PDA

View Full Version : "Guided tour" AT thru-hiking slackpacking (ONLY $10,120)



Pages : [1] 2

minnesotasmith
06-07-2004, 01:11
http://www.bighike.com/index.html:rolleyes:

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 01:41
What a crock of shyt.

minnesotasmith
06-07-2004, 02:03
IM personal O (and I admit to having very little AT experience), slackpacking is closer to yellow-blazing than not, unless someone is physically really borderline WRT thru-hiking at all. However, anyway, there is some OK info on their site, if you'll hold your nose and look around a bit.

Ramble~On
06-07-2004, 03:13
:datz

When visiting the privy, We'll wipe your butt for you.
After we cook for you, we'll spoon feed you.
When you sweat, we'll wipe your forehead.
Each night, we'll tuck you in and read you a bedtime story.
When your socks smell, we'll change them for you.
We'll make 100% sure that you do not have a true AT experience.
All this for only $10,000.00

*many restrictions apply, see dealer for details.
Void where prohibited : especially in all National Parks, National Forests, State Parks, State Forests and all states that the Appalachian Trail passes through.

Lone Wolf
06-07-2004, 05:26
Why not? The AT was never blazed with the intention of being "thru-hiked" so one might as well slack it in comfort. I was thinking of offering the same sort of service.

papa john
06-07-2004, 06:57
I see nothing wrong with this. Who ever said that carrying a heavy backpack was THE ONLY WAY to thru-hike the trail? Everyone does the trail differently, what makes your way better than another? They are not yellow-blazing if they walk the entire trail. There is no difference in going to town by way of your thumb or your pre-planned wallet.

MedicineMan
06-07-2004, 07:25
Personally I would rather give the 10K to l.wolf, surely the end of the hike day entertainment would be rousing....

c.coyle
06-07-2004, 07:35
... We'll make 100% sure that you do not have a true AT experience ...

And that would be what, exactly?

The Scribe
06-07-2004, 07:57
Look on the front page to the right where it says "definitions"

they didn't even spell "Katahdin" correctly

pcm

papa john
06-07-2004, 08:43
Nitpickers!

I hiked in 2000 when Pittsburgh was going through with about 5 or 6 assisted hikers. I hiked with them, camped with them and ate meals with them. They walked every step I walked. I would much rather walk with them then a lot of the people I see posting on this thread. Would I pay for an assisted hike? Most likely not. Does it make it wrong? NO.

LBJ
06-07-2004, 08:54
Everyone that has never slack packed, hitched into town, ate at a restaurant, etc. while thru hiking, raise your hand.

The Scribe
06-07-2004, 11:11
Sorry, wasn't trying to interject my feelings one way or the other regarding the issue. It was simply the teacher in me finding a typo.

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 11:36
I bet these hucksters have looked at the completion rate and figured that very few of the suckers who bite for their scam will stick with it, then they'll have their $10,000 without having to wipe their butts and breast feed them all the way to Maine.

Hell, all you need is 10 suckers a year to be raking in six figures.

c.coyle
06-07-2004, 11:52
Hell, all you need is 10 suckers a year to be raking in six figures.

God Bless America! :sun

attroll
06-07-2004, 12:26
I would not pay $10K to do this. When you can do it yourself for much less. But I wonder what there schedule it like? Is this the same and one of Warren's thru-hikes? If you takes longer to hike will they wait for you? If you want to hike past there designated spot they pick for you at the end of the day will they accomidate the place you want to stop at? Do you do hike as a group? If it take longer to get to Katahdin will they work with you or tell you that you have a set ammount of time out the contract is voided?

UGH
You are probably right. They will get some that will sign up for this and not be able to complete it and will not get there money back. That is where they will make there big money.

I am not saying that this is not a way to go. For some this may be the only way they will thru-hike the Appalachian Trail. So for some this may be good. I wish they had explained a little more on there web site about the details of this. Not that I am going to do it. Just would like to know.

TankHiker
06-07-2004, 12:43
That's kind of funny.

My biggest problem would be keeping the schedule every day. I always hated planning out my hike to meet friends/family in a trail town, or racing (or lingering) to hit a post office on a certain day. I liked the freedom of just hiking at my own pace. I liked hanging out by a river, or stopping early if I was tired, or putting in a long day if I felt ambitious. That freedom was one of my favorite parts of my hike.

This structure would drive me nuts. I would hate having every day of my hike planned out, and having to make that. To me, that just wouldn't be a fun hike.

Rain Man
06-07-2004, 13:23
Don't they have to have a license to profiteer from a National Scenic Trail/Park/Forest?

Perhaps they do have a license, but after reading their home page, I wonder.

"Appalachinan Trail (AT) - a 2170 mile path that extends from Springer Mountain, Georgia to Mt. Katahdia, Maine."

:confused:

c.coyle
06-07-2004, 13:47
Don't they have to have a license to profiteer from a National Scenic Trail/Park/Forest?

Didn't know you needed a license. Who would issue it?

Many people, including people who post here, profit one way or the other from the existence of the AT: Authors, hostel owners, outfitters, equipment makers. What these people are doing is just more "direct".

And, if I simply get you ready to walk on the AT, drop you off at the trailhead, and pick you up at the end of the day, what I am doing that's so bad? It's not clear to me that they even physically set foot on the AT.

Jack Tarlin
06-07-2004, 13:51
To compare this venture or similar ones to Warren Doyle's "expeditions" is unfair, as Warren's extended slackpacking trips are not designed to make money; money paid to Warren by his group covers the group's travel expenses; I assure you that Warren is not getting rich from these trips, nor does he wish to.

This doesn't necessarily mean I approve of Warren's ventures or that I'd recommend them to most people....but in the interest of fairness, Warren should not be lumped with this venture which seems to me to be entirely a commercial enterprise.

RockyTrail
06-07-2004, 13:52
Mt Katahdia.... isn't that right next to Mt Giardia? ;)

Lone Wolf
06-07-2004, 13:53
And there's nothing wrong with commercial enterprises in and around the AT.

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 14:29
And there's nothing wrong with commercial enterprises in and around the AT.
That's right, and a sucker is born every minute.

Reminds me of a story about a newspaper ad that appeared years ago. Learn the secret to success for $10. Someone sent in his $10, and a letter with the secret came back: "Catch suckers with a hook."

Spirit Walker
06-07-2004, 16:06
Sounds to me like he's someone who loves the trail and wanted to find a way to make a living doing what he loves. Why not, if it doesn't hurt the trail. I wish I could find a way to make a living hiking.

As to price - a two week backpack trip can cost two or three thousand dollars, a five or six month trip that costs $10 k isn't that bad, considering. It's not something I would choose to do, since I prefer to have freedom and flexibility to 'go with the flow' but I don't begrudge anyone who prefers more support and structure on their hike. HYOH and stop judging others.

Alligator
06-07-2004, 16:07
Didn't know you needed a license. Who would issue it?

Many people, including people who post here, profit one way or the other from the existence of the AT: Authors, hostel owners, outfitters, equipment makers. What these people are doing is just more "direct".

And, if I simply get you ready to walk on the AT, drop you off at the trailhead, and pick you up at the end of the day, what I am doing that's so bad? It's not clear to me that they even physically set foot on the AT.

I'm fairly certain they would need a permit to pick up at or deliver at any road crossing in a national forest or national park. Shuttle operators have this problem. However, at a cost of $4.60 a mile, (way higher than any shuttler), they should not have any problem affording the necessary permits.

c.coyle
06-07-2004, 16:42
HYOH and stop judging others.

Here, here.

The complaint seems to be that people who use this guy's service are "oversupported" (my word) and missing "the true AT experience" (someone else's description), both of which are mighty subjective. Why should any of us care? It's their hike; doesn't affect mine.

Now if they claim they'll reserve a spot for you in shelters ...

smokymtnsteve
06-07-2004, 17:20
I'm fairly certain they would need a permit to pick up at or deliver at any road crossing in a national forest or national park. Shuttle operators have this problem. However, at a cost of $4.60 a mile, (way higher than any shuttler), they should not have any problem affording the necessary permits.


which shuttle do you use that prepares your breakfast and washes your dishes? Plus shuttles are not charged by trail mile abut by road miles...

apples and oranges

The Old Fhart
06-07-2004, 19:03
To lead organized hikes in the White Mountain National Forest, either for profit or not, you need an outfitters permit or card and group size has to be limited to 10 or less. I'm sure other National Forests are the same. As a volunteer trip leader in the AMC New Hampshire chapter I need a card even though I receive no pay. In 2000 when I got a shuttle ride to USFS42 north of Springer, the shuttle driver had a permit as well. According to the Foot travel site, "For logistical and regulatory reasons, Foot Travel groups have 8 to 10 hikers", which would imply they are following the rules. I hope this clears up some of the confussion about permits mentioned in previous posts.

While I certainly wouldn't use their services, I see nothing wrong with them trying to make a buck if they follow all the rule for a commercial venture. If they make a go of it, that would indicate that there are enough people out there that "need" this sort of service and are willing to pay $10,000 for it. A lot of people get some income either directly or indirectly from the trail. I make some money on my photos, other people operate hostels, some camp stores cater to hikers, so what.

I'm sure that they get the money up front so you won't hear any of their clients say when they get to Damascus: "I don't have money to continue." If they can complete their hike with support, good for them, its their hike. There is also one hiker this year who is spending over $35,000 in donated money to hike the trail and support his family. If he can get the money, that's fine too. I don't see any of these people negatively affecting the trail or any hiker's ability to enjoy their hike as well.

Bonehead
06-07-2004, 19:11
Even a bone head like me :o wouldn't fall for something like this.

This bone head has looked at the site and it says "Each day after you hit the trail, we drive your gear around to that night’s campsite in our vehicles."

So they drive your gear from one campsite to the next? What about the stretches that are too long to hike from one road crossing to another, do they drive a 4-wheeler on the AT to bring your tent and hot food to you?

I don't get it this bone head is confuses. :confused:

The Old Fhart
06-07-2004, 19:50
Bonehead-This bone head has looked at the site and it says "Each day after you hit the trail, we drive your gear around to that night’s campsite in our vehicles."
So they drive your gear from one campsite to the next? What about the stretches that are too long to hike from one road crossing to another, do they drive a 4-wheeler on the AT to bring your tent and hot food to you?

Under FAQs they say: "Also, because there are a few sections that must be backpacked, we require that you have experienced several multi-day backpacking trips." I wonder if those sections where you have to carry everything are discounted or you get a rebate. Just a thought.

NotYet
06-07-2004, 20:10
Wow! We've never gotten so many hits on our site before! We definitely aren't offering this service to make a lot of money or to scam anybody. We simply love the trail, and want to help others enjoy it, too. Our intention is to increase a hiker's chance walking the entire trail. We don't believe it's the "right way" or the "wrong way" to thru-hike...it's simply another alternative for those who might choose it.

As for the misspelling...it drives me crazy, too! We think our web designer is absolutely wonderful, but hey, if a simple typo is her only mistake in this life, she's doing pretty well! We'll have the typo fixed when we update the site. :)

I hope those of you that are on the trail are enjoying your experience, and I hope that those of you that dream of being out there are able to make it happen!

NotYet SOBO 2000

TJ aka Teej
06-07-2004, 20:18
We simply love the trail, and want to help others enjoy it, too.

Welcome, NotYet! If your idea helps people get on the trail, more power to you - and to them. Hope you stick around WhiteBlaze, there's been quite a few recent posts from sobos getting ready to hit the trail!

Groucho
06-07-2004, 20:22
As for the misspelling...it drives me crazy, too! We think our web designer is absolutely wonderful, but hey, if a simple typo is her only mistake in this life, she's doing pretty well! We'll have the typo fixed when we update the site. :)

NotYet SOBO 2000

Katahdin was spelled correctly at the bottom of the page.

You're located in Black Mountain? Isn't that a long way to go to shuttle along the AT? Is there a minimum distance requirement?

Alligator
06-07-2004, 20:25
which shuttle do you use that prepares your breakfast and washes your dishes? Plus shuttles are not charged by trail mile abut by road miles...

apples and oranges

From Dawsonville GA to Millinocket, ME is about 1369.65 miles. When I need to be shuttled, I use the number of miles I am hiking as a rough guide as to how many miles I need shuttling. I used the number of AT miles as a rough guide to miles shuttled, so the $4.60/mile is an underestimation. The difference between typical shuttle costs is over $3.60 a mile. The $1.00/mile will cover transportation costs, even with high gas prices. Gov't rate is less than $0.40/mile. At 15 miles per day, the gain over a regular shuttler is $54.00/hiker. Each additional hiker incurs significantly fewer transportation costs. Conservatively, there should be no problem paying permit fees, feeding the hikers, and keeping a cooler of ice cold beer at all times in the back of the van.

Alligator
06-07-2004, 20:35
Hi NotYet,

Provided the ice-cold cooler of beer was added as a necessary item, I might consider your services if I was in the right situation financially.

NotYet
06-07-2004, 20:37
Good question, Groucho. Yes, we are located in Black Mountain, which is about an hours drive from the AT. Typically, most of our services, including our "regular-styled" shuttles are done for trails other than the AT. But, our fully-supported thru-hike of the AT lasts 5 months; so our home's proximity to the trail won't matter.

Y'all keep on having a good discussion. I've got to get back to answering all that Foot Travel mail!

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 21:14
NotYet, your service still sounds like a scam to me. You want $10,120 up front? Why not make it an even $10,000. What if a hiker drops out at Neels Gap, do you give any of their $10,120 back?

Lone Wolf
06-07-2004, 21:31
Shaddup Ugh! You're whinin like a little girl.

smokymtnsteve
06-07-2004, 21:34
hey UGH don't do business with the guy,,or are you worried that you wan't make it past Neel's.

maybe he is trying to work a deal WOLF

The Old Fhart
06-07-2004, 21:45
UGH-"NotYet, your service still sounds like a scam to me. You want $10,120 up front? Why not make it an even $10,000. What if a hiker drops out at Neels Gap, do you give any of their $10,120 back?"

UGH's comments reminds me of the guy in the bar hitting on a women:
He-"Would you make love to me for one million dollars?"
She-"Sure!"
He-"How about $20?"
She-"No way! What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
He-"We already established that, we're just arguing about the price."

UGH, no disrespect, but are you just arguing about the price? :sun

NotYet
06-07-2004, 22:24
Hi Ugh, I'm back. And, believe it or not, there really is no scam.

If we refunded the money AFTER they took the spot on the trip and the trip had already begun, we would have to cancel the trip for the other hikers. That wouldn't be fair to them (or to us after we had quit our jobs to provide this service!). This is why we definitely recommend Trip Insurance to anyone going on a trip like this. Life's unpredictable...but not everyone is out to steal your money. :)

I had no idea we were so controversial...how exciting! It's after my bedtime, so goodnight.

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 22:28
UGH, no disrespect, but are you just arguing about the price?
It's not just the price, but wanting all $10,000 up front. It's a well known fact that only 10% who start out at Springer make it to Maine, so this could be a calculated attempt to take advantage of novice hikers. If NotYet's outfit has a reasonable refund policy, that might be different.

What about it, NotYet?

steve hiker
06-07-2004, 22:34
If we refunded the money AFTER they took the spot on the trip and the trip had already begun, we would have to cancel the trip for the other hikers.
I highly doubt this. A newbie hiker realizes he got in over his head and bails at Neels Gap, or has a family emergency that can't be ignored, and doesn't get a cent back .....

My original suspicions appear to be confirmed.

Streamweaver
06-07-2004, 22:51
Hire a guide to take you on a once in a life time bear hunt in Alaska ,you hunt for 2 weeks and finally your chance comes ,you see the biggest ugliest bear you ever seen in your life. You aim real careful ,gently squeeze the trigger but the bullet somehow misses that bear by a country mile ,now bears dont live to be that big by being dumb ,so one shot is all you get and he runs like the wind. Thats it hunts over and you go home with your tail between your legs and brace yourself for all the jokes you know youll hear from the guys down at the lodge. Do you think that guide is gonna refund your money just because you flubbed the shot of a lifetime?? I dont think so!! So why should this guy refund the money if the hikers dont make it??

Streamweaver

Jack Tarlin
06-07-2004, 23:17
Anyone who embarks on a thru-hike knows that the odds are against their completing it, and that goes for group slackpackers, too. So before you're too harsh on these folks, keep in mind that nobody takes part in a venture like this unless they choose to do so.....and presumably they know something about their chances of success.

That being said, the home page of this outfit implies that thru-hiking this way increases one's chances of success, and in truth, this may be true: For a lot of different reasons, slackpacking makes easier. In fact, much easier. I have a maiden aunt or two who could probably get to Maine if they didn't have to deal with such onerous and distasteful chores as carrying their own packs, making their own camps, carrying their own water, etc.

But if they're selling folks on the idea that a ten grand slackarama will help their odds in geeting to Maine, it seems to me that there ought to be some provisions for folks who decide early on that the trip is wrong for them. Asking someone who discovers in Hiawassee that they can't hike for 153 days for the full 10,000 bucks seems a little harsh, and as for the argument that someone who quits early scotches the whole trip for everyone else is ridiculous: The home page says groups will be no more than 8 to 10 folks.....if one of 'em quits, bringing the number down to seven, are you telling me they can't continue to provide services for seven folks on 70,000 dollars? Sorry....but if you lose one, all it means is that the company loses a percentage, it doesn't mean they have to abort the full trip.

Of course, this leads to the question of whether or not this is worth ten grand.......the idea of spending $66 a day on a thru-hike is rather obscene to me; my average over the years was more like thirteen dollars a day, but then again I had to put up with the petty indignities of hauling my own stuff and washing my own cookpots.

But finally, as plenty of folks have stated, to each their own. Personally, I think the idea of a pre-planned, orchestrated hike, based primarily on where the roads are and where the support van is, is pretty sad. I'd rather camp closer to mountaintops than parking lots, but what the hell----nobody is compelled to do this, and nobody is compelled to pay for it. And if people want to do this (mainly because they're deluded into thinking this is the ONLY way they can realistically thru-hike), well, what and whom does it hurt?

And as to these arguments over cost.....well, something is worth what someone is willing to pay. Personally, when I read about some Japanese businessman paying 100 million dollars for a third-rate Van Gogh, I laugh. But if he he's happy with the transaction, it's his business. And the same holds true here. I don't think this venture is going to prosper, mainly because I don't think here are that many fools out there willing to pay that much for the privilege of a sherpa-style thru-hike, but then again, fifteen years ago, nobody believed there'd be companies promising rich idiots that for $60,000, their suburban asses could be hauled up Mt. Everest.

Maybe this is an idea whose time has come.

But I doubt it.

Youngblood
06-08-2004, 09:08
I don't see any problem in what they are trying to do. Guided and/or assisted trips have been around for a long time. Believe it or not, that doesn't sound like a whole lot of money for a 5 month adventure. From the outfitters standpoint, he has expenses and his time is worth something. From the participants standpoint, he may feel more comfortable doing it this way, maybe even to the point that it might be the only way they would attempt such an adventure. I think it is free enterprise at its best. I'm a little jealous and think it is great if they can make a few bucks doing something that both they and their clients enjoy doing. I wish them good luck in this venture... and who knows, maybe someday I will I see if they need some help!

Youngblood

rgarling
06-08-2004, 09:40
UGH: "It's not just the price, but wanting all $10,000 up front. It's a well known fact that only 10% who start out at Springer make it to Maine, so this could be a calculated attempt to take advantage of novice hikers. "

If it is a well known fact, then the novice hiker will know too. More importantly, the novice hiker is buying a service that will increase motivation, reduce difficulty and significantly increase the probability of completing the task.

Anyhow, to provide this service for the clients requires significant fixed cost. With a small pool of clients, refunding the money to only one of them, could eat up *all* your profit and likely throw you into a deficit.

My only criticism of their service is the pace seems a little high for a large group(too many miles per day).

Lone Wolf
06-08-2004, 09:57
6 out of 10 marriages end in divorce. It cost a helluva lot more than $10,000.

tlbj6142
06-08-2004, 10:18
6 out of 10 marriages end in divorce. It cost a helluva lot more than $10,000.Good point. My wedding ran almost $20K and that was 10 years ago. Good thing my father-in-law had the money.

Though to this day my wife and I still don't think it was worth it. He once offered us $10K in lue of the wedding. Now, we both agree that would have been a better option (and we wouldn't have had to write those damn Thank-You notes for candle stick holders we'll never use). But, then, my mother-in-law's life long dream of planning a wedding would have never been fullfilled.

Lone Wolf
06-08-2004, 10:22
I wasn't just referring to the cost of the actual wedding. The divorce is BIG bucks. Usually the guy loses everything.

smokymtnsteve
06-08-2004, 10:28
THE WORDS OF EDWARD ABBEY

"Apuleius married a rich widow, then wrote _The Golden Ass_."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

Skeemer
06-08-2004, 11:55
Hike Your Own Hike.

minnesotasmith
06-08-2004, 12:02
If ALL the hikers in a tour group cancel at Neel's Gap, obviously the costs to the agency go down considerably (like way over 50%). Would the hikers then get any money back? Since around 90% of thru-hikers do drop out short of ME, I'll bet that at least 1/4 of these tour groups will run out of hikers before Baxter, if not a LOT sooner. What happens, then, I wonder...

NotYet
06-08-2004, 12:15
Hi everyone! I just want to clarify a few things about our service….

Because we want our clients to succeed, we spend a lot of time communicating with potential clients before we would even consider sending them an application for the thru-hike. We want them to be fully aware of the physical, mental and emotional hardships that a trip like this entails. We definitely make the thru-hiking “completion” statistics a prominent part of this. Even with our support, we believe that the hike will be very challenging.

If a trip is scheduled and a potential client decides that they want to go on this trip, they must fill out an application and receive a pre-trip examination & clearance from their physician. We evaluate the persons experience level very carefully. We have lots of experience working with people in the woods, and we encourage them to set realistic and achievable goals. If we believe that they don’t have enough experience to make an informed decision about going on our trip, we recommend ways that they can gain the experience they need and/or ways that they can work towards meeting their physician’s recommendations. This may mean that we can’t accept them as clients for that particular trip. We do all of this prior to the trip, because we want the hikers to succeed and enjoy their experience.

