaw

12-02-2007, 15:48

The question: Should the AT be moved from areas that are ecologically sensitive and areas that are overcrowded?

I agree the AT in the Smokies is somewhat crowded. If I were to thru-hike the AT again, I would hike south-bound to avoid much of the congestion, and I would probably blue-blaze the last 300 miles to do the Benton MacKaye Trail. (I know, you can bring up the question "Is that a thru-hike?", but let's table that can of worms for another time.) However, I don't know that I would call the Smokies AT ecologically damaged, beyond the natural and obvious damage building a trail creates.

I think it would help congestion if GSMNP and the ATC offerred the BMT through the park as an alternative that still qualified hikers for the "2000-miler" recognition. You can say HYOH, but for many, they WANT that recognition. If it's just that, let the ATC recognize alternate corridors, just as they recognize high-water routes.

But the AT "high-route" through the Smokies really does offer superior views than the BMT does. Restricting vehicle access would not lessen the traffic on the AT all that dramatically, as there are numerous side trails that lead to the main ridgeline.

As for not ending (or beginning) the AT on Katahdin, I have to scream sacrilege! The climb up Katahdin and the view and emotion from the top is absolutely stunning. It would be like telling a Muslim pilgram they have to go somewhere else than Mecca for Hajj. Springer would be a negotiable move, but NOT Katahdin.

dixicritter

12-02-2007, 15:48

:rolleyes: That's about enough of that. If you can't discuss this without taking it personal then don't discuss it at all.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 15:48

Sorry Dixi - this was a cross post -

I was an ALDHA member - did that make me an ALDHA representive? Do you officially represent any of these organizations or not?

BTW, where did I say my hatred of you is so intense that I wouldn't join any organization that you are a member of? I certainly don't recall having said that. Frankly, I really don't have all that strong an opinion of you one way or the other.

Over a year ago in these forums you publicly stated your dislike for me was so intense that you wouldn't join any organization that I represented. I represent ALDHA, AMC, ATC, SCC, WB, and many other groups so your worst fears have come true. :sun

That you would care so little about the trail that you would let your personal hatred of me influence your possible support of the trail says a lot about your character. If your are sincere in your vindictiveness I'd expect you to resign from White Blaze as well. :D

And finally-My status as member of ALDHA has nothing at all to do with my viewpoints. I have not engaged in any activity that is outside of the TOS of that organization. Holding views similar to FD isn't part of the requirement to be in ALDHA, ATC, AMC, or the human race for that matter.

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 15:56

Frolicking Dinosaurs-"Sorry Dixi - this was a cross post -"You could at least honor Dixi's request and not post the same old vent one more time. You have an edit button, use it.

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 16:01

You could at least honor Dixi's request and not post the same old vent one more time. You have an edit button, use it.

Dude, c'mon.:datz

dixicritter

12-02-2007, 16:01

You could at least honor Dixi's request and not post the same old vent one more time. You have an edit button, use it.

Let it go.

cowboy nichols

12-02-2007, 16:09

canerunner

12-02-2007, 16:15

If we as a "civilized" country continue to ignore the damage to the globe called earth we will not have to worry about the A T or any other whilterness areas. I can remember when you could look at the mountains and see trees, now it hurts to see mountain after mountain covered with dead and dieing forest.

Where is this that you see the "mountain after mountain covered with dead and dying forest"?

I've seen some pretty bleak terrain around Copperhill, and trees dying of what I was told was acid rain exposure, but I've never seen the extent of damage you mention.

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 16:39

I was wondering the same.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 16:55

Clingman's Dome area is pretty sad.

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 16:56

Clingman's Dome area is pretty sad.
I haven't been there yet. Has it changed in the last couple decades?

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 17:01

Yes, many of the huge fir trees have died and those that are left are stunted. It looks totally different than it did in the 1970's

warraghiyagey

12-02-2007, 17:03

Yes, many of the huge fir trees have died and those that are left are stunted. It looks totally different than it did in the 1970's
Is this a pollution thing? Or a climate change thing? Or a natural turnover like the northeast mountains?

