View Full Version : Map question...
Trying to decide about whether to carry maps on my thru hike. Are the maps most carried those available through the Appalachian Trail Conference? What are other sources? Thanks.
Lone Wolf
09-28-2004, 12:27
yup. Get your maps through the ATC. You really should carry maps. More for safety than anything else.
Rather than buy all your maps up front, perhaps you might buy just those for the area south of Damascus. That way, if you have to get off, you won't be stuck with a pile of maps. Also, you might decide that you don't want to hike with the maps any more, and so will not be stuck with the maps. If you decide you do want to carry maps (so, for example, you want a better idea of where water is than the craptacular data book gives), then you can buy the Viriginia ones at the outfitters in Damascus (I think they have them). Repeat in Harpers Ferry, if you want. Repeat somewhere in VT or NH.
Jack Tarlin
09-28-2004, 14:12
Chappy:
This subject has been covered here many times at Whiteblaze; if you do a site search on "Maps" you'll see all sorts of comments. Lone Wolf said it all briefly and well; here's a longer view:
In my opinion, I think it's reckless and foolish to venture into any backcountry situation without current maps and the ability to read and use them. I further think it's reckless and irresponsible for trail "veterans" to imply or state that one doesn't need them. I've been involved on searches and rescues many times on the Trail and elsewhere: In almost EVERY case, the poor lost souls either had no maps; were "separated" from their maps (their hiking partner had the only set); they had sh****y hand-traced, hand-made maps; or they didn't know how to intelligently use whatever maps they had.
There are all sorts of reasons to carry maps: They'll tell you EXACTLY where you are on the Trail, and how far you are from where you need or want to be.
They'll tell you all sorts of things about the terrain that lies ahead of you and beside you. They'll tell you where roads and paths are that'll help you in case of an emergency situation, and you either have to leave the Trail, or if a section of the Trail becomes impassable or unhikeable.....rockslide, flooded stream, impassable ford, etc. They'll tell you where alternate water sources are in dry periods. They'll tell you what the terrain ahead of you is like so can more intelligently plan your hiking days: Do you like to knock off the toughest miles in the morning, when you're fresh, and it's not too hot? Do you hate starting the day with a big climb, or more likely, would you prefer NOT to end the day with one? Or do you want a climb at the end of the day so you can catch a sunset or sunrise, or both? Do you want to know when it'd be wise to go for a big-mileage day, and when it'd be foolish to?
This is the type of information you'll get from maps. Without maps, and the ability to read them, you'll have virtually NONE of this information. Your daily hiking plans will be haphazard; you'll be blind as to what lies ahead or beside you. Your options in an emergency situation, and your ability to help yourself or others is extremely subscribed.
In short, the only reason NOT to carry maps is because of the alleged expense involved, and this is lame: The ATC offers an annual discount rate for those who buy the map sets all at once, and an even greater one to ATC members; over the course of a six-month hike, this means your maps will cost you a bit more than half a buck a day. Assuming one checks one's maps half a dozen times a day, this means that getting a look at your maps will cost you less than a dime each time you do it. Believe me, this is money well spent. Or to put it another way: If you get lost cuz you don't have a map to check; or if you go five miles in July in Pennsylvania without a drink cuz you don't know where the water is; if you get totally turned around and lost in Maine in early October; if you have to bushwhack seven miles because a bridge is out or a stream is flooded; if your hiking partner breaks his ankle in the middle of nowhere and you need to know where a side trail or lumber road leads......well, in situations like this, wouldn't it be worth it to you to have spent a handful of dimes so you have a map at hand on those days?
In short, there are all sorts of good reasons to carry maps. There are very few good reasons NOT to do so. (And incidentally, you can save even more money by checking out E-Bay or other Trail sites; there are often folks looking to sell un-needed or un-used map sets, always at a great savings, so if money is the issue, it's a weak one). And incidentally, if you buy the maps "state by state" instead of all at once, you'll spend MUCH more money in the process. (Or buying the Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia map sets INDIVIDUALLY will cost you almost as much as buying a complete used set on-line or elsewhere).
In short, I don't think it's particularly intelligent to hike the A.T., or any other backcountry trail, without maps. Can it be done? Sure. Have many done so?
Sure. But is this a wise or particularly bright thing to do ? No, it isn't.
To sum up, Chappy, I've seen lots of folks who decided to carry maps and decided on many occasions that they were glad that they did so. I haven't met many who thought otherwise. (I should also mention that EVERY hiker, without exception, who elects not to carry maps REPEATEDLY asks other hikers if they can gander a look at theirs.....which is cheap and shabby, if you ask me, but this is a minor point).
Unless you're in an area of the woods or mountains that you know INTIMATELY, you should be carrying a current map and you should know how to read it. To do otherwise, or to encourage others to do otherwise, is, in my opinion, reckless, irresponsible, and pretty stupid.
Oh, and to your other question: The ATC maps are still the best ones I know of: They're complete, easy to read and use, waterproof, and reasonably priced. They're also updated every few years so they're much more accurate than other maps such as US Geographical Survey maps or others that may be years old and are not put together by Trail people, maintaining clubs, etc. Lastly, purchasing the ATC maps and/or Guidebooks helps the ATC, a very worthy organization. In short, The ATC maps are the best way to go.
Hope this answers your questions.
I couldn't agree more with the thorough answer that Jack Tarlin gave! Well put!
Usually I'm the first to agree with Jack, but in this case I don't. I didn't carry maps on my thruhike for a few different reasons. First, they are expensive. I had a budget to stick to and the maps were on the expensive side. Second, it takes alot of planning to get all the maps organized and forwarded to the post offices. Then you have to start planning your hike around days of the week and towns you must stop in. In my mind it isn't total freedom to have to worry about that kind of stuff. Third, they are heavy. At most times, you will probably be carrying about 3 maps, they will weight about 5 to 8 ounces. That is a good amount of weight. I carried pages out of the data book, and some of the companion and never had a problem. You get an idea of the terrain, and you know what your exit points are. I never once felt in danger of being lost on the trail. I liked the freedom of not knowing were every little bump in the trail was. I however did carry maps through the whites. I thought that was the only place you might run into trouble.
baseballswthrt
09-29-2004, 05:03
IMHO I think It is foolish to leave maps at home. There have been many times while section hiking that we have had to find another way around a blocked trail whether it be due to flooding, blow downs, or snow, etc. I have used them to find water several times and I like to know the elevation changes that are coming up. It can help me decide whether to take a break or stop for the night. I also just enjoy looking at them when we have down time!
Anita
VAMTNHIKER
09-29-2004, 07:04
I agree with Jack's excellent post and Anita... perhaps it's my training... I will leave behind a compass before I would leave a map...
....::ducking real quick:: ok ok ... I may not carry my expensive compass for AT hikes...but I do have an inexpensive lightweight compass built into my $9.99 plastic watch! :p
Lone Wolf
09-29-2004, 07:06
Usually the mapless ones are trying to get a look at those that carry them.
orangebug
09-29-2004, 08:50
The mapless ones also count on someone else's first aid kit.
Chappy:
I further think it's reckless and irresponsible for trail "veterans" to imply or state that one doesn't need them. [Stuff deleted here by Colter] (I should also mention that EVERY hiker, without exception, who elects not to carry maps REPEATEDLY asks other hikers if they can gander a look at theirs.....which is cheap and shabby, if you ask me, but this is a minor point).
Part two of the above quote simply isn't true, although it is very common for people to ask to look at maps. Bill Irwin, presumably, didn't ask to look at other folk's maps.
I am a trail veteran saying that if you are prepared and a competent outdoorsman carrying a compass, it is perfectly rational to hike the AT without maps. Thousands of hikers do. I assure you that no one will ever have to come searching for me on the AT because I am lost without a map. Now if I didn't have a COMPASS it would be possible to get lost in places such as Maine.
There ARE many places in the world where I wouldn't want to be caught without a map, and I have no problem at all with folks who want to carry maps, and for many folks it may make perfect sense for many reasons. For me, I didn't carry maps on the AT and I didn't miss them at all.
Carry the maps, they are a basic survival tool. If you get hurt or the weather turns ugly, you want to know where the nearest bail-out points are and where the roads lead. If you don't want the weight and don't want to look at them every day, thats fine. Photocopy the maps and put them in a zip lock at the bottom of your pack. But to head out into the woods without a map is reckless. I also carried a compass, but a really tiny one. You won't need it for heavy navigation, but knowing the general direction is a good thing.
As for the expense... you wouldn't hike the trail without a pack, would you? Or food? Or a sleeping bag? Maps are just as important... when you need them. If you can't afford the maps (or the pay sites in New England, or the postage to send mail drops, etc..), you can't afford to thru-hike.
Maps really are very important in the backcountry. Maps are not important in the front country, such as in your local city park. Which the AT qualifies as is, perhaps, a personal matter and one of perspective. The notion that maps are necessary for the entire trail is, for myself, an incorrect one. I just don't think that they promote much safety in the mid-Atlantic or even large parts of Virginia and lower New England. A GPS along with a satellite phone would provide much more (real) security, even if it would be more expensive. But, as Chomp and Jack note, how much is your safety worth? Ok. Flame on.
Blue Jay
09-29-2004, 10:15
Carry the maps, they are a basic survival tool. If you get hurt or the weather turns ugly, you want to know where the nearest bail-out points are and where the roads lead. If you don't want the weight and don't want to look at them every day, thats fine. Photocopy the maps and put them in a zip lock at the bottom of your pack. But to head out into the woods without a map is reckless. I also carried a compass, but a really tiny one. You won't need it for heavy navigation, but knowing the general direction is a good thing.
As for the expense... you wouldn't hike the trail without a pack, would you? Or food? Or a sleeping bag? Maps are just as important... when you need them. If you can't afford the maps (or the pay sites in New England, or the postage to send mail drops, etc..), you can't afford to thru-hike.
