PDA

View Full Version : A Radical Proposal



Bearpaw88
06-12-2009, 19:15
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

bigcranky
06-12-2009, 19:33
That trail already exists -- I think it's called the CDT.

Me, I like meeting people -- hikers, locals, -- and that's one of the reasons I like the A.T. so much. So the hostel owner, the guy who gives me a ride to town, the local restaurant owner, the people down at the grocery, the day hikers on the trail, the trail maintainers, other long distance hikers, all those people make my hike a lot more satisfying.

So your proposal would make me unhappy:(

Jim Adams
06-12-2009, 19:33
I really don't want to cause waves either but I think most thru hikers wouldn't try it. The hard core here on WB would talk about how much better it would be and how the thru hike would return to be as it was first meant to be. Then 99.9% of those hard core would attempt a thru, quit by Erwin and proclaim that anyone out there trying a thru is just a "looking for attention elitist".

geek

Ox97GaMe
06-12-2009, 19:53
Hmmm. it isnt the parts of the CDT that I have hiked. I have found trail magic in the Rockies and hitches into town have been relatively easy as well. As a CDT section hiker, maybe it is because of the time of year that I am out to the Rockies. Maybe it is my pleasant demeanor. Maybe it is just that good things happen to good people who put forth good vibes.

Ive even been fortunate to receive 'magic' on road trips before.

'A man with many friends must first himself be friendly.' Good things happen if we but only allow them to be presented upon us.

hoz
06-12-2009, 19:56
Out west, where help could be miles away and population thinned out, people are generally more helpful than back east.

Mags
06-12-2009, 20:05
I could be wrong, but I think the OP meant "trail magic" of the organized kind as opposed to the spontaneous act of kindness that is found less on the AT (and, to a certain extent the PCT) and more so on other trails. Call it Trail Magic as opposed to trail magic if it makes it easier.


The AT is known for its well organized cook outs, stocked coolers, etc.

On the other trails, it is generally less organized.

Whether it is good or bad is a moot point for me. :) I just hike, smile and enjoy each of the trails for what they are..not what I want them to be.

ZeroC
06-12-2009, 20:11
Though one of those should be put in place and that's reprimanding abusive hikers. Fine the litterers, vandals, etc... We could use some PR to show that hikers are just dirty hippies and bums.

ZeroC
06-12-2009, 20:12
Err, AREN'T just dirty hippies and bums.

bigcranky
06-12-2009, 20:46
I liked the original better... :)

Lemni Skate
06-12-2009, 21:00
Take away those things and you look at 40 completions per year instead of 400.

yaduck9
06-12-2009, 21:16
Take away those things and you look at 40 completions per year instead of 400.


Would that be such a bad thing? :-?


Not trying to be a smart ass, just posing the question...

Lone Wolf
06-12-2009, 21:19
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

is this cuz running a hostel has opened your eyes? more Aholes than good folks?

Kanati
06-12-2009, 21:22
I think the vast majority of us long to have things pure, clean and wholesome but the fact is those days are gone. We have too many people in this country to hope for any change back to the way things "used to be". We have to adapt and do our part, plus some, to make up for the negativity of the slobs in our ranks. And simply not worry about it.

I just returned tonight from working all week in Vancouver, WA and while there I talked to some of the customer guys I was working with who also hike. They tell me that many of the trails on Mr. Hood and other places have been permanently washed away by heavier than normal rains in recent years and the FS has no plans to reopen them because they do not have the resources. When these guys hike they carry saws to open up as much as they can.

Reid
06-12-2009, 22:03
I smell whatcha cookin Bearpaw. Smells good too, I don't think I've ever experienced any of those except for the shuttles. But it is a free country and those people who are often nusiances are Americans and geared up and planned their trips just like the rest of us so I guess they have their rights to do as they please. I think an aspect of your idea is kind of an end game, what's going to happen over time when things get out of hand and the limits are pushed too far.......I think we will all suffer.

emerald
06-12-2009, 23:04
Shelters are a resource protection tool, a concept many apparently fail to grasp. Otherwise, the proposed changes sound fine to me.

emerald
06-12-2009, 23:05
More people should recreate closer to home and work on developing and maintaining trails in their own communities, rather than travel to far-flung places to take a hike.

drastic_quench
06-12-2009, 23:17
More people should recreate closer to home and work on developing and maintaining trails in their own communities, rather than travel to far-flug places to take a hike.
That's a false dichotomy. Your options aren't exclusive, and I'd wager the vast majority of AT hikers do utilize and aid their local trails and parks.

gypsy
06-12-2009, 23:18
It's just amazing... People are just way too high maintenance these days. Sadly, your view of hikers does change when you are in the service industry. I don't know, there's this weird entitlement/apathy virus that is, has and continues to affect millions of people no matter what their station in life; it's something so foreign to me. :-?

fiddlehead
06-12-2009, 23:49
Lots of trails in the world.
If you don't like the AT, there's options you know.

To the OP: you need to go hiking. Way too much time on your hands.

emerald
06-12-2009, 23:50
That's a false dichotomy. Your options aren't exclusive, and I'd wager the vast majority of AT hikers do utilize and aid their local trails and parks.

I'm not seeing where I claimed they are exclusive. I'm thinking of time and resources spent on travel and what might be accomplished were those resources redirected.

I believe the time will come when ordinary Americans will not have the resources to travel all over God's creation and will come to appreciate more what's in their own communities and work with their neighbors to protect these assets provided options remain. We will have better communities as a result.

I'm finished with my comments in this vein as they are at least somewhat off-topic.

Mags
06-12-2009, 23:58
Shelters are a resource protection tool, a concept many apparently fail to grasp. Otherwise, it sounds fine to me.

Established camp sites are a resource protection tool. A very good argument could be made that elaborate shelters use more resources than should be necessary vs tent sites. Many people who maintain trails on an active basis take this standpoint as well.

Skyline could add more input on this subject in addition to Tha Wookie.

emerald
06-13-2009, 00:07
Established camp sites are a resource protection tool. A very good argument could be made that elaborate shelters use more resources than should be necessary vs tent sites.

Shelters have a smaller footprint than tent sites designed to accomodate the same number of campers. It could be true elaborate shelters draw unintended campers who might not otherwise use a particular designated campsite although I'm not sure it's necessarily true or a bad thing in all instances.

Hikers can be expected to use designated campsites only when and where they are more convenient than the alternatives. Often, they are attractive because of their proximity to a water source and when well-designed can serve to protect the water source from contamination. Shelters add to this convenience and may serve to encourage use of designated sites more than developed tent sites might.

Bearpaw
06-13-2009, 00:10
Shelters are a resource protection tool, a concept many apparently fail to grasp. Otherwise, it sounds fine to me.

Not once on the 500 miles of the Colorado Trail, which has a total of ONE shelter, did I find unburied feces and toilet paper, large amounts of trash in a fire ring, or ground obviously impacted by heavy overuse.

Sometimes, shelters help to focus abuse rather than use.

emerald
06-13-2009, 00:15
Not once on the 500 miles of the Colorado Trail, which has a total of ONE shelter, did I find unburied feces and toilet paper, large amounts of trash in a fire ring, or ground obviously impacted by heavy overuse.

