ATC trail guidelines [Archive]

weary

01-29-2005, 23:19

What's the modern day "purpose" of the trail? Here's what the ATC thinks the purpose is. I lifted this from the ATC site, because it struck me as a fair summary of goals. ATC says the following is intended to guide maintaining clubs in their trail management activities.

Question: Do these guidelines reflect the modern realities of the trail? What do WhiteBlaze members think?

THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL EXPERIENCE
(As adopted by the Board, 4/19/97)

The Appalachian Trail is, first and foremost, a footpath open to any and all who travel on foot.

Its sole purpose as a recreational resource is to provide an opportunity for “travel on foot through the wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains.” Except in isolated instances where historically recognized nonconforming uses are allowed by legislative authority, the footpath of the Trail should not be used for any other
purpose.

The lands acquired and managed for the Appalachian Trail, not only protect the footpath itself, but provide primary protection of the Trail experience. The Trail experience, as used in this context, is intended to represent the sum of opportunities that are available for those walking the Appalachian Trail to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible. Integral to this Trail experience are:

• opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world;

• a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;
• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;

• a sense of being on the height of the land;

• opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside;

• a feeling of being part of the natural environment; and

• opportunities for travel on foot, including opportunities for long-distance hiking.

Other recreational uses of these lands may be compatible if they do not require any modification of design and construction standards for the Trail footpath or Trail facilities; cause damage to the treadway or Trail facilities; require an engine or motor; or adversely impact the Trail experience
or the cultural, natural, or scenic resources of the Trail.

Some recreational uses may affect the Trail experience because of an inherent conflict between different user groups’ expectations in a specific environment. Some might affect the Trail simply because they result in increased use of Trail lands. Other uses might affect the opportunities for solitude and reflection that certain sections of the Trail provide. The potential for conflict between other uses and the Trail’s sole recreational purpose increases as the users’ sense of remoteness and distance from the developed environment increases.

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

The Old Fhart

01-29-2005, 23:42

Also keep in mind that the ATC doesn't prohibit, ban, or discourage certain activities.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/plan/cars.html
Special Use Permits- ATC Jan 2, 2004
"SUP rules (an extremely valuable tool, that has in the past protected Trail resources from commercial abuse) say that anyone taking money for a service involving Forest Service lands (including roads) must obtain a permit to do so; profit is not a factor. The nonprofit huts in the White Mountains, for example, operate under a SUP. Permit-holders must pay a fee (up to $150 in the case of shuttles) and, more prohibitively, carry fairly high-premium insurance."

Notice the key phrase "from commercial abuse", not regulated commercial use. As the above points out, commercial use of the trail will continue under law.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/pdfs/LMPG_3advertis.pdf
"At the same time, ATC recognizes that many A.T. hikers value the services (e.g., lodging, restaurants, outfitters, and shuttles) that are available in many communities along the Trail. Those services may be commercial in nature or offered by Trail enthusiasts acting on their own initiatives, who provide free or for-cost assistance to hikers. Both commercial businesses and Trail enthusiasts make significant contributions to the over-all experience of hiking the A.T. and are important to many hikers, especially long-distance hikers."(emphasis mine)

Note that the ATC recognizes the importance of the above mentioned commercial uses and will send you a list of shuttle services, or give you info on other services if you ask. If they disapproved, they wouldn't be posting this information.

Let's not confuse what is done ON the trail with what is done OFF the trail. We must keep in mind that the A.T. exist in one of the most developed areas of the country and the ATC recognizes the fact that the A.T. does not exist in a vacuum.

Rocks 'n Roots

01-30-2005, 00:09

ATC makes it more than clear that the main purpose of the AT is remote, detached, and primitive experience of woodlands. Old Fhart's clumsy avoidance of what is otherwise plainly evident in ATC's writings clangs loudly to those who hear what ATC is saying and why. The problem with the AT is that its creator was more than clear on describing the AT's main function as a wilderness experience for urban people. But wise Benton also foresaw the shrivelling of open space we are currently experiencing in our country. The loss of wilderness definition happened when MacKaye left his own creation because of the narrow mindedness of Trail Community members back during the Trail's construction. As we can see on the internet, that same refusal to acknowledge basic wilderness organization still exists today. ATC missed making its purpose clear when it stopped quoting Benton. It's obviously still pushing Benton's purpose, only in an ineffective overly-diplomatic way that allows those who wish to deny this purpose room to do so (as seen on this site). ATC needs to let MacKaye back in and spell it out more clearly. Baxter picked up on MacKaye's message. Baxter Park banned cell phones. But, if you read ATC's guidelines above, the conflict cell phones create with the AT is spelled out right there. The reason you don't see the usual trolls in this thread is because its serious content is all right there. It's something that hecklers avoid because they aren't really interested in discussing it in the first place...

Old Fhart sounds like a lawyer seeking loopholes for the sake of downplaying ATC wilderness ethics. He should try reading and understanding the guidelines (and how they are directly derived from MacKaye) before seeking ways to undo them...

saimyoji

01-30-2005, 01:04

Here we go again....:confused:

The Old Fhart

01-30-2005, 10:08

the WORD from RnR:

ATC missed making its purpose clear when it stopped quoting Benton.
ATC needs to let MacKaye back in and spell it out more clearly.
Again, the AT Community comes off looking like a group of goofs...
RnR, you can’t imagine how please it makes the rest of us to know that you have nominated yourself God and you are the ONLY defender of “wilderness” ethics! The ATC quotes in post #2 makes it very clear where the ATC stands on the issues of shuttles, etc, and because that doesn’t support your psychosis you lump the ATC with the “group of goofs”.

First you say the ATC has made themselves very clear and have taken a strong stand on wilderness. When you asked for, and are shown, evidence directly from the ATC web site on where the ATC stands on the issues of shuttles and other off-trail issues, and it doesn’t support your delusional rantings, you criticize the ATC for being weak. You sound like a lawyer seeking loopholes for the sake of distorting ATC wilderness ethics. Those quotes from the ATC are not equivocation but clear and pointed statements on off-trail use. We eagerly await your next edict from on high….

TJ aka Teej

01-30-2005, 11:26

Do these guidelines reflect the modern realities of the trail? What do WhiteBlaze members think?
Yes, the guidelines reflect trail reality.
And this WhiteBlaze member thinks they're doing an excellent job, are pursuing a well defined mission, and deserve the support of every Trail enthusiast. That's one of the reasons I often find myself defending them and the Trail Community against the deluded rantings of the intentionally underinformed R&R. The best thing that ever happened in AT history was when the ATC and others escorted MacKaye and his work camp/asylums/farms/lumbermills/population relocation notions to the sidelines. Thank God we have the Appalachian Trail Myron Avery built and not the one Ben MacKaye proposed!

ATC - Join The Trail Community:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/support/index.html

orangebug

01-30-2005, 11:29

I think that today's Pearls Before Swine might be fitting.

I don't know how to upload a graphic. Try http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/ and look at Jan 30, 2005.

weary

01-30-2005, 11:31

.....ATC missed making its purpose clear when it stopped quoting Benton. It's obviously still pushing Benton's purpose, only in an ineffective overly-diplomatic way that allows those who wish to deny this purpose room to do so (as seen on this site). ATC needs to let MacKaye back in and spell it out more clearly. ...
RnR. Perhaps you could quote us the Benton Mackaye words that strike you as better than:

"(The trail's) sole purpose .... is to provide an opportunity for “travel on foot through the wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains.” .... The Trail experience...represent(s) the sum of opportunities that are available for those walking the Appalachian Trail to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible. Integral to this Trail experience are:

• opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world;

• a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;

• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;

• a sense of being on the height of the land;

• opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside;

• a feeling of being part of the natural environment; and

• opportunities for travel on foot, including ... long-distance hiking."

Weary

TJ aka Teej

01-30-2005, 11:38

Baxter picked up on MacKaye's message.
That is untrue.

TJ aka Teej

01-30-2005, 11:42

RnR. Perhaps you could quote us the Benton Mackaye words
Newsflash! Devil ice skates today!

SGT Rock

01-30-2005, 11:45

Ya'll must either be lawyer or philosophers. :datz

peter_pan

01-30-2005, 15:09

How many ultralighters can hike on the head of a pin while thruing the AT?

SGT Rock

01-30-2005, 15:10

Answer - the pin weighs too much and you won't use it that often. Don't carry one and bum it off Mt Dew. He loves to share gear with ultralight hikers so he can complain about them later ;)

peter_pan

01-30-2005, 15:10

None...no one will carry the pin......

peter_pan

01-30-2005, 15:12

Rock,

you're quick boy...how fast do yopu hike when not on a pin? pan

weary

01-30-2005, 16:33

....The best thing that ever happened in AT history was when the ATC and others escorted MacKaye and his work camp/asylums/farms/lumbermills/population relocation notions to the sidelines. Thank God we have the Appalachian Trail Myron Avery built and not the one Ben MacKaye proposed! ATC - Join The Trail Community:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/support/index.html
It is important to compare Mackaye's dream with the reality of what happened on the ground. What Mackaye wanted was the preservation of a broad swath of protected lands through the Appalachian highlands -- sort of a series of Baxter State Parks, with room for work camps, farms, lumber mills and the like.

It's not clear to me that had such a land preservation system been adopted that it would have been inferior to the narrow coridor through which Myron built his trail.

The AT Conference is changing it's name to Conservancy in part in a belated effort to achieve some of Mackaye's dream. Likewise it is to preserve some of Mackaye's dream in the face of modern development pressures that we created the MAT Land Trust.

www.matlt.org

Weary

SGT Rock

01-30-2005, 16:50

I hike real slow.