Didn't you ask the original question? Could this be a way to get Jack to write a huge edict from above? In that case you were successful. I always carry maps because I like them, but could care less if others do. If someone is lost I help them out without lording over them.
Didn't you ask the original question? Could this be a way to get Jack to write a huge edict from above? In that case you were successful. I always carry maps because I like them, but could care less if others do. If someone is lost I help them out without lording over them.
Wow, Blue Jay, do you pay attention ever, or just run your mouth? It was CHAPPY who asked the original question.
As for helping people out, I have read way too many news stories about hikers getting lost in New England and simply picking up their cell phones to call for a rescue. In some cases, these people were ON a trail. A woman died this year on Lafayette, partly because the couple did not have a map. They took the wrong route off the summit and when they got to an unfamaliar trail junction, they stopped. If they had a map, they would have realized that they were less than a quarter mile from treeline, and safety from the elements.
Now, I understand that thru-hikers don't typically hike in white-out conditions, but there are also a lot of bad things that can happen short of dying too.
Blue Jay
09-29-2004, 11:02
Wow, Blue Jay, do you pay attention ever, or just run your mouth? It was CHAPPY who asked the original question.
You are correct I didn't pay attention, I do when I'm driving but not when I'm typing.
tlbj6142
09-29-2004, 11:29
so, for example, you want a better idea of where water is than the craptacular data book givesI don't get this comment. I guess maps could show you where other source might be (valleys, etc.), they don't really tell you where it will be found.
I will say that on some maps they point out water sources (with that little blue sperm symbol) that are not always listed in the data book (not sure why they are not in the data book). And, at least in the case of the Maine maps, the "cartoon" map on the back side will callout "unknown stream", etc. in places where the data book doesn't list a water source (again I'm not sure why).
So, there is a good chance you will have a more "complete" list of "possible" water sources if you use the data book and maps.
I think I just answered my own question?
Is Wingfoot's book "better" with this than the databook?
Back on topic, another reason I like maps is that I like to finish the day on a long downhill (to give my knees a rest). So by reading the topo information and/or the profile shown on most maps I can accomplish that goal.
Youngblood
09-29-2004, 11:38
...I am a trail veteran saying that if you are prepared and a competent outdoorsman carrying a compass, it is perfectly rational to hike the AT without maps. .... For me, I didn't carry maps on the AT and I didn't miss them at all.
Colter, with due respect, your outdoor experience is so much more than most thru-hikers that what you feel comfortable doing might not be relevent. I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable jumping out of a perfectly good airplane in the best of conditions, much less with a forest fire below me.
Youngblood
I don't get this comment. I guess maps could show you where other source might be (valleys, etc.), they don't really tell you where it will be found.
Streams are often visible on the maps. Those that appear on the maps generally flow year round, and are therefore more reliable than springs & seeps.
You might be interested in the Map & Compass poll.
tlbj6142
09-29-2004, 12:43
Streams are often visible on the maps. Those that appear on the maps generally flow year round, and are therefore more reliable than springs & seeps.While I haven't looked at all maps, where a stream is shown on the map (crossing the AT) the databook typically lists it as a water source. There are, however, small streams that are not shown on the map or in the databook, that are often not listed. And, of course, it rarely lists sources that do not cross the AT.
I suppose those listed in the databook are what someone thinks of as reliable? Maybe that's why some sources are not listed in the databook?
Streams are often visible on the maps. Those that appear on the maps generally flow year round, and are therefore more reliable than springs & seeps.
This is exactly what I found. The data book wasn't super useful, because it didn't give you an idea of how reliable the source might be. I encountered a lot of dry or missing sources even in Virginia, in May of a wet year. Maps help with determining when you will have a big source. I found Wingfoot to be much better than trying to use the databook and companion. As my maps for the AT got lost in the mail, Wingfoot eventually (bought in Waynesboro) became my only info source as I sent back my data book and rest of the companion. He may be an arrogant arse, but his book really is rather good.
Tu_cubed
09-29-2004, 15:39
What about a guide book like Wingfoots.
Does this tell you where water sources are?
Does this tell you where trails are so you can bail?
Does this give you distance between shelters and camp sites?
Does this give you information on elevation change between various points?
Tu the Green Horn would like to know.
Tu
Does this tell you where water sources are?
Does this tell you where trails are so you can bail?
Does this give you distance between shelters and camp sites?
Does this give you information on elevation change between various points?
Not all of them, for sure, which doesn't seem important until you find yourself hiking in the middle of a drought.
The major ones. But it will not cover snowmobile trails, logging roads, or unpopular side trails. Topo maps will cover most of these
Yes, assuming that you are talking about designated sites. You can find flat spots on a topo map and go make your own campsite if you wish. (LNT, please).
Yes and no. It will tell you the elevation of two different points, but not the amount of climbing required to get to the next point.
Hope that this helps!
chomp
Colter, how useful is a compass without a map? I was extremely impressed with your outdoor experience after checking out your site (and a little jealous I might add) but didn't see the purpose in carrying a compass only except for getting a sense of direction. Without the map you can't go from point A to point B unless you already have a background knowledge of what the area and terrain you currently find yourself in looks like.
Colter, how useful is a compass without a map? I was extremely impressed with your outdoor experience after checking out your site (and a little jealous I might add) but didn't see the purpose in carrying a compass only except for getting a sense of direction. Without the map you can't go from point A to point B unless you already have a background knowledge of what the area and terrain you currently find yourself in looks like.
I do a lot of hiking in wilderness country where I know, for example, that I am west of the river my camp is on or north of the road my pickup is parked on. Sometimes I may walk half the day without paying a whole lot of attention to where I am. Sometimes it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to know where I am without a GPS because the trees are thick and the country is flat as a pancake. At any time, though, I can pull out my compass and head in the right direction to hit the road or river. Before anyone can think of a reason why that won't work, let me say that I've done it scores, if not hundreds, of times.
Now lets say I wonder off the trail in a flat area of the 100 Mile Wilderness and suddenly find myself "lost." With my compass, I can walk a straight line back to where I think the trail is. If I was wrong, I can head off in the opposite direction, for double the distance. At any time I can go back to my starting point and try a different direction. By using my head, and my compass, I WILL find the trail every single time.
The Polynesians often traveled thousands of miles across the OCEAN into unknown counry and and BACK without a map OR compass. Could I do that safely? Heck no! Wouldn't know what I was doing. Can I safely hike the freakin' AT with a compass and no map? Yup.
smokymtnsteve
09-29-2004, 18:46
I hear ya colter the AT isn't "real" wilderness but a lot of folks think it is,,,
it is well marked and blazed,,,more like a hiker highway. probably would be a good idea to have a map if you aren't used to living in the backcountry. plus most AT thru hikers want to see how fast they can make the next town or road xing. ;)
Jack Tarlin
09-29-2004, 19:00
Some Interesting comments....
First, to Hustler:
Sorry if you think the maps are too expensive....as I explained, if you buy the whole set in the fall from the ATC, you can get 'em at a tremendous discount. Also, there are always complete "used" sets available at multiple places. Lastly, maps end up costing well under a buck a day. Most hikers spend more than this on soda pop. So I don't think the "expense" argument is particularly valid.
Likewise, getting them sent to you while en route is no more involved than getting your other mail is....there are DOZENS of places on or near the Trail where you can receive mail and parcels 7 days a week, and these places aren't subject to Post Office hours and schedules; also, if you must send maps to Post offices, it's easy to do so at places where you're likely to take a day off anyway, so it doesn't matter what day you arrive (Damscus, Waynesboro, Delaware Water Gap, Hanover, etc). The planning here is not that involved.
The weight issue is a non-issue. I daresay if you ever found yourself well and truly lost in the woods or Maine, you'd be really happy you were packing three and a half ounces worth of maps.....it's all well and good to try and keep an eye on your pack weight but there are lots better ways to do this than by cutting out maps. Would you cut out food, water, or emergency clothes? I doubt it. Same goes for maps.
Lastly, you mentioned how the Data book and The Handbook tell you all you need to know about the terrain beside and ahead of you, and where one's "exit points" are. I submit that the Data Book and Handbook tell you virtually nothing about this other than listing some elevation points, and while these works tell you where major road crossings are, they're useless as to the hundreds of other roads and trails one encounters every day on the Trail. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and your partner takes a fall and starts spitting blood, knowing that the next real road where you can get help is seven miles down the Trail or five miles back doesn't really help either of you. A map will tell you exactly where you are, and exactly where you are in relation to the nearest useable "exit point." It'll tell you where streams and brooks end up, or whether there's a road at the other side of the pond you pass, or where a ski trail comes out, or where old woods roads or lumber paths actually lead. A map'll tell you if you're heading to an "exit point" or merely making a big circle. If the Trail abruptly turns off a dirt road and heads deep into the woods, a map will tell you where that road actually ends up if you were to follow it seeking help. Believe me, this can be very useful information.
I have absolutely no doubt you succesfully navigated the Trail without maps. I have no doubt there there are some folks like Colter who posess a level of backcountry and outdoor skills that leaves them capable of travelling most of the Trail without 'em. I've no doubt that one can do the Appalachian Trail without them.
I just don't think it's a particularly wise thing for most folks to do, and I don't think expense, weight, or Post Office hours are good enough excuses.
But like so many other subjects......to each their own.
smokymtnsteve
09-29-2004, 19:26
PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!
"Henry James was our master of periphrasis--the fine art of saying as little as possible in the greatest number of words."
THANKS BE TO ABBEY!
~
Some Interesting comments....
First, to Hustler:
Sorry if you think the maps are too expensive....as I explained, if you buy the whole set in the fall from the ATC, you can get 'em at a tremendous discount. Also, there are always complete "used" sets available at multiple places. Lastly, maps end up costing well under a buck a day. Most hikers spend more than this on soda pop. So I don't think the "expense" argument is particularly valid.