Ewker

12-02-2007, 17:04

pine beetles and other bugs/insects

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 17:05

Canerunner-"Where is this that you see the "mountain after mountain covered with dead and dying forest"?This site (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/196forests.html) states:

Some of the most dramatic effects on forests have been observed in Europe. In 1983, a survey in West Germany showed that 34 % of the country's total forest is damaged by air pollution. This included about one half of the famous Black Forest. Switzerland has recorded damage to 14 % of her forest trees.

Red spruce and Fraser firs are dead and dying on top of Mount Mitchell, North Carolina. There are few signs of any plant life reproduction there.
.....
On Camels Hump in Vermont's Green Mountains, Dr. H. Vogelmann, professor of botany at the University of Vermont, has reported startling evidence of tree damage. Conifers are most effected because the needles are bathed in acid droplets all year around.Other trees drop their leaves. Measurements of the total biomass in the balsam fir has declined 20 % from 1965 to 1983. The red spruce has declined a dramatic 73 % in the same time period. Lower on the mountain sugar maples and beech trees biomass dropped 25 %.

Forests at high altitudes may be enshrouded by clouds or fog for much of the time. The pH of lower cloud droplets may average 3.6, which is a much lower pH than the final rain of pH 4.2.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 17:09

Is this a pollution thing? Or a climate change thing? Or a natural turnover like the northeast mountains?They say it is due to the amount of acid in the water droplets in the clouds from TVA's coal fired plants and other industrial pollution. The area is often fogged / clouded in.

Bearpaw

12-02-2007, 17:22

They say it is due to the amount of acid in the water droplets in the clouds from TVA's coal fired plants and other industrial pollution. The area is often fogged / clouded in.

I've generally heard weather patterns bring in pollution from the major cities of Chicago, St. Louis, Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, etc, resulting in acid rain, which weakened the trees in the fairly fragile subalpine forests above 6000 feet in the park. This, combined with insect infestation, caused the damage so prevalent in the 1980's.

However, things are actually getting better. In the late 80's the place was a timber graveyard. Go there now, 20 years later, and there are many healthy trees sprouting up to match the skeletons of the old dead trees. It's all speculation of course, but the lack of insect infestation combined with tighter emissions controls, may have helped to halt this trend. In another 10-20 years, Clingman's may well be green again, as the stark white skeletons finally fall to the ground and the newer evergreens dominate the skyline.

BTW, this phenomenon really is a higher altitude issue. You don't see this much any where in the park (that I can think of) below about 5500 feet.

As for the original thread, moving thru-hikers off the ridge isn't likely to have any effect, good or bad, on the recovery of the ridgetops.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 17:37

As for the original thread, moving thru-hikers off the ridge isn't likely to have any effect, good or bad, on the recovery of the ridgetops.Good point. The AT in that area is so overused that it is practically a trench - in rainy weather waters flows down the trail and the trail is a mudhole.

Hikerhead

12-02-2007, 17:43

This is surely the biggest reason for the lost of the Hemlocks.

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/hemlock-woolly-adelgid.htm

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 17:48

This is surely the biggest reason for the lost of the Hemlocks.

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/hemlock-woolly-adelgid.htmNot on Clingsmans, the loss of those hemlocks predates the woolly adelgid infestation by about 25 years.

weary

12-02-2007, 18:01

Good point. The AT in that area is so overused that it is practically a trench - in rainy weather waters flows down the trail and the trail is a mudhole.
It's a trench because of poor construction in the first place. Waterbars need to be placed on grades to divert the water from the trail. We made the same mistake in Maine during the huge relocations in the 70s and 80s. MATC is spending many, many thousands of dollars every year to correct the trail design flaws.

Some deplore the "steps" that destroy the naturalness of the trail. But once erosion has replaced the footpath with deep gullies, there are few, if any, alternatives.

WEary

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 18:04

Weary, why not relocate the trail and build the new trail correctly rather than attempt to re-work damaged portions?

nitewalker

12-02-2007, 18:07

[quote=The Old Fhart;461113]...so it be logical NOT to cater to the few thru hikers because that is a waste of time but design the outdoors experience for the section and day hikers, and RVs??:-?

no is the answer to that....what i mean is quit catering to every wish and demand. in plain english those who B P AND M enough are caterd to. why? too shut them up.. the world in general, nevermind the hiking community need to quit giving in too all the demands and wishes of certain people ,groups, organizations and let some things stay as is.. adjust only if a must, why fix what isnt broken and so on and so fourth..halleiglough, amen and peace be with all.:D ugggh:D nitewalker

weary

12-02-2007, 18:22

Weary, why not relocate the trail and build the new trail correctly rather than attempt to re-work damaged portions?
Well it just creates another human intrusion. That's what all hikers do when they come to a mud puddle, the walk around it, and the trail gets wider and wider.

