2000 Miler/ Split from 'Walk with Wingfoot?'

[weary]

. .... The ATC has given this a great deal of thought Weary. The point I think you're missing is that it simply isn't something they care to think about that much. .

Well, I agree with the second sentence entirely. If they had spent much time thinking about the trail, they would realize that maintaining clubs have created a system of trails within the AT corridor. A few of the blue blazed side trails are short cuts. Many are loop trails to scenic overlooks, historic places, waterfalls and other attractions designed to augment the hiker experience.

If I take the side trail to the foot of Dunn Notch Falls and continue on the loop trail back to the AT without backtracking the white blazed trail I no longer qualify for a 2000-miler patch, according to the AT rules.

The same is true if I take the Gulf Hagas Loop and AT cut off trails, and scores of trails in and out of shelters.

Since I've thought about this matter more than ATC has, I think that hikers following longer and more difficult trails built by maintaining clubs to increase the hiker's experience should not be disqualified from a patch.

Yes, I know a lot of hikers imagine convoluted excuses for what they do. I think they would be less inclined to do so, if the ATC rules were rational.

Nor did this conclusion of mine take a great deal of time. As soon as it dawned on me somewhere's in Tennesseee if I remember rightly that some hikers were making a fetish of white blazes, almost instantaneously I hit upon this plan. And as I pointed out earlier my mind is pretty slow, which is why I think the much wiser folks in Harpers Ferry if they put there collective minds to it for a moment or two, could imagine an even better plan than mine.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

Talking about the blue-blaze vs whiteblaze and 2000 miler requirement; maybe this deserves another whole thread that has nothing to do with WF.

Personally I agree with Weary on this one, but I honestly feel that the ATC doesn't care about changing it, and there are probably people on the board that don't want to and keep the idea from even getting tabled. I don't feel it is a conspiracy to keep the blue blazer down, but I do feel it is out of a desire not to open a can of worms:

1. They would probably feel compelled to make a list of approved blue blaze routes so people didn't take cut offs that simply shorten the route. Not all blue blazes are the same LOL.

2. Yellow blazers may seek similar consideration based on the idea of longer, harder routes. Something right now no one wants to give them.

So there is no verification system and there is no board of approving the hike's validity like their is for a Guiness world record. It is on the honor system. Personally, if a hiker did 2182 miles (I think that is the current length) but missed a couple of white blazes for shelters and hit a couple of longer blue blazes to see some cliffs or water rather than move down the center of another rodadendron hell; well, I would be a pretty petty person to begruge that person 2,000 miler status. If they feel they deserve a 2,000 miler patch because they did it, then let them have it.

I think it was LWolf that had a link to Tabs for the 2,000 miler patch, maybe the best way to poke fun at this and maybe institute some change is for 2,000 milers that did blue blaze to attach a blue-blazer tab to the top of a 2,000 miler patch.

[weary]

Weary,
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. While I was not on Wingfoot's forums, I subscribed to ATML for quite a while. He was not just criticizing the way others hiked, but he was seeking to stop them from hiking like that. This especially applies to his push to end the use of cell phones. He wants no electronic devices on the trail, including GPS systems. I disagree with the cult of personality he promotes, but that is why I unsubscribed from the mailing list.
He believes that the trail is in danger, and that others need to be stopped from ruining it. Personally, I disagree with him. But if I had convictions as strongly as his, I would speak just as strongly.
Hopefully this hike will convince him that things are not in such dire straits. He will realize that while the trail may have changed, it is still a wonderful thing. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I hope that this is the case.

I don't pretend to remember everything Wingfoot has said over the years, but his current effort is to promote what he thinks of as the "traditional" way of hiking, to urge honesty in reporting thru hikes to ATC and to keep others from arguing a different perspective on his site.

I think cell phones are a wilderness consideration in his mind, or "wildness" which is the word I prefer to distinquish the trail environment from real wilderness. By my definition -- and I suspect Wingfoot's -- you can't have wildness if every other hiker you meet has the ability to instantly communicate with civilization and openly displays that ability.

Furthermore cell phone use promotes the construction of communication towers, another block to the sense of hiking a wild trail.

Yeah, I know. There are numerous other intrusions that logically make the trail unwild. Wingfoot and I are throwbacks -- dreamers if you like -- to an earlier time and culture. We are fighting a rear guard action, and have only marginal hopes for success.

We just aren't ready to give up the battle just yet.

Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

Let me get this straight: The ATC feels that if you want to consider yourself a thru-hiker, (i.e. if you wish to be known as one who has hiked the Trail in its entirety) then you should actually hike the entire Trail. Why is this concept so difficult for some to grasp?

Weary feels that this view is irrational, and furthermore, he says that people who insist on adhering closely to the actual Trail have "fetishes". The implication is that there is something unusual or irregular about folks who actually want to honestly and completely thru-hike. Well, there isn't, just as there is nothing unusual or irregular about folks who blue-blaze or take side trips. To each their own.

But to criticize the ATC for feeling the way it does, and to criticize purists for feeling the way they do seems more than a little silly: If one wants to make up all sorts of excuses years later so as to justify one's journey, well that can't be helped. But let's refrain from the name-calling. The ATC's definition is perfectly rational. Likewise, those individuals who are committed to actually hiking the entire A.T. aren't fetishists---they merely want to be able to claim genuinely what so many other folks claim in any way they can.

If you set out to climb Everest but only make it 90% of the way to the top, then it would be regrettable if you claimed to have summitted the peak. If you set out to run the Boston Marathon, but only run 25 miles instead of 26, it would be regrettable if you claimed to be a Boston marathoner. Likewise, if you wish it known that you thru-hiked the whole Appalachian Trail, then you should do so. But to blame the ATC for being irrational because its definition is inconvenient, or to imply that people who are serious about hiking every mile are somehow unusual or odd---well, this is regrettable, too.

If it's important to an individual that they be recognized as a genuine thru-hiker, then there's a simple and singular way to accomplish this: thru-hike.

[weary]

If it's important to an individual that they be recognized as a genuine thru-hiker, then there's a simple and singular way to accomplish this: thru-hike.

Well, I don't think there is a right or wrong to this argument -- just different opinions. My objection to the ATC's process is that it is violated, more than it's observed.

It's my observation that only a few of those who report a thru hike actually accomplished a thru hike in accordance with the guidelines imposed by the only organization that makes an attempt to keep a record. Even a cursory reading of trail journals demonstrate this. Even my favorite AT hiking book, "On the Beaten Path" demonstrates this -- though the author went on to become a valuable ATC employee.

My suggestion was simply a compromise that would make honesty easier and therefore more likely to be practiced.

But if you don't like plan one, I have a plan 2. Plan 2 is very simple. Just send ATC a letter describing exactly how you hiked the trail, when you apply for a patch. I can attest that several who have done so have received their patches by return mail, regardless of the blue-blazed trails they may have admitted taken and the white blazes they may have bypassed. I know of at least one hiker who got a patch simply from having his mother send in a newspaper clipping.

I raise this issue only because I like to think that words have meaning and in a rational world should reflect some truth.

Perhaps "fetish" was too strong a word. But it seemed appropriate 11 years ago, since so few seemed to be dedicated to passing every white blaze. I should, however, have remembered all that I have learned since from that great teacher, the teacher this particular thread is honoring. Wingfoot is certainly dedicated to teaching hikers the importance -- politically and morally, if not sexually -- of passing every white blaze.

I still think a modification of the ATC rules would be more realistic and perhaps honest. But I do urge that at least those applying simply tell ATC how one hikes and letting ATC decide whether a 2000-miler patch is warranted. I'm quite sure no one who misses white blazes only in order to enjoy a scenic overlook, or a Gulf Hagas, will be denied that coveted symbol.

Weary



Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

Geez, this is tiresome. So if the ATC were to modify its position, they'd be more realistic and honest. (Implication: The ATC is unrealistic and dis-honest).

Some folks just don't get it. The people that need to be honest are the ones who did one thing and wish the world to acknowledge that they did something else altogether.

Complaining about the ATC's definition is pointless. Once again: If you wish to be considered one who has hiked the entire AT, then it is incumbent upon you to do so. If you want that little patch that badly, then it's perfectly clear what is expected of you. If you don't want to hike that way, fine. I respect your position entirely. But in doing so, and in voluntarily choosing NOT to walk the whole Trail, then it seems a bit presumptuous to expect the ATC or anyone else to change their definition or expectation because of your decision to stray from the Trail.

Complaining will not render anyone a thru-hiker. The one way to get that title is to earn it. One becomes an A.T. thru-hiker when one hikes the A.T. all the way thru. Forgive me, but why is this simple fact so difficult to grasp?

And now I think I'll move on to something else. This isn't the first time this subject has been discussed here, and I suspect it won't be the last. But it's certainly instructive for the new folks...... If you don't want to spend boundless time and energy in later years redefining or describing your hike, then remember that while there all all sorts of valid ways to hike ON the Trail, there's one way to be recognized for hiking ALL of it, and that's to actually do it.

[weary]

Complaining about the ATC's definition is pointless. .

The worse calumny against ATC is to claim as Jack seems to be doing that it's decisions can not be changed and therefore discussion is pointless. In fact ATC is in the midst of a major reorganization because it recognizes that it has lost touch with its hiking constituency -- a reorganization that I participated in in a very small way.

Weary

[Ratatosk]

Yes, I'd walk with him for a while, if we were at the same place, hiking at the same pace. Talk about the hike, the people on the AT, the forest, life.. If we connected, fine, if not, also fine. There is room for loads of different opinions.

[TJ aka Teej]

My objection to the ATC's process is that it is violated, more than it's observed.

A rule should not be changed to accommodate those who violate the rule.
Shouldn't your objection be with the violators of the rule, Weary?

[TJ aka Teej]

Complaining about the ATC's definition is pointless.

The ATC defines the Trail's official route.
The ATC supplies recognition for completing a hike of the official route.
I'd say it's pointless to whine about that being too hard to understand.

[TJ aka Teej]

Rock had a good point. We've strayed (thank goodness) from the original topic. Further debate should be in a new thread.

edit - Thanks, Rock! :D

[Saluki Dave]

...how this thread morphed from one sure-fire fuss-starter (Wingfoot) to another (what exactly is a thru-hike?) in the span of about 5 posts. It seems to me that neither of these topics will be settled here, or ever, for that matter.

Would I hike with Wingfoot? Well, if he were walking my way, I wouldn't go to extremes to avoid him. I have some pretty strongly held opinions, too, and I respect someone who can have an open discussion without it becoming personal. There's all too much of that going on right now anyway.

What is a thru hike? How the hell would I know? I'm just section-hiking trash. I will say this, I respect anyone who walks from Georgia to Maine (or the reverse). It's a helluva long way, and I don't think missing a few white blazes along the way diminishes the accomplishment. Paraphrasing a favorite saying around these parts; "It isn't the patch, it's the journey."

Ya'll be cool.

[Mountain Dew]

Weary........."Since I've thought about this matter more than ATC has, I think that hikers following longer and more difficult trails built by maintaining clubs to increase the hiker's experience should not be disqualified from a patch."

Mountain Dew..... Since I've thought about the route of the Boston Marathon more than the organizers of it have, I think that runners following more difficult routes to increse the runner's experience should not be disqualified from a certificate of completion.


Weary...."And as I pointed out earlier my mind is pretty slow, which is why I think the much wiser folks in Harpers Ferry if they put there collective minds to it for a moment or two, could imagine an even better plan than mine."

You ever think that just maybe ....just MAYBE....they have thought of a better plan than yours since in your owns words you say..." my mind is pretty slow" and then say the folks at Harpers Ferry are wiser than you. I'm willing to bet that they have put their minds to this issue for more than a "moment or two". Follow the logic here ? I disagree with the "folks at Harpers Ferry" on a few issues as well, but do I for a second think that I have put more thought and time into my decision ? "cough" ....HELL NO.

Walking EVERY white blaze is a thru-hike, walking 2,000 miles is walking 2,000 miles, and 2+2 still equals 4.

It is a shame that our "fast food nation" way of doing things the easy way has influenced peoples reasoning in wanting a patch. If seeing a scenic blue blaze trail means that much to a person that is willing to hike *2,173 miles then I'm willing to bet that person wont miss a single white blaze either if he wants to be a thru-hiker.

Hike your own hike and don't claim my hike if you regret yours ! Honesty with others starts with yourself.

[flyfisher]

Walking EVERY white blaze is a thru-hike, walking 2,000 miles is walking 2,000 miles, ....



Well, almost.

I am a white blazer, no doubt. I don't mind walking an alternate way after I see the white blazed one, but have not yet found a section where the white blazed path was impossible.

However, history is history.

I have done 250 miles in 2003, plan on another 300 in 2004, and only 1650 miles in 2005. I will have walked the 2000 miles, I will have seen or walked past every white blaze. But a thru-hiker... no.

I will start in Damascus in 2005, having covered everything south at least once. Unless I decide to come back to Damascus and hike south in September, it will have just been a grand section hike.

I'll have the patch, if I mail in for it. I'll write the report. I may write a book. I will, to quote Bryson, have "walked the AT." But a thru-hiker... no.

My marriage and family will suffer a little less. My goal will be done. I will remember every shelter and hill. But a thru-hiker... no.

The thru-hike will need to wait for another year.

[SGT Rock]

I think people have gotten off track from the subject that already got off track. 2000 miler and Thru-Hiker are not the same thing. Thru-hiker = one shot. 2000 miler is someone that did the entire trail either thru-hiking or in section hikes. It is a minor point to some, but for some reason it seems we are shifting to everyone wanting to be called a thru-hiker.

Honestly, I don't need a patch from anyone to tell me what I have or haven't done. I've already got a few patched for my uniform and have found that the person that wears the patch is more important than the patch itself. But the "Standard" as it is defined is a very tight one that is causing more hassle to defend than it is worth. After all, this is JUST hiking, not Ranger School or something. If you want to talk about maintaining standards, make it something that a real standard needs to be designed for and upheld in order to keep people working hard to achive that standard - that is the purpose of a standard in the first place. A standard should not be set to develop groups that feel more self important because they followed a very narrow interpretation of hiking, while possibly missing some of the other things out there along the trail. The purpose of hiking is to enjoy yourself while communing with nature or whatever, not to limit yourself while sticking to some imposed rule about how to hike it.

You can say "Walk past every blaze" if you like, but the point is that of the big three trails in the US, the AT is the only trail with a totally defined corridor that even places such a requirement. To remedy this they could simply add a short sentence in effect: "Shelter cut off trails that parrallel the official trail and other blue blaze trails that parallel the AT and are of equal or greater length than the part they pass are authorized alternatives". After all it is a Trail Corridor, not just a trail.

[SGT Rock]

I split this more interesting and valid thread away from the WF thread.

[flyfisher]

If you want to talk about maintaining standards, make it something that a real standard needs to be designed for and upheld in order to keep people working hard to achive that standard - that is the purpose of a standard in the first place.

Well said Rock.

I will ask for the patch at the end, for the same reason that I will eat icecream in PA at the 1000 mile mark. I will enjoy remembering it.


************

I do have a small issue with the whole thru-hiker thing. I have not quite settled in my mind the issue of not being a thru-hiker. If all goes well, I will walk about 1000 more miles next year than the great majority of "thru-hikers" on the trail.

I seldom run into hikers who say they aim to be a thru-hiker. They just say they are one, though they may only be a hundred miles into their hike. I have no problem with this, I know what they mean, they know what they mean. And if they ultimately fail in their quest, they will not call themselves a thruhiker... or few will.

But, starting 500 miles into the trail, I will never be aiming at being a thru-hiker, so I will not call myself one.

I imagine it may be fun, somewhere about New York, to catch up with a "thru-hiker" for the first time on the hike. I will introduce myself as a section hiker. The question will come up about where I started and where I am going. Maybe I can find a more amusing way to describe the hike.

It is certainly true that the hike is more important than the recognition, or the category, or anything else.

*************

One more blue vs white observation - and it is one root of my avoiding blue blazes: I have noticed a tendency in trail journals toward failure when people begin to take the blue blazed trails. I imagine it goes something like this:

I am going to take every white blaze.
I am going to take every white blaze, my knees hurt.
I am going to take every white blaze. I am feeling better
I am goint to take every white blaze, my knees hurt.
It probably wouldn't hurt to take that little blue blaze trail. My knees still hurt.
I wish I would have taken the white blaze way.
Why not take more blue blaze trails... after all I am not a white blazer.
For that matter, why not just get a ride to the next good section of the trail.
Those white blaze prigs! I can't imagine that I was once one.
For that matter, why not just go home. What does it matter anyway. I am only out here for fun anyway.

For me, I think blue blazing is a little like cheating. I know if I take a blue blaze for the ease of it, I will not like myself for that. And I don't know if I have the strength to maintain the discipline of the walk if I have routine failures. I am just not that kind of person.

As for y'all taking blue blazes... I am all for your pleasure on your walk. Walk however you wish. If you ever catch a note of condemnation or condescension in the tone of my voice when we talk about your hike, call me on it. I will appologize.

I will use personal pride as one of many tools to get me through the bad days. I will also use esprit de corps when I can. But if that kind of "spirt of the hike" works toward hurting your hike, a personal frontier will have been reached that I do not intend to cross. Call me on it, I will appologize.

Thanks for reading through this stream of consciousness....

[weary]

"Shelter cut off trails that parrallel the official trail and other blue blaze trails that parallel the AT and are of equal or greater length than the part they pass are authorized alternatives". After all it is a Trail Corridor, not just a trail.

I'll second that motion, well, except for the spelling of parallel. It has several advantages. It's how most people hike the trail. It makes it unnecessary for many long distance hikers to tell a fib when they apply for a patch. It allows hikers to explore more easily some really beautiful special places along the trail that were created by maintaining clubs to augment the trail experience. It would allow language purists to get their names posted in Trailway News and thus notify folks they have met along the trail that they finally reached Katahdin. It's how ATC actually interprets its rule.

Once while staying at Shaw's in Monson a thru hiker called Harpers Ferry and asked if were alright if he just continued down Route 15 and picked up the trail at the Route 15 crossing. I gathered from the one side of the conversation I could hear that the guy was told Harpers Ferry didn't really care how he hiked.

Regardless, he walked down Route 15. The rest of us drove in Keith's car. I know the latter opens up another bag of worms. But with my limited capacity, I can only handle one issue at a time. I will hint at my position. Let yellow blazers like me forego a patch. Well, they can lie if they really must.

Weary

[Furlough]

This is one of those issues that for me at least is difficult to choose one side and defend it. I have a few more years until I retire from the Army and a few more after that until my two children finish college. I am located in Virginia, and I spend sometime on the AT but the bulk of my time is on the "Blue Blazes" of the Shenendoahs or our two great National Forests (Jefferson and Washington). When my time comes to fulfill my dream of hiking the entire AT I believe in my heart of hearts that that hike will be via the white blazes, not include any slack packing and when the summer solstice comes my wrinkled old butt will be hanging out during naked hiker day. Do I now or will I then condem anyone for not doing as I do as I progress north, no. To me how other folks choose to hike their hike falls into my "Frankly Scarlet" category. Back on my head.

Harry

[Footslogger]

You mean we get a patch for what I did last year ...COOL !!

Just kiddin ...I already knew that. Just wanted to lighten things up a bit.

I'm outta here ...

'Slogger

[TankHiker]

Perhaps to bring this thread full-circle:


2000 miler and Thru-Hiker are not the same thing. Thru-hiker = one shot. 2000 miler is someone that did the entire trail either thru-hiking or in section hikes.
I agree. However, in the first pages of Wingfoot's book, he has a glossary of terms. He states that a 2000-miler and a thru-hiker are the same thing. And that a 2000-miler is not simply someone who walked 2000 miles.

Perhaps these definitions need to be better defined. I agree that there should be a difference between a thru-hiker and a 2000-miler. But both are damn good accomplishments.

-Tank

[Furlough]

Just for grins and giggles here is how the ATC web site defines "Thru Hiker" and "2000-miler".

"How does ATC define thru-hiking? We don't. ATC uses the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience. ATC defines a "2,000-miler" as anyone who has hiked the entire trail between Springer Mountain in Georgia and Katahdin in Maine. We don't consider issues such as the sequence, direction, speed or whether one carries a pack. We do expect that persons applying for inclusion in our 2,000-miler records have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail."2,000-Miler" Definition The ATC confers the designation of "2,000-miler" on any hiker who reports he or she walked the entire length of the Appalachian Trail. We use the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience—that's the original length of the Trail, and changing the designation each time the length changes would be impractical."
Harry

[Footslogger]

Good point, Harry ...

Come to think of it, my certificate from the ATC has absolutely NO mention of the term "thru-hiker" on it.

Besides, when I got to Katahdin I was "through hiking" ...at least for 2003.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it !!

'Slogger

[max patch]

However, in the first pages of Wingfoot's book, he has a glossary of terms. He states that a 2000-miler and a thru-hiker are the same thing. And that a 2000-miler is not simply someone who walked 2000 miles.


A 2,000 miler and a thru-hiker are not the same thing, however, you can become a 2,000 miler while doing a thru-hike.

I don't believe that WF wrote that. Why don't you write what you read and let us pick it apart.

[Needles]

Perhaps to bring this thread full-circle:


I agree. However, in the first pages of Wingfoot's book, he has a glossary of terms. He states that a 2000-miler and a thru-hiker are the same thing. And that a 2000-miler is not simply someone who walked 2000 miles.

-Tank

Everytime I have heard WF talk about these terms he has always said that a thru-hiker is someone who is in the process of attempting to hike the entire AT in a single hike. He doesn't require anyone to even finish the trail to be a thru-hiker, just be in the process of trying to do the entire trail all at once.

This means that in 1997 I was a thru-hiker while I was trying to make it from Georgia to Maine, when I got off the trail I was a former thru-hiker, but I never became, and for all I know may never become a 2000-miler.

He uses the ATC's definition of 2000-miler in that you can do all of the trail in any way that you want, thru-hiking, section hiking, slack-packing, barefoot, while walking on your hands, completely naked, nothing matters except you hike all of the AT (of course he may hope that you don't decide to actually hike the entire trail in some of the ways that I mentioned, but none of that would disqualify you from being a 2000-miler as long as you hiked the entire trail). If I remember correctly he states that the terms 2000-miler and thru-hiker are quite often used interchangeably but they are not the same thing.

[weary]

I don't believe that WF wrote that. Why don't you write what you read and let us pick it apart.

This is what Wingfoot said at the beginning of the 2003 edition of the Thru-Hikers Handbook.

"2,000-Miler Requirements-The designation "2,000 Miler" is earned by any person at the instant he or she has completed hiking the entire Appalachian Trail, whether they later choose to apply for recognition as such or not. The term is used as a matter of tradition, recalling the original estimated length of the A.T., and for continuity, rather than changing the designation with every reroute. Those who claim 2,000-miler status should have hiked every mile of the A.T. between its termini, not just more than two thousand miles. Blue-blazed trails are acceptable substitutes for the official route only in
the event of an emergency, as when flooding makes a high-water route prudent or severe storm conditions require using a bad-weather bypass. Alternate trails or roads may be substituted only when a portion of the official route has been closed due to fire or natural disaster which obliterates the Trail or puts the hiker in peril. No exceptions are made for illness, injury, or personal factors and decisions that cause one to miss a section of the official route. The 2,000-miler recognition system is based on personal integrity, since each person is responsible for honestly reporting how and when he or she has hiked the entire A.T. Equal recognition is given to thru-hikers and section hikers alike, The sequence, direction, speed, or length of time in which the entire Trail is hiked and whether one carries a pack are not germane. Is it necessary to be hiking every mile of the A.T. to be considered a thru-hiker? No, but if you want to be recognized as a 2,000 Miler at the end of your hike, you should have hiked every mile."