We by no means think a hike like this is for everyone. Many potential thru-hikers have asked for and received advice from us on how to do a traditional thru-hike. We celebrate all thru-hikers; we are immensely impressed by all the section-hikers who plug-away year after year, section by section, and we have tremendous respect for the trail community.

If anyone has any questions or concerns about Foot Travel, LLC or the supported thru-hike that we offer, feel free to check out the site: www.bighike.com and contact us!

I gotta go; I don’t want to be late for work! But happy trails to you,

NotYet SOBO 2000

Oh, I also need to mention that this trip is not a "guided hike"...all of our guide services are done on trails other than the AT. :)

minnesotasmith
06-08-2004, 12:46
If all the hikers in a group drop out before the NC line, and your costs go down by 75%+, you don't refund one dime of that to the hikers, then.

NotYet
06-08-2004, 13:09
That's a big "IF"!!! Of course we all know that you can play "what if" forever. Instead, we'd rather work with our potential clients to answer any and all of their questions/concerns prior to the hike, AND prior to them paying us any money.

Tim Rich
06-08-2004, 13:30
Greetings,

I think this fee service is just another alternative. It's pricey, and that rubs some (not me) the wrong way. In looking at the cost of this supported hike alternative versus an independent thruhike, though, I think it's important to consider a few things:

1. A typical thru cost per mile (or day) doesn't consider the additional cost and service of a van-supported option. Some AT or IAT (or ECT - your choice) hike journals that have been family supported may speak to the actual cost (not the service) of full-time van support.
2. Someone is cooking two hot meals for you every day for five months, and providing your food during the day as well.
3. The good example of a hunting trip has already been mentioned, but I also think of it in terms of a float trip. Self-guided trips are relatively inexpensive when you do it all yourself, but vendor trips run about $200 per day per person. Trip cancellation insurance is generally the only way to get your money back. During my Grand Canyon float trip several years ago, four in my party were airlifted out. No refunds - we all knew the risks and signed on the dotted line before we started.
4. Another reason for no refunds is that you have to have a critical number for the advertised price to work. Would you haul one person (a stranger, not a friend or relative) up the AT, cook 300 meals for them, and put your life on hold for five months for $10,000? Two people? Three? I wouldn't. What if you had a partner in your enterprise? What would be your critical mass then? Two? Three? If one drops and you refund, do you all go home?
5. And the final, and biggest, factor is that there is a profit motive at work. A profit motive while providing a good service is an honorable pursuit.

Most profit margins significantly increase the cost of service-based enterprises. I change my own oil and save $15 for five minutes work. I put new brake pads on my truck and saved $100 for 45 minutes work, and I'm not good at it. I do most of my home repair and improvements and save a bunch. Because I'm conditioned to know the bare cost of these efforts, it's a shock to my system when I do pay for car repair or home improvement. I submit that as hikers we see the "retail" cost of a supported thru in the same light.

Take Care,

Tim

chomp
06-08-2004, 13:42
If all the hikers in a group drop out before the NC line, and your costs go down by 75%+, you don't refund one dime of that to the hikers, then.
As long as they make the terms of the deal clear, I don't see the problem here. Sounds to me like there are a bunch of jealous people here on the site wishing that they had thought of the idea first.

I totally agree with Jack on this one. I don't think that this idea will take off, but if it does, good for them. If someone is willing to spend $10K to have a plush thru-hike, fine. People with more money than me spend it on much much stupider things than this. I'd rather spend my time near the mountaintops as well, but that isn't for everyone.

Good luck, NotYet, I hope you do well in your endevor.

attroll
06-08-2004, 14:02
I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. They are not distroying the trail by what they are doing. In a way they are promoting low inpack camping if you look at it that way. If there are people out there that are willing to pay this ammount to do a thru-hike then great. It it there choice.

As for making everything perfectly clear ahead of time they seem to be doing that.I have emailed them asking a lot of questions and they replied to me promptly and answered every question that I asked. They warn you about the money and getting insurance in case you do drop out so your insurance will refund you some of the money. They were toatally honest with me when they replied. I respect that.

Maybe this won't catch on. They are taking the chance and the gamble to do this. If it catches on then they have succeded in what they set out to do. If it does not then they have learned a leason.

papa john
06-08-2004, 15:26
Just so everyone knows, they didn't invent the idea. http://www.hike-usa.com/
This has been tried. I saw a group hiking first hand. I hope they do succeed, who knows, I might need the support one of these days!

PJ

MizWaterfall
06-08-2004, 15:30
I finished my thru-hike hike with Not Yet and Macon Tracks and I can assure you that they aren't the type to scam anyone. I agree with whoever said that a bunch of people are probably just jealous because they didn't think of the idea first. Who wouldn't want to be able to make a living by sharing one's love of hiking with others? I'd love to make $80,000 a year by shuttling folks from GA to ME--very preferable to sitting on my butt, making MUCH less money, inside this cubicle I call home 5 days a week while I save $$ for the PCT. As for a thru-hike, I personally wouldn't choose the "luxury hike" route but who's to say someone else wouldn't? And if someone wants that, then I think it's great that Not Yet and Macon Tracks are there to offer it. More power to them and the hikers they assist to "Mt. Katahdia." :D

Mags
06-08-2004, 16:16
Would I pay 10 grand have a supported thru-hike? No. But that is my choice.

If someone wants to pay $10000 for a thru-hike and all the amenities offered by this service, so be it. Looks as if a lot of work is being done by the operators and it looks to be a labor of love where, yes, they make money.

I wish them best of luck in their new endeavor and hope it brings the desired results.

For everyone else: Just go hiking! Enjoy your own hike...and as long as their hike does not impact on yours, who cares? I have yet to understand how people can enjoy a hike when they are paying to attention an other group of people's hikes!

Just my .05 worth

minnesotasmith
06-08-2004, 22:22
"That's a big if!!" (That every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out)

Well, let's do the odds. If 90% don't make it, and there are 8 hikers in a tour group, that's (0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9) = 0.4305, or over 43% of the time that every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out. Not a bad bet, when over 2/5 of the time, the groups break up before the end. Helps the old profit margin, certainly, and as this will not be a rare event, it is undoubtedly factored into the economic calculations. Nice work if you can get it (and not just because it involves the AT)...

MedicineMan
06-08-2004, 23:06
and the meetings they would have concerning how many men would be killed to take a certain hill
and the hospital i used to work for, they would have a meeting with the corp. attorney and figure how many patients they would 'loose' if they cut the nursing staff by a certain percentage...so you think FootTravel is actually playing the odds in a get good money quick scheme?
suddenly i have the fear that a company with such an attitude -not saying they are such a company of course- would find a way so as to make it hard for any to complete the trip, i.e. in small writing if more than 50% of the groups bails then the trip is over, kinda thing?????

Dont laugh, but to me the AT is like good sex, something to draw out a long long time, if I ever walk the whole thing-one way or another- I think I will be sad in a major way, well until I start sectioning the PCT

Alligator
06-09-2004, 07:48
"That's a big if!!" (That every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out)

Well, let's do the odds. If 90% don't make it, and there are 8 hikers in a tour group, that's (0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9) = 0.4305, or over 43% of the time that every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out. Not a bad bet, when over 2/5 of the time, the groups break up before the end. Helps the old profit margin, certainly, and as this will not be a rare event, it is undoubtedly factored into the economic calculations. Nice work if you can get it (and not just because it involves the AT)...

Certainly a correct calculation of the probability, but not the odds. Odds are a ratio of two probabilities, failure vs. success (or vice versa). The odds here are 0.43/0.57~0.75 or 3 to 4 (failure vs. success). Alternatively, the ODDS are 4 to 3 in favor of at least one hiker finishing. Another example, the odds are 3 to 1 against the horse winning. The horse only has a 25% chance of winning.

But let's be a little more fair. The 10% success rate is for a typical thru-hiker who carries their own gear. Since this venture is slightly more "comfortable", I would hazard a guess that the success rate is much better. If we assume a 20% completion rate, then the probabilty of no hikers finishing is .8^8=0.167 or 16.7%, if the success rate is 25%, then it is 0.10 or 10%, etc.

HOWEVER, the number that is of real interest is called the expected value. With a given probability and given number of "experiments" we can calculate how many expected successes we will achieve on average. If I toss a fair coin ten times, I would expect 5 heads. Not every time I make ten tosses, but on average. For this case, the expected number of hikers that will finish is (Probability of success)Xnumber of hikers=expected number of hikers who will finish. Therefore, if the probablity of completion is at least 0.125 or 12.5%, then at least one hiker will be expected to finish. Conservatively, given the assisted nature of the hike, I would expect a completion rate of 25-50%, which means that anywhere from 2-4 hikers in any group of 8 will be expected to finish.

Sounds like they have a new venture. Customer satisfaction will quickly determine their success. While it seems like a lot of money, for some people, it is not. A retiree could afford this amount (house paid off, kids out of school, etc.). Besides, I suspect that almost every hiker out there at some point in their hike has thought "You know, right about now a Sherpa would be real handy (or a llama, or a pack horse, etc)".

NotYet
06-09-2004, 07:55
My understanding from what the ATC has published is that a higher percentage of thru-hikers are finishing their hikes than before...however, this is still a very small percentage (is it around 12% now?).

BUT, I believe the stats for supported hikes go way up. I understand that Warren Doyle has 100% completion on 4 of his 5 expeditions, and his other expedition was also highly successful! I don't know what Pittsburg's results have been, but I know that he was providing a valuable service to his clients, and I've heard really good things about his trip in 2000. Of course, there are also many examples of personal support vans for hikers...but I don't know their stats either. Does anyone know if any statistics have been compiled on "supported thru-hikes"? It would be an interesting project!

We are hoping to create a viable service that can help hikers succeed. We want this venture to be sustainable, which means we are actually striving for 100% completion for Foot Travel thru-hikers. Of course, we may fall short of that, but our goal is to help the hikers who choose to use our services meet their goals.

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 07:59
A lot of the hikers claiming to finish a thru-hike are actually lying. 12% is high.

Frosty
06-09-2004, 09:30
"That's a big if!!" (That every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out)

Well, let's do the odds. If 90% don't make it, and there are 8 hikers in a tour group, that's (0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9)(0.9) = 0.4305, or over 43% of the time that every hiker in a group of 8 will drop out. Not a bad bet, when over 2/5 of the time, the groups break up before the end. Helps the old profit margin, certainly, and as this will not be a rare event, it is undoubtedly factored into the economic calculations. Nice work if you can get it (and not just because it involves the AT)...
Doesn't work that way. You are treating dropping out as though it were a random event and also that 90% of all little sub-groups will drop out.

Pick a group of ten hikers. Say Baltimore Jack, Chomp, Warren Doyle, Lone Wolf, TJ, etc. THey start hiking together. Pretty much a certainty that 9 of these ten won't drop out.

Ditto married couple hiking together. Either both make it or neither does generally. Statistics are for random events. Also, statistics don't work when you take a large sample and try to predict a smaller sample within the orginal group.

My guess is that if someone paid out ten grand, they would be a lot less likely to drop out. NBot just because tehy'd lose the money (though that is part of it), but anyone motivated enough to hike the AT that they are willing to spend the money to begin with is highly motivated.

And what is the best determiner of whether any given hiker will finish the trail? My guess is motivation. Those who WANT to finish are more likely to than those who think it might be "a good idea - what the hell - let's try it." Even if the motivated ones are in less good physical condition, and less experineced.

My opinion only, of course.

Youngblood
06-09-2004, 09:57
I don't see that the 'average' statistics have anything to do with this. A lot of the problems that end thru-hikes are not going to be applicable. Here are just a few examples:

1- Injuries associated with carrying heavy backpacks. That effects stress fractures, falls, blisters, knees, etc.

2- Too many miles too soon. They will have almost daily advise from experienced staff (which wants them to succeed) which they will pay a good deal of attention to.

3- Attitude problems. Again, an experienced staff and a small group of people that they will 'bond with'. They will also have more confidence that they can finish if they desire. They will be less likely to listen/believe some of the negative types (like we seem to get here at times).

4- They have already paid their money and they will want to 'get their moneys worth' out of the trip.

5- I suspect that they will be having a great deal of fun... but there are a lot of variables, like weather, how the various personalities get along, etc.

Youngblood

Skyline
06-09-2004, 10:00
Not sure how and where Foot Travel is marketing their idea, but I bet they won't have much success with folks considering what most of us think of as traditional hiking (and many including me have had no issue with slackpacking when it's been an option--we just don't usually set out to do a whole hike that way nor are anxious to pay for it).

Where they might have success is by marketing to people with special needs, like diabetics and people with other health issues. Or people who want to do a big hike but can't take off from their business or employment for that long because they need to be in daily contact (this kind of supported hike would perhaps allow for that daily contact). An ad in the AARP newsletter might be a good idea, not that all seasoned citizens NEED support but it seems a more likely market to target.

Considering that the typical person who could/would pay for this kind of service is also probably not going to be a speed hiker, it might also be worth considering making this trip a longer duration--shorter daily miles and maybe more zeroes.

Anyway, if it gets a few folks from GA>ME who otherwise wouldn't get there, and they're willing to pony up the bucks, who's it hurting? By walking road to road, they wouldn't even be taking up shelter space but would presumably camp not too far from road crossings--or would go to commercial campgrounds or motels.

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 10:03
They should market on Trailplace.com. I bet Wingy will be a big supporter of this venture. :cool:

MOWGLI
06-09-2004, 10:10
Pick a group of ten hikers. Say Baltimore Jack, Chomp, Warren Doyle, Lone Wolf, TJ, etc. THey start hiking together. Pretty much a certainty that 9 of these ten won't drop out.



I'd pay $10,000 just to be a (deer) fly on the wall to watch this group.

MizWaterfall
06-09-2004, 10:12
Re: statistics, you never know. On June 20, 2000, seven thru-hikers started their hikes at Mt. Katahdin (I was one of them). According to the odds, only 7/10 of a hiker would finish. I'll round that up to 1. :) But we all made it to Springer, all 7 of us. 100% completion rate. So you never know.

BTW, having NotYet as a hiking partner and listening to her pep talks sure made it easier to finish that tough final week in December!!

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 10:15
I'll be at Springer April 1st 2006. Need 9 more. We'll be "The Traveling Dingleberries"

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 10:18
SOBOs have a much higher finishing rate cuz they tend to be tougher, less needy and more experienced.

minnesotasmith
06-09-2004, 11:14
Are these concepts:

1) As Frosty noted, if a husband and wife go together, and one drops out, would not the other often drop out as well, even if they could otherwise complete it?

2) People who would go for a guided tour slackpack thru-hike, I suspect, would have somewhat less likelihood than average to be the "grimly-determined, not getting off the AT for any reason short of amputation of a major limb" sort. I have not yet thru-hiked the AT, but I have in the distant past run an 18-mile race through mountains, and I know what force of will that took. (Worse than moving heavy furniture for 12 hours was; I've done that too.) I plan to do my thru at least partly in winter, because I want it to be tough. Unless some body part goes out on me, I expect to make it, because I can disregard a lot of pain, can eat lousy food for long periods (did on oil rigs and when broke for long periods in the past), and can function in rain (I've fished and run that way) and snow (in MN last 9 years, after all). Take people like me out of the pool for a guided group, and the odds have to go down some.

Likewise, the 18-25-year-olds with the best bodies are not going to go on such a hike (with a tour group for $10K); they're usually too broke to consider it. The old guys with the arthritis, older women with beginning osteoporosis, etc. -- THEY are more likely to be able to afford such a trip, I would expect. Yes, I know that many people receiving Social Security make it to Katahdin; it's got to be will, judgement, intelligence, maturity, etc., that get them there, NOT their above-average bodies. It just seems to me that the older guys (ex-mil, ex-hunting/fishing guides, etc.) that are most likely to make it are least likely to feel they need someone to do their planning for them.

3) I have no idea what the relative AT thru-hike completion rates for men as opposed to women are; of course many of both sexes make it all the way every year. I do know that women are more likely to get sprained ankles, stress fractures, etc., when doing major outdoor stuff than men are (have done lots of reading on women vs. men in the military; this is beyond a doubt). Likewise, what I know of women from 40 or so years on the planet is that they are more likely to like the idea of a guided/supported hike, and are thus probably more likely on a per-capita basis than men are to be a part of such a venture. If women drop out more than men do, and are more likely to join a guided group, that would lower the completion rates below what they otherwise would be. Can anyone shed any light on this thought?

4) Many thrus only loosely belong to groups, right? Well, this guided group idea will involve a modest number (about one infantry squad in size) forced together to no little degree for the duration. They can support each other, yes; they can also drag each other down. Those of you who have completed a thru: imagine if you had been FORCED to share a shelter or campground every night with one of those hikers you've met that just rubbed you the wrong way, all the way to ME, and the only way to escape them would be to quit the Trail? Might make the odds of dropping out go up a bit, yes? So, a tightly-knit group will IMO not behave randomly; it will be more likely, I suspect, to finish relatively completely than a random sample of hikers -- or to not finish at all.

Skyline
06-09-2004, 11:39
Some very good points, minnesotasmith. Shows you've really thought about this with some objectivity.

Alligator
06-09-2004, 12:33
The difficulty in estimating success rate, as mentioned, is determining the population for which the estimate holds. At the broadest level, the population is all hikers attempting to thruhike. Offhand, I do not know all the details for this estimate. I believe that the initial northbound numbers come from Walasi Yi(sp?), adjusted for very early dropouts and I don't know the exact end figure. What's important is that the population is all hikers. We can subset this and say, pre-formed groups of 8 hikers, women over 50, men 18-35, etc. That estimate of success will very likely change, as some groupings will have differect success rates, although it is also possible that the success rate is the same for all groupings, (but I doubt it).

Minnesotasmith is ok in using the past estimate of success rate in the probability statement. It's fair to use a past estimate in this manner, if that's what the estimate has been it's reasonable to assume it may hold in the future. But Frosty is correct in pointing out that it should not apply as it is not an estimate of group success. The estimate of success is not a very good one though, because I have not seen a properly randomized study on completion rates. A better estimate would come from a random sample of some defined population of hikers. Defining the population is key. For instance, hikers starting between Feb-June and finishing all the white blazes in one year. This is a pain in the a$$ experiment because someone needs to sit at Springer and randomly assign hikers to the sample. They'd need to be there for five months. Of course, does this estimate hold from year to year? [There is some evidence that it is close year to year.]

What most folks are saying, is that the rough estimate of completion rate is poor because there are a number of factors influencing this rate which are not accounted for in the 10% figure. A good model (from a random sample) would take into account important factors, which might be age, fitness level, determination, initial funds, pack weight, etc. But again, difficult to get the random sample in a reasonable amount of time.

Probably a better estimate could be obtained from Warren Doyle, as these trips are closer to those proposed here.

minnesotasmith
06-09-2004, 12:52
Now, all I need is a job that will pay me enough that I can afford to thru-hike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Alligator, agreed; Warren Doyle would be a good one to ask. (Just read a book on the AT yesterday at the library that featured him as prominently as anyone else WRT the AT; even the founders/first thru-hikers did not get more lines than he did.)

pvtmorriscsa
06-09-2004, 23:03
To compare this venture or similar ones to Warren Doyle's "expeditions" is unfair, as Warren's extended slackpacking trips are not designed to make money; money paid to Warren by his group covers the group's travel expenses; I assure you that Warren is not getting rich from these trips, nor does he wish to.



This doesn't necessarily mean I approve of Warren's ventures or that I'd recommend them to most people....but in the interest of fairness, Warren should not be lumped with this venture which seems to me to be entirely a commercial enterprise.



Why not? Wouldn't that be a cool job? Being payed to lead hiking tours up the AT? That would be sweet!

An experienced thru hiker, could be paid to lead a hike. While at the same time guiding hikers and helping to insure that more people will enjoy their trip to the AT. If there is a demand for such a service why not profit from it?

I only ask because a lot of retired civil war buffs I have known have taken the test and gotten licensed to give tours of civil war battlefields. Hell they get paid to talk about the civil war, why not get paid to hike?

Of course I am not suggesting some sort of federal licensing. Far from it. I am only making the comparison. Experts “selling” their knowledge, to people that want to pay for it.

manzana
06-10-2004, 16:44
They want a minimum of 5 folks who pay about $10K apiece. So somebody is getting $50K minimum for about 6 months of work, or about $100K per year. If more folks go, the salary goes up. But if the chase guy stayed in motels it would erode his paycheck substantially. These folks seemed very honest when I wrote to them.

manzana in Austin

smokymtnsteve
06-10-2004, 16:51
out of the 50k-100k there would be many expenses. it's really not that much money.

NotYet
06-10-2004, 20:28
I really appreciate all the thought people are putting into this discussion. I just want to mention again, that there would be no "guide" on the trip. Commercial guiding is not currently permitted on the AT in the southern regions, at least not on Forest Service land.

Also, as for expenses. There will be 2 of us supporting the hike full-time, and we will be supporting our clients every single day for 5 months. The expenses for the trip include all meals for 5 months, fuel for the support vehicles, fuel for the stoves, paid lodging while in towns, lots of miscellaneous gear, permits, insurance, licenses, etc. When we set the price for the trip we factored all of this in & 8 hikers was the "break-even point". We will give serious consideration to running the trip if we have at least 5 committed and qualified hikers because we really want to be able to provide this service for people who want it.

Frosty
06-10-2004, 22:34
I'd pay $10,000 just to be a (deer) fly on the wall to watch this group.
Of course, I'm assuming they won't kill each other before they reach FS 42.

I only meant that statistical averages are good for random selections, but as soon as the selection is not longer random, statistics based on random selection no longer apply. (For example, the average man is about 5'11". That doesn't mean that the average of any group of men is 5"11". Think jockeys and prob basketball players. As soon as a subgroup is formed, the overall 5"11" statistic goes out the window.