Sometimes, shelters help to focus abuse rather than use.

You may be comparing apples and oranges of many kinds and claiming causation where only a correlation exists.

Bearpaw
06-13-2009, 00:17
You may be comparing apples and oranges of many kinds and claiming causation where only a correlation exists.

Or you could simply have no frame of reference.

Pony
06-13-2009, 00:25
It's just amazing... People are just way too high maintenance these days. Sadly, your view of hikers does change when you are in the service industry. I don't know, there's this weird entitlement/apathy virus that is, has and continues to affect millions of people no matter what their station in life; it's something so foreign to me. :-?

Your view of people in general changes when you are in the service industry, not just hikers.


Don't get me started, but the more cheap/free stuff you give to people/hikers the more they expect it and the more they are pissed off when they don't get it.

It shouldn't be foreign to you. It's Happy hour. It's All you can eat. It's anything that people can get for free or very cheap. People suck.







But, there are some good folks out there.

emerald
06-13-2009, 00:42
Or you could simply have no frame of reference.

My inference if not your implication was that you were offended by feces and other evidence of man's presence on the AT which were the direct result of its shelters.

Bearpaw
06-13-2009, 00:48
My inference if not your implication was that you were offended by feces on the AT which were the direct result of the shelters there and that you saw no feces offensive or otherwise on the other trail in a non-AT State.

Maybe hikers in that other State don't defecate in the woods!;)


Well, at the very least, folks can't reasonably say I don't s*** about the two trails! :banana

Mags
06-13-2009, 02:00
Shelters have a smaller footprint than tent sites to accomodate the same amount of campers. It could be true shelters draw people who might not otherwise use the facility although I'm not sure it's necessarily so in all cases.


Shelters take more money, materials, and time to build than tent sites. They also takes more money, time and material to maintain. Esp these new "Hotel Hiltons" take up far more ground than the shelters of old AND most tent sites. At the very least, the shelters should be just a simple lean-to with a picnic table. Then, maybe, I could buy the "less impact" idea.

http://www.atthruhiker.org/photos/week7-8/pages/Luxurious%20Partnership%20Shelter%20(w%20Shower)_j pg.htm (http://www.atthruhiker.org/photos/week7-8/pages/Luxurious%20Partnership%20Shelter%20%28w%20Shower% 29_jpg.htm)

That is less impact? :)


The tent sites vs. shelters is gaining ground as less impact on the environment among maintainers.

For the future of AT sites, you may want to look up Dr. Jeff Marion's ideas. IIRC, an issue of the ATC magazine from a couple of years backl illustrates how hardened tent sites can be made that are less impact on the environment than both traditional tent sites AND shelters.


Shelters are a tradition on the Appalachian Trail. That is the main reason we truly have them. I don't think they will go away (nor should they), but they should be simpler than what has been constructed in the past years.

Due to the nature of the AT (more people, cultural and historical reasons), there needs to be centralized camping. I think everyone agrees about that statement. I guess the debate is HOW to concentrate the camping. Super Sized structures? Tent sites? Simple lean-tos (more traditional)?

JMO.

The Mechanical Man
06-13-2009, 03:04
I guess everyone has forgotten what Benton MacKaye proposed many years ago, I did not.

Or is it just, that some folks that hike the AT nowadays, don't want to put the time and trouble into supporting the original ideas of being a trail volunteer, and are these new AT folks truly entitiled to take advantage of everyone from the past?



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 than a 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 are 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.

see MacKay's vision website ........... http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/appalachian/AppalachianParts.htm#Shelter

Dr O
06-13-2009, 06:27
I'm not seeing where I claimed they are exclusive. I'm thinking of time and resources spent on travel and what might be accomplished were those resources redirected.

I believe the time will come when ordinary Americans will not have the resources to travel all over God's creation and will come to appreciate more what's in their own communities and work with their neighbors to protect these assets provided options remain. We will have better communities as a result.

unless they find oil under it

Jeff
06-13-2009, 07:31
Mags,

Nice pic of Partnership Shelter. I heard somewhere they are planning to remove that shelter. Too many parties maybe?? Anyone know if that is the real story?

Belew
06-13-2009, 08:39
It's just amazing... People are just way too high maintenance these days. Sadly, your view of hikers does change when you are in the service industry. I don't know, there's this weird entitlement/apathy virus that is, has and continues to affect millions of people no matter what their station in life; it's something so foreign to me. :-?

Yep, I agree 100%. It's really bad around here. The folks around here really piss me off but I find myself laughing at them too, sometimes. I don't see this problem so much with people that live out in the country or with peolpe over 40. One last thing, These f...tards should have to pick up others litter for a year and the problem would be solved.:mad:

CowHead
06-13-2009, 09:16
if you treat folks friendly respectful and kindness there would be no issues, but when you appear unfriendly, selfish, and down right mean you need prozac then there be no issues

Deadeye
06-13-2009, 09:22
Shelters don't crap in the woods... people do.

kayak karl
06-13-2009, 10:03
is the trail really any different then the real world? its peoples expectations of hiker that are wrong, i could replace the word hiker with "employee" in all your posts and they would still stand true. young people think we owe them and older people sick of the system.

Bearpaw88
06-13-2009, 10:23
Lots of trails in the world.
If you don't like the AT, there's options you know.

To the OP: you need to go hiking. Way too much time on your hands.

I do know that and I donnot dislike the AT, just attitudes sometimes. I actually have almost no time on my hands because I am helping hikers. If you look at my profile you will see I rarely post....and I am hiking July 1st.

Also Lwofl... I worked at Glencliff last summer, but it is very different here. I also didn't do the driving there.

Thanks Gypsy. The entitlement/apathy thing is strange. It is a virus. Whats the sure?

Bearpaw88
06-13-2009, 10:28
Established camp sites are a resource protection tool. A very good argument could be made that elaborate shelters use more resources than should be necessary vs tent sites. Many people who maintain trails on an active basis take this standpoint as well.

Skyline could add more input on this subject in addition to Tha Wookie.

Good point Mags. In my home state of WI the Ice Age Trail has almost no shelters except in the North and South Kettle Moraine. Campsites are certainly easier to maintain and there are less animal problems. The reason I choose to put "remove all shelter" in the proposal is because in my opinion shelter have a use in emergencies, but I have a far better time at a remote campsite. This is just my opinion. If there were no shelters I think a lot less people would hike.

Bearpaw88
06-13-2009, 10:40
I really appriciate all these posts. FYI to those that don't know me I have worked on trails and hiked all my life I am not just an internet blogger who has never been out in the woods. I have lived, and am currently living, in very close proximity to hikers. I can't expect everyone to be respectful, courtious, or even thankful. Everyone in the hiker service industry knows that doesn't happen.

I do believe in service and I enjoy helping others. I have a great respect for everyone on the trail that has committed themselves to helping hikers, but keep in mind how much they have to go through and how much strength it takes to continue doing it year after year while getting burned by a few every year. These people are saints.

I am genuinly interested in what the AT would be like if everything in the proposal happened, but I know that is just speculation. The AT is what it is....