I scanned this in. If there are errors blame them on my proofreading and/or my ancient scanner and my out-of-date version of the Omnipage program. I haven't checked, but I suspect Wingfoot has copied his guidelines directly from the ATC guidelines.

In the back of the book is a glossary of terms. In it Wingfoot defines thru-hiker as "traditionally a person who is attempting to become a 2,000-miler in a single continuous journey, by putting on a backpack, leaving from one terminus or the trail and hiking essentially unassisted to the other terminus."

He doesn't define what a "non traditional" thru hiker might be.

Some may quarrel with the modifiers "essentially unassisted." We all require some assistence, but I think we all know what Wingfoot means. He means, I think, that it's okay to hitch into town. It is not okay to hitch up the road and thus bypass part of the trail as I did in Monson -- and elsewhere.

Thru hiking is defined as the "act of attempting to become a 2,000-miler in a continuous journey."

Weary, who apologizes to those who are bored with this thread. It's a rainy afternoon, though luckily I got my peas, spinach and a few other early season crops in the ground yesterday, before the downpours that will make my garden too soggy to work again for at least a week. That's one of the problems of gardening in marine clay -- and why I didn't feel too bad about skipping a garden in '93. I know. You thought I was getting off topic, but I wasn't.

[Chef2000]

"2,000-Miler" Definition

The ATC confers the designation of "2,000-miler" on any hiker who reports he or she walked the entire length of the Appalachian Trail. We use the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience—that's the original length of the Trail, and changing the designation each time the length changes would be impractical.

Our recognition policy does:

give equal recognition to thru-hikers and section-hikers,
recognize blue-blazed trails or officially required roadwalks as viable substitutes for the official, white-blazed route in the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed, high-elevation stretch, and
operate on the honor system.
Our recognition policy does not consider:



sequence,
direction,
speed, or
whether one carries a pack.
ATC assumes that those who apply for 2,000-miler status have made honest efforts to walk the Appalachian Trail from Katahdin to Springer Mountain.

folks if you cant follow it/ dont apply. Its that simple:banana

[SGT Rock]

I don't think we can have stuff directly from WF's book without permission. Copyright infringement and all...


sotty y'all.

[weary]

I don't think we can have stuff directly from WF's book without permission. Copyright infringement and all...


sotty y'all.

There's nothing sacred about Wingfoot's book. Copyright laws apply to all publications, including ATC's. Having dealt with copyrights for 40 years, it's my contention that nothing I quoted violated those laws, just as the quotes from ATC violated no laws. And just as the quotes from prior posts, which are equally covered by the identical laws, violate no laws.

Weary

[jersey joe]

I'm a purist and hiked every step of the trail on my thru hike. I even hiked back out of shelters the way I came in. I did this because this is the way I wanted to hike the trail. When you get to the top of Katahdin(or springer) at the end of your thru, if your happy with the way you hiked, that's all that matters. I consider the people that I hiked with that blue blazed thru hikers too.

[TJ aka Teej]

This is what Wingfoot said...

Who cares? His opinons are irrevelent to this thread.

[weary]

Who cares? His opinons are irrevelent to this thread.

Not really irrelevant. To be sure we are no longer talking about whether we would want to hike with Wingfoot. But we are discussing the nature of thru hiking and the rules for recognition of same. Surely the published opinions of a multiple thru hiker, often-quoted trail advocate, and very vocal author of trail books merit consideration.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

Agreed, some may hate him, but he does have a point of view. But I think it would be better for him to argue his own. Someone arguing someone else point of view for them is as bad as someone else arguing mine for me. As I know it, only Lawyers do that :D

[MOWGLI]

Who cares? His opinons are irrevelent to this thread.

TJ, if WF's opinion is truly irrelevent, then you have no business commenting on this subject whatsoever. You have stated that you have not thru-hiked, and have no desire to do so. IMO, that would make WF's opinion on this subject much more relevant than yours.

My point? Just because you don't like someone or their opinion doesn't mean you should dismiss them out of hand.

[Tha Wookie]

You're either 'a thru-hikin' or ya still got more to go.

[Moon Monster]

There's nothing sacred about Wingfoot's book. Copyright laws apply to all publications, including ATC's. Having dealt with copyrights for 40 years, it's my contention that nothing I quoted violated those laws, just as the quotes from ATC violated no laws. And just as the quotes from prior posts, which are equally covered by the identical laws, violate no laws.

Weary

Probably fair use, certainly. But still, let's not make it a habit on this site to post wholesale scans of long passages from any book.

I learned (c) law from a former commissioner of the US Copyright Office, but perhaps more importantly, I learned IP litigation tactics from four aggressive practicing litigators. I wouldn't want to test your contention against any of those five people.

For some perspective, see: http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

[SGT Rock]

OK, looking at the link, I would think it falls under fair usage. But lets not make a habit of quoting published works, especially in cases of someone that has expressed his opinion about not wanting anything to do with the site.

[TJ aka Teej]

TJ, if WF's opinion is truly irrelevent, then you have no business commenting on this subject whatsoever. You have stated that you have not thru-hiked, and have no desire to do so. IMO, that would make WF's opinion on this subject much more relevant than yours.

My point? Just because you don't like someone or their opinion doesn't mean you should dismiss them out of hand.

Mowgli, Wingy isn't the authority on what is and what is not a thru-hike. Please don't let your devotion to him cloud your mind to the facts.
They are:
The ATC has the authority to designate the official route of the AT.
The ATC provides recognition for completing the official route.
Wingy's opinion remains irrelevent to this thread.

[Needles]

The ATC has the authority to designate the official route of the AT.
The ATC provides recognition for completing the official route.
Wingy's opinion remains irrelevent to this thread.

Interestingly enough everything I have seen in this thread, and everything I have heard from WF shows that he completely agrees with the ATC on this.
WF just states that if you don't actually hike all of the trail you shouldn't apply for 2000 miler recognition.
So since TJ and WF both agree that we should use the ATC's deffinition of what it takes to be a 2000 miler I think it is safe to say TJ and WF might actually agree on something.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it? :)

[weary]

Mowgli, Wingy isn't the authority on what is and what is not a thru-hike. Please don't let your devotion to him cloud your mind to the facts.
They are:
The ATC has the authority to designate the official route of the AT.
The ATC provides recognition for completing the official route.
Wingy's opinion remains irrelevent to this thread.

TJ. You seemed to have missed the point. The question is not the criteria that ATC uses for awarding a 2,000-miler patch. We all can find that out by opening the ATC web site. But rather what would be a better criteria.

It strikes me that Wingfoot and ATC have the same views on this particular issue. And that both are wrong.

The "problem" as some of us see it, from personal experience and from reading books, trail journals and participating in various internet discussions, only a minority of those claiming compliance actually have complied with the ATC guidelines.

SGT. Rock has suggested a better guideline that allows those who choose a more rigorous thru hike to also receive a 2,000 miler patch without having to fib on their application.

Since ATC is undergoing a major reorganizations this seems to be a particularly good time to suggest alternatives.

Wingfoot is pertinent to the debate because he has been a major trail voice for many years and because I suspect he would oppose Sgt. Rock's reform as not being in compliance with his vision of a "traditional" thru hike.

We certainly have no obligation to follow Wingfoot, but he certainly has a relevant -- though in my opinion wrong -- position.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

Also, about the concept that this is the ATC policy, follow it, love it or leave it.

I am a member of the ATC, as are others on this forum that may feel the same as me. As a member, though not yet a thru-hiker (just a pesky section hiker), I do have an opinion and a right to state it. But not only a right to state it, but if enough of us (as members) decide that this should be the ATC position, then in a democratic organization, it can become the policy of the ATC if we will it.

This thread demonstrates in a small way what I mean about this issue, and Weary pointed it out. We hear every year about so-and-so claiming to be a 2,000 miler, but someone saw them take a blue blaze once! So what? But for some reason because a person that took a blue blaze or two, yet managed to hike 2,180+ miles is considered lesser than someone that did the same thing but made a point of going back to the trail despite cut arounds and other routes that are still in the same trail corridor, and maybe even only a few hundred yards off the main trail. Honestly the argument to keep it in place reminds me of some of the young kids arguing to the point of distraction about whether Nirvana was the best band ever. The point is so minor and moot that it seems to belittle the main point of the AT.

[TJ aka Teej]

I think it is safe to say TJ and WF might actually agree on something.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it? :)

Wingy and I agreed on lots of trail issues over the years, from when he was just a hiker, when he joined the at-l, and when he set off on his own. I contributed, financially and otherwise, to Trailplace. We disagreed about lots too, most significantly on his style of trail advocacy and self promotion.
His opinion on this topic was that the ATC didn't have the ability or inclination to validate "real" thruhikers. He want to become The Authority on saying who was and who wasn't a thruhiker. Trail monitors, an 'Avery Society' award, a banquet for hikers he'd preside over. I thought that was nonsense, and told him so.
The ATC takes hikers on their word, using the honor system.
Don't fault them if some hikers are less than honorable.

[snuffleupagus]

2000 miler requirements......

I may be changing the subject again. I don't even know what the issue is any more it's flipped and flopped and flipped again. Maybe it's time for a new thread.
What does it matter? It’s about getting from point A to point B. There are a lot of interesting events and a lot of interesting things to see along the way. A good number of those things are off the designated path.
Maybe someone should contact the ATC, in reference to redefining the status quo, for the individuals strongly drawn toward the opinion that a thru-hike is a specified continuous hike, along the designated passageway, or as someone else put it, “corridor” from Springer to Katahdin.

Maybe the ATC could ask future individuals who would like to be distinguished as a “2000 miler” to sign a memorandum, before setting off for their journey, in accordance with the rules set by the ATC. This way these hikers would be more or less determined to complete the trail with one specific goal in mind. A “2000 miler” label, designating the completion of a specified one season, continuous hike, along the designated trail. I’m not down sizing the accomplishment, just the label.

Then again, section hikers and all others that have devoted a large portion of their lives striving toward the completion of the trail, but have deviated from the path for one reason or another, could notify the ATC upon completion of the trail, and receive a “long distance hiker” label.

Lastly individuals still hiking the trail could notify the ATC and receive a patch and certificate designating them as a “hiker” of the Appalachian Trail, and be labeled that as well.

It seems that for many, the thru-hiking issue lies only in the individuals status in the hiking community. Not that it shouldn’t. It is an incredible accomplishment, well deserving of the notoriety and a specified reward or trophy. But, if the issue is about ones status as a whole amongst the members of a select few in a community, then it is no longer about the adventure. While it may involve an adventure. The modesty has been taken out of the adventure for those who strive to be placed in a category referring only to status.

I’m not sure where the rules (in regards to the term thru-hiker) even got involved in hiking. (I’m sure certain people have lied about their life’s accomplishments, and that’s how these things come about).

As for the others without regards to the status or ranking in the hiking community. They can remain true to themselves in knowing that hiking is about the journey and what is absorbed. It’s not about labels. It’s not about competition or how others see you. Hiking is an individual affair. It should be, or remain personal, and without the need for labels or the acceptance of others. The terms “thru-hiker“, and “section-hiker” are both popular words or phrases used to commercialize and exploit something which at one point was all about being fascinated and immersed in nature. I’m not even sure how labels got involved in the game, but when it comes down to status or ranking in a community, I’m sure that ego has a big role to play in it. It’s gone from, I‘m a hiker, to…. I‘m a long distance hiker, to…..I’m a thru-hiker, and finally to….. I’m a single season Appalachian Trail thru-hiker. I mean the whole thing has become a little over inflated. People that hike, for one reason or another, are just hikers.

[TJ aka Teej]

The question is not the criteria that ATC uses for awarding a 2,000-miler patch. We all can find that out by opening the ATC web site. But rather what would be a better criteria.

That's what you think the question is?
I guess you haven't thought about this as much as you think you have.
You're blue blazing around the actual question - whether a new definition of "completed the official route of the AT" is needed.
That needs to be answered before you yellow blaze ahead to what you wish the new definition should be.

[snuffleupagus]

That's what you think the question is?
I guess you haven't thought about this as much as you think you have.
You're blue blazing around the actual question - whether a new definition of "completed the official route of the AT" is needed.
That needs to be answered before you yellow blaze ahead to what you wish the new definition should be.Yah..... I must have lost something in translation here. Sorry.....
I get confused quite easily. It must be all the big words and no pitures. LOL

[TJ aka Teej]

What does it matter? It’s about getting from point A to point B. There are a lot of interesting events and a lot of interesting things to see along the way. A good number of those things are off the designated path.



Yup, and there's an artificial 'quality' of hike designation attached to the debate. I say there is no connection between qualifying for the patch and having an quality hike.
On one day at Katahdin last October I met a hollow eyed young man who kept slipping "and I touched every white blaze carrying my pack" into every conversation. I asked about his hike and heard about pack weight, stove complaints, miles per day, x days of rain... The other hiker's eyes sparkled as she told me she missed about 200 miles of the AT, that she stealth camped on the Gettysburg Battlefield, went rafting and fishing several times, went over mountaintops in the Whites rather than go around them, and saw Phish play in Maine.
They shared the same lean-to and seemed to be great friends. He didn't take the ATC 2000 Miler form from the Ranger, saying he didn't hike for a patch. She did, saying she planned on doing the miles she missed some day.
I think completing the entire official route is a rare and very special accomplishment. That doesn't mean it's a 'better' hike, just a different one.

[Mountain Dew]

Why the need for long drawn out entry's into the definition of certain definitions ? Use common sense and honesty.

A thru-hiker is one that hikes past EVERY white blaze except in extreme weather conditions. Is that so hard to understand or live with ? Somebody that thru-hikes the A.T. and another that section hikes the entire A.T. have done the same miles in different ways so one is not better than the other. This is not rocket science.

In my opinion two patches should be awarded. The first being a thru-hikers patch with the above mentions definition needed to be fulfilled in order to receive the patch. The second patch would be a 2,000 miler patch , which would be for those who have walked past every white blaze but in sections.

[Chef2000]

my post came from The ATC website, not Wingfoots book. This info is there for everyone to share, I dont believe I violated any copyright laws. But then again Im only a cook, not a lawyer.

[Chef2000]

No matter how many people who add to this debate, and this was the first controversey I had come acrosss, when I began my planning in 1998. How naive of me to think that someone who stated" Ive hike the AT from GA to ME" would actually lie about it?

It happens everyday, when this year is done, there is gonna be people who outright lied about there hike and will apply for the patch. And will be happy about it, put on their resumes, and lie to guy who is interviewing them about it.

Yall can lie all you want,. if thats the way you conduct your life, politicians lie, businesman lie and steal, girlfriends lie and cheat, 50 percent or more of marriages fail, thats just what we need, more people telling lies to themselves and everyone else.

Ive said before in 2000 I only made it to Stratton ME before a huge snowstorm came in and they closed Baxter, they tried to evacuate all hikers, but some AT hikers thought they were above the law. Some actually ran from a female ranger who was trying to get them out of the park for their own safety. I could have easily just applied or even better yet, had I had foresight I could of skipped all of MA or NH like some, and made it to K before the storm. I did not, I went back in 01 and finished my hike, my certificate reads 00-01. Big deal. At least I didnt lie about it.

[Tater]

In my opinion two patches should be awarded.
No, we need at least five patches.

Traditional thru-hiker patch -- for those who hiked every white blaze
Jagged edge patch -- section hikers who've completed entire trail
Blue border patch -- for blue-blazers who've otherwise completed the trail
Yeller patch -- for yellow blazing cowards
Liars patch -- hologram that turns milky or shows a dog turd in sunlight

[Blue Jay]

I find it endlessly amusing that anyone, in any way, would give a rat's *** about if another person walked or took a bus from Geogia or Maine. :banana
Of all the things I have ever wondered about this is one of the most strange.

[Lone Wolf]

Egos Blue Jay. Go to an ALDHA gathering and look at the scores of patch wearers. "Look at me, I've hiked the WHOLE AT. Please pat me on the back!" :D

[veteran]

.

In my opinion two patches should be awarded. The first being a thru-hikers patch with the above mentions definition needed to be fulfilled in order to receive the patch. The second patch would be a 2,000 miler patch , which would be for those who have walked past every white blaze but in sections.


Here is a place to get some:

http://www.tfn.net/~bob1/

[Blue Jay]

Egos Blue Jay. Go to an ALDHA gathering and look at the scores of patch wearers. "Look at me, I've hiked the WHOLE AT. Please pat me on the back!" :D

That still does not explain it, each individual patch does not lessen the imagined "value" of another patch. For example, each year there are hundreds who have hiked the trail "Pure" and hundreds who have not. Say they all have patches. You cannot turn the patch into money, or even sell it on ebay, it has no value other than it's own phenomena. If you are one of 10 thousand or one of 100 thousand you can still go to a gathering and yell "Look at Me, pat me on the back". Someone who claims to be a thru when they are not has absolutely NO bearing on anything or anyone. So all you angry Purists, just relax, it just does not matter, seriously, it's OK, let it go.

[Youngblood]

Well said Blue Jay.

Youngblood

[Furlough]

Even though in an earlier post I stated that when my time comes I plan to white blaze, I agree with your opinion if I understand it correctly. Does the following sound about right? The ATC should award the 2000 miler certificate to anyone who completes the journey from Georgia to Maine who has eihter hiked all the white blazes or who has hiked using a combination of the white and the blue blazes that are associated with the AT. The same applies equally to all regardless of how they completed the journey. (Section Hiking, Flip Flop, or Continuous)

Harry

[The Old Fhart]

What I find disturbing is that some posters feel that they need more categories for hikers to somehow show that they are better than the rest of the hikers on the trail. Do you really think that if there was a rocker for blue or yellow blazing that people who you feel “cheat” would apply for it? Do we perhaps need a “chip” like marathoner’s wear in races to track runners to make sure hikers apply for the right classification of patch? Maybe GPS could be used to track hikers to make sure they follow the single right path to Katahdin. Be real.

Having both sectioned hiked and thru hiked the entire trail I find it elitist crap to try to somehow say that a section hike is a lesser achievement than a thru hike and section hikers don’t deserve the same recognition and patch as everyone else who has done the entire trail. The present system works as well as can be expected without making the application process as complicated as filing income tax. If you feel that someone else applying for a certificate, patch, or rocker they “don’t deserve” somehow affects your hike, you have a problem. If you’re proud of your accomplishment and are honest about it, that is all that matters.

[SGT Rock]

Harry, I think you have gotten the basic point of my proposal.

Old Fhart, I don't disagree with you, I just thouht having a blue-blaze tab over a patch would sort of poke fun at people that look down on those that get a 2,000 miler patch yet didn't hike "pure".

[Tater]

Here is a place to get some:

http://www.tfn.net/~bob1/
Nice, but I don't see the Liar or Yaller Blazers patch.

[ted holdridge]

For 99.99 you can send me photographs of every white blaze on the trail. I will make a collage for you and slap it on the back of a bus in the city of your choosing. Or you can be happy that you hiked the hike you wanted to. Denim jackets went out a few years ago so you won't have a place to put your patch anyway.

[warren doyle]

I like following the white blazes and the man in the mirror does too. I have been true to him in this regard for the past 32 years (26,000 miles and counting). It is a nice feeling of peace and personal contentment.

[Mountain Dew]

I have yet to see on this post where a "purist" puts down another hiker yet some either can't comprehend the entry's or they have insecurity/guilt issues about how others may percieve their hiking so they try to turn this into a "purist vs blue blazer" topic. I couldn't care less how a person hikes. If somebody wants to blue or yellow blaze so what.

So now there is something wrong with wearing patches ? I guess we should tell the Boyscouts of America to drop the ego and stop wearing patches too right ? I personally don't wear my patches, but rather have them on my pack. A hiker that has issues with another hiker wearing patches strickly on the platform that it's an ego thing is bound to have ego,inferiority, and other issues themselves.

[TJ aka Teej]

I like following the white blazes and the man in the mirror does too. I have been true to him in this regard for the past 32 years (26,000 miles and counting). It is a nice feeling of peace and personal contentment.

Hi Warren,
You've said before that you skip the part of the official route you don't agree with. Do you send in for the certificate anyways, even though you haven't completed the entire official route?

[Mountain Dew]

TJ.....great question. I have also heard that Warren will often skip a section he deems not to his liking. If this is true then that would have made that hike a very long section hike and not a thru-hike. I'm very curious to hear both sides of this story.

[SGT Rock]

A hiker that has issues with another hiker wearing patches strickly on the platform that it's an ego thing is bound to have ego, inferiority, and other issues themselves.

No, I haven't got ego problems myself. I just actually have an issue with the rule about 2,000 miler status. Sometimes it is just that simple.

Honestly, before I deployed, I planned to be pure. But upon getting back, I have decided I could care less about being pure in '09. That is my personal choice and I never wanted a patch for my hike in the first place. But this thread started about WF whom a lot of people hate because they belive he is dogmatic about what he thinks a hike is and how people should hike, and what they should and shouldn't carry. The main argument usually is there is more than one way to hike and that people ought to have the freedom to decide what to carry an how to hike in a free forum. I also think the same way about other aspects of a hike.

I have often wondered if trying to be pure for some hikers has ruined their hike because in the end - they are trying to hike someone elses hike by trying to meet someone else's definition of what a hike is. I think this is true because in the end, we are all goal oriented to some extent. I would say that someone trying to thru-hike would fit into that mold even if they try to deny it.

For the people that quit because of it, well their voice is usually not heard here. For the people that decide not to hike pure basically had to decide not worry about what others thought about their hike (novel concept apparently) and give up the "legitimate" thru-hiker status as it has been defined by others. And of the people that did finish pure, I am sure they are so proud of their accomplishment that they would deny that the desire to be pure was an external influence to their hike or that it may have caused them some problems at all - despit the fact that I have head on more than one occasion that a person would do it different if they had it to do again and hit some of those blue blazes.

I feel it is very similar to what I hear from old soldiers about how standards are changing in today's Army because something that the old soldiers had to do (that they usually hated) is no longer required in today's Army. Hard to swallow that someone may have it easier in some way yet still get the same perks or recognition.

I have thought about posting this thought about 10 times since I got back, but figured it would be shot down by most thru-hikers since there seem to be a lot of them that still insist on the definition of a 2000 miler although many of them seem to also hate WF for his position on this.

So in the end, I think that by making certain limitations that honestly have nothing really to do about what hiking is, that the whole idea of having to walk past every blaze is honestly trying to put a reward in front of other hikers to hike someone elses rules, or hike someone elses hike. It shouldn't matter a hill of beans to anyone if I took the cutt off around to Siler's Bald shelter to go get water and didn't feel like walking all the way back up to the bald just to get back on the AT and have to walk back down hill again. But there are people that would immediatly take away the legitimacy of a hike for someone else, call them names like liar and say they have no honor, and try to JUDGE them for something as simple as that. It is only HIKING, not the Olympics, there is not urinalysis for performance enhancing drugs at the summit of Katahdin.

Yet some would use the argument that if a man tries to climb a mountain and only makes it 90% of the way and still gets recognition, then the next person that only does 80% will still get recognition, then the guy that only did 70%, etc. All the way until you just have to think about it to get credit. I think this is a totally wrong way to put it, and I won't say where I originally heard the argument... I see it as a guy starts at the bottom, gets to the top, but took a slightly different approach to get there. Would you only give credt to someone that climed Mt. McKinnley if the did it from the west along a certain approach - no, they made it to the top. If someone quits in the Notch, then they quit.