Rocks 'n Roots

01-30-2005, 23:07

First you say the ATC has made themselves very clear and have taken a strong stand on wilderness. When you asked for, and are shown, evidence directly from the ATC web site on where the ATC stands on the issues of shuttles and other off-trail issues, and it doesn’t support your delusional rantings, you criticize the ATC for being weak. You sound like a lawyer seeking loopholes for the sake of distorting ATC wilderness ethics. Those quotes from the ATC are not equivocation but clear and pointed statements on off-trail use. We eagerly await your next edict from on high….

People like Old Fhart are very dangerous for the AT because they sound like they know what they are talking about when they don't.

Old Fhart has done nothing but cherry pick out of context quotes and references while flagrantly ignoring otherwise obvious and accepted Trail terms. But his peppering serious discussion with words like "psychosis", "delusional ranting" and "holier than thou" etc are the sure signs of somebody who isn't serious (unless of course they are out to destroy organized AT wilderness for the sake of it)

When I read OF's replies I get the sense that he is manipulating context rather than dealing with the overall obvious. It's obvious Old Fhart ignores everything ATC has made more than clear in order to force context while ignoring the overall wilderness imperatives made clear in the guidelines. He's obviously reaching - but more dangerously he's trying to defeat the AT's main purpose - which makes him insidious, dishonest, and a detriment to the Trail. He simply ignores what he doesn't want to hear.

The ATC quotes he shows for commercial services are referring to those in towns and other places where traditional support has existed. They are talking about stores, hotels, restaurants, hostels etc. He, however, infers them in such a way as to cover ANY and EVERY commercial service. But, if you go back and read the ATC quotes he omits, it's clear motorized support, and support that diminishes the expected wild state of the AT, are excluded - not included as he suggests.

This is the same person who argued that he never said van support wouldn't make the JMT less wild after making the same argument about the AT. Of course his usual gimmick would have been to claim he was talking about the AT, not the JMT. But those are just the semantic word tricks he tries to fool us with. Any honest person would admit that nightly van support can do nothing but make the AT less wild while also violating some of the clearly spelled out guidelines above.

Old Fhart is nothing but a dishonest deceiver. His argument painfully ignores ATC's printed guidelines discussing services or intrusions in places where it decreases the sense of remoteness or isolation. If you're going to quote ATC Mr Fhart quote all of it or you're just making a dishonest argument...

Other uses might affect the opportunities for solitude and reflection that certain sections of the Trail provide. The potential for conflict between other uses and the Trail’s sole recreational purpose increases as the users’ sense of remoteness and distance from the developed environment increases.

Honestly, is ATC referring to Old Fhart's blunt hammer interpretation of commercial uses being allowed or are they spelling out a need to prevent conflicts with wilderness?

orangebug

01-30-2005, 23:22

"Sole purpose as a recreational resource"...

The ATC recognizes that there is a real world in which some of the AT is in relatively remote areas, while some of it is rural and even suburban. No where do they promote wilderness preservation, but a variety of recreational uses of the land, including long distance hiking.

There is nothing in MacKaye's initial proposal or the ATC's "experience" to penalize those who slackpack, section hike, day hike or otherwise use the trail for a recreational resource. They aren't going to endorse specific vendors along the AT, much as the USA doesn't tell you which gas station to use along I-95. They will object to sherpa vendors, but not to slackpacking services.

While complaining that OF "ignores what he doesn't want to hear," how about discussing your home on a barrier island and destroyed wetlands, or your fabricated quotes of me? You live in a shattered glass house.

mdjeeper

01-30-2005, 23:57

my take on the whole thing is that van support neither detracts from the "wild" aspect of the AT or does anything to enhance it. If you want the wild aspect, then when YOU go on the trail, dont stop in every town, dont use "supported" hike, sheesh so many people get so wound up about what someone else is doing instead of focusing on their own hike. the remoteness is there for those who want it, its up the individual to decide how remote he wants his hike to be, just because YOU can resupply every three days, does not mean that YOU have to, jsut because there is a road crossing (or nearby access on a side trail) does not mean that YOU have to use it. I for one think the ATC and all the other clubs/organizations that contribute to maintaining the AT have done a fantastic job

weary

01-31-2005, 00:15

"Sole purpose as a recreational resource"...

The ATC recognizes that there is a real world in which some of the AT is in relatively remote areas, while some of it is rural and even suburban. No where do they promote wilderness preservation, but a variety of recreational uses of the land, including long distance hiking.
.....
Well, I agree with the first part of the sentence, but I doubt if it's true that "no where do they promote wilderness preservation." Several sections of the passages I quoted above speaks of the importance of the "wild," scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains. Also portions of the trail go through federally-designated wilderness. I haven't asked them specifically, but I suspect they support such designation. Certainly ATC is urging The Nature Conservancy to manage land it has purchased in the so called 100-mile-wilderness of Maine as wilderness.

It's my impression that the ATC agrees that wildness is a key aspect of the trail and seeks to preserve the wild whenever feasible.

Weary

Jack Tarlin

01-31-2005, 00:42

Here we go again.

Rocks, who quite recently got all weepy about what he considered the horrible ammount of name-calling here on Whiteblaze, in only ONE post, has managed to term his critics:

* "Very dangerous"

* "Out to detroy the A.T."

* "manipulating"

* "insidious, dishonest"

* "a detriment to the Trail"

* "a dishonest deceiver"

Wow. Sure glad you haven't stooped to that level you deplore, Rocks. Glad to see you haven't felt the need to insult anyone or do any name-calling in order to make your points, as we all know how wrong you think this is.

Let the record show that Rocks AGAIN (for around the fortieth time) has been asked to back-up his assertions with quotes, statements, letters, anything at all that proves he has one iota of knowledge regarding what MacKaye originally had in mind, or what the A.T. was originally all about. And for the fortieth time, he failed to do so. Let the record he show that Rocks is incapable of supporting his arguments with any facts, basis, or foundations. Yet he insists on calling everyone else ignorant, ill-informed, mistaken.

I also noted that in reference to one of his critics, Rocks had this remarkable statement: "He simply ignores what he doesn't want to hear."

I trust I'm not the only one here who found this comment rather amusing, when you consider its source.

Just for the hell of it, Rocks, I took a minute to look at some of your first posts since you graced us with your presence a mere three months ago. It took you only a few days to start whining about political matters; it was shortly after the election and you were evidently having a problem acknowledging that your candidate had lost. But there was a clear pattern from day one with you: You don't think anyone but you has a worthy opinion about anything; you immediately start insulting people who have the effrontery to disagree with you; you accuse people of dodging issues or evading direct questions when, in fact, you yourself do this on a daily basis.
And you have absolutely no respect for anyone's else's opinions or comments, yet you act like a scalded cat when anyone points out defects in your own arguments.

Honestly, Rocks, I hate to stoop to name-caling as we all know you yourself never take this route, but one simple question: Do you practice being a horse's ass on the Internet or does it just come naturally?

Rocks 'n Roots

01-31-2005, 01:06

No where do they promote wilderness preservation

Again, I think some people need to learn more about the trail they hike and what it's about. I realize OB is probably suggesting that nowhere do they specifically list wilderness ethics as a stated cause on an individual basis. Again, read Weary's text from the original post and see if they don't? The material I read seems to repeat again and again concern over the level of wild experience and the need to prevent conflicts. This of course is a direct reflection of MacKaye's wilderness immersion plan.

MacKaye's wilderness intentions are well-known to anyone who has bothered to research them...

MDJeeper:

Your thoughts are generous, but they fail to account for the cumulative effect creeping intrusion has on the Trail. You have to remember the "The AT isn't wild anyway" crowd doesn't deal on a very deep level. They are constantly trying to get around reasons to honor group protection of core AT values. Get an acceptance of networked motorized access to wild sections and they'll say "well the Trail is already accessible". The real question here is guarding previous levels of "remoteness" [see ATC guidelines]...

mdjeeper

01-31-2005, 01:44

I am very well aware of Benton Mackaye's wishes for the AT, as well as those of Avery and several others who had a hand in the establishment of the trail itself. And to get what they did, required compromise, from states, from the govt, from individual land owners and from the people who choose to use the trail.

encroachment was a problem in mackaye and avery's time and has only grown worse as our cities, townships and commerce have spread out. my whole point is that with what the ATC was given to work with, I think that they and the other maintenance organizations have done a fantastic job.

want a larger buffer zone for the AT? dont want any commercial activities? ATC has no control over that. write your congressman. the AT for the majority is government land and congress has the mandates over what activities may or may not take place on that land. the ATC can attempt to appropriate new lands when they become available, but they have to have the funds to make that purchase

if you want it be more wild, remove all of the shelters and have the trail rerouted so that it doesnt travel near any towns (granted in some places this will be impossible) but for the most part, you could route the trail so that you would never be within a days walk of a town without bushwacking your way through (and i dont think most people who are on the trail have the orienteerring skills that would require)

the AT was designed for the city slickers to get out of town, get a taste of wilderness and be home for dinner for the most part, long distance hiking was never even in the equation.

Alas, other than in northern ME and NH true wilderness in the eastern U.S. for the most part is already long gone and is something that cannot be recreated.

<climbing off my soapbox now> <guess i shoulda calmed down from my vegan/meat-easter discussion before logging back on>

:-?

Mountain Dew

01-31-2005, 01:45

Hey Old Fhart, congratulations on your new fan club. It's a shame this outcast internet hiker has no clue how much you are respected among those that hike and attend hiker activity's. :sun

The Old Fhart

01-31-2005, 01:49

I know I have made my points when Ruse N Rants goes into flail mode and his entire posts are so nonsensical that they look like the output of the random word generators spammers use. Being flamed by RnR is like being whipped by a wet noodle.

It is sad that he hasn’t mastered the ability to quote anyone, including the ATC. For your information, RnR, a quote is what a person says, verbatim, not some of your idiotic ramblings and lies.

