PDA

View Full Version : Is the trail too accessible?



ShoelessWanderer
12-10-2010, 23:25
So, I'm reading an interesting article in the book "A Footpath in the Wilderness: The Early Days of PATC" and from the 1933 article it's discussing not wanting the AT to become "too accessible" to the public because it would ruin the charm of it and not make it as enjoyable to the hikers on it. The author also makes the point that the trail was ultimatly designed to be a "wilderness footpath."

Do you think the same objective still applies? Do you think it's become too accessible and maybe has ruined the charm of it?

And note, this article was from 1933 so it was before our buddy Earl and all the thru hikers that followed in his footsteps.

Hobbler
12-10-2010, 23:58
There is as you know many road access points for the A/T.

SNP alone has 32 road crossings of the A/T.

Here in Virginia, there are many, many other points that can be driven to by car or ATV easily. All this access is great to jump on the trail for you and me, but also brings the local populations closer to those points to trash them and carries with it an element of questionable safety and comfortability for the hiker. Yes, there is the partying and break-ins that do occur. Crime has come to the trail.

Facilities and growth over the years also make easier access for the hiker to do resupply. That has certainly changed the trail experience for the hiker. 30 years ago, mail drops were the norm.

4eyedbuzzard
12-11-2010, 00:04
Hmm, while I'm sure MacKaye and others worried about how overuse might diminish the "wilderness experience" they sought to create, the AT was intentionally designed to be accessible - as MacKaye put it, "within a days travel of the major industrialized metropolitan areas of the east".
Remember, the trail was originally only a part of MacKaye's regional plan for a network of camps and a back to nature movement that would see people living along the trail.
Even in the 30's, wilderness in the east was largely an illusion, an issue not lost on MacKaye, Perkins, Avery, et al. The purpose of the trail was for people who were degraded to a great degree by industrial jobs and city living to be able to recreate by finding that "fellowship" and "wilderness experience".
Note that there never really was a true "wilderness" - just a "wilderness experience".
The AT provided quite a LOT more of that prior to the 60's, when the back to nature movement and then a guy named Garvey wearing one of Dick Kelty's packs made the AT a lot more crowded. Not that it was empty before - remember that hiking had always been popular in many of the areas and on trails the AT was routed over. Transportation systems and vehicles have also made it much easier for people to get to the AT.
Yeah, it does seem to have lost a bit of its charm at times. If you hike in the Shennies or Whites in summer you're going to be with many other hikers. But there are still sections where you won't see all that many. I think you get what you choose to a great degree. If you want solitude / wilderness experience, hike before Memorial Day or after Labor Day and usually you'll get a good degree of it. It's a public trail, open to all, and serving its intended purpose - just with a few more people than probably originally imagined or planned for. I think its healthy that people get out there and experience the forest and mountains. Usually, it improves the quality of their lives, and in the end, that's the big purpose.

2.0
12-11-2010, 00:16
Ain't progress a b!tch. LOL
It is a valid and tough arguement for either side of that coin. And I agree with many viewpoints of both sides. But with that said, you have to understand the context of the times we are dealing with. Old gaming trails, native american trails, wagon trails heading out west were just that. Now they are highways, railways and you can get there in a fraction of the time by way of airlines. Of course the population on the west coast exploded, but can you say that it shouldn't have and rather been kept as wilderness?
Same goes for the AT, and other wilderness trails for that matter. Who decides who has access to it? Should their only be a certain number of permits for each year like the West Coast Trail in Canada? Would there then be a cost? Would people start selling their permits on EBay for a profit? We live in a free country that allows freedom of movement throughout the states without papers and required permission. Of course limits/rules can and have been set, such as no horseback riding or bikes on the AT trail (unlike the American Discovery Trail which allows those in certain sections). So it is at least still a footpath.
I believe with the speed and availability of information more people are learning about the trail. With the slow economy and unemployment more people have also decided on cheaper vacations, like camping on the AT for a week or even a thru-hike. The environmental movements of the last few decades have also increased the popularity of hiking and being in the wilderness. With TV shows like Bear Grylls and Survivorman and the like, I am sure some have taken that as a motivating factor in wanting to hike. Obviously everyone on this site has some kind of draw to the AT and the reasons vary just like the personalities of the people that hike it.
In 1933 this country didn't have an interstate highway system. Now half of the country is within a days drive of the trail. Not as many people live near the PCT or CDT so of course more people will venture the AT. Not to mention some people would rather only have to contend with a few black bears that are skiddish around people, than risk an encounter, though rare, with a wolf, brown bear or mountain lion on the PCT and CDT. i think the other two trails will gain in popularity as time goes on, but the AT will most likely remain the favorite trail for the majority of hikers due to proximity.
Us hikers just have to maintain the trail and lobby to keep it protected from development, relocate sections occassionaly to prevent damage from overusage, and teach the next generation the importance of Leave No Trace and maintaining it a true wilderness experience.