Likewise, getting them sent to you while en route is no more involved than getting your other mail is....there are DOZENS of places on or near the Trail where you can receive mail and parcels 7 days a week, and these places aren't subject to Post Office hours and schedules; also, if you must send maps to Post offices, it's easy to do so at places where you're likely to take a day off anyway, so it doesn't matter what day you arrive (Damscus, Waynesboro, Delaware Water Gap, Hanover, etc). The planning here is not that involved.
The weight issue is a non-issue. I daresay if you ever found yourself well and truly lost in the woods or Maine, you'd be really happy you were packing three and a half ounces worth of maps.....it's all well and good to try and keep an eye on your pack weight but there are lots better ways to do this than by cutting out maps. Would you cut out food, water, or emergency clothes? I doubt it. Same goes for maps.
Lastly, you mentioned how the Data book and The Handbook tell you all you need to know about the terrain beside and ahead of you, and where one's "exit points" are. I submit that the Data Book and Handbook tell you virtually nothing about this other than listing some elevation points, and while these works tell you where major road crossings are, they're useless as to the hundreds of other roads and trails one encounters every day on the Trail. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and your partner takes a fall and starts spitting blood, knowing that the next real road where you can get help is seven miles down the Trail or five miles back doesn't really help either of you. A map will tell you exactly where you are, and exactly where you are in relation to the nearest useable "exit point." It'll tell you where streams and brooks end up, or whether there's a road at the other side of the pond you pass, or where a ski trail comes out, or where old woods roads or lumber paths actually lead. A map'll tell you if you're heading to an "exit point" or merely making a big circle. If the Trail abruptly turns off a dirt road and heads deep into the woods, a map will tell you where that road actually ends up if you were to follow it seeking help. Believe me, this can be very useful information.
I have absolutely no doubt you succesfully navigated the Trail without maps. I have no doubt there there are some folks like Colter who posess a level of backcountry and outdoor skills that leaves them capable of travelling most of the Trail without 'em. I've no doubt that one can do the Appalachian Trail without them.
I just don't think it's a particularly wise thing for most folks to do, and I don't think expense, weight, or Post Office hours are good enough excuses.
But like so many other subjects......to each their own.
I agree entirely with Jack and others who say maps are a safety issue. And I know that hundreds (thousands) hike the trail without maps and don't have a problem.
But thousands also never finish. For reasons that have nothing whatever to do with safety. Though the quitters use multiple reasons. Injuries, family problems. Believe me. There will always be a plausible reason for getting off the trail. I'm convinced that the primary reason is simple boredom.
If your only reason for hiking the trail is to hike the trail, believe me there will be a thousands of excuses for stopping.
I suspect it's those with curiosity about the trail, the wildlife around the trail, the country through which one is walking that are most likely to finish. I hear constantly about the boredom of the "long green tunnel" that allegedly is the trail.
I never experienced it. I was continually fascinated with the life along the trail, the views of and curiosity about the mountains on the horizon.
Frankly, I can't think of anything more boring than hiking 2,170 miles for the sole purpose of having done it. This is incredibly fasinating country. Learn to appreciate this marvelous countryside, this incredible mix of wildness and civilization, and you will have both a more enjoyable hike and, I think, be more likely to finish. Maps will help. They will tell you about that mountain on the horizon. that town in the valley. That road you are crossing. That stream. That pond....
Weary
If price is an issue for you, try posting on here or trailforums or the ATL mailing list to see if anyone is selling their old AT maps. I bought the entire set and guidebooks for something ridiculously cheap like 45 bucks, before my thru-hike. This is about a quarter of the normal price. When times are tough, or a long-distance hiker wants to make a little money for their next adventure, its likely they'll try to sell their old ones. I for one, will always hold on to mine, but this is not the case for many...
minnesotasmith
09-29-2004, 20:40
"This is incredibly fasinating country. Learn to appreciate this marvelous countryside, this incredible mix of wildness and civilization, and you will have both a more enjoyable hike and, I think, be more likely to finish."
I find that a wonderful attitude to take about hiking the AT, and find your conclusions there highly plausible.
BTW, can anyone suggest a hiker-sized useful photographic guide to plants seen along the AT? I'm not so worried about identifying animals, as I figure most of them (besides birds) I'll either never see, or already know what they are (deer, squirrels, bears, etc.).
tlbj6142
09-29-2004, 20:41
They will tell you about that mountain on the horizon. that town in the valley. That road you are crossing. That stream. That pondGreat point. In doing so they become a multi-use item. Something to read for enjoyment and encrichment as well as a saftey device.
Some times its nice to take a break a view and think, I wonder what town that is in the valley below me? What mtn is across the way? Maps can provide that information. Mind you not all maps are equal, but the few I own (2/3 of VA, NH/VT and ME) are rather nice. I like the 2004 ME maps the best (cartoon map with POE on backside, topo [shaded which I don't care for] on the front with profile information. Along with mountian identication "arrows".
[i]BTW, can anyone suggest a hiker-sized useful photographic guide to plants seen along the AT? I'm not so worried about identifying animals, as I figure most of them (besides birds) I'll either never see, or already know what they are (deer, squirrels, bears, etc.).
I don't know about "hiker-sized", but The Appalachian Trail: A Visitor's Companion by Leonard Adkins (Menasha Ridge Press - $14.95) is a pretty decent book. You might want to pick it up now, and pick through it over the winter. It would be a good way to channel your energy between now and your hike. You can aways decide to carry it if you like. It is a softcover book.
Little Bear GA-ME 2000
There are, however, small streams that are not shown on the map or in the databook, that are often not listed. And, of course, it rarely lists sources that do not cross the AT.
I believe it was my friend Ed who told me that the PCT guidebook would say something like, "no water on trail for 30 miles" (I'm not talking about So Cal). Yeah, there was no water crossing or actually "on" the trail, but there were streams that ran parallel to the trail in that 30-mile stretch, and water was readily available in that 30-mile stretch. In other words, guidebooks, when taken literally, can be deceiving.
smokymtnsteve
09-29-2004, 21:51
I like this one ...small book
"Wildflowers of the Smokies"
very good for the southern third of the trail.
not a complete guide but purty good..
the flowers are arranged by color
specimens that look similiar are on opposing pages for easy comparsion and Identification.
also lot of easy to find/understand info about blooming times and habitat
yu know habitat,,,where you can find that rascal.
http://www.smokiesstore.org/browse.cfm/4,113.html
[i]"BTW, can anyone suggest a hiker-sized useful photographic guide to plants seen along the AT? I'm not so worried about identifying animals, as I figure most of them (besides birds) I'll either never see, or already know what they are (deer, squirrels, bears, etc.).
Waterford Press
www.waterfordpress.com
Sells a series of six panel pocket guides of trees, flowers, birds and wildlife. I haven't seen one for the southern Appalachians, but their New England Trees and flowers contain most of the common things one will find along the southern mountains and ridgelines.
My practice is to take notes on what I can't identify and check the libraries and book stores when I arrive in town.
Each guide when opened measures 8.5 by 22 inches, printed on both sides in full color. Total weight, about 1.5 ounces.
Weary
I can't believe I'm the only one going out on this limb. I will say this, after Pearisburg, I recall 2 thru hikers that were carrying maps out of all the hikers I ran into (excluding SOBO in Maine). That is one low percentage. So I know I'm not the only one who hiked from Georgia to Maine without maps.
I never once had a problem as a result of not having maps. I also knew what I was getting into. I am a very experienced backcountry guide and have led over 300 days of trips over the past 6 years. I knew if I got into trouble that I could get out of it without maps. Even in Maine, it didn't feel like I was pushing my luck at all, you're never that remote. I will tell you what remote is: A number of years ago I led a trip into the North West Territories paddled a route that took me farther north than the artic circle. I saw one other person in 24 days. This was before we had sat phones too. There was no way out even with maps if something happened. My question is, in an emergency situation, would the maps change the outcome considerably more than just using common sense?
Blue Jay
09-30-2004, 13:08
My question is, in an emergency situation, would the maps change the outcome considerably more than just using common sense?
They could, however, you usually still have to haul your own butt out of the woods. The information you need is which way is the nearest road, forward or back. Once you get to a road which way is nearest to help. You are correct a great many people do not carry maps. I always do, but I do not think you should be demonized for not doing so.
Jack Tarlin
09-30-2004, 13:15
Hustler asks:
"In an emergency situation, would the maps change the outcome considerably more than just using common sense."
The answer, is, in many cases, absolutely. This happens every year, and frequently results in the saving of lives. Anyone who has been involved with
backcountry Search and Rescue will confirm this.
People who truly believe in relying on common sense can gain a hell of an edge by carrying maps. Preparing yourself with the proper tools to handle an unforeseen situation or emergency is the epitome of using common sense. In a crisis situation, the more help you have in evaluating the situation, the better the chance you'll do the right thing.
Hustler has asked about how best to change the outcome in an emergency situation. Well, how can you expect to help yourself or anyone else if you only have a rough idea of where you are, an approximate idea of where you need or want to be, and now idea whatsoever what is the most efficient way of getting there? Without this knowledge, your hopes to "change the outcome" of the situation are little more than blind luck.
smokymtnsteve
09-30-2004, 13:16
a map showing cell phone coverage could come in handy during an emergency. ;)
I would contend that a majority of the thru hikers don't have the kind of orienteering experience to be able to exactly pin point their location if they got off trail using the traditional triangulation system in an emergency situation. In that case maps could potentially due more harm than good. I hear about it all the time living in the Rockies. Hikers think they know how to use maps, or GPS systems, and getting lost do to their ego. That is why I believe common sense is your best tool in an emergency situation.
minnesotasmith
09-30-2004, 23:46
Just how available are maps showing both the AT and GPS coordinates, or GPS coords together with topography? I probably won't use GPS on my AT through-hike, but intend to on my second planned Alaska hike in the bush.