RnR said of me: “This is the same person who argued that he never said van support wouldn't make the JMT less wild…” when what I actually said was:
TOF-”camping is strictly prohibited on Half Dome and tourist should stay outside of Yosemite valley to lessen the impact there.” Your distorted statement bears no resemblance to what I actually said, indeed, it is exactly the opposite. It is either a delusion or an outright lie on your part.

I’ll repeat this from my previous post because you obviously didn’t understand it.
“First you [RnR] say the ATC has made themselves very clear and have taken a strong stand on wilderness. When you asked for, and are shown, evidence directly from the ATC web site on where the ATC stands on the issues of shuttles and other off-trail issues, and it doesn’t support your delusional rantings, you criticize the ATC for being weak.” Now you change you mind and say that those clear statement are out of context! You say: “But, if you go back and read the ATC quotes he omits, it's clear motorized support, and support that diminishes the expected wild state of the AT, are excluded - not included as he suggests.”

Please explain why the ATC will willingly give anyone lists of shuttle services along the entire length of the A.T. if they are against it as you claim.

The U.S. forest service issues Special use permits for the huts in the Whites, commercial outfitter’s licenses to groups (including Boy Scouts), etc. all the time and this is the law of the land. The Green Mountain Club charges a small fee at some of their A.T. shelters and this is commercial. The PATC has locked cabins that they need to use on the A.T. in SNP. There is Big Meadow and all the other campgrounds as well as restaurants on the A.T. on Skyline Drive. The ATC recognizes these valid uses of Government land. The ferry service across the Kennebec with a dedicated and paid operator is not only condoned but supported by the ATC. The Walasi-Yi center owned by the state of Georgia is commercial and right on the trail. The list of commercial users or businesses on the A.T. is almost endless. The ATC recognizes or supports these commercial uses of the A.T.. Actually the spot you are most likely to see wild animals on the trail is in another commercial business, the zoo near the Bear Mountain bridge.

Bottom line is everyone else can support what they claim but you can’t because your position is pure BS. You have taken a simple statement of “no motorized vehicles” on the trail and in your warped mind interpreted that to mean no cars can come close to the A.T. on public roads or interstate highways. Debunking your verbal crap is like shooting fish in a barrel. Oops, now you’re going to report me for killing fish! :D

orangebug

01-31-2005, 08:19

I wonder if it is time for a "RnR: Talk to me" thread.

Well, Weary is correct that the ATC does promote maintaining the wilderness aspects of federally designated areas. The ATC is opposed to windmills in sight of the AT, although we have other electricity generating technologies in full view as we wander. In Georgia, we have the compromise of the Richard B Russell Highway through Hog Pen Gap, and no Blue Ridge Parkway through the Swag.

The ATC lives in a real world where actual study, compromise and effort are required. They don't live on a fragile Florida barrier island, avoiding hikers and hiking, or inventing quotes to disparage others.

rickb

01-31-2005, 10:15

MDJeeper--

Your comments make so much sense, I am almost inclined to agree with everything you said. Almost.

I ask myself if the Trail experience is getting better. People like Jack might well have a better handle on that, but I am not so sure. I certainly don't have the definititive answer.

Here's my dilema-- on one hand I don't have a problem with ANY of these hot-button issues on a micro level. Really. I had great fun giving a yellow blazer a 100+ mile ride this summer-- didn't think less of him or his personal choice. I don't have a problem with the Huts-- where they are now. Nor with an individual cell phone user. Nor even a temprarily misguided young person's distraction with weed. Nor the ease by which one can find a slackpacking provider so you can hike out of a hub.

But on the other hand, I am a bit troubled by the idea it might be getting harder to get the very best out of a thru hike-- not because of any one individual or company's choice-- but by thier collective weight.

In the end, its hard to argue with the idea that others actions need not affect one's own. You would be right. After all, a big part of hiking your own hike is to not allow that to happen-- even when it is not so easy. That said, I can't help but wonder about how different hiking the Trail will be in another 20 years. And in this context I am not thinking of changes in terms of development, but rather changes in terms of its feel.

Last thought is this: A ton of effort is put in by most every thru hiker on selecting the right equipment, logistics and the like. That can be important. By the same token, I don't see a heck of a lot of energy put into other kinds of preparation-- preparation which I think could lead to an even more wonderful hike. I am talking about learning of the history and natural history along the Trail-- before you start. Had I done so, I would have had a much better experience.

Even a little bit of that kind of prep help one to better appreciate the Trail. Like renting "To Hell and Back", perhaps? (I am serious about that, BTW). For those who get meaning out of Benton MacKaye, all the better. Thinking about him might not provide all the answers, but it might help one ask some personnaly good questions. Even if he did (originally) want you to stop at Mount Washington ;-).

Rick B

TJ aka Teej

01-31-2005, 12:13

I wonder if it is time for a "RnR: Talk to me" thread.
I tried, OB. From the January 14th "Message for R&R" thread:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7082 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7082)

A Message for R&R
[email protected] ([email protected]) writes:
"Unfortunately real "AT" is evidently a language too many who promote themselves visibly as AT members don't really understand."
"the internet Trail Community and its chat medium is a farce to me and
only serves as a drag on the real "Conservancy" AT..."
"the "AT Community") (what a joke)..."
"I'm often amazed by the general lack of obvious awareness by the Trail Community. Frankly, it makes Trail members look dumb."
-------------------------------------------------------------
R&R,

Since you are a member of the AT Community, and have exhibited an unequaled disgust and loathing for that same community, may I suggest some ways you might modify your opinion?

First, I suggest you meet, in person, with some of the people you type against. Please consider participating in one or more of the following:

(small edit, replacing hiker calendar with link to an expanded listing: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=79301#post79301 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=79301#post79301) )

Secondly, I suggest you go hike some on the AT this season. There are many easy sections and shelters near road crossings. (edit: this was not meant as a insult, R&R said in a post he had an injury to a leg which prevented him from hiking) Go meet some of today's hikers. Visit Harper's Ferry and talk with some of the great volunteers, and maybe give a ride or two to hikers passing through. Come up to Maine and stay with me at Baxter Park and meet the AT hikers coming through. I'm booking lean-tos in May, August, September, and October. I'll also be hiking in the 100 mile, the Mahoosucs, the northern Long Trail, and the Whites, as well as visiting many service providers in NH and ME, if you need a shuttle anywhere up here just ask.

And thirdly, if interacting with other members of the 'real' and 'Internet' AT Community as suggested above hasn't improved your opinion of us, I suggest you find a grander scale for your complaints. Write an article for the Appalachian Trailways News, or for the ALDHA newsletter, on why you think we are a '"farce" and what we should do to improve ourselves. Write a calm and well thought-out essay about how you feel about us and post it on WhiteBlaze, the at-l, and TrailPlace. Go to an ALDHA Gathering, stand up and be recognized during your AT year's rollcall, and speak up. And while you're there why not give a presentation at the Dartmouth Gathering? It's easy to get on the schedule and book a classroom. You could even schedule a campfire talk at the beach at Storrs Pond if you want.

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

See you on the Trail,

TJ
----------

Lone Wolf

01-31-2005, 12:21

That sumbitch Pebbles N sticks accused me some years back on Trailplace, of frequenting county fairs to watch tractor pulls and drink cheap beer. It hurt my feelings. I do frequent fairs but can be found in the sheep judging tents sippin lemonade.

rickb

01-31-2005, 12:32

TJ--

Your invitation to R&R not withstanding, today's thru hikers don't really deserve ANYONE returning to the Trail with the express intention of meeting them. Just my opinion.

But especially in Baxter.

If that happens as a fun BYPRODUCT of one's own sojourn in the Park, that's another story. Enjoy each other's company.

Most people's milage will vary on this one, I know.

Rick B

TJ aka Teej

01-31-2005, 13:31

today's thru hikers don't really deserve ANYONE returning to the Trail with the express intention of meeting themPlease note, I also suggested many other ways whereby R&R could interact with today's AT community. While most of my hiking benefits just me or my kids, it's hard to hike where I hike without meeting people. But there are times when I expressly intend on meeting long distance AT hikers and service providers in my capacity as a volunteer for ALDHA or when I'm providing free shuttles to Baxter. Aside from the daily on-trail hiking chit chat, (where's good water, who's ahead or just behind, where can I bear-bag, what's in the next town, who farted, etc) I let other hikers know I write for the Companion, and have learned much from their input. I suppose the four things I like best (in different orders depending on the moment) about the AT up here in New England is the exercise, the flora and fauna, the recreation, and the people. It might be that my high regard for the AT Community is because I've met so many of them. It's probable that R&R's low opinion of today's AT Community is proportionate to the number of them he's met. AT hikers are kind, friendly, and welcoming folks, I'm sure they wouldn't mind meeting R&R.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-02-2005, 23:06

mdjeeper:

I think you are missing the point. Creeping encroachment is not just physical development. One of the most insidious encroachments happening on the AT is encroachment into the Trail's meaning and purpose. This is best seen in areas already protected by large buffers. Areas where the biggest threat isn't a land developer plowing down trees, but Trail members themselves seeking to overcome the limits this deliberately designed "remoteness" [see ATC] imposes. Sounds like a frivolous complaint? Not really. Right now it is the center of origin from which the Trail's meaning is being challenged from within - whether consciously or not.

This is why I'm not sure you're right when you say you understand MacKaye's wishes...

Rocks 'n Roots

02-04-2005, 23:50

I'm not surprised no one answered #33. There are those suggesting that since the Trail community is generally responsive and well-meaning that if the proposition were put respectfully it would get a better response. I give you this respectful post by Weary that got virtually no response to the idea that was being put forth.