Now I'm sure some curmudgeon will ask who the hell I think I am, but I don't care. Just speaking my humble opinion and to each their own. Hike your own hike and live your own life.

Odd Man Out
12-11-2010, 01:11
Ain't progress a b!tch. LOL
It is a valid and tough arguement for either side of that coin. And I agree with many viewpoints of both sides. But with that said, you have to understand the context of the times we are dealing with.

In regards to the context of the times, I suggest that due to the urbanization and especially the suburbanization of the east in the last 75 years, for most people today, the AT may seem more like wilderness than it would have to people back in the 1930's, even though it really isn't.

file:///C:/Users/Carlson/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png
http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/images/Urban%20Rural.png

4eyedbuzzard
12-11-2010, 02:56
In regards to the context of the times, I suggest that due to the urbanization and especially the suburbanization of the east in the last 75 years, for most people today, the AT may seem more like wilderness than it would have to people back in the 1930's, even though it really isn't.
Quite possibly. The graph doesn't / can't represent the physical amount of urban / suburban sprawl that has occurred that has physically shrunk the rural areas. We'd need to graph population density change as well, and the amount of rural lands that are now considered urban / suburban. Nor can it take into account the amount of modern infrastructure such as roads, electric power, communication, etc. that has transformed much of rural America as well. I live in a town with a pop density of only 30 people per sq. mi. - but I've got a paved state highway out front, an interstate a few miles away, high speed internet, etc. In many ways, rural America, including that which borders the trail corridor, has changed more than cities.

Cookerhiker
12-11-2010, 09:29
All the responses thus far have illustrated the situation very well IMO.

The OP referred to a PATC article from the 1930s. Was that article in the context of the debates re. Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway? I thought I'd read that the issue of whether to oppose the Parkways and re-route the Trail caused a bitter dispute between MacKaye and Avery, one which resulted them in not speaking to each other. MacKaye was more the purist fighting the roads as incompatible with the new Trail; Avery was more of a compromiser plus he may have seen the access afforded by these roads as helping build a Trail constituency.

Also by total coincidence, I've been re-reading Walking with Spring and am struck by so many contrasts with today's Trail. I know we've talked above about suburbanization and encroachment of sprawl, and while Earl Shaffer hiked a trail without interstate highways, subdivisions, big-box stores and fast food, he wasn't really walking in a wilderness either. It seems every day he was hiking through or at least by farms and pastures, getting invitations for meals and stayovers (he almost always declined the latter), finding little country stores near the Trail for his resupply (his only mail drops were money orders), and actually riding buses in these rural areas to some of the larger towns.

So was the Trail in Shaffer's time less accessible? Perhaps so, but it was accessible enough for those who wanted to get there. So a little more effort was required in the 30s and 40s to take the train, bus, or drive slower roads.

On the whole, I think the exponential increase in trail users emanated from heightened interest in backpacking/outdoor recreation, more publicity about the Trail, improvements in gear, and general population increase.