Anyway, I must be ranting again. Feel free to argue with me, that is the beauty of the forum. :cool:

[Kozmic Zian]

Yea......Same Old Argument. I am absolutely weary of this kind of thread. You know, when I began My Thru-Hike in 1996, I didn't own a computer, there was no Forum for Hiking the Appalachian Trail to my knowledge. I just wanted to walk to Maine as an attempt to get closer to The Mother Earth, whom I consider sacred, as some do other religious dieties. So I got up there and began, and heard this thing called a Thru-Hike. I thought that was pretty neat, but didn't (in my naievety) know any rules about all that. So, I just walked to Maine........and had a hell of a good time, and got closer to my Mother.......and met a lot of great people on the way. It was the 'Gran Haj'.....It was the Best of Times with the Best Of Friends....yea, we Blue Blazed, and walked more miles on those Blue Blazes than most of these 'purist' did on the 'honest' walk....what ever all that is.....Sometimes to see a view, water fall, every hut has a blue blaze to water....can't get that, though....if you're a purist. I don't ever recall taking a Blue Blaze in order to 'short change' The Trail.....Nobody did that on purpose....That's for out and out cheaters.....Who wanted to be that? Yea, I knew some 'Yellow Blazers', but none of them ever claimed the Holy Thru-Hiker Status.....There was only 10 percent of the listed 3,650 some odd starts that did in '96. Most people who 'Thru-Hike' The Trail are honest !

As far a the ATC's 'definition' goes......I think it goes without saying that it's an attempt to help keep everybody honest, so that they know what the rules are. The Appalachian Trail is a very long way.....to hike it end to end in one season is a major accomplishment. To cheat along the way (yellow blaze, or blue blaze w/intent to shorten) is only cheating your self and your fellow hikers who did an honest Thru-Hike.
When I grew up, I was always a 'Team Player'. If you cheated the 'Team', you got your ass whupped, good. In Viet-Nam, in the 173d Airborne Brigade, if you cheated your fellow fighters, you might get killed, or fragged out of the Unit. What the ATC and Wingfoot (no-matter how much I don't side with his opinionated web-site) are trying to do by defining what a 2,000 miler or 'Thru-Hiker' is, is to keep those aspiring to such, to be faithful and honest to all those previous faithful and honest hikers who got on the Trail and walked some 2,200 miles (including blue blaze trips to other views, camps, Trails, waterfalls, and roads along the way) before them. Yea, you might go into a shelter on one blue trail and out another, but the distance to and from the shelter, and the distance to water, more than compensates for the distance between the 2 entrances....Jeeessss. Get Technical....anal why don't ya's. Like, I said, It's a long freakin' way to Maine, and weather or not I missed a couple of white blazes or not, or blue blazed a freakin' shelter, matters not to me. I walked all the way to Maine, and like, I stated in another similar thread......Nobody can take it away from me. Nor should anyone try to, by obfuscated rulings or any other political means. The Thru Hike is The Thru Hike, it's 2000 some odd miles, a long freekin' way. If you do it in one, continuous undertaking, without leaving the Trail for a period of longer than a few weeks (who cares), and you walk all the way, with a few blue, pink, purple and alot of white blazing, you still did it. Yellow Blazing ain't Kosher, Blue Blazin' to avoid a hard section or cut the Trail short ain't Kosher. If you do that sort of thing, just say you hiked from Ga to Me, but didn't Thru Hike....Don't apply for the Certificate and the Rocker.....We don't need a bunch of confusing and redundant 'different patches' to imply some other kind of hike....One Patch, One 2000 Miler Rocker.....I'm with the ATC on This One. KZ@:cool:

[weary]

The Board of Managers of the Appalachian Trail Conference issued the following definition of the A.T. hiking experience goals in 1997. The conference argued that:

"The Appalachian Trail experience represents the sum of opportunities that are available for those walking the Appalachian Trail to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible."

I believe that this is an important goal and one that is best achieved by recognizing the validity of the system of side trails to wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural and natural elements of the trail environment. Why? Because most were built by maintaining clubs to augment this ATC depiction of the hiker experience.

ATC's 2,000-miler patch rules discourages exploration of these side trail elements, and thus diminishes the trail experience for many hikers. It's my hope that the ATC reorganization, now underway, and pressure from forums such as this will prompt a reconsideration.

Weary

[warren doyle]

Mountain Dew,

I believe there is a continuous, white-blaze trail to follow by foot from the summit of Springer Mt. to the summit of Katahdin and fording the Kennebec (which is 'part of the official route' TJ is actually referring to in his general, and somewhat misleading, post), under my own leg/foot power is part of that journey in my moral conscience. I'm sorry he led you to believe that I actually skip sections of trail 'not to my liking'. Never have and never will.

[steve hiker]

* * * It shouldn't matter a hill of beans to anyone if I took the cut off around to Siler's Bald shelter to go get water and didn't feel like walking all the way back up to the bald just to get back on the AT and have to walk back down hill again.
Good points, but you're missing the big picture. Warren Doyle, Wingfoot, and SGT Rock all have solid arguments, but it doesn't take much to see that the opinions of three little hikers don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world....Someday you'll understand that.

[Mountain Dew]

W. Doyle.....Thanks for the answer and clarification. If you forded the river there at the ferry and the A.T.C. says that the ferry IS the A.T. route then in fact you skipped about 150 ft. each time thus didn't thru-hike. Am I missing something Warren ? Maybe I am wrong. I never thought about the fording of the river at the ferry.....curious......

SGT. Rock........I was a purist in 2003 and never have regretted my choice. On many occassions I took blue blazes to see a certain thing off of the A.T. , but always backtracked to the A.T. where I left off. I saw all of those "scenic blue blazes" as well you see. Now that I think of it I don't remember ANY purist saying anything about regretting their choices. I think most everybody attempting to thru-hike never wants to miss a mile untill they get on the trail. On very rare occassion I'd hear a "purist elitist" rant about blue blazers , but like I said this was very rare because they were always vastly outnumbered by the blue blazers. On the other hand ...I heard blue/yellow blazers tease purist on an almost daily basis if the two were around one another about being "pure". Saying that most all purist will or do regret doing so is ill-informed and just not true. I hiked my own hike....which was to hike the A.T. one white blaze at a time. I met only a handfull of hikers that said they started out not wanting to hike every white blaze. One thing I noticed on the trail and am now noticing here is that it is o.k. to bash a purist and put words into their mouths and to even speak for them, but even bring up the term blue blazer and you are all of a sudden a "purist elitist". I find this transparent and very very humorous.

[Youngblood]

<snip>
On very rare occassion I'd hear a "purist elitist" rant about blue blazers , but like I said this was very rare because they were always vastly outnumbered by the blue blazers.
<snip>



MD,

Sorry I pulled this one sentence out of your statement. I realize that a lot of times this is not a fair thing to do and if you chose not to reply, I will understand that... but I would like to understand why you think they were "always vastly outnumbered by the blue blazers"? Now, I am not doubting that was the case, I honestly believe it was. I just would like to hear why you think that was so.

Youngblood

[MOWGLI]

If you forded the river there at the ferry and the A.T.C. says that the ferry IS the A.T. route then in fact you skipped about 150 ft. each time thus didn't thru-hike. Am I missing something Warren ? Maybe I am wrong.


You're kidding, right?

[MedicineMan]

is the AT pure?
Last weekend on a wittle day hike with my youngest we climbed High Rocks-not on the AT but 10min drive from my cabin. On top (Riley did a 700 foot gain!!!) you can see close to 50 miles of the trail. We were lucky to be guided to High Rocks by my Scoutmaster who has section hiked on the AT for over 60 years. He pointed out the not so obvious like the cut where the power lines go to the dam on Watauga Lake, Iron Mountain in front and Roan to our left were obvious, the shadow of Hughes Gap and the side trail on Roan to the cliffs. We spent an hour on top and discussed many things trail related and in conversation Mr. Dosser pointed out the former route of the AT..the route of the late 30's.....much to my shock/dismay/disbelief the original AT did not go over Roan Mtn!
So I wonder if Earl S. did the Roan section? Not that it matters since his jouney was more harried with all the road walking he had to do.

[Lone Wolf]

I blue-blazed the hell out of the AT on my 5 thru-hikes. I'm gonna go ahead and get my patches and certificates now. It's just as easy as getting a college degree off a matchbook cover.

[SGT Rock]

SGT. Rock........I was a purist in 2003 and never have regretted my choice. On many occassions I took blue blazes to see a certain thing off of the A.T. , but always backtracked to the A.T. where I left off. I saw all of those "scenic blue blazes" as well you see. Now that I think of it I don't remember ANY purist saying anything about regretting their choices. I think most everybody attempting to thru-hike never wants to miss a mile untill they get on the trail. On very rare occassion I'd hear a "purist elitist" rant about blue blazers , but like I said this was very rare because they were always vastly outnumbered by the blue blazers. On the other hand ...I heard blue/yellow blazers tease purist on an almost daily basis if the two were around one another about being "pure". Saying that most all purist will or do regret doing so is ill-informed and just not true. I hiked my own hike....which was to hike the A.T. one white blaze at a time. I met only a handfull of hikers that said they started out not wanting to hike every white blaze. One thing I noticed on the trail and am now noticing here is that it is o.k. to bash a purist and put words into their mouths and to even speak for them, but even bring up the term blue blazer and you are all of a sudden a "purist elitist". I find this transparent and very very humorous.

I never intended to put words in anyone's mouth and I apologize if that is what I seemed to do in my post. I never bashed any purist, nor have I called them elitest, but some have. Just as some have said that blue-blazers are liars and less than honorable. Doesn't this seem very petty for adults to do over something as inconcequential as hiking?

I mean it. Step back and take a breath everyone and think about this: This is not a competitive sport such as the Boston Marathon, there are not winners and loosers - yet the AT certificate is compared to it. This is not Mountain climbing, in mountain climbing you can't get to the top by skipping a section and coming back to do it later, but it also gets compared to that. This isn't combat where we all have to be team players, but it gets compared to that. The closest analogy to what the AT I ever heard was a funy thing WF said when comparing it to a museum when he was trying to relate why neither he, nor the ATC support speed hiking records - the AT is like the Louvre (sp?) museum. There is no recognition if you see every single painting. You go, you enjoy yourself, and you see it at your own speed and and in your own sequence.

Anyway, lest you get the idea that I don't like purists. I personally feel that purists have a dedication to what they do just as the section hiker that takes 35 years to keep getting back and hitting a section every chance they get until they finally make it. I really am awed by Waren Doyle and all the times he has thru-hiked and done it pure. But I think the point I was getting at is still valid. When you decided to go back to where you left the AT and head back when there was a blazed loop put there that was even constructed by trail crews that made the AT, that was only a few hundred yards from the AT, that may have the same views and roots, and whatever as the AT, why did you do that? What gave you the idea that you had to do it? It was someone else telling you that was what the "official" AT rule is. If the official ATC rule said you could take the side loops and meet back to the AT instead, would you have done it that way? Any resonable person would see it as a silly argument, but it has become like a religious dogma to some people: stay true to the path - if you don't then you hike doesn't "qualify".

If my post seem humorous, that is usually the intent. I rarely take myself too seriously :D

edit:

MM, your point about Earl is often countered by the fact that there was a lot of unblazed or unpassable trail, and that he did do the trail as it was marked at the time, so he still meets tha ATC's definition. But like a museum, the AT seems to change the exibits regularly in a way. Even Earl said the AT is now blazed to places that are hard to get to and ain't got much to see, that if he did it he would do it different. He also said he would add a western loop, but that is a whole nother argument about having more than one path to qualify as the official route. But to a section from his book where he got to a point that had two or three trails ated by difficulty at the entrance, and he chose the hardest sounding one and ended up swinging on chains or something like that - was this official AT route or another trail that went the same way? Would the ATC worry to go back and research this and find that this was a blue blaze? Or just take Earl at his word that he hiked the AT and everyone look at him and be happy with his hike rather than worry if he took a side journey and then didn't go back to where he left the AT? It was his hike, it was a great hike, and it shouldn't matter a hill of beans to anyone if he took a 1 mile detour because it sounded interesting.

Anyway, there seem to be a lot of tangents to this argument, and I seem to be the one straying off onto them, so I'll get off that :clap

[Footslogger]

Been to the Louvre, Rock ...they have elevators !!

Just kidding. Interesting analogy ...

'Slogger

[Moon Monster]

Bringing up the Kennebec quagmire in a white v. blue blaze discussion seems inevitable, but here's a rarer one:
the mainline AT leading north into Madison Spring Hut in the Presis in NH is blue blazed for a short stretch. It happens between trail intersections and I'd heard that it was folks from the hut who painted over the white blazes to provide clear markings into the hut. There is no white blaze route for this short distance. I think it's only several dozen yards long.

Can anyone corroborate or describe this anomaly further?

[TJ aka Teej]

TJ.....great question. I have also heard that Warren will often skip a section he deems not to his liking.

Warren has said (even bragged) that he skips the part of the ATC's official route because he doesn't agree with. I wouldn't have bothered to ask him about it if he wasn't so insistant in chiming in about how pure all his thru hikes are. Please note his slippery use of language above to self justify his misleading statements and avoid answering my question.
Perhaps we should add 'Warren Blazing' to the lexicon?
If you hiked all the trail you wanted to, you've Warren Blazed!

[Lone Wolf]

Was just chatting with Warren at Dot's about an hour ago. I told him about Warren Blazing. He chuckled. :)

[A-Train]

Was just chatting with Warren at Dot's about an hour ago. I told him about Warren Blazing. He chuckled. :)

Don't you trail junkies got anything better to do with your time?

[Mountain Dew]

MowGLI16....."are you serious ?" No doubt I am.

Moon Monster....as for your question.... I can't explain the reason behind the blue blazes where white ones should be, but then again I rarely saw A.T. signs in AMC territory. Oh, I did see a "few" white blazes they added in the 1970's though....

Medicine Man.....Interesting comments and they brought back visions.

TJ.... "Warren Blazing" ? (smiles)....very creative. I'll have to talk to Warren about his ideas on "Warren Blazing" at a later date though.

Young Blood....You didn't unfairly quote me at all. The answer to your question is very simple. Purist were vastly outnumbered by blue blazers because they were. For every one purist I met/saw on the trail there were 15+ blue blazers. I'm not sure how else to say it.

SGT. Rock.....you asked several questions so here are my answers to them:

Sgt. Rock..."When you decided to go back to where you left the AT and head back when there was a blazed loop put there that was even constructed by trail crews that made the AT, that was only a few hundred yards from the AT, that may have the same views and roots, and whatever as the AT, why did you do that? " (my answer)..... well, I felt the need to because my original goal was to thru-hike the Appalachian Trail and I wanted achieve my goal no matter what.

SGT. Rock....."It was someone else telling you that was what the "official" AT rule is." ....(my response)...I actually had no idea what the "rule" was when I started nor did I care what the rule was once I found out. What makes you think somebody else told me the "rule", thus influencing me to stick to that rule ? Is it so odd for me to want to thru-hike and see each white blaze ?

SGT. Rock...."If the official ATC rule said you could take the side loops and meet back to the AT instead, would you have done it that way?" Redundant question. I answered it above.

SGT. Rock...."What gave you the idea that you had to do it?" ..(my answer)...While reading Bryson's book i decided to "thru-hike" so I proceeded to hike past every white blaze and many many blue ones as well.

SGT. Rock ..." I really am awed by Waren Doyle and all the times he has thru-hiked and done it pure." Interesting comment depending on what your definition of "pure" is, but no doubt that many miles no matter how obtained are impressive even if we are reminded of it constantly.

Just to clarify my stance a little.....blue blaze , yellow blaze, white blaze... I don't care. Most all of my '03 friends were blue/yellow blazers. Just don't "hike your own hike" and THEN claim mine.

[SGT Rock]

Mountain Dew, I never claimed your hike. I don't know where you got that impression from. But again, if that is what you think - I apologize. I am taking this very light heartedly - it is only hiking.

[Chappy]

Mountain Dew, I never claimed your hike. I don't know where you got that impression from. But again, if that is what you think - I apologize. I am taking this very light heartedly - it is only hiking.

After where you've just returned from it must blow your mind to see how folks get worked up over some of the things posted here.

[SGT Rock]

Chappy,

It does a little, but then again this is actually pretty mild compared to some of the discussions I have seen on this topic. I am actually glad we haven't had anyone really resort to nitpicking anyone's posts or calling people names just to win an argument instead of discuss the idea on it's merits or lack of merits.

I realize that some people take this very seriously. Honestly I have no problem with that or how they hike or how they feel serious about their hike. There is nothing wrong with being serious about your own hike at all.

As I stated a while back, I only have a problem with the way the ATC rule reads and how it has become defined so strictly by people that it creats so stupid an argument in the first place. It is such an easy fix, and if there truly is a 15:1 ratio of blue-blazers to purists, then why not change the rule?

[warren doyle]

TJ,
For the record, this term 'Warren Blazing' is your creation not mine.
If it means, conscientiously following the white blazes the entire distance between the summits of Springer and Katahdin, including fording the Kennebec under my/your own foot/leg/mind/spirit power every time (even when there was no canoe ferry for many years and all my/our fellow pilgrims forded it safely), then I'm real comfortable with that.
You can add it to the lexicon, perhaps after 'Warren Bashing' which you seem particularly adept at?
And by the way, if you check all my posts I have never used the word 'pure'. Once again, this particular word is your interpretation.
Happy trails!

[Blue Jay]

THEN [/U] claim mine.

How would it be in any way possible for another individual to "claim" your hike? I have a big giant dictionary and there are many meanings for that word, but none of them seem to fit. The only one I see is close, is to claim rights to something like land or copyrighted material. Since your hike is completely intangible and has meaning only to you, it does not seem to fit. I'm just asking, no sarcasm, I'm just interested in the thought process of Purists.

[TJ aka Teej]

You can add it to the lexicon, perhaps after 'Warren Bashing' which you seem particularly adept at?

Warren, first you called my question 'misleading', and now it's 'Warren bashing'. You haven't answered it, though. I'm just interested in the thought process of purists. Certainly, as an educator, you've answered harder questions than mine.
Which was:
"Hi Warren,
You've said before that you skip the part of the official route you don't agree with. Do you send in for the certificate anyways, even though you haven't completed the entire official route?"

[rickb]

"but if enough of us (as members) decide that this should be the ATC position, then in a democratic organization, it can become the policy of the ATC if we will it."

Probably so, but I am not so sure that would be a good idea-- you know what Jefferson said about majority rule being tyrany of the minority ;-).

From day one, the ATC has been all about defining, building and protecting an unbroken trail from Maine to Georgia. From day one, every foot has been considered an important ellement in the chain-- whether it led across a magnificent ridgeline or along the shoulder of a highway.

The ATC was never just about providing great hiking opportunities-- having a continuous footpath was always central to ewverything they did. Even when there were long road walks, the Trail didn't stop at the pavement, and pick up again 20 miles away. That road walk became part of the AT. Every link in the chain (even the ugly ones) were important to the whole.

The 2000 Miler recognition doesn't come from a hiking organization-- it comes from a Trail organization. An organization that historically has valued every link in the chain. To my way of thinking it was long as much a celebration of that unbroken chain as about one's ability to but one foot ahead of the other.

I guess what I am saying is that so long as the 2000 Miler recognition is coming from a TRAIL organization that values every foot of the trail they created, no group of individuals should try an coopt it and make it into just a hiking award.

Rick B

[weary]

MowGLI16....."are you serious ?" No doubt I am.

Moon Monster....as for your question.... I can't explain the reason behind the blue blazes where white ones should be, but then again I rarely saw A.T. signs in AMC territory. Oh, I did see a "few" white blazes they added in the 1970's though....

Young Blood....You didn't unfairly quote me at all. The answer to your question is very simple. Purist were vastly outnumbered by blue blazers because they were. For every one purist I met/saw on the trail there were 15+ blue blazers. I'm not sure how else to say it....

Just to clarify my stance a little.....blue blaze , yellow blaze, white blaze... I don't care. Most all of my '03 friends were blue/yellow blazers. Just don't "hike your own hike" and THEN claim mine.

Just a couple of comments. This doesn't apply to your comment, but I have long argued that the loop trails to scenic overlooks should be white blazed. In the case of the Gulf Hagas Gorge the argument I've gotten from MATC has been that they want to separate the "tourists" from thru hikers. I suspect another reason is lethargy. The White blazes came first. When a scenic loop is created it's simply easier to blue blaze, than to paint out or over the old trail blazes. Finally, most thru hikers think the trail is difficult enough already. I don't detect any real pressure to make it more difficult. Rather just the opposite. Many think it should be made easier.

I suspect the 15+ to 1 ratio of those who take short cuts over purism is conservative. My estimate in 1993 was more like 50-1. I only met three or four who went out of their way to hike past every white blaze. There may have been some closet purists that I didn't notice.

Finally, I agree 100 percent with the last comment.

Weary

[TJ aka Teej]

...fording the Kennebec under my/your own foot/leg/mind/spirit power every time (even when there was no canoe ferry for many years and all my/our fellow pilgrims forded it safely)

Boats were at the Caratunk crossing for many years, and were used by many pre-86 AT hikers. The AT was routed here specifically to take advantage of the existing ferrys serving the sporting camps. And Warren, you know perfectly well that not "all" have forded safely.

[warren doyle]

TJ,
It was (is?) ATC policy to award a certificate for an individual's first hike of the Appalachian Trail.
I submitted my journal for my 1973 hike and received a certificate. For my other eleven traverses of the entire trail, I did not submit materials for a certficate. So, I only have one certficate.
For my first six AT traverses, there was no 'official route' ferry ford for the Kennebec due to the fact there had not been A drowning yet.
The 'official route' terminology for the canoe ferry came to be used sometime in the 90's probably more for 'liability' reasons. I'll stick with the much older 'footpath' designation. It's a better fit for me. I'd rather follow the intended vision of the trail founders rather than modern-day lawyers.

[TJ aka Teej]

The 2000 Miler recognition doesn't come from a hiking organization-- it comes from a Trail organization. An organization that historically has valued every link in the chain. To my way of thinking it was long as much a celebration of that unbroken chain as about one's ability to but one foot ahead of the other.

I guess what I am saying is that so long as the 2000 Miler recognition is coming from a TRAIL organization that values every foot of the trail they created, no group of individuals should try an coopt it and make it into just a hiking award.

Well said.

[warren doyle]

TJ,
Boats available at the Caratunk crossing for many pre-1986 AT hikers? I guess this is yet another example of an interpretation (statement of a fact) of one who was not there during this period of time (YOU) as opposed to someone who was (ME).
I apologize for not admitting the fact that HUNDREDS of AT hikers forded the Kennebec without drowning before ONE person drowned and that probably HUNDREDS of AT hikers have forded the Kennebec since that ONE person drowned.

[Fallingwater]

Warren >> Boats available at the Caratunk crossing for many pre-1986 AT hikers? I guess this is yet another example of an interpretation (statement of a fact) of one who was not there during this period of time (YOU) as opposed to someone who was (ME).<<

Well I was there ('77) and there was a ferry service across the river for $5. Many hikers took advantage while others chose to ford the river. I personally don't think it matters a tinkers damn how someone crosses the river, as long as it's done safely.

As to the AT vs. Blueblaze argument, it'll never be settled. I prefer to think of the AT more as a trail as a corridor than a single thread. In today’s increasingly crowed AT, officially defining an AT trail corridor could help people get a sense of life on the old AT. People could feel free to take alternate less used routes and increase the sense of isolation and wilderness feel.

Over the years the AT has undergone innumerable reroutes. Many of the former segments of the AT still exist as trails today. I see no reason why they should be infrequently used simply because they now carry the blue instead of white blaze. Along with the old reroutes there are many long established parallel trails that intersect with the AT.