Actually, there may be a better way than trying to guess the success rate of this venture. Is it their first year in business? If not, just ask them.

steve hiker
06-10-2004, 23:22
Pick a group of ten hikers. Say Baltimore Jack, Chomp, Warren Doyle, Lone Wolf, TJ, etc. THey start hiking together.
Be sure to throw in Wingfoot, Blue Jay, and Old Fhart. Just so things don't get dull around the campfire. :D

Pencil Pusher
06-11-2004, 05:28
Hey NotYet, I think that price sounds really good, if I had that kind of money and less experience. That price seems really reasonable, once you look at all the things going into it. I wish you the best for your business.
I did a climb once where I got to watch several guided groups go up. They sure had it easier, but the success rate of the guided groups was higher as a result. With the exteme odds of the Appalachian Trail, why not tip the odds more in your favor?

Geez, after browsing that website some more, this is a pretty good deal. For the folks still hung up on the price, consider these folks would like to earn a wage for their time and effort. And it can't be much at that, with all the other expenses factored in.

NotYet
06-11-2004, 15:31
Thanks Pencil Pusher. I appreciate your encouragement!

Rain Man
06-11-2004, 16:26
...These folks seemed very honest when I wrote to them.

Same here. I was impressed with their replies to me.

Rain Man

.

The Old Fhart
06-12-2004, 06:46
Jumble Jowls-
Originally Posted by Frosty
Pick a group of ten hikers. Say Baltimore Jack, Chomp, Warren Doyle, Lone Wolf, TJ, etc. THey start hiking together.

Be sure to throw in Wingfoot, Blue Jay, and Old Fhart. Just so things don't get dull around the campfire.

I bet people would pay good money to see us hike together. Maybe we could get $10,000 to hike together. You'd probably be disappointed though. Judging from the track record, I'd guess the completion rate would be 100% .

dje97001
01-14-2005, 11:19
10k is a lot of money that if used in this manner would certainly make your hike more comfortable. $300 is a lot of money too, but if used in the right way can land you a WM sub 2lb sleeping bag, excellent craftmanship and saving you weight, and making your hike more comfortable. Much ultralight (non-homemade) gear tends to be more expensive than "normal" weight gear. Just because you spend more money buying that stuff, saving weight, making your hike easier, doesn't mean your hike wasn't as meaningful.

I haven't thru-hiked yet, but geez... the money that I've spent on my gear is certainly going to be one of the motivations to finish! Can you imagine the pressure that you'd place on yourself if you spent 10 grand? Completion rates might be higher than in the rest of the population... and is that a bad thing? This isn't some exclusive club. Frankly, you should be happy that someone felt the experience was worth that much money. In the end, you would still have a person who hiked for 5 months in the woods... still have a person who learned about themselves and nature... and still have a person whose money would be spent in trail towns.

I second the God Bless America statement from earlier. This is capitalism at its finest.

weary
01-14-2005, 11:40
I really appreciate all the thought people are putting into this discussion. I just want to mention again, that there would be no "guide" on the trip. Commercial guiding is not currently permitted on the AT in the southern regions, at least not on Forest Service land.

Also, as for expenses. There will be 2 of us supporting the hike full-time, and we will be supporting our clients every single day for 5 months. The expenses for the trip include all meals for 5 months, fuel for the support vehicles, fuel for the stoves, paid lodging while in towns, lots of miscellaneous gear, permits, insurance, licenses, etc. When we set the price for the trip we factored all of this in & 8 hikers was the "break-even point". We will give serious consideration to running the trip if we have at least 5 committed and qualified hikers because we really want to be able to provide this service for people who want it.
I understand Warren Doyle manages from time to time to provide similar services, but at a considerably cheaper cost.

Weary

The Hog
01-14-2005, 12:00
Yes, you can get to Mt. Katahdia by hiking the APPALACHINAN Trail! Appalachinan, Katahdia, yadda yadda, yaddia....

Stuart
01-14-2005, 13:39
Different strokes for different folks I guess. To me this really emphasizes that we're all looking for different things in the experience. This whole idea is very much counter to what the AT and backpacking in general represent to me. I see the AT as the hole in the fence and in a sense a world apart from the montetary rat race in which we all seemed to be entrenched. Out there, for me, it's not about money and it's not about maintaining an externally imposed agenda. It is about saying no, at least for a time, to this crazy cycle of accumulation and debt and the ensuing imprisonment that you endure by being sucked into todays consumeristic world and it's about personal independence and freedom, which I'm not sure I could find in an arrangement grounded in dependence. With that said, that is my perspective, I am sure this 10K support deal is just the thing for someone else looking for something different.

LionKing
01-14-2005, 20:06
HAHAHAH!!!


HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHH!!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee!



HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!



Sorry.



man, you can do the trail for far elss then that....even with ehlp and slacking out of hostels aolong the way...hahaha

WHAHAHAHHA


Now, giving the $10,000 to Lone Wolf, that would be money better spent, as you would never ever be thirsty.



ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Beer

SGT Rock
01-14-2005, 20:09
Now that is a good idea! A $10,000 Lone Wolf led Blue Blazed Extravaganza! Sure never to be boring or dry.

minnesotasmith
01-15-2005, 03:18
It's not like it's anywhere near the time of year this company takes hikers out on through-hike attempts, if they're even still in operation. Not that I would use their services, does anyone know for sure if they even still operate?

Ramble~On
01-15-2005, 05:12
Lone Wolf.....do you want a deposit ?????

LionKing
01-15-2005, 14:45
Lone Wolf.....do you want a deposit ?????
This is starting to sound like a really good idea....Think of it...

Blue Blaze Hiker feeds like the Brown Gap thing all the way to Maine!!

1 a week for 6 months --24 to 28 cookouts with beer and music...hell yes! Lets do it!

You could do that on 10,000$

WoooooooooooooooooDoggies!

The Old Fhart
01-15-2005, 18:05
LionKing-"1 a week for 6 months --24 to 28 cookouts with beer and music...hell yes! Lets do it!" Do you think Lone Wolf would let me do 28 "work for stays" like the AMC huts? :)

Ramble~On
01-16-2005, 08:01
Well, in my vision for $10,000 I figured Lone Wolf would hire out a bunch of Sherpa's and I would be carried on a platform while sitting in a Lazyboy....sipping a cold one. That of course is while enroute to that evenings shindig.

lorac
01-16-2005, 11:15
Hmmm... I wonder if for $2000 they'd hike up a 30 rack of newcastle (glass bottles!) to every shelter and pack out the trash the next day for me and hobo joe. look how we is livin on the AT!
:jump
-see you on the trail-

t.b.c. and hobo joe

weary
01-16-2005, 11:39
Well, in my vision for $10,000 I figured Lone Wolf would hire out a bunch of Sherpa's and I would be carried on a platform while sitting in a Lazyboy....sipping a cold one. That of course is while enroute to that evenings shindig.
Sorry. Pack 'animals' aren't allowed on the trail.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots
01-16-2005, 23:21
The AT is a place where infrastructure intrusion should be minimized for the sake of wildness. The Earl Shaffer archetype of a mountain walker seeking nature and the wild Appalachians should be upheld before infrastructure creep. Nightly-supported commercial slacks are infrastructure creep. The Trail interested should be wary of this as part of their Trail awareness and responsibility...


Cell phones are infrastructure. That's why they're banned at Baxter...


The human tendency to make things easier and more supported is hard wired into the human mind. The AT is a concerted effort to combat this tendency of development for the sake of preserving wild mountains and primitiveness. You people would do well to learn what the object of your interest is about...

hikerjohnd
01-17-2005, 00:07
What happened to hike your own hike? If this is how someone wants to experience the trail, let them. If you choose to experience it another way, then good for you.

MedicineMan
01-17-2005, 00:16
look at me currently...all the money in the world or all the gear in the world could not get me up even the smallest of mountains on the AT.
i've thought about this a lot and ultimately think that if a supported hike gets anyone off the couch then it is a good thing- especially if it is someone who has no experience at all in the woods, and when you think about it, the type person who can afford this type of hike is also the type of person who can support the Trail in others ways post hike.
obviously anyone who will afford this type of venture wont miss the money once spent, meaning that if they only complete half the trail maybe it was still money well spent, the the success rate odds may be meaningless to them.
as far as NotYet's company, i have to compliment anyone who makes a living doing anything they love and at least their proffits are not centered in China.

NotYet
01-17-2005, 00:43
The human tendency to make things easier and more supported is hard wired into the human mind. The AT is a concerted effort to combat this tendency of development for the sake of preserving wild mountains and primitiveness. You people would do well to learn what the object of your interest is about...

I realize that this quote seems intended for all of us to ponder, but I feel that I should respond. As the provider of this service, I know what the "object of my interest is..." It's about my love of the trail and my wish to share this trail with others. Different people seek different things as they journey along the trail...and everyone on the trail has his or her own unique experience. I try not to value one person's lessons, experiences, goals or achievements over another person's. I simply want to encourage all hikers (including me) to respect the wilderness and each other, and be good stewards of the trail.

Our objective in creating Foot Travel was to try to make our livelihood doing something we love. To me, starting this company has been similar to venturing forth on my thru-hike. It's an exciting time, filled with unknowns and risks. It's an adventure that has had many surprises, learnings, a few hard falls and much joy and laughter. We started operating in 2003 and the business has been growing little by little. Each goal we've reached has felt like another mile walked. Hopefully, we will be able to continue down this path as we seek our own personal independence and freedom, instead of being forced to live the conventional life that society often expects of us. Today at the SoRUCK I was struck by the words of Sherlock when he said that his thru-hike ruined him from the ordinary...Those words touched the core of who I've become during and since my thru-hike. I am ruined from the ordinary, and I am so grateful for it!

HYOH :)

SGT Rock
01-17-2005, 11:18
On a serious not, how many people have done this so far NotYet? BTW, before everyone starts joking about this again, I am serious, I got a couple of e-mails recently from some people interested in this sort of thing.

soccersoldier13
01-17-2005, 11:56
SGT Rock, that's an excellent point; I bet there are tons of people out there willing to start a service like this. I understand "Hike your own hike," and this is simply my take on things, not "the way" I think hiking should be: NotYet, on your thru-hike, did you enjoy the feeling of being self-sufficient, providing water, shelter, food, etc. for yourself, as much as you enjoyed the aspect of hiking the trail and being in nature? To many people, the backpacking experience is made up of more than the views, wildlife, etc...that's where dayhiking comes in, and providing for yourself at the end of the day becomes just as much fun as everything else. On the other hand, as everyone has pointed out already, the hiking experience differs for each individual, and for those who wish to thru-hike without dealing with providing for themselves, NotYet has done a great job of having just the service they need, and now they can experience the trail for themselves.

Halibut15

Miss Janet
01-17-2005, 13:54
It was nice to meat Not Yet at the Ruck and I wish her the best with this business.
I have started the application process for a special use permit from the USFS. One of the things my research found was that DOZENS of businesses offer forpay, guided hike services on the AT... WITHOUT this permit! Most of the scout, youth, school and other "guided" groups you see on the AT are there without a permit and without proper instruction on how to use the trail. Some of the businesses that the ATC lists as providing this type of service do not have a USFS permit to operate thier business. The guy doing my permit application says that they know it but they do not have the manpower to do anything about it unless they see them.
Most of you have horror stories about unprepared individuals and groups that you see in trouble on the trail. It is almost an every week thing in this area so multiply that by the rest of the trail.
Commercial use of the AT has been going on for years. Now that the Forest Plan has actually opened up more for these businesses you will see more services advertized. The AT will be more protected and cared for by a limited number of services with specific types of permits. The real problem is enforcing these permit requirements for ALL businesses and groups!

Tin Man
01-17-2005, 14:19
To many people, the backpacking experience is made up of more than the views, wildlife, etc...that's where dayhiking comes in, and providing for yourself at the end of the day becomes just as much fun as everything else.

Right on. The guided or supported hike is a long series of day hikes. I started section hiking for 4-5 days because of time constraints. Also, I did not want to worry about re-provisioning. Now I would like to take longer trips, so I would have to re-provision and get a better feel for the thru-hike. I think the trail is a challenge and part of the challenge, and what makes it fun, is supporting yourself. I know; HYOH and leave others to do it their way.

People need to ask themselves how they will feel at the end:
"I hiked the AT with very little help." :clap
-OR-
"I mostly day-hiked the AT between roads and paid someone to support me because I did not know what the heck I was doing and could not be bothered with learning how to be self-sufficient." :-?

Miss Janet
01-17-2005, 14:43
Sorry, sorry

SGT Rock
01-17-2005, 16:03
If you want spell check for IE, thre are some free downloads out there. I like ieSpell

Pencil Pusher
01-17-2005, 17:57
The AT is a place where infrastructure intrusion should be minimized for the sake of wildness. The Earl Shaffer archetype of a mountain walker seeking nature and the wild Appalachians should be upheld before infrastructure creep. Nightly-supported commercial slacks are infrastructure creep. The Trail interested should be wary of this as part of their Trail awareness and responsibility...


Cell phones are infrastructure. That's why they're banned at Baxter...


The human tendency to make things easier and more supported is hard wired into the human mind. The AT is a concerted effort to combat this tendency of development for the sake of preserving wild mountains and primitiveness. You people would do well to learn what the object of your interest is about...
Another wingnut disciple...:welcome

Lone Wolf
01-17-2005, 17:58
I wonder if his sorry ass is moving to Canada with Wingfoot?

NotYet
01-17-2005, 21:03
On a serious not, how many people have done this so far NotYet? BTW, before everyone starts joking about this again, I am serious, I got a couple of e-mails recently from some people interested in this sort of thing.

Thanks for asking, SGT Rock. We've had several very serious inquiries about our supported thru-hike service, but we have not run one of them yet. Due to the number of inquiries we have had, we are considering scheduling a supported thru-hike for either 2006 or 2007. If we get enough serious takers...we'll go for it!

We do offer several other hiking services, and these kept us fairly busy in 2004. Most of our services and trips are custom-designed; so we get to do a wide variety of trips to many different places.

Miss Janet (whose breakfast on Sunday was fantastic!) has made a very good point about the Forest Service permits. In the last two years we have turned away many clients who requested guided hikes on the AT, because that was not allowed at the time. We do carry special use permits for all the areas that we use that require them, and we follow the regulations and standards that the USFS requires. We are currently in the process of obtaining permits to guide on the AT now that they have changed the rules. Hopefully, these permits will help the Forest Service better regulate those that do use the trail for commercial enterprises.


NotYet, on your thru-hike, did you enjoy the feeling of being self-sufficient, providing water, shelter, food, etc. for yourself, as much as you enjoyed the aspect of hiking the trail and being in nature?

Good question...I certainly did! I also loved planning my trip, because I'm that type! We even began formulating the idea for Foot Travel while on our thru-hike. We wanted to be able to continue our adventure by sharing the trail with anyone who desires this different kind of journey (I'd certainly try the service myself if I had that kind of money, because I love day hiking as much as I love backpacking !;) ).

Rocks 'n Roots
01-17-2005, 22:49
Another wingnut disciple...

I take that as a personal offense. The things I said are backed by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, its background, and history. The problem with the AT today is it's full of persons who feel a one line flame to be satisfactory when faced with the real AT and those who back it. That's why I call the internet AT a farce. It induces people to not realize there's more to the AT than chat lists and social clubs...

It's ignorance to not realize what I wrote is backed by the Trail and those who take it seriously. Most people avoid Trail responsibility with "HYOH" when they are forced to think. Some resort to name-calling and ridicule...

ATC is on record as discouraging commercialization of the AT...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-17-2005, 23:19
I try not to value one person's lessons, experiences, goals or achievements over another person's. I simply want to encourage all hikers (including me) to respect the wilderness and each other, and be good stewards of the trail.

I'm curious to hear how vanning people to trailheads and road crossings to awaiting meals and mechanized support either teaches respect for the wilderness or to be a steward of the Trail? Seems to me a good steward would be interested in helping ATC reduce Trail commercialization and intrusion...


On the internet AT you'll find "HYOH" applies to everybody except people who take the Trail seriously...

weary
01-17-2005, 23:46
Another wingnut disciple...:welcome
Pencil, your frequent comments of this kind tell me you have made little effort to understand RnR's message and don't have a clue about Wingfoot.

You, of course, have a perfect right to utter nonsense in these forums. But it would be nice if you could do so without disparaging those who have made a genuine and continuing effort to understand, protect and support the trail.

Weary

NotYet
01-18-2005, 00:16
I'm curious to hear how vanning people to trailheads and road crossings to awaiting meals and mechanized support either teaches respect for the wilderness or to be a steward of the Trail? Seems to me a good steward would be interested in helping ATC reduce Trail commercialization and intrusion...

On the internet AT you'll find "HYOH" applies to everybody except people who take the Trail seriously...


I care deeply for the trail, but I don't try to decide for others what they take seriously and what they don't take seriously. I do know that I personally take the trail seriously, and I also value the opinions of those who are concerned with our intentions and the impact that we may have on the trail. However, I truly believe that what we intend to do on our trips will ultimately have a positive impact on the trail.

As we've all witnessed, there are many hikers who unintentionally do a lot of damage simply because they were not aware. We hope to help in this area. All who choose to hike with Foot Travel will be taught and expected to follow LNT principals.

I also believe that it's possible and quite likely that people who previously had little or no connection to the AT but then have the adventure of their lives on the trail, may very well decide to become more involved after their hike. I know that I will encourage them to do so. They may decide to help out with maintaining, or they may decide to become finacially involved in supporting the ATC and the many trail clubs. It could be that they become more involved in protecting wilderness areas near where they live. Either way, any of those things would help. Also, Foot Travel is committed to donating a portion of its profits to the ATC (once it actually turns a profit :) )

FYI, If anyone posts a question for me concerning this service, let me apologize in advance because I won't be able to respond until Friday night...I'm heading to the woods for the next three nights!!!!! :clap ...it's gonna be cooooooold in that tarp!!!!!

Pencil Pusher
01-18-2005, 01:11
Pencil, your frequent comments of this kind tell me you have made little effort to understand RnR's message and don't have a clue about Wingfoot.

You, of course, have a perfect right to utter nonsense in these forums. But it would be nice if you could do so without disparaging those who have made a genuine and continuing effort to understand, protect and support the trail.

Weary
Oh I understand. Now whether I appreciate is obviously clear. And a due 'thank you' for allowing me the right to my 'utter nonsense' opinions, Weary. RnR, it wasn't meant as a compliment, so you did understand it correctly as a personal insult, fyi.

Jack Tarlin
01-18-2005, 17:39
Rock, sometimes you are too funny for words.

You think that the Internet A.T. is a farce, and that over-use of it keeps people from more spending their "Trail" time more valuably and usefully, yet in only two and a half months here at Whiteblaze, you've become one of the top five posters here. The second week of December, for example, you posted non-stop, something like ten times a day on occasion.

For someone who is attempting to maintain with a straight face that the Internet A.T. is a farcial and silly, and that it it detracts from more important activities, well, gosh, you sure seem to spend an inordinate ammount of your free time here.

For someone who is perpetually whining that people won't answer your posts the way you'd like them to, I suggest that you start by re-reading some of your own, BEFORE you post them.

For YOU of all people to sneer at the Internet is as ridiculous as when you suggested we all start shopping more at Wal-Mart at the precise time you were lecturing us on the evils of surburban sprawl., and what horrible environmentalists we were if we didn't do everything we could to combat
excessive growth and development.

If you were actually sincere about your disdain for the "farce" that is the Internet A.T., then we'd start to see a lot less of you here.

Am I the only one that doubts this is going to happen?

Rocks 'n Roots
01-18-2005, 17:58
I believe some very specific points were totally avoided...

kyerger
01-19-2005, 10:18
Hey wolf...i see by your posts that you will be at springer on 4/1/06. I plan on starting on 4/2/06! How much you charge to carry my pack to?...lol...Just joking. I hope to see every one on the trail. I hear the lodge has a killer buffet on saturday nights. Who else is planning a hike that year?....Its only 14 months away....:banana

illininagel
01-19-2005, 14:23
I see nothing wrong with offering such a service. I would think that there is a market out there for this.

There are certainly people out there who would be interested in thru-hiking and have the money, but maybe just don't have the time to do the research necessary to plan for a successful trip.

For those not familiar with backpacking or the trail, the logistics of it all can be overwhelming. Companies like Backroads (http://www.backroads.com/index_flash.html) charge considerably more for their trips---although they are guided. But, they offer quality service and tremendous convenience for those willing to pay the price for it.

Backroads does a nice job of providing testimonials and details about the experience. Before spending $10,000, people will want to know more about what they are getting. What are the meals like? Where are you housed during town stops? Not to mention the logistics of hiking with so many other people over such great distances!

Anyway, best of luck in your venture. It sounds like an interesting idea.

TJ aka Teej
01-19-2005, 17:13
I believe some very specific points were totally avoided...
You're complaining about avoiding specific points, R&R? Sheeeesh...

( Posted on the Thread "A Message For R&R"
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7082 )



R&R, please respond to these questions asked of you in this thread:

"...just out of curiousity, of the annual Trail Gatherings that Teej has thoughtfully told us about, how many have you attended recently?"

"...what about all those opportunities to meet real people who are members of the Trail Community? Will you consider going to one of them? What about writing about your disappointment with the Trail Community for the ATN? What about making a presentation on your ideas at the ALDHA Gathering?"

"How do you propose this cell phone ban be enforced?"

"...what is the evidence that cell phones are relied upon as a lifesaver, when coverage is sparse along AT and other rural trails?"

"Do you plan on doing more than just whine about it [the ATC] on the Internet?"

"R&R, what are you personally willing to do to encourage the ATC to make such a statement [about banning cell phones]?"
also from that same thread:


In conclusion, may I suggest that if you continue to contribute nothing but keyboard enabled anger to the AT Community you're part of the problem you constantly complain about, and not part of the solution you continue to claim we need.