Bearpaw

World-Wide
06-13-2009, 11:10
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

Please wait until after my 2010 bid to thru-hike! :D

Slo-go'en
06-13-2009, 11:12
Even just 20 years ago, most the "amenities" listed in the proposal to be eliminated were not available to any large extent on the trail. It was quite an adventure getting through states such as North Carolina and Maine.

Then the locals discovered there was money to be made from suppling services to hikers and a whole new industry was born. AT Hikers are now a vital part of the economies of a number of small towns and people who live near the trail, especially down south. Ecotourism in a way.

traildust
06-13-2009, 12:08
We got over 200 miles of just this kind of trail. come on and give the Sheltowee Trace a try.

Serial 07
06-13-2009, 12:52
Lots of trails in the world.
If you don't like the AT, there's options you know.

To the OP: you need to go hiking. Way too much time on your hands.


uh...i'm bettin' she's got a pretty full schedule most of the week...

you go bear paw!

Wise Old Owl
06-13-2009, 13:05
Not once on the 500 miles of the Colorado Trail, which has a total of ONE shelter, did I find unburied feces and toilet paper, large amounts of trash in a fire ring, or ground obviously impacted by heavy overuse.

Sometimes, shelters help to focus abuse rather than use.

Just a wild guess-Is this because of 400 "entitled" hikers or 40 "diehard" hikers? see previous post in the thread. I would venture to guess there are far less hikers on the CT. But It appears the abuse around the shelters on the AT is due to folks outside of WB who don't know any better about the sport and feel that what they do is ok with everyone. If the AT attracts a 1% bums and convicted felons to hang out at the shelters, Perhaps a 10% of young teens that arn't hiking and just going to the shelters to conduct underage drinking and trashing the place. what would be the percent of unkowledgable hikers who think its just something that anyone can do?

Bearpaw
06-13-2009, 13:15
Just a wild guess-Is this because of 400 "entitled" hikers or 40 "diehard" hikers? see previous post in the thread. I would venture to guess there are far less hikers on the CT. But It appears the abuse around the shelters on the AT is due to folks outside of WB who don't know any better about the sport and feel that what they do is ok with everyone. If the AT attracts a 1% bums and convicted felons to hang out at the shelters, Perhaps a 10% of young teens that arn't hiking and just going to the shelters to conduct underage drinking and trashing the place. what would be the percent of unkowledgable hikers who think its just something that anyone can do?

If there were no shelters, how many "unknowledgable" hikers or vagrants or partiers would be out there? Go to the Smokies. The amount of trash and other abuse at campsites is considerably lower than at shelters. Numbers all along the AT would drop, probably considerablly.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a shelter hater. They are a big part of what makes the modern AT what it is. But if they all disappeared, it would dramatically alter sheer numbers and the type of hiker you'd find out there.

Disappearance of hostels would most likely lower thru-hiker completion, if for no reason other than money. Those thoroughly dedicated to hiking the whole trail would manage, but the heavy-duty social crowd would run low on money much quicker.

Jeff
06-13-2009, 13:29
Then the locals discovered there was money to be made from suppling services to hikers and a whole new industry was born. AT Hikers are now a vital part of the economies of a number of small towns and people who live near the trail, especially down south. Ecotourism in a way.

I do not believe AT hikers are a "vital" part of any towns economy. The thruhiker bubble is only 2 or 3 months max. Even in Maine when some establishments try to live off both hikers and snowmobilers, they are usually just barely getting by.

Wise Old Owl
06-13-2009, 13:31
Your view of people in general changes when you are in the service industry, not just hikers.


Don't get me started, but the more cheap/free stuff you give to people/hikers the more they expect it and the more they are pissed off when they don't get it.

It shouldn't be foreign to you. It's Happy hour. It's All you can eat. It's anything that people can get for free or very cheap. People suck.

But, there are some good folks out there.

Jeffery I am in a service industry that has nothing to do with the the AT and if there is no value or agreement then I don't provide the service. All too often I hear "what do I get for free?" and I understand all too well that's part of the negotiation to gain the sale. My pat answer is "peace of mind and no worries" In what I do if you are a business person and your client cannot afford $100 a month or some bottom line in what you do, you do not need them as a source of income. I am a consultant that offers a service that has a value.

If you are running a business that offers a hotel room shelter & other services such as breakfast in the morning, providing that service has a bottom line cost in offering the labor of cleaning up after the person has left. Hence some places offer a stay at $300 a night and others such as a budget or express offer the same service at $90 a night. They are catering to two different clients and they know it, if you come in and hear $30 a night what would your expectations would be?

:D dirty stained sheets, bedbugs and a room for an hour?

Hence a hostel expects that you pitch in and provide some of the labor in cleaning up after yourself, in spite of the writings and rants in journals "complaints" of some of the clients having to do that. Jeffery yes some people suck and I have found that it's the one's that feel "entitled" and don't think there is a perceived value in the service you provide.

I don't know what you do, but it is my hope people read this and have a better understanding that a $30 shelter does not entitle people to get drunk and make noise all night. Want to stop the issue? charge more. People with poor behavior won't stick around if they can't afford it.

(I am guessing here about prices)

Reid
06-13-2009, 13:31
If there were no shelters, how many "unknowledgable" hikers or vagrants or partiers would be out there? Go to the Smokies. The amount of trash and other abuse at campsites is considerably lower than at shelters. Numbers all along the AT would drop, probably considerablly.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a shelter hater. They are a big part of what makes the modern AT what it is. But if they all disappeared, it would dramatically alter sheer numbers and the type of hiker you'd find out there.

Disappearance of hostels would most likely lower thru-hiker completion, if for no reason other than money. Those thoroughly dedicated to hiking the whole trail would manage, but the heavy-duty social crowd would run low on money much quicker.

How many bearpaws do we got out there, I know another one too besides you two. I use to not understand all the rules that GSMNP had but I've come full circle on that one. I think they got it right. Except for the dog's issue... but I can at least understand it.

Wise Old Owl
06-13-2009, 13:34
:DBearpaw all to often your posts mirror my thoughts, its amazing how we think alike on several issues here.:D

Reid what dog issue are you referring to?

emerald
06-13-2009, 13:48
If there were no shelters ... it would dramatically alter sheer numbers and the type of hiker you'd find out there.

This seems to be a notion many here accept as fact, but it's really just speculation on the part of elitists who want to believe it. The impact of such a decision were it to happen abruptly or over time is not easily predicted or extrapolated from other examples if there are any which are comparable.

The AT wasn't created for through hikers or through hiking and it's greatest contributions to society have little to do with through hiking, however defined.

Reid
06-13-2009, 13:50
:DBearpaw all to often your posts mirror my thoughts, its amazing how we think alike on several issues here.:D

Reid what dog issue are you referring to?

I was under the impression that dogs weren't allowed in the park. That is true isn't it? I believe I've heard that dogs aren't allowed in most national parks like Yosimite and so on.

Slo-go'en
06-13-2009, 14:16
I do not believe AT hikers are a "vital" part of any towns economy. The thruhiker bubble is only 2 or 3 months max. Even in Maine when some establishments try to live off both hikers and snowmobilers, they are usually just barely getting by.

"vital" maybe overstating it a little, but take away the hiker buisness and I'm sure many of these towns would notice the difference. And its not just thruhikers, there is a steady stream of section hikers going through these places too.