I realize people resist the concept of a trail corridor claiming that the ATC has enough on its hand maintaining a single trail. However, I’m not saying they or the trail clubs need to assume the additional burden of maintaining alternates. Many have existed for years in fine shape. Others become a bit rougher and allow for a different hiking experience.

At some point in time the ATC will need to address trail crowding. There have already been several failed attempts to limit wilderness access in western states. I’m sure it’ll happen at some point to National Forest in the East. The only real options available are to spread out the hikers or impose restrictions.

Fallingwater AT '77

[The Old Fhart]

Warren-For my first six AT traverses, there was no 'official route' ferry ford for the Kennebec due to the fact there had not been A drowning yet.
The 'official route' terminology for the canoe ferry came to be used sometime in the 90's probably more for 'liability' reasons. I'll stick with the much older 'footpath' designation.
The older “footpath” designation was to ford the Kennebec river. My 1936 Maine A.T. guide book describes using a ferry services to the cross the Kennebec. My 1969 guide book still describes using the ferry. Check the journals of Gene espy, Dorothy Laker, Earl Shaffer, and others, and you will find the traditional way to cross the Kennebec was a boat, canoe, or raft. In 1990 I met Ed Garvey as he stepped out of the canoe on the west side of the river. The idea of fording the river is new and somehow makes some hikers feel they are more righteous than others that take the official route. I hope that you aren’t implying that these pioneers of the trail cheated by using the ferry service and you are somehow better than them for fording.

Even if fording used to be the tradition (which it wasn’t), the official route is now to take the canoe. Why would this be any different than any other relo? You don’t follow an older non-white blazed section that was used as a part of the trail years ago. If it is important to you to be a “purist” and follow every blaze, the canoe is the way to go. If you want to try and ford the Kennebec, fine, that is your choice, just don’t try to convince others it is THE WAY and they are less than worthy if they take the official route.

[TJ aka Teej]

TJ,
Boats available at the Caratunk crossing for many pre-1986 AT hikers? I guess this is yet another example of an interpretation (statement of a fact) of one who was not there during this period of time (YOU) as opposed to someone who was (ME).

It's a fact that boats were used by many early AT hikers. The Trail was routed to Caratunk to take advantage of the boat traffic serving the sporting camps. Avery and Earl used a boat. Grandma Gatewood crossed in a canoe. My '64 Maine AT Guide lists the Kennebec Ferry as being 'one mile above, across from the landing'. Sterling Camps kept boats on both banks, and would meet the Quebec-Portland bus. Just before Bassett got to the Kennebec in '68 he learned that the longtime ferryman had just passed away, so he ended up having to get car rides around to Caratunk. In '69 a kid in a canoe was charging $5 a ride and could be telephoned from Pierce Pond Camps. In '70 it was a guy in rowboat, still $5. Ed Garvey tried fording, didn't make it out to mid stream, turned back and hitch hiked around. In the early 70s an old buck in a powerboat was taking hikers like Cindy Ross across. In '74 there was a notice at the little store/post office with phone numbers for three or four boatmen. In '80 and '81 a young lady took my pack across in her canoe while I swam.

[Percival]

My 1936 Maine A.T. guide book describes using a ferry services to the cross the Kennebec. My 1969 guide book still describes using the ferry.
Man you are OLD, boy!

[SGT Rock]

Probably so, but I am not so sure that would be a good idea-- you know what Jefferson said about majority rule being tyrany of the minority ;-).

From day one, the ATC has been all about defining, building and protecting an unbroken trail from Maine to Georgia. From day one, every foot has been considered an important ellement in the chain-- whether it led across a magnificent ridgeline or along the shoulder of a highway.

The ATC was never just about providing great hiking opportunities-- having a continuous footpath was always central to ewverything they did. Even when there were long road walks, the Trail didn't stop at the pavement, and pick up again 20 miles away. That road walk became part of the AT. Every link in the chain (even the ugly ones) were important to the whole.

The 2000 Miler recognition doesn't come from a hiking organization-- it comes from a Trail organization. An organization that historically has valued every link in the chain. To my way of thinking it was long as much a celebration of that unbroken chain as about one's ability to but one foot ahead of the other.

I guess what I am saying is that so long as the 2000 Miler recognition is coming from a TRAIL organization that values every foot of the trail they created, no group of individuals should try an coopt it and make it into just a hiking award.
Rick B

Well, I never thought that asking for something a little different would be a tyrany :p

Actually the ATC has been trying to protect and build a trail corridor that centers around the AT. It oversees the local clubs that actually build and maintain trail(s) in that corridor. The side trails are listed in their section guides with some great information about the sights of the trails, their length, and sometimes they even as much trail data as the offical AT. When section hiking, I love to read the part about "Side trails in the _____ Wilderness" because those side trails and sights on them are worth seeing; and the ATC must agree because they are not excluded from these publications but, in fact, well documented. I miss those things in publications designed around the thru-hiker, but I guess the side trails are not really in the "need to have" catagory and would expand the size of books like the Databook more than most would like to see.

I am only a visitor when I hike, so I rely on the local members to tell me what sights are cool and worth going out of the way to see. I really apriciate the fact that the ATC does not only consider the trail itself, but the shelters (even off trail on those blue blazes), the trail parking areas, the side trails off the AT, etc. Like I said, the AT isn't a race or a mountain climb, or combat, it is a place to get away from the modernized world and see the sights - like a museum. The wings off the main corridor of the museum are good places to go too and the ATC seems to agree.

Fallingwater brings up a good point about the ATC and possible concerns over trail overcrowding. The solution could be to allow hikers to take the side trails in places that have a lot of traffic like the Smokies, Shennendoa, the Whites, etc to be the same as the main route for hikers to consider their hike "offical". After all, as you point out, the ATC is the one recognizing the hikes and as a result - giving hikers an incentive to hike in a specific way to earn the patch. So in the end, it isn't just a hiking award (as you pointed out), it is an incentive for people to hike a certain way just like there are tax incentives to encourage people to do certain things that the government wants them to do. If that incentive would be given to people to get off and see some sights, then what is the problem? If the incentive is given to reduce crowding or whatever the desired effect is, then it will encourage the desired effect. Right now (apparently) the desired effect is to make sure someone walks every foot of the trail - period.

So if these things are stuff we can all agree on makes for good trail preservation and good hiking trips, then why defend the policy as it is defined? :-?

[jersey joe]

A couple people have said they were interested in the thought process of "purists"(Blue Jay, TJ)...

My thought process was that once I missed a section of the trail, for whatever reason, it would become easier and easier to miss future sections. My goal was to hike the AT from end to end and I figured that if i were going to spend a few months hiking the AT, why not take the extra effort to hike the ENTIRE trail?

Mountain Dew is right, there are far more "blue blazers" out there than "purists". Most people that I saw blue blazing weren't doing so for the extra views but rather to avoid harder sections of the trail, like the blue blaze around the three peaks right before Waynesboro. And in many cases, blue blazing led to yellow blazing. I just don't understand why certain hikers are so vexed by someone who sets out to hike the ENTIRE trail.

[Blue Jay]

Joe, what I was interested in was why Mountain Dew thought someone was putting a "claim" on his hike by lying about their hike. You, I understand. You HYOH and could care less what others do with their hike. Please don't tell me "I don't care what other hikers do, BUT (actually I do)".

[jersey joe]

I guess I was just using your question as a more general question to transition into my own thought process...

[Fallingwater]

My thought process was that once I missed a section of the trail, for whatever reason, it would become easier and easier to miss future sections. My goal was to hike the AT from end to end and I figured that if i were going to spend a few months hiking the AT, why not take the extra effort to hike the ENTIRE trail?



The problem is that people automatically assume that people who Blueblaze are cheating. Therefore their hike is somehow inferior (i.e. the purist is superior). To me it sounds like a lot of nonsense with a bit of hiker prejudice tossed in.

I don't know the current official ATC policy on thru-hiker registration, nor for that matter do I care. I do know that the PCTA recognized hikers whether they've hike the PCT or any of its alternates. The PCT alternates are often far superior to the marked footpath. As far as I know neither the CDTA nor CDTS cares which route you chose. In fact it's impossible to be a purist on the CDT.

The king of thru-hiker awards is the "Triple Crown" awarded by ALDHA-West. We make no distinction between hiking the AT via all white blazes or taking alternate trails. Most triple crowners value their Triple Crown award more than that of any individual trail.

Fallingwater

[SGT Rock]

My thought process was that once I missed a section of the trail, for whatever reason, it would become easier and easier to miss future sections. My goal was to hike the AT from end to end and I figured that if i were going to spend a few months hiking the AT, why not take the extra effort to hike the ENTIRE trail?

Mountain Dew is right, there are far more "blue blazers" out there than "purists". Most people that I saw blue blazing weren't doing so for the extra views but rather to avoid harder sections of the trail, like the blue blaze around the three peaks right before Waynesboro. And in many cases, blue blazing led to yellow blazing. I just don't understand why certain hikers are so vexed by someone who sets out to hike the ENTIRE trail.

Joe, I don't disagree with you on your philosophy of allowing myself to slip on a standard may eventually release a floodgate of slipping standards. I live by standards all the time. I see a need for them that is a reality and lives depend on it. But this is hiking, and any standard you set for yourself on how you hike should be self imposed. No one's life, limb, or eyesight is at risk because people slackpack, blue-blaze, yellow blaze, or whatever.

Besides, my original proposal said that blue blaze loops that came back to the AT like shelters, and parallel trails of equal or greater length would be authorized. No slack on a "standard" there either.

I am not vexed by anyone set out the entire trail, but I am vexed by people that feel someone else is vexed by them doing it. :rolleyes: Honestly, who does it HURT to allow people to hike blue blazed? It doesn't hurt anyone, and no one wants someone to stop hiking every blaze if they want to. If were vexed by you doing that I would insist you stop :D

[TJ aka Teej]

I just don't understand why certain hikers are so vexed by someone who sets out to hike the ENTIRE trail.

Hi Jersey Joe,
English is a difficult language.
To me 'purist' means the kind of hiker who is vexed by hikers who haven't set out to hike every white blaze, so maybe elitist is a better term. 'Blueblazers' (to me, again) are those who *add* scenic side trails and trips to their hikes. We need a better term for those who bale out down Tuckerman's and take the Tram up Wildcat, or skip the slate hills around Monson.
Completing the entire route of the Appalachian Trail is an amazing acomplishment. But it's not the only way to enjoy the Trail. Some say 1 in 15? 1 in 50? Nope. It's more like one in a million, counting all the different ways the AT is hiked on each year.
I'll know I'll never pass every blaze, I'm too curious about what's behind that hill, or if this cliff is really dangerous, or if the old trail is still there, or if I can see how close the loggers cut, or if the blueberries are ripe under those powerlines, or if I can find a flat spot for my tent a way over yonder <g>
It's a long trail, there's room for us all.
Isn't there?

[jersey joe]

The problem is that people automatically assume that people who Blueblaze are cheating. Therefore their hike is somehow inferior (i.e. the purist is superior).
Fallingwater
I agree with you that the term "Blueblazing" has a certain negativity associated with it. I also don't really like the term "purist" as it does give off an air of superiority. Like anyone who doesn't follow white blazes is unpure or something.

[jersey joe]

...But this is hiking, and any standard you set for yourself on how you hike should be self imposed...

Besides, my original proposal said that blue blaze loops that came back to the AT like shelters, and parallel trails of equal or greater length would be authorized.
I am not vexed by anyone set out the entire trail, but I am vexed by people that feel someone else is vexed by them doing it. :rolleyes: Honestly, who does it HURT to allow people to hike blue blazed? It doesn't hurt anyone, and no one wants someone to stop hiking every blaze if they want to. If were vexed by you doing that I would insist you stop :D
Rock,
I agree, the only standard that should matter while hiking is the one you set for yourself.
Your proposal on blue blaze loops certainly sounds harmless enough. I think your opposition is more concerned with people blueblazing as a means to skip harder sections of the trail.
By vexed I meant puzzled, not hurt, sorry for the ambiguity.

[jersey joe]

Hi Jersey Joe,
'Blueblazers' (to me, again) are those who *add* scenic side trails and trips to their hikes. We need a better term for those who bale out down Tuckerman's and take the Tram up Wildcat, or skip the slate hills around Monson.
It's a long trail, there's room for us all.
Isn't there?
What's up TJ,
I wasn't calling you out by mentioning your name, I was just offering some insight into why I personally set out to follow every white blaze.
I'm a firm believer in HYOH. If you want to blueblaze, go for it! This does not puzzle me at all and I'll still consider you a fellow thru hiker. I've said it before, if you get to the top of Katahdin and your happy that's all that matters. Why worry how the ATC classifies your hike? And as for the patch, I forgot I even had one until this thread.

Unfortunately I think the negativity associated with the term blueblazer is because people think of the hiker that skips the slate hills around Monson instead of your definition.

Oh, and there is plenty of room for all of us out on the trail now that ya'll are taking the blue blazes(joke).

[rickb]

I can't help but wonder what percentage of thru hikers walk an unbroken line from ME to GA. I am thinking that its not very many.

If I am wrong about that, I might be more inclined to think like Sgt Rock. Otherwise, better for the ATC to get aout of the award business all together.

No reason to put a hat on a pig.

Rick B

[SGT Rock]

Hat on a pig. LOL I like it :D

[Footslogger]

Is that like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear ???

[funkyfreddy]

:jump
Quite enlightening for those of us unendowed
by true thruhiker status.......

Have you kissed every blaze,
pissed on every summit
bagged every peak
lunched at every shelter
appreciated every view
drank from every river

observed every animal
named every tree
heard every bird
watched every sunset?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Chappy]

:jump
Quite enlightening for those of us unendowed
by true thruhiker status.......

Have you kissed every blaze,
pissed on every summit
bagged every peak
lunched at every shelter
appreciated every view
drank from every river

observed every animal
named every tree
heard every bird
watched every sunset?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Neat! New standard for being a purist! :)

[Mountain Dew]

SGT. Rock.....I wasn't trying to imply that you were trying to "claim" my hike. Those two sentences at the end of my entry were made in general to anybody. I enjoy your entry's and have no bad feelings towards you.

Bluejay....I think you misunderstood my ( "claim my hike" ) statement. I was referring to people that claim to be thru-hikers when they aren't. That is a form of claiming what they haven't done in a desire to do elevate themselves in their own minds and others.

TJ.....(YOU) may not have been there at the Kennebec, but it seems like the ferry was there for Earl Shaffer, Cindy Ross, Grandma Gatewood, Gene Espy, Dorothy Laker, Ed Garvey, and everyone that I've ever read about. Funny how the ferry seemed to hide from Warren. I wonder how all those Legends used the ferry and how all the A.T. books claim that the ferry has pretty much always been there yet somebody claims it wasn't. I will choose to believe the many many books and trail LEGENDS myself. Just one more curious thing that i'll have to find time to ask Warren about someday.

Fallingwater.......If this topic were about the PCT/CDT's rules and regulations then I guess your post would be valid. The fact the ALDHA-west chooses to ignore the A.T.C.'s standard for a thru-hike is comical. Who cares what ALDHA-west thinks is a legit thru-hike on this thread. No disrespect for ALDHA-west. The only opinion that matters to me is the A.T.C.'s.

FunkyFreddy/Chappy.....(poem)... "Quite enlightening for those of us unendowed by true thruhiker status" A perfect example of how it is perfectly o.k. to bash a purist , but not o.k. to bash a blueblazer. A poem on here mocking blueblazerz would draw hundreds of harch comments. Thanks for showing an example of what i was talking about in my last entry.

Weary....you are right...the odds are closer to 50:1...blueblazer to purist but I figured that if I said that nobody would believe the comment. hahahaa

[Lone Wolf]

Pretty sad folks like you need validation, patches and certificates for something so insignificant as hiking a trail.

[SGT Rock]

True L Wolf. How about a new name for an AT hiker going off to the side trails to see whatever is there and doesn't feel a need to loop back or whatever: Hiker. If somone asks you if you are blue blazing, white blazing, or whatever, you would answer "naw, I'm just hiking"

[Mountain Dew]

Pretty sad folks like you need validation, patches and certificates for something so insignificant as hiking a trail.

Actually I haven't even sent in for a patch or a certificate for my thru-hike Lone Wolf. So now what's your point ? I'm not sure if I will either. I know I thru-hiked and for now that is all I need.

You imply that patches and certificates are strictly for peoples ego's which is asinine. So Sgt. Rocks certificates he has surely recieved from the military are for his ego ? Calling the hike of the A.T. insignificant is pretty humorous as well. Sgt. Rock, others and myself have been able to discuss this issue just fine without personal attacks so far. I have a feeling I said something that you strongly disagree with, but don't care to debate the issue with me. I like it when Sgt. Rock, Weary, TJ, and others have different viewpoints than me because it allows me to see the other side of the coin. Fell free to throw more person attacks if you wish.

[Lone Wolf]

There is nothing to debate and where's the personal attack? I personally feel an AT hike IS insignificant. All it takes is time, money and a desire to walk. My opinion.

[Mountain Dew]

If you can't see the personal attack in your comments then what else is there for me to say, but again ...what is your point now that you know I didn't need a patch or certificate ? Mind you....I hiked the trail in a group of about 20 blue/yellow blazers and they didn't have a problem with my opinion on this topic. TJ......I feel your pain with people not answering questions. hahahahaa

[Lone Wolf]

But you have a website all about your hike. A little ego shining through. Just to appease you, ask me a direct question and I'll answer it.

[Mountain Dew]

Nice try at a redirection here, but the question still stands (for the third time).... "what is your point now that you know I didn't need a patch or certificate ?

So by me having a website I have an ego ? Interesting.... Maybe the guy with one leg that is hiking this year has the same "ego problem" I do .....or just maybe the people on the Trail Journals website all have ego's as well. Whiteblaze is the result of attroll having an ego ? You translate a journal website into having an ego. I think you're reaching for something to hold onto.

[Lone Wolf]

My point is that you're taking this purist/blue-blazing s**t too seriously. Go re-read your posts. :cool:

[MOWGLI]

I was referring to people that claim to be thru-hikers when they aren't. That is a form of claiming what they haven't done in a desire to do elevate themselves in their own minds and others.



Mountain Dew. Perception is a funny thing. When you declared that someone who fords the Kennebec is no longer a thru-hiker in your eyes, it was my belief that you were doing what you are now accusing others of doing ("elevate themselves in their own minds and others"). In other words, define a thru-hike so narrowly (ie: your experience) as to make yourself the only one to have hiked the ENTIRE trail in 2003.

Bear in mind this is not a personal attack. Just a personal observation. I'm fairly certain that if we met on the trail we'd get along just fine.

Little Bear GA-ME 2000

[MOWGLI]

Pretty sad folks like you need validation, patches and certificates for something so insignificant as hiking a trail.

Lone Wolf, while I think that a thru-hike can be a personally significant achievement, I agree with you totally that in the larger scheme of things, it is totally insignificant. If any of y'all don't agree with that statement, then perhaps you're not watching enough news or reading enough newspapers.

Little Bear GA-ME 2000

[dje97001]

The "problem" as some of us see it, from personal experience and from reading books, trail journals and participating in various internet discussions, only a minority of those claiming compliance actually have complied with the ATC guidelines. Just a simple question, are there really any statistics that demonstrate this to be a serious problem (relatively speaking)? From my naive perspective, it seems that people generally believe that a good majority of hikers claim the status without actually doing it. If in fact it is a majority of hikers who violate the ATC's honor system, then it is time to change that system.

A parallel that I can draw, to make sense out of this dilemma, is that of grade inflation in the University system. Grade inflation is a problem because it cheapens the degree. I'm not talking about this from a pride perspective. Simply put, if everyone knows that some program is cake, then everyone (both people within and outside the system) begins to doubt the quality of everything coming out of that program (including the people who actually worked hard in their classes--those who did not simply take advantage of the fact that the course was easy). In the end what happens? The degree program's reputation suffers (or is strengthened depending on your goals..i.e. slackers will gravitate to it) and the degree isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

The same can be said for the ATC's 2000 miler status, IF (and that is a big "if" if you didn't notice) a good majority of applicants are actually cheating the system. If more people who never did it, are applying for the designation than people who did do it, then the system loses validity--and must be changed (if you want to be recognized for actually being at 2,000 miler).

I don't really believe (again being naive) that there are so many people out there who really "cheat" the system (whatever your definition of "cheating" it may be--blue or yellow). Does anyone actually have any statistics (even basic percentages) of actual violators? Or is this question all about perception?

If you suspect there are as few violators (proportionately speaking) as I do, then while this discussion is interesting (as discussions of standards always are), such extensive discussion of it creates the perception (to me and I would wager many other more recent members) that this problem is one of astronomical proportions.

If this discussion is just meant to "chew the fat" then I can also appreciate that. But just keep in mind that perception can be as influential as actual behavior. For someone like me, who wants to thru-hike (but hasn't had the stars align properly yet) and has no real experience with the hiking community (not the trail, but the hiking "fellowship"), I have been assuming that this was extremely widespread (a large % or even a majority of applicants). In my mind I was seeing the designation as a nice patch to have, but not much more. This morning I realized that I have only been reading about hear-say and anecdotal accounts without getting any hard evidence of the prevalence of this issue.

To me then, the incessant discussion, aimed at shunning those who violate the honor system, makes it seem far more common of an occurrence than I now believe it to be. As a result, I believe that this discussion is contributing to the decrease in the perceived value of actually getting the designation (more so than the likely small number of people who actually do cheat the ATC and themselves).

Take this for what it is worth--Just my thoughts on this whole thing (so not worth much I guess!).

[weary]

TJ.....(YOU) may not have been there at the Kennebec, but it seems like the ferry was there for Earl Shaffer, Cindy Ross, Grandma Gatewood, Gene Espy, Dorothy Laker, Ed Garvey, and everyone that I've ever read about. ... I wonder how all those Legends used the ferry and how all the A.T. books claim that the ferry has pretty much always been there yet somebody claims it wasn't. I will choose to believe the many many books and trail LEGENDS myself. ....


Technically, the regular ferry schedule as we know it today began in the 1980s after the drowning death of a woman thru hiker. Prior to that there were several people in the Caratunk area that hikers could hire to ferry them across the river and all the guide books urged that hikers do so. I suppose it's a matter of semantics. But a ferry used as a noun is generally a craft that is available on a regular schedule. To ferry, a verb, is simply to convey someone across an expanse of water, traditionally in a boat, but now the word is sometimes used for heliocopters and such.

I have no objection to people wading across, but I think it irresponsible to suggest this is an easy and entirely safe option, especially for those inexperienced at stream crossings. I've waded enough rivers over the decades to know that I would never attempt it. Aside from being a rather marginal swimmer with an increasingly poor sense of balance, just watching the rapidly flowing water in an effort to find the next place to step gives me and many people vertigo.

You can avoid the distraction and dizziness of swirling water by taking quick glances down to find a step and then quickly looking away from the water surface, something easier talked about than done when you find yourself in the middle of a rushing river -- that suddenly is rising -- and you're unsure of the best route to safety.

Did someone suggest that at one time boats were left on the shore for hikers to use? I doubt if the craft would have lasted very long. An inexperienced person in a canoe or small boat trying to maneuver the Kennebec currents and boulders probably would be a more dangerous practice than simply wading -- at least for the boat.

Weary

[MOWGLI]

Just a simple question, are there really any statistics that demonstrate this to be a serious problem (relatively speaking)?



IMO, this is not a problem at all. It's a philosophical discussion that has almost nothing to do with hiking the trail. It also accomplishs very little. It's kind of like a conversation in a shelter between a devout Mulsim, Jew, Jehovahs Witness, a Southern Baptist and a Hindu. The conversation can be interesting, perhaps heated at times, but when it is all said and done, probably no one has changed their opinion on the subject at hand.