ShaneP
12-11-2010, 09:56
Another take on the accessibility of trails is how accessible the trail is once you are on it. I'm not sure how bad this trend is on the AT per se, but there are lots of other trails I will go to hike and get to my favorite rock scramble and find that the local trail club has constructed wooden steps with rails over the entire thing so that just about anybody can get to the top of the hill regardless of their condition. I know that these efforts are well intended, but some things should remain at least a little rugged. Higher traffic loads should not mean that we shoul;d turn the trail into a sidewalk and smooth over every bump. I have been on sections where the local club has constructed stone steps up steep grades. These are better than wood, but please don't love the trail to death.


S

Cookerhiker
12-11-2010, 10:02
Another take on the accessibility of trails is how accessible the trail is once you are on it. I'm not sure how bad this trend is on the AT per se, but there are lots of other trails I will go to hike and get to my favorite rock scramble and find that the local trail club has constructed wooden steps with rails over the entire thing so that just about anybody can get to the top of the hill regardless of their condition. I know that these efforts are well intended, but some things should remain at least a little rugged. Higher traffic loads should not mean that we shoul;d turn the trail into a sidewalk and smooth over every bump. I have been on sections where the local club has constructed stone steps up steep grades. These are better than wood, but please don't love the trail to death.


Doubtlessly you'd agree that if popularity of those steep slopes results in erosion of a primarily dirt treadway, some kind of improvements are needed - not necesarily steps but switchbacks to moderate the grading.

Now if it's a rock scramble, then I don't know why steps are needed.

ShaneP
12-11-2010, 10:06
Doubtlessly you'd agree that if popularity of those steep slopes results in erosion of a primarily dirt treadway, some kind of improvements are needed - not necesarily steps but switchbacks to moderate the grading.


Absolutely. As long as the scope of the improvement is to preserve the integrity of the trail, and not to facilitate ease of use.


S

4eyedbuzzard
12-11-2010, 10:10
There's that big issue of trail erosion where there isn't a more durable native surface in place - like rock, and even then there are some issues. Eventually you have to reroute trails as they literally wear out (down) in high use areas. And there are only so many new places to reroute to, which of course creates another impact of its own. I think it's inevitable that some areas are going to see more "improved" trails - mostly the high use and more environmentally sensitive ones.

But yeah, I agree, it's hard to see it "loved to death".

Blue Jay
12-11-2010, 10:18
I really don't think we have anything to worry about. The vast increase of humanity is not going to walk all that much, even from their recliner to MacDonalds. Yes there is a huge increase in people in their basements playing with their I-Crap, but direct experience especially walking MILES, no way is that going to happen.

4eyedbuzzard
12-11-2010, 10:31
Absolutely. As long as the scope of the improvement is to preserve the integrity of the trail, and not to facilitate ease of use.

S
I'd have to / like to disagree a bit (imagine that - me disagreeing and playing devil's advocate :rolleyes:). There are a few short sections of the AT that currently are actually wheelchair accessible. The one nearest me is in VT at Thundering Falls. While the wilderness experience is important to me, I think sharing a (very) small part of our experience with those less fortunate due to physical limitations isn't a killer. I spent a couple of months barely able to walk a few years back, using a cane to limp from the car to the powered shopping cart, etc. I'm pretty lucky in that I recovered. But the experience made me realize that we often take a lot for granted.
So I do agree that for the most part, preservation of the trail as a wilderness footpath should be a priority. But I also think and hope that there is room for making a few accomodations to facilitate ease of use where reasonably possible, so that we can share a small part of our experience with those unable to enjoy the other 2100+ miles of the AT. Those of us without disabilities tend to take a lot for granted (me included). :o

finskie
12-11-2010, 10:38
I really don't think we have anything to worry about. The vast increase of humanity is not going to walk all that much, even from their recliner to MacDonalds. Yes there is a huge increase in people in their basements playing with their I-Crap, but direct experience especially walking MILES, no way is that going to happen.