Of course, there are a few hostel owners on the trail who don't expect or want to make money and just do it because they enjoy it and the people they meet.

Lone Wolf
06-13-2009, 14:27
"vital" maybe overstating it a little, but take away the hiker buisness and I'm sure many of these towns would notice the difference.

name a town

Jeff
06-13-2009, 14:29
Slo-go'en,

I agree, if AT service providers aren't in it because they love it, they are soon gone.

Nean
06-13-2009, 15:50
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

All these amenities are what make the AT mentally easier than other trails and allows MANY more hikers to enjoy the trail and its unique lifestyle.:)
It also turns some into thinking they are pretty darn special and thats never pretty to watch, even here on WB.:D

Blue Jay
06-13-2009, 16:02
Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

How about close all habitation other than caves
End all compassion
Tear down all homes
End automobile travel
End all amennities of any kind to anyone
Prosecute people for imagined offences

Would this improve human behavior? Would it change the type of people attracted to living?

Both proposals are silly to the point of absurdity

Wise Old Owl
06-13-2009, 16:45
Reid I think they got that right too, not all of us are good stewards of our pets, some of the visiting people clearly suck at taking care of their pets, and perhaps cleaning up after them... I go to a local park and I see some occational stuff that really gets me really mad, at the owner.

ShelterLeopard
06-13-2009, 17:00
I would not like that at all- though I do like the idea of being able to go into the wilderness and all, I also like the chance to get to a hostel once in a while and actually get dry and have (gasp) unpowdered milk.

Dr O
06-13-2009, 17:17
name a town

Damascus. Hikers probably finance the police dept with contraband fines. :p

http://makethemdie.livejournal.com/

"Last weekend was the Trail Days festival in Damascus, Virginia, which is the ####### biggest hiker party of year. So naturally I got there on Monday and stayed there partying all week. It was cool to have almost everyone who I've met in the past two months there in one place. Also, I shroomed that Tuesday and on Saturday night I took acid for the first time (can you believe I hadn't done that before? cause I can't) which was very nice. A perfect end to that trip. My dad was like 5 hours away near Culpepper, Virginia at a Datsun 510 get together with some people. He came and got me and brought me back, which was a really long ride with all the **** we had in that little car, and I hadn't slept in almost 2 days."

Bearpaw88
06-13-2009, 17:38
How about close all habitation other than caves
End all compassion
Tear down all homes
End automobile travel
End all amennities of any kind to anyone
Prosecute people for imagined offences

Would this improve human behavior? Would it change the type of people attracted to living?

Both proposals are silly to the point of absurdity

of coarse it's silly it's speculation... I enjoy it :D

atraildreamer
06-13-2009, 22:01
Err, AREN'T just dirty hippies and bums.

Freudian slip?...:eek: :D

shelterbuilder
06-14-2009, 17:37
Oh, yeah, I might as well jump into this one...from the perspective of a shelter builder and maintainer for over 20 years.

First and foremost, shelters are (from my viewpoint) resource management tools. They are not perfect. They are only part of the "resource management solution". They ARE a part of the historical/cultural aspect of the AT experience, and have been so from the start, but their role in that experience has changed several times over the life of the trail, and will probably change several more times over time.

From a historical viewpoint - having come into existence when tents were heavy canvas monsters that were unmanagably heavy when wet - shelters had a positive impact on the trail experience, giving hikers a dry place to get in out of the elements. From a manager's perspective, shelters tend to draw hikers into one central area, thereby concentrating any environmental impacts into that area and (hopefully) leaving the rest of the trail relatively undamaged. It was not until after WWII that this impact became universally noticed (New Englanders: feel free to take me to task on this statement!). Remember, the vast majority of AT users are not thru-hikers, but are local folks who are out for a weekend of leisurely hiking in an area near their homes.

There are two schools of thought regarding shelters. Those who want to see environmental damage concentrated into small pockets, tend to view shelters as necessary. Those who would prefer to see the damage spread out and diluted, prefer to opt for no shelters, but rather many dispersed campsites - or no established campsites at all, with LNT principles prevailing.

As tents and other types of shelters became lighter in weight, it has been debated for decades whether permanent shelters are necessary. It is true that, in some areas, they tend to draw in "vagrants and undesireables". It does cost money - sometimes LOTS of it - to maintain them. Sometimes, it's hard to get folks to sign-on as shelter maintainers. And there is the "size" problem: just how big is TOO big? (This question arose as a response to "building bigger", to accomodate more people in the woods without spending tons of money.)

Personally, I like shelters (DUH). I do not like some of the problems that they generate, but I realize that you have to take the good with the bad - and try like heck to minimize the bad! My life would be a whole lot easier if I didn't have 5 shelters to worry about (as shelters chairman for BMECC), but the trail experience would be radically different without them. And, while I may change my mind at some point in the future, for now, I vote to keep the shelters.

I'll shut up now....

emerald
06-14-2009, 19:19
Shelters are a resource protection tool, a concept many apparently fail to grasp.


These new "Hotel Hiltons" take up far more ground than the shelters of old AND most tent sites. At the very least, the shelters should be just a simple lean-to with a picnic table. Then, maybe, I could buy the "less impact" idea.

http://www.atthruhiker.org/photos/week7-8/pages/Luxurious%20Partnership%20Shelter%20(w%20Shower)_j pg.htm (http://www.atthruhiker.org/photos/week7-8/pages/Luxurious%20Partnership%20Shelter%20%28w%20Shower% 29_jpg.htm)

That is less impact? :)

At the site of Partnership Shelter itself, its immediate surroundings, within a 1-mile radius of it, globally, where? Impact involves more than hiker sensibilities or recreational resources, since most AT corridor lands are managed for multiple uses.


For the future of AT sites, you may want to look up Dr. Jeff Marion's ideas.

I've read many pages written by him. The 116-page document prepared by Dr. Marion linked below is provided for people who want to learn more about such issues and to demonstrate how much thought and effort goes into providing what hikers experience.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%7D/AT_Camping_Impacts.pdf


I guess everyone has forgotten what Benton MacKaye proposed many years ago, I did not.

http://www.wilderdom.com/vignettes/appalachian/AppalachianParts.htm#Shelter

Community groups and food and farm camps are some of MacKaye's most intriguing ideas and should be given more consideration. Some of these concepts might work well in Maine where larger blocks of land still remain at least for now. Some of these kinds of living and/or work-for-stay arrangements may be appropriate for private land abutting the AT corridor and could serve to protect its viewshed.

To some extent some of these ideas have been implimented already. They're just not thought of as a part or extension of the AT. Unfortunately, they're not all as near the AT as Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, for example.

Content neighbors who value the AT should make excellent corridor monitors and can be eyes and ears where and when needed.


The AT wasn't created for through hikers or through hiking and it's greatest contributions to society have little to do with through hiking, however defined.

That said, informed and responsible through hikers can serve as AT ambassadors who create options and opportunities for others. Some through hikers in 1980 didn't think much of Ed Garvey's ideas they read in his book about how they ought to conduct themselves, but his thinking was as valid then as it is today.