However, maintainers are always experimenting. I know of several trails that have been relocated to bypass damage, only to be relocated to the original location after awhile, when it becomes obvious that the "natural regeneration" of a damaged trail takes centuries, sometimes millennia.

WEary

emerald

12-02-2007, 18:33

Some would argue there's an obligation to repair such damage which in some cases could be expected to worsen.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 18:38

emerald

12-02-2007, 18:51

Was not the forest canopy of Clingman's Dome comprised primarily of Fraser fir and to a lesser extent red spruce and is not Fraser fir mortality at that site attributed at least in part to balsam woolly adelgid? Perhaps someone could post a link. A quick search yielded less than what I'd hoped to find.

saimyoji

12-02-2007, 18:53

Since you specifically asked for my opinion I will give it:

It seems prudent to relocate sections when warranted. Heavily eroded and dangerous (to the ecosystem or to hikers) trail should be relocated. Relocations within the current corridor are quite common, are they not? Why not stick with this kind of "relocation" on an as needed basis, and work towards protecting/widening the AT corridor. Seems to me that increasing the possible area of trail relocations is a better focus than just finding a "new route."

But then I'm a simple minded fool, drinking superfund tap water and actually enjoying walking the AT in PA. :cool:

emerald

12-02-2007, 19:05

Keeping damage that would likely get worse from happening was why I asked about relocation. I've done some reworking of trails with serious erosion and know that most of the time in the south it is better to relocate the trail and take measures to help the former trail area recover.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a trench to deepen over time in response to additional erosion, rather than fill in over time if there's nothing to impede what's added from being transported downhill? My point is a new area is impacted and the abandoned trail doesn't get better on its own and perhaps worse.

Maybe you could enlighten me about this recovery process to which you refer?

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 19:16

Shades of Gray-"Was not the forest canopy of Clingman's Dome comprised primarily of Fraser fir and to a lesser extent red spruce and is not Fraser fir mortality at that site attributed at least in part to balsam woolly adelgid? Perhaps someone could post a link. A quick search yielded less than what I'd hoped to find."
Here ar three links that may help. Link1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/benandliz/256912233/), Link2 (http://www.smokiesrental.com/clingmans_dome.htm), Link3 (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/mountains.htm).
In the 1970, according to one link, 95% of the Fraser fir trees were killed by the balsam woolly adelgid. Here is part of what one link said:

What's killing the trees? The balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae) is an insect pest that infests and kills stands of Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) in the spruce-fir zone. This fir occurs naturally only in the southern Appalachians and used to be the dominant tree at the highest elevations. The adelgid was introduced on trees imported from Europe, and the fir has little natural defense against it. By injecting the tree with toxins, the adelgid blocks the path of nutrients through the tree. The trees literally starve to death, and thousands of dead snags are all that are left on the highest mountain peaks.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 19:22

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a trench to deepen over time in response to additional erosion, rather than fill in over time if there's nothing to impede what's added from being transported downhill? My point is a new area is impacted and the abandoned trail doesn't get better on its own and perhaps worse.

Maybe you could enlighten me about this recovery process to which you refer?Large bars - much larger than those used on foot trails - are placed in the deep trenches causing the eroded material from above to build up. This was done for trails that were eroded to the point of being trenches deeper than about two feet and had a significant slope . A new trail section was built correctly (with switchbacks, water bars, etc.) to prevent recurrence of the problem.

Froggy

12-02-2007, 19:30

Seems that having three or four alternates to sensitive or overcrowded areas might be a good thing. As one alternate gets overly used, close it and reopen one of the others. All of them would be permanently part of the AT, and the trail in use would cycle through them, letting the unused segments rest.

All would have the same protection from development.