Little Bear

[rickb]

"As a result, I believe that this discussion is contributing to the decrease in the perceived value of actually getting the designation (more so than the likely small number of people who actually do cheat the ATC and themselves)."

When Earl Shaffer became the first 2,000 Miler (by way of a thru hike), he took great pains to let the ATC know he didn't hike all the white blazes. When he did that in the White Mountains he explained to them that this was because he failed to have his maps mailed in time.

No one in their right mind thinks that Earl didn't become a 2000 miler on that trip. No one questions his honor.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so-called elitist purity was ever central to the ATC's 2000-Miler recognition. They sure as heck didn't ask me about whether or not I hiked over Eisenhower. Many hiked that way because it was "neat", and many did not. Any argument over blue-blaze loops, or crossing back over a busy highway (to exactly where you left off) after a hitch was akin to arguing who was the greatest baseball pitcher of all-time.

I think that's changed, though.

I think its changed because of what DJE asks about-- that a very significant percentage of people not only difine the whole Trail differently from one another, but do so in a way that defies ALL REASON.

To my way of thinking, the solution is simple: the ATC should move one, and stop recognizing individuals as 2000-Milers. People should be able to claim anything they want-- its just that the ATC shouldn't get sucked in.

Along those same lines, the ATC should stop selling books with false claims written on thier covers-- even the NY Times fact checker could find at least one of those.

Rick B

[weary]

[font=Arial][size=1][font=&quot][font=Times New Roman][size=3] Just a simple question, are there really any statistics that demonstrate this to be a serious problem (relatively speaking)? From my naive perspective, it seems that people generally believe that a good majority of hikers claim the status without actually doing it. If in fact it is a majority of hikers who violate the ATC's honor system, then it is time to change that system.


There are no formal statistics. Just the observation of most thru hikers that very few take the ATC published standards very seriously, including, judging by his account of his trip, the editor of Trailways News, which publishes the names of those who claim a 2,000-miler patch.

The degree of violation depends in part on what the guidelines mean. The guidelines say claimants have to walk "every mile" of the trail. Does that mean to pass every white blaze? Or just at least part of every mile? If it's not the latter, why not just say must walk the "whole" trail?

These questions have been raging on the internet since the internet began, but have been met by total silence from ATC, which is one reason why I suspect ATC hasn't given the matter much thought.

And what does "pass every white blaze" mean? Shelters and camping sites tend to be off the trail, by a few hundred yards up to a half mile or so. A hiker that has taken a blue-blazed loop trail in and out of a shelter has certainly passed all the white blazes. The hiker just hasn't done so on the white-blazed footpath.

These "violations" don't strike me as serious. But it is common for hikers to skip miles of the official footpath, either by taking blue-blazed short cuts, or by hitching rides, as I and all except one of the thru hikers staying at a hostel in Monson did on both occasions I stayed there. The same kind of shortcuts happen in Gorham, NH, where logging roads bypass what some think to be "boring" sections of the trail. And elsewhere up and down the trail.

It's my guess that there would be fewer of these yellow-blazers and the honor system would work better if, as Sgt. Rock has suggested, that longer and equally difficult blue-blazed loop trails to shelters and scenic overlooks were included in the definition of "2,000-miler." Skipping miles here and there becomes relatively meaningless in the minds of most hikers on a 2,000 mile walk, especially, if they know that they already have violated the technical requirements for a patch scores of times earlier.

Regardless. The honor system must remain. ATC has far more important things to do than to worry about how hikers walk on its trails.

Weary

[Furlough]

The reality is that as a "Trail" the AT is an enabler that allows for other "Trails" to be hiked in conjunction with it. Therfore, a hike from GA to ME or ME to GA along the AT can be hiked by either exclusively hiking the white blazes or by hiking a combination of white and blue blazes. In the end the accomplishment is the experiences gained during the journey, not the route taken to complete the journey. Regardless of which option is chosen you have hiked from GA to ME or ME to GA. For those needing to have categories of recoginition perhaps there needs to be a compromise that offers 2 accepted standards and patches/certificates. One would be the AT 2000 miler (Hiking the entire White Blazed AT). The other would be the GAME 2000 Miler (MEGA 2000 Miler). (2000 milers who hiked the entire distance using a combination of the White and Blue Blazes) . It would then be up to an individuals since of honor and integrity to honestly report how they accomplished the journey. Will there be those who make false claims? Yes. Does this diminish the accomplishments of those who truthfully went before? I believe not. Some believe yes, and forums like this will always be out there to voice ones opionon on the subject.


Harry

[Blue Jay]

ATC has far more important things to do than to worry about how hikers walk on its trails.

Weary

Once again Weary has hit the nail on the head. The ATC offers the certification for the same reason you get a picture of yourself with the giant mouse when you go to Chucky Cheese. People like it and it has the exact same value. To some people it becomes a justification for their existence and if some one misses even one blaze and gets the cheese picture, their whole reason for being comes apart.

[Jack Tarlin]

Have stayed outta this one for awhile, as it's been played to death time and time again. But just for the hell of it, I have a question for those who seem to think it's OK to deviate from the actual Trail and still call yourself a thru-hiker.

I've seen people listed in the ATC records who I KNOW skipped Virginia. Kind of a significant blue-blaze, no?

So, for all you folks who think the ATC should change its standards merely because hundreds of folks wanna skip bits and chunks but still call themselves thru-hikers, and they find the ATC standards mean and unfair....how much do you think is OK to skip? Five miles? Fifty? Five Hundred? I mean, get real. There obviously comes a point where one's hops, skips, omissions have to prevent one from seriously being described as one who has hiked the entire A.T.

So let's see how you really feel. Where do you guys draw the line.....in other words, where does one's skipping effectively mean that one is no longer thru-hiking. Or do you feel that there ARE no limits and one can skip as much as one wants?

Some folks are basically suggesting they can hike where, when, and as far as they want and still call themselves thru-hikers. I have to dis-agree. I think any rational person would have to acknowledge that there comes a point where one's deviations from the actual Trail become so significant that they are no longer hiking all the way thru. There comes a point where one is having a helluva hike, but it cannot be fairly considered a thru. So you guys that are bent outta shape over the ATC's standards and definition, and are suggesting that they change to something more reasonable or convenient......what, pray tell is your definition....how many miles can one skip and still honestly say they did it all?

I'm very curious to see your responses.

[Lone Wolf]

You can skip 160 miles or so cuz the patch says 2000 miles.

[Youngblood]

Jack,

If it's so important for you to keep tabs on how other people hike their hikes, maybe the ATC could forward the 2000 miler applications on the you and then you can decide who deserves to be a 'certified thru-hiker' and who deserves to go on your list of 'not-really-a-thru-hiker'. Of course I am just kidding, but geez man, you take this way too seriously. If someone hiked from Georgia to Maine, common sense says they have the right to call themselves a thru-hiker... even if they wimped out and skipped the approach trail from Amicalola to Springer.

Youngblood

[Blue Jay]

Have stayed outta this one for awhile, as it's been played to death time and time again. But just for the hell of it, I have a question for those who seem to think it's OK to deviate from the actual Trail and still call yourself a thru-hiker.

That's easy, if you are breathing you can call yourself a thru-hiker. Why, because I don't care if you call yourself Bugs Bunny. It has absolutely no bearing on me, my hike or the anything else in the entire universe. My question is why do you care? There is only one reason, your ego is based on that meaningless title. Give it up, you'll feel better.

[SGT Rock]

Besides, my original proposal said that blue blaze loops that came back to the AT like shelters, and parallel trails of equal or greater length would be authorized. No slack on a "standard" there either.

Never said skipped, never defended "skipping" exactly. Just said there should be more than one way to hike

[MOWGLI]

Have stayed outta this one for awhile, as it's been played to death time and time again. But just for the hell of it, I have a question for those who seem to think it's OK to deviate from the actual Trail and still call yourself a thru-hiker.



Let me speak for myself here. I skipped about 15 miles of trail in Sterling Forest State Park (NY) during my thru-hike. Why? Well, I was a member of the Board of Directors of Sterling Forest Partnership at the time, and regularly hiked the area. In fact, I led hikes there fairly frequently both before & after my long distance hike in 2000. I also participated in breeding bird surveys and herpetological surveys in the forest. The area was my backyard. Instead of hiking 15 miles from Rte 17A to Rte 17, I chose to take a day off and spend it with my family instead. I was living in Warwick, NY at the time.

I skipped Wildcat because of dangerous lightening and torrential rain. I was hiking (with full pack) south from Gorham and had a good friend with me who was not trail hardened (he joined me for 4 days on Mt Washington). We chose to walk down the ski trail at Wildcat as a safety precaution. I insisted for his safety more than mine. The gondola was closed due to high winds and lightening. The walk down the ski slope was probably further than the actual AT.

Lastly, I left Gorham in the back of Bruce's truck (from Hikers Paradise). As Bruce turned onto the paved road by the Androscoggin River, he asked my 2 friends and I "do you want to get dropped off on the road or at the trailhead in the woods?" At the time, I wanted to do the road walk, but one of my friends had just broken up with his lady in Gorham, and he wanted to put some mileage between him & her. He said "trailhead", so that's where Bruce dropped us. That amounted to about 1 mile of road walk.

The road walk by the Androscoggin was the only thing that bothered me at the time, but I have since changed my opinion of (paved) road walks. IMO, paved roads are meant to cross, drive on, and hitch hike. They are inherently dangerous. That's not some after the fact rationalization. That's an opinion formed after being harrassed by dogs, and almost being hit by a car once.
I like walking on old woods roads.

I still consider myself a thru-hiker. I hope that answers your question.

Little Bear GA-ME 2000

[SGT Rock]

And actually what you are talking about Jack ain't really blue-blazing. I doubt you could find a blue blaze trail that skips a whole state, especially one as big as Virgina.

[Furlough]

So, for all you folks who think the ATC should change its standards merely because hundreds of folks wanna skip bits and chunks but still call themselves thru-hikers, and they find the ATC standards mean and unfair....how much do you think is OK to skip? Five miles? Fifty? Five Hundred? I mean, get real. There obviously comes a point where one's hops, skips, omissions have to prevent one from seriously being described as one who has hiked the entire A.T.
Jack,
I would agree with you where there are folks promoting a change in standards that advocates skipping mileage for the intended purpose of shortening or making the hike easier. But that is certainly not the case the majority of the folks here are trying to make. The fact is there are many blue blaze trails that run in conjunction with the AT that do add significantly to the "wilderness experience". Additionally I would add that (at least in my state of Virginia) by hiking many of these blue blazes you would actually add significant miles to the "2000 Miles".

Harry

[dje97001]

To me this is a question of violating the letter of the "law"... or the spirit of the "law". The letter of the law - "make every effort to pass every white blaze" vs. the spirit of the law - "get out in the woods and walk from Georgia to Maine; from springer to Katahdin"

I put the term law in quotes, because I seriously doubt that the ATC really cares... keep in mind, they used to think of thru-hiking as a stunt.

Blue-blaze, white-blaze who cares? You still end up walking over 2,000 miles--along trails that local clubs maintain. If the trail changes slightly every year (or season) isn't it quite possible that a blue blazed route could become a white blaze the following year? What then?

Is there a term for people who hike the PCT in its entirety? Is there some organization that recognizes their feat? How does that one work?

[weary]

Have stayed outta this one for awhile, as it's been played to death time and time again. But just for the hell of it, I have a question for those who seem to think it's OK to deviate from the actual Trail and still call yourself a thru-hiker.

I've seen people listed in the ATC records who I KNOW skipped Virginia. Kind of a significant blue-blaze, no?

So, for all you folks who think the ATC should change its standards merely because hundreds of folks wanna skip bits and chunks but still call themselves thru-hikers, and they find the ATC standards mean and unfair....how much do you think is OK to skip? Five miles? Fifty? Five Hundred? I mean, get real. There obviously comes a point where one's hops, skips, omissions have to prevent one from seriously being described as one who has hiked the entire A.T.

So let's see how you really feel. Where do you guys draw the line.....in other words, where does one's skipping effectively mean that one is no longer thru-hiking. Or do you feel that there ARE no limits and one can skip as much as one wants?

Some folks are basically suggesting they can hike where, when, and as far as they want and still call themselves thru-hikers. I have to dis-agree. I think any rational person would have to acknowledge that there comes a point where one's deviations from the actual Trail become so significant that they are no longer hiking all the way thru. There comes a point where one is having a helluva hike, but it cannot be fairly considered a thru. So you guys that are bent outta shape over the ATC's standards and definition, and are suggesting that they change to something more reasonable or convenient......what, pray tell is your definition....how many miles can one skip and still honestly say they did it all?

I'm very curious to see your responses.

We seem to have come to the end of this conversation. When someone as wise and experienced as Baltimore Jack asks questions, the answers to which are implicit in the original suggestions about a possible change, it's obvious that no one is listening -- or more likely, doesn't want to hear.

For starters, there are no guidelines that I know about for a thru hike. A thru hike is whatever a hiker wants to think it is. ATC does give a patch and lists in Trailway News the names of those who say they have "hiked every mile" of the Appalachian Trail.

Some of us who have worked on the trail for years -- decades in my case -- think that loop trails built and maintained by maintaining clubs that lead to shelters, scenic overlooks, historic sites, pretty waterfalls and other attractions are as much a part of the AT as the White Blazed Trail and that ATC should recognize this obvious fact when it writes its guidelines for awarding 2,000-miler patches.

I think that this would make a more accurate and valuable patch since both most hikers who apply for a patch have acted as if these side trails were part of the AT and even the ATC has issued patches to hikers who have reported walking in and out of shelters without backtracking to pick up every white blaze.

All I'm asking is that the ATC words should reflect its actions.

The answer to your question Jack, is that no miles should be skipped. All those who have claimed to have walked between Springer in Georgia and Katahdin in Maine, should have walked the distance of the White Blazed Trail or longer from Georgia to Maine.

And I argue that all that walking should be done on trails that are part of the AT system. I just think it silly to claim that a trail to an AT shelter is not part of the ATsystem. Or that taking the blue blazed loop to Dunn Notch Falls, built and maintained by the same people who built and maintained the parallel AT is not part of the AT, since it was acquired by the State of Maine to protect and augment the AT, the same as the White Blazed Trail was acquired to protect the AT.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

I think DJE and Weary in the last two posts have basically explained my overall position in their last two posts better than I have in some ways. Thank you.

[Mountain Dew]

Lone Wolf.....First you claim that people with patches, websites (such as mine,whiteblaze,trail journals etc.), and certificates have an ego to feed in order to validate themselves. Now you claim that a person can miss 160 miles or so because the patch says 2,000. Lone Wolf..."My point is that you're taking this purist/blue-blazing s**t too seriously. Go re-read your posts." I'm taking this too serious ? ... Aren't you the one that said(on another thread) you could shoot a purist/white blazer on the A.T. from the side porch on your house ? It's obvious that you have major issues regarding people who choose to hike every blaze and look out if those people care to have an opinion on whiteblaze.

MowLI16....I was not making an attempt to represent myself as higher that somebody that skips the Kennebec River, but rather making an observation that falls inline with the A.T.C.'s official route of the A.T. If you think that it is a "narrow" definition of a thru-hike then you also disagree with the A.T.C., who governs the trail. We have different opions that's all. We both still love the A.T. and that is what counts I believe.

Weary..."A thru hike is whatever a hiker wants to think it is. " How much more incorrect could a statement be in general than that. I suppose a person could think that their 1,600 mile hike was a thru-hike , but that doesn't mean it's so.

Baltimore Jack has a very good point. One that should be as elementary as 2+2=4 for people to understand. He often tells it like it is and many people just can't stomach that kind of honesty. The A.T.C. has set the standard for a thru-hike. If you disagree with their decision then that is fine, but to disagree with it and claim that hiking blue blazes and less than every white blaze as a thru-hike is not logical. I think some people either don't know the meaning of the word "thru" or don't care for the meaning thus having their own meaning in its place to better suit their needs. If you claim that the A.T. should include blue blazes as part of a thru-hike then that is fine as well, but untill they do it isn't considered a thru-hike no matter how many people claim it is.

I have no problem with white/blue/yellow blazers. If the A.T.C. said tomorrow that loop blue blazes were o.k. for a thru-hike then I'd be o.k. with it as well. The only problem I have with that is that it was my observation that 9/10 blue blazers I saw did it for an easier hike. The day I summated with around 45 other hikers Oct. 9th it never crossed my mind to think about who hiked what. We all laughed, hugged, high fived, and posed for pics together. Goodtimes !

[Lone Wolf]

Hey Dew, it's obvious you have no sense of humor. :banana Your little replies are starting to sound like Old Fahrts. Are you his son? Hardy har har!! You have a nice day and drive safely. I'm gonna go downtown, kick a few hippies and bitch slap a coupla purists. :clap

[Youngblood]

The day I summated with around 45 other hikers Oct. 9th it never crossed my mind to think about who hiked what. We all laughed, hugged, high fived, and posed for pics together. Goodtimes !

Mountain Dew,

What a gracious guy you are, I mean, you could have taken that opportunity to explain to them that you were a thru-hiker but that most of them weren't. I assume you even allowed some of the lower class hikers to be in a picture with you? Again, congratulations on being such an elite and gracious thru-hiker, I am sure some of those lower class hikers will treasure the picture of them with a real thru-hiker standing on Katahdin.

Youngblood

[The Old Fhart]

L.Wolf-Your little replies are starting to sound like Old Fahrts. Come now, Loan Wolf, at least get my name right. :) I assume you were praising Mountain Dew for a well thought out and logical reply by comparing him to me. As I told you before, your short replies quite often are misinterpreted and your point would be better expressed if you didn't try to cram everything into a two sentence post. I have to admit that sometimes even I agree with you, or I think I do, hard to tell sometimes.

[Lone Wolf]

I'm a busy man, Fhart. I don't have time for long thought-out posts. :)

[Jack Tarlin]

Will keep this short, I'm tired of the discussion.

Youngblood, please don't put words in my mouth----I don't keep tabs on what other hikers are doing, and as I've said above several times (you should re-read what I said earlier), I could care less about what other people do. People can hike wherever they wish.

However, the Trail is a very set, finite entity. It is NOT, as some say, a "trail system." It is a set, defined, marked, mapped single entity: When hikers are no longer on the trail, they are very quickly aware of it, either because the terrain changes (i.e. the trail disappears) or they are no longer seeing blazes. Likewise, when someone willingly deviates from the Trail, they know it.

And yes, Rock, there are some blue blazes that are significantly longer than entire states.....West Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut come to mind.

To re-iterate: I could care less what other people do out there. I just think it's kind of sad that so many folks feel compelled to lie about it. If you've done the Trail in it's entirety, you know it. If you haven't done the whole thing, well you know that, too. And I could care less which alternative one picks, but I think it's more than a little ridiculous to see so many people say with straight faces that it's perfectly OK to do one thing and then demand the right to say they've done something else.

If some of you want to blue-blaze, or walk side traills, or walk parallell trails, or take canoes down the Shenandoah, etc., that's great, I wish you well. I do similar things, except I do them IN ADDITION to following the white blazes, and not INSTEAD of following them. This gives me the chance to both thru-hike, and to see other things that are nearby; there are frequently better things to look at just OFF the Trail than on it, so I'll certainly deviate from the Trail now and then, in addition to following the footpath. This gives me the opportunity to enjoy the best of both worlds.

It also means I don't have to expend boundless energy and time in later years making up excuses in order to justify my trip.

[SGT Rock]

However, the Trail is a very set, finite entity. It is NOT, as some say, a "trail system." It is a set, defined, marked, mapped single entity: When hikers are no longer on the trail, they are very quickly aware of it, either because the terrain changes (i.e. the trail disappears) or they are no longer seeing blazes. Likewise, when someone willingly deviates from the Trail, they know it.

And yes, Rock, there are some blue blazes that are significantly longer than entire states.....West Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut come to mind.

To re-iterate: I could care less what other people do out there. I just think it's kind of sad that so many folks feel compelled to lie about it. If you've done the Trail in it's entirety, you know it. If you haven't done the whole thing, well you know that, too. And I could care less which alternative one picks, but I think it's more than a little ridiculous to see so many people say with straight faces that it's perfectly OK to do one thing and then demand the right to say they've done something else.

If some of you want to blue-blaze, or walk side traills, or walk parallell trails, or take canoes down the Shenandoah, etc., that's great, I wish you well. I do similar things, except I do them IN ADDITION to following the white blazes, and not INSTEAD of following them. This gives me the chance to both thru-hike, and to see other things that are nearby; there are frequently better things to look at just OFF the Trail than on it, so I'll certainly deviate from the Trail now and then, in addition to following the footpath. This gives me the opportunity to enjoy the best of both worlds.

It also means I don't have to expend boundless energy and time in later years making up excuses in order to justify my trip.

Well I can agree and I can disagree with some of this. There is a defined trail, finite at any one time yes - so I can agree with that part. But that trail also incorporates other trails to make it like the Long trail and some others in the whites - hence it is a trail system. But is is not just a trail system in this respect, but a trail corridor, there are trails in this corridor that are built and maintained by the local chapters of the ATC, listed in their guides, that show off the sites that are on places that are more than just the finite trail - again, part of a system of trails built and maintained by the ATC chapters, so the ATC. Trail system. I agree when people leave it they know it.

West Virgina, Mayland, Connecticut are short sections, there are trails that are longer than them and parrallel the AT, but I don't know any that specifically go around a state. Again, I could be wrong. But my point was that sure you have known people that have skipped sections as long as Virgina, and I suppose that means that they bust have yellow-blazed. No one here has even started to defend that. But if someone decided not to take the AT through the Smokies, but took a combination of side trail to get around that section because of crowds, wanting to do something different, wanting to drink from a certain river, or whatever reason, they still are walking on a trail in the system and have done it on a trail longer than some state's sections - I realize that. But I also think that person is also still walking from GA to ME. So in the end I agree there are long sections, but I disagree that this long section is any different if it is built and maintained by the ATC and parrallels the route of the AT, and goes the same place in the end as the AT.

And if I do this, I don't feel compelled to lie about it. If I felt compelled to lie about this I wouldn't even bring it up. I feel compelled to tell the truth about it, as do the others that are talking a similar position. We are not demanding a right to say we did it some other way than we did or plan to do it. And as to whether or not I have a straight face, well that depends on my mood. ;)

I like to do the side trails IN ADDITION to the AT as well, but there are some that go and come back to the AT at another point like Shelter cutt offs and some to scenic views. In this way I also agree that there are worthwhile things off the trail that are out there to see, and I also agree that I don't see any reason to make my trip shorter - I am out there to hike and see stuff, not shortcut my way to Maine. I honestly don't see these as an issue except in the legalistic interpretation of the ATC rule about what a 2,000 miler is. So if someone takes one of these side and doesn't return to the AT where they started from (say while they are starting in GA) yet goes on to walk the rest of the way pure to Katahdin, are they not thru-hiking for the rest of their trip because they missed a 1/2 mile section? In the legalistic interpretation they are not. So in a "intent" vs. "legalistic" sense I disagree that you always have to come back to the same point you leave the AT to continue your hike.

I also don't make excuses about how I hike, but then again - why should anyone have to excuse their hike? And the only person I have to justify a trip to is my wife :o

Again, it is just hiking :p

[Lone Wolf]

We really must end this thread because Jack is tired of the discussion. He is God isn't he? :rolleyes:

[Kozmic Zian]

Yea.....Skip Approach! Does 'You Know Who Ft' get off on that one.....or what?KZ@:D

[A-Train]

Can't wait for Trail Days guys!!!