Those who would prefer to see damage spread out and diluted prefer to opt for no shelters, but instead many dispersed campsites - or no established campsites at all, with LNT principles prevailing.

There are biological and other resources to be protected. Many if not most hikers know little about these resources or by design their precise locations within the AT corridor.

We all know how well LNT and site selection works when left to at least some individuals. Inevitably, resources will be impacted more likely than not without those responsible having any knowledge of what they have done.

Land managers in consultation with trained resource professionals knowledgeable about the resources to be protected and threats to them should decide where camping is appropriate. In some instances, extending some discretion to hikers about campsite selection is appropriate and desirable.

Mrs Baggins
06-14-2009, 19:28
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.

saimyoji
06-14-2009, 20:09
So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.

did you even read all of the OP? you certainly are a caustic little hobbit. must be the hairy feet. :)

Bearpaw
06-14-2009, 21:08
How disappointing that must be to you.

Mrs. Baggins, I have no idea where your bitterness is coming from. You make some good points early on, but with this sort of condescending conclusion, those are lost.

shelterbuilder
06-14-2009, 21:34
...There are biological and other resources to be protected too. Many if not most hikers know little about these resources or by design their locations within the AT corridor.

We all know how well LNT and site selection works when left to at least some individuals. Inevitably, resources will be impacted more likely than not without those responsible having any knowledge of what they have done.

I'd prefer to see land managers and trained resource professionals with access to information about resources in need of protection making decisions about where hikers camp and in some cases that might include some discretion on the part of hikers where appropriate.

Those who have never been involved in the design phase of a shelter's construction might assume that you just find a site halfway between two other shelters and start building. Oh, if was only THAT easy! Every agency partner (NPS, ATC, maintaining club, state or municipal landowner) has to be involved and sign off on all parts of the project.

Waste management is a top concern these days, as are certain ADA mandates. Are we contaminating any land or water resources? Are new facilities handicapped-accessible? What kind of building time-table do we need? Are we building "big enough" to accomodate the number of people we expect, without building too big? Who needs to sign off on what kind of permits? Are we too near to any ecologically-sensitive areas? How do we get materials in to the site without damaging the area? Are we too close to a road or trailhead? What kind of site damage can we expect in 5, 10, 20 years, and is there any way to mitigate it? And the list goes on....

As I've said before, I look at shelters as a resource management tool that can help to confine hiker-damage to a relatively small area, thereby allowing the rest of an area to receive considerably less damage. As an example, take the Eagle's Nest Shelter in Pa. The area on the ridgetop is a Natural Heritage Area, and is home to a certain endangered moth and its only food source (which is only pollinated by this moth). Dispersed camping in this area could have a disasterous effect on the moth by encouraging unwitting campers to destroy small patches of the plant's habitat "here and there". The shelter, however, tends to draw campers into a single, central location on the edge of this area, and allows the rest of the area to remain undamaged.

warraghiyagey
06-14-2009, 22:19
Just checking in. . . . all seems normal. . .

Tin Man
06-14-2009, 22:21
So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.

What forum planet are you from?? I think I hear them calling you, they need you... run along now.

http://media5.picsearch.com/is?mGCTsSwg75Hf71rSP0wRSS0QG7t0qTibDIiJhpVVDSE

warraghiyagey
06-14-2009, 22:26
Willie!!!!!

Tin Man
06-14-2009, 22:38
Willie!!!!!

huh? alf was from melmak

Jester2000
06-14-2009, 23:05
I don't know what you do, but it is my hope people read this and have a better understanding that a $30 shelter does not entitle people to get drunk and make noise all night. Want to stop the issue? charge more. People with poor behavior won't stick around if they can't afford it.

(I am guessing here about prices)

Hmmm . . . you also seem to be guessing about a correlation between money and whether or not someone is a dick. This seems to me to suggest that those with money are more likely to be those with good behavior. Have I misread that?

What if the people with poor behavior canafford to stick around? Does that make their behavior more acceptable?

In my experience an ability to pay more doesn't really have anything to do with the behavior or character of the person paying. Many times there's an inverse relationship.

Gaiter
06-15-2009, 00:45
So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.


w.t.f. does everything go straight over your ****ing head, did you read anything she said....

Bearpaw88
06-15-2009, 11:59
So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.

Wow lots in there....

Anyway I have no problem with modernity. This thread was more about poor hiker behavior and how less facilities would impact behavior. I have no problems with trail angels, hostels, and magic. You should read the whole thread. I know you Baggins we worked togeather on Hardcore. Don't get upset this is just in fun :D

Bearpaw88
06-15-2009, 12:02
Hmmm . . . you also seem to be guessing about a correlation between money and whether or not someone is a dick. This seems to me to suggest that those with money are more likely to be those with good behavior. Have I misread that?

What if the people with poor behavior canafford to stick around? Does that make their behavior more acceptable?

In my experience an ability to pay more doesn't really have anything to do with the behavior or character of the person paying. Many times there's an inverse relationship.

Jester good point. Money and behavoir really have nothing to do with eachother. Some of the most frusterating hikers can be very well off and expect their money to get them more and be treated "special".

Jack's quopted line is a good one the trail is the best equalizer. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or how much money you have. We are all just walking and sleeping in the woods.

DavidNH
06-15-2009, 12:36
Take away those things and you look at 40 completions per year instead of 400.

Yeah. Maybe even closer to four completions!

kanga
06-15-2009, 12:42
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?

i think it would help (some) people to realize all the things that get done for them. however, there is a great crowd of azzholes that think they are entitled. take it away and they'll just whine and bitch. wait. they already do that. never mind.

kanga
06-15-2009, 12:42
Err, AREN'T just dirty hippies and bums.damn dirty hippie

kanga
06-15-2009, 12:47
So.... you've never read Earl Schaeffer's book Walking With Spring. It was 1948, (get that??? 61 YEARS ago) and there were trail angels aplenty, fire towers offering nice beds and meals, plenty of private homes offering beds and meals for the night, store owners trying to help out, and more. So just in case these things are somehow just "modern" to you, you are extraordinarily wrong. Just like those who believe "deforestation" is strictly a "modern" thing don't do their homework. The settlers from the mid 1700's to the early 1900's are the ones who clear cut every tree in the mountains in order to graze their cattle and make money off of the timber. It's the "modern" people who have tried to save it all. And oh yeah, ordinary natural pests are to blame for the destruction of many of the trees - not acid rain, not global warming, not man made deforestation. It's hemlock boriing angelids and ash borers. How disappointing that must be to you.

has anybody ever told you to shut your ball washer?

Mags
06-15-2009, 12:51
Go away hiking for a weekend and next thing I know people are discussing clear cuts and trees. :sun

FWIW, it seems mainly ld hikers who use shelters. My friends and I always tented it well before I even knew what the heck the AT was.

Doesn't matter..I am sure the brain trust here will find many fun ways of making me look like an idiot. No worries, I do it myself quite well. ;)

Plodderman
06-15-2009, 16:19
Going back to the good ole days. Some times the good ole days weren't as good as we thought. I do not mind the shelters, hostels and just consider it part of hiking.

I do not think I would miss any of it I just tend to take it as it comes andusually stay to myself anyways.

Sidewinder
06-15-2009, 18:13
Wow lots in there....