This would create a more durable trail as the overall population increases.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 19:32

Excellent idea, Froggy. Making the 'official' trial rotate would indeed be one way to keep any particular part of the trail from experiencing overuse year after year.

saimyoji

12-02-2007, 19:51

OR keep them all open all the time (unless conditions warrant closing one) and allow people their choice of routes.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 19:53

I think he means they would all be open, but one would be the recommended route for that year.

emerald

12-02-2007, 20:34

Here are three links that may help. Link1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/benandliz/256912233/), Link2 (http://www.smokiesrental.com/clingmans_dome.htm), Link3 (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/mountains.htm).
In the 1970, according to one link, 95% of the Fraser fir trees were killed by the balsam woolly adelgid. Here is part of what one link said:

Thanks. Your links seem to suggest something more consistent with what I observed in 1980 and what I later read.

I'm sure detailed information pertaining to the forest composition and the particulars of the mortality as presently understood appears in scientific journals, but those articles are often only available by paying for individual articles or through a subscription service.

I believe it was Hub Vogelmann's research at UVM that identified acid precipitation as a contributor to reduced productivity of high elevation forests. His observations led to speculation that free aluminum resulting from a change in pH might somehow be involved. Only later, were adelgids implicated and then perhaps only because the trees were already weakened.

I may have that close to right. If not, I hope someone who knows more will contribute.

MOWGLI

12-02-2007, 20:34

Not for nuthin, but if you took all the time invested in this thread, we could have completed a major relo on the trail.

I hope everyone concerned about this issue will spend at least a day (or more) in 2008 performing trail work.

emerald

12-02-2007, 20:36

Large bars - much larger than those used on foot trails - are placed in the deep trenches causing the eroded material from above to build up. This was done for trails that were eroded to the point of being trenches deeper than about two feet and had a significant slope . A new trail section was built correctly (with switchbacks, water bars, etc.) to prevent recurrence of the problem.

I'm glad to hear the damaged trails weren't simply abandoned.:)

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 20:37

I do some trail work every year - more as a support person these days,but somebody has to feed the workers.

emerald

12-02-2007, 20:38

rafe

12-02-2007, 20:47

Excellent idea, Froggy. Making the 'official' trial rotate would indeed be one way to keep any particular part of the trail from experiencing overuse year after year.

Where are you going to put the "alternates"? As it is, the footpath is quite often on narrow a knife edge (eg., the Whites or Smokies, or Tinker Cliffs to McAfee summit.) You can't relocate it without taking it off the ridge, and then the new trail becomes much more of an engineering project since a level trail has to be hacked into the side of the mountain. Moreover, who's going to do the work?

pitdog

12-02-2007, 20:54

The appalachians are one of the oldest mtn.ranges in the world.I am sure when mother nature decides to relocate the trail,on her own,it will be relocated beyond our wildest dreams.

rafe

12-02-2007, 20:56

I will likely be doing Katahdin a bit differently than most - staying in shelter beyond the crest rather than attempting to summit and come down in a single day because of my ortho problems.

You might want to reconsider that. There are no easy routes up to Katahdin summit, and the AT up to the summit is a kick. I wouldn't want to do it with a regular pack.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 20:58

Some of the alternates are already built - they are called blue blazes and connecting trails. The alternatives for the Smokies are too numerous to mention. There are other trails in the Whites that could be pressed into use. Other routes up Katahdin could be used. The idea is to incorporate alternatives wherever possible to reduce the stress on the AT (especially in the south and in eco-sensitive areas) - not to build a completely new second trail paralleling the AT

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:01

You might want to reconsider that. There are no easy routes up to Katahdin summit, and the AT up to the summit is a kick. I wouldn't want to do it with a regular pack.Two others have agreed to carry part of my gear up to one of the camps on top on a trail other than the AT. I will face the same difficulties One-leg faced in summiting - the inability to push myself up on one side - but I want to have a plan in place so I don't require a rescue.

DavidNH

12-02-2007, 21:09

Did I read it right, FD, you would consider moving the AT so it ends outside of Baxter State Park? Good lord..the trail HAS to end on Katahdin in Baxter. That is one of the most spectacular parts of the whole trail plus it is protected! True.. many would just assume that the trail end at a bar in Millinocket..but there are those of us who actually hike for the hike and for the scenery of the mountains!

Is there anyway the trail could be re-located OUTSIDE Of PA? I don't see how you could miss the state..but if someone could devise a way..hey I'm listening!!! Even the ice cream in PA isn't good!!!