Wolf, I'll round up some of my purist friends and we can stand outside your house while you take target practice at us.

[weary]

....the Trail is a very set, finite entity. It is NOT, as some say, a "trail system." ..... .

Which is a patently silly claim as any one who has followed the changes to the trail over the decades knows. But as one who has maintained as part of his AT assignment both white and blue blazed portions of the system, I don't detect any official difference.



. to re-iterate: I could care less what other people do out there. I just think it's kind of sad that so many folks feel compelled to lie about it. And I could care less which alternative one picks, but I think it's more than a little ridiculous to see so many people say with straight faces that it's perfectly OK to do one thing and then demand the right to say they've done something else. .

Again. I haven't heard anyone disputing this on this particular iteration of the thread. Have you BJ? And whether you are bored or not, I would find an answer useful.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

Better yet, A-Train we'll gather up blue-blazin wannabes, shackle them, then deliver them to ATC headquarters. Fc :) kin losers!

[Mountain Dew]

Lone Wolf.......Where do I start with you ? You start off with a personal comment against me and in doing so ignorantly insult anybody that wears/owns patches, has a journal online, and that has recieved a certificate on completion from the ATC by saying that these things are fueled by ego. Great start there Wolf. You did all that assuming that I had sent in for my patch and certificate from the ATC. You were wrong and thus had no valid point, but if I had sent in for them your point still wouldn't have been able to hold water. I then call you on all these ignorant comments three times and you have yet to explain any of them.

I'm sure others would agree with me that some of your humor is very uncalled for and not really funny to say online. If you were with friends that knew you were kidding then these comments might be funny. Lone Wolf..." I'm gonna go downtown, kick a few hippies and bitch slap a coupla purists" or "I could shoot a purist from my side porch". You find that funny ? I would tell you to forget the humor and stick to inteligent comments, but both seem to escape your grasp.

If you want to compare me to Old Fhart then go ahead I suppose. From what I have read of both your entry's on this site you are a mental midget compared to Old Fhart. Lone Wolf...."Your little replies are starting to sound like Old Fahrts. Are you his son? Hardy har har!!" Boy....you sure are a funny one. Maybe you could enter the talent show with these kinds of high quality jokes.

I called you out for every comment you made and once you were backed into a corner you try to play the "Mountain Dew is too serious and I'm only making jokes"....I guess that's what happens when somebody gets giardia of the mouth and in trying to slam a person for their believes, instead of debating them, slams most of the hiking community. Maybe you should try to be more like SGT. Rock or Old Fhart and debate the issue instead of continuing to do what you have been doing. Congradulations Wolfy....
----------------------------
(this was part of my previous post)
Mountain Dew..."The day I summated with around 45 other hikers Oct. 9th it never crossed my mind to think about who hiked what. We all laughed, hugged, high fived, and posed for pics together. Goodtimes !"

Youngblood's response to the above statement...."What a gracious guy you are, I mean, you could have taken that opportunity to explain to them that you were a thru-hiker but that most of them weren't. I assume you even allowed some of the lower class hikers to be in a picture with you? Again, congratulations on being such an elite and gracious thru-hiker, I am sure some of those lower class hikers will treasure the picture of them with a real thru-hiker standing on Katahdin."

Youngblood....please, seek a tutor so that you can obtain some reading comprehension skills. We all took pictures that glorious day. I can't name one person on the mountain that day that I wasn't friends with. I don't consider myself better than any of them nor do I consider my hike better than theirs. Was there something you disagreed with me about , but didn't say in your last entry ? I believe this is the case and you reverted to putting words into my mouth and playing Miss Cleo by reading their minds. If you'd like to email a few of them and ask them what their memory of that day was please ask. If you think I'm wrong about my white blazing ideas then be mature enough to address the issues.
-----------------------
I think anybody that wanted to weigh in on this topic has. As for me....I believe that a thru-hike is hiking every white blaze. If somebody disagree's with me then that is fine and we can still be friends. I can hike and talk A.T. with just about anybody that is willing to listen and speak with inteligent informed opinions.

[Youngblood]

<snip> As for me....I believe that a thru-hike is hiking every white blaze. If somebody disagree's with me then that is fine and we can still be friends. I can hike and talk A.T. with just about anybody that is willing to listen and speak with inteligent informed opinions.

That's great, I don't thing anyone would take offense to those statements and if you had said it that way before I wouldn't have felt incline to post my 'mocking & smart-a$$'d' reply. I personally believe that thru-hiking is hiking from from Springer to Katahdin and it doesn't really matter if you pass every white blaze.

Just for reference, when I read the ATC's website, they specifically say that "We don't" when it comes to "defining thru-hiking". However, they do have a definition for a "2000 miler" that mentions several things, one being "walked the entire length of the Appalachian Trail" and it goes on pretty much say you shouldn't die trying to pass every white blaze when the conditions are too dangerous. Now, here is where is gets a little confusing, the ATC requests that those who have finished the trail fill out the "2000 miler" form. So, does the ATC want to know only about that the hikers that hiked from Springer to Katahdin and passed every white blaze? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that they want to know about all the hikers that hiked from Springer to Kahahdin and felt they did a thru-hike. That is about the only way I know of for the people on the trail that year to know who actually finished their journey to Katahdin. MD, I encourage you to fill out the Appalachian Trail 2000 Miler Application Form and send it in to the ATC so that you are listed in next years ATN so the folks that you hiked with along the way will know that you finished. In all seriousness, it was a significant personal accomplishment that you should be proud of.

Youngblood

[Lone Wolf]

I guess he told me. :cool:

[Sarge]

I've been following this for some time now and haven't really had much to say about it because I realize there are people here who have vastly more knowledge and experience than I do. What has made me chime in is that I think everyone here is right when stating their position and feelings on this issue.

There are places I encountered on the trail where a blue blazed trail would have been at least as hard or harder than the white blazed trail. Some quick examples are:

- The loop trail to the OLD Gooch Gap shelter
- The loop trail to Siler Bald shelter
- The high water trail bypassing Little Wolf Creek

If someone used these trails and missed a few white blazes, then what's the big deal. They've fulfilled the intent of being on the trail. Like someone has already said - what if last year's white blazes are this year's blue blazes or vice versa, then what? I missed some white blazes somewhere in Virginia when I think I inadvertently got on an old trail that hadn't been completely obscured. I walked for a few minutes and didn't see a blaze, but I was on a trail that had footprints on it so I kept going. After about a mile I finally came back to a "Y" where I picked white blazes back up. It seemed like the new trail went around the mountain while the old one went over it. I wasn't about to backtrack just to pass those blazes as I considered myself having walked on the trail. Now if someone used blue blazes just to make things easier, then I would say they haven't met the intent. Some quick examples are:

- The Freeman Trail around Blood Mtn
- The Mau-Har trail around Three Ridges

I think if someone intentionally used blue blazes just to make things easier, then they probably wouldn't get very far any way. If someone did complete the trail and took as many shortcuts as they could, that's not my problem. It's their conscience and it may or may not bother them. Everyone has an opinion on this and is right in their own mind so can't we just all agree to disagree and go get a beer!

Sarge

[Fallingwater]

Given the amount of verbiage on this topic, clearly some people have too much free time on their hands. Exactly why I’m adding my additional two cents to this topic is also beyond me. I do believe some take the notion of a thru-hike way too seriously. It is after-all some something we supposedly do for fun and pleasure. Getting worked up over the definition of a non-word (ie ThruHiker or thru-hiker) seems to be pushing it to the max.

Consider that there is no authoritative definition of the word thru-hiker or any of its derivatives. At least not in any recognized dictionary. I’m equally sure that each of us who’s done a thru-hike has their own definition, one in which we’re all likely to agree on some aspects and disagree on others.

The only authoritative definition, i.e. one with legalist weight, is put forth by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In which they define a thru-hiker in their backcountry permit as “thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail (by definition an Appalachian thru-hiker is a backpacker who is using the Appalachian Trail exclusively while in the Park and whose trip begins and ends a minimum of fifty miles outside the Park).” (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/gsmsite/compendium99.html) The GSMNP definition of thru-hiker is probably not one most of us would come up with when we hear the word.

Since there is no authoritative definition of the term it is quite possible for people to honestly use the term to describe their hike and still have the hikes that are different in nature.

As to the ATC and thru-hiker or 2000 milers, I maybe wrong, but fundamentally I don’t think they loose too much sleep over the issue blue vs. white blazing. Consider that of all the people who hike for say more than a mile of the AT, 99.9 percent will never complete the trail in their lifetime. Let alone complete a thru-hike. This makes thru-hikers a very tiny constituent of AT hikers, however one with a loud and persistent voice.

I’m equally sure that the ATC issuing of recognition is done more as a gesture of courtesy. Their mission is insuring a continuous footpath between Maine and Georgia, not to adorn us with awards. If pushed into the position of having to certify the honesty of someone claim, I’m sure they would drop the hiker recognition in a New York minute. They do not have the resources to devote to such childish tasks.

Fallingwater

[weary]

The only authoritative definition, i.e. one with legalist weight, is put forth by the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In which they define a thru-hiker in their backcountry permit as “thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail (by definition an Appalachian thru-hiker is a backpacker who is using the Appalachian Trail exclusively while in the Park and whose trip begins and ends a minimum of fifty miles outside the Park).” (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/gsmsite/compendium99.html) The GSMNP definition of thru-hiker is probably not one most of us would come up with when we hear the word.

Fallingwater

Well, just to keep the discussion complete, there is another "thru-hiker" definition. Baxter State Park defines a thru hiker as one who has started in Monson, or further south, i.e. about 100 miles south of the park.

ATC does keep other statistics. It keeps a running account of those reaching Harpers Ferry, while claiming thru hiker status.

This discussion isn't really about thru hiking, but about the awarding of the 2,000-miler patch. As currently defined by ATC relatively few who consider themselves thru hikers meet ATC specs -- but most of them claim the patch anyway.

I, Sgt. Rock and a few others, think the specs should be broadened to at least cover walks too and from ATC shelters. Baltimore Jack thinks it more important to walk past every white blaze -- even in cases where the white blazes are within eyesight of the blue blazed side trail that leads to the shelter. The more radical of us think that even side trails to scenic overlooks, waterfalls and such, should qualify hikers for a patch.

Since almost no one we meet on trails has any idea what the patch signifies, the main reason for applying is to have our names listed in the ATC magazine, thus letting folks we meet on the trail know that we have reached Katahdin.

Our rather minor proposed change would allow a few non purist thru hikers to notify trail friends without having to fib.

Weary

[rickb]

Fallingwater--

When we hiked you told the ATC you hiked the Trail and they sent you a certificate and a patch. End of story. In my case I was to lazy to send in the required write up, but my dad sent them a newpaper article. I got a patch. End of story.

Now, they have a form which hikers are asked to sign. This form suggests that blue-blaze trails are not (normally) an acceptable substitute. To my reading it is crystal clear.

If nothing else comes out of this thread, I hope any thru hiker who is who is handed that form won't be taken by surprise with what is written on it.

BTW, I am still wondering about the percentage of listed 2,000 Milers who walked an unbroken line (ie. no yellow blazing) from Maine to Georgia. You see, that is the elephant in the room no one speaks about.

Rick B

(who wrote this while sitting in front of the TV, so I either wasted my time 1/2 as much or 2X as much, not sure which)

[weary]

Fallingwater--

.....Now, they have a form which hikers are asked to sign. This form suggests that blue-blaze trails are not (normally) an acceptable substitute. To my reading it is crystal clear. )

Except, Rick, in your case, ATC accepted a third party account. You didn't even have to apply, right alone having to claim no blue or yellow blazing. That suggests to me that ATC really doesn't care about the accuracy of its list of 2,000 milers. Nor, for thqt matter, should it.

So, why do they do it? Well. I'm not a cynic. But I do like to be a realist. Perhaps the whole exercise either has not been well thought out -- as I suggested eight screens back -- or both not well thought out, but in ATC's fumbling way is designed to simply garner names for potential members and donations.

In the latter case, I think it wise for ATC not to embarrass potential supporters by requiring them to claim things the potential supporters know in their heart of hearts they didn't do. ATC needs folks who support the trail wholeheartedly, not embarrassingly.

I'm not suggesting that yellow blazers be given patches -- or even those who take the rare blue-blaze short cut. But rather, just also honor those who from time to time come to a fork in the trail and choose the longer, more difficult, and less traveled way.

Weary

Ah, Yes, I forgot. Rick has another problem: "I am still wondering about the percentage of listed 2,000 Milers who walked an unbroken line (ie. no yellow blazing) from Maine to Georgia," he asks, and adds, "You see, that is the elephant in the room no one speaks about. "

Sorry Rick. I can't help. You southbounders are just too far out of the mainstream. Why you are even a rarer breed than northbounders who honestly fill out the ATC forms.

[Mountain Dew]

Youngblood..... I made my opinions very clear early on in this thread. I think sometimes people read one entry or read through these posts too fast and don't really take in what they read before returning fire.
--------------------------
I find it annoying, humorous, and puzzling the way people try to play with words to better suit themselves or their beliefs. Why do people continue to play spin doctor with words, definitions, and intent of a rule ? You aren't Slick Willy and it doesn't depend on what you consider the definition of is is. Anybody with a pulse knows what the word hiker means as well as the word "thru". Please don't make me quote the dictionary to define the word "thru" or through. For some reason when these two words are joined to make thru-hiker all common sense is out the door. Get real. I've heard people quote the ALDA-west PCT and CDT rules in an attempt to draw comparisons. Neither apply here. Others have tried to use different organizations definition of a thru-hike as well. What's the point of that ? Nobody here is arguing a thru-hike of a state park. Pointless. The only three views here that hold water are: 1. Walk past every single white blaze. (which is what I believe) 2. Walk past every single white blaze except if there is a blue blaze into a shelter and out on another blue blaze. 3. Walk past every white blaze except for taking blue blaze loops that re-join the white blazes. I know that violent weather will always be a great reason to miss a section long enough to get to safety...obviously. Other than these three and .....I'm sorry, but you are kidding yourself. And for the those that have reading comprehension problems..... I don't think one of these is better than another one is. Harder possibly, but not better. Ask Sgt. Rock if somebody that completed 99% of boot camp got passed anyways. I DOUBT IT !!! Nomatter what the topic or achievement seems to be in this world today, a few people are always going to try to claim what they don't deserve to in order to elevate their status in their eyes and others. Who cares. Be what you are and don't claim what you didn't do. Be proud of what you accomplished. If I had gotten off of the trail after X amount of miles I would have been just as proud of myself as I was when I finished all 2,173 miles in 2003.

I love the ATC, but like I have stated before, I also disagree with their stance on a few issues. Never would I claim to be smarter than ALL those people who spend their lives dealing with trail issues as a whole, but nonetheless I do disagree with them on rare occasion. It's my opinion that their stance on a thru-hike is purely intended on inclusion. There is nothing wrong with inclusion, but in an effort to appease the masses are we to then include even those that hike 1,000 miles as a thru-hiker ? No. They seem to leave the definition purposely vague to include people who take blue blazes and even some that don't hike all *2,173 miles(2003). It wouldn't be very smart for them to make an effort to exclude people who might donate time or money if they feel included somehow. The argument that people fill out the 2,000 mile form so that they can let those they met along the trail and friends back home know that they have finished is simply ridiculous. They can check trail journals, other websites, and IF you care SOOOOO much that these friends that you have know..... wouldn't you have their phone number or mailing address anyways ?

Something to ponder.... If a baseball slugger hits 499 homeruns and hits tons of other baseballs just as far or farther than his homerun balls , but these other balls were foul......does he then qualify for the 500 homerun club ? I just know somebody is going to say yes to this.

[weary]

The argument that people fill out the 2,000 mile form so that they can let those they met along the trail and friends back home know that they have finished is simply ridiculous.[/B] They can check trail journals, other websites, and IF you care SOOOOO much that these friends that you have know..... wouldn't you have their phone number or mailing address anyways ?
.

Ah. Mountain Dew. You were doing great until I got to this sentence. The trail, at least for us slow hikers, is a maze of fascinating people that one meets for a day or a week, and who then move on, or drop behind. I read the '93 lists in Trailway News with considerable interest for a couple of years after my long walk in 1993 to see who finally made it to Katahdin. I assume one or two other '93 wannabes -- perhaps more -- did the same. BTW, though I climbed Katahdin on October 16 after six months and three days, my name was never listed because I hadn't "walked every mile." Since then I've picked up enough of the missed miles so in a weekend or two I could qualify, but somehow it no longer seems important.

I do continue to maintain my three miles of the trail SYSTEM. Yes it is a system. In my case, nearly two miles of side trails and 1.1 mile of the white blazes.

But most of my trail activities these days is devoted to widening the trail corridor in Maine that in places is only 200 feet wide, thus leaving no room for many interesting side trails. Once we succeed, we can start this thread all over again because we will have created many tempting blue blazed segments.

If anyone wants to help, send a note -- or even just a check -- to Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, PO Box 325, Yarmouth, Maine 04096. We'll put you on our mailing list. Just 100 bucks makes one a founding member.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

On and on and on the BS goes. :rolleyes: I'm gonna go ahead and get me a patch and certy even though I blue-blazed like a mofo. :cool:

[MOWGLI]

Please don't make me quote the dictionary to define the word "thru" or through.

From Merriam Webster;


Main Entry: pur·ist
Pronunciation: 'pyur-ist
Function: noun
: one who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition;

[Youngblood]

<snip>The A.T.C. has set the standard for a thru-hike. If you disagree with their decision then that is fine, but to disagree with it and claim that hiking blue blazes and less than every white blaze as a thru-hike is not logical. I think some people either don't know the meaning of the word "thru" or don't care for the meaning thus having their own meaning in its place to better suit their needs. If you claim that the A.T. should include blue blazes as part of a thru-hike then that is fine as well, but untill they do it isn't considered a thru-hike no matter how many people claim it is.

I have no problem with white/blue/yellow blazers. If the A.T.C. said tomorrow that loop blue blazes were o.k. for a thru-hike then I'd be o.k. with it as well. <snip>

I think you have taken some liberties with the ATC's definition of a thru hike in some of your posts. It is fine and it is normal for you and I to have our own opinions. It is also okay to disagree, but it isn't quite fair to misinterpet an organization such as the ATC in an attempt to make your opinion the 'correct opinion'... especially when your opinion is so exclusive.

Youngblood

[Blue Jay]

I find it annoying, humorous, and puzzling the way people try to play with words to better suit themselves or their beliefs.

Clearly you are annoyed by every human on the planet (it takes one to know one). I hereby nominate you for King of the Purists. There are others with this disease but it's raging in you. :clap

[Fallingwater]

Something to ponder.... If a baseball slugger hits 499 homeruns and hits tons of other baseballs just as far or farther than his homerun balls , but these other balls were foul......does he then qualify for the 500 homerun club ? I just know somebody is going to say yes to this.

Actually that's pretty simple. Baseball is a competition that’s constantly watched by referees to ensure fair play. In baseball comparisons between players ability is fair.

Thru-hiking isn’t a competition, though you seem hell bent to make it one. As I said before, the ATC has neither the time nor inclination to become a referee to weed out thru-hiking sinners simply because there are people out there making claims that you don’t believe. You said you’ve hiked the whole trail, past every white blaze, in order without cheating once. Prove it! I know that sounds harsh, but the fact is you can’t prove you did a thru-hike, let alone a pure one, because there’s no one foolish enough to follow you for 5 or 6 months to make sure you’ve complied with all the rules and regulations.

The recognition for the act of a thru-hike always has and always will be based upon the honor system. The act of a thru-hike is a uniquely personal achievement. While it’s natural to try and compare our hikes with those others, we should celebrate the differences as much as the things we share in common. I may know if someone hiked a different route than I. I’ll never know if their hike was harder. Nor do we judge a hike purely on its difficulty.

As to comparing the definition of the word Thru-hiker across multiple trails, most would agree that a definition not be so narrowly construed. Such as you’re attempting to do by defining it by the actions taken on single trail. The ATC doesn’t even define the term even though they use is liberally in their literature. The ATC does comment on the definition, via the website (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/thru_hike/faq.html).

How does ATC define thru-hiking?
We don't. ATC uses the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience.

There are a number of us who do celebrate thru-hikers and the act of thru-hiking or long distance hiking. We do not nor will not limit our definition of the term thru-hiker to your narrowly construed definition. I can only hope that when you’ve got a few more, trails and years under your belt you’ll view things differently. I do congratulate you on your hike and hope it’ll inspire to further endeavors.
Ron “Fallingwater” Moak
Past President: American Long Distance Hiking Association – West

[TJ aka Teej]

Well, just to keep the discussion complete, there is another "thru-hiker" definition. Baxter State Park defines a thru hiker as one who has started in Monson, or further south, i.e. about 100 miles south of the park.

It seems like Weary's talking about requirements for staying at the Birches "Long Distance Hikers" Site here. BSP defines a "Long Distance Hiker" as one who has hiked into the Park from at least 100 miles south on the Appalachian Trail. Anyone hiking in from that distance can stay at the Birches. In the past, there were occasional spats between hikers wanting to stay at Daicey Pond's two A.T. only lean-tos over who was and who was not a "Thru-hiker." When those lean-tos were removed, and the Birches built, the language in the rule was tweaked so Rangers wouldn't have to deal with the squabbles anymore.

[Mags]

so...have we figured out many angels can dance on a head of a pin yet? :)


I have not figured it out myself. Was too busy trail running (Saturday) and hiking (Sunday). Let me know when we you all figure it out...

[TJ aka Teej]

TJ.....(YOU) may not have been there at the Kennebec, but it seems like the ferry was there for Earl Shaffer, Cindy Ross, Grandma Gatewood, Gene Espy, Dorothy Laker, Ed Garvey, and everyone that I've ever read about. Funny how the ferry seemed to hide from Warren. I wonder how all those Legends used the ferry and how all the A.T. books claim that the ferry has pretty much always been there yet somebody claims it wasn't. I will choose to believe the many many books and trail LEGENDS myself. Just one more curious thing that i'll have to find time to ask Warren about someday.

Many hikers know little more about the Trail than what happened to them during their own hike(s). It's a shame more hikers aren't aware of the history of the Trail they walk on.

A minor point here - while there may have been "only" one death of a hiker, there have been many drownings over the years on this stretch of the Kennebec.

[rickb]

As long as people are including links to the ATC, here is one of the "2000 Miler Application Form".

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/pdfs/2Kmiler03.pdf

This form is problematic no matter what one thinks about what constitutes walking the entire AT.

If one buys into the wisdom of Fallingwater, then the form is problematic because the ATC is saying "screw you" to those who hike the length of the trail a bit creatively, and yet whose values prohibit them from attesting to anything (by way of thier signature) they didn't do. While some (most) may find that hard to beleive, there are some people who take the wording of documents they sign very seriously.

On the otherhand, if one buys into the wisdom of Baltimore Jack, then the form is problematic because it has become a joke. Simply because so many people ignore the words on it.

Best for the ATC to wash thier hands of this and get out of the 2000-Miler listing business. At a minimum it creates a tension that need not be there.

Rick B


EDIT: I just looked at my link and saw that you don't actually sign the form you send in. Good for the ATC. The idea is still the same, though. I will be sure to ammend my bombast on that point in the future. ;-)

[gravityman]

Just a quick question - when we were in Wanesboro we ran into rusty at the diner there (forget the name) and he said something along the lines of "The ATC will ask you if you stayed at Rusty, and since you didn't stop by..." and I can't remember the rest, but he was implying that the ATC checked with him or asked about his place on the form. That form didn't ask anything about Rusty's. I was under the impression that the ATC crosschecked thruhikers names with him in some way. At the time it seemed silly to me, and it does now, but I'm wondering what he was talking about.