SavageLlama
01-19-2005, 23:12
Wait, I get cold beer every night of my thru-hike?

Hell, that's worth $10k and then some!

Rocks 'n Roots
01-20-2005, 16:13
That's off-topic "Teej". The questions were asked. They are legitimate to the AT as defined by ATC. The questions went unanswered...

TJ aka Teej
01-20-2005, 18:00
The questions were asked. The questions went unanswered...
Ayup, people who've read your stuff on the at-l and now here on WB know that's all they can expect from you. Your opinions have no depth. After spouting off, you have nothing to back up what you've said, and your only responses are weak 'it's not fair to ask me', 'asking me is off topic', and 'you are all dumb' shallowness. You seem to have nothing but a shallow knowledge of your own thin thoughts - is that why you can't ever defend them?

ToeJam
01-20-2005, 19:00
Ugh :confused: Every thread I go to the last few days it's the same thing!

OK not EVERY - quite a few thoughtful, HELPFUL and sharing posts from other WB members...

And then the rest of "this"... can't this just continue privately via PM or email???

weary
01-20-2005, 22:07
Ugh :confused: Every thread I go to the last few days it's the same thing! OK not EVERY - quite a few thoughtful, HELPFUL and sharing posts from other WB members... And then the rest of "this"... can't this just continue privately via PM or email???
Well, it could. But perhaps not when TJ gets wound up. Though I should confess I've been guilty of similar boring behavior at times.

Weary

A-Train
01-20-2005, 22:30
The 3 of you should meet over coffee or something and work out your problems in person and quit using space on this site :)

weary
01-20-2005, 23:07
The 3 of you should meet over coffee or something and work out your problems in person and quit using space on this site :)
Well, I certainly agree that two out of three of us should!!!

Weary

TJ aka Teej
01-21-2005, 10:52
The 3 of you should meet over coffee I feel R&R needs to have that cuppa with more than just two "dumb" members of the AT "Farce" Community. (See my 'Message for R&R) But anyways, I've invited R&R to come up to Katahdin and share a lean-to with me, and invited him to hiker events that I'll be at. (And some I won't be at, if that's more comfortable for him). Do we know if he drinks coffee? And fwiw, I think Weary's a good person. I sought him out one day at Baxter Park and found him to be very personable. We both have been involved in preserving land, my family's contribution being on a much smaller scale than his. We both want the AT in Maine to be protected by preserving more of the lands around it. We just disagree on the methods and the degree of preservation, I think. If I ever make it to a Farmington MATC meeting, my main reason to go would be to see him again.

Ready to bring the Maxwell House,

weary
01-21-2005, 12:27
We both have been involved in preserving land, my family's contribution being on a much smaller scale than his. We both want the AT in Maine to be protected by preserving more of the lands around it. We just disagree on the methods and the degree of preservation ....,
Well, I think the method of land preservation is pretty straightforward. People have to either donate the land itself or money to buy the land. I've been involved in both. Some valuable land has been donated to our small town land trust. But the land along the trail in Maine is mostly owned now by large investment companies that so far have declined to donate any of their holdings and are unlikely to do so. But they are all willing to sell. All our Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust needs is money -- money to buy land and money to repay a small mortgage we took out to buy critical lands on Saddleback and Mt. Abraham, one of a cluster of high peaks of which Saddleback is but one.

As for the degree of preservation: Certainly the land adjacent to the narrow trail corridor should remain forever wild. The debate involves, how adjacent? AMC purchased 37,000 acres. It has promised to protect land immediately adjacent to the corridor. It wants to develop a variety of facilities away from the trail -- including two or three full service spots somewhat akin to the White Mountain huts, but located in the valleys and away from the AT -- as well as self service campsites, leanto and cabins.

As a participant in the AMC planning process, I am an advocate for minimal development and no development. But as a realist I know that AMC will be a better steward of the land than others who were in the bidding to buy the land and who are actively buying other lands adjacent to the trail. So I also urge AMC to buy more land in the area, recognizing that AMC management will not be ideal -- but far better than that of other likely buyers, with the exception of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.

Sadly, we are losing the war to protect the trail corridor. Plum Creek has just purchased another giant block of land adjacent to the trail north of the new AMC holdings and abutting the trail corridor near Whitecap. AMC had eyed purchasing these lands. I'm not privy to what happened. But I suspect the price was more than AMC could afford or could quickly raise.

REgardless, Plum Creek, which owns more than a million acres in Maine already has proposed the largest development in the history of Maine -- a thousand new housing units on lake shores scattered over 400,000 acres, and two large residential resorts -- complete with golf courses and condominiums on what Maine has always viewed as its wildlands.

Remember, this is the largest unbroken forest in the East, 10 million acres without any municipal government, where fewer than 12,000 people currently live.

Plum Creek development plans encompass just 4 % percent of these 10 million acres. Development on a similar scale by other land investment companies that now own the wildlands would result in more housing units than exist in Maine's three largest population centers, Portland, Lewiston-Auburn, and Bangor, combined.

Sadly, there is no realistic way to stop most of this development from happening. The economic forces are too strong. There is a chance to protect critical portions of the trail corridor, a chance to preserve most of the wildness that has been praised so highly in another thread dealing with favorite trail states.

Among the key players in this protection effort are the Northern Forest Alliance, AMC, the State of Maine's Department of Conservation, The Nature Conservancy, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and, of course, our new Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.

Over the past year I've spent hundred of hours working with most of these groups in planning and developing strategies and arguing that trail protection should be a priority. This week alone I spent four hours Monday and eight hours Wednesday in this effort -- and, incidentally, another two hours last night with our local town land trust.

Yes. We need your help. Our address is MAT Land Trust, PO Box 325, Yarmouth, Maine 04096. Our web site is: www.matlt.org

Weary

NotYet
01-21-2005, 15:38
Backroads does a nice job of providing testimonials and details about the experience. Before spending $10,000, people will want to know more about what they are getting. What are the meals like? Where are you housed during town stops? Not to mention the logistics of hiking with so many other people over such great distances!

Anyway, best of luck in your venture. It sounds like an interesting idea.


Thanks, Illininagel.

You make a very good point when you mention that people need specific information before spending that much money!

On our website, on the "Resources" page there is a pdf article titled "Meals with Foot Travel". This article gives a few examples of meals that would be served on the hike. Also, we would find out any specific food needs or preferences of the hikers well in advance of the trip so that we could plan the meals accordingly.

As far as testimonials, that's a really good idea. We'll check into doing something like that the next time we update our site. Many of our clients have agreed to be references for potential clients who would like more information about Foot Travel.

As far as town stays, we've planned for a variety of styles of lodging...private campgrounds, hotels, hostels, etc. depending upon the location.

We encourage people who are interested in this type of trip to contact us and ask lots of questions. We do the best we can to give thorough and prompt responses to their inquiries...(however, somtimes we are delayed in responding because we are often in the woods for several days at a time. :) )

Rocks 'n Roots
01-21-2005, 17:06
I personally feel mechanized support of hikers is counter to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy's definition and oversight of the AT Project and it's quest to preserve unbroken, primitive wild areas. If there were restrictions against commercial hike support ventures I would vote for them in order to preserve the Trail's wildness. Sorry. The rest is some kind of hikers culture club that doesn't mind what it is infringing on. This is mainly evident by their inability to answer basic valid questions about the AT and their views towards it. You can't "help people understand wilderness and gain an appreciation for it" while you are diminishing it at the same time. The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower. Persons who sell motorized support are only advertizing the need to make the Trail easier and more developed. Whether that development comes in the form of van support or any other kind of device that decreases the Trail's remoteness, it is still development. Infrastructure development. It's effect is to make the Trail less wild and more developed. The message is - defeat wilderness. Organize to make it easier and more motor accessible.

The AT is being beseiged by all kinds of glorified hikers and their groups. These people don't necessarily have any learned appreciation or guided responsibility for the Trail. The AT needs rules to prevent this creep, whether people recognize them or not.

Anyone notice that those who approve never mention ATC definitions of AT wildness?

Jack Tarlin
01-21-2005, 17:22
Rocks:

You are becoming something of a bore.

Just thought you'd wanna know.

And incidentally, hikers who rely on van support and who camp out near their vehicle or spend more of their evenings in town are, in all likelihood, going to impact the Trail LESS that those who camp out every night in the backcountry. There will be LESS wear and tear from these folks at shelters and campsites; they will create fewer campsites in undeveloped places on the Trail; there is less chance of their wastes damaging streams or water sources; fewer risk of fires or other damage; fewer chances for them to accidentally litter or leave a mess. In point of fact, Rocks, hikers who use car support (and are, in effect day-hiking most of the Trail) will most likely have a much smaller impact on the Trail than will those who camp out every night in the woods.

So if you really cared about preserving the beauty of the Trail, Rocks, you'd be encouraging everyone to day-hike with an SUV, and to spend as little time as possible on the actual Trail.

(By the way, Rocks, that last comment, in case you missed it, was a joke).

And now you can write back saying how horrible I am because I ignored specifics of your post.

Wrong again, Rocks. I ignored ALL of it, and I'm probably not alone in doing so. Your jeremiad rantings about how you're the only one who really cares about the Trail and the outdoors is simply getting old, tired, and really boring. (As well as being incredibly arrogant.....some of us actually share your concerns re. the environment, Rocks. We just don't feel the need to bring it up every six minutes, or to insult folks who don't sufficiently agree with us).

The Old Fhart
01-21-2005, 18:26
RnR-“You can't "help people understand wilderness and gain an appreciation for it" while you are diminishing it at the same time.” That statement doesn’t make any sense. Wilderness is the absence of human presence so the Appalachian Trail is, by definition, a violation of wilderness. People using a shuttle service don’t affect the trail in the least, unless they try driving on the trail. :)

What you appear to be saying comes across as elitism, i.e., that everyone has to hike the trail your way for the hike to be valid. I don’t agree. Using your logic about car support you’d also have to start disqualifying any thru-hiker who hitch-hiked into town and certainly get rid of those section hikers. Do you also want to eliminate day hikers, joggers, and sightseers as well? Do you consider ultralite thru-hikers to be cheating? It sounds like you want to set restrictions on how people should hike, which, coincidentally, just happens to be the way you hike. If you want to truly eliminate support vehicles you should walk from your home to the start of the trail and also walk home when you finish. This is just as ridiculous as you suggestions.

I have read the posts by NotYet and I have found them to be thoughtful and reasonable. Would I use the service myself? No way, I’m too cheap and after a few thousand miles I know the way. However, if someone wants to use support vans that is their business and it doesn’t affect me at all. You say: “ The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower. Well, please explain how what a hiker does off the trail affect the validity of hiking the entire trail. The answer is-nothing.

I was just wonder when you say: “ The AT is being beseiged by all kinds of glorified hikers and their groups. Are you talking about yourself?

orangebug
01-21-2005, 18:42
...What you appear to be saying comes across as elitism, i.e., that everyone has to hike the trail your way for the hike to be valid. I don’t agree. ...
I was just wonder when you say: “ The AT is being beseiged by all kinds of glorified hikers and their groups. Are you talking about yourself?I think he is talking about all of those unholy hikers who aren't in his elite religion. You know, real people.

If you don't worship MacKaye (ignoring his writings, BTW) while staying in synch with a rather unique interpretation of the ATC, RnR will continue to scream at your heresy.

I'm still trying to understand his brand of environmental activism while he lives on a barrier island and frequents the regional Mega Wal-Mart. It would be entertaining if it weren't the same hollow "Johnny One Note" chant over several years.

TJ aka Teej
01-21-2005, 19:24
Anyone notice that those who approve never mention ATC definitions of AT wildness?
I've noticed that he who opposes won't tell us the ATC's definition of AT wildness. So here's your chance, R&R. Don't forget to cite your sources.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-21-2005, 20:22
Old Fhart:


If you look up what ATC does they are very active in restricting conflicting uses on the AT. They are also active discouraging commercialization.

If the AT were a place for thinking of reasoning to devalue or depreciate wilderness ethics your post would make sense. However, the AT is most reasonably a place to promote such. I don't see the point you are trying to make? Are you attacking those who try to protect the Trail? You can't argue that motorized support doesn't diminish wildness...

NotYet
01-21-2005, 21:43
This is mainly evident by their inability to answer basic valid questions about the AT and their views towards it. You can't "help people understand wilderness and gain an appreciation for it" while you are diminishing it at the same time. The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower.

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I apologize if it seemed like I didn't address a specific issue that you mentioned with my fairly general response. I hadn't understood your earlier post clearly. Thank you for bringing the issue up for clarification.

First of all, I believe that you can help people understand and gain appreciation for wilderness in many ways. I believe that people who spend all day hiking along the trail can't help but better understand and appreciate the forests through which they walk. I think this experiential understanding and appreciation can be enhanced by building relationships with other hikers, educating hikers about proper LNT techniques and principles, and encouraging hikers to become involved in organizations that have a positive effect on the environment.

Secondly, if we believed that our efforts diminished the wilderness in any way we wouldn't offer this service. We are not in any way advocating more roads, because the roads we would utilize on the trip are already there. These same roads currently serve day hikers, section-hikers, thru-hikers and trail maintainers. And, like them, our clients would use only foot power to venture into and explore the trail.

Thanks again for expressing your concerns about how our service might affect the trail. I hope this post clarifies my views about that specific issue. If there are other questions that I didn't respond to, please let me know so I can attempt to explain my position on them as well. :)

The Old Fhart
01-22-2005, 00:34
RnR, sorry I overestimated your powers of comprehension so let me explain it to you again. Reconsider your statement:
RnR-“You can't "help people understand wilderness and gain an appreciation for it" while you are diminishing it at the same time.” That statement, as I said, coming from you, doesn’t make any sense. If you were truly for wilderness (and understood it yourself), you wouldn’t approve of diminishing that wilderness by intrusions by you as well as others. As posters like Jack have pointed out, the shelters, privies, even the trail itself, are a big intrusion into what you chose to call wilderness. So what you actually mean is that you approve of intrusions, by you, under your rules, but want to deny others their legal right to that same area. A self-contained thru-hiker’s impact will be many times greater than a van supported hiker who will spend very few overnights in the woods. So why don’t you just admit that your objections to assisted hikes are just that-elitism because you feel someone is “getting a free ride” (actually $10,120) instead of falsely claiming they are destroying wilderness.

When you say: “ You can't argue that motorized support doesn't diminish wildness..., well, I just did, although I’m talking about “wilderness”, not “wildness.” How hikers get to the trail and what they do off the trail doesn’t affect the trail in the least. What they do on the trail, like eat, sleep, use privies, does impact the trail so you should be thankful that van supported hikes keep this intrusion to a minimum. Your claim: “The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower isn’t suportable by fact or reason or you’d agree that you should hike from your front door to the start of the trail as I previously stated.

And I got a good laugh out of your: “ Are you attacking those who try to protect the Trail?. Would you like to see a copy of my certificate for 25 years of volunteer service?

Rocks 'n Roots
01-23-2005, 01:31
When you say: “ You can't argue that motorized support doesn't diminish wildness..., well, I just did, although I’m talking about “wilderness”, not “wildness.” How hikers get to the trail and what they do off the trail doesn’t affect the trail in the least. What they do on the trail, like eat, sleep, use privies, does impact the trail so you should be thankful that van supported hikes keep this intrusion to a minimum. Your claim: “The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower isn’t suportable by fact or reason or you’d agree that you should hike from your front door to the start of the trail as I previously stated.

And I got a good laugh out of your: “ Are you attacking those who try to protect the Trail?. Would you like to see a copy of my certificate for 25 years of volunteer service?

"Old Fhart" -


Sorry to see you felt a need to couch that comment in a flame.

If you think rationalizing or equivocating alters the impact of motorized support on AT wildness you're wrong. You simply can't argue that accessing previously remote and quick road crossings in otherwise lengthy stretches of wild AT with motorized support doesn't decrease wilderness. You are simply arguing against fact at that point. Unless you can show me how motorized access either maintains or aids AT wilderness you haven't shown anything.



Your claim: “The AT is a place meant to be hiked into by footpower isn’t suportable by fact or reason or you’d agree that you should hike from your front door to the start of the trail as I previously stated.

This is silly and you can't be taken seriously if you argue something like this. I think this only serves to prove that the AT has a big problem with the people who use it and how they perceive it. ATC makes clear that the AT is a footpower trail and designed to be that way. Anything else is missing the point...



What they do on the trail, like eat, sleep, use privies, does impact the trail so you should be thankful that van supported hikes keep this intrusion to a minimum.

Sounds like a squirrely loophole. By the same logic a hotel on the top of Half Dome would reduce camping impact in Yosemite...

The Old Fhart
01-23-2005, 10:28
TOF-“ What they do on the trail, like eat, sleep, use privies, does impact the trail so you should be thankful that van supported hikes keep this intrusion to a minimum.
RnR-“Sounds like a squirrely loophole. By the same logic a hotel on the top of Half Dome would reduce camping impact in Yosemite...”What an idiotic statement! I said “What they do on the trail, like eat, sleep, use privies, does impact the trail” so anything you can do to keep hikers from camping on the trail lessens the impact-can you understand that? Putting a hotel on the top of Half Dome exponentially increases the impact on the trail. I done the JMT and know the problems on Half Dome. The summit is about 13 acres where you can’t turn over a single rock without seeing where someone used it as a toilet and that is why camping is strictly prohibited there. To lessen the impact in Yosemite you’d require people to stay in the towns of El Portal or Merced. No one has suggested that you would move people from one endangered area to another so I can’t fathom why you would use such a stupid example.

Anyone who has been on the A.T. through the GSM knows you can’t go to any of the toilet areas around the shelters without seeing a sea of white tp on the ground. How does it get there? Almost all of that comes from overnight use of the shelters. If hikers are using van support they aren’t using (and overusing) these overnight facilities.


RnR-“ ATC makes clear that the AT is a footpower trail and designed to be that way. Anything else is missing the point...” Once again you fail to explain how what some one hiker walking the trail is different than another hiker walking the trail. The reason is you can’t because there is no difference. Anyone who has walked the entire trail has (listen up) walked the entire trail. The difference is in what they do when they stop walking. If they stay in towns, etc., they lessen the impact on the trail, if they camp on the trail they have a large impact on that area.

You don’t have any understanding of what really impacts “wilderness” and everything you spout is either nonsense or elitist bs. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t want anyone to hike the trail unless they do it your way? You should also be used to everyone else picking you posts apart by now.

orangebug
01-23-2005, 10:49
He is used to having his posts picked apart, as he doesn't read the responses or learn from any of it. He has convenience-based devotion to wilderness, as he demonstrated with a demand that Federal Wilderness Zones allow chain saws and other prohibited equipment for trail maintenance. He knows something about how FS roads and other motorized trailhead access aids maintainers and the trail.

I'm still awaiting his rationalization of his own impact on wetlands and barrier islands. It will probably be right up there with MacKaye's proposed lumber mills.

The Old Fhart
01-23-2005, 14:02
orangebug-"I'm still awaiting his rationalization of his own impact on wetlands and barrier islands. It will probably be right up there with MacKaye's proposed lumber mills." I saw where you had posted that question before and I too was waiting for RnR's humorous response on that one. RnR posts these bizarre interpretations of the world around him but when asked to explain himself, he can’t do it.

In post #121 where he says: “I believe some very specific points were totally avoided,” or when he uses the word “wildness, he is talking about his own posts! :)

Rocks 'n Roots
01-23-2005, 16:20
Anyone who has been on the A.T. through the GSM knows you can’t go to any of the toilet areas around the shelters without seeing a sea of white tp on the ground. How does it get there? Almost all of that comes from overnight use of the shelters. If hikers are using van support they aren’t using (and overusing) these overnight facilities.

Old Fhart -

You're obviously answering your own questions and avoiding otherwise Trail-valid points I've raised. Your reply is as dishonest and disingenuous and argument as one could possibly make. I mean who do you think you are fooling with this contrived nonsense? The argument that van support aids wilderness by decreasing camping area use is a forced contrivance based merely on the need to avoid addressing the primary question you continue to completely evade. That question was how motorized support impacts planned AT wildness?

The reason ATC discourages commercial enterprises on the Trail is directly because of its concern over its wilderness mission and no other reason. This mission descends directly from MacKaye. Unless you can show how that is wrong I consider your argument ignorant defiance rather than any credible Trail view.

It's obvious you can't directly answer how motorized access conflicts with the AT. The Trail wasn't born yesterday and its designs didn't just suddenly come out of thin air. The main problem with today's Trail users is they think they are the first people to discover the AT and can decide for themselves how they like it.

If we extend your argument to Yosemite we can build roads along the JMT so van outfits can do support along the trail. According to your logic this will improve wilderness because less toilet paper will be seen along the JMT...


You're simply not arguing honestly. Campsite impact is minor compared to the experience people have and how the Trail is viewed. Wise people can see that those who reason against wilderness protection are merely fighting wilderness protection period. They don't like the AT. They need to get around it with irresponsible phony arguments...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-23-2005, 16:38
Once again you fail to explain how what some one hiker walking the trail is different than another hiker walking the trail. The reason is you can’t because there is no difference.
This is just silly sophistry. You are seriously trying to say that there's no difference between a person who packs 2 weeks of supplies and roughs it in the woods and a person who takes a daypack with the expectation of mechanized in-corridor support at day's end?

Anyone with any sense could see you are simply in denial or completely unaware of basic wilderness concepts. You are straight-facedly suggesting that a road crossing with a van, cooked meal, immediate Trail evacuation if necessary, and civilized human support every night, is no different than a hiker who passes a backwoods road in ten seconds and heads further up the trail to plan his evening in nature? And then continue the same for 10 days or more.


Here's another chance for you to "pick my posts apart" Mr Fhart. If you don't care about ATC organized wildness say so directly. Don't waste your time trying to pretend otherwise. This is simply a matter of those who care more about themselves than the AT. The AT was meant to be a 2000 mile corridor, not a road crossing to road crossing one...