Anyway I have no problem with modernity. This thread was more about poor hiker behavior and how less facilities would impact behavior. I have no problems with trail angels, hostels, and magic. You should read the whole thread. I know you Baggins we worked togeather on Hardcore. Don't get upset this is just in fun :D

:eek::eek::eek: no,no,no, that was Baggins you worked with at Hardcore, this is Mrs Baggins. Two totally different people, Baggins from Hardcore is cool. Please don't confuse the two.

Gaiter
06-15-2009, 19:10
:eek::eek::eek: no,no,no, that was Baggins you worked with at Hardcore, this is Mrs Baggins. Two totally different people, Baggins from Hardcore is cool. Please don't confuse the two.

dito, baggins at hardcore is awesome and a great person, not to be confused w/ the mrs. baggins here on wb

warraghiyagey
06-15-2009, 19:25
has anybody ever told you to shut your ball washer?
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gif

Bilge Rat
06-15-2009, 20:14
has anybody ever told you to shut your ball washer?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YhFv7a8rThI/SSGqQJcbwGI/AAAAAAAAAPk/63h_J8cFRJg/s400/funny-carwash-sign.jpg
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

warraghiyagey
06-15-2009, 20:23
http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB027769.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B8B9720E0-298B-490E-BA5E-C62FCCBF0C9E%7D

superman
06-15-2009, 20:33
Go away hiking for a weekend and next thing I know people are discussing clear cuts and trees. :sun

FWIW, it seems mainly ld hikers who use shelters. My friends and I always tented it well before I even knew what the heck the AT was.

Doesn't matter..I am sure the brain trust here will find many fun ways of making me look like an idiot. No worries, I do it myself quite well. ;)


Um...what's an ld?

Lone Wolf
06-15-2009, 20:36
Um...what's an ld?

long distance

Bilge Rat
06-15-2009, 20:52
NO, NO, NO! ld is "learning disabled" it fits better in here........:D

superman
06-15-2009, 21:55
long distance

I thought he left the "o" off of "old.":D

superman
06-15-2009, 21:59
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YhFv7a8rThI/SSGqQJcbwGI/AAAAAAAAAPk/63h_J8cFRJg/s400/funny-carwash-sign.jpg
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

and this year they are offering a special deal for old people who stay in shelters.

weary
06-15-2009, 22:10
I really don't want to cause waves either but I think most thru hikers wouldn't try it. The hard core here on WB would talk about how much better it would be and how the thru hike would return to be as it was first meant to be. Then 99.9% of those hard core would attempt a thru, quit by Erwin and proclaim that anyone out there trying a thru is just a "looking for attention elitist".

geek
The key words in this post aRE "HARD CORE ON WHITE BLAZE." Those or us who have hiked for decades know that such dreams, never have been meant to be, nor fulfilled, in real life.

Weary

weary
06-15-2009, 22:14
Err, AREN'T just dirty hippies and bums.
For $10 you too could edit your mistakes.

Weary

Bearpaw88
06-16-2009, 12:31
:eek::eek::eek: no,no,no, that was Baggins you worked with at Hardcore, this is Mrs Baggins. Two totally different people, Baggins from Hardcore is cool. Please don't confuse the two.


Thanks!..................;)

Frosty
06-16-2009, 12:42
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriouslyYou left off "close all hiker internet forums."

JAK
06-16-2009, 12:42
The posting of this idea is intended to create a discussion among hikers. This is not intended to offend anyone, but possibly open the minds of a few....

Radical Proposal:

-close all hostels
-cancell all hiker rates
-end all trail magic
-tear down all shelters
-cancell all hiker shuttling
-urge all to never pick up a hiker hitcher
-end all amennities of any kind to hikers
-reprimand abusive hikers more seriously

I understand that this will never happen and for very good reasons, but what if it did? Do you think it would improve hiker behavior, make it worse, or have no affect at all. How do you think it would change the type of people that are attracted to the trail.

Again no offense. I do not really want any of this to happen, but I do think it is an interesting idea. What do you think?First I thought the idea would be to turn it into more of an unsupported wilderness trail, until I read a little further. I think trails can get overdeveloped, or perhaps over-commercialized might be a better word. Bad hiker behaviour is just one aspect of overdevelopment. I think the most important thing is that hiking trails should not be viewed as economic opportunities first and foremost. That shouldn't even be on the list of priorities.

But if you want discussion, yeah, I think most of the list above would be positive developments.

JAK
06-16-2009, 12:50
More people should recreate closer to home and work on developing and maintaining trails in their own communities, rather than travel to far-flung places to take a hike.Excellent point. We need to bring more natural habitats and recreational walking and hiking and biking trails right into our communities. We need to make natural recreational activies more part of our lifestyles, rather than vacation or once in a lifetime activities.

JAK
06-16-2009, 13:01
I'm not sure how bad hiker behaviour is on the AT. The problem up here isn't so much bad hiker behaviour. It is commercial development of wilderness areas. We seem to be going in the direction of catering more and more to elderly RV traffic, not to hikers. I don't know how to stop commercial development, and protect more wilderness areas, whether it is for hikers, or future generations, or just for the natural habitat itself. I'm not saying economic interests are a bad thing. They just tend to be short sighted.

There seems to be alot of complaints about bad hiker behaviour,
but not much complaining about hiker apathy when it comes to environmental protection.

Bearpaw
06-16-2009, 13:16
I'm not sure how bad hiker behaviour is on the AT.

I can't speak for the northern sections of the AT nowadays, since my thru-hike was a decade ago. But from section hikes in the southern portions of the trail in the last few years, it seems similar to what I saw in 1999.

Most hikers, the substantial majority, are good folks. They understand how to live around others and follow a few simple rules to live by. But they're not the ones you notice.

The handful of problem children are the ones that EVERYONE notices, because they make a ruckus or take up much of a caretaker's time. Combine immaturity with alcohol and dumb things happen.

Sometimes, it's not even that. It's a demand for extra priviledges or discounts simply because someone is a thru-hiker. I saw a bit of this near the end of my thru-hike as budgets began to get a bit strained. Maybe it is worse now because of the economy.

I personally wouldn't want to work in a hostel or outfitter serving hikers along the AT. I have mostly great memories of my thru-hike, and I suspect dealing with the handful of needy hikers would sap some of the happiness from those memories.

Jester2000
06-16-2009, 13:27
I can't speak for the northern sections of the AT nowadays, since my thru-hike was a decade ago. But from section hikes in the southern portions of the trail in the last few years, it seems similar to what I saw in 1999.

I think that the problem of the small percentage of jerks out there has always been a problem -- I think you're correct saying that it is similar to 1999; I saw the same behavior occasionally in 2000.

And here we are 10 years later. Perhaps the small percentage is the same, but the numbers overall are up, or, more likely I think, sites like this exist, giving a forum to describe and debate such behavior. Which means we all hear about it, which is probably a good thing.

(the only true hiker-centered site I remember from back in 2000 was hobocentral)

JAK
06-16-2009, 13:42
Well I hope things will get better, in all respects.
Things tend to remain the same, but things tend to change also.