Seriously thought..I don't see the AT being moved much from its current location. It already is an oasis from develoipment that occurrs all around it.. and moving the trail would only bring the crowds to what are now uncrowded places.

The way I see it.. the main problem with the AT (crowd wise) is just plain too much publicity. So many books have been writen about it and many videos have been made. Oh and my dear Mr. Bryson... your book was funny and amusing but there really is no need for you to make a movie about the trail. Don't need 3000 people attempting this hike each year..1000+ is quite enough!!!

David

rafe

12-02-2007, 21:11

The AT is a beautiful trail and it does go thru some of the most scenic areas in the eastern US, but I feel the ATC oversteps its bounds when it insist that the 2000 miler experience will be exactly the way the ATC defines it - a trek down an overused path while using overused facilities and dealing with a mountain of regulations.

Feeling a bit of cognitive dissonanance, Dino? It's a "beautiful path" but then you disparage it... overused.. mountain of regs, yadda yadda.

The regs are mostly there for a purpose, and you can either a) honor them to the letter, b) work around them, as your conscience allows, or c) find alternative trails. Frankly, outside of the National Parks, the regs don't impact my hiking much, one way or another.

Overused? Just in a few sections. Smokies, the Whites, maybe SNP. Don't like the facilites? Don't use 'em. AT too crowded for ya? Walk some other trail. ATC "oversteps its bounds?" That's a hoot, really. Nobody's forcing you to walk an inch of the AT.

I get the sense this is all about the "terms" for your 2000-miler patch. :rolleyes:

Programbo

12-02-2007, 21:18

Some of the alternates are already built - they are called blue blazes and connecting trails........

Correct...The Tuscarora Trail would make a nice long relocate ...I always thought a better route would be if the trail stayed out to the west along the VA-WV border and ran up thru the Jefferson and Washington National Forests instead of making the eastward turn and going up along the Blueridge Parkway/Skyline Drive route..That would connect up with the already existing Tuscarora trail west of SNP and continue up rejoining the old AT route near the Susquehanna River

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:21

Believe what you like, terrapin. It doesn't impact the truth one bit.

The AT is grotesquely overused in the south every spring. It is grotesquely overused in the GSMNP, the SNP and the Presidentials. Using the corridor concept would help alleviate this.

Would the corridor make for a hike I would rather hike - also a big yes. I'd much rather hike the BMT than the GSMNP. I much rather hike where I can camp in the woods instead of stay in the huts. I prefer to avoid shelters altogether. However, I can choose not to do the ATC's hike to get the hike I want. Doing the official AT isn't that big a deal to me.

emerald

12-02-2007, 21:24

Did I read it right, FD, you would consider moving the AT so it ends outside of Baxter State Park? Good lord..the trail HAS to end on Katahdin in Baxter.

I heard she was planning to see if she could arrange to move Katahdin outside BSP.

Is there anyway the trail could be re-located OUTSIDE Of PA? I don't see how you could miss the state..but if someone could devise a way..hey I'm listening!!! Even the ice cream in PA isn't good!!!

Go to Penn State Creamery (http://www.creamery.psu.edu/Default.htm). Penn State taught Ben and Jerry how to make ice cream.:rolleyes:

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:25

Correct...The Tuscarora Trail would make a nice long relocate ...I always thought a better route would be if the trail stayed out to the west along the VA-WV border and ran up thru the Jefferson and Washington National Forests instead of making the eastward turn and going up along the Blueridge Parkway/Skyline Drive route..That would connect up with the already existing Tuscarora trail west of SNP and continue up rejoining the old AT route near the Susquehanna RiverExcellent idea, Sara!

emerald

12-02-2007, 21:35

The AT is grotesquely overused in the south every spring.

If you're talking about Georgia, why aren't inexperienced hikers encouraged more often to attempt shorter hikes before attempting the A.T. all at once? It would seem reasonable to me to attempt at least a two week hike beforehand.

I've heard many times Vermont's Long Trail is a good test run.

The Old Fhart

12-02-2007, 21:35

_terrapin_"Where are you going to put the "alternates"? As it is, the footpath is quite often on narrow a knife edge (eg., the Whites or Smokies, or Tinker Cliffs to McAfee summit.) You can't relocate it without taking it off the ridge, and then the new trail becomes much more of an engineering project since a level trail has to be hacked into the side of the mountain. Moreover, who's going to do the work?"EXACTLY! As to who's going to do the work (and foot the bill), don't expect the whiners to contribute.