"(The trail's) sole purpose .... is to provide an opportunity for “travel on foot through the wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains.” .... The Trail experience...represent(s) the sum of opportunities that are available for those walking the Appalachian Trail to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible.

To get back to Weary's question, you can see the main emphasis is on wild Appalachian experience. The most important words in here are "unfettered" and "unimpeded", and the operative function of the AT is made clear in the words "competing sights or sounds". This passage clearly shows that the AT is to be a place actively seeking to remove wilderness-conflicting elements from itself. Another important quote is "Trail experience" - something those who don't recognize the AT wilderness ethic don't ever mention. This is directly descended from MacKaye.

• opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world;[[i]/I]

The natural world being protected wild areas.

• a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;

Here's where ATC gets to the heart of it in an imprecise way. The main function MacKaye designed the Trail for was wilderness immersion. They carry his design on in this guideline, however, they do so in such a way as to not make clear that it was to be a guarded part of the Trail's being. Not separable or negotiable. The way this was meant to be taken was that all Trail members should accept their responsibility in seeing that these main Trail goals were kept in mind and practiced as part of the Trail experience. They are not writing this for poetic reasons or HYOH, they are writing it because they felt a need to express its importance to the AT.

• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;[[i]/I]

"Self-reliance" (I can't wait for the resounding non-response to this)

• a feeling of being part of the natural environment;

A feeling obviously made greater by staying on the trail for longer stretches rather than being driven to motels or having mechanized support every night. The implied premise being the more the Trail provides a wild experience the more it serves its stated purpose. I'd like to see someone show me where this suggests a planned diminishment of these goals would serve the Trail's purpose?

• opportunities for travel on foot, including ... long-distance hiking."

ATC makes clear the primary concern is foot travel including long distance hiking. Its first concern is not the overly vague "recreation" some people try to force, but foot travel in order to experience wild surroundings. Nowhere do I see mention of motorized support.

If interpreted in a Trail-conscious way, these guidelines effectively translate MacKaye's wilderness imperative into the present Trail. They clearly stress wilderness experience as a primary goal. Trail uses can generally be run through these guidelines to see if they conform.

orangebug

02-04-2005, 23:57

I can't wait to see non-response to questions about sprawl and residences on barrier islands. I can't wait to see non-response about invented quotes. I can't wait to see non-response to the fact that long distance hiking is only a minority of the recreational uses of the AT.

The Old Fhart

02-05-2005, 01:30

RnR (post #34)-“ATC makes clear the primary concern is foot travel including long distance hiking. Its first concern is not the overly vague "recreation" some people try to force, but foot travel in order to experience wild surroundings. Nowhere do I see mention of motorized support.” from the ATC publication "Local Management Planning Guide" (emphasis mine)

2(D) Trailheads
“ATC Policy—In general, ATC encourages development of small, simply designed Trailhead facilities in areas where use patterns clearly indicate a need.”
--------------------------
“Club Policy—The following are examples of club policy statements on Trailheads and parking that have been endorsed by ATC:
New York-New Jersey Trail Conference, Dutchess/Putnam Counties A.T. Management Committee (DPATMC)
DPATMC will use the following guidelines for managing existing parking areas or evaluating proposals for additional parking areas:
• Some form of designated parking will be provided by DPATMC at intervals not exceeding eight miles.
----------------------
“Carolina Mountain Club (CMC)
Trailhead parking areas of adequate size are desirable amenities at those road crossings that are major start/end-of-hike locations as well as at major side-trail locations, and where conditions for such areas can safely and aesthetically be provided. Where possible, all Trailhead parking locations should be visible from the road to discourage vandalism and littering.”

weary

02-05-2005, 10:53

I can't wait to see non-response to questions about sprawl and residences on barrier islands. ....
The least useful aspect of this discussion is OB's thought that because RnR resides on an island in Florida he somehow isn't qualified to comment on the preservation of wildness on the Appalachian Trail, especially since we know absolutely nothing about RnR's house or how he managed to get from being a trail maintainer and leader in New York to a barrier island.

I live for instance in Maine in a house overlooking a pretty cove on a tidal river that I bought 42 years ago for $2,950. The river has since become clean. The dilapidated house burned 30 years ago. I designed the replacement myself. I don't feel that taking up space on a coastal peninsula on land that once held an 1850's farmhouse disqualifies me from working to protect a wild trail, nor does living on a barrier island in anyway disqualify RnR, unless, perhaps you have evidence that RnR personally filled the swamp on which his house may or may not sit.

By the same token, TeeJ's summer residence in Old Orchard Beach, ME, a town best known for it's dilapidated honky tonk tourist traps, and a condominium clogged, though still beautiful beach, certainly doesn't disqualify him from criticizing RnR, lacking any information as to how he ended up at that most unfortunate location.

Weary

TJ aka Teej

02-05-2005, 12:57

The least useful aspect of this discussion is OB's thought that because RnR resides on an island in Florida he somehow isn't qualified to comment on the preservation of wildness on the Appalachian Trail, especially since we know absolutely nothing about RnR's house or how he managed to get from being a trail maintainer and leader in New York to a barrier island.

In R&R you have a guy who said there are circumstances where he'd APPROVE OF ARSON to counter sprawl and protect sensitive natural areas. And yet he lives where he lives, and encourages people to shop at Wal-Mart. It would've been useful if R&R would've explained this hypocrisy when he was first questioned about it.

One Leg

02-05-2005, 14:57

If an individual makes the decision to hike the A.T., whether in one lump sum, or over the '20 Year Plan" as Jaybird is, it becomes a personal endeavour. With that in mind, who cares if said hiker slackpacks, has van support, or carries an 85 pound pack, as long as said hiker is placing one foot in front of the other and covering the same terrain as the other hikers?

During my own hike last year, I could have cared less what the other man out there was doing, as I was reverant enought to respect his/her right to enjoy an individual experience using the method that he/she deemed best for themselves.

While I did fall short some 300 miles in my own personal quest, I came away with a feeling of sweet success in my own mind. I hiked my own hike and left the others to do the same....

-One Leg

Rocks 'n Roots

02-05-2005, 15:35

I think what we are really talking about here is how nominal use by Trail users ends up installing a sensibility or sense of expectation that then leads to a diminishment of previous wilderness quality. In other words, what effect does the slow creep of van support, parking lots, civilized infrastructure have on the Trail's original purpose?

I don't see anyone really touching this. I do think I see people reacting to it defensively with deflections and qualifications that don't really apply...

In the case of van support we can compare a van hike vs an extended self-supported hike and see the difference in the wilderness experience we have already defined as being the written purpose of the AT.

For instance, let's hypothesize a 100 Mile Wilderness van support hike and how it affects the hiker vs the original self-sustained one in terms of wilderness experience...

Jack Tarlin

02-05-2005, 16:02

weary

02-05-2005, 16:46

...he lives where he lives, and encourages people to shop at Wal-Mart. It would've been useful if R&R would've explained this hypocrisy when he was first questioned about it.
I suggest that if all those who have ever shopped at Walmart refrain from these discussions, there won't be many of us left. Certainly it eliminates me, who goes to Walmart every two weeks to buy bags of Purina Cat Chow for the feral cats I've managed to inherit, but can't bring myself to shoot for some reason. I did get em all "fixed."

Though I'm not happy with Walmart and its practices, I don't have much money, so I intend to buy as cheaply as possible. I compensate by donating a couple of thousand dollars a year to my two land trusts. If more would do so, some very valuable land that's on the market in Maine could be purchased from the land speculators that now own it, providing the buffers needed to keep the trail in Maine reasonably wild.

We welcome contributions. Just open

www.matlt.org

Weary

Jack Tarlin

02-05-2005, 18:01

You're missing the point here, Weary.

Most of us have shopped there at one time or another, even if we may have mixed feelings about the corporation and its practices.

What most of us don't do is hijack internet discussions with dozens of self-congratulatory posts about our zeal for the environment, and how nobody else really cares about these matters.

Berating one's fellow hikers for their failure to care about such matters as runaway development, threats to the Trail, and urban sprawl---this is all well and good, or at least caring about these matters is all well and good. But for the same hiker to then reveal to us that he shops at places like Wal-Mart and takes advantage of their low prices (which help kill small businesses and destroy downton retail districts) and their convenient locations (often on former forsest, marshland, swamp):

Well this is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

If someone is gonna talk the talk on environmental matters (and talk and talk and talk some more, I might add) than ya gotta walk the walk.

Or to put it another way, people that live in glass houses shouldn't shower during the daytime.

Zealouts tend to be tedious people in any case, but phony ones are insufferable.

weary

02-05-2005, 18:21

Jack Tarlin

02-05-2005, 18:29

Gosh, Weary, as the late Ronald Reagan put it, "There you go again!!"

Perhaps you're unaware that Wal-Mart has consistently been one of the Republican Party's largest corporate sponsors: It's given at least 2.85 million to the Party between 1999 and 2003, and thousands more last year.

I hope you and your pal Rocks think of that the next time you shop there.

By doing so, you helping elect more folks like George Bush.

Now THAT'S prety grievous.....how on earth do you two sleep at night?

Jack Tarlin

02-05-2005, 18:57

Actually, a quick Internet search (see MSNBC, etc. or do a Google search on "Wal-Mart Political Contributions") reveals that the company spent at least 1.3 million during the last election cycle, donating to at least 220 Senators and Republican incumbents and prospective candidates.

At least 85 per cent of these donations were to Republicans.

These donations came of course from the company's immense profits.

Weary, if you're truly that concerned about what the horrible Republicans are doing once they achieve elected office, then you shouldn't be helping them achieve it.

That's only common sense.

But thanks anyway for your support.

Jack Tarlin

02-05-2005, 19:16

Obviously, before Weary corrects me by pointing out that there aren't 220 Senators, I meant to say 220 Senate and House incumbents and prospective candidates.