The Old Fhart
01-23-2005, 18:11
RnR-“You are seriously trying to say that there's no difference between a person who packs 2 weeks of supplies and roughs it in the woods and a person who takes a daypack with the expectation of mechanized in-corridor support at day's end?”If you tried reading my posts you would see I said there is a definite difference and that the thru-hiker has significantly more of an impact. Everyone else understood that so you can just reread my previous posts to see the reasons (I'll give you a hint-it has to do with overnights on the trail). However, your lack of understanding of thru-hiking is amazing. Please tell us, oh all-knowing one, who “ packs 2 weeks of supplies?.
The AT was meant to be a 2000 mile corridor, not a road crossing to road crossing one...I hope that was meant to be a joke because that is more idiotic that the rest of your posts! If you were to hike the A.T. you would find that, in NH for example, there are over 20 road crossings, NY-about 50, etc. The trail already goes from “road crossing to road crossing.” Do I have to give you the number of road crossings for the entire trail before you get the idea? Anyone using those road crossings for supply or to go to a motel, campground, store etc., is free to do so and it doesn’t disturb the “wilderness” one bit. Quite the contrary, whatever business they can do off the trail means less wear and tear on the trail. Why do you think they give you blue bags when you climb Rainier but not at McDonalds? :D

So let me direct the following at you. It is a very accurate description of your elitist attitude (and a quote from your last post). If you don't care about ATC organized wildness say so directly. Don't waste your time trying to pretend otherwise. This is simply a matter of those who care more about themselves than the AT. You really should think before you post but it would probably take the entertainment value out of your postings. Everyone enjoys having a good laugh at your posts

TJ aka Teej
01-24-2005, 00:12
You're obviously answering your own questions and avoiding ... Your reply is as dishonest and disingenuous and argument as one could possibly make ...who do you think you are fooling with this contrived nonsense? ... a forced contrivance based merely on the need to avoid addressing the primary question you continue to completely evade ... I consider your argument ignorant defiance rather than any credible Trail view ...It's obvious you can't directly answer ... You're simply not arguing honestly ... irresponsible phony arguments...
It's obvious R&R is projecting his own troubles again (dot dot dot)

Rocks 'n Roots
01-25-2005, 17:42
You're not answering my points OF...

The Old Fhart
01-25-2005, 17:53
LOL, RnR! I've answered your points, you just lack the comprehension to realize it. Aren't you used to everyone pointing this fact out to you by now?

Rocks 'n Roots
01-25-2005, 18:08
I took 2 weeks supplies at a stretch. But probably averaged 7-10 days.


Never the less, you are arguing for civilizing the AT with motorized support. ATC is against that. The fact that you either don't realize that or hold it in contempt proves my accusations against a generally clueless AT internet community and its attitudes towards plain and simple AT wilderness protection...


The key to these people is to ask them what ATC wilderness protections they recognize? The flame response or non-answers you get in return tell it all to the Trail-wise. These persons are AT inarticulate, uninformed, and basically in contempt of otherwise accepted Trail understandings. It's obvious they are reacting towards those who criticize rather than what is being criticized. The rest is trash talk...


The AT internet community's reaction to this is to shun wilderness ethics talk. A critical AT component by ATC standards. It's dumb...

The Old Fhart
01-25-2005, 18:28
RnR-"......proves my accusations against a generally clueless AT internet community...."You can't realize how good it makes us feel to know you are the only one who possesses the truth! :D Actually you are the one who is totally clueless and I’ve seen the credentials of those who point out the idiocy of your comments. You are delusional. You can’t quote facts and can’t back up any of your rantings. How about just backing up your statement: "The AT was meant to be a 2000 mile corridor, not a road crossing to road crossing one..." after I pointed out the countless road crossings? How about backing up you statement that camping on the trail is less destructive than not camping on the trail? We once again eagerly await you humorous reply.

rickb
01-25-2005, 19:05
Rocks, sometimes it seems like hikers (thru hikers on the net anyway) would be pleased as punch if there were an icecream truck and cab stand at every road crossing.

I'm not sure that's really the case, though.

That said, I think we were lucky to hike the AT when we did. Not because of the physical trail. While the Whitehouse Landing was certainly in the same spot as it is now, there was something extra special about the 100 Mile Wilderness simply because we knew nothing of it. Has the Wilderness changed? No. But something has.

Walking long stretches between resupply (rather ignorant of where those roads headed off to) made the AT seem more wild. When you resupply once between Springer and Hot Springs, or once between Katahdin and Gorham, it is a different place. Was the trail wilder when people did that? Probably not. Something has changed, even if one can't put a finger on it.

It would be interesting to have a crystal ball and see how much different thru hiking will be in another couple decades. Both in terms of real wildness and simply the spirit of wildness. You ever see Guy Waterman's book on the spirit of wildness?

My guess (worst case scenario) is that thru hikers in 2025 will be greated on the top of Katahdin with Champaign and cigars by the score of young pups who are just preparing thier gear lists today. And that will be seen as great fellowship.

God help them ;-).

Rick B

NotYet
01-25-2005, 20:00
The key to these people is to ask them what ATC wilderness protections they recognize? The flame response or non-answers you get in return tell it all to the Trail-wise. These persons are AT inarticulate, uninformed, and basically in contempt of otherwise accepted Trail understandings. It's obvious they are reacting towards those who criticize rather than what is being criticized. The rest is trash talk...


The AT internet community's reaction to this is to shun wilderness ethics talk. A critical AT component by ATC standards. It's dumb...

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I take your concerns very seriously and I respect that you have strong feelings on this subject. I want to make sure to answer any questions that you may have for me in a direct manner, but I'm not always sure who you are directing your statements and questions to. Are you referring to me and my husband (i.e. Foot Travel, LLC) when you say "these people" and "these persons" in the quote above or are you referring to others with whom you've been discussing various issues on this thread? If the statement is directed toward us, I will gladly and respectfully respond, for I have never flamed or trash talked on the internet.

You also mention "non-answers" to your questions. I truly would like to answer any question you have in a direct way. However, I always try to remember that just because I may disagree with a person's answer does not necessarily mean that the person's response was a non-answer...it usually just means that I disagree with that person on the subject at hand. I must ask you again, is there any question about us or our service that you would like me to try to answer? I really don't won't you to think that I'm trying to avoid your concerns.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-27-2005, 01:59
How about backing up you statement that camping on the trail is less destructive than not camping on the trail? We once again eagerly await you humorous reply.


Old Fhart:


You seem to have trouble recognizing that ANY AT wilderness ethic exists. I suggest you research ATC and what it does.


According to Old Fhart, the John Muir Trail would be made more wild by somehow accessing forest roads and having nightly support. Old Fhart reasons that because this would decrease toilet paper at campsites it is therefore actually a wilderness improver. People who see it according to most normal wilderness standards are "delusional".


The flaw in your logic is your failure to recognize that A) The slackpack people are said to be persons who otherwise might not hike the Trail. Therefore, they are extra persons above normal traffic. These people are outside and above the previous walk-in level of hikers and therefore don't register under campsite impact anyway.

B) You fail to consider the campsite impact at the road crossings. A new impact realized because of this new feature drawing them there. (Support vans).

C) A new possible toilet paper site at road crossings.

D) The worst glaring omission in your logic is your failure to even remotely recognize the impact on the hikers themselves. A van wisking hikers to a motel is a direct impact on wilderness experience.


Of course Old Fhart sees this as a wilderness enhancer that I somehow misconstrued. The rest of what he wrote was a meticulous evasion of the salient points I was making...

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 09:39
"delusional"
That pretty much sums up R&R's notions about the AT. He's so stunned by his own Delusion of Wilderness he refuses to accept the fact that the AT wasn't constructed in a Wilderness, and nowhere along it's modern route does it pass through a Wilderness area. It's very quaint that a few people like R&R are so frightened by the scary scary woods they want to call the local Park a Wilderness to self-justify their fears. R&R, it's time to take your teddy bear out of your backpack. If you want true Wilderness go West, go North, but don't go hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

The Old Fhart
01-27-2005, 10:13
TOF-"How about backing up you statement that camping on the trail is less destructive than not camping on the trail? We once again eagerly await you humorous reply." After posting my above quote, your reply to this is:
RnR- ”These people [slackpackers] are outside and above the previous walk-in level of hikers and therefore don't register under campsite impact anyway.Thank you for admitting that “these people” have LESS of an impact! Did you forget you are trying to argue just the opposite?
RnR-“Old Fhart reasons that because this would decrease toilet paper at campsites it is therefore actually a wilderness improver.” Absolutely! Ever hear of LNT? The toilet paper is only one of the negative impacts of overnight camping. Thanks for pointing out that less on-trail camping makes for a more pristine wilderness!


RnR-“According to Old Fhart, the John Muir Trail would be made more wild by somehow accessing forest roads and having nightly support.”LOL! An absolute and outright lie by the very person who suggested putting a hotel on Half Dome! I had to point out to you that ”camping is strictly prohibited on Half Dome and tourist should stay outside of Yosemite valley to lessen the impact there. Sorry your total ignorance of the JMT matches that of the A.T.. The contact points along the trail are basically RT-120, Red’s Meadow, Edison Lake, JMT ranch, and these are, and always have, been used for supply/entry points. Basically there is a 200-mile stretch without roads so unless you can hike 200 miles per day, nightly support is out (oh-I forgot, you said real hikers carry 20 days worth of food). The pack animals used on sections of the JMT are there legally as well. Do you also want to ban them from the trail because they don’t fit into your warped ideas on legitimate public land use? Oh, you probably think horses are ok because they don’t leave piles of TP! :D


RnR-“The worst glaring omission in your logic is your failure to even remotely recognize the impact on the hikers themselves. A van wisking hikers to a motel is a direct impact on wilderness experience.”Grammatically that would be “the most glaring” but you only further support the argument for supported hikes. A van, taking people away from the trail to a motel, increases the Impact on the motel and lessens the impact on the trail and the hikers who spend a less crowded night at the shelters. Thanks again for pointing that out.

What you consider road crossings the average hiker considers a trailhead. Consider that 60,000 people climb Mt Washington per year. Are your saying that these 60,000 hikers would have less of an impact if they all stayed overnight in the woods rather than stayed in motels at night? I’m just trying to imagine the pile of TP that would create around shelters! :D

orangebug
01-27-2005, 11:36
Okay, slack packers who leave the trail 12 hours daily have a campsite impact at road crossings, don't register under campsite impact anyway, might cause more TP at road crossings, and impact wilderness experience at road crossings - which are hardly wilderness sites.

Amazing.

BTW, what is the impact on destroyed wetlands and barrier islands of retirements homes in Florida? Don't want to discuss a persistant blight on the environment?

rickb
01-27-2005, 11:58
Here are a few rhetorical questions which come to mind:

1. Would and icecream truck/chuck wagon at every trailhead be a good thing? Y/N

2. Would a cab stand at every trailhead be a good thing? Y/N

3. If "no", why not? Neither of these things would effect the wilderness of the the trail.

4. Are trails to the WHite House Landing a good thing? Y/N

5. Would trails to the AMC Camp in Maine be a good thing? Y/N

6. If you answered "no", why not? Those lodges have been ther a long time.

7. Are bigger and more modern shelters alway better Y/N

8. If a coworker told you he was going to sign up for a slackpacking trip would you make sure he had knowldge about more independent alternatives? Y/N

9. If you answered yes to number 6, and a coworker told you he was going to hike the Trail in a traditional way, would you make sure he had knowldege of Warren Doyle's slack packing alternatives or Pittsburgh's, or this new outfits? Y/N

10. If no to number 9, why not?

11. If you had ten billion dollars, would you have a team of medics follow you on the Trail, just out of site carrying a defibrulator?

12. If no to 11, why not.

13. If you have read all the way down to this question, why aren't you doing something more useful ;-).

weary
01-27-2005, 12:44
That pretty much sums up R&R's notions about the AT. He's so stunned by his own Delusion of Wilderness he refuses to accept the fact that the AT wasn't constructed in a Wilderness, and nowhere along it's modern route does it pass through a Wilderness area. It's very quaint that a few people like R&R are so frightened by the scary scary woods they want to call the local Park a Wilderness to self-justify their fears. R&R, it's time to take your teddy bear out of your backpack. If you want true Wilderness go West, go North, but don't go hiking on the Appalachian Trail.
Ah. Teej. No one thinks the trail has been untouched by humans, either now or in the past. But the trail in fact goes through areas designated by Congress as meeting the federal standards for wilderness preservation.

What I, Rick B. and RnR and a few others suggest is that the trail and the trail experience be kept as wild as possible, always recognizing that half the population of the country live within a day's drive away.

Rick says it best when he speaks of the spirit of wildness that is gradually being lost. For instance, those of us who know the so called 100-mile-wilderness, know that it is not truly wilderness. It was a commercial forest, devoted to providing raw materials for the paper mills, and saw mills of the state. Now, except for the few areas partially protected by AMC, the state, The Nature Conservancy and Roxanne Quimby, it is now mostly owned by investment companies, whose only product is maximum profits for their owners. Their ownership inevitably will lead to development right to the narrow AT corridor.

By your logic, TJ, none of this matters. A furious debate is raging in the Maine Chapter, AMC, about the level of development AMC should undertake.
But by your arguments to RnR, you see no reason to restrict AMC development. Why shouldn't AMC do whatever it wants in the 100 miles? Just as hikers can now stop for a beer at the White House Landing, in the future they can stop at AMC for a bed, a shower, and a restaurant meal. Since as you and I know it never was "pure" wilderness, by your logic TJ there is no harm in even more development.

However, if you ever decide that there might be some wildness worth protecting let me suggest you consider a contribution to the only group currently working to protect the 100 miles, the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust. You can find us at: www.matlt.org

Weary

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 15:11
For instance, those of us who know the so called 100-mile-wilderness, know that it is not truly wilderness.
Don't think of it [the 100 Mile Wilderness] as wilderness. But it is as close as the Appalachian Trail gets to wilderness
Did you mean that you wanted less wildness when you typed those words?


A furious debate is raging in the Maine Chapter, AMC, about the level of development AMC should undertake.
Which side of the debate will you be on, Weary? When I argued against the AMC's plans for the 100 Mile, you joined WhiteBlaze to attack me and defend your precious AMC's plans to develop a recreational concession east of Greenville. Now you're claiming to be against those plans? Now you're agreeing with me? That's quite the flip flop. Will you have to give back the award the AMC gave you after you kept your knowledge about their plans from your fellow AMC/Maine members?

NotYet
01-27-2005, 15:11
I'd like to point out that our van won't be at every road crossing...but it will be at approximately one each evening. While scouting out various road crossings, my husband and I have noted that many such places are trashed beyond belief. For what it's worth, we will have trash bags with us, and we intend to spend part of each day working to help clean up these highly impacted areas (plus, we won't leave any TP behind...TP laying around is one of my biggest pet peeves; so I'm bringing rubber gloves! ;) ).

Also, I want to mention that we answer many questions and give encouragement for hikers that want to do a traditional thru-hike. However, just so you're all aware, almost all of our inquiries have come from hikers who already wish to thru-hike the AT...with or without our support. So in reality, they wouldn't be additional hikers on the trail; they would simply be hikers who opted to use this service.

weary
01-27-2005, 15:45
....Which side of the debate will you be on, Weary? When I argued against the AMC's plans for the 100 Mile, you joined WhiteBlaze to attack me and defend your precious AMC's plans to develop a recreational concession east of Greenville. Now you're claiming to be against those plans? Now you're agreeing with me? That's quite the flip flop. Will you have to give back the award the AMC gave you after you kept your knowledge about their plans from your fellow AMC/Maine members?
What I meant by those old words, TJ, is what I meant in my more recent post. All the trail is wilder than the surrounding towns and cities. Some places are more wild than others. But what wildness that exists along the entire trail is precious and deserves protection and augmentation, not the snide cynicism of your RnR comments.

TJ. You never argued against AMC's plans. You argued against the figments of your's or someone's imagination about what those plans entailed. Rather than creating a "Highland Center" at Little Lyford Ponds, as you claimed, AMC has improved the camps dish water disposal system and turned the former owners house into a dining hall. Rather than 200 new luxury beds, the century-old cabins remain, augumented by 14 lower cost bunk beds in what used to be the dining hall.

Rather than pave the woods road between Brownfield and Greenfield, the gravel -- with all it's pot holes and ruts -- remain.

Rather than clearcutting the forest, AMC last summer removed 5,000 or so cords of diseased and dying beech, and has set aside a 10,000 acre no development, no harvesting "ecopreserve."

I had no idea what AMC plans were when you made your wild claims two years ago, but I knew that on their face your claims were absurd -- for economic, if not environmental reasons.

Nor am I claiming any special position today. But the Maine Chapter is debating some of the development options. At the executive committee meeting this month I was accused of being an enemy of Joy Street, mostly because I attached a note to a letter to the editor, pointing out that though the writer was on the opposite side of this question from folks like TJ, he was equally nonsensical.

I see my role in AMC -- as on this list for that matter -- as helping to keep the debate honest.

Weary

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 16:30
I see my role in AMC -- as on this list for that matter -- as helping to keep the debate honest.
I'm sure you do, Weary. It's just too bad it hasn't worked out that way. If you really do intend on turning over a new leaf, I wish you well. Honestly.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-27-2005, 16:41
A van, taking people away from the trail to a motel, increases the Impact on the motel



There are a small percentage of internet members who will never react to organized AT wilderness in any kind of honest or respectful way. These people react negatively to any mention of organized AT wilderness ethics. Forget the fact that ATC has ongoing programs directly aimed at preserving experience level and physical wilderness. I've asked these people to please tell me which ATC wilderness protections and guidelines they recognize, They refuse. Since ATC has real and registered wilderness guidelines, these people are basically at odds with them. They just won't admit it directly as long as they can obfuscate and rationalize. These people really don't like wilderness, but moreso they don't like anyone pointing it out and react in response rather than honestly admitting truths.


If the AT were a place where people were encouraged to group up and attack organized wilderness their input would have a place. However, most honest people understand that the Trail has been organized and directed from the start towards wilderness preservation and experience. If you read the thoughts of these challengers they'll do everything but admit that.

The quote I highlighted above illustrates that this particular poster isn't arguing seriously. He's obviously dodging the questions with ridiculously contrived nonsense.

The simple point stands that the intended ATC wilderness experience is damaged by road crossing van support. Whether brief backcountry road crossings exist there or not.

Old Fhart runs like a shadow from daylight when confronted by the John Muir Trail analogy. If this extremely wild mountain trail were accessed by van support somehow it would destroy the previously existing level of wilderness John Muir preached of and got large mountain wilderness' preserved by. Old Fhart knows that, which is why he avoids it so conspicuously.


Unfortunately the internet AT is full of these semantic purists...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-27-2005, 16:44
I'm sure you do, Weary. It's just too bad it hasn't worked out that way. If you really do intend on turning over a new leaf, I wish you well. Honestly.


TJ, since you consistently appear to be backing off wrong statements made recklessly, I'd appreciate if you would point out where exactly you had the credibility to say the above?

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 16:52
While scouting out various road crossings, my husband and I have noted that many such places are trashed beyond belief. For what it's worth, we will have trash bags with us, and we intend to spend part of each day working to help clean up these highly impacted areasThat's very commendable of you! Thanks. And, although your service isn't something I would participate in, thanks for offering it to hikers. Almost all AT users are day hikers who park themselves at trailheads, so the weak arguement that you are being 'impure' is a bogus one. In my personal opinion all longdistance hikes are supported in some way, through financial aid or mail drops from home, the unselfish love of family, the kindness of strangers, the hard work of trail crews, the historic vision of the Trail's early builders, the selflessness of hostel workers, and even the emotional support of the trail community. If a hiker gets to hike the whole AT because you were one of the many who helped them, well - good for you both!

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 17:06
You're obviously answering your own questions and avoiding ... Your reply is as dishonest and disingenuous and argument as one could possibly make ...who do you think you are fooling with this contrived nonsense? ... a forced contrivance based merely on the need to avoid addressing the primary question you continue to completely evade ... I consider your argument ignorant defiance rather than any credible Trail view ...It's obvious you can't directly answer ... You're simply not arguing honestly ... irresponsible phony arguments...

credibility
You spelt it correctly, R&R. Now you need to look it up (dot dot dot)

DavidNH
01-27-2005, 17:45
OK I just read this article..about the organziation that transports your gear, cooks for you and plans for you.

I have to say...there are limits to the philosophy of hike your own hike. And this is way over the line. This is not a long distance backpack. This is a cushy organized string of day hikes and for rich folks at that. 10,000 dollars???

If some one who does this gets the same patch and certificate that someone who actually backpacks the trail and plans himself and provides forhimeself..then something is very wrong ATC!!

NHHiker

NotYet
01-27-2005, 18:56
If some one who does this gets the same patch and certificate that someone who actually backpacks the trail and plans himself and provides forhimeself..then something is very wrong ATC!!

NHHiker

Personally, I don't know anyone who hikes the trail in order to get a certificate or a rocker for their patch. However, my understanding of the ATC's policy regarding the 2000-miler rocker and certificate is that it's for anyone who has hiked the entire length of the AT, without regard to the sequence, direction, amount of time/speed or whether a pack was carried.

I may be mistaken, but I've always heard that these were never meant to distinguish a thru-hiker/backpacker from anyone else who has managed to walk the whole thing. I know people who have dedicated many years of their lives to completing the trail...some with backpacks, some without...some planning it themselves, some with a buddy or hiking partner who did the planning...

The trail is there for people "To walk, to see and to see what you see", Benton MacKaye. Most people on the trail in a given day are day-hikers. Many others are section-hikers. Almost all of these hikers got to the trail via a vehicle at a road crossing becauase that is how the trail is currently designed. I believe these hikers have just as much right to enjoy the trail as traditional thru-hikers do. Hikers on our trip are simply a blending of a day-hiker (who backpacks some sections) and a thru-hiker that completes the trail in one continuous trip. But this is just how I see it. :-?

weary
01-27-2005, 22:13
TJ, since you consistently appear to be backing off wrong statements made recklessly, I'd appreciate if you would point out where exactly you had the credibility to say the above?
RnR. That's a silly question. Because everyone who has been paying attention knows that TeeJ only rarely deals with facts in these matters. He's just pulling your string, hoping to prolong a debate, in which he can -- and has -- taken both sides.