I agree with this 100%. Most people I run into in PA on the trail (even in the summer) are fairly close to access points, and are either couples doing a mile out and back, elderly people doing the same, or kids walking out to smoke pot or something along those lines. My technique is to try to plan so that I don't camp near major access points to avoid the local keg-campers. Meeting up with thrus and sectioners is always a positive experience for me, and they are still the majority. Plus hiking on weekdays takes care of alot of the crowds. I hiked a well known and easily accessed part of the PA section between Peters Mtn. and Duncannon a couple weeks ago and didn't see a soul until I hit the bridge.

garlic08
12-11-2010, 12:20
So far everyone who's posted lives in the East. From a Western perspective, what makes the AT pretty unique is that it's a protected FOOTpath. For me, it was amazing walking a maintained trail that's not pounded anywhere by horses or wheeled vehicles, motorized or not. Sure, there's way more access than other trails. There's easy enough access to major population centers to change the experience from a wilderness one to a social one. But that's something else that's unique about the AT and many, including me, appreciate it.

There are sections of the PCT that are destroyed by motorcycles and ATVs. There are sections of the CDT that have over a dozen parallel horse paths through meadows. The CDT has hundreds of miles of road walks on ranches in NM and WY. The brand new PNT is not nearly a trail yet. The brand new AZT still has some wild cactus bushwhacking. Count your blessings on the AT and appreciate it for the national treasure that it is.

weary
12-11-2010, 12:25
Several groups have devoted themselves in recent years in an effort to preserve the sense of wildness that Maine provided more than any other state. The effort is needed because the pulp and paper mills have sold their forests in the interest of quick profits. A few family corporations maintain their forest operations. All the big companies that are traded on Wall Street have succumbed to the temptation to gain immediate big bucks. Bonuses, big salaries and promotions go to those who produce income this quarter and this year. Not to those that look to providing raw materials for future generations of mill workers.

Luckily a few groups have been around to snatch up a few prime acres. The Nature Conservancy has purchased around 50,000 acres south of Katahdin, and five times that acreage in other wild places unconnected with the trail. The trail lands are all being managed as wilderness.

Roxanne Quimby has used the fortune she made made from producing cosmetics out of honey to purchase 100,000 acres in the so called 100-mile-wilderness and other land adfjacent to Baxter State Park.

The State of Maine contributed significantly to this effort with the purchase of land and easements that protect land in areas near the trail.

To the consternation of some on White Blaze, the much maligned Appalachian Mountain Club has purchased 66,000 acres at last count and plans additional purchases -- though not the rumored million acres. AMC's new holdings are not as wild as some of us might wish, but they are way ahead of what might have been.

Our tiny Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust (MATLT) has acquired several thousand acres -- including the summit ridge of one of the 3 or 4 highest mountains in the state, and even an acre abutting the trail at Pierce Pond. We currently are joining with other land trusts and environmental groups to negotiate for the protection of thousands of wild acres in Maine's cluster of high peaks near Saddleback and Sugarloaf.

All this and other activity means that some bits of the trail are wilder now than either MacKaye or Avery dreamed it could ever be.

More can and should be done. Land has never been cheaper. Opportunities abound. What is lacking is leadership and any broad public recognition about the importance of what is being lost.

Weary www.matlt.org

jesse
12-11-2010, 15:19
Automobiles are more accessible. In the thirties only rich/high middle class had them. In the 50's most families only had one. People did not travel like they do today. I live in the Atlanta are. I can decide on a whim to hop in my car and drive to the Smokies in a matter of hours. In the 30's that would probably be an overnight trip, that would have to be carefully planned.

Odd Man Out
12-11-2010, 15:32
Automobiles are more accessible. In the thirties only rich/high middle class had them. In the 50's most families only had one. People did not travel like they do today. I live in the Atlanta are. I can decide on a whim to hop in my car and drive to the Smokies in a matter of hours. In the 30's that would probably be an overnight trip, that would have to be carefully planned.

We define accessibility by if you can drive to it in a private automobile. Anytime a National Park proposes to ban cars and use shuttle buses to cut traffic congestion, people complain that their access to the parks is being cut (even if it is a free shuttle). People even complained when they closed PA Ave in front of the White House to traffic, as if all of a sudden our connection to the executive branch of government had been eliminated. You can still walk, bike, wheelchair, and Seqway in front of the White House, but I guess that's not good enough for people who can't get out of their cars. Thank God for drive thru fast food, banks, pharmacies, car washes, movies, and Church.