_terrapin_"Overused? Just in a few sections. Smokies, the Whites, maybe SNP. Don't like the facilites? Don't use 'em. AT too crowded for ya? Walk some other trail. ATC "oversteps its bounds?" That's a hoot, really. Nobody's forcing you to walk an inch of the AT.Right again. It boggles the mind that some hikers are so inflexible that they not only ignore regulations but somehow believe that the people who built the trail ,and the people who protect it, are their enemies. Like you say, the solution is simple, no one is forcing you to walk the trail.

weary

12-02-2007, 21:36

Two others have agreed to carry part of my gear up to one of the camps on top on a trail other than the AT. I will face the same difficulties One-leg faced in summiting - the inability to push myself up on one side - but I want to have a plan in place so I don't require a rescue.
There are no camps on top. The closest is Chimney Pond, half way down the other side of the mountain. Maine has no long ridges like the Smokies. Maine is mostly hikes to the summits and then back to the valleys -- and, of course back to the next summit -- and back down.

Summitting Katahdin via the Saddle Trail from Chimney Pond is the easiest route to the summit -- and my favorite. Mostly because the route is both easy and special.

It's an easy 3.5 miles from the nearest road to Chimney POnd. And a steep thousand foot plus vertical rise and 2 miles from Chimney to Katahdin's summit.

Weary

Froggy

12-02-2007, 21:36

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:39

Chimney Pond is the place. I'm not sure what route I will use to summit. Thank you for the info about the routes.
There are no camps on top. The closest is Chimney Pond, half way down the other side of the mountain. Maine has no long ridges like the Smokies. Maine is mostly hikes to the summits and then back to the valleys -- and, of course back to the next summit -- and back down.

Summitting Katahdin via the Saddle Trail from Chimney Pond is the easiest route to the summit -- and my favorite. Mostly because the route is both easy and special.

It's an easy 3.5 miles from the nearest road to Chimney POnd. And a steep thousand foot plus vertical rise and 2 miles from Chimney to Katahdin's summit.

Weary

rafe

12-02-2007, 21:39

The AT is grotesquely overused in the south every spring. It is grotesquely overused in the GSMNP, the SNP and the Presidentials. Using the corridor concept would help alleviate this.

Not really. As has been noted several times, thru-hikers account for only a tiny portion of the overcrowding that you sense in the National Parks. If you're worried about crowded shelters for the first few weeks out of Springer, etc. -- just hike SOBO. And besides, why do you care about crowded shelters? You're not planning to stay in them anyway, right?

Would the corridor make for a hike I would rather hike - also a big yes. I'd much rather hike the BMT than the GSMNP. I much rather hike where I can camp in the woods instead of stay in the huts. I prefer to avoid shelters altogether. So who's stopping you? Seriously. Except for a few heavily-traveled sections, you can pretty much do as you please on the AT. Nobody's forcing you to hike an inch of it, Dino.

However, I can choose not to do the ATC's hike to get the hike I want. Doing the official AT isn't that big a deal to me.Right. So what's the problem? The overcrowding in the National parks and the Whites isn't from thru-hiker traffic, and moving the trail will serve no purpose. As a fair-weather weekend warrior, I would still want my annual hike of Franconia Ridge, regardless of the color of its blazes. The only way to reduce the traffic to that ridge is through regulations and/or restricted access.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:45

The only way to reduce the traffic to that ridge is through regulations and/or restricted access.If the regulations were such that they discouraged those thru hiking the AT from using it and an approved alternative existed - wouldn't this also take some of the traffic off the ridge?

weary

12-02-2007, 21:47

Also a great route to the summit is the Hamlin Ridge Trail, which also leaves from Chimney Pond, a bit easier than the Saddle, but quite a bit longer. But if the weather is favorable, a beautiful trail, with special attributes of its own. It's the route I took when my 5-year-old hiked to the summit -- a tale I've told before, so won't repeat here.

Weary

emerald

12-02-2007, 21:47

rafe

12-02-2007, 21:55

If the regulations were such that they discouraged those thru hiking the AT from using it and an approved alternative existed - wouldn't this also take some of the traffic off the ridge?