Weary

TJ aka Teej
01-27-2005, 22:42
everyone who has been paying attention knows that TeeJ only rarely deals with facts in these matters. He's just pulling your string, hoping to prolong a debate, in which he can -- and has -- taken both sides.
Let's see - I opposed the AMC's plans the 100 Mile, and Weary supported them until today's flip flop where Weary now claims he opposes the AMC's plans in the 100 Mile. Weary posts that the AT isn't a wilderness, and then he flip flops and says I'm wrong for posting the AT isn't a wilderness.


I see my role in AMC -- as on this list for that matter -- as helping to keep the debate honest.
That promise didn't last long, Weary.

orangebug
01-28-2005, 00:00
NotYet is correct in his knowledge and opinions regarding the 2000 mile rocker and that anyone who completes the AT can qualify for it, regardless of time and weight carried. Some may not "approve" of his services, but for some, it may be the most likely way they would commit to and complete a long distance hike. There will be those who hike with a committment to avoid hitch hiking, slackpacking, thru-hiking or sectioning. This is a free country, after all....

The ATC will never endorse any commercial support service, as such support may imply liability for any failure of the service to complete their contracts. The marketplace will determine if Pittsburg's, NotYet's and other's services will succeed.

Some seem to assume that the AT was designed only for thru hiking. The original plan, which made some modicum of sense, proposed an opportunity for a week or two vacation for city folk - in other words, section hiking. I think that section hikers will continue to be the life blood of the AT, and the best source of continuing income for support services. I personally plan to do everything I can to make that prediction come true. I look forward to enhancing the AT community in Virginia over the next three years.

weary
01-28-2005, 00:00
Let's see - I opposed the AMC's plans the 100 Mile, and Weary supported them until today's flip flop where Weary now claims he opposes the AMC's plans in the 100 Mile. Weary posts that the AT isn't a wilderness, and then he flip flops and says I'm wrong for posting the AT isn't a wilderness. .
TeeJ: You're fundamentally a blatant liar. You made up a hogwash story about AMC plans two years ago. None of which have come to pass and none of which have even been discussed as likely to happen by the AMC planning committee that has been debating what to do with the land ever since. You know damn well I never supported the crap you posted. It was absurd on its face. Nor did I say you were wrong in saying the AT is not a wilderness, just that the logic you use in arguing with RnR if applied to the management of the trail would destroy what little wildness remains.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
01-28-2005, 00:42
Without naming names or citing any individual directly, I honestly think that some of the folks who post regularly to this Forum really need to start giving some thought to the tone, content, and constant vituperation and nastiness that comprise so many of their posts. The incessant personal, name calling,
and constant sniping, some of which was brought over here to Whiteblaze from other Internet forums, is getting tiresome and old. There are folks here who obviously don't get along, and never will, and never miss the opportunity to jump on certain select other folks, regardless of what the other folks might have said. They simply don't like each other and simply can't let the other person say ANYTHING without a stinging, mean-spirited, and often nasty reply. This constant state of bitterness and anger does not add anything positive to Whiteblaze; on the contrary, the opposite is true. I think it turns off a lot of people, especially folks who are new to the site.

Am I the only one getting tired of this?

It's really a pity because all----well, most---of the folks engaging in this unceasing unpleasantness actually know a great deal about the Trail and have a great deal to offer here.

So how about it, guys: Lots of people will be leaving for the Trail soon. Instead of this endless bitching about who's a better environmentalist, and who knows more about what Benton MacKaye really thought, and who's a better Trail volunteer, and all this other nonsense that I categorically assure you NOBODY gives a damn about---well instead of continuing along this path every day, and sending fifteen repetitive posts to the same thread, how about we ALL use our time and energies in the next few weeks in a more positive fashion: Instead of turning off newcomers to this site, let's instead do everything we can to help them as their departure dates get closer.

Sorry to have to bring this up, but I honestly feel that a lot of this negativism can be turned into something more positive, like helping people who are about to set out on the trip of their lives.

Stop me if I'm wrong, guys, but that's what I thought this website was all about.

Ramble~On
01-28-2005, 06:11
Actually...yes.
I feel that way.
( having just deleted my "too long" response ) I'll leave it to: I agree with Jack.

Happy Trails

MedicineMan
01-28-2005, 06:12
and didnt I see him on TV the other day with Ann Coulter?

Blue Jay
01-28-2005, 07:42
This constant state of bitterness and anger does not add anything positive to Whiteblaze; on the contrary, the opposite is true. I think it turns off a lot of people, especially folks who are new to the site.

Am I the only one getting tired of this?


Actually I like (and many other "folks") like your constant state of bitterness and anger toward Warren. Why does the pot always call the kettle black, anyway?

Blue Jay
01-28-2005, 07:50
Here are a few rhetorical questions which come to mind:

1. Would and icecream truck/chuck wagon at every trailhead be a good thing? Y/N

2. Would a cab stand at every trailhead be a good thing? Y/N

3. If "no", why not? Neither of these things would effect the wilderness of the the trail.

4. Are trails to the WHite House Landing a good thing? Y/N

5. Would trails to the AMC Camp in Maine be a good thing? Y/N

6. If you answered "no", why not? Those lodges have been ther a long time.

7. Are bigger and more modern shelters alway better Y/N

8. If a coworker told you he was going to sign up for a slackpacking trip would you make sure he had knowldge about more independent alternatives? Y/N

9. If you answered yes to number 6, and a coworker told you he was going to hike the Trail in a traditional way, would you make sure he had knowldege of Warren Doyle's slack packing alternatives or Pittsburgh's, or this new outfits? Y/N

10. If no to number 9, why not?

11. If you had ten billion dollars, would you have a team of medics follow you on the Trail, just out of site carrying a defibrulator?

12. If no to 11, why not.

13. If you have read all the way down to this question, why aren't you doing something more useful ;-).

1-5, Yes
7, The word "always" screws that one up
8 and 9, NO
10, HYOH
11, NO
12, I 'd still be cheap as hell
13, I avoid doing anything useful.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-28-2005, 17:08
To stay on-topic, this thread has proven that internet AT members refuse to recognize given AT histories, accurate translations and renderings of its philosophical purpose in regards to wilderness ethic, organized wilderness as planned by the Trail's conceiver, or ATC's purposes in minimizing motorized or commercial intrusion. These things are real and traceable. The internet community refuses to recognize them as shown in this thread.


If you read the responses you will see that not one of those who approves of commercial support services confront ATC level wilderness guidelines and their origins and purpose. They instead use self-serving contrived logic that unanimously avoids the direct point.


OB comes close by at least recognizing ATC's opposition to commercial Trail ventures, but noticeably stays clear of WHY ATC discourages such. The reason is wilderness ethic as descended from MacKaye and his purpose for the Trail. You won't see people disprove this because they eschew AT wilderness ethics collectively. This is justified by the entirely vague term "HYOH".

OB and others say "Go ahead anyway. Even if it is against ATC and the AT." That's what these people want to hear. They don't like what the AT itself is speaking to them...

Jack Tarlin
01-28-2005, 18:12
Geez, Blue Jay.....

"Constant" state of bitterness and anger towards Warren?

Actually, I haven't given him a thought in weeks and weeks.

Most of my recent posts have involved such varied things as answering folks' questions regarding such topics as scheduling, mileage, re-supply, how much cash to carry, good book ideas, wildlife encounters, when to hike in Connecticut, what the weather is like presently in New Hampshire, and all sorts of other stuff that people have had questions about.

To be honest, Blue Jay, I haven't given Warren a thought in quite awhile, so to describe my feelings towards him as constant bitterness and anger is really a silly thing to say, even for you. I actually spend the great part of my time here at Whiteblaze dealing with other more interesting topics, and I'm more concerned with discussing substantive things that actually might benefit other hikers and help them with their travels.

You should maybe try this some time.

orangebug
01-28-2005, 18:34
...OB and others say "Go ahead anyway. Even if it is against ATC and the AT." ...Gee, now you are channeling me? When did I ever say that? When did I wish to hear that? And just how long have you been hearing those pesky voices?

The Old Fhart
01-28-2005, 18:49
orangebug(to RnR)-"Gee, now you are channeling me? When did I ever say that? When did I wish to hear that? And just how long have you been hearing those pesky voices?"I think he heard them in the hotel he wants built on top of Half Dome. (RnR post #143 '"a hotel on the top of Half Dome would reduce camping impact in Yosemite..." :D

weary
01-28-2005, 19:18
I think he heard them in the hotel he wants built on top of Half Dome. (RnR post #143 '"a hotel on the top of Half Dome would reduce camping impact in Yosemite..." :D
Well, old Fhart. Just to keep the debate honest. RnR never said he wants to build a hotel on top of Half Dome." Your claim to the contrary is just another attempt to deliberately disparage a somewhat inarticulate, but wise trail supporter. The entire statement was simple and clear: "Sounds like a squirrely loophole. By the same logic a hotel on the top of Half Dome would reduce camping impact in Yosemite..."

To leave out half the words and claim they imply he wants a hotel "built on top of Half Dome," is quite frankly a deliberate lie on your part, and one reason why it's increasingly impossible these days to have a legitimate debate about core AT matters on WhiteBlaze.

We all properly deplore Wingfoot's excesses. We should recognize our homegrown distortionists are gradually succeeding in doing the same here.

Weary

TJ aka Teej
01-28-2005, 19:23
OB and others say "Go ahead anyway. Even if it is against ATC and the AT."
To stay on topic, when Trailplace's R&R says "I despise anyone who doesn't share my delusions," he's just being honest about his feelings. Perhaps someday, if R&R ever meets any of today's Trail Community, things will change for him.

TJ aka Teej
01-28-2005, 19:38
OF "quotes" R&R and Weary (to keep the debate honest) says it:

is quite frankly a deliberate lie on your part, and one reason why it's increasingly impossible these days to have a legitimate debate about core AT matters on WhiteBlaze.
But when R&R "quotes" OB and others:


...OB and others say "Go ahead anyway. Even if it is against ATC and the AT."
Weary skips away from calling it a "deliberate lie" and instead calls R&R a "wise trail supporter,"

Weary, just to keep the debate honest, please consider how your hypocrisy has made it increasingly impossible these days to have a legitimate debate about core AT matters on WhiteBlaze.

weary
01-28-2005, 19:58
OF "quotes" R&R and Weary (to keep the debate honest) says it:

But when R&R "quotes" OB and others:


Weary skips away from calling it a "deliberate lie" and instead calls R&R a "wise trail supporter,"

Weary, just to keep the debate honest, please consider how your hypocrisy has made it increasingly impossible these days to have a legitimate debate about core AT matters on WhiteBlaze.
Well, I thought RnR gave a pretty fair summary of what OB has claimed again and again in his debate with RnR. Whereas, though we may all be confused from time to time about what RnR is saying, not one of us who has been paying attention truly believes that RnR wants a hotel on the high bluffs of Yosemite and to claim otherwise is a lie.

Weary

The Old Fhart
01-28-2005, 20:00
Well, old Fhart. Just to keep the debate honest....LOL, Weary, sorry you don’t understand humor when you see it. I deliberately included the post # so you could see the entire post and even included an grinning icon to make sure it was understood as humor. But while you are on the subject, Why don’t use your journalistic integrity to chastise RnR for his deliberate lies. For instance, when he says: “According to Old Fhart, the John Muir Trail would be made more wild by somehow accessing forest roads and having nightly support.” when you know I never, ever, said that, or even implied that. Talk about YOUR one sided journalism.

Your post sounds like your “attempt to deliberately disparage a somewhat inarticulate, but wise trail supporter.”-me.
When you say: “We should recognize our homegrown distortionists…” that is what I just did by mentioning you and RnR in the same post..

weary
01-28-2005, 20:59
LOL, Weary, sorry you don’t understand humor when you see it. I deliberately included the post # so you could see the entire post and even included an grinning icon to make sure it was understood as humor. But while you are on the subject, Why don’t use your journalistic integrity to chastise RnR for his deliberate lies. For instance, when he says: “According to Old Fhart, the John Muir Trail would be made more wild by somehow accessing forest roads and having nightly support.” when you know I never, ever, said that, or even implied that. Talk about YOUR one sided journalism.

Your post sounds like your “attempt to deliberately disparage a somewhat inarticulate, but wise trail supporter.”-me.
When you say: “We should recognize our homegrown distortionists…” that is what I just did by mentioning you and RnR in the same post..
One reason I never use those silly icons is that they can have multiple meanings, as did yours. If I misinterpreted yours, I apologize.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
01-29-2005, 13:22
Remember the date, folks, and consider sending out an anouncement to the major press services:

Weary has actually admitted misinterpreting somebody's post, and has actually apologized for and retracted one of his comments here. Now THAT'S something we don't see every day!

Time to go outside and look heavenwards; today must be the day that pigs are flying.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-29-2005, 16:08
And just how long have you been hearing those pesky voices?


People who say such childish things when shown valid and serious AT wilderness imperatives have surrendered their right to be taken seriously. This is trolling and those who do it have lost any credibility. They are simply in contempt of serious AT discussion...


It's clear enough that a certain segment of AT internet members hate what the AT is about at a basic level...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-29-2005, 16:13
“attempt to deliberately disparage a somewhat inarticulate, but wise trail supporter.”-me.



Weary,we all know you're a professional journalist. No need to bash writing style constantly. There are many poorly written members on the internet. I've noticed that the only one Weary continously goes out of his way to comment about is the one who pushes serious Trail discussion. I find this counter to encouraging AT ideology as you yourself have commented...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-29-2005, 16:33
Psychotics build castles in the clouds, RnR lives in them...


Ad hominem personal slanders are usually the sign of a person who realizes he can't answer and has lost the argument. Not that there was ever a serious argument there to begin with. There's poetic justice here, however, since Benton MacKaye conceived the AT in a similar "cloud castle" way. That pipedream is now the material Appalachian Trail. There for all to use while attacking those who support it.


The travesty is that the majority end up agreeing with these obviously crude and uninformed hecklers. Again, the AT Community comes off looking like a group of goofs...

Jack Tarlin
01-29-2005, 17:28
"Group of goofs" Rock?

I can think of one, anyway.

In the past week, you've referred to other posters who don't agree with you as people who are "silly and can't be taken seriously." You've described their reasoning as "squirelly." You called someone "dis-honest and disingenuous"; accused him of writing "ridiculously contrived nonsense,"; and said "You're simply not arguing honestly", all in one post! You referred to someone's comments as "silly sophistry." You told someone "Anyone with any sense could see you are simply in denial." You referred to posters who were were generally cluless"; you accused folks of "meticulous evasion"; you called other folks "trolls".

Yet now, in your funniest post yet, you bemoan and castigate folks who make "ad hominem personal slanders" and attacks. You refer to people who dis-agree with you as "crude and uninformed hecklers" in the same post where you whine about people who make personal atacks.

Rocks, ALL YOU DO HERE is belittle and bitch about people who dis-agree with you, and you do it ad nauseum. Yet you, of all people, tell us that personal attacks and name-calling are the tools of one who has no valid argument.

Geez, do you ever actually READ the stuff you write before you post it? Are you at all remotely aware of the sheer and utter ridiculousness and inconsistencies of so many of your alleged contributions here?

Your latest gift to Whiteblaze is to tell us that calling people names is a mean thing to do that only bad debaters and ignorant people feel compelled to do this.

You then tell us that anyone who disagrees with you is crude and uniformed.
And no doubt, silly, squirelly, did-honest, dis-ingenuous, and in denial, too.

Kind of inconsistent of you, no? I mean, if name-calling and personal attacks are so horrible, you sure seem to spend a lot of your time berating other posters. And if you're that sensitive about your own posts being subject to withering, piercing, and all too justified criticism, well, there's a simple way to let yourself off the hook:

For starters, try posting something that actually makes sense.

A-Train
01-29-2005, 17:30
[QUOTE=Rocks 'n Roots}


The travesty is that the majority end up agreeing with these obviously crude and uninformed hecklers. Again, the AT Community comes off looking like a group of goofs...[/QUOTE]


So why do you spend all day online talking to a bunch of goofs and participating with the internet community that you find some uninteresting and misinformed?

orangebug
01-29-2005, 20:00
People who say such childish things when shown valid and serious AT wilderness imperatives have surrendered their right to be taken seriously. This is trolling and those who do it have lost any credibility. They are simply in contempt of serious AT discussion...

It's clear enough that a certain segment of AT internet members hate what the AT is about at a basic level...Okay, the "voices" comment seems childish, at least to you.

How about explaining your quote of me. I really don't expect you to explain how anyone, including myself, wished to hear that quote. Of course, imagined quotes and mind reading might be related to significant thought processing disturbances.

weary
01-29-2005, 21:37
"Group of goofs" Rock?

I can think of one, anyway.

In the past week, you've referred to other posters who don't agree with you as people who are "silly and can't be taken seriously." You've described their reasoning as "squirelly." You called someone "dis-honest and disingenuous"; accused him of writing "ridiculously contrived nonsense,"; and said "You're simply not arguing honestly", all in one post! You referred to someone's comments as "silly sophistry." You told someone "Anyone with any sense could see you are simply in denial." You referred to posters who were were generally cluless"; you accused folks of "meticulous evasion"; you called other folks "trolls".....
Jack this thread is silly enough without someone who hasn't bothered to pay attention adding to the nonsense. But the "squirelly" comment didn't happen "this past week", but last November. That's why I had to change a message and then apologize, remember. Most of the other comments come in response to people who had attempted to trivialize RnR's comments, a common occurence as those of us who are paying attention, well know.

If anyone is truly interested in the AT and how best to protect what wildness remains along the trail, let me suggest that they drop this thread and start from scratch. It might be possible to have a rational discussion if everyone listens to what is being said, rather than just search for things to distort and ridicule.

Weary

The Old Fhart
01-29-2005, 22:50
Weary(post #199,01-29-05)-“Jack this thread is silly enough without someone who hasn't bothered to pay attention adding to the nonsense. But the "squirelly" comment didn't happen "this past week", but last November.”

RnR (post #143, 01-23-05)-“Sounds like a squirrely loophole.“In the interest of accuracy, the “squirelly” statement was made 6 days ago. Weary, this thread is silly enough without someone who hasn't bothered to pay attention adding to the nonsense. :D (notice the big grin)

Rocks 'n Roots
01-29-2005, 23:27
Jack you are obviously educated and articulate. Therefore you should be asking yourself if your total avoidance of everything I've been writing about the so-called "AT Community" being averse to ATC's wilderness intentions isn't proof of everything I've been contending?


It's all right there in my posts. Do I need to say it slower for the wilderness challenged? Since you're obviously a well-studied person, I suggest you pick up some books or writings about Benton MacKaye and his involvement with the Trail he created. Or does that not conform to the "HYOH" totalitarianism of the "Trail Community"? (Which doesn't require anything but the ***** seen in this thread)


The Trail and its mission haven't changed no matter how many times you point it out. If anything it has become more important. The general Trail Community is devoid of basic AT knowledge, as seen in this thread. However, to put it more accurately, it is devoid of basic respect for the AT...

MedicineMan
01-29-2005, 23:52
Remember when you attack Baltimore Jack you attack many here. He is quite dear to us, a pundit he is and not self glamorized in the least. I challenge any to find one as educated in the entire Appalachian Trail. Period.

Rocks 'n Roots
01-30-2005, 00:23
Medicine Man:


Read what Jack wrote about me. Then ask yourself why a post such as his isn't protested as being an "attack" by anyone - while it contains none of the wilderness topic - while mine is?


The topic here is the AT's stated wilderness ethic and how Trail people view it (or have no idea about it)...

orangebug
01-30-2005, 01:34
... The topic here is the AT's stated wilderness ethic and how Trail people view it (or have no idea about it)...And to think that someone wrote "Guided tour" AT thru-hiking slackpacking (ONLY $10,120) to mislead us about the topic.

BTW, any hope of letting me know about your quote of me? Still haven't remembered me saying it, or anyone wishing to hear it.

MedicineMan
01-30-2005, 02:53
Some of us are just tired of the **** throwing.
Tarlin is a factoid walking encyclopedia of the ACTUAL REAL DIRT TRAIL and most everything connected to it....instead of living the trail via the internet he has lived it on foot.
These constant irrelavent arguments are at best obloquy. The animus ingendered over who is the best argumentarian has become nauseating.
This is why I stick to gear.
Give me facts. Tell me of water supplies, shelter conditions, a garment that will ease the pain in my feet. Don't bore me with opinion. My dad watched a lot of football in his day-a true couch potato he was. Interestingly he watched the games with the sound off.

NotYet
01-30-2005, 14:58
Another 2 cents:

The AT is a trail that winds through what is as close to "wilderness" as we have in the eastern US. I have faith that the people who post here on Whiteblaze have a tremendous respect for this trail, even if everyone does not agree with everyone else about how best to protect and manage it.

The ATC administers and manages this important trail, and in my opinion does a very good job with this difficult task. But the ATC is not The Trail; it is an organization made up of many people with a wide variety of opinions about how the trail should be best managed. I value my membership in the ATC, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything the organization does or says. The ATC has a long history, and it's policies have been tweaked and altered over time. I try to keep an open mind when I hear the arguments of others, and often I discover that I find truth in both the things that I disagree with as well as the things that I believe in...ahhh, paradox makes life so interesting!

This philosophical discussion about "wildness" and "wilderness" should probably have it's own thread. That way, this important topic can be seen and discussed by more people (I imagine that a lot of folks don't want to and/or haven't re-visited this formerly archived thread...with its many, many pages!).