Tilly
12-12-2010, 10:41
So far everyone who's posted lives in the East. From a Western perspective, what makes the AT pretty unique is that it's a protected FOOTpath. For me, it was amazing walking a maintained trail that's not pounded anywhere by horses or wheeled vehicles, motorized or not. Sure, there's way more access than other trails. There's easy enough access to major population centers to change the experience from a wilderness one to a social one. But that's something else that's unique about the AT and many, including me, appreciate it.

There are sections of the PCT that are destroyed by motorcycles and ATVs. There are sections of the CDT that have over a dozen parallel horse paths through meadows. The CDT has hundreds of miles of road walks on ranches in NM and WY. The brand new PNT is not nearly a trail yet. The brand new AZT still has some wild cactus bushwhacking. Count your blessings on the AT and appreciate it for the national treasure that it is.

What a nice post Garlic.

4eyedbuzzard
12-12-2010, 11:29
What a nice post Garlic.
I agree. A different and interesting perspective.

Wise Old Owl
12-12-2010, 12:05
Protecting the trail is a full time job, there are many issues and urban sprawl has decimated blue trails and famous trails alike here in the PA. Some will take that for granted here, Others are Maintainers, and some can donate to programs to preserve the land...

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805845/k.AD96/Protect_the_Trail.htm

weary
12-12-2010, 12:53
....Count your blessings on the AT and appreciate it for the national treasure that it is.
Both a national treasure and a bit of a miracle as well. The trail was the vision of a little known, largely unsuccessful government bureaucrat, whose vision was taken up by a New York newspaper columnist whose name no one still remembers, not even me.

But the nation was in one of its periodic national cycles in which the outdoors becomes important. A handful of people joined to provide the leadership needed to make the trail a reality. One stood out. Who could possibly have predicted in 1921 that Myron Avery, a lawyer from coastal Maine, specializing in maritime matters, more than anyone else would bring Benton MacKaye's musings about a wilderness trail to reality?

Other miracles followed. President Lyndon Johnson made the trail permanent by championing passage of a long neglected proposal for National Scenic Trails amidst the Vietnam War rioting. But a decade passed before another President, Jimmy Carter, then and now considered a failed president, approved any funding for the new law.

As far as I know, there has never been a complete history of the miracles that resulted in the modern Appalachian Trail, though AT Conservancy has tried at times.

The trail is indeed a national treasure -- a treasure produced and maintained through the efforts of ordinary hikers following the guide of a pioneer landscape planner, a couple of ordinary presidents, and a lot of ordinary people, like the volunteers that continue to keep the footpath free of brush and blowdowns, the bog bridges built, and the shelters cleared of trash.

But to get back on topic. Of course, the trail, created against all odds through several of the most heavily populated states of the nation, is too accessible. But lets keep it anyway as a memorial to dreamers who created a treasure and who keep that treasure alive and healthy.

Red Hat
12-12-2010, 14:19
The most crowded part of the trail on my hike this year was the White Mountains in New Hampshire. But they were also one of the least accessible...that is, they required a good deal of difficult hiking to get to any specific point. Of course, I was there the week before Labor Day and everyone was trying to get their last vacation in.

shelterbuilder
12-12-2010, 17:49
Both a national treasure and a bit of a miracle as well...Other miracles followed...like the volunteers that continue to keep the footpath free of brush and blowdowns, the bog bridges built, and the shelters cleared of trash....

Sometimes, the biggest miracles of all are seemingly the smallest...like the volunteer maintainers. Someone once said that it's amazing how much good can be accomplished when no one is trying to take the credit for it!

Too accessible? In some places, perhaps. But the miracle-workers keep right on working their miracles! :sun

Roland
12-12-2010, 18:14
~
Do you think it's become too accessible and maybe has ruined the charm of it?