All of whom are no doubt happy, that thanx to bargain-hunting shoppers like Weary and Rocks, the good folks at Wal-Mart are in a position to help folks like Bush get elected, never mind retaining both houses of Congress.

Nice work, fellas.

WalkinHome

02-05-2005, 19:50

Wal-Mart: It's not just for the Chinese anymore.

weary

02-06-2005, 00:17

....thanx to bargain-hunting shoppers like Weary and Rocks, the good folks at Wal-Mart are in a position to help folks like Bush get elected, never mind retaining both houses of Congress. Nice work, fellas.
Golly, Jack. You are so helpful. Now if you would just supply me with the name of a nearby cat food seller that supports Democrats, I'll switch. The owner of the only other store near me that sells big bags of cat food, ran for the Legislature last fall as a Republican -- and with my help, lost.

Since I don't really own these cats, I just started feeding them after they were abandoned by a Republican, I suppose I could just let them starve. But you know us soft hearted liberals. Do you really think Walmart would stop supporting REpublicans if I stopped buying $8.95 bags of cat food every couple of weeks?

The cats do provide a useful function of sorts. They keep the mice and chipmunks out of my garden. My crops of squash, tomatoes, carrots and the like no longer get eaten by critters since my wealthy REpublican neighbor moved away and left his pets for us liberals to care for.

We manage to freeze and cold cellar enough to keep us in vegetables year round, so you'll be glad to know we aren't tempted to shop for such things at Republican stores.

Since I managed to get my flock of cats fixed, my supply of cats is gradually diminishing. I live on a busy highway and one or two manage to get run over every summer. I usually put the road kill on the salt marsh where the eagles that nest on the island across the cove can find the bodies and feed them to their babies.

JUst think, Jack, how sad Walmart would feel if it knew that their cheap cat food is aiding the restoration of a profoundly important American symbol.

Let me know, Jack, if there is anything else you'd like to know about my cat/Walmart saga.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-06-2005, 01:34

Rocks, what is your definition of "nominal use?"

Between three and four million people a year use the A.T. and most of them are there for only a few hours. They arrive and depart by automobile, and therefore, they depend on the things you despise: Parking lots, turnouts, developed trailheads with sanitary facilities, garbage cans, picnic tables, and other "infrastructure" intrusions.

So, a few questions: How do you define "nominal use." And do you think these folks are entitled to use and enjoy the Trail? If you do, I'd like to hear you say so. Likewise, if you don't, I'd like to hear that as well.

The fact of the matter, Rocks, is that 99% of the folks who use the A.T. essentially rely on "auto support".

These are also the people whose taxes help support and maintain the Trail.

So tell us: In your opinion are these folks entitled to use the Trail? Your comments seem to suggest otherwise.

Good points Jack.

"Nominal use" is that use which corresponds with the expectations of an experience conforming to ATC's guidelines. In other words, use which conforms to and seeks the conditions outlined by the ATC guidelines. Yes, you are allowed to drive a car to the trailhead as part of that expectation. I do it myself.

The reason your questions are good ones is because they lead towards understanding that the AT is 'designed' or 'planned' wilderness. In other words, it is seeking the correct medium between wilderness exposure and accommodating a large public. With wilderness preservation being the main cause.

The people who visit the Trail for short periods do so with the intention of visiting for a short period. Therefore they experience the lowest form of wilderness immersion. In my maintenance trips I would park in A Wayne parking area seen beneath West Mt Ridge - A huge coverage of asphalt seen from the AT as you walk the ridgeline. It was less than a mile walk into Beechy Bottom where I did a relocation and other trailwork. In this brief experience I saw wonders of nature including larch saplings, rattlesnakes, and all sorts of Highlands woods features. It was these untouched areas just a half mile in from the lot that provided those things.

Picnic tables, parking spots, garbage cans, restrooms, are nominal facilities meant to minimize human impact. Without them there would be turd piles, toilet paper, flies, and strewn trash etc. How these are designed is important. They should be kept out of eyeshot of the Trail. Those are day trip areas and they provide a day trip experience.

It can't be argued that the more remote and distant a place is the more wild it is. Therefore remote places are a different class of AT experience. They generally take longer to get to, some taking days, and generally provide a better wilderness experience. Jack, you're looking at it backwards. Because road crossings and minimal facilities exist at some access points, that in no way should be used to argue against the protection of other more wild AT areas or experiences. That is why ATC is clever, Weary's guidelines clearly say that areas expected to be wild should remain that way. That goes for expectations and experiences too. ATC doesn't emphasize "remote" and "detached" for nothing.

Though 99% of users are day hikers, 99% of those seen as the Trail's most noted users are long distance hikers. Name me some famous day hikers. Now name me some famous through-hikers. See? The reason for this is because those hikers spend more unassisted time in nature. Wilderness exposure. The difference between the Appalachian Trail and other parks is that the AT provides the opportunity for long duration nature exposure for prolonged lengths. Lots of woods time. This is something that distinguishes it from other parks and separates its day users as well. No one can argue that the AT experience isn't enhanced as wilderness increases. The AT's main distinguishing feature is that it has a planned wilderness experience in close proximity to a large population and developed region. It takes an effort to keep it as wild as possible. This is that effort.

As a person who has been expressing this for several years on the internet, I'm still puzzled why so many Trail members seem to prefer arguing against the validity of AT wilderness instead of recognizing what is there and how it was planned...

dperry

02-06-2005, 02:22

For instance, let's hypothesize a 100 Mile Wilderness van support hike and how it affects the hiker vs the original self-sustained one in terms of wilderness experience...First, we must distinguish between the specific hiker who is using the van support, and "the hiker" in general, i.e., the greater community of hikers who use the AT.

The effect of van support on the second group? I daresay very little. To address the specific areas you mentioned:

van support, parking lots, civilized infrastructure well, there should be no change regarding the last two items, since NotYet has quite explicitly disavowed any desire or intent to have new roads, parking areas, or any sort of support facilities built to support her project. I suspect that if anyone else made such a proposal, it would be met with great hostility and resistance from the AT community.
As far as van support itself goes:
a.) as Jack T. has pointed out, there is very little practical difference between what Not Yet is proposing and what millions of people every year do when they go day-hiking. As long as no additional roads, parking lots, etc. are built, there will be no effect on the remote places in between road crossings.
b.) As far as any increase in hikers this may bring, well, many people on this board have expressed their great disinterest in participating in such an expedition, and I think this can be taken as a good sample of the opinions of the hiker community at large. Not to mention, I think the $10,000+ price tag will itself protect us from the scourge of overcrowding due to "slackpack tourism." :rolleyes:

OK, so what about the effect on the experience of the actual slackpack hiker? Well, we can argue about that until the cows come home, but you know what, Rocks? Why do you care? It would be one thing if Not Yet were going to be leading motorcycle tours up and down the Trail, or sponsoring wild parties at every shelter, but she's not. Therefore, since there's no effect on your experience, what does it matter to you if someone else doesn't see it in the way you think they should? It's sort of like going to a museum, whose main purpose is to display beautiful works of art for the aesthetic edification of the viewer, and becoming enraged because some people just go there because it's a nice place to have lunch. As long as they don't smear food over the paintings, or crunch their ice in your ear while you're trying to look at some sculpture, what does it matter to you what they're getting out of it? That's why everyone is telling you to "Hike your own hike;" because obsessing over other people's behavior and choices when they create no detriment to you or to others is not a healthy way to live.

squirrel bait

02-06-2005, 06:04

Interesting stuff. Great reading. I'm just glad ya'll got off the barrier island stuff.

weary

02-06-2005, 10:23

....These are also the people whose taxes help support and maintain the Trail.....
I think it important to note that the Appalachian Trail is a taxpayer bargain among the National Park Service properties, since much of the work is done by volunteers and the money needed is largely donated.

The appropriation for the care of the entire 225,248 acres that constitutes the trail corridor is just $1,024,000 and has been shrinking in recent years. I'm most familiar with the 280 miles of the trail in Maine. MATC operates on an annual budget of $150,000, of which only about $25,000 or so comes from taxpayers if my memory serves me.

Our goal in Maine is to keep the trail as wild as possible and since we raise most of the money I think our wishes should get at least least equal weight with the wishes of taxpayers -- especially since our goal is also the goal of the National Scenic Trails Act which presumably represents the wishes of taxpayers.

It's my suspicion that actually there is very little difference in the goals of these various interest groups. We all go to the mountains, hills and forests to experience a bit of wildness -- even the auto tourists in Shenandoah.

If anyone has any real evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. Now no anecdotes. Real research. If what I see with my eyes isn't sufficient to document the damage of sharp-pointed hiking sticks, I don't want to hear about folks carrying two-burner Coleman's a quarter mile down the AT to cook supper unless a scientist has interviewed them first.

Weary

Alligator

02-06-2005, 12:27

If anyone has any real evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. Now no anecdotes. Real research. If what I see with my eyes isn't sufficient to document the damage of sharp-pointed hiking sticks, I don't want to hear about folks carrying two-burner Coleman's a quarter mile down the AT to cook supper unless a scientist has interviewed them first.

Weary
Wow Weary, you carry a lot of baggage around. You should let it go once in a while, it's really not healthy. But I bet there are some interesting user surveys that would be of special benefit to this discussion. I have three AT studies tucked away in my office that had crossed my desk at one point, one was about safety and the others I think I kept just to read the methods, so I forget the topics. It would certainly be useful to have some hard numbers about use patterns, it would go far to deflate some of the more exagerated rhetoric occuring.