As for this thread...we at Foot Travel do love and respect the trail. We do our best to teach wilderness ethics and proper LNT techniques. And we encourage anyone who has a question, concern or comment about our services to contact us at [email protected]. If you do contact us, however, you'll receive your reply from [email protected].

Anyone for starting that new thread? :sun

NotYet
01-30-2005, 16:09
This philosophical discussion about "wildness" and "wilderness" should probably have it's own thread. That way, this important topic can be seen and discussed by more people...

Oh! It looks like a new thread that will address these issues was already started yesterday..."ATC Trail Guidelines"...Sorry, I didn't see it sooner! :o

Jack Tarlin
01-30-2005, 16:40
Rocks, thanks for the suggestion that I pick up a few books on MacKaye. With all due respect, tho, I think I've probably forgotten more about him than you'll ever know. What I DO know is that every time you're asked directly to back up one of your comments about MacKaye's visions, dreams, and intentions, you assiduously fail to do so. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to spend more time in the Library and less time on the Internet. For a guy who's the self-announced expert on Benton MacKaye, you sure have a problem when it comes to telling us what he actually said or wrote. Could this possibly be because you don't have a clue yourself?

In terms of "the Trail and its Mission", Rocks, I haven't even been discussing the subject, so to announce that this mission hasn't changed regardless of how many times I've talked about it is a pretty foolish thing for you to say, considering I haven't been talking about it at all. I know you don't read your own posts before sending them. Do you really read or comprehend anyone else's?

Thank you for noting that I'm educated, articulate, and a well-studied person. This is perfectly true, and is about the first thing you've said here at Whiteblaze in recent weeks that I can completely agree with.

Finally, Rocks, you asked why I've allegedly avoided everything you've written here.

Well, I haven't. As anyone can see, I've commented on several of your contributions here, primarily in order to point out their deficiencies. When you talk about well known incidents regarding Trail history or accidents, I've asked you several times for corrobortative details. You've never provided them. When you boast of your crusade against sprawl and then gleefully tell us of the many delightful discount items you've found at Wal-Mart, then I've had to comment on your inconsistency, hypocrisy, and hollowness when you berate others for not caring enough about crucial environmental issues.
When you lecture us about what MacKaye originally intended, or what the Trail is really all about, then I have to question the accuracy of your comments. You've been REPEATEDLY asked to back up your comments on MacKaye with letters, documents, and quotes, but you continually fail to do so. Either you're not that familiar with his works and writings, or the "evidence" that you need to back up your comments simply dosn't exist. Lastly, when you whine like an infant that people have resorted to name-calling, then I'll point out that in the last week, this is pretty much ALL you've done here. For God's sake, show some maturity for once.

In short, Rocks, there's a really good reason I "avoid" or at least ignore 99% of what you write here, and I'm amazed you have to question why I do so.

You said yourself that I was educated, articulate, and well-studied.

Therefore, I limit the time I spend arguing with people who insist on saying foolish things. You're simply not worth the trouble.

Finally, you close your remarkable post by stating that the general AT community lacks both knowledge of, and respect for the Trail. This is not only an incredibly insulting thing for you to say, but it also reveal what a ridiculously elevated view you have of yourself and your perceptions.

Earth to Rocks: There are people who know more about the Trail than you. There are people who spend a lot more time on the Trail than you. There are people who care about the Trail as much, if not more than you.

Kindly take a minute and get over yourself. You're not that big a deal, Rocks, and in the Trail Community, you're essentially a non-entity. Funny thing, Rocks: You're forever bewailing how awful the Internet A.T. community is, and how they just don't get it.

Rocks, you should be BLESSING the Internet community----were it not for us, nobody would have ever heard of you.

saimyoji
01-30-2005, 16:57
..........

Mountain Dew
01-31-2005, 02:08
TOUCHDOWWWWWWWWWWWN :banana

MedicineMan
01-31-2005, 06:15
Well said Jack.

Blue Jay
01-31-2005, 07:10
I've got to give you credit Jack, I'm jealous. When you post about anything, it's a Southern Baptist Butt Kissing Convention. All your toadys chime in with the Amen.

MedicineMan
01-31-2005, 07:35
ribit ribit, in my mind ribit ribit, the issue addressed (by me) ribit ribit ribit, is the constant bickering...and those who are only here ribit ribit ribit ribit to joust.....so you're slamming jack through me ribit ribit, and present just another joust. I'm not impressed.
Tarlin in my estimation has always attempted first to present facts, or in his case hard earned trail hardened opinion, and secondly and only after diatribe to defend his position. RIBIT RIBIT RIBIT......
I dont care who is right or wrong in most of the fluff here , what's it matter in the long run. I do care about the facts and who can you trust to deliver them.

Lone Wolf
01-31-2005, 07:57
Toads croak, frogs ribbit and blue jays chirp. :)

rickb
01-31-2005, 11:55
I'm not up to the task of providing any real wisdom regarding Jack's post, or why some of these threads take the turns they do, but I found some quotes that to my feeble mind somehow apply to this whole thread, and all of us who have contributed to it:

_____________________________________________



The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it.
Voltaire
Reason


Anyone who seeks to destroy the passions instead of controlling them is trying to play the angel.
Voltaire
Passion


Let us work without theorizing, 'Tis the only way to make life endurable.
Voltaire
Theory


Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others, to persecute those who do reason.
Voltaire
Reason



Woe to the makers of literal translations, who by rendering every word weaken the meaning! It is indeed by so doing that we can say the letter kills and the spirit gives life.
Voltaire
Translation


A witty saying proves nothing.
Voltaire
Speech


Judge a person by their questions, rather than their answers.
Voltaire
Questions

He must be very ignorant for he answers every question he is asked.
Voltaire
Questions


We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies it is the first law of nature.
Voltaire
Faults


And my favorite......

A long dispute means that both parties are wrong
Voltaire
Argument

Rocks 'n Roots
01-31-2005, 15:57
I'll confess I read about half of what Jack wrote and stopped.


This is very simple. If you've read about MacKaye yet don't bother to quote him you are negligent in your offerings. Jack seems more interested in focusing on me than he does on the topic. If anyone believes that he is full of knowledge but not wasting it on me I suggest they see his dodges for what they are. "Touchdown"? Hardly. I hope people who don't add anything to the topic who then come in with a one-word entry don't think they are actually saying or standing for anything but attacking those who promote AT knowledge. That's all they are doing.


Well, the usual path has occurred with this thread. Those who hate AT advocacy have managed to swing it into a personal attack mode where they do better. Don't be fooled that this is anything other than a way to shut down the subject as I have pointed out about the Trail Community. If Jack had any worth while knowledge of MacKaye he would show it. His attacking me instead of discussing it is obvious for what it is. Applauded, of course, by a wordless majority who have now found the excuse they were looking for to avoid the topic. That topic was, of course, the AT and what is most important about it...

Rocks 'n Roots
01-31-2005, 16:12
But the ATC is not The Trail; it is an organization made up of many people with a wide variety of opinions about how the trail should be best managed. I value my membership in the ATC, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything the organization does or says. The ATC has a long history, and it's policies have been tweaked and altered over time. I try to keep an open mind when I hear the arguments of others, and often I discover that I find truth in both the things that I disagree with as well as the things that I believe in...ahhh, paradox makes life so interesting!


I also share "NotYet's" opinion about not necessarily agreeing with everything ATC does. I sometimes wish they would be more direct and specific about what the AT is and how people should view it. They should state right out that the Trail's objective is wilderness experience and protecting it rather than beating around the bush with diplomatic descriptions open to the misguided challenges we've seen. When it comes to recent changes caused by increased use and popularity they should take measures to control those impacts on their AT goals.


I can't help but ask "NotYet" how this disagreement with ATC's guidelines differs from trying to decrease ATC's wilderness ethic? When my use of the AT conflicts with it's written purpose - well then challenge the purpose. Wilderness, well that's a impediment to my Trail wants...


Isn't that what is being said here?

Read the posts in this thread and ask yourself honestly if it can be accurately said that the majority of AT internet users are more active in criticizing and downplaying the AT's wilderness ethic than they are supporting it?

Lone Wolf
01-31-2005, 16:12
The topic of this thread, of course, which started 8 months ago, is about supported hikes on the AT. Not your bull**** agenda.

Jack Tarlin
01-31-2005, 16:35
Well said, Wolf.

And Rocks, you criticize what I've written while, admitting you didn't finish my post. That really puts you in a great position to comment. Whoops. I'd forgotten. You habitually comment on peoples thoughts and writings when you obviously haven't read them. I've long suspected that in addition to having respect for nobody's opinions but your own, that you don't even bother reading what other folks have to say. Anyway, while I've long suspected this was the case, thanks for finally confirming it to us.

At least this clears up the mystery as to why so many of your posts make little sense and have little relation to the topics at hand---after all, how can you follow a dialogue or discussion when you don't bother to read what other folks have been saying?

Perhaps you'd be a bit more hesitant in your constant criticisms of other peoples' thoughts and sentiments if you actually took the time to discover what they're saying. But to take issue with a comment here while admitting that you didn't actually bother to read it only makes you even more ridiculous that you already are.

I was tempted to withdraw the "horse's ass" comment. You're not only a horse's ass, Rocks, but you're a lazy one, too.

You should read more, think more, consider more. And talk less.

God gave you two ears, Rocks, and only one mouth. I think he was trying to make a point about how you should use them.

orangebug
01-31-2005, 16:37
Jack, at least he didn't quote things you never said. Maybe that is an improvement.

Prolly not.

The Old Fhart
01-31-2005, 17:52
Lumber operations? fire lookout towers on every mountain? work camps? entire communities? farming? schools? field courses?

Who would suggest putting all these civilized intrusions right on the A.T.? The answer is, drum roll please-Benton MacKaye!!! The following is an exact quote that is very long (so RnR can’t say it was taken out of context). There is also a prize for the person who guesses the correct number of times the word “wilderness” appears in the text. I’ll give you a hint, it is less than one. There will be a second prize for the person who guesses the correct number of times the word “wildness” appears in the text. I’ll give you another hint, it is less than one. Poor Rnr, now he’ll have to say Benton wasn’t forceful enough and that he really is the only one who knows what MacKaye meant. Oh, maybe RnR didn't read anything MacKaye wrote beyond the title of the essay. :D

If you want to see the entire article, click here. (http://www.fred.net/kathy/at/mackaye.html)
(FROM: An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning- the words of Benton MacKaye, 1921)


There are four chief features of the Appalachian project:
1.The Trail --
The beginnings of an Appalachian trail already exist. They have been established for several years -- in various localities along the line. Specially good work in trail building has been accomplished by the Appalachian Mountain Club in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and by the Green Mountain Club in Vermont. The latter association has already built the "Long Trail" for 210 miles thorough the Green Mountains -- four fifths of the distance from the Massachusetts line to the Canadian. Here is a project that will logically be extended. What the Green Mountains are to Vermont the Appalachians are to eastern United States. What is suggested, therefore, is a "long trail" over the full length of the Appalachian skyline, from the highest peak in the north to the highest peak in the south -- from Mt. Washington to Mt. Mitchell.
The trail should be divided into sections, each consisting preferably of the portion lying in a given State, or subdivision thereof. Each section should be in the immediate charge of a local group of people. Difficulties might arise over the use of private property -- especially that amid agricultural lands on the crossovers between ranges. It might be sometimes necessary to obtain a State franchise for the use of rights of way. These matters could readily be adjusted, provided there is sufficient local public interest in the project as a whole. The various sections should be under some sort of general federated control, but no suggestions regarding this form are made in this article.
Not all of the trail within a section could, of course, be built all at once. It would be a matter of several years. As far as possible the work undertaken for any one season should complete some definite usable link -- as up or across one peak. Once completed it should be immediately opened for local use and not wait on the completion of other portions. Each portion built should, of course, be rigorously maintained and not allowed to revert to disuse. A trail is as serviceable as its poorest link.
The trail could be made, at each stage of its construction, of immediate strategic value in preventing and fighting forest fires. Lookout stations could be located at intervals along the way. A forest fire service could be organized in each section which should tie in with the services with the services of the Federal and State Governments. The trail would immediately become a battle line against fire.
A suggestion for the location of the trail and its main branches is shown on the accompanying map.
2. Shelter Camps --
These are the usual accompaniments of the trails which have been built in the White and Green Mountains. They are the trail's equipment for use. They should be located at convenient distances so as to allow a comfortable day's walk between each. They should be equipped always for sleeping and certain of them for serving meals -- after the function of the Swiss chalets. Strict regulation is required to assure that equipment is used and not abused. As far as possible the blazing and constructing of the trail and building of camps should be done by volunteer workers. For volunteer "work" is really "play." The spirit of cooperation, as usual in such enterprises, should be stimulated throughout. The enterprise should, of course, be conducted without profit. The trail must be well guarded -- against the yegg-man and against the profiteer.
3. Community Groups --
These would grow naturally out of the shelter camps and inns. Each would consist of a little community on or near the trail (perhaps on a neighboring lake) where people could live in private domiciles. Such a community might occupy a substantial area -- perhaps a hundred acres or more. This should be bought and owned as a part of the project. No separate lots should be sold therefrom. Each camp should be a self-owning community and not a real-estate venture. The use of the separate domiciles, like all other features of the project, should be available without profit.
These community camps should be carefully planned in advance. They should not be allowed to become too populous and thereby defat the very purpose for which they are created. Greater numbers should be accommodated by more communities, not larger ones. There is room, without crowding, in the Appalachian region for a very large camping population. The location of these community camps would form a main part of the regional planning and architecture.
These communities would be used for various kinds of non- industrial activity. They might eventually be organized for special purposes -- for recreation, for recuperation and for study. Summer schools or seasonal field courses could be established and scientific travel courses organized and accommodated in the different communities along the trail. The community camp should become something more thana mere "playground": it should stimulate every line of outdoor non-industrial endeavor.
4. Food and Farm Camps--
These might not be organized at first. They would come as a later development. The farm camp is the natural supplement of the community camp. Here is the same spirit of cooperation and well ordered action the food and crops consumed in the outdoor living would as far as practically be sown and harvested.
Food and farm camps could be established as special communities in adjoining valleys. Or they might be combined with the community camps with the inclusion of surrounding farm lands. Their development could provide tangible opportunity for working out by actual experiment a fundamental matter in the problem of living. It would provide one definite avenue of experiment in getting "back to the land." It would provide an opportunity for those anxious to settle down in the country: it would open up a possible source for new, and needed, employment. Communities of this type ar illustrated by the Hudson Guild Farm in New Jersey.
Fuelwood, logs, and lumber are other basic needs of the camps and communities along the trail. These also might be grown and forested as part of the camp activity, rather than bought in the lumber market. The nucleus of such an enterprise has already been started at Camp Tamiment, Pennsylvania, on a lake not far from the route of the proposed Appalachian trail. The camp has been established by a labor group in New York City. They have erected a sawmill on their tract of 2000 acres and have built the bungalows of their community from their own timber.
Farm camps might ultimately be supplemented by permanent forest camps through the acquisition (or lease) of wood and timber tracts. These of course should be handled under a system of forestry so as to have a continuously growing crop of material. The object sought might be accomplished through long term timber sale contracts with the Federal Government on some of the Appalachian National Forests. Here would be another opportunity for permanent, steady, healthy employment in the open.

Oh, and he actually wrote more as well.
Finally these would be new clues to constructive solutions. The organization of the cooperative camping life would tend to draw people out of the cities. Coming as visitors they would be loath to return. They would become desirous of settling down in the country - to work in the open as well as play. The various camps would require food. Why not raise food, as well as consume it, on the cooperative plan? Food and farm camps should come about as a natural sequence. Timber also is required. Permanent small scale operations should be encouraged in the various Appalachian National Forests. The government now claims this as a part of its forest policy. The camping life would stimulate forestry as well as a better agriculture. Employment in both would tend to become enlarged.

Ramble~On
01-31-2005, 18:06
Out of 221 posts to this thread.....how many are on subject ?
This thread...like so many others on this site seems to be full of back and forth BS.

NotYet, Kudos to you and your service....It's not for me and I won't be a client.
I would be very interested to hear if you ever run a guided trip. Good Luck with your business.

rickb
01-31-2005, 18:09
Corine Smith did a nice review on the Larry Anderson biography, I think.

Do the scholars on this list think she missed something when she observed that Mackaye "spent the majority of his life fighting to keep those places "sound-proof as well as sight-proof" from the intrusion of contemporary civilization."

I stole a copy from Amazon.com and pasted it below.

_________


Reviewer: Corinne H. Smith (Athol, MA USA)

Perhaps you're familiar with the name Benton MacKaye (1879-1975); at the very least, you've heard of the Appalachian Trail. You might see the title of this book and say, "Oh, OK, he was the guy who thought up the idea for a footpath from Maine to Georgia. Big deal. I've never stepped on it, so why should I care about him?" Well, without Benton MacKaye, we probably wouldn't have the Trail. We might not have a Wilderness Society, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the National Trail Systems Act of 1968, or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We might not have Shenandoah National Park in Virginia or the Great Smoky Mountains National Park straddling the Tennessee-North Carolina border. We could instead have just interstate highways crowning the entire length of the eastern mountain range. We could conceivably have uninterrupted suburbia from the Atlantic coastline to the Midwest, with little consideration given to the mountains or any natural area in between. Benton MacKaye might very well be one of the most influential 20th-century American environmentalists you've never heard of.
A New Englander with a Harvard graduate degree in forestry, MacKaye spent most of his professional life taking a variety of short-term government or association jobs that dealt with conservation issues. Eventually he carved a niche for himself as an outspoken regional planner. He was adept at writing articles and proposing legislation that included catchy words or concepts: geotechnics, new exploration, townless highways, highwayless towns, watershed democracies, wildland belts, and habitability. For MacKaye was at heart a boy who loved to wander through the natural landscape of central Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. In the early 1900s, he was already worried about increasing numbers of motorists invading those wild spaces, particularly into the region's mountainous areas. He spent the majority of his life fighting to keep those places "sound-proof as well as sight-proof" from the intrusion of contemporary civilization. In some ways, he was the Thoreau of his day.

The formal publication of "The Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning" (included here as an appendix) came to fruition in 1921, and it laid the foundation for the rest of his articles and essays. We who consider ourselves environmentalists today find his words still striking an inner chord. MacKaye wrote in the 1950s: "Verily, the first and simplest rule on earth: Give back to the earth that which we take from her. Return the good we have borrowed; in short, pay our ecological bills. Pay them in dirt, not dollars. It's the only currency the good earth accepts. Too long have we lived on dollar ecology." (p. 336) Yes, Mr. MacKaye, yes. Let's shout that one from the mountaintops, if we can still find them.

Anderson is admirably neutral in presenting the facts and interpreting MacKaye's connections with and influences on more "famous" individuals like Lewis Mumford, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, and Olaus Murie. That must have been a tough job indeed, since the author obviously spent a huge amount of time with his subject. The resulting details are valuable to have compiled into one volume but might limit readership to scholars of the AT or of the environmental movement. With every turn of a page, though, his chronicle of MacKaye's endeavors brings home a basic truth that still holds today: that every environmental debate is a political one. We can be either encouraged or chagrined by that knowledge.

rickb
01-31-2005, 18:14
Edit: Deleted duplicate post.

TJ aka Teej
01-31-2005, 18:58
There is also a prize for the person who guesses the correct number of times the word “wilderness” appears in the text.A prize! Woo Hoo!


Benton MacKaye uses the word "wilderness" once in his proposal for "An Appalachian Trail: A Project for Regional Planning". He doesn't use the word "preservation" at all. "Trail" is used 33 times, "development" eight, "employment" nine, and "recreation" seven.One of the main reasons for MacKaye's non-use of 'wilderness' was that the proposed route lay mostly over land that had been farmed, logged, worked, and inhabited by a non-Native population for many generations.
The history of the Shenandoah, the Blue Ridge, and the Smoky Mountains gives good insight into who and what were in the mountains, and why they were far from 'wilderness.'

Jack Tarlin
01-31-2005, 19:33
O.F.---

Thanks for the genuine MacKaye quotes. I'm glad someone finally supplied some, as Rocks was either unwilling or unable to do so.

Regarding the folks hoping to get this thread back to its original subject, I agree with them.

If one wants to do the Trail with car support, that's their privilege, and their business. If one wants to slackpack part, but not all of the Trail, that is also one's personal decision. If one wants to do the Trail without ever getting in a car, fine.

Something like seven thousand folks have hiked the entire A.T., and probably no two have done it the same way. Some carry 60 pounds. Some carry 16.
Some take four months. Some take eight. Some go North, some go South, some flip-flop. Some start in the spring. Some hike thru the entire winter. Some wear lug-soled boots. Some wear sandals. A few go barefoot.

The point is that it's all up to the individual to decide how they want to do the hike, how they don't want to, and what they expect to get out of the experience. And how they choose to do it is ultimately THEIR affair, and nobody else's.

If someone wishes to hike the Trail primarily as a day-hiker, with extensive vehicle support services that they're willing to pay for, well that is also their business. Note to folks who find this practiceobjectionable: This is not your concern.

In my experience, people who spend too much time dwelling on other people's hiking and other people's travel, are probably neglecting their own.

Instead of expending so much energy debating, considering, and criticizing how other folks are hiking the A.T., perhaps some of the posters here need to get away from the computer and do some hiking of their own.

NotYet
01-31-2005, 21:22
I can't help but ask "NotYet" how this disagreement with ATC's guidelines differs from trying to decrease ATC's wilderness ethic? When my use of the AT conflicts with it's written purpose - well then challenge the purpose. Wilderness, well that's a impediment to my Trail wants...


Isn't that what is being said here?

Read the posts in this thread and ask yourself honestly if it can be accurately said that the majority of AT internet users are more active in criticizing and downplaying the AT's wilderness ethic than they are supporting it?

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

Thank you for your question. In an organization as large as the ATC, most memers will disagree with one thing or another. In regards to the service that we offer, however, I don't think that I do disagree with the ATC guidelines. On their website, they discuss shuttles both non-commercial and commercial, and they also describe guidelines for Special Use Permits...I haven't found where we violate any of what they have published on their site.