Personally I think people will adapt with the times. I think in the future we will see better behaviour, because we will have to become more environmentally conscious if we are going to survive, and as we become more environmentally we might be more apt to learn from that and behave better. Then again, it might have to be forced upon us, and so we might still not get it. Younger folks will continue to rebel and make fools of themselves from time to time, and we will always find ways to make each other miserable, at any age, with or without the assistance of alcohol, but that's only natural. Hopefully we will find ways of doing all that sustainably. lol

Jester2000
06-16-2009, 16:31
Well I hope things will get better, in all respects.
Things tend to remain the same, but things tend to change also.

Personally I think people will adapt with the times. I think in the future we will see better behaviour, because we will have to become more environmentally conscious if we are going to survive, and as we become more environmentally we might be more apt to learn from that and behave better. Then again, it might have to be forced upon us, and so we might still not get it. Younger folks will continue to rebel and make fools of themselves from time to time, and we will always find ways to make each other miserable, at any age, with or without the assistance of alcohol, but that's only natural. Hopefully we will find ways of doing all that sustainably. lol

Well said!

WalkinHome
06-17-2009, 15:39
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
If there were no shelters ... it would dramatically alter sheer numbers and the type of hiker you'd find out there.

Reality Check - We are getting wrapped around this axle when Thru Hikers are a statistically insignificant minority on the AT. During the hiking season, there are many thousands of hikers out for the day or weekend that have little or no interest in many of the criteria listed on the first post. Ergo the removal of all these things would have minimal impact except on the relatively small numbers of.........wait for it..... thru hikers, which are a statistically insignificant minority on the AT. My .02

Nean
06-17-2009, 17:02
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
If there were no shelters ... it would dramatically alter sheer numbers and the type of hiker you'd find out there.

Reality Check - We are getting wrapped around this axle when Thru Hikers are a statistically insignificant minority on the AT. During the hiking season, there are many thousands of hikers out for the day or weekend that have little or no interest in many of the criteria listed on the first post. Ergo the removal of all these things would have minimal impact except on the relatively small numbers of.........wait for it..... thru hikers, which are a statistically insignificant minority on the AT. My .02

Or maybe it would dramatically alter sheer numbers of any and all overnighters regardless of how many nights or miles. People feel more safe and secure knowing they have an actual place where 2 of the BIG 3 are there and waiting. All the info avaliable makes the AT more inviting to more people as well. Get rid of all the information and all the shelters and you'd be back to the numbers (of all users) that they had in the 60s. My guess.:)

emerald
06-17-2009, 17:07
Get rid of all the information and all the shelters and you'd be back to the numbers (of all users) that they had in the 60s.

We do not have the population now we had in the 1960s. All the more reason we need both.

We suffer from information overload and need better information or at least better access to the essential information and it needs to get to those who are most in need of it.

Nean
06-17-2009, 17:41
We do not have the population now we had in the 1960s. All the more reason we need both.

We suffer from information overload and need better information or at least better access to the essential information and it needs to get to those who are most in need of it.

Yeah, I kinda figured there are more people now, at least where I live.:D I didn't say info was bad, shelters are bad, or people are bad. I love the AT because of these things, not in spite of them. ;) Take the info and shelters away and you have the CDT! which as you may know- has far less people. Wait, the CDT is in another part of the country. Nevermind....:o

weary
06-17-2009, 18:47
We do not have the population now we had in the 1960s. All the more reason we need both.

We suffer from information overload and need better information or at least better access to the essential information and it needs to get to those who are most in need of it.
The total number of 2,000 milers recorded by ATC between 1937 and 1970 was around 50. The big explosion of hiking occurred in the 1970s as I recall.

The peak for one season happened in 2000. It's been shrinking ever since.

Weary

Jack Tarlin
06-17-2009, 19:04
Actually, numbers have not been shrinking ever since the year 2000. The ATC's own website indicates, for example, that numbers in 2008 were up from the preceding year, and anyone who works at a Trail facility (hostel or outfitter) will tell you that they think that numbers are up this year over last. So while it is certainly true that numbers are not what they were a decade ago, to say that they have been shrinking ever since would be a mistake.

sarbar
06-17-2009, 19:48
Out here this is what passes as a "shelter" on the PCT:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/NWHikergirl/PCT%20Govt%20Meadows-Crystal/GM19.jpg

Quite charming, no? :p

Get to Washington State, there isn't much off the PCT directly. Just Mt. passes every so many miles where there is a gas station with candy bars on those lonely sections.

Otherwise, if you need stuff it is a long haul downhill to a real town on the highways. Get that thumb warmed up ;)

Never understood the whole shelter thing. Out west it is rare to see a shelter. Once they fell in, they were rarely replaced. Now days it is nearly impossible to even build one - it won't happen in wilderness.

California on the PCT does have more "trail life" though - with towns a plenty to stop in. But that does dwindle down the farther north one walks.

shelterbuilder
06-17-2009, 20:13
Cool pic, sarbar! I'll grab my froe and mallet, and we'll make some new wooden shingles for that roof - and maybe jack up the center post and put a stone footer under it!;)

I suspect that the lack of shelters is a difference in east vs. west cultural attitudes. Back east, you just HAD to have someplace to get in out of the "wild elements", but the cowboys and other western wanderers were, I think, more used to just "being out in it".

emerald
06-17-2009, 22:39
Take the info and shelters away and you have the CDT! which as you may know- has far less people.

Were those two things you mentioned highlighted and deleted, the AT would still be the destination of choice for most people. They'd still come and you know it.


The total number of 2,000 milers recorded by ATC between 1937 and 1970 was around 50. The big explosion of hiking occurred in the 1970s as I recall.

The peak for one season happened in 2000. It's been shrinking ever since.

Weary

We've been referring to several different quantities. My response to Nean referred to overall use of the AT, not the number of 2000 milers recognized annually by ATC. Overall use of the AT may be similiar. Do we have any such numbers? They may or may not be the same as what's happening elsewhere.

I believe the U.S. population is projected to continue to grow for several decades anyway and I'd think it's reasonable to expect AT use to rise along with it.

Wise Old Owl
06-17-2009, 23:02
Sabar - I would pass on that.

sarbar
06-18-2009, 00:19
What is funny is NO WAY would I sleep in that shelter...and yet a lady had her tepee set up under it the night before with a massive pack o' drooling dogs. She was all possessive about it being her shelter. And that we could keep moving on. Lord! I would be afraid of it falling on me!

In the Olympic Mountains are a few shelters rotting slowly in the rain forests...covered in thick moss, even some have tiny trees growing. Sleep tight with the banana slugs :D I'd rather sleep in a tent!

Pony
06-18-2009, 00:27
I don't know what you do, but it is my hope people read this and have a better understanding that a $30 shelter does not entitle people to get drunk and make noise all night. Want to stop the issue? charge more. People with poor behavior won't stick around if they can't afford it.

I work in a restaurant, mostly bartending, but occasianally I serve. The restaurant where I work offers a lot of good drink and food specials. Many people who come in when the drinks are not on special will complain that the drinks are regular price, like I have control over what the restaurant charges. So what ends up happening is they will order the cheapest drink and take it out of my tip. I guess when I wrote my last post I was coming off of a shift of dealing with this kind of behavior, and was a bit irritated with people. If it were up to me, there would be no drink specials, but unfortunately we would not be competitive if that happened. My sentiment though was that the more you give people, the more they come to expect it. I know the service industry is very broad, but I hope this explains where I am coming from.