I thought it was very kind of you to care for the strays as you did. We adopted two strays that were born in a neighbors woodpile. I haven't seen many moles the last few years in the lawn. But it's a clowder of cats not a flock:jump .

weary

02-06-2005, 12:44

....I bet there are some interesting user surveys that would be of special benefit to this discussion....
JUst remember. We believe in science and only science on WhiteBlaze -- well at least if we disagree with what is being claimed. Otherwise anything goes. We even get upset with where people end up living if they say something we don't like.

A clowder of cats you say. It's amazing what one can learn if one listens carefully.

Weary

Alligator

02-06-2005, 14:18

... It's amazing what one can learn if one listens carefully.

Weary
How does that go again, one has to not talk to listen properly? I'm going back to listening now:cool:.

orangebug

02-06-2005, 14:39

Interesting stuff. Great reading. I'm just glad ya'll got off the barrier island stuff.Especially if you endorse arson for other people's residences.

orangebug

02-06-2005, 15:04

orangebug

02-06-2005, 15:11

If an individual makes the decision to hike the A.T., whether in one lump sum, or over the '20 Year Plan" as Jaybird is, it becomes a personal endeavour. With that in mind, who cares if said hiker slackpacks, has van support, or carries an 85 pound pack...
While I did fall short some 300 miles in my own personal quest, I came away with a feeling of sweet success in my own mind. I hiked my own hike and left the others to do the same....Some folks appear to care too much. If we are to follow their logic to their extreme conclusion, not only did you miss 300 miles (a heck of a lot more miles than I ever thought possible), but you somehow missed out having a wilderness experience that can be certified by the purists. You should have either stayed at home, or carved your pegleg from an alder sapling to keep someone else's sense of wilderness sanctified.

Congratulations on hiking your hike, and attaining as many goals as you accomplished.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-06-2005, 16:14

Someone can explain how the lack of "trail legend" day and short section hikers makes the 99% of AT users less important. It seems to me that this 99% of the user population is far more important than isolated wannabe legends, much those of us who regularly put action behind our words.We should try to remain on topic.

It's clear to me that this response is one of a stream of attempts to fish out worst possible meanings in order to distort what I was saying. It's long clear that some refuse, under any circumstances, to acknowledge the ATC wilderness goals we've been discussing...

99% of the user population is far more important than isolated wannabe legends, much those of us who regularly put action behind our wordsI'm sorry, could you please clarify that action? Are you talking about harassing internet posters who try to explain AT wilderness with nitpicking snipes? Or perhaps an ongoing effort to portray Trail officials and internet advocates as "idolatrous extremists" etc. Attacking AT wilderness ethics? Why do you try to put words in my mouth instead of answering what I wrote? The topic here is the existence of the AT's wilderness ethic as displayed by ATC's guidelines. So far you haven't touched it.

To me the building of a residential neighborhood on a wetlands island only increases the need for a place where development is kept out. Are you arguing that no one should promote AT conservation because they somehow aren't qualified because they live in a house? If you knew where I lived, it is the most protected barrier island in Florida with the highest percentage of preserved land in Florida per acre. There are strict codes and fines for violating the wetlands restrictions.

Myself, I would like to live in an ecological neighborhood with an environmental blueprint. A place where you could let your lawn go to field in order to save water and lawn chemicals - CO2 emissions and fuel for lawn care. A place with a solar panel code requiring a certain percentage of energy be harvested from rooftops. Cisterns, gutter water collection, a water recycling plant. A place where if wildlife took up in the fields, urban culture people wouldn't call for exterminators or sue because a child was bitten. City code gestapo wouldn't come and fine. An earth first neighborhood instead of this primitive sprawl culture politics have forced on us. All perfectly possible.

Now I'd like to ask a question:

How does one explain going to the AT and enjoying the wildness many spent extreme effort to create and protect only to come back and attack those who promote it and how it came to be?

orangebug

02-06-2005, 17:07

Funny you are claiming that I've misquoted you, roxy. It is even funnier that you claim there is more than one idolater. It is hilarious that you know nothing about efforts to influence and educate newbies, planners and other real world hikers.

Of course, you have been isolated in a little barrier island far away from the real AT. How would you possibly know about those who promote the survival, maintenance and growth of a recreational resource with multiple creators? Heck, some of us even read and participate in the ATC and its' policy creation.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 01:06

How would you possibly know about those who promote the survival, maintenance and growth of a recreational resource with multiple creators? Heck, some of us even read and participate in the ATC and its' policy creation.

The Trail's "creator" was Benton MacKaye. No serious AT historian says otherwise. Without him there would be no Appalachian Trail. Others took over the completion of the footpath when MacKaye's greater plans were compromised. His AT wilderness plans remain in the present ATC guidelines that were the subject of this topic. I don't doubt there are many sincere and earnest people working hard for more civilized versions that are in direct conflict with ATC's plans...

mdjeeper

02-07-2005, 02:26

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 02:40

Other recreational uses of these lands may be compatible if they do not require any modification of design and construction standards for the Trail footpath or Trail facilities; cause damage to the treadway or Trail facilities; require an engine or motor; or adversely impact the Trail experience
or the cultural, natural, or scenic resources of the Trail.

While they are referring to on-Trail use, this passage makes clear that they are concerned with "compatibility".

"Motor" uses conflict with the AT's purpose. While this is referring to internal corridor use, it also overlaps into motorized intrusion. The ideal being the less the better according to AT purposes. What we have here is people suggesting an RV meeting you every night is no different than a self-supported foot hike. That is clearly ridiculous. When pressed they say "I don't know", or, "I'm not sure", or, "I don't understand".

Some recreational uses may affect the Trail experience because of an inherent conflict between different user groups’ expectations in a specific environment. Some might affect the Trail simply because they result in increased use of Trail lands. Other uses might affect the opportunities for solitude and reflection that certain sections of the Trail provide. The potential for conflict between other uses and the Trail’s sole recreational purpose increases as the users’ sense of remoteness and distance from the developed environment increases.

Clearly a van support intrusion into a remote area constitutes a "conflict" by ATC rules. You can see that ATC isn't seeking ways to squeeze wilderness conflicting uses in, but is instead making people aware of conflicts. It's intention is clearly to avoid conflicts with wilderness. ATC calls this "the Trail's sole recreational purpose". In other words that which conflicts with wilderness is counter to the Trail's purpose. ATC is too diplomatic. It should come right out and say it. They are negligent here.

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

What is ATC saying here folks? That its parking lot policy indirectly indicates approval of van support? That it is mainly concerned with an 8 mile interval for parking lots? Somebody isn't being honest here.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 02:50

have to differ there, Benton MacKaye, was NOT the trail's creator. he was one of the people who had the vision of it, but it took several other folks and a lot of time and effort to make what we now call the AT. Again I have to reiterate my earlier statement, that the sole original purpose of the AT was for those living in the ever crowding eastern cities to have a place they could get to to experience some wilderness and then get back home. IF it was ever meant to be a true "wilderness" area, there would never have been any shelters built, or much less a single footpath that every person who went on had to follow. long-distance hiking wasnt even in the equation when mackaye, avery and others decided to see what they could do to create a place for city folks to enjoy.

What motivates these attempts at AT revisionism isn't a committed sense of truth but a need to diminish MacKaye in order to justify lesser understandings of the Trail's wilderness ethic. I'll ask mdjeeper to show me an accurate version of AT history where the AT could ever have possibly existed without Benton MacKaye. He won't be able to find it.

We've long ago established that AT shelters do not overturn the Trail's wilderness ethic. That's just more semantic purism. The motivation here is obviously the Trail community's effort to establish a weaker AT that suits their level of disconcern.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 16:16

I doubt anyone here can answer my post #64.

The so-called efforts of some to show fault in my viewpoint were false. They were not serious about discussing it because when the facts come out they disappear and start referring to you negatively. The AT community is organized against ATC-level Trail definitions and wilderness. It will try to denigrate anyone who simply quotes what the AT is by ATC's own definitions. In effect, the AT community doesn't really like the AT as it was designed...

Jack Tarlin

02-07-2005, 16:32

Rocks, if you continue to do nothing but insult people, reject their right to offer their opinions, and show complete dis-respect and contempt for everyone else in the Trail community, you're not going to bring many people around to your way of thinking.

Your comments on this thread and others are not informative. They are combative, rude, arrogant, and most of all unpleasant.

They're also, to be frank, repetitive and dull. Don't you have ANYTHING else to talk about other than what the Trail was allegedly for, and why you're the only one who realizes what it's all about? It's really getting tiresome to hear you say the same thing dozens of times. Here's the news: Either you aren't expressing yourself very well, or people simply don't agree with you, and re-writing the same post time and again isn't going to change anyone's mind. Give it a rest already.

There are hundreds of other subjects for discussion here at Whiteblaze. Since you've essentially exhausted yourself on this topic, how about doing us all a favor and finding another.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 16:43

You can't answer #64 Jack. To try to pretend that my style or personality has anything to with it is only fooling yourself. I can't believe any educated man would try to get away with that in broad daylight.

Your dodging the topic Jack. Answer #64 or admit you can't. Your post is obvious for what it is. My post #64 proves the recorded and registered merit of my argument. You are doing nothing but trying to shut down the topic. That is intellectual cowardice. What is really boring here are these transparent efforts to avoid the truth...

weary

02-07-2005, 16:59

I doubt anyone here can answer my post #64.
...
Parking lots are a matter of public safety, not wilderness. Roadside parking is dangerous to the parkers, dangerous to those walking the road and dangerous to motorists. Ideally, every trailhead should have a place where cars get part out of the main traffic stream.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-07-2005, 17:02

Quote:
While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

"I don't understand"? - Ya...