In terms of the AT's wilderness ethic, I haven't been able to find this terminology on the ATC's site, so I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this phrase. However, I do think that the lands that the trail crosses should be protected and allowed to continue to return to a more wild-like state. I do not challenge the purpose of the trail. It's quite likely, however, that people can see the same words and understand them in different ways.

When I am in the woods, I appreciate the wildness that is around me. When I cross a road, my experience is not suddenly ruined. I know that the reality is that the trail crosses many, many roads. I don't accept the idea that as a hiker, I must be protected from this reality. I do, however, think that the ATC's goal of reducing the number of road crossings is good and should continue to be pursued.

I am having a hard time understanding how our vehicle being at a road crossing is more detrimental to the wilderness than another hiker's or maintainer's vehicle parked in the same place. As a side note (but more in line with the original thread) in many places, our clients will actually be directed to follow a side trail to reach where our vehicle will be parked.

As for criticizing or supporting the trail's purpose, I thank MacKaye for his idealism, but I also appreciate Avery's practicality. These men had great disagreements about the AT, but without these two men the trail would not exist. The trail was born from both, but is also the child of anyone who has ever worked on or walked upon it. Despite any differences that we as AT enthusiasts may have, I believe we all love the trail.

I hope this at least begins to answer the questions that you had for me. Please let me know if you want me to elaborate on any of the issues mentioned.

rickb
01-31-2005, 22:56
As long as we are taking delight in genuine MacKay quotes, here is one worth pondering:

The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be. The idea is a foot trail, and if there is a wheel on it at all, there is no point in the Appalachian Trail. People should get that through their heads…. –BENTON MACKAYE, AIA Journal interview where he bluntly repudiated the Trailway concept as adopted by the Appalachian Trail Conference, 1971

Rocks 'n Roots
02-01-2005, 16:38
I asked some very specific questions. I don't think they were answered adequately.


Old Fhart is dangerous because he is quite capable in his references. False references. A smart person reading this thread would ask themselves why Jack, (who says he is so versed in MacKaye that he won't bother wasting it on us) Old Fhart, and others are so well-referenced in retrieving quotes, rules and regulations, guidelines, etc when it comes to attacking wilderness codes but so unknowing when it comes to the codes themselves? Old Fhart is remarkably capable of accessing obscure ATC policies on commercial permits, yet he tells us he is unaware of any wilderness codes - even though sources for those codes are in the same references he seems to be so capable of accessing.


I asked if this thread showed that AT internet members were more interested in attacking and weakening recorded AT wilderness ethics than upholding them. Nobody answered that question. They didn't because it's obvious they are. The reason is to make their lack of concern more acceptable amongst Trail users. That's working against the Appalachian Trail.


I have explained at least a half dozen times why Old Fhart's misquotes from MacKaye are wrong. This is a familiar trick. The quotes he brings are from the original Project that would have involved vast Appalachian acreages in the millions of acres. All together the corridor would have been the size of a state. This original plan incorporated a functioning social plan with lumber camps, timber harvests, and farms. Nowhere has Old Fhart shown us how this camp version excluded a wild core. I have explained this numerous times and it has been ignored. I suspect it will be again and we will return to the same distorted offering simply because it sounds good to those looking for an excuse.


The simple fact is that in 1920 conservationists couldn't just ask for a gigantic greenway. It had to have some kind of functioning social plan attached to it. The working camps for employment relief and general health (including nature exposure) were that plan. Simple enough - but ignored by wilderness ethic attackers. Instead of the piecemeal encroachment we see today this national forest working corrdior would have been much wilder in the long term. A fact completely ignored by these challengers. A separate post could be made on the water quality, species preservation, and open space benefits this original Project corridor would have entailed. Much more complex than a mumbled "HYOH" which is absolutely meaningless in comparison.

As Weary touched on (and went unanswered) this vast version had space enough to include a population and working camps AND a wilderness corridor surrounding the path. Old Fhart attempts to suggest that these camps were going to be built right over the entire ridgecrest from Maine to Georgia. That we've misunderstood the founder of the Wilderness Society and he was actually a dedicated ridgetop developer. That's simply ridiculous.


MacKaye's 'Regional Planning' version asked for national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York - to give you and idea of what he was planning.


I see Rick's passage wasn't answered. Hmm, a passage that contains clear references to MacKaye's wilderness intentions gets ignored from people who are demanding the same?


To prove how wrong Old Fhart's view of MacKaye is we can simply go to the point where he left the Project. That was in the Shenandoah when the government decided that the AT was to have a road literally built over the top of it. That was Skyline Drive. This road would allow a large park to be built for people to drive to. If MacKaye was the big developer Old Fhart suggests why did he leave his life's dream when its wilderness plan was violated in the form of Shenandoah "recreational" development?


Ask yourself why these so-called experts refuse to answer this simple question.

Lone Wolf
02-01-2005, 17:26
blah blah blah blah blah... ****!

rickb
02-01-2005, 17:42
To bad threads like these don't bring out comments from people who have taken, and presumably enjoyed, services like NotYet is going to offer. I think HikeUSA offered something similar for a while.

They might open some eyes. Like mine.

I'll admit my current prejudices, however.

To be honest, I think that almost anyone who can hike 2000 miles would be cheated, were they to be met at road crossings and driven to campgrounds every night where breakfast and dinner would be prepared for them. I know, HYOH and all that. I am not saying there isn't a population out there who would want this, I am just saying that I don't understand it.

That's not to say I am uncapable of doing so.

One thing I do like about the NotYet's website is that they provide links to Whiteblaze-- that's cool. Anyone electing this kind of trip really should do so only after educating themselves about all the alternatives, IMHO. Looks like Notyet is committed to that. On the otherhand, there are some subtle things about the site that I think play into people's fears-- like thier service promising to come look for you if you get lost.

When my wife and I take on a new adventure, the temptation to have someone take over the leadership role can be very attractive. As can having a ready-made group to be a part of. I know the value in that. And so do all the adventure travel companies making gazillions of dollars out there. More power to them. When (if) I ever climb Ranier it will be with a guide. What could be more commercial than that?

Perhaps then, my reluctance to cheer on a venture which could be argued as providing nothing but more choices is hypocritical. Choices are good, right?

For whatever reason, I see a thru hike as different though. I can't get past that. Making something easier for people isn't always a good thing, IMHO. Even Warren Doyle's tours don't do that! If people were really being honest, I don't think my gut reaction is all that unique. At a minimum, I doubt many thru hikers would simply say cool, HYOH were a coworker to tell them they were seriously considering this kind of journey.

Rick B

NotYet
02-01-2005, 18:34
I asked some very specific questions. I don't think they were answered adequately.


Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

I am sincerely trying answer questions that you addressed to me in a thorough way. I must admit, however, that I often find myself trying to figure out exactly what you are asking. Is there a specific question that I haven't addressed in as thorough a manner as you would like? If so, please re-state it so I may attempt to tackle it again.



I asked if this thread showed that AT internet members were more interested in attacking and weakening recorded AT wilderness ethics than upholding them. Nobody answered that question. They didn't because it's obvious they are. The reason is to make their lack of concern more acceptable amongst Trail users. That's working against the Appalachian Trail.


As far as wilderness ethics go, there are many definitions / principles from many sources out there for us to sort through. I haven't been able to find the ATC's specific views on this on their website (but I'm not very technologically savvy). It would help me tremendously if you could let me know where I can find their official definitions/views on wilderness ethics. That way we would all be working from the same information.

However, I know that I personally have no interest in focusing on any kind of attack. Instead, I wish to better understand the many differing views and concerns about the AT. I truly believe that most people who visit an internet forum about the AT are concerned about the trail and have good intentions.



The simple fact is that in 1920 conservationists couldn't just ask for a gigantic greenway. It had to have some kind of functioning social plan attached to it. The working camps for employment relief and general health (including nature exposure) were that plan. Simple enough - but ignored by wilderness ethic attackers. Instead of the piecemeal encroachment we see today this national forest working corrdior would have been much wilder in the long term. A fact completely ignored by these challengers....

As Weary touched on (and went unanswered) this vast version had space enough to include a population and working camps AND a wilderness corridor surrounding the path. Old Fhart attempts to suggest that these camps were going to be built right over the entire ridgecrest from Maine to Georgia. That we've misunderstood the founder of the Wilderness Society and he was actually a dedicated ridgetop developer. That's simply ridiculous.


The history of the vision for the trail and the building of the AT are very helpful for people to understand. Fortunately for us all, MacKaye's vision was at least partially realized. I don't, however, think that his vision from early in the last century will ever come to full fruition, nor should it at this point. Therefore, we have to work from the present. This is not an attack on his vision or his concept of wilderness ethics...it is simply the reality of the time and place in which we live. I believe that working to protect the trail corridor is something practical that we can do, and do very effectively. Working to completely fulfill MacKaye's vision is an impracticality because the world has changed dramatically. Of course, I realize that no one here has suggested that we try to do this, but I think that focusing so much on MacKaye's original plan does little to protect what we do have---a long, narrow wonderful stretch of "wilderness" and "semi-wilderness" that needs protection, and hopefully expansion.

NotYet
02-01-2005, 18:48
Hi Rick B,

I've really enjoyed the thought that you've put into all of your posts on this topic. Thanks for checking out our site so thoroughly. We always tell people that getting lost is highly unlikely, and we try to assure potential clients that being on the trail is statisically much safer than being in any city (whether they hike with us or by themselves!). We also let people know that a "traditional" thru-hike is something very achievable if that is their desire. That's why we gladly give advice to anyone who asks for it.

We aren't advocating hiking with support; we're simply offering as an option.

Have fun if you ever head to Ranier! Sounds COOOOLD!

SGT Rock
02-01-2005, 20:26
I asked if this thread showed that AT internet members were more interested in attacking and weakening recorded AT wilderness ethics than upholding them. Nobody answered that question. They didn't because it's obvious they are. The reason is to make their lack of concern more acceptable amongst Trail users. That's working against the Appalachian Trail.

Actually we never answered because you imply the ridiculous, that we are out to destroy the AT. Please don't lump me or others into that position just because you are trying to win an argument. I have been ignoring this thread for the most part because only a few of y'all feel the need to argue about this sort of thing to this point.

Oh, and probably the reason you get so little response is most people ignore you because you use these sorts of tactics. :-?

hikerjohnd
02-01-2005, 20:30
Oh, and probably the reason you get so little response is most people ignore you because you use these sorts of tactics. :-?

And they answered in one voice - Amen.

TJ aka Teej
02-01-2005, 22:00
MacKaye's 'Regional Planning' version asked for national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York - to give you and idea of what he was planning.
In Regional Planning, MacKaye does not mention "national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York." In fact his only mention of New Jersey involves a communal farm there that he'd like to use as a model for his AT farm camps.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/pdfs/MacKaye.pdf

JoeHiker
02-01-2005, 22:53
This is very simple. If you've read about MacKaye yet don't bother to quote him you are negligent in your offerings.
Have you quoted MacKaye somewhere here that I've missed? You've been asked to repeatedly to back up your assertions about the purposes of the trail. But not one.

By your own definition, wouldn't that make you negligent in your offerings?

orangebug
02-01-2005, 23:16
Move on. Nothing to see here. He can't/won't back up his accusations or declarations. He won't bother answering questions about his own wilderness ethic - living on a barrier island and destroyed wetlands, contributing to urban sprawl.

So why should you bother to jump thru his pretzel illogic?

ed bell
02-02-2005, 00:23
Well said, SGT. Rock.:sun

Rocks 'n Roots
02-02-2005, 16:11
Sgt Rock:


The obvious question here is whether those imperatives exist and are valid towards AT understanding? I don't see people addressing the obvious. I consider that a deliberate avoidance. If it can legitimately be said that those imperatives are isolatable as accepted and written goals of the AT, as clearly they are from ATC's own writings, then discussion of their treatment by the AT public is valid. So therefore it can be legitimately said that the inevitable negative attitude shown towards this discussion and those who discuss it (as shown right here) can legitimately be called bad for the Trail or even counter to it.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I believe the truth and the Trail are with me.

I think the real problem is that the general Trail member doesn't understand the basic points here and reacts negatively. But in no way do I accept that I've presented anything wrong or mischaracterised the Trail Community's response. I think I've presented my side so well that many can't answer it. It's not shocking that people then go after the presenter instead of answering what was presented. If you would like to address what I wrote I'd be glad to discuss it. But to deny my position with one line like you have done without addressing any of the reasoning involved is to commit the very offense I've been outlining. The fact that you don't even realize it seems to me a total confirmation of everything I wrote. If you could show me where what I wrote was wrong or qualify it with Trail references your reply would have more meaning. If you could show me why my views were "ridiculous", then perhaps it would have more significance in realtion to what I wrote. I'm sorry, but I believe I've accurately presented valid and proveable Trail ideas. I don't think saying you are ignoring them because they are ridiculous is a valid response. Perhaps you would be better to address those ideas if you felt something inaccurate was said...

Rocks 'n Roots
02-02-2005, 16:20
In Regional Planning, MacKaye does not mention "national forest-sized corridors in New Jersey and New York."

The ATN Anniversary Issue of 2 or 3 years ago says this. I can't find my copy.

Jack Tarlin
02-02-2005, 16:33
We know you'd be glad to discuss it, Rocks. But thanks for letting us know.

Actually, based on your more than dozen poorly argued, grating, whiny, and worst of all, repetitive posts on this thread, all of which say the same thing, we sort of picked up on the fact that you wanted to discuss the matter.

Again and again and again....

What you fail to grasp Rocks, is that nobody else quite shares your enthusiasm, and not because they don't care about the issues at hand. On the contrary, despite your comments and insults about what the rest of Trail community thinks, people care about these matters very much.

They simply lack the time, patience, or inclination to discuss it with idiots.

I could ask you, for around the ninetieth time, to provide us with statements, comments, letters, quotes, position papers----ANYTHING really, to show that you're as familiar with MacKaye's philosophy and intentions as you claim to be, but it's been made manifestly clear that you're incapable of doing this.

Your arguments have no basis or support.

They consist of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and nobody appreciates the Trail or the wilderness but me." then you seem to think your argument is strengthened by repeating this mantra 49 times. Sorry, Rocks. "Lather, rinse, repeat" is not a sound debating strategy.

In the process of presenting this bizarre argument, you've managed to insult and denigrate everyone here, including the hosts of this website. And if you think your condescension and dis-respect of everyone here is scoring you any points, please think again.

People aren't avoiding this subject because they don't care about it, Rocks. They're avoiding it because they have little or no interest in debating it with YOU. And if you think your comments have managed to elevate you here in any way, I assure you you're mistaken.

The folks here at Whiteblaze don't, as you've claimed, have a negative attitude towards discussing this or any other Trail-related matter.

They merely have a negative attitude, and therefore an understandable reluctance, to spend time debating close-minded, arrogant, self-important fools.

Oh. Have a nice day.

Rocks 'n Roots
02-02-2005, 16:40
Too bad threads like these don't bring out comments from people who have taken, and presumably enjoyed, services like NotYet is going to offer. I think HikeUSA offered something similar for a while.

They might open some eyes. Like mine.

I'll admit my current prejudices, however.
Rick:


Curious how you could cite all the relevant ATC references and wilderness guidelines and then ignore them in your thoughts?

Are your feelings "prejudices" or respect for ATC wilderness guidelines and their purpose?

Is anyone going to bring out comments from those who have fought to keep the Trail wild and reaped benefits from it? Or is this a completely one-sided affair based on people's general feelings not necessarily guided by ATC's Trail goals or an educated understanding of them and how they apply to the Trail and responsibility for it?

JoeHiker
02-02-2005, 17:04
I'm sorry, but I believe I've accurately presented valid and proveable Trail ideas
What you haven't done is prove any of them. No need to be sorry -- just back up your statements.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the rules of logical discourse RnR. It works like this: When you throw out a claim: (e.g. "The trail was founded for wilderness preservation"), it becomes your job to back that up, not our job to "prove you wrong". Your statement is just so much hot air until you give us proof. So far, you've supplied none. No quotations. No references. Nothing besides your feelings.

Hypocrite that you are, you've actually had the nerve to castigate others for not quoting sources. Yet Old Fhart quoted MacKaye himself and you completely ignored it. Where's the MacKaye quote backing you up, RnR?

In short, the burden of proof lies with you, pal. You think you understand the intentions of the trail founders better than everyone else here? Prove it.

Rocks 'n Roots
02-02-2005, 17:08
They simply lack the time, patience, or inclination to discuss it with idiots.

I don't see how this site rules-violating personal attack could possibly attempt to contain any credible response.



I could ask you, for around the ninetieth time, to provide us with statements, comments, letters, quotes, position papers----ANYTHING really, to show that you're as familiar with MacKaye's philosophy and intentions as you claim to be, but it's been made manifestly clear that you're incapable of doing this.

Jack: Rick quoted several MacKaye quotes leaving his wilderness intentions undoubtable. You didn't answer. If you are incapable of the topic I understand, but please don't try to suggest your failure to answer is our fault. What's manifestly clear is your incapability of answering any of the MANY clearly discussed wilderness imperatives already more than adequately described numerous times in this thread. It's obvious that your repeated attempts to malign their source is just a cheap way of avoiding what is an otherwise obvious discussion.




Your arguments have no basis or support.

This is your worst inaccuracy...


Try answering the points Jack. And make an attempt at civil discussion...


We can clarify this discussion by outlining what is being said:


The first question is whether Benton MacKaye planned an inseparable wilderness ethic into his Trail.

The next question was how does ATC reflect this original purpose in its guidelines.

Next is how is the Trail Community expected to conform to this ethic.

Finally, is my view that the Trail Community is generally unaware of this imperative and treats it negatively...


It would be nice if this could be answered without being called an idiot...

Jack Tarlin
02-02-2005, 17:08
Joe: Very well put! I've been trying to make those exact points to Rocks for quite some time now.

It will be curious to see how your comments are received.....and then ignored.

SGT Rock
02-02-2005, 18:00
Sgt Rock:


The obvious question here is whether those imperatives exist and are valid towards AT understanding? I don't see people addressing the obvious. I consider that a deliberate avoidance. If it can legitimately be said that those imperatives are isolatable as accepted and written goals of the AT, as clearly they are from ATC's own writings, then discussion of their treatment by the AT public is valid. So therefore it can be legitimately said that the inevitable negative attitude shown towards this discussion and those who discuss it (as shown right here) can legitimately be called bad for the Trail or even counter to it.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I believe the truth and the Trail are with me.

I think the real problem is that the general Trail member doesn't understand the basic points here and reacts negatively. But in no way do I accept that I've presented anything wrong or mischaracterised the Trail Community's response. I think I've presented my side so well that many can't answer it. It's not shocking that people then go after the presenter instead of answering what was presented. If you would like to address what I wrote I'd be glad to discuss it. But to deny my position with one line like you have done without addressing any of the reasoning involved is to commit the very offense I've been outlining. The fact that you don't even realize it seems to me a total confirmation of everything I wrote. If you could show me where what I wrote was wrong or qualify it with Trail references your reply would have more meaning. If you could show me why my views were "ridiculous", then perhaps it would have more significance in realtion to what I wrote. I'm sorry, but I believe I've accurately presented valid and proveable Trail ideas. I don't think saying you are ignoring them because they are ridiculous is a valid response. Perhaps you would be better to address those ideas if you felt something inaccurate was said...

Actually I don't argue any of your points because you post extremely long posts basically denigrating anyone that doesn't immediately see your position. All I have to do is skim through them to see that, maybe you should too. Heck, I may agree with a lot of what you say, never going to argue with you about that, what I am pointing out is your plan of attack on the issue, but you never bothered to find that out. Anyway, luckily you are one spit in the large ocean of opinions, you may like to argue them for some reason as a sport instead of ever waiting to listen to what someone else has to say. I will cease posting to this so don't even ask me to go word for word through the volumes of typing you have posted and respond to that, I have neither the time nor the inclination. It is a waste of my time as I am currently involved in my life, not in reading someone that has found a way to alienate many that possibly could be his ally.

The Solemates
02-02-2005, 18:31
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

orangebug
02-02-2005, 18:42
...The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be...
This was a short quote that may be out of context, and I don't understand that it repudiates the ATC's concept of a trailway rather than demonstrates the power of words and marketing. For MacKaye, Trailway = Greyhound = highway along the AT. Not even the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyland Drive were ever autobahns.

Thank goodness the ATC has attempted to protect the AT with buffers and more land than a fat man would shade. Think that maybe MacKaye had some feelings over leaving successful development to Avery and others?

(It would be nice to read the entire interview in context. Is it web based like the Great Pipe Dream?)

ed bell
02-02-2005, 18:53
Nice post again, SGT. Rock. I would also like to add that this thread continues to avoid the topic as stated in the subject. To those who wish to continue this topic, by all means, knock yourselves out. If the current topic (hell I'm not even sure I really know what that actually is) of debate continues to thrive, than why not give it a subject heading of its own that actually makes sense. I seem to remember a thread about ATC guidelines recently that would be a better general topic heading than this.

I've been on the AT a good bit and Ive never seen a guided Thru- Hiking group. I would think that it would look like all the other people I have seen on the A.T.- Hikers. I fail to see how this changes the wilderness feel of it. Do cars or vans at a trailhead spoil everything? Ridiculous. Hell, you could walk all day with a person ten minutes behind you and you could feel like the only person on the planet. Considering that the number of people using the trail each year I am actually pleased with the amount of solitude you can provide yourself on the Trail. No sir, the greatest threat to the AT is not the hikers that use it. I've read before that 3% of the U.S. population considers themselves to have backpacking as a hobby. Many of these people don't even go on a regular basis as compared to this dedicated lot here on Whiteblaze. Your greatest threat to the AT is going to be a segment of the remaining 97%. The segment that doesn't give a rats ass about the AT, other trails, National Parks or Forests, and the outdoor life in general. Not Yet certainly does not belong to that group IMHO.