I would contend that a majority of the thru hikers don't have the kind of orienteering experience to be able to exactly pin point their location if they got off trail using the traditional triangulation system in an emergency situation. In that case maps could potentially due more harm than good. I hear about it all the time living in the Rockies. Hikers think they know how to use maps, or GPS systems, and getting lost do to their ego. That is why I believe common sense is your best tool in an emergency situation.I'm sure no one doubts that common sense is your best tool, but does that mean it is all you need? With common sense you don't extra, clothing, food, water, sleeping bag, bug repellant, tent or tarp? Bring along common sense, but also your other gear.
The arguement that more information is bad doesn't wash. It's not easy to get lost with a GPS or map, but if you get lost, it is a very rare instance that they will do more harm than good.
How does common sense help when wandering around above treeline in zero visibility fog? Or tell you whether the closest road is left or right off a ridgeline?
That fact that you didn't get lost is not a rationale to say you shouldn't have brought maps with you, any more than driving your car this past year and not getting into an accident is saying you shouldn't have carried car insurance.
Youngblood
10-01-2004, 08:34
Just how available are maps showing both the AT and GPS coordinates, or GPS coords together with topography? I probably won't use GPS on my AT through-hike, but intend to on my second planned Alaska hike in the bush.
I haven't been buying many maps in the last couple of years, most of mine are a little older than that. Before I try to answer your question, I am going to rephrase it and ask "are there maps available that are GPS compatible?" My experience is that it is unusual for maps other than topo maps to be GPS compatible. And I call a map GPS compatible if it has either Lat/Long coordinates or the more preferable UTM coordinates on them with grid lines drawn across the map.
There is hope for using maps that aren't GPS compatible IF you have sufficent waypoints stored in the GPS that you can identify on your map. You can use the GOTO function to get the distance (and bearing) of two or more waypoints that you can identify on the map. Use the map scale to break small twigs to lengths representing the distance to those waypoints and then use them to triangulate your position on the map. For an AT thru-hike, storing shelter coordinates as waypoints will allow you to do this. I suspect there are other clever ways to do the same thing.
Youngblood
The maps you purchase from the ATC do not have very good Lat/Lon coordinate lay outs on the maps. I was fairly unimpressed with the maps, especially Pennsylvania’s. It would be difficult to get the Lat/Lon coordinates off of those maps to get the number of waypoints you are talking about. I really like using GPS but carrying one for 2175 miles, and spending countless days entering waypoints? I saw most of the GPS systems being sent home from Neels Gap.
In Maine, I had to help some really experienced hikers (who had been hiking at least 20 years longer than I) with map issues. They were trying to catch this ridge and hike down to this road. They had no idea how declination worked or even their compass. If they were in an emergency situation they would have done more harm than good trying to use their map and compass. The 12 ½ degrees declination would have put them well off the road they were looking for. I guaranty that I would have been more successful becoming evacuated in an emergency situation without a map than that party would have with a map.:-?
Jack Tarlin
10-01-2004, 12:58
A few words about Trail toys: It should be remembered that GPS devices, as well as cellphones, are not infallible. They break. They get lost. They get wet. Batteries fail. There are places where, for various reasons, they may not work.
If one elects to bring these things along on a backcountry trip, they should be brought along IN ADDITION to such things as map, compass, and woordcraft/outdoors skills, and not INSTEAD of them. All too often, technological devices provide little more than a sense of security that, all too often, proves false in an emergency situation.
Oh, and as to the remarkable sggestion that maps often do more harm than good, well I really have trouble with this one. There are, I suppose, reasons not to carry maps, and we've dealt with those "reasons" here----weight, cost, etc. But to not carry maps for fear that they'll only get you more lost than you already are....well I gotta say that's a new one. Kinda like saying don't use your stove cuz it greatly increases your chances of getting seriously burned during your thru-hike, or don't cary your tent cuz it might encourage you to make camp in an unsafe place. While you're at it, why not advise people not to carry food, so as to avoid the possibility of indgestion. Oh, and if you cut your water intake by 75%, this is a great way to decrease your chances of contracting Giardia. And don't sleep, either, it'll help you spot forest fires at night. And so on.
But seriously, telling folks that maps frequently do more harm than good.....well, this has got to be one of the sillier things I've read here in recent days, and believe me, that takes some doing. Of all the reasons not to carry them, saying "Beware of Trail maps, they're dangerous and can get you killed!!" somehow doesn't cut it.
tlbj6142
10-01-2004, 13:21
I really like using GPS but carrying one for 2175 miles, and spending countless days entering waypoints?I believe the entire trail's GPS waypoints are available for download from the ATC site. They might be out-of-date in a few locations (they appear to be from 2002), but I'm fairly certain it was complete.
Here is the link (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/gis/agree2.html).
I believe the entire trail's GPS waypoints are available for download from the ATC site. They might be out-of-date in a few locations (they appear to be from 2002), but I'm fairly certain it was complete.
Here is the link (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/gis/agree2.html).
The ATC apparently only has the waypoints for the shelters available off of that link. The list of waypoints I would like to see is one for all the trail head parking areas and trail/road crossings. GPS in the car to find the trailheads is useful - GPS on the trail is mostly a waste of weight IMO.
tlbj6142
10-01-2004, 14:11
They appear to have the gps stuff in two locations. You want the GIS information. Found here. (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/gis/GISdata.html)
Not sure how you convert GIS information to GPS information. But, I suspect, there must be someway to do it. As the GIS info appears to have been originally collected via a backpack size GPS unit strapped to some dude's back as he walked down the trail.
Youngblood
10-01-2004, 17:02
It is sometimes unwise to suggest what someone else can or cannot do with equipment that you are not familiar with.
For instance, you can use a GPS with the ATC's maps to find your location using waypoints for shelters and you can download the coordinates for the shelters directly to a GPS that has a computer interface. I have one and have done it. I was given a fancy new GPS and the Maptech CD set from my coworkers when I retired. I took it on my thru-hike because I felt an obligation to, more than as a matter of choice. When I had my maps, I was able to pinpoint where I was and I did find some good uses for it at times.
With an understanding of how to use it and a little ingenuity, a GPS in the hands of a clever person can do things that a lot of people never thought of or thought would be possible.
Youngblood
A few words about Trail toys: It should be remembered that GPS devices, as well as cellphones, are not infallible. They break. They get lost. They get wet. Batteries fail. There are places where, for various reasons, they may not work.
If one elects to bring these things along on a backcountry trip, they should be brought along IN ADDITION to such things as map, compass, and woordcraft/outdoors skills, and not INSTEAD of them. All too often, technological devices provide little more than a sense of security that, all too often, proves false in an emergency situation.
Oh, and as to the remarkable sggestion that maps often do more harm than good, well I really have trouble with this one. There are, I suppose, reasons not to carry maps, and we've dealt with those "reasons" here----weight, cost, etc. But to not carry maps for fear that they'll only get you more lost than you already are....well I gotta say that's a new one. Kinda like saying don't use your stove cuz it greatly increases your chances of getting seriously burned during your thru-hike, or don't cary your tent cuz it might encourage you to make camp in an unsafe place. While you're at it, why not advise people not to carry food, so as to avoid the possibility of indgestion. Oh, and if you cut your water intake by 75%, this is a great way to decrease your chances of contracting Giardia. And don't sleep, either, it'll help you spot forest fires at night. And so on.
But seriously, telling folks that maps frequently do more harm than good.....well, this has got to be one of the sillier things I've read here in recent days, and believe me, that takes some doing. Of all the reasons not to carry them, saying "Beware of Trail maps, they're dangerous and can get you killed!!" somehow doesn't cut it.
I don't remember my first "mess" in the woods. If my folks are to be believed it was around the age of 6 weeks. But I do remember messing around in the woods for at least 65 years since I learned what a map was. In all that time I have yet to meet a "killer" map.
Weary
Go with the maps; Know your stuff in the backcountry. Stuff goes wrong and I guess maybe I got lucky hiking the whole trail without maps. I wouldn't think twice about hiking without them again, but I'm more than aware of the risks. Hike your own Hike
minnesotasmith
10-04-2004, 08:32
This past weekend, I was hiking on the AT. About a mile Springer-ward of the Hawk Mountain shelter, I encountered a black bear that ran uphill of the Trail, to an unknown (but possibly very short) distance from the Trail. It was too near dusk and I was too bushed to head all the way back IMO. I backed up and did a big bushwacking detour (took over 20 minutes) downhill of that spot, hooking back up with the Trail a ways past where I saw the bear. As it turned out, there was a reliable sloping the whole way, so it was easy to keep my bearings (pun, yes). Still, I could have gotten disoriented. I had a compass, but only so-so maps. Likewise, there were several places on the section I hiked that it would have been fairly easy to take a wrong turn. If just a couple of trees with blazes had been among the number knocked down from all the storms over the past month, it would have been a considerably worse deal for someone with no maps or compass...
The long and the short of it is that IMO, the more you have in the way of directional finding equipment, knowledge, and skill, the better off you will be when the inevitable unplanned screwup occurs.
Lone Wolf
10-04-2004, 08:35
Why did you leave the trail just because you saw a bear?
smokymtnsteve
10-04-2004, 08:42
Why did you leave the trail just because you saw a bear?
b-b-bear scared? :D
minnesotasmith
10-04-2004, 08:48
Was that the terrain and foliage made it impossible in my judgement to discern whether or not the bear had moved far enough away from the Trail for safely continuing along the Trail in the direction I was going. It could have gone less than 40' uphill from the Trail, and I would not have known it, with all the dark-brown stumps and bottom-ends of blown-down trees that appeared black at any distance, combined with all the foliage uphill of the Trail. I figured that my safety was worth some briars and hiking on soft, steeply-sloping ground for a while. I had no firearm nor bear spray with me, and I would still have made the same decision if I had.