If by "accessible", they meant proximity to roads, it could be argued that the Trail is less accessible now, than when Earl first hiked. At that time, there were long sections of road walks. Today, those have been relocated; off-road.

Mags
12-12-2010, 19:27
Count your blessings on the AT and appreciate it for the national treasure that it is.

Thanks for the wonderful post Garlic.

I know the accessibility of the AT was directly responsible for my current love of wilderness....and I am thankful for that every day.

sheepdog
12-12-2010, 19:30
The AT is a recreation area disguised as a wilderness. It is a great piece of real estate and gives many a chance to get out and hike. It is amazing that is seems as wild as it does.

rickb
12-12-2010, 20:35
The AT is a recreation area disguised as a wilderness. It is a great piece of real estate and gives many a chance to get out and hike. It is amazing that is seems as wild as it does.

The snowshoe hare, pine martins, bear, moose, beaver, porcupines, bobcat, skunk, boar, fox, and the rest contribute to the sense of wildness.

How one defines wildness entirely up to each of us, of course. The problem with this is that as soon as one concedes that the AT is not wild, all sorts of compromise (to viewshed, noise from race tracks etc) becomes much more palatable.

Bucherm
12-13-2010, 01:11
Protecting the trail is a full time job, there are many issues and urban sprawl has decimated blue trails and famous trails alike here in the PA. Some will take that for granted here, Others are Maintainers, and some can donate to programs to preserve the land...

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805845/k.AD96/Protect_the_Trail.htm


Of course even in the '60s Sprawl was so worrisome that they began plans to move the AT much further West along what is now the Tuscarora Trail, so it isn't a new problem.

On Black Friday while everyone else was doing their patriotic Keynesian Duty I went out to do an out-and-back day hike from VA 7 to Raven Rocks. I actually hadn't been out on that stretch before and after I parked Thunderin' Death I looked around and was astonished that Hikers(going North or South) were expected to cross VA 7. Seriously, I had assumed there would have been a tunnel or footbridge or something. While that stretch of VA 7 retains a semi-country look to it there have been a lot of new federal jobs created in Winchester since 9/11 and so it's a pretty busy conduit.

ki0eh
12-13-2010, 10:49
If it is, go here (http://www.greateasterntrail.net/)

4eyedbuzzard
12-13-2010, 11:11
The closest I've ever been to a real wilderness is probably up in Glacier NP around Kintla Lake and beyond. And there are parts of NH and ME I've been in that come pretty close to being "all alone in the woods". But certainly neither is a true wilderness in many ways as there are roads and such here and there and signs of human impact. So I'm thinking that defining wilderness in the presence of 6 billion humans is difficult. What is wilderness?

To me, it's a place that, without supplies, you couldn't walk out of without knowing how to forage and live off the land. That means at least a few days walking. There just aren't a lot of places on earth left like that. Parts of Canada, Alaska, Scandanavia, Russia, China, The Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Arctic and Antarctica. But these are places are for the most part really remote and access itself is difficult - um, kind of what makes them true wilderness. Most of us probably aren't going to visit them for a "wilderness fix". If you can get to it easily and cheaply, it probably isn't all that wild.

Cookerhiker
12-13-2010, 11:22
......There just aren't a lot of places on earth left like that. Parts of Canada, Alaska, Scandanavia, Russia, China, The Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Arctic and Antarctica. But these are places are for the most part really remote and access itself is difficult - um, kind of what makes them true wilderness. Most of us probably aren't going to visit them for a "wilderness fix". If you can get to it easily and cheaply, it probably isn't all that wild.

To that list, you must add Australia. I've driven across the Outback from the East Coast to Alice Springs and gotten an appreciation for how much wilderness there is - vast swaths of scorching desert between the few roads certainly meet your criteria. Also, a fair amount of the northern rain forest is likely wilderness.

weary
12-13-2010, 11:47
The snowshoe hare, pine martins, bear, moose, beaver, porcupines, bobcat, skunk, boar, fox, and the rest contribute to the sense of wildness.