Gravity Man

[Lone Wolf]

He was busting your chops. The ATC doesn't give a hoot about hostels and their owners. Rusty doesn't have a phone.

[weary]

He was busting your chops. The ATC doesn't give a hoot about hostels and their owners. Rusty doesn't have a phone.

Rusty was probably checking to see if ATC is still querying hikers about his facility. ATC has had misgivings about the hostel for quite a few years. I forget the details because I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but I was asked once about what I thought of the Hard Time Hollow and whether ATC should shun the place.

I said it was my favorite hostel that I stayed at in 1993. But I can understand why ATC is concerned. There were a lot of kids there and quite a bit of drinking, though with one exception it was pretty well controlled. Rusty conferred with the parents of the kid with the problem and tried to help him without much success.

Weary

[weary]

Best for the ATC to wash thier hands of this and get out of the 2000-Miler listing business. At a minimum it creates a tension that need not be there. Rick B

Thanks for posting the link to the form. I read the policy statement issued by the board a few years ago, but this is the first time I've seen the actual form. The wording differs in subtle ways from the policy statement if my memory serves me, but I think I'll check before spelling out the details. I may have to send in a form afterall, not for the purpose of a patch, but to answer some of the intriguing questions.

I think the data collected serves a useful purpose, though it would be more complete and thus more useful if the policy were amended to reflect the suggestions of Sgt. Rock. I suspect the 2,000 miler program is also an important source of funds -- or should be.

I think the major changes currently underway at ATC are long overdue. I just hope the staff has the courage to make them work. I've long been amazed at the enthusiasm and dedication of the volunteers. They truly remain the heart of ATC.

Weary

[Pirate]

The ATC does not care about you our about your thru hike. All they are interessted in is your money, or your property (house, acerage). There are only 2 - 3 good people at the ATC who give a **** about the long range hikers, the rest are lawyers who are intesested in your money to finance their multi-million dollar homes around the DC area. So lets all pitch in and give all our money to the ass holes!!! AMC (Appalachian Money Club, All My Money, etc.,). Power to the people.

[weary]

The ATC does not care about you our about your thru hike. All they are interessted in is your money, or your property (house, acerage). There are only 2 - 3 good people at the ATC who give a **** about the long range hikers, the rest are lawyers who are intesested in your money to finance their multi-million dollar homes around the DC area. So lets all pitch in and give all our money to the ass holes!!! AMC (Appalachian Money Club, All My Money, etc.,). Power to the people.

Ah. Pirate. Are you the same Pirate who used to be a Navy Seal or something like that. Who could sit on the bottom of swimming pools, holding your breath, until the life guard attempted a rescue-- and you would grab them around the chest, thinking this was a great joke. The same Pirate, who yellow-blazed to the north in 1993 with Tux, after rumors circulated you were really an anti-drug agent.

If so, these activities were certainly amusing at the time. But somehow they don't give me confidence in your dedication to the trail. I truly think ATC is basically dysfunctional, and thus has probably done dumb things, even those things you believe they have done.

But the fact of the matter is the ATC is all the trail has between protection and destruction. Those who think the trail is important should support and work to improve a dysfunctional ATC. Others can go with Pirate.

[Mountain Dew]

Weary....Although I was not a slow hiker, I did take my sweet time completing my thru-hike and was one day short of 7 months. I understand your wanting to know who got to Katahdin, but it isn't the ATC's responsibility to be a messanger service in order to inform other hikers that their friends have made it to Katahdin. You maintain a section of the trail in Maine ? You guys do an excellent job in Maine. That part of the trail has to be the hardest to maintain because sections are so hard to get to. I'm assuming that you are a member of the M.A.T.C. as well as the Maine Appalachain Trail Land Trust. If you guys have a website I'd be glad to list it on my links page of my website. Email me and let me know. I do plan on doing the trail work with Bob Peoples after Trail Days as a way of giving back though.

Fallingwater... O.K. , I admit you did an excellent job of shooting down my baseball analogy. You have me there. :-? It was not my attempt to make hiking a competition nor do I think it is one. Furthermore I never said that it should fall upon the shoulders of the ATC to weed out those you refer to as "sinners".

Fallingwater..." You said you’ve hiked the whole trail, past every white blaze, in order without cheating once. Prove it! I know that sounds harsh..." (My response).....Actually harsh isn't the word.....more like ignorant or silly.

Fallingwater...."The recognition for the act of a thru-hike always has and always will be based upon the honor system." (My response)......I concur 100%.

Fallingwater... "As to comparing the definition of the word Thru-hiker across multiple trails, most would agree that a definition not be so narrowly construed." Such as you’re attempting to do by defining it by the actions taken on single trail" (my response)... "Most" ??? Who are these "most" you refer to here ? You took a poll of most hikers ? We aren't trying to determine what the definition of the word is is. Atleast I'm not, but you keep on trying. You seem to keep trying to bring other trails into this topic. This topic has nothing to do with other trails, but maybe on a different thread they will have some relevance.

Fallingwater.... "I can only hope that when you’ve got a few more, trails and years under your belt you’ll view things differently. I do congratulate you on your hike and hope it’ll inspire to further endeavors. "
Ron “Fallingwater” Moak
Past President: American Long Distance Hiking Association – West

I hope you aren't rrying to emply that your experience makes your opinion superior to mine. Although, it helps with understanding hiking and trails it has no weight in understanding definitions and believing in honesty.
Hudson "Mountain Dew" Hartson
Current member: ALDHA, ATC, A.T. thru-hiker 2003 and whatever else nobody cares about and doesn't matter on this thread.

Mowgli16.... Great job on the copy/paste on the definition of the word "purist". I assume you did it out of sarcasm and I did get a short laugh out of it. I'm still not going to provide you with the definition of the words through and hike. Everybody knows the truth at heart.

Bluejay "Clearly you are annoyed by every human on the planet (it takes one to know one). I hereby nominate you for King of the Purists. There are others with this disease but it's raging in you."

If you are annoyed with every human on the planet then leave me out of it. As for being "King of the purist", I'll decline. I was the King of my hike and I choose to hike past every white blaze and thru-hike. Thanks for the nomination though. If you think that by me wanting to be a "purist" or wanting to walk past every white blaze I have a disease then so be it. Honesty, however, isn't a desease, but rather something I try to practice. Interesting how you equate honesty with disease. oh and YES, honesty IS raging inside me. :D

Youngblood... The ATC definition isn't an easy thing for people to agree on and is vague. I never attempted to misinterpret their definition either. If I am wrong in my understanding of it then fine, but I'm not one to play spin doctor with definitions.

TJ..... You are correct when you imply that hikers should know more about the trail they hike. Excellent point.
----------------------
I have often noticed that when people don't have facts, reality, and logic on their side they often turn to personal attacks, redirection of topic, and putting words in others mouths. ALOT of that going on in this thread. :-?

I PROMISE THAT I DIDN'T MAKE PIRATE SAY THOSE COMMENTS TO TAKE THE HEAT OFF OF MYSELF.... :banana

[Moon Monster]

The ATC does not care about you our about your thru hike. All they are interessted in is your money, or your property (house, acerage). There are only 2 - 3 good people at the ATC who give a **** about the long range hikers, the rest are lawyers who are intesested in your money to finance their multi-million dollar homes around the DC area. So lets all pitch in and give all our money to the ass holes!!! AMC (Appalachian Money Club, All My Money, etc.,). Power to the people.


To the extent you are talking about actions best attributed to the Nature Conservancy (and maybe its deals for the ATC), you have very valid points. (The NC has been wracked with scandals). But, I've never seen such words about ATC itself.

[Fallingwater]

Ok, this will be my last comment on this matter. As it is, I’ve spent way too much time on this subject. My apologies to the general readership.

To Mountain Dew,

Let me say that if the ATC were to adopt your narrowly construed definition of their 2000 miler recognition, they would have to scrap the recognition program entirely. First, we both agree that the whole system rests on the honor system. Second, as I said, there’s no way to prove that your or anyone else’s hike complied with the ATC 2000 Miler definition. If you can’t prove you did comply, how does the ATC to prove someone else didn’t? When you expect the ATC to accept your word over that of someone else, it appears to me that you’re the one proclaiming superiority.

Second, you questioned my use of a past title as an expression of superiority. In this case it was added solely for the purpose of providing perspective. I believe it’s important when people express ideas that the people reading them understand the perspective of the writer. So I wanted to make it as clear as possible what experiences shaped my views on the subject. I don’t discount your views nor do I assume they are not relevant, what you’ve said has been said by others since long before you knew about thru-hiking. I do disagree with them. However, since you’ve twice summarily dismissed my views as irrelevant, again you’ve taken on the mantle of superiority.

Third, you mentioned that people who fail to comply with your narrowly construed definition of a 2000 miler shouldn’t get recognition. Then you stated that ALDHA-West’s policy of recognizing those people for inclusion when applying for status as Triple Crowner was, in your words, “comical”. Well since the ATC shouldn't recognize these individuals and ALDHA-West, an established thru-hiker organization, shouldn't recognize them, I guess that makes their hikes irrelevant and therefore inferior. So if their hike is inferior I guess that makes your hike superior.

Forth, on several occasions you’ve called into question the honesty of people who fail to agree with you. Though exactly what we’ve been dishonest about is a complete mystery to me. As I said, people can have an honest disagreement over the definition of a word. You clearly have chosen a more literal definition while others chose a more encompassing definition. The fact that you believe your literal definition make you honest and everyone else dishonest, again smacks of superiority.

It is my belief that we should celebrate not isolate people who’ve hike from Maine to Georgia, irrespective of the path taken. A long distance hike is a significant, and often singular, achievement in many people’s lives, regardless of whether accomplished over a period of months as a single endeavor or over a lifetime of adventure. In the end petty squabbles over blue vs. white blazing simply cheapen the whole endeavor and does nothing to advance either the trail or long distance hiking.

Fallingwater

[Blue Jay]

Sorry Fallingwater, Mountain Dew will not be able to respond as he is busy improving the definition and scheduling of the Trail Days festivities :banana .

[rickb]

"Let me say that if the ATC were to adopt your (Mountain Dew's) narrowly construed definition of their 2000 miler recognition, they would have to scrap the recognition program entirely"

Uh, er, the ATC did construe the definition that narrowly!!!!!. At least on the form they have passesd out in Baxter State Park. The form they request all 2000-milers to fill out now!!! As for your conclusions about scrapping the program entirely, I agree 100%.

My take on these threads is that no one really bothers to understand what others are saying. Sort of like real life, I suppose. That said, I think there was once an exception to this. A few years ago the ATC's 2000-Miler application form had an even more stringent written requirement. I think that version of the wording on older forms still lives on in WFs book, as he could not bear to change with the times.

Those written ATC requirements didn't have the "best effort" phraseology, that is now part of the ATC form. I can't be sure, but I sincerely think that part was added after it was pointed out that even Earl Shaffer didn't meet the contemporary written standard. I think the ATC heard that loud and clear, and saw that it was wrong to hold today's hikers to a higher standard than that of an Icon.

So the ATC changed the witten form to become more inclusive. It's not so inclusive that it welcomes those who take blue-blaze alternatives, however. No matter what one thinks about whether that is right or wrong-- it says what it says.

They could change that form again, if they wanted. I am not so sure that's the best idea, but if they dont change it, then I agree 100% that the program should be scrapped entirely.

Rick B

[Mountain Dew]

Fallingwater....
"Let me say that if the ATC were to adopt your narrowly construed definition of their 2000 miler recognition, they would have to scrap the recognition program entirely." --- That would only be the case if NOBODY ever hiked past every white blaze.

"If you can’t prove you did comply, how does the ATC to prove someone else didn’t? When you expect the ATC to accept your word over that of someone else, it appears to me that you’re the one proclaiming superiority. " ---I have never said that it should be up to the ATC to prove anything. I'm not expecting the ATC to except my word OVER somebody elses. I haven't even sent in the form, but if I had that form speak for MY word. It would have nothing to do with anybody elses word. The only thing I'b be "claiming" would be an honest thru-hike.

"Third, you mentioned that people who fail to comply with your narrowly construed definition of a 2000 miler shouldn’t get recognition. Then you stated that ALDHA-West’s policy of recognizing those people for inclusion when applying for status as Triple Crowner was, in your words, “comical”. Well since the ATC shouldn't recognize these individuals and ALDHA-West, an established thru-hiker organization, shouldn't recognize them, I guess that makes their hikes irrelevant and therefore inferior. So if their hike is inferior I guess that makes your hike superior." ---Yes, in my opinion your definition is a very loose one. I've NEVER said or implied that anybody's hike is irrelevent and therefore inferior. And my hike WAS NOT superior. I hiked my own hike.

"Forth, on several occasions you’ve called into question the honesty of people who fail to agree with you. Though exactly what we’ve been dishonest about is a complete mystery to me. As I said, people can have an honest disagreement over the definition of a word. You clearly have chosen a more literal definition while others chose a more encompassing definition. The fact that you believe your literal definition make you honest and everyone else dishonest, again smacks of superiority" ---I never called ANYBODY out for not being honest. I might have called into question their ability to be honest with themselves and about what a thru-hike is, but I've never said that "so and so" is lying about a thru-hike let's get that perfectly clear. There is not two definitions or ways to interpret the term thru-hike. The fact that I firmly believe in mine doesn't mean that I think I'm superior. I think you misunderstand. I believe my opinion on this topic is superior as do you with your opinion. Nothing wrong with thinking your opinion is correct.

"It is my belief that we should celebrate not isolate people who’ve hike from Maine to Georgia, irrespective of the path taken. A long distance hike is a significant, and often singular, achievement in many people’s lives, regardless of whether accomplished over a period of months as a single endeavor or over a lifetime of adventure. In the end petty squabbles over blue vs. white blazing simply cheapen the whole endeavor and does nothing to advance either the trail or long distance hiking." --- I agree with almost the entire last paragraph untill the last sentence. The only thing to be gained from the Blue blazin slippery slop is to make a thru-hike somehow cheap. In 2003 the A.T. was 2,173 miles so you tell me how many miles one needs to have a thru-hike. 2,173 ...2,073...1,973....1,873 and don't dare stop me here because you would then be narrowly defining a thru-hike, claiming superiority, and calling me dishonest. See the slippery slop you stand on ?

I think we can agree that we both love the A.T. and have nothing personally against one another. I applaud your time spent doing the hiking community good. In the end you and I have alot in common.
--------------------------------------
rickboudrie.... You have a great point. Almost everybody to post on this thread either can't comprehend what others say very good or they read over a post so fast without ever looking back at it while making their response. Almost every post I've made has been either twisted or words put into my mouth. Look at bluejay here.....He can't even keep this thread straight from another thread. bluejay.."Mountain Dew will not be able to respond as he is busy improving the definition and scheduling of the Trail Days festivities :banana " Are you kidding me ? You are a grown adult and can't even stay on topic by leaving those comments, as silly as they are, in the proper thread. So am I improving the definition of thru-hike or trail days there bluejay ? With that poor grammar I'm not sure what you mean. I make a suggestion that the talent show should and could easily be on saturday after the hiker parade instead of two local bands that wont draw half the crowd as the talent show would if giving that time spot. You must know that Minus Linus group etc. and am mad that anybody make such harch comments. Get real and grow up just a little.

Hey rick...the ATC can't scrap the 2,000 program because how else would everybody's friends know that they had reached Katahdin ? (sarcasm)

Nice solid logical entry Rick. Why can't people take the time to read carefully and comprehend what others say instead of what has been going on in this thread ?

[Fallingwater]

Ok, I'm breaking my promise, I'm headed to Traildays in a couple of days so I won't be responding any further.


Fallingwater....
"... In the end petty squabbles over blue vs. white blazing simply cheapen the whole endeavor and does nothing to advance either the trail or long distance hiking." --- I agree with almost the entire last paragraph untill the last sentence. The only thing to be gained from the Blue blazin slippery slop is to make a thru-hike somehow cheap.

Mountain Dew, you are absolutely correct that it will cheapen the thru-hike. If you tend to view the thru-hike as a some sort of competitive adventure where goal it to compare the relative differences between different hikes. In the end, the results of the comparisons simply generate a list of winners and losers. In my mind if thru-hiking is simply about winning or losing, it’s missing the point.

I believe a thru-hike is a deeply personal and occasionally a spiritual experience that defies comparison. Does that mean I don’t look at other individual’s hikes and draw comparisons against my own? No, that is human nature. Our mere survival as individuals and a species is dependent upon competition. I certainly don’t deny my genetic tendencies.

Over time, I've come to realize that comparing thru-hikes is a lost cause. This is due in part because there are far too many variables to balance and because in the end there’s nothing to gain by the exercise. Does a 65-year-old, overweight woman who has hiked the same trail as you negate your thru-hike? Chances are her hike was significantly more difficult in personal and physical terms than yours. What if she takes a couple of blue blaze alternatives and in the end hikes 20 miles less than you on her trip from Springer to Katahadin.

By your definition she’s neither a thru-hiker nor ATC 2000 miler. Yet I doubt anyone on this list would claim that she had an easier or less inspirational hike than you. What about those of us who hiked when the trail was over a 100 miles shorter? Not only was it shorter when I hiked it, substantial sections of the trail have been rerouted. The physical trail differences between your hike and mine are beyond comparison. Neither are a hundred other variables ranging from re-supply, to trail support, to on trail companionship. Yet despite the great gulf in differences between our respective hikes we do share a common bond that transends both geography and time.

When I do look at other people’s hikes for comparison, I look for hikes that inspire me. I’m over 50 now and long distance hiking is not as easy as it was a quarter century ago. However, when I see someone out there 15 or 20 years older or in poorer health and plugging away the miles, I have to ask myself, “Do I have what it takes to do that?”.

You may choose to view thru-hiking in terms of purity, that’s your right. Personally I have far more need in my life for inspiration than purity.

-Fallingwater

[Lone Wolf]

To some it's all about validation, patches and certificates. The rest of us get "it".

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy all,

I am new to this whole arguement, and personally I think it is silly. I am doing this hike is for me. Not a patch, an award, or the approval of some group or another. If getting a patch is your reason for walking 2000+ miles that is your business. As for me, I really just want the bragging rights. Not to mention the really great stories I will tell upon completetion. :)

[SGT Rock]

Howdy all,

I am new to this whole arguement, and personally I think it is silly. I am doing this hike is for me. Not a patch, an award, or the approval of some group or another. If getting a patch is your reason for walking 2000+ miles that is your business. As for me, I really just want the bragging rights. Not to mention the really great stories I will tell upon completetion. :)

Just don't let anyone tell you how to hike while you are out there. People will try to talk yo into staying in towns longer than you want to, taking short cuts you might not want to, and maybe even into walking back to the trail to make sure you don't miss 100' of trail when it seems silly to you. If you are your own man and hike your own hike, then you will be a happy person, if you worry about how everyone else is "lying to themselves" or try to follow someone else's imposed rules, you can become a miserable and maybe even malicious person that judges others hikes by your personal standards. I think the only rules that should every apply are LNT, othr than that - HYOH.

[pvtmorriscsa]

Preach it Top!

[Footslogger]

Just don't let anyone tell you how to hike while you are out there. People will try to talk yo into staying in towns longer than you want to, taking short cuts you might not want to, and maybe even into walking back to the trail to make sure you don't miss 100' of trail when it seems silly to you. If you are your own man and hike your own hike, then you will be a happy person, if you worry about how everyone else is "lying to themselves" or try to follow someone else's imposed rules, you can become a miserable and maybe even malicious person that judges others hikes by your personal standards. I think the only rules that should every apply are LNT, othr than that - HYOH.
============

Hey Top ...towns aren't so bad, as long as you don't get stuck in the "evil vortex". Heck, some of my better memories from last year are from the little towns I visited. The vast majority of folks in those small towns are great and most often interested in talking to hikers about their experience. Every once in a while over that 6 month period I think a hiker (mind and body) needs a little respit from the white blazes.

Now, I'm not talking about short cutting or skipping miles ...just taking advantage of the opportunity to see the small towns that you otherwise might never even know existed.

'Slogger

[SGT Rock]

I ain't got noting against towns, I simply stated watch out for people wanting you to stay longer than you want to - avoiding the VORTEX!

Personally I like sleeping in the woods and feel a little out of place staying a long time in towns when I feel I should be hiking. Of course I am only a pesky section hiker and if I get 2 weeks to hike, then I want to HIKE for two weeks.

[Footslogger]

I ain't got noting against towns, I simply stated watch out for people wanting you to stay longer than you want to - avoiding the VORTEX!

Personally I like sleeping in the woods and feel a little out of place staying a long time in towns when I feel I should be hiking. Of course I am only a pesky section hiker and if I get 2 weeks to hike, then I want to HIKE for two weeks.===========================

Well said Top ...that puts it all in perspective. If all I had was a couple weeks on the trail the LAST place you'd find me would be in a town.

I was speaking more from the standpoint of being out there on the AT for 6 months or so.

'Slogger

[TankHiker]

I am doing this hike is for me. Not a patch, an award, or the approval of some group or another. If getting a patch is your reason for walking 2000+ miles that is your business. As for me, I really just want the bragging rights.
Be careful here. First of all, I don't know of any hiker (purist or not) who hiked for a patch. Second, I would think that "bragging rights" is making the trail into a competition. There will always be someone who hiked faster / longer / better than you. How do you quantify your bragging rights? Really nothing personal here, but this is a touchy subject, and this could be setting yourself up for more conflict. :)

I think there are 2 arguments going on here. There is hiking for personal fulfillment, and hiking for recognition. As far as personal fulfillment, everyone gets what they want out of it. Some people feel a strong need to hike past every white blaze for personal fulfillment. Others may rather take interesting side-trips. I respect both. In fact, I wish I could thru-hike twice - once each way.

As far as getting recognition from the ATC, there will always be arguments. What if someone took the blue-blaze around the Priest? It is hard to say someone who has hiked 2168 miles is not a thru-hiker. What about the chairlift up Wildcat? What if they skipped a small section in town? What if they skip Shenandoah? What if they skip Virginia? What if they start at Pine Grove Furnace? Where do you draw the line? There will always be someone who is on the bubble who thinks they deserve recognition. If the ATC continues giving recognition, there needs to be a clear line. And why should that line be anything other than "every white blaze" (with safety in mind, of course)?

Just my thoughts.

-Tank

ps- the ATC should start testing for steroids too. :D

[Blue Jay]

What if someone took the blue-blaze around the Priest? It is hard to say someone who has hiked 2168 miles is not a thru-hiker. What about the chairlift up Wildcat? What if they skipped a small section in town? What if they skip Shenandoah? What if they skip Virginia? What if they start at Pine Grove Furnace? Where do you draw the line?

ps- the ATC should start testing for steroids too. :D

The question is not where do you draw the line, it's why? I cannot believe you invented for the purists a new way to feel inferior. They'll never be able to take the steroid test so all the new purists, who are lining up as we speak, will have an advantage. You are soooo cruel. :banana

[A-Train]

A lot of people have mentioned hiking for a patch. My take on it is that no one is really hiking for a patch or certificate while they're out there. Some stupid piece of paper or threads is the last thing someone is thinking about while climbing out of franconia notch during a rainstorm. Most of the hikers on the trail had no idea you could even get a patch/certificate.

The patch only becomes important once a hiker is done and they are looking for ways to reconnect to their hike and the lives they lost. Only at theat point do they have time to sit and contemplate the importance of a little patch or paper.

[gravityman]

Here is my take on this :

I am training for a marathon and reading this wonderful book : "Marathon Training for Non-runners" or something like that. It's really great, even for long distant hikers, as it talks about nutrition (and why carbs are more important then fat) but also the mental aspects, much of which is parallel to long distance hiking.