Only if the hiker(s) in question were looking to be really lazy, or were totally ignorant of the view from the top. Seriously: the reason it [Franconia Ridge] gets so much traffic is because it's freaking beautiful, and relatively accessible. IMO, it would be a shame to miss it. I can't think of any alternatives with comparable views.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 21:58

Only if the hiker(s) in question were looking to be really lazy, or were totally ignorant of the view from the top. Seriously: the reason it [Franconia Ridge] gets so much traffic is because it's freaking beautiful, and relatively accessible. IMO, it would be a shame to miss it. I can't think of any alternatives with comparable views.While I argee the view is beautiful, some don't hike for the views. I could have much better views from the AT in the GSMNP than the BMT, but at what price. Other parts of the hiking experience outweigh the views for some hikers.

weary

12-02-2007, 22:05

If the regulations were such that they discouraged those thru hiking the AT from using it and an approved alternative existed - wouldn't this also take some of the traffic off the ridge?
Many thousands hike the Franconia Ridge each year. By the time the thru hikers reach the ridge there are only 400, maybe 500 of thrus left. We forget that thru hikers represent only a tiny, tiny percentage of those that hike on the AT each year.

And the ridge is mostly solid granite. It could handle another 10,000 hikers without showing any significant impact.

I'm all for creating and popularizing alternative trails. That's mostly what I do these days. Allowing a hike through the trail corridor to qualify someone for a 2,000-mile rocker is a great idea for dispersing the crowds during the peak thru hiker season in the south -- and incidentally encouraging hikers to experience the many beautiful waterfalls, historic sites, and scenic views from blue-blazed alternative trails.

But except for a relatively tiny group of AT fadists these alternatives would have little impact on use of the trail. The AT for the most part travels the most scenic and challenging route and thus will always be over used.

Weary www.matlt.org

rafe

12-02-2007, 22:06

While I argee the view is beautiful, some don't hike for the views. I could have much better views from the AT in the GSMNP than the BMT, but at what price. Other parts of the hiking experience outweigh the views for some hikers.

So Dino, are you planning to hike sobo, or nobo in Spring, with the hordes? Maybe a thru-hike isn't for you. I've not had issues with crowds for these last 1000 miles or so of the AT. That's because I pick and choose my season to avoid the crowds.

As I understand it, the AT is and will forever be the most "social" and crowded of the three major long trails in the US. That's not entirely by accident and not entirely a bad thing.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-02-2007, 22:10

Weary, excellent points about the impact of thrus using other routes. We can only do what we can do. As you note, many of the trails would continue to be overused because of their scenic value.

I would still like to see the ATC consider the corridor concept. It would give hikers more options to HYOH - you could choose the roads less traveled or all the beautiful vistas - some on what are now blue-blazes.

rafe

12-02-2007, 22:11

Many thousands hike the Franconia Ridge each year.

Many hundreds hike it on any given summer or fall weekend. :rolleyes:

weary

12-02-2007, 22:14

When I suggested that there be three or four parallel segments in critical areas, and that trail usage should rotate from one to another, I didn't mean that they'd all be open with one recommended.

I meant that all but one of them would be closed for regeneration. Closed, as in illegal for use. It would allow them to recouperate. That wouldn't happen if people could chose their favorite and take that one.

Only one would be in use at a particular time. When it got worn down, it would be closed and one of the others opened up.

As a by-product, the entire scheme would protect more trail area than currently.
The trails in the northern half of the AT have been recuperating ever since the demise of the last glaciers 10-15,000 years ago. Recuperation in these mountains is a long process.

Rotate trails every half century or so, and if you have a special knowledge of ecology you might notice some marginal surface recuperation.

Weary

Lone Wolf

12-03-2007, 09:43

there ain't no ecologically sensitive areas left on the present AT. it's a mess. don't move it

actually the ONLY place i would move it is AWAY from Baxter State Park. i'd like to see the AT begin/end at Whitecap Mtn.

Lone Wolf

12-03-2007, 09:46

Did I read it right, FD, you would consider moving the AT so it ends outside of Baxter State Park?

i absolutely agree. always have. way too much regulation in the park

pitdog

12-03-2007, 09:48

Hes right,the trail has gone down hill in the last 10 years,maybe thats why wingfoot got discusted and went on to other things.

rafe

12-03-2007, 09:56

Hes right,the trail has gone down hill in the last 10 years...