How one defines wildness entirely up to each of us, of course. The problem with this is that as soon as one concedes that the AT is not wild, all sorts of compromise (to viewshed, noise from race tracks etc) becomes much more palatable.
The most irritating arguments I hear on White Blaze are from those who ask why should one place be wilder than another. Because worse things can be seen elsewhere, why shouldn't wind towers be seen from the trail on the mountain tops of Maine?

It's the lowest common denominator argument. It's like saying if some kids are incapable of reading, why should all kids not learn to read. The question should not be "Is it wilderness?" But rather, "Is the trail as wild as it can be?"

I look for a sense of wildness when I walk in the woods and hills. For the feeling that though a highway may be heard in the distance, here is a bit of the natural world, doing it's own thing, a world of wild creatures and wild plants and flowers and trees.

4eyedbuzzard
12-13-2010, 11:59
To that list, you must add Australia. I've driven across the Outback from the East Coast to Alice Springs and gotten an appreciation for how much wilderness there is - vast swaths of scorching desert between the few roads certainly meet your criteria. Also, a fair amount of the northern rain forest is likely wilderness.
Good point. Completely skipped my mind. And for some reason I always tend to equate wilderness with forests (yes, I know that is a narrow definition) even though I've lived in the west and travelled to some vast open areas. Probably a result of being mostly an east coast person - trees equal wilderness to many of us.

Joshuatree
12-14-2010, 16:42
If it was built to MacKayes original plans It would be much differant http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7BD25B4747-42A3-4302-8D48-EF35C0B0D9F1%7D/MacKaye.pdf

ardeaitch
12-15-2010, 17:15
This same discussion between MacKaye and Myron Avery related to the location of the Skyline Drive led to the separation of MacKaye from the AT movement in 1935 and his cofounding of the Wilderness Society, along with Bob Marshall, Aldo Leopold, Robert Sterling Yard and others, in the same year. He remained estranged from the AT until the early '60's, well after Avery relinquished presidency of the ATC.

Interesting topic... Thanks for the discussion.

ardeaitch

SassyWindsor
12-15-2010, 17:28
If I had to choose a road to shut down or close, it would be US 441 slicing the GSMNP. It's not a big deal to me and I know a lot of folks are glad it's there, I'm one of the few that would like to see the GSMNP as one large wilderness type area without the roads and all the traffic/tourist that go with it.

Cookerhiker
12-15-2010, 20:00
...The OP referred to a PATC article from the 1930s. Was that article in the context of the debates re. Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway? I thought I'd read that the issue of whether to oppose the Parkways and re-route the Trail caused a bitter dispute between MacKaye and Avery, one which resulted them in not speaking to each other. MacKaye was more the purist fighting the roads as incompatible with the new Trail; Avery was more of a compromiser plus he may have seen the access afforded by these roads as helping build a Trail constituency......


This same discussion between MacKaye and Myron Avery related to the location of the Skyline Drive led to the separation of MacKaye from the AT movement in 1935 and his cofounding of the Wilderness Society, along with Bob Marshall, Aldo Leopold, Robert Sterling Yard and others, in the same year. He remained estranged from the AT until the early '60's, well after Avery relinquished presidency of the ATC.

Interesting topic... Thanks for the discussion.

ardeaitch

That's what I thought.

BTW by the early '60s, Avery was long-deceased.

ardeaitch
12-15-2010, 23:06
That's what I thought.

BTW by the early '60s, Avery was long-deceased.

True enough, he died in 1952. I erred in my remembering... MacKaye re-established relations with ATC about the time that Avery died - in the early '50's. The bad blood that was generated between him and Avery was forgotten and MacKaye was invited back into the fold by younger members of the PATC and ATC who weren't aware of the history.

weary
02-19-2011, 00:18
Absolutely. As long as the scope of the improvement is to preserve the integrity of the trail, and not to facilitate ease of use.S
Unfortunately, both happens. The trail is mostly the work of volunteers who take pride in their work, which sometimes makes the trail easier than it needs to be just to avoid erosion.

emerald
02-19-2011, 02:06
The trail was the vision of a little known, largely unsuccessful government bureaucrat, whose vision was taken up by a New York newspaper columnist whose name no one still remembers, not even me.