Lone Wolf
10-04-2004, 08:54
O.K. just wondering. Black bears are pretty harmless though.
minnesotasmith
10-04-2004, 08:58
My caution was appropriate, though, I believe, even if odds were that that bear was long gone before I could have gotten to that section of Trail he was on.
smokymtnsteve
10-04-2004, 09:02
but there could have been a b-b-bear waiting for you out in the woods where you bushwacked,,,how would you have known? :D
Youngblood
10-04-2004, 09:13
Was that the terrain and foliage made it impossible in my judgement to discern whether or not the bear had moved far enough away from the Trail for safely continuing along the Trail in the direction I was going. It could have gone less than 40' uphill from the Trail, and I would not have known it, with all the dark-brown stumps and bottom-ends of blown-down trees that appeared black at any distance, combined with all the foliage uphill of the Trail. I figured that my safety was worth some briars and hiking on soft, steeply-sloping ground for a while. I had no firearm nor bear spray with me, and I would still have made the same decision if I had.
The bear probably told a similar story to his buddies about the hiker out to get him... and he has a good reason because bears are hunted in Georgia. When they turn and flee when they notice you, I don't think you are likely to see them again even IF you want to.
Youngblood
orangebug
10-04-2004, 09:46
I'd be more afraid of going off trail at dusk than possibly running into a black bear. At least it wasn't hunting season, yet. My few encounters with a black bear have involved watching it's rump heading for the horizon.
Youngblood
10-04-2004, 10:10
I'd be more afraid of going off trail at dusk than possibly running into a black bear. At least it wasn't hunting season, yet. My few encounters with a black bear have involved watching it's rump heading for the horizon.
You're right about 'firearm' season. However, bushwacking around the trail, especially at dusk, wasn't as appropriate as he thought it was... it is avoiding one perceived problem and creating several real ones. But, I remember when I first started hiking, how at dusk I would see a bear waiting to get me in every stump along the trail... and then there are the snakes that jump out and bite us as we walk along the trail that turn out to be a small stick that we kicked up. It is something that most of us go through while we are gaining experience.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=300&txtPage=9
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=325
I think everyone should wear at least an orange cap while in the woods during fall and winter, especially around dawn or dusk.
Youngblood
minnesotasmith
10-04-2004, 11:41
But, I got a good look at it, seeing its head/ears/face as well as its body. There is no question in my mind what I saw. I have seen stuffed black bears both at the Amicalola Ranger station and at Auburn University, where there are two in a glass case on the ground floor in the Agronomy building.
minnesotasmith
10-04-2004, 11:45
"but there could have been a b-b-bear waiting for you out in the woods where you bushwacked,,,how would you have known?" :D
I figured I was playing the odds appropriately. I knew there had very recently been one ahead of me on the Trail and just uphill of it, whereas there was a good chance that there had not recently been a bear downhill of the Trail. Short of turning around, it seemed the best option available to me at the time.
tlbj6142
10-04-2004, 13:39
Did you try talking to it? Really.
I've run into several bears (mostly in the Smokies, but one in western PA), most take off as soon as they know you are there. One stopped and looked at me for some time. It wasn't until I said something that it decided to run off (I guess most "animals" don't talk).
smokymtnsteve
10-04-2004, 13:43
But, I got a good look at it, seeing its head/ears/face as well as its body. There is no question in my mind what I saw. I have seen stuffed black bears both at the Amicalola Ranger station and at Auburn University, where there are two in a glass case on the ground floor in the Agronomy building.
Do ya think it might have been Grizz?
http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4676/size/big/password/0/sort/1/cat/500
I'm scared this one has stalked me down from Denali. probably made it to North GA about the time you were there. :D
Youngblood
10-04-2004, 20:37
minnesotasmith,
I don't question that you saw a black bear. When the bear ran off, you were in no danger from the bear. You did endanger yourself by bushwacking around the trail. You could have had an accident, lost the trail or ran into a venomous snake that you might not have seen until too late. If the bear was wanting to pass you on the trail, it might have used the same technique you did and bushwacked around you... did you stay to the right of the trail or to the left?
Youngblood
minnesotasmith
10-05-2004, 06:08
"I don't question that you saw a black bear."
Glad to hear that. I would have no incentive to be untruthful about this, and I know what I saw.
"When the bear ran off, you were in no danger from the bear."
Perhaps. My take is that when there is no bear nearby is when I am in no danger from a bear; when one is nearby, the risk (however small) is nonzero. I attempted to reconcile getting to the shelter that was my destination with that concern.
"You did endanger yourself by bushwacking around the trail. You could have had an accident, lost the trail or ran into a venomous snake that you might not have seen until too late."
Perhaps, but I don't think the risk was high. I did have a compass and some maps, plus the slope was consistent in its trend in that area. I had observed the direction the sun was shining before getting off the trail; it was close to sunset, but not there yet. I grew up mostly in the South, and knew to step widely around fallen logs due to poisonous snake issues. I had a long sturdy walking stick that I used to clear overgrowth out of my way, and to check brush clumps with that I could not easily avoid. It could have doubled as a crutch if I had broken a leg. I had years of karate classes in the past which gave me pretty good balance, so that I very rarely fall down even when moving quickly in rough terrain. I never got so far from the trail that a good shout could not have been heard by someone on the Trail above me.
"If the bear was wanting to pass you on the trail, it might have used the same technique you did and bushwacked around you... did you stay to the right of the trail or to the left?"
The bear went uphill to the right. After backing up 40 yards or so, I went downhill to the left, making a semi-(half) circle around the point on the Trail where I saw the bear run from. I was headed towards the Hawk Mountain shelter from the direction of Springer. FWIW, I did try to be especially 360o aware for the next half mile, looking and listening in all directions until I reached that stream with the young college couple that was <300 yards from the shelter.
The bear
tinkerbell
10-05-2004, 19:51
Save your money..I have all the maps from New York to Springer and never used or needed them....just follow the white blades..the maps would come in handy, though, if two cars are used..the maps would show the nearest road to place the cars at..
Tinkerbell
minnesotasmith
10-05-2004, 22:46
"Save your money..I have all the maps from New York to Springer and never used or needed them....just follow the white blades"
What about when hiking the AT when there is snow, and windblown snow stuck to trees has hidden many of the blazes as well as making the Trail itself hard to see? Not only the Jan./Feb.-starting NOBOs during their first 6 weeks have to risk this situation from what I have read. March starters can well face a chance of that anywhere from Amicalola to the Smokies on up to Mt. Rogers. Too, any through-hiker hitting the White Mountains post-August starts facing a very real chance of that same condition, there and anywhere Katahdin-ward of the Whites, if I understand the climate correctly.
When you can't see the blazes or the trail, the overcast sky tells you nothing about the direction of the sun, and you have any medical, gear, food/water, physical, or morale deficiencies whatsoever, wouldn't a map that could tell you the direction to go be most welcome, especially when accompanied by a compass?
The Eleven
10-08-2004, 14:55
In reference to bringing maps, what I do is make a paper copy of map/directions and staple them together, thus cutting weight and still knowing exactly where I am, what I'm looking for, terrain changes, etc. New sets can always be sold when done, though I like to keep them because of surrounding areas to backpack, snowshoe, etc. Maps are an investment. If I needed to cut costs on the expensive side of the list, I would cut down motel stays and find alternatives, such as friend of a friend of a friend's backyard to stay w/shower use, etc. I live on a very tight frugal budget, so I learn what is an expense for me and what is an investment. Happy Trails! Steve
Save your money..I have all the maps from New York to Springer and never used or needed them....just follow the white blades..the maps would come in handy, though, if two cars are used..the maps would show the nearest road to place the cars at..
Tinkerbell
To each his own. I have all the maps from Georgia to Katahdin -- at least as the trail existed in 1993. I used all of them out of curiosity about where I was, the names of the mountains I saw on the horizon or the town I saw in the valley, and just a general knowledge of the trail and its environs.
Those who are not interested in the trail and the area through which it goes most likely won't use their maps. But they still have a safety value.
I know. Thousands have hiked the trail without maps, just as thousands have driven for decades without seat belts. And thousands have smoked cigarets without getting any of the multiple diseases that cigarets contribute to.
But occasionally people die because they didn't have a 0.5 ounce map. Many die from failing to use seat belts. (yeah, I know, a few die from having used seat belts. It's a matter of making the choice that is most likely not to cause harm.) And quite a few die or have diminished lives from deliberately poisoning their lungs.
I firmly believe that humans have a right to choose their own courses in this life. But I also firmly believe that those that deliberately dumb things should not look to the rest of for rescue.
Weary
Driving without seatbelts has, without a doubt, killed hundreds of thousands of people. Smoking has killed millions.
How about some examples where prepared, experienced hikers have died on the AT due to lack of maps?
There's nothing like facts to back up a good debating point!
orangebug
10-10-2004, 16:50
How about some examples where prepared, experienced hikers have died on the AT due to lack of maps?
There's nothing like facts to back up a good debating point!
Are you planning to copy this reasoning to some of the "Water Treatment" discussions?
Maps and water treatment provide some convenience and some security to a planned walk, but that is about all.
Bill...
[QUOTE=orangebug]Are you planning to copy this reasoning to some of the "Water Treatment" discussions?
QUOTE]
No. I'm not.
What I'm trying to do is move the "danger" element of the topic from the theoretical world to the real world.
For example, we can come up with examples of dozens of people losing their lives on the AT due to lack of proper clothing. That makes good clothing "non-optional" for most of us. If we can come up with a reasonable number of folks who've died due to a lack of maps on the AT it would mean something. If we can't, that would mean something too.