The Old Fhart

02-07-2005, 17:05

RnR post #64-"What is ATC saying here folks? That its parking lot policy indirectly indicates approval of van support? That it is mainly concerned with an 8 mile interval for parking lots? Somebody isn't being honest here."The ATC doesn't care, or discriminate by type of use, when it comes to trail head parking. The trail isn’t just yours, RnR, no matter how many times you claim you are the omnipotent protector of the true A.T., and you can’t restrict anyone’s legal use of public facilities. As to the 8 mile standard the NY-NJ chapter chose and got approval from the ATC for, you once more have proven your completely and total lack of comprehension.

When you say: “Somebody isn't being honest here,” we all know it is you. You need some serious help. Consider all of #64 answered.

MOWGLI

02-07-2005, 17:12

While they are referring to on-Trail use, this passage makes clear that they are concerned with "compatibility".

"Motor" uses conflict with the AT's purpose. While this is referring to internal corridor use, it also overlaps into motorized intrusion. The ideal being the less the better according to AT purposes. What we have here is people suggesting an RV meeting you every night is no different than a self-supported foot hike. That is clearly ridiculous. When pressed they say "I don't know", or, "I'm not sure", or, "I don't understand".

It's pretty simple. The trail is non-motorized for virtually it's entire length.

The parking lot issue is a totally separate issue. What is ridiculous (from my perspective) is worrying about the difference between a supported and non-supported hike. The trail was never designed to be thru-hiked, and RVs didn't exist in the 1920s. Trying to argue about this is like trying to figure out why the founding fathers didn't discuss AK47 use in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't an issue in the late 1700s.

Furthermore, the AT is suject to public funding, and as such, communities where the trail passes through want trailheads to attract hikers from outside the community (economic development), and provide safe parking areas for members of the community. We live in an automobile culture, and unfortunately, there is no turning back in the forseeabe future.

Clearly a van support intrusion into a remote area constitutes a "conflict" by ATC rules. You can see that ATC isn't seeking ways to squeeze wilderness conflicting uses in, but is instead making people aware of conflicts. It's intention is clearly to avoid conflicts with wilderness. ATC calls this "the Trail's sole recreational purpose". In other words that which conflicts with wilderness is counter to the Trail's purpose. ATC is too diplomatic. It should come right out and say it. They are negligent here.

Well what do you mean by wilderness? Are you referring to Congressionally designated wilderness areas, your own definition, or some other definition? Autos aren't permitted in Congressionally designated wilderness.

IMO, wilderness is nothing more than a human construct that assumes we are separate from nature (dualism).

What is ATC saying here folks? That its parking lot policy indirectly indicates approval of van support? That it is mainly concerned with an 8 mile interval for parking lots? Somebody isn't being honest here.

The ATC doesn't care whether you hike the trail with van support or not, nor should they. They care that you respect the rules & regs while on the trail, and would like to see you practice LNT while on the treadway. Better yet, they'd like to see the trail user become a trail volunteer. Their mission is to protect the trail and its corridor for future generations. That includes building relationships with user groups, and the communities through which the trail passes. That means providing access (parking) for their users. With 3-4 million people using the trail annually, how do you think they get to the trail? Do you think they walk? How did you get to Harriman to work on your section of trail when you were a maintainer? Did you walk? I think not. How did that impact other people's hiking experience?

The Old Fhart

02-07-2005, 17:35

Wilderness with a capital "W" -federally designated Wilderness

You will notice that only a little over 100 miles of the A.T. pass by or through true federally designated "Wilderness" One of the requirements for Wilderness are that the parcel must be over 5000 acres in size. The Great Gulf is 5500 acres if you want to know. please note that there are exceptions to Wilderness protection (including livestock grazing) written into the law. These exceptions are noted below.

from ATC's Local Management Planning Guide http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/policies/5Iwilderness.html

On September 3, 1964, the United States Congress passed Public Law 88-577, commonly known as the Wilderness Act. The act defined wilderness----------

Between 1964 and 1996, Congress designated 26 wilderness areas that encompass or are adjacent to the A.T., usually with explicit language regarding administration of the A.T. Today, more than 100 miles of the Trail pass through or are immediately proximate to designated wilderness. Several other areas, including a large portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, have been recommended for formal wilderness designation and are currently being managed as wilderness.
Within a wilderness area or area being managed as wilderness, the following activities are prohibited by law, unless provided for by special exception: roads, commercial enterprises, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, landing of aircraft, any other form of mechanical transport, structures, and installations. Special exceptions may be provided for the following activities:
*Existing private rights;
*Measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area;
*Activities and structures that are the minimum necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness;
*Use of aircraft and motorboats, where already established;
*Measures necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases;
*Any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment;
*Continued application of the U.S. mining and mineral leasing laws until December 31, 1983;
*Water-resource development authorized by the president where he determines that such use will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial;
*Livestock grazing, where already established;
*Commercial services necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas;
*Adequate access to surrounded state and privately owned lands (or such lands shall be exchanged for federally owned lands);
*Access to surrounded valid mining claims and other valid occupancies.

The Appalachian Trail, because of the shelters and other improvements associated with the Trail, has been excluded from officially designated wilderness areas in only one instance. In the Great Gulf Wilderness in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the A.T. footpath enters the wilderness, but the shelters have been excluded from the designation. In all other cases, the Appalachian Trail and designated wilderness coexist. Though the terms of this arrangement are not always articulated in detail, the legislative history of the specific acts of Congress that designate many of these areas as wilderness contain specific references to the fundamental compatibility of the A.T. and wilderness. Even in cases where this language is not present in the legislative history, it is clear that the A.T.'s basic purpose and character are primitive in nature and generally consistent with the management of areas as wilderness.

rickb

02-07-2005, 17:55

I hesitate to jump back into this, but this confuses me:

"The Appalachian Trail, because of the shelters and other improvements associated with the Trail, has been excluded from officially designated wilderness areas in only one instance. In the Great Gulf Wilderness in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the A.T. footpath enters the wilderness, but the shelters have been excluded from the designation"

What am I missing? Am I just getting old? What the heck are they talking about here?

Rick B

ed bell

02-07-2005, 18:03

I think the ATC is saying that as you spend time on the Appalachian Trail please be respectful of others who are using the trail as a means to get away from civilization, get back to nature, enjoy the solitude, ect. The more remote the location, the more the hiker should attempt to be unobtrusive to others while using the trail. Are you possibly arguing that seeing a day hiker is inappropriate in a remote wilderness area, or that seeing a car or van at a remote road crossing is inappropriate? Is the idea that someone can use a remote area of the AT via existing trailheads at road crossings without having to walk from far off seem unfair or inappropriate? I am confident the ATC would respond "no" to the two previous questions. The 8 miles apart parking areas is a local issue. I doubt that anyone here at Whiteblaze wants more access points for the AT. While my wife was hiking in 2003 I met her at road crossings that weren't in towns, or were common resupply points. I was supporting her hike, just not nightly or even weekly, and even then only during the first 500 miles. RnR, are you telling me that I was doing this with the intent of destroying AT wilderness? RnR seems to imply that we all just want to ruin the wilderness feel of the AT. That is insulting to me. Hell, I wish we had more protected lands to have the Trail run through. I'm sure the ATC would like that too. I'll bet that most here wouldn't mind either as long as no steeping on toes of private citizens happened. So to wrap this reply to #64 up, I think RnR is trying to comment on commercial van support and cell phones by using the ATC's trail guidlines. The translation just isn't there IMO. I saw where 4 million plus use the AT every year? How many are using commercial van support? Gotta be almost insignificant. I'll bet there are many more people illegally hunting, riding 4 wheelers and horses in the trail corridor.

The Old Fhart

02-07-2005, 18:06

rickboudrie-"What am I missing? Am I just getting old? What the heck are they talking about here? There are no AT Shelter in the Great ZGulf Wilderness are there?"Maybe you're not old enough. :) When I was working for the USFS about 1960 I helped put in a new outhouse near the Great Gulf shelter(s) that was toward Spaulding lake. There were 3 shelters in the area at one time. the 2 west of the A.T. in the Gulf held 22 and 10 people. These shelters were removed by the USFS in 1976 and camping limited.

ed bell

02-07-2005, 18:24

The Old Fhart

02-07-2005, 19:01

Ed,
Look at the end of the quote in my post #73 which says:
"The Appalachian Trail, because of the shelters and other improvements associated with the Trail, has been excluded from officially designated wilderness areas in only one instance. In the Great Gulf Wilderness in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the A.T. footpath enters the wilderness, but the shelters have been excluded from the designation. In all other cases, the Appalachian Trail and designated wilderness coexist. Though the terms of this arrangement are not always articulated in detail, the legislative history of the specific acts of Congress that designate many of these areas as wilderness contain specific references to the fundamental compatibility of the A.T. and wilderness. Even in cases where this language is not present in the legislative history, it is clear that the A.T.'s basic purpose and character are primitive in nature and generally consistent with the management of areas as wilderness."

Hope this explains it.

ed bell

02-07-2005, 19:36

Thanks Old Fhart, I figured that they decided to leave well enough alone down here. I was really just messing around comparing the threshold that the Wilderness Act standards set with the AT corridor realities. That's interesting that they removed shelters in the Great Gulf. I wish they did that down here. I would figure they would do the same for any Wilderness Area.

weary

02-07-2005, 20:35

I looked at my map and observed that both the Standing Indian Shelter, and Carter Gap Shelter (new and old) are loctated inside the Southern Nantahala Wilderness Area. This seems to conflict with the Wilderness Rules. I think man-made structures, fires and blazed trails are prohibited? Seems like the AT isn't wild enough for wilderness designation! LOL:rolleyes:
As I understand it, there is nothing in the wilderness act that requires the removal of primitive shelters. I know of a couple of instances where the USFS has done so, I suspect out of spite from having Congress (and citizen lobbyists) overriding their bureaucratic recommendations.