Oh yeah, I'm not a Jeffery, I'm a Jeffrey. ;):)

Nean
06-18-2009, 13:19
Were those two things you mentioned highlighted and deleted, the AT would still be the destination of choice for most people. They'd still come and you know it.



We've been referring to several different quantities. My response to Nean referred to overall use of the AT, not the number of 2000 milers recognized annually by ATC. Overall use of the AT may be similiar. Do we have any such numbers? They may or may not be the same as what's happening elsewhere.

I believe the U.S. population is projected to continue to grow for several decades anyway and I'd think it's reasonable to expect AT use to rise along with it.

I'm not sure what the first line of your post is saying :confused: but if its saying that if you took away all the shelters and all the info about the AT :-? it would not dramatically alter sheer numbers, well, I'll politely disagree. I know it would still be the trail of choice for most, there just wouldn't be as many in the most.;)

Jester2000
06-18-2009, 18:05
Out here this is what passes as a "shelter" on the PCT:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/NWHikergirl/PCT%20Govt%20Meadows-Crystal/GM19.jpg

Quite charming, no? :p


On the other hand, here's what also passes for a shelter on the PCT. Not bad, eh? They're few and far between, admittedly (note the two story outhouse):

emerald
06-18-2009, 18:42
Take the info and shelters away and you have the CDT! which as you may know- has far less people.

Were those two things you mentioned highlighted and deleted, the AT would still be the destination of choice for most people. They'd still come and you know it.


I'm not sure what the first line of your post is saying :confused: ...

Eliminating shelters and I assume you meant online information would not be as simple as highlighting and deleting text on your screen. Decisions about such things at least the former are made at the local level, not by Internet discussion groups.

I believe those who have a strong desire to hike the AT for the reasons it was intended would hike it regardless. Many today appear to be hiking it for other reasons, but I'm not certain what motivates at least some of them.

warraghiyagey
06-18-2009, 19:06
.
I believe those who have a strong desire to hike the AT for the reasons it was intended would hike it regardless. Many today appear to be hiking it for other reasons, but I'm not certain what motivates at least some of them.
I do it for the million bucks ya get at the end:sun

Wags
06-18-2009, 19:08
see the real problem with the whole 'eliminate shelters' herd mentality of whiteblaze.net is that people here think they are the "majority" or "royalty" of the AT. when in true, i seriously doubt everyone posting here even hikes, let alone backpacks. the 2 guys i've met on the trail who know about this website actually don't participate here anymore b/c of all the brow-beating and lame-ass politics that takes place here.


re. shelters: they're nice to have. a good mileage marker, a good place for usually reliable water, dinner conversations, talking with people coming the other direction about the upcoming trail conditions, etc... the VAST majority of people i encounter on the trail stay at these (staying AT them doesn't mean "IN" them)

stay classy

warraghiyagey
06-18-2009, 19:10
see the real problem with the whole 'eliminate shelters' herd mentality of whiteblaze.net is that people here think they are the "majority"

You should definitely PM Lone Wolf about this. . . .

Tin Man
06-18-2009, 19:14
You should definitely PM Lone Wolf about this. . . .

don't tease folks like that. :D


Wags,

campsites = cool
dirty wooden boxes = not cool

I came to this realization after my first 100 AT miles, I have almost 500 miles now, not that it matters, and I can state my opinion, whether or not you or anyone else thinks it is classy or not.

Tin Man
06-18-2009, 19:17
and Wags, I have met plenty of thru-hikers who pass the shelters by and camp where it is convenient for them and not where the sign says 'dirty wooden box this way'

warraghiyagey
06-18-2009, 19:22
I have met plenty of thru-hikers who pass the shelters by and camp where it is convenient for them and not where the sign says 'dirty wooden box this way'
As a technicality, there are no signs near shelters that say that. . . :)

Tin Man
06-18-2009, 19:24
As a technicality, there are no signs near shelters that say that. . . :)

oh, my bad :o

paradoxb3
06-19-2009, 11:25
is there any reason why a hiker which agrees with your radical proposals could not simply not stay in hostels/shelters, use shuttles or hitch, take from trail magic, and just go about their merry way? if thats how one feels the trail should be hiked, then whats stopping one from hiking it that way rather than putting a ban on everything that A: most everyone else enjoys, and B: isnt hurting you. After all, isn't that a pretty close definition of that "HYOH" phrase you're so fond of?

Tin Man
06-19-2009, 11:33
chill. people get on there high horses or just simply joke around. on the trail, people take two approaches: a) newbie and/or traditionalists - use all the facilities, because they think that is how it is done or simply grown accustomed or prefer that approach; or b) experienced/original thinkers - see what's there and use what they like and ignore the rest. No right or wrong about either approach in general. Just don't abuse the privileges and have a great hike. :)

warraghiyagey
06-19-2009, 11:54
is there any reason why a hiker which agrees with your radical proposals could not simply not stay in hostels/shelters, use shuttles or hitch, take from trail magic, and just go about their merry way? if thats how one feels the trail should be hiked, then whats stopping one from hiking it that way rather than putting a ban on everything that A: most everyone else enjoys, and B: isnt hurting you. After all, isn't that a pretty close definition of that "HYOH" phrase you're so fond of?
You've got it right on. . . do it the way you want. . . . you rarely meet a hiker out there that has even heard of WB. . . have fun. . . :sun

Jim Adams
06-19-2009, 18:14
Not real sure but I would think that there aren't many shelters on the PCT as compared to the AT due to far less rainfall. I saw the post here about western attitudes compared to eastern attitudes about having shelters on a trail. I saw no real reason for shelters on the first 1000 miles of the PCT but I'll bet there are alot of 2003 AT thru hikers out there that praised the shelters on their hike.

geek

Jester2000
06-19-2009, 18:35
is there any reason why a hiker which agrees with your radical proposals could not simply not stay in hostels/shelters, use shuttles or hitch, take from trail magic, and just go about their merry way? if thats how one feels the trail should be hiked, then whats stopping one from hiking it that way rather than putting a ban on everything that A: most everyone else enjoys, and B: isnt hurting you. After all, isn't that a pretty close definition of that "HYOH" phrase you're so fond of?

I think the question kind of revolved around how the trail and the people on it would be different if the trail were different in the ways listed in the radical proposal, not about an individual's choices while on the trail.


You've got it right on. . . do it the way you want. . . . you rarely meet a hiker out there that has even heard of WB. . . have fun. . . :sun

I think what you probably meant to say was "I rarely meet a hiker out there that has even heard of WB." And for you that's true, I suppose. I, on the other hand, meet hikers all the time who have heard of White Blaze.

Tankerhoosen
06-22-2009, 00:17
I personally wouldn't want to work in a hostel or outfitter serving hikers along the AT. I have mostly great memories of my thru-hike, and I suspect dealing with the handful of needy hikers would sap some of the happiness from those memories.

You know, I totally understand that sentiment, I was a Boy Scout as a youth, and then went to work for them professionally years later.... talk about killing what I used to love (at times)