Driving without seatbelts has, without a doubt, killed hundreds of thousands of people. Smoking has killed millions.
How about some examples where prepared, experienced hikers have died on the AT due to lack of maps?
There's nothing like facts to back up a good debating point!Last March, a couple got confused in a whiteout on Mount Lafayette. They were not novice hikers, but did not have a map. In the whiteout, they inadvertantly went the wrong way. The hit the Skookumchick Trail unexpected, and weren't sure where they were. They tried to go back to Layfayette but the wind and cold stopped them. They built a snow shelter.
A map would hav shown them that following the trail they were on (Garfield Ridge Trail) they would dip down very shortly (and be out of the worst of the weather) OR they could have taken the Skookumchuck trail for the same reason.
They wer unfamiliar with either trail, and so chose to wait it out. The man survived but his wife died.
This was not on a thruhike, but it was on the AT, and maps would have made a difference (though other factors were also involved).
How about some examples where prepared, experienced hikers have died on the AT due to lack of maps?
!
How about asking proper questions? The question being asked by inexperienced people is "are maps necessary." The answer from many is "no. Leave em home they are a waste of money."
People die on trails all the time. Most of the victims are inexperienced. I don't know of any one who keeps map statistics, or analyzes the reasons. AMC's Appalachian Journal used to do a pretty good job. But the quality has declined since the volunteer in charge quit a few years ago.
Some time if I get a chance I'll thumb through some of the back issues. But I doubt if I find many mapless deaths among "prepared, experienced hikers." Such folks always carry maps.
Weary
How about asking proper questions? ....But I doubt if I find many mapless deaths among "prepared, experienced hikers." Such folks always carry maps.
Weary
First of all, I don't know if anyone addressed the issue of the level of experience of the person who asked the question. It's an important thing to consider, of course. I take exception to both sides of the debate if they say "maps are foolish to take" or "It is unreasonable not to have maps on the AT."
Weary, if the subject were carrying guns, and someone suggested it were necessary because of folks being killed by bears, it would seem reasonable to first determine if people ARE being killed by bears, would it not?
Some folks are saying maps are unnecessary, some are saying they might not be necessary, depending on many variables (I'm one of those) and there are others who are DEMANDING, apparently, that everyone carries maps on an AT thru-hike.
I am a prepared, experienced hiker, I didn't carry maps, so part two of your statement above simply isn't true. Can't there be some middle ground??
As a rule of thumb, I ALWAYS carry maps in the wilderness, for obvious reasons. But for many folks, it is perfectly rational to hike the well-marked AT with a guidebook, a pack full of food, shelter and water, and a good dose of common sense. Life is full of risks, and we should base our determination on what a reasonable risk is on facts, not emotion.
The lady who (sadly) died on Mt. Lafayette or thereabouts did not die because she didn't have a map. She died because they were hiking in the middle of winter unprepared and despite warnings of worsening weather. They stopped when "they could see almost nothing" in 75 mile an hour winds. Getting your bearings with a map and getting yourself to safety when you can't see anything and the situation is spinning out of control is going to be pretty tough. (Remember "Into Thin Air"? Did they die due to lack of maps?) The lady who died last march died because they put themselves in a survival situation totally unnecessarily. Even if maps would have saved them, which I doubt, they weren't thru-hikers and weren't carrying sufficient warm clothes and shelter which a prepared thru-hiker would be.
So if anyone can give some examples of thru-hikers dying as a direct result of not having maps, lets hear them. THAT will have some impact.
Obviously, there are times when maps would be helpful, possibly life saving. But all hiking is pretty safe so life threatening situations are rare. As a percentage of total experiences, I suspect maps as a safety tool falls somewheres between safety belts and air bags -- except that air bags and seat belts from time to time result in deaths.
Maps as a general rule are harmless, though I once got a paper cut from one.
They also provide useful information that even non map carriers seem to appreciate, judging from the number of folks who ask to see my maps when I'm on the trail.
My advice is to carry maps, learn to use them, and learn to appreciate the valuable and interesting information maps provide. In terms of a thru hike, and even more so for section hikers, maps require a very minimal additional investment.
Though Orangebug somehow seems to link maps with water treatment, I personally think maps are the more valuable of the two common trail concerns.
Maps are light weight. Water treatment either requires many additional ounces or drinking chemical contaminated water. Or in my case gathering additional wood each day to purify the next day's needs.
But both "safety" matters are similar since there is no statistical safety difference between use or non use.
Weary
TakeABreak
10-10-2004, 22:21
Maps, I have read where several people want examples of there necessity, well here goes.
While training for my Thru hike and afterwards while living near Franklin, NC. I came across several people in and out of the smokies who were going the wrong way on a trail or had a made a wrong onto a trail and were headed the wrong way, none of which were carrying maps.
When I pulled out mine and showed them where they were they were simply amazed they were that far from where they thought they were.
While thru hike the A.T. in southwest VA., I came across two backpacks in SaltLog Gap, curious I looked around, stopped had a snack and rested for a little while. After about 1/2 hour Idecided to leave, but still curious I looked around some more, I saw two side trails one going off to the right and one going to the left (I was Headed North).
According to my map there was only supposed to be one side trail the left, on the side trail to the left was spring approx. 1/2 mile according to the map.
The tracks I saw however were headed down the side trail on the right. I looked at the map again, verified that there was no water source on the right and headed thinking there were two hikers in for a rude awakening.
I arrived at punchbowl shelter a little while later and settled in, a couple of hours later two weekenders wandered in from the south waring the backpacks I saw at satlog gap. They were dehydrated to an extreme of going into shock at any moment.
I immediately had them lay down in the shade, and commenced to treating two heat casualties by cooling them down and having the sip on water a a gator aid mix I ahd just made for myself.
They sated there VA guide said the trail on the left had been washed out and a new side off the mountain had been blazed down the right, they admitted they did not have a map. they had walked from saltlog gap down the side of the mountain to the highway, backup and into punchbowl shelter on a 85 degree day without water, simply because they did not have a map.
This should put a stop to the map or map question, which for experienced outdoors people is not a question, at all. Experienced outdoors people always carry maps, even to places they have before.
Anyone more examples email me, I have plenty of examples of where people did have a map, and could have died had god not sent me there to rescue them.
Oh yeah by the way I was not going to stop at punchbowl that day, I was going to go, but after seeing those packs at saltlog, but something told me there were going to be a couple fools without maps in trouble that day, so I stopped early that day.
Maps, I have read where several people want examples of there necessity, well here goes.
Here's what I asked. "So if anyone can give some examples of thru-hikers dying as a direct result of not having maps, lets hear them."
Not woulda coulda mighta.
If you get so dehydrated you almost DIE on the AT, it's not MAPS that you're lacking!
Pencil Pusher
10-11-2004, 00:23
Do tell, Colter, what then were they lacking? Whether one agrees with taking maps or not, it sounds like not having one in TakeaBreak's case contributed directly to their dehydration. Though I doubt it will put a stop to questions on taking maps.
[QUOTE=Pencil Pusher]Do tell, Colter, what then were they lacking? QUOTE]
But in case you can't, sufficient experience and common sense. If you die on the AT due to dehydration, you have no business being on the trail, maps or no.
For the map fanatics: Carry your maps on the AT if you like. Really, I don't care! They are worth it if you think they're worth it, no doubt about it. Maps are a lot of fun. Maps can be useful. So can a lot of things that you may choose to leave behind if it makes sense for you.
So bring your maps. Suggest that it's a good idea for people to bring them if you like. Just don't demand that EVERYONE carry them on the AT. Fair enough?
orangebug
10-11-2004, 06:23
Like TakeABreak, I've run into a thru hiker in the Smokies who made the 180 degree error after a TP stop. It was one of those sections where the twists and turns of the NC/TN border have you walking Compass South while walking AT North.
Even with a map, compass and the setting sun to aid the thru-hiker, he was not to be persuaded by a lowly section hiker of his situation. Certainly, no one died as a result of a failure to read maps and use the tools carried in his pack. I suspect he spent a night between shelters in the Smokies, not an entirely bad end of a day.
It was a good demonstration of the concept "YMMV."
Here's what I asked. "So if anyone can give some examples of thru-hikers dying as a direct result of not having maps, lets hear them."
Not woulda coulda mighta.Well, I understand your statement that it wasn't a lack of maps that got the woman in trouble on Lafayette, and I fully agree with you that many decisions/situations led to the tradegy.
My point was that if she and her husband had a map they would have known where they were and that taking the side trail off the ridge did not place them in further jeopardy. HOWEVER they got into their predicament, if they had maps/compass I truly believe both would be alive today.
It isn't a case of not having maps got them into trouble, but one of having maps would have extricated them. As you say elsewhere, if XXX happened, they shouldn't have been on the trail to begin with. True, but not much help when XXX or whatever happens because they ARE on the trail.
I also understand your question above, but what does the answer show? Can you can give some examples of thru-hikers dying as a direct result of not carrying any food? Any clothing? A tent or tarp? The point is, that it is a good idea to carry these things. The more experienced you are, the least likely you are to need them, but I submit that when some asks, "Should I carry maps?" the only answer is Yes. If you have to ask the question, you are not confident enough in your experience.
Youngblood
10-11-2004, 07:15
... but I submit that when some asks, "Should I carry maps?" the only answer is Yes. If you have to ask the question, you are not confident enough in your experience.
My sentiments exactly.
Youngblood
Blue Jay
10-11-2004, 07:47
The bear probably told a similar story to his buddies about the hiker out to get him... and he has a good reason because bears are hunted in Georgia. When they turn and flee when they notice you, I don't think you are likely to see them again even IF you want to.
Youngblood
That is because bears always carry maps and check them before they flee or the other bears get upset.
Magic City
10-11-2004, 08:47
I haven't (yet) completed a thru-hike of the AT, but I've done the 100-Mile Wilderness in Maine without a map and found that to be no problem whatsoever.