So has the rest of the planet. I'm more worried about that part, frankly...

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-03-2007, 11:17

the northern terminus of the AT should be anywhere but Baxter Park. too many hassles
Hmm, let's see, you walk 2000 miles where you are basically living free from rules and fees (except some in VT and the Whites) and suddenly bang, welcome to civilization where you are greeted with a whole bunch of rules and fees. Some way to end a 2000 mile hike. I agree with LW - the AT should end somewhere besides Baxter.
Yes,I agree with lw,one can hike freely for 2000mi and all of a sudden one is faced with fashist dictators.It seems several others feel as I do about Baxter - that perhaps the AT needs to have its northern terminus elsewhere. A setting outside of a park - something more like Springer - would be ideal.

dixicritter

12-03-2007, 11:27

The Old Fhart

12-03-2007, 11:30

...perhaps the malcontents would be happy if the ENTIRE A.T. was moved to their parallel universe, or Bedlam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bedlam).

pitdog

12-03-2007, 11:37

Yes, we must be insane,for allowing these changes to change,our true desire,to being at one with the wilderness.Please forgive us who love the AT.

EWS

12-03-2007, 11:39

...perhaps the malcontents would be happy if the ENTIRE A.T. was moved to their parallel universe, or Bedlam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bedlam).I'd happily settle for a place with rules like Europe's, but with better weather.

The Old Fhart

12-03-2007, 11:40

Pitdog-"Please forgive us who love the AT."You call it love, the law calls it rape.:D

dixicritter

12-03-2007, 11:42

Same ole broken record.

pitdog

12-03-2007, 11:45

How are the forest doing in northern new hampshire.

EWS

12-03-2007, 11:45

TOF is gonna get this one up to 20 something pages too, if everyone doesn't get tired of arguing with him first.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

12-03-2007, 11:46

Wow, I just went to the Baxter State Park website and read the rules. Hope no one decides to carry ANY audio devices into the park because you'll be in violation of the rules there, this included use of radios, cassette players, and cell phones. :rolleyes: Un-freakin-believable.I'm sure there is some good reason for this rule - just like all the other rules :rolleyes:

This is a good example of why I feel the rules along the AT need to be re-evaluated.

MOWGLI

12-03-2007, 11:47

Wow, I just went to the Baxter State Park website and read the rules. Hope no one decides to carry ANY audio devices into the park because you'll be in violation of the rules there, this included use of radios, cassette players, and cell phones. :rolleyes: Un-freakin-believable.

I'm quite sure that none of TOF's friends have never consumed alcohol in public in Baxter State Park. :rolleyes: I'm certain if they had, he'd be outraged. :p After all, it's against the rules.

The Old Fhart

12-03-2007, 11:47

Dixicritter-"Wow, I just went to the Baxter State Park website and read the rules. Hope no one decides to carry ANY audio devices into the park because you'll be in violation of the rules there, this included use of radios, cassette players, and cell phones.:rolleyes: Un-freakin-believable."

This is hilarious! Disgruntled posters have been clamoring for for years to get cell phones banned on the A.T. and when they finally realize there is a place that actually does that, they complain even louder.:D

dixicritter

12-03-2007, 11:48

I'm quite sure that none of TOF's friends have never consumed alcohol in public in Baxter State Park. :rolleyes: I'm certain if they had, he'd be outraged. :p After all, it's against the rules.

Or listened to any music. Which is also against the rules.

dixicritter

12-03-2007, 11:49

pitdog

12-03-2007, 11:49

Also,when someone gets hurt or otherwise,there will be accountability for the rule makers.Oh there protected by the eleventh adm.

SGT Rock

12-03-2007, 11:54

This is hilarious! Disgruntled posters have been clamoring for for years to get cell phones banned on the A.T. and when they finally realize there is a place that actually does that, they complain even louder.:D
Actually this is something quite common that you are doing. If I say people shouldn't hike with dogs on the AT I get accused of wanting to ban them. If I say people shouldn't walk around talking on cell phones I get accused of wanting them banned. Wanting people to refrain from doing something is not the same as wanting them banned. It is a tired old way of arguing a point I see here every day.