Raymond H. Torrey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_H._Torrey) was his name and I didn't need to look it up. Not everyone has forgotten.

emerald
02-19-2011, 02:37
The snowshoe hare, pine martins, bear, moose, beaver, porcupines, bobcat, skunk, boar, fox, and the rest contribute to the sense of wildness.

According to Pennsylvania's DCNR, so do timber rattlesnakes, but I'd omit the boar and so would PGC.

What's the difference between a sense of wildness and the real deal? I doubt any of the mammals or reptiles listed above know the difference and maybe their presence serves to indicate the real deal as opposed to some sort of illusion created by man for entertainment purposes.


How one defines wildness [or wilderness] is entirely up to each of us, of course.

Are you telling us words mean whatever someone wants them to mean, i.e. they have no shared meaning everyone can understand when someone employs a word? If so, how can we expect to communicate our thoughts about important concepts when everyone assigns a different meaning to words essential to understanding these concepts?


The problem with this is that as soon as one concedes that the AT is not wild, all sorts of compromise (to viewshed, noise from race tracks etc) becomes much more palatable.

So let's stop with this it's not real wilderness nonsense and keep it as wild as we can for as long as we can, remembering wild is not unmanaged!

Lemni Skate
02-19-2011, 06:08
To me, the trail is what it is. I hike out there, I see a few people, but not enough to ruin my experience. It's the trash and stuff people leave that irritates me. Still, the AT is a lot better than jogging down my road, and I love it and I plan on finishing the 1500 miles I still haven't hiked. If you really want to get away from people, however, it's still not that hard. Most blue blazed trails are empty. Here in Virginia I have hiked so many trails that are not marked by that white blaze and most of them are virtually empty (at least once you get a mile from any parking). Sometimes I want the AT where I can say "hello" to 10 people in a day. Sometimes I want something where I'm alone. Probably depends on how stupid people were at work that week.

weary
02-19-2011, 09:54
..... let's stop with this it's not real wilderness nonsense and keep it as wild as we can for as long as we can, remembering wild is not unmanaged!
Very true words that should apply to most primitive trails. But it won't happen without people using and enjoying a chance to experience wildness. I welcome public use of the AT and other trails.

Future wilderness preservation depends on young people learning to appreciate and use existing trails. The solution to trashed trails is for each of us to carry a plastic baggie and pick up whatever we see. Trash breeds more trash. It's amazing what a few moments of effort on our part can accomplish.

SassyWindsor
02-19-2011, 10:25
The fact that it's a developed trail defies wilderness, but it's better than going to a cinema, or watching on the tv, a real wilderness.

emerald
02-19-2011, 14:20
The notion of wildness or wilderness to which some here cling and to which they allude in a nebulous if not trolling manner about some sort of paradise devoid of other human beings and anything that suggests their presence is wacky. No one has ever been to this ill-defined place because it does not exist.

Developing trails is part of how we keep wild areas wild and refrain from despoiling them. It should be understood by all A.T. visitors the concept of managed wilderness is not an oxymoron. Managing wild areas isn't an option, but rather a necessity if we wish to retain them.

We need not make excuses nor should we degrade the A.T. when introducing it to new visitors by telling them it isn't what they have been led to believe when it is nearly everything they have heard and more.

Little is to be gained by comparing the A.T. to trails or trail-less trails in more remote locations. Different standards should apply and have been created for areas with different histories and population densities.

Some fail to grasp it's wildness and wilderness, not wildestness, of which we speak. Wilderness is a comparitive term and for most if not nearly all A.T. visitors, it's wilder than what they experience when they return to their homes better for the experience.

The presence of man or indications he has been present should not be the only or even primary consideration that determines how wild a place is or feels. Such evaluations really ought to be based upon many things including but not limited to the diversity of other life forms it supports.