That said, I would probably carry maps on a thru-hike, if only because I like knowing what's around me rather than simply focusing on what's right in front of me.
smokymtnsteve
10-11-2004, 09:00
The AT is more like a well marked Highway than a wilderness trail esp on the southern third, I don't see how you could get lost, folks do though, but I'm not sure that the folks who do get lost would be helped by having a map.
kinda like the boy scout troop that came into the shelter I was cartaking, without a permit to cover the number of kids they had, after asking me if I were going to allow ALL of them to stay, (which was illegal) the "leader" got lost lost with some kids on the way back to the parking lot, which was only 3 miles way and one of the best marked and most heavily used sections of the AT, so it WASN"T JUST A MAP THIS GUY WAS MISSING!
Here's what I asked. "So if anyone can give some examples of thru-hikers dying as a direct result of not having maps, lets hear them."
!
Actually, what you asked was: "How about some examples WHERE PREPARED, EXPERIENCED HIKERS have died on the AT due to lack of maps? (EMPHASIS ADDED)
This, I think, was in response to my suggestion that "occasionally," people die as a result of not having maps. I still think my supposition is probably true. But since the trail is hardly pristine wilderness, most often the lack of maps just results in unnecesssary, and sometimes, hike-ending hardship.
Bill Bryson's companion, Katz, didn't carry a map, so he thought Long Pond(? that's the only pond that seems to fit the book's description) in the valley would be an easy walk to for a drink of water.
After that experience the two quit there "walk in the woods." Katz went back to building houses. Bryson used his aborted experience to become a multimillionaire -- and the only person I have ever heard of who had a great experience because of the lack of a map.
Weary
baseballswthrt
10-11-2004, 09:38
While hiking out of Damascus this past July, my husband and I passed a man and his son hiking northbound. The man was dressed in all army gear and the boy had a lot of army gear too. We leapfrogged them for about 5 miles heading northbound. About 5 miles into the trail, the man sheepishly asked us if we were northbound or southbound. He thought they were southbound! If he had had a map, some of the blue blazed trails would have clued him into where they were at! I was astounded! I always carry a map and it was bright and sunny, but the trail does go east-west a lot of the time! He was on the AT, but going the wrong direction! All that heavy stuff, a compass, and white blazes did not help him! They had to backtrack to meet the wife/mother at Roan Mountain!
Anita
smokymtnsteve
10-11-2004, 09:38
The great and powerful Bill Bryson was ALREADY a rich and successful author long before a WALK N THE WOODS, Mr Bryson, who may or may not be a candy ass, accomplished his goal for his time on the AT.
Do ya think KATZ really exsisted or was he jus part of the story Bill tells?
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 09:48
Apparently he was real, but literary license turned him more into a comic curmudgeon for the book.
The great and powerful Bill Bryson was ALREADY a rich and successful author long before a WALK N THE WOODS, Mr Bryson, who may or may not be a candy ass, accomplished his goal for his time on the AT. Do ya think KATZ really exsisted or was he jus part of the story Bill tells?
Bryson was certainly a skilled and successful writer. But "rich" depends on your definition of same. His "Walk in the Woods" was his first major best seller. Writing is not a lucrative craft. I know that Bill made far more money writing than more mundane practicioners. But I doubt if he was a multimillionaire until he discovered the Appalachian Trail.
I don't know whether Katz is real, fictional or a composite. I've seen evidence pointing to all three. I know he was also used as a foil in an earlier book.
Until "A Walk in the Woods" Bryson was mostly a travel writer. My criticsm of the book was that great parts struck me as researched in a library, not on a trail. The trail he describes is not the trail I have ever seen. And the people he allegedly met were more stereotypes than real people -- as was Katz for that matter.
Hikers are a diverse and fascinating group as witnessed by this and other trail forums. Bryson seems to have missed us all. My guess is that Bryson quickly found the trail boring and walked just enough on the trail so that the experience, plus some research padding would fullfill his book contract.
Unlike his other more factual travel books, I sense his woods walk was almost entirely fictional, which probably explains its great success. Had he actually completed a thru hike and truly experienced the trail, I suspect he would be far less wealthy today.
Weary
Kerosene
10-11-2004, 10:22
I posted this on another thread, but thought it worth repeating here.
I encountered a young woman with a little school-like daypack on a cool Fall afternoon 3 miles south of Snickers Gap. She was SOBO and I NOBO. As usual, I stopped to talk with her and asked where she was going. She replied that her friend had dropped her off in Snickers Gap and she was going to walk home to Bluemont. I told her that I thought she was going in the wrong direction, as I was pretty sure Bluemont was north and east of Snickers Gap, and there wasn't another side trail or road crossing for 10 miles behind me. She didn't believe me until I pulled out my map and showed her where we were and where she was trying to get to. I like to think that I saved her having to endure a cold, frightened night in the woods as well as an expensive search team.
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 11:08
The whole argument "no one has ever been killed by the lack of a map" is a straw dog.
Of course a map does not provide heat when you are hypothermic when you got wet, that is for your clothing and shelter. It doesn't provide better shelter when the snow comes in or a bad thunderstorm - shelters, hostels, and hotels do that. It doesn't provide food when the food bag is empty, a store is going to get you what you need. It doesn't prevent dehydration, only water does that. A map won't provide medical aid - paramedics, a hospital, rangers or someone else may be what the hiker needs. The examples are many of what can get you out there.
But a map show you where a lot of that stuff is and the shortest route to find it or someone to help you get it.
If a hiker dies in the Smokies wet and cold, the obvious reasons are lack of adequate clothing. But a map could have saved that person by pointing the quickest route to a highway, or the shortest route into a ranger camp, or many other possibilities besides walking 5 miles back to their car dying every step. So when the body is found, lack of a good map is not going to get blamed, so no statistics on "lack of a map kills a hiker". Same can be said about someone dying from dehydration or another cause. Lack of a map will not be the statistic when they count that one.
I have been on the AT in off seasons and not seen someone else for days. I have been on other trails like the Pinhoti and gone a whole week without seeing someone else. If you don't carry a map and you are in these situations then get into trouble, you can HOPE you find a road, you can HOPE someone is hiking the trail near you, you can HOPE the trail is well marked when the snow obscures it, you can HOPE a lot of things that maybe the map would have told you if you had decided to bring it. But in the Army, we have a saying that HOPE is not a method of success.
tlbj6142
10-11-2004, 11:32
Wasn't one of the very large forest fires last year set by some idiot that was "lost" less than 1 mile from a road? Not sure if he had a map.
I believe he ended up launching a flare, or two, when he thought all was lost. Funny he'd carry a flare gun, but not a map or know how read it (which doens't weigh a thing).
smokymtnsteve
10-11-2004, 12:11
Bill Bryson did EXACTLY what he set out to do, write another book to sell and he had fantastic success with " A WALK IN THE WOODS". I like BB writing, and have a collection of his work, he was a well known author long before A WALK IN THE WOODS.
Sorry, don't know that one. What's it mean?
Bill Bryson did EXACTLY what he set out to do, write another book to sell and he had fantastic success with " A WALK IN THE WOODS". I like BB writing, and have a collection of his work, he was a well known author long before A WALK IN THE WOODS.
Well, I agree with everything except the word "exactly." When you start to string words together, they take on a life of their own and sometimes lead to things one had not "exactly" expected to say. Wise people, and Bryson is certainly that, listen and learn and, if the words appear good -- or even potentially profitable -- try not to get in their way.
I expect a book that adheres exactly to the authors expectations is about as rare as a thru hike that fullfills exactly the hikers expectations.
Weary, who found "A Walk in the Woods" a skilful book about a failed hike that some people mistakenly think provides useful insights into life on the Appalachian Trail.
Dances with Mice
10-11-2004, 13:58
Sorry, don't know that one. What's it mean?
I think he meant "straw man". Unless he thought the entire argument too small to merit 'man'.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 14:06
I had heard the term as Straw Dog, but the link represents my point, so Straw Man it is.
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 14:15
Web search does have a straw dog, but it means something completely different. LOL!
STRAW MAN is what I meant.
Dances with Mice
10-11-2004, 14:22
The point Rock was making is that maps don't have to be lifesavers to be worth carrying. How many lives has the Thru-Hikers Handbook been documented to have saved? I can justify carrying a map for reasons other than that it might save my life.
Not that I'm trying to defend Rock. I used to like him until I read that he'd been a PLDC instructor, now I'm not so sure...
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 14:25
The point Rock was making is that maps don't have to be lifesavers to be worth carrying. How many lives has the Thru-Hikers Handbook been documented to have saved? I can justify carrying a map for reasons other than that it might save my life.
Not that I'm trying to defend Rock. I used to like him until I read that he'd been a PLDC instructor, now I'm not so sure...
Well actually my point was there will probably be little to no deaths attributed to lack of a map because it is something else that killed them when a map may have helped to find a solution for something they needed like getting off the trail when the situation was over their head and equipment.
Anyway, not only was I a PLDC instructor, I was also the 1SG of the PLDC at FT Knox from Aug 1998 - Aug 1999. :cool:
The Solemates
10-11-2004, 14:28
Didnt carry a single map on our thru-hike. The only thing we carried is the handbook. You dont need them. Although it is fun to see the elevation profile sometimes.
Dances with Mice
10-11-2004, 14:37
Anyway, not only was I a PLDC instructor, I was also the 1SG of the PLDC at FT Knox from Aug 1998 - Aug 1999. :cool:
You may not have know this - some of your instructors raised their voices at some of the trainees.
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 14:40
I probably did too. But they are not trainees, there is a difference. Trainees are new recruits to the Army, PLDC has students. Were you a student of mine?
Dances with Mice
10-11-2004, 14:54
Trainees are new recruits to the Army, PLDC has students. Were you a student of mine?