One of the reasons that it states for wanting to do a marathon is that some people are out there for "Peak Experiences" And by that, they mean striving for an ultimate goal - hiking the whole AT, hiking from GA-ME in a single season, running 26.2 miles, etc etc etc. So, anyone that starts out from Springer is really looking for that Peak Experience of standing on Katahdyn.

Now, here's there difference - how people define that peak experiences. In the context of a marathon, some would say you can't claim to have run a marathon unless you have RUN a marathon. Others would definitely disagree. Most people are forced to walk through an aid station because of the crowds. In fact, most training manuals will say you should walk to get fluids. Then, maybe you had to stop to pee. Heck, one guy won the Boston Marathon after stopping to tie his shoe. Did he run a marathon? Others will say, well, I had to walk the last mile, but I still ran a marathon. Ultimately, if all comes down to how a single person defines the successful completion of THEIR peak experience. Some would say it is making it the whole way, other would say it's running the whole way, and others yet would say it's finishing with a particular time goal. But, at the end of the day, all those people, with all those different "peak experiences" will still say "I ran a marathon" and get a certificate that says that. It might even have their time on it.

So, it all comes down to how one defines their peak experience to see if they successful completed the experience. Now, here's the really interesting part - for a first time marathoner, the book goes on to say that it is REALLY important to set the goal of JUST FINISHING! If you set a goal of a time (note that time = hiking past every white blaze for my arguement here) then if you don't make that time goal, you will feel really disappointed. You will feel as if you have failed. BUT YOU JUST RAN A MARATHON. So, don't cheapen the experience, especially the first time. Set the goal of finishing as the ultimate goal, and you will achieve your "Peak Experience."

So, even though everyone out there on the trail will have a different goal, and a different way of defining that goal (Hike your own hike), they will in the end say "I hiked the appalachian trail" and for them, it's true. Heck I have met people that have said that, and I will ask them, more about it, and find out they did a week. But to them they acheived that "Peak Experience" and that's that.

So, how does the ATC's 2000 miler patch come into this? Well, for some it's the marathon certificate. It says that they "Hike the Appalachian Trail" and, in their mind, they did. And that the "Peak Experience" wasn't defined by standing on the Big K, but by getting that patch. But if you want that patch, and you define your peak experience by that patch, they you also have defined a "time goal" that you will have to hike pass every whiteblaze. Is that fair? Well, to some yes, to some no. It's like saying you get a marathon certificate if you finish in under 6 hours. And there are marathons that say that. Should the ATC change that to something else? Maybe... Or people could just change their definition of a "Peak Experience" to be standing on Katahdin, and leave the patch out of it. That might make for a much nicer hike, and in my opinion that's the way that I am going to define my next hike. If I skip the white blazes because I went along the creeper or because I got a ride down a road walk, I am still going to say "I hiked the appalachian trail" and it will be true, to me. But I might not be able to apply for the patch. It won't matter, because I defined my peak experience by getting to K, not on the patch.

And I will have run a marathon this sunday, no matter how long it takes me, or how much I have to walk (Terrible problems with IT band, which hopefully is healed, but I didn't get to do a 20 mile run, and I haven't run farther than 4 miles in 4 weeks!)

So, that's what I think...

Gravity Man

[hacksaw]

Re: L Wolf's post # 186

LW,

BINGO! :clap

Hacksaw
Semper Fi

[Chappy]

My thru-hike plan: Head north on the AT from Springer Mountain!

I've been living this regimented life for a long time...However, I will tread stealthily thru Lone Wolf's territory because I don't want to be mistaken for a purist (just in case I haven't fully broken out of my regimented lifestyle by then) and get shot! :D

[Mountain Dew]

Fallingwater... I liked your entry. You used examples and simple logic. When you talked about the 65 year old over weight female hiker I got a good laugh. I can't recall exactly where I was on the trail, but it was early on in N.C. I believe. One of the three older (55-63 years old) men that was in the group called the Grey Hounds passed me. He might have been Goat. It was going to rain that night and as me and my buddy were hiking we were counting heads mentally thinking about how many people would be at the next shelter. Well, my tent was leaking at the time so I really wanted a spot in that shelter. Mind you my friend was ex-marine. We decided that there would be two spots left at the shelter so we proceeded to giggle about how we weren't going to let that old man beat us there. He was only a few hundred feet ahead so be booked it fast to catch him and then surely leave him in our dust. We were hiking at a little over 3 mph and couldn't catch him. We no longer were laughing. My friend made a comment about "the old man" having a heart attack because of the speed at which he was hiking and for so long. I thought to myself...."holy crap"...I'm gonna have a heart attack if I don't stop this"....! My heart seemed to be beating so hard I could hear it. So my ex-marine buddy ,of about 25 years, proceeded to take the lead and try to fetch him. Just as I had lost sight of them the older hiker fell....... " PASS him NOW " I thought.....That old man bounced up off the ground without a scratch and barely slowed down. An hour later I got to the shelter only to see him eating. My friend was soaked in sweat. It was if we had seen 2+2=5 !!! Turns out he is a tri-athlete or something like that up in Canada. That night for dinner we ate a HUGE piece of humble pie.
---------------
Sgt. Rock.... how you think about hiking on your time off is beyond me. I watched Band of Brothers last week and they said that many of the men of Easy Company would do night hikes up that terrible mountain that ,by day, they had to climb many times in full gear. As an Army Scout i'm sure your load isn't over 50 lbs. but I'm sure you have plenty of excercise with gear on anyways. Why do people refer to you as top ?
--------------
Tank hiker.... You had a very good entry. "As far as getting recognition from the ATC, there will always be arguments. What if someone took the blue-blaze around the Priest? It is hard to say someone who has hiked 2168 miles is not a thru-hiker. What about the chairlift up Wildcat? What if they skipped a small section in town? What if they skip Shenandoah? What if they skip Virginia? What if they start at Pine Grove Furnace? Where do you draw the line? There will always be someone who is on the bubble who thinks they deserve recognition. If the ATC continues giving recognition, there needs to be a clear line. And why should that line be anything other than "every white blaze" (with safety in mind, of course)?" --- I applaud you for your logical thinking. If somebody that hiked 2,150 miles of the A.T. can claim a thru-hike then there is noway that that same person can "think or say" that
another person that hiked 2,050 miles didn't thru-hike as well. Likewise that 2,050 miler can't say a word if somebody with a few less miles than them claims to be a thru-hiker either. This is a slippery slope that if stood on allows your stance to slide downhill to the point of no return.
-------------
Gravityman....I liked your comparison of a marathon runner to a hiker and all the details you gave. Nice ! You talked about how some run 100% of the 26.2 miles while others walk for various distances. What about those that run the marathon and take side routes ? That is a fair comparison to make also. O.K. say those side routes were longer as well. Just a question to think about.
------------
Lone Wolf says that to some it's all about validation, patches, and certificates, but I agree with those of you that claimed they never knew of a hiker that did it for those reasons. Maybe living in Damascus enables him to meet these hikers that do it strictly for those reasons. I don't claim to know all. Sgt. Rock....do you have any patches on your uniform that you are proud of ? I bet Pirate earned some while in the Navy that he is proud of as well. Since when is there something wrong with being proud of something you earned ? Speaking of that.....come trail days I'm going to have to see about getting this patch/certificate.

[SGT Rock]

Mountain Dew, I am a First Sergeant. This means I am the senior enlisted soldier in my troop, company or battery; about 100 men +/- depeding on the type of unit. The nickname for the First Sergeant (1SG) for over a hundred years has been the "Top Sergeant" or "Top". You will find this tradition in the Army, Marines, and Air Force still today. The First Sergeant is the guy that basically runs the unit, enforces discipline, gets you promoted or demoted, makes sure you get paid, takes away your free time when you screw up, etc. In the German Army, the equivelent NCO's nickname is "Father of the Company". Anyone that spends time in the military probably remembers their drill sergeant and their first First Sergeant forever.

Often when I tell people in my unit what I do for fun, they think I am nuts. Why do ruck marches with 35+ pound rucksacks and combat gear then go out on my off time and do it some more? Of course we know it ain't the same thing. Right now I am a little out of shape so I am dreading the first hard hiking day coming up.

[Lone Wolf]

Gotta clarify something Dewey. Your friend is not an EX- Marine. There are no ex-Marines. Once a Marine, Always a Marine. I may not be as lean or as mean but I'm still a Marine. Marine Corps boot camp was a helluva lot more tough than any of the 16,000 AT miles I have. It's JUST hiking. No patches or certificates needed. :)
Semper Fidelis

[weary]

As far as getting recognition from the ATC, there will always be arguments. If the ATC continues giving recognition, there needs to be a clear line. And why should that line be anything other than "every white blaze" (with safety in mind, of course)?
ps- the ATC should start testing for steroids too. :D

Well, the loop trails in and out of the AT shelters and campsites are part of the trail. They were built by maintaining clubs affiliated with ATC, with the permission of ATC and their use is recommended by ATC to reduce the environmental damage of multiple stealth and trailside sites.

I can't think of any logical reason why ATC should require hikers who follow the ATC "Leave No Trace" recommendations and use established campsites should be required to double back on these loop trails to ATC shelters in order to qualify for a 2,000-miler patch.

The current ATC patch policy essentially encourages multiple campsites and the resulting proliferation of damaged vegetation and multiple fire rings.

Weary, who has given up on urging that loop trails to scenic overlooks and other special areas opened to augment the hiker trail experience. But who insists that the shelter loop restrictions are both illogical and environmentally harmful.

[gravityman]

Gotta clarify something Dewey. Your friend is not an EX- Marine. There are no ex-Marines. Once a Marine, Always a Marine. I may not be as lean or as mean but I'm still a Marine. Marine Corps boot camp was a helluva lot more tough than any of the 16,000 AT miles I have. It's JUST hiking. No patches or certificates needed. :)
Semper Fidelis


Wow, if there is one thing that "Dewey" has been able to do, it's get Lone Wolf to write more than one sentence replies!

How exciting! :clap

[Lone Wolf]

I am an eloquent orator.

[Mountain Dew]

Yeah well that night at the shelter after the "old man" basically abused us on the trail that day all we could do was laugh. I started it by saying....." You're an ex-marine and that old man led you along like a puppy on a leash" and his response was something along the lines of ......" yeah well you almost had a heart attack chasing grandpaw jones".......and this went on for over and hour.

[Tin Man]

I hope no one gets angry that I am opening this old, beat-the-subject-to-death thread, but having just white-blazed through most of the discussion and blue-blazing around some of the nonsense, I would like to add my 2 cents. Prior to reading this thread and finding out there was something to discuss, I had been personally troubled with the need to pass every white blaze. Here is how I resolved the issue for myself. (Others need to resolve it for themselves and everyone should practice leave no trace in respecting others resolutions.)

Last year was section hike #3 for my brother and I. In positioning cars to get started, I was briefly at the trailhead by myself minding the packs. This rather interesting assignment did not quite capture my full attention and I found myself staring at the white blaze across the street. Something was bothering me and I couldn't put my finger on it. Well, of course! I had not hiked the section of trail crossing the street as we ended the previous year over yonder. So I promptly walked across and back with two thoughts in mind: Tell bro to hike it when he gets back, or more correctly for our relationship, not tell him until we are at camp for the night. Well, as soon as he showed up, bro promptly walked across the street to the white blaze and returned saying, "I know you already did that!" Well, that's brothers who know each other too well. We laughed about it and then spent the rest of the day discussing it, mostly how silly it was. We even made a little game out of walking back around a tree to the white-blaze side after a side trip to an overlook with a return trail no more than a few feet away. We poked fun at ourselves for being so politically correct. [Little did we know!]

Two days later we went to check out a shelter and stopped for lunch. The blue-blazed trail in seemed to route back to the white blazed trail in another direction, so we went that away. When I commented that we would miss some white blazes in so doing, we agreed, after some discussion, that this shelter loop was all part of the AT and "counted". Well, if this does not qualify for a 2000-miler patch some day, then I do not care to have one.
After all, who wants a patch from an organization that builds 2 trails in to the designated camp spot and expects you to only use one of them? :confused: Is this a trick or some kind of sick test? :rolleyes:

HYOH and LNT.

[Lone Wolf]

He/she who blue-blazes is on the road to enlightenment.

[Youngblood]

Two days later we went to check out a shelter and stopped for lunch. The blue-blazed trail in seemed to route back to the white blazed trail in another direction, so we went that away. When I commented that we would miss some white blazes in so doing, we agreed, after some discussion, that this shelter loop was all part of the AT and "counted". Well, if this does not qualify for a 2000-miler patch some day, then I do not care to have one.
After all, who wants a patch from an organization that builds 2 trails in to the designated camp spot and expects you to only use one of them? :confused: Is this a trick or some kind of sick test? :rolleyes:


I don't think it is an organization as much as it is a few individuals that try to justify their superiority by trying to impose their own set of rules. It kind of goes like this, if you don't hike it in my way (which they claim is the official way), then you are not really a thru-hiker, you are a tour-hiker or something else, but in no way are you a thru-hiker... and if you still insist that you are a thru-hiker, then you are basically lazy, dishonest and/or a cheater. It all gets rather childish, basically school yard bullying type tactics were some people try to "piss on other people's parade" in a mean-spirited egotistical way that they feel "proves their superiority". Sometimes, for fun, they use terms like "hike your own hike" or "I'm not trying to be judgemental" or "but the fact is". Sometimes folks get real riled up and act like they want to hurt each other or at least seriously insult them. You know, real childish type stuff over something that isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of an activity who's main objectives are to do your own thing, try to enjoy it, try to give something back and try not to mess it up for others. It ain't the Tour-de-France or the Boston Marathon. It's not a competitive sport. It's a recreational activity, nothing more and nothing less.

Anyhow, that's my opinion on the subject. I try to take the path that takes me where I want to go and to enjoy the experience for what it is, but sometimes I get tired of the BS. Obviously, it's time for me to get back on the trail for a week or so and pick up where I left off on the last section. If I feel real daring, I think I will 'cheat' and not walk back across the parking lot to the spot I left my truck at last time. Ain't I a bad boy!

Youngblood

[Tin Man]

Thanks Youngblood. You and SGT Rock appear to be the voice of reason and I agree with you wholeheartedly. :sun

[Kozmic Zian]

Yea.....Weary. If you walk the Trail to the road cut-off, then walk the road to Shaws, the distance is about the same if you took the Trail to Rt.15,then hitched into Shaws. So, if you got a ride with Steve back to where the sign is that goes in N. on Rt.15, you wouldn't have cheated the Trail at all. There's lots of situations that are similar to that all up the Trail. Choices...we all make them. It's a long way to Katahdin, if you walk there, you walked there, Period. KZ@

[weary]

Be careful here. First of all, I don't know of any hiker (purist or not) who hiked for a patch. Second, I would think that "bragging rights" is making the trail into a competition. There will always be someone who hiked faster / longer / better than you. How do you quantify your bragging rights? Really nothing personal here, but this is a touchy subject, and this could be setting yourself up for more conflict. :)

I think there are 2 arguments going on here. There is hiking for personal fulfillment, and hiking for recognition. .... :D

It seems very simple to me. One either does the trail in accordance with one's understanding of the ATC guidelines for issuing a 2000-miler patch or one doesn't.

I walked a lot of miles in 1993, on and off the trail. I walked a lot of miles and had a wonderful time. I improved my health. I achieved a greater recognition of trail issues and a greater respect for wild places than ever before. I didn't apply for a patch because I read the rules and knew I didn't qualify.

Honest -- and sensible -- people know whether they "QUALIFY" OR NOT.

It's really pretty simple. You do the miles and meet the rules or you don't. Personally, I think the rules are silly. I tell that to ATC from time to time.

But silly or not, rules are rules. So claim a patch if you achieved the miles the rules require. If not, forget about the whole process. No one really gives a rat's turd whether you were a "purist" or not.

I walked between Katahdin and Springer. I walked more miles than many in '93. But I never seriously considered applying for a 2000-miler patch.

Weary

[lilmountaingirl]

Okay...I haven't thru-hiked yet. I'm planning on 2006...and maybe I'm being naive (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I am;) ) but...ultimately, does it really matter? HYOH, right? Don't worry about everyone else. Personally, I know what goals I have and what I want to accomplish and that's pretty simple. It makes no difference to me who follows what blazes, just get out and enjoy it. That's why it's there.

Am I missing something? Everything in life is so political. I hate to think that the AT is no different. Isn't it a personal journey? :confused:

[U-BOLT]

Am I missing something? Everything in life is so political. I hate to think that the AT is no different. Isn't it a personal journey?
:confused:
Yeah it is, and when you look in the glass and draw your last breath, you'll know it's your own hike and nobody else's. But remember these people whining about the right way to do this and that are not on the trail but in town slaving away at a job they hate and wishing they were on the trail and are bored and frustrated and mad and they gotta have something to bitch about, right?

If 6 Was 9

If the sun refused to shine
I dont mind, I dont mind
(yeah)
If the mountains ah, fell in the sea
Let it be, it aint me.
(well, all right)

Got my own world to live through and uh, ha !
And I aint gonna copy you.

Now if uh, six uh, huh, turned out to be nine
Oh I dont mind, I dont mind uh ( well all right... )
If all the hippies cut off all their hair
Oh I dont care, oh I dont care.

cause Ive got my own world to live through and uh, huh
And I aint gonna copy you.

White collar conservative flashin down the street
Pointin their plastic finger at me, ha !
Theyre hopin soon my kind will drop and die but uh
Im gonna wave my freak flag high, high !
Oww !

Wave on, wave on...

Ah, ha, ha
Fall mountains, just dont fall on me
Go ahead on mister business man, you cant dress like me
Yeah !

Dont nobody know what Im talkin about
Ive got my own life to live
Im the one thats gonna die when its time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to

[Kozmic Zian]

Yea.....Patch. Anyone can buy a patch, guys. You get the 'rocker' when you gradgeate.KZ@

[weary]

It makes no difference to me who follows what blazes, just get out and enjoy it. That's why it's there.

Am I missing something? Everything in life is so political. I hate to think that the AT is no different. Isn't it a personal journey? :confused:

Nor, to me. My hike was a compromise between what I was capable of doing and what I wanted to do. The only legitimate argument is after having done so, should one then lie to the ATC in order to pretend to have met their silly rules. My recommendation is not to do so. Truth is important in insignificant matters.

However! I haven't done it myself, because a patch (okay a rocker) no longer seems even remotely anything of value, but my advice is to tell ATC exactly how you hiked the trail -- tell them about the blue blazes in and out of shelters; tell them about the loop trails you took to scenic overlooks; even tell them about the times you walked diagonally one way into town and diagonally another way out of towns like Monson.

It's my belief, based on conversations with other hikers and ATC, that your 2000-miler rocker will appear by return mail. And if it doesn't so what? Everyone I know casually thinks I'm a thru hiker because I started at Springer and ended on Katahdin six months and three days later. Because it always generates a boring conversation, I now only explain the distinction to the few people who I think really care or would benefit from my explanation.

Jim O. (AKA Bun Bun) once said he considered me a thru hiker. But then we disagreed about something and he replied something to the effect. "How would weary know? He didn't do the miles."

So I learned again to be careful about who one tells one's darkest secrets to.

Weary, who, though many times burned still prefers truth over fiction, but feels no compulsion to be always correcting other's misconceptions about unimportant matters.

[SavageLlama]

I just read this entire thread and I want the last half hour of my life back.

[lilmountaingirl]

Patch Smatch.

Makes no difference to me. I'm not planning on doing it so I can get a patch or be labeled. I want to do it, quite honestly, because it was on my list of 4 things to do before I die (that happened to be written when I was about 7). It's the last thing on my list and it's MINE.

When it comes right down to it, I'll tell anyone what I did or didn't hike and what blaze I did or didn't follow...I don't need the approval of anyone for my personal accomplishments. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers...but geezo...I respect anyone that has made it all the way NOBO or SOBO...regardless of how (thru-hike or section hike, white, blue, yellow, purple, green or paisley blazes).

Makes you wonder though...how many people ARE completely honest about it and how many people just tell the ATC what they want to hear. *sigh*

Either way...any of you...all of you that have done it (however that may have been)...good for you. :clap

[bunbun]

I didn't apply for a patch because I read the rules and knew I didn't qualify.

You might wanta "re-think" about that. The "ATC rules" weren't published until 1998 - you hiked in '93. And they were published only in response to the rantings of HWMNBN. I was there.




Honest -- and sensible -- people know whether they "QUALIFY" OR NOT.

Has nothing to do with either "honest" or "sensible" - has EVERYTHING to do with your personal concept of what a "thruhike" is.




Personally, I think the rules are silly. I tell that to ATC from time to time.

I told ATC that before they published "the rules." But ATC gave short shrift to the process and then didn't listen to those who'd actually put some thought into the subject - they just "assumed" that their version would settle ALL the arguments and put an end to this asinine BS. It didn't. :-?



For SavageLlama - I rarely waste that much time (a half hour) on this subject anymore. Some people are really happy about that. :D


Finally - for lilmountaingirl - The following is something I wrote in 1996 (http://trailwise.circumtech.com/thruhikingpapers/part3). It's still valid - from my point of view. YMMV


one of the most heated, caustic and useless perennial arguments on the AT is the blue-blazing/white-blazing war. It happens every year and -- and it's utter nonsense because if you're that involved in how someone else is hiking their hike then you probably aren't hiking yours. Both sides have valid arguments and I can argue for or against both sides, but I'm just not interested. Whatever way you hike it - blue blazing, white blazing, running, walking, backpacking, slackpacking, crawling, whatever - if you walk from Georgia to Maine (or vice versa) in one season, then you're a thruhiker. Personally, I draw the line at yellow blazing because then you're not walking it.

[White Oak]

Rumor has it Wingfoot has cancelled his plans for a 2005 thru-hike. Oh well. I'd rather hike with Bill.

[Jack Tarlin]

Where did you hear this?

If it's true, I'm sorry to hear it, as I know he was looking forward to getting out on the Trail. I also think it would have done him a great deal of good.

[Moose2001]

I was just on his site and it looks like the forum he had about his 2005 hike is gone. Not sure how long it's been gone. Would of been good to see him reconnect with the AT. Too bad if it's true.

[Tim Rich]

I was just on his site and it looks like the forum he had about his 2005 hike is gone. Not sure how long it's been gone. Would of been good to see him reconnect with the AT. Too bad if it's true.

I'd be bummed if a trip of mine became unworkable, regardless of the reason. I wish him well. The hike could have removed him from his current absorption in his political grief.

[Lone Wolf]

Maybe he's packing his s**t and heading for Canada. Good riddance.

[The Weasel]

It is troubling that so many people who believe in "hike your own hike" seem to revel in trashing Dan Bruce's hike through life. He makes his choices, many of them consciously, and some pan out and some, probably, lead to results other than he wished. But their his choices. So if you like him, wish him well; if you don't, well, let him hike his own hike, free from your judgment. That's what HYOH is supposed to mean, after all.

The Weasel

[TJ aka Teej]

That's what HYOH is supposed to mean, after all.
Actually, HYOH came about as a response to overbearing selfstyled A.T. gurus who insisted that other people must hike the A.T. according to the guru's own strict guidelines. The response to hikers hearing that message: 'Don't hike his hike, hike your own hike.'

If Wingy really did plan to hike again, and if he's changed those plans, that's too bad. If he doesn't want to hike the A.T. he always could borrow a car, go on a driving vacation, day hike into some shelters, and visit some trail towns. Oh, wait... nevermind.

[The Weasel]

Or we could stop telling him what to do, which is probably as irksome to him as the obverse is to us.

The Weasel