I will correct the deficiency immediately. No, I went to Bad Tolz in Germany, '81-ish. And the course may have been called something slightly different - like PNCOC?
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 14:56
PNCOC was for combat arms soldiers and another course was PLC (I think), they were combined to make PLDC I think around '84. I went to PLDC myself at Ft Hood in 1988.
Web search does have a straw dog, but it means something completely different. LOL!
STRAW MAN is what I meant.
From pdf document (http://trout.yage.net/sc/GlossarySC2.pdf) the following definitions are found:
Straw-dog: An imaginary issue or one that is created for the purpose of being able to safely attack it and divert attention from a real issue or to create the appearance of a real issue where none exists. [Do not confuse with straw-man.]
Straw-man: An imaginary opponent or someone who is nominally responsible but has no real importance or influence. [Do not confuse with straw-dog.]
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 15:12
The straw dog definition I found was an old Norse tradition of putting a dog made of straw on a house to scare off trolls. The straw dog definition you give is closer to what I was intending. The issue raised that looks like it is hard to defend and easy to attack as false when that is not the real point at all.
Dances with Mice
10-11-2004, 15:24
PNCOC was for combat arms soldiers and another course was PLC (I think), they were combined to make PLDC I think around '84. I went to PLDC myself at Ft Hood in 1988.
And to grab this subject by the neck and wrestle it back on topic:
I returned to Bad Tolz after PNCOC to go through the Ranger's Small Unit Maneuver Course*. They taught map & compass and reinforced it with ever more complicated orienteering courses leading on to some major land nav. I thought it was incredible fun, setting azimuths, pace couting, hitting landmarks, making midcourse corrections, changing compass settings by counting audible clicks, setting up rendevous points and emergency egress routes, all that stuff, to arrive at a destination to carry out a 'mission'. All while snowshoeing through the foothills of the Alps! I lost 15 pounds in 2 weeks but I really learned how to use map and compass. And I still read maps like books, sitting down and studying my route and the terrain features around me.
But I've never wanted to go back to Bad Tolz again.
* A course taught by Army Rangers to other units. Kind of like "Infantry for Dummies". I was not, nor did I ever want or attempt to be, a Ranger. Them folks are crazy.
SGT Rock
10-11-2004, 16:10
True that. You don't need to be a ranger or SF in your proficiency with a map and compass. Anyone can learn to do a modified resection in about 10 minutes and never be totally lost again.
orangebug
10-11-2004, 18:26
The straw dog definition I found was an old Norse tradition of putting a dog made of straw on a house to scare off trolls. ...
It sounds like both definitions work!
Bill...
I can't help but wonder how many thru hikers ever walk out of site of the trail to camp. I didn't on my long hike, but now appreciate the sense of wild that pitching a tent even 300 feet into the woods can bring.
I would tthat 99% of all hikers don't ever venture more than 50 feet from a marked trail., and that fear of getting lost has a lot to with that.
I think having a map might give one a bit of courage to take a green (?) blaze, and be at least as rewarding as a blue one.
Rick B
With all due respect I don't have to HOPE I don't become hopelessly lost on the AT without a map.
Hike your own hike. Choose your own gear. Be responsible for yourself. Learn what you need to know and then use your head. There's more than one way to safely skin a cat.
With all due respect I don't have to HOPE I don't become hopelessly lost on the AT without a map. Hike your own hike. Choose your own gear. Be responsible for yourself. Learn what you need to know and then use your head. There's more than one way to safely skin a cat.
Just a quick thought. I've been driving for around 60 years. I have never once needed a seat belt. I've driven short trips in the country. Spent a decade in Chicago. "Commuted" between Illinois and Maine dozens of time.
Driven up and down the Atlantic seaboard. Logged thousands of miles driving to and from trails....
If I've calculated properly, I think I have driven around !,800,000 miles. Not once have I been in a position where a seat belt would have done anything useful for me.
But I've witnessed a few near misses, and even experienced two or three. So after a bit of procrastination, when seat belts became common, I gradually began to wear mine.
I've had somewhat the same experience with maps. I always, of course, gathered free road maps (that dates me, road maps haven't been free in several decades)
But I've always wandered into the woods wherever woods have been available. For decades I never even knew that maps of wooded areas even existed -- and mostly early on, they probably didn't.
Regardless, when I became aware of maps they struck me as marvelous things. Prior to that my practice, especially on cloudy, overcast days, was to wander around in ever widening circles on the theory that sooner or later I would see something I recognized.
With maps, I could usually figure out where I was. Though I never had really NEEDED a map before, they became a revelation. What a great way, I thought, to avoid wandering in circles looking for a familiar land mark. Since I continue to be prone to wander off trails when I spy or hear of interesting things, I've taken to carrying maps when I go into the woods.
If you also are curious about off trail things, I strongly recommend that you also carry maps. Maps are both a guide for finding interesting off trail things, and are remarkably useful for finding ones way back to the trail.
They even help, I've found, when one unexpectedly, usually negligently, but sometimes haphazardly, takes a wrong turn and discovers the trail has disappeared. Will maps save your life? Well they have never saved my life. Nor, I gather, have maps saved the life of anyone who has posted to this thread of this forum.
But then again, seat belts have never saved either my life, or the life of anyone I particularly knew. But I think, nevertheless, I'll continue to buckle up, and continue to carry a map -- for the information maps provide, even if my life isn't immediately endangered.
BTW. I hear rumors that the mortality of humans eventually is 100 percent. That can't really be true -- can it?
Weary
TakeABreak
10-11-2004, 22:26
Whether or not anyone has ever died because they did have a map on them, may never be known in this life. Because the person who died because they did not a have amp on them can not speak to us, as far as I know.
I know one thing, I am an adventureous kind of person, I have been in the woods with and without maps, I know I can survive without a map. But, with a map I know where water is, where a road in case I need to do bee line to it for help. I know to use a map verify where I am in area where there no blazes (like the area I did day hikes in in training for the A.T., a place called Panther Town Mountain, by reading the contour lines I knew where I was at all times there).
I also used my maps to show tourons ( a cross between a tourist and a moron) in the smokies where they were, a 1/2 hour before dark, I was headed to the trail head they were headed to the chimneys, mt. leconte or charlies bunyon or somewhere else, without so much as a bottle of water on them.
I would guess to say, while on day hikes, weekend trips and even on the A.T. where I too, had to tell someone they actually going in the wrong direction, or they were on the A.T. not the side trail they started on, or there was no way in they were going to make it somewhere before dark, because it was still 10 miles away and it was an hour before dark. I would guess I had used my maps somewhere around 30 plus times, to show people where they screwed up.
Not to mean mind you, but just to keep them from dieing of exposure, dehydration or getting them safely back to their vehicles.
It may be extra weight to some, to carry a map, but while I was doing my thru hike, I noticed one thing from those who did not carry a map, each and everyone I came across studied mine intently when they had the chance. And a lot of those did carry maps, sadly admitted to me that they could read a map to begin with and when I showed them how basic it was, where they were. they admitted what a handy tool it would be in case of an emergency.
smokymtnsteve
10-12-2004, 09:54
But then again, seat belts have never saved either my life, or the life of anyone I particularly knew. But I think, nevertheless, I'll continue to buckle up, and continue to carry a map -- for the information maps provide, even if my life isn't immediately endangered.
BTW. I hear rumors that the mortality of humans eventually is 100 percent. That can't really be true -- can it?
Weary
I my time working as an EMT I have seen instances where seatbealt have saved life, I have also seen 'crispy critters" still strapped into thier seats, ah the aroma of burnt human flesh. I don't wear seatbelts, but HYOH,
as far as human mortality being 100% I am also unsure of ,,,since surviving the stabbbing attack, 2 divorces, 3 years in a hospice, another truck rollover when the edge of a backcountry road gave away in wnc, close encounter with some grizzlys, and the last four years of the Bush adminstration, and recently receiving a offer to "star" in a film, maybe 100% mortality is NOT true, time will tell.
PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!
"If you feel that you're not ready to die, never fear; nature will give you complete and adequate assistance when the time comes."
~
THANKS BE TO ABBEY!
My buddy Les, who also Lived in the Hospice and also survived, when interviewed about the west nile virus a couple years ago, " just another FATAL disease, I'm not worried about it , west nile would have to get in line, as I have other fatal diseases that were there first"
Blue Jay
10-12-2004, 10:15
as far as human mortality being 100% I am also unsure of ,,,since surviving the stabbbing attack, 2 divorces, 3 years in a hospice, another truck rollover when the edge of a backcountry road gave away in wnc, close encounter with some grizzlys, and the last four years of the Bush adminstration, and recently receiving a offer to "star" in a film, maybe 100% mortality is NOT true, time will tell.
I believe that comparing close encounters with grizzlys and the last four years (careful we'll send this thread to the twilight zone), to be unfair to grizzlys. Didn't you star opposite Barbara Streisand in The Way We Were?
smokymtnsteve
10-12-2004, 10:20
correct again bleu jay, grizzlys are much more intelligent then a bush. :D
ah, The way we were,
resurrections, life after 'death(s)", brave new worlds, to boldy go where no man has gone before, (ah just the stuff of everyday life)
NEVER BE AFRAID TO RE-INVENT YOURSELF!
as far as human mortality being 100% I am also unsure of ,,,since surviving the stabbbing attack, 2 divorces, 3 years in a hospice, another truck rollover when the edge of a backcountry road gave away in wnc, close encounter with some grizzlys, and the last four years of the Bush adminstration, and recently receiving a offer to "star" in a film, maybe 100% mortality is NOT true, time will tell."
Well, I've only experienced one of those life-threatening events. But that one has thoroughly and increasingly scared me. In the interest of list harmony, I won't disclose which one. And no, I haven't seen the film.
Weary