Weary

orangebug

02-07-2005, 20:40

I believe that the Wilderness Area designation requires that only hand tools and similar technology is required for construction and maintenance. You may recall that Roxie wished to get rid of that restriction to make use of chain saws and other machinery more convenient to his sense of wildness.

I would be surprised if the "new" Carter Gap Shelter is in a Wilderness designated area. I know the shelter south of Blood Mtn is just outside of the wilderness area, making the 0.7 mile hike necessary to reach it from the wilderness designated area.

Jack Tarlin

02-07-2005, 20:52

In re. to the ATC's guidelines regarding the Trail and designated wilderness areas, folks interested in this issue might wish to refer to:

http://appalachiantrail.org/protect/policies/5Iwilderness.html

Jack Tarlin

02-07-2005, 20:53

Whoops.

Try http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/policies/5Iwilderness.html

ed bell

02-07-2005, 20:57

As I understand it, there is nothing in the wilderness act that requires the removal of primitive shelters. I know of a couple of instances where the USFS has done so, I suspect out of spite from having Congress (and citizen lobbyists) overriding their bureaucratic recommendations.

Weary I personally would welcome the removal of shelters in designated wilderness areas. The spirit of the Wilderness Act is to keep areas as untouched by human hands as possible while allowing human visitors to continue to enjoy the land. Manmade hiker shelters are in conflict with that objective, unless the administrators of the area don't worry about it. If that is how they handle it, c'est la vie. I would prefer that money be spent in other areas than shelter demolition.:D

ed bell

02-07-2005, 21:00

The new Carter Gap Shelter is located inside the Southern Nantahala Wilderness. I just double checked. I was suprised as well.

orangebug

02-07-2005, 21:01

Be careful what you wish for.

For instance, if shelters are bad, what about bridges? Laurel Falls is in a Wilderness area. The hurricanes of September destroyed the bridges in the gorge, which either are replaced with technology appropriate bridging or we go back to the problems of putting hikers in a flash flood zone.

ed bell

02-07-2005, 23:12

Just passed that thought on because there are plenty of good spots to stay along the AT in the short span it runs through Southern Nantahala Wilderness. I never will say shelters are bad, believe me. I recognize that the AT predates the Wilderness Act. Hikers in a flash flood zone!?! Oh my.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 00:27

What is ridiculous (from my perspective) is worrying about the difference between a supported and non-supported hike. The trail was never designed to be thru-hiked, and RVs didn't exist in the 1920s. Trying to argue about this is like trying to figure out why the founding fathers didn't discuss AK47 use in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't an issue in the late 1700s.
This says nothing towards the point. The point was the guidelines clearly reflect a guided attempt to keep conflicts away from the Trail. Since wilderness and its definition haven't changed since the Trail's beginning, the objective is still the same. People knew what wilderness was in 1920 and they know what it is now. An RV they couldn't know about has the same affect on wilderness as one they could. You're making a non-argument here towards the subject. If anything you are backing my point that the Trail has to keep up with new threats. Van support is one of them.

Furthermore, the AT is suject to public funding, and as such, communities where the trail passes through want trailheads to attract hikers from outside the community (economic development), and provide safe parking areas for members of the community. We live in an automobile culture, and unfortunately, there is no turning back in the forseeabe future.

Your mistake here is thinking that nearby communities even know the Trail exists.

You've obviously misunderstood this passage to be about trailheads on the AT. It isn't. It's about the ATC guidelines and how they outline the need to protect the AT's remaining wilderness experiences. Something your response completely fails to reflect...

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 01:42

ed bell:

I appreciate your response. It's a breakthrough of sorts for someone to actually discuss it without heckling.

The last guidelines paragraph from #64:

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."
ATC is making clear that wilderness or a hiker's sense of it is paramount. This is directly derived from MacKaye and his intention for the AT as a wilderness experience. The passage above leaves no doubt they are concerned about the affect intrusions have on Trail users.

If we apply ATC's words here to one of the Trail's most remote areas, the 100 Mile Wilderness, we can see them plainly state that foot travel is the desired method of arriving. Is there any doubt from the above passage?

Since wilderness experience and expectation of remoteness are spelled out here we can see how this applies to the 100 Mile Wilderness. A person, like myself, who hikes over Katahdin with 14 days of food and heads to Monson is a person who experiences the maximum of wilderness. Since the 100 Mile Wilderness is expected to be remote (100 Mile Wilderness is remote by definition) ATC is spelling out that the Trail's purpose is enhanced by maximizing those qualities which the Trail aspires towards. I experienced a rough and challenging 100 miles full of uninterupted nature. The effect on the mind was created by producing an environment in which 100 miles of wilderness was had. Since the Trail's purpose is wilderness immersion we can reasonably conclude this was in line with the Trail's intention and produced the desired result.

Next we take a van supported hike poking into the logging roads which cross the AT in the Wilderness. According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points. The 100 Mile Wilderness experience those who took the van support have is one of nightly intervention - Disruption of self-supported wilderness hiking. Their experience is not one conforming to what ATC suggests. The people who hiked there no longer have the same sense of Trail. The Trail is lessened by motorized support and civilized undoing of the challenge 100 miles of unbroken wilderness is suppose to create. The Trail is made less wild. But this is the least of the offenses.

The main offense here is making the Trail and its expected image less wild in the public's mind. The AT is clearly a place designed to be fought to be kept wild. ATC does it on a daily basis. The guidelines outline it in unavoidable terms. No matter what the motivation, any time your personal input serves to decrease the AT's wilderness ethic you are at odds with the Trail. Either mental or physical. We had people saying "ATC doesn't mention anything about wilderness". Now that we show where they do and how it's meant these people start name-calling.

ATC is pretty clear in its concern for wilderness experience. Where it is lacking is its failing to clearly outline how planned wilderness experience is part of the Trail's purpose. They need to say it directly. They need to start restricting wilderness-conflicting activities. They need to express the AT's purpose.

The proper context of this effort is trying to get people to understand that changing times, technology, and Trail approaches put strains on the previously existing Trail. The very idea of the Appalachian Trail is that the side of wilderness should be erred on each and every time - especially conceptually. Anything else is an effort to undo previously existing levels of wilderness or previous Trail concepts. That can only hurt the Trail...

ed bell

02-08-2005, 02:15

The access points are what they are. I gather that you are saying day-use and section hikers should stay away from more remote areas? If someone wishes to hike on the Appalachian Trail then they may access the trail at any number of trailheads. Creativity in establishing routes doesn't change a thing. If someone decides to run through the 100 Mile Wilderness in one day, did they spoil it for everyone? Its all peception in the end. By the way, I wasn't aware of a trend of nightly support in the 100 mile stretch in Maine. Is this becoming a problem?

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 02:22

dperry

02-08-2005, 05:20

:

If we apply ATC's words here to one of the Trail's most remote areas, the 100 Mile Wilderness, we can see them plainly state that foot travel is the desired method of arriving. Is there any doubt from the above passage? Um, yes, there actually is quite a bit of doubt:

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location." In my experience, when one wishes to make it clear that they are making a definite statement, one uses words like "all", "must", "none", "is", "always." No such words are used here; therefore, it is impossible to reach any general statement on the ATC's opinions about any class of activities. Also, when one wishes to make a statement about a specific activity, one usually mentions it by name. Well, van support is not mentioned here specfically as something verboten, and I am not aware of any definite statements that ATC has made on the topic elsewhere. (If there are such statements, by all means direct me to them.)

What we do know, however, is that a.) the ATC certainly has no objections, per se, to people accessing the Trail via car as long as it is done at established road crossings and parking areas. Perusing my copy of the new AT Guide to Maine, I note quite detailed instructions for accessing the 100-mile Wilderness via logging roads at several different points. Therefore, it seems clear that ATC has no objections to reaching this area by car, either.
b.) Given that the ATC prominently posts and regularly updates a long list of shuttle providers, and since shuttling is another form of motorized support, it is also difficult to conclude that the ATC makes much of a distinction between people who are are taking themselves to the trailhead, and people who are being taken.

According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points. And I'll repeat what I said in my last post: how exactly are the supported hikers damaging the experience for everyone else? Provide specific examples of this, please. Also, please limit your response to examples of concrete phenomena, i.e., noise, pollution, overcrowding. Simply citing mental anguish caused by others' failure to live up to your standard of Trail behavior will be rejected out of hand, since in the absence of actual, real-world detriments, your feelings about what other people are doing are your problem, not someone else's.

The main offense here is making the Trail and its expected image less wild in the public's mind. Ahem. . .your quote from post 88 immediately above. . .

Your mistake here is thinking that nearby communities even know the Trail exists.Can't have this one both ways, dear heart. Either the public pays attention to the AT, or else it doesn't. Which would it be?

I'm not sure you are reflecting what I said ed.No, he reflected exactly what you said. You are asserting that a particular practice will damage the Trail. He asked you to a.) distinguish between that practice and other, similar practices which no one in their right minds--and certainly not the ATC--thinks are bad for the Trail in and of themselves. Then, he b.) requested evidence that the practice you believe is a problem actually is one. You failed to meet either request. Instead, you were too busy accusing other people of ducking questions. :confused:

MOWGLI

02-08-2005, 07:35

People knew what wilderness was in 1920 and they know what it is now.

I think you are dead wrong. What is Wilderness other than a label you impose when you feel like it? Please tell me - in detail - what wilderness is, and what it is not.

rickb

02-08-2005, 15:10

Apart from "real" wilderness, it seems ot me that hikers sometimes work overtime to erase some of the "spirit of wildness" that's left.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means not knowing exactly what's around the next corner. Seems like the journals, detailed web advise, and media (for all the benefits they provide) takes a toll on the mystery and feeling of wildness of the Trail thats hard to measure.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means having to be self-reliant. Seems like everything from cell phones to slack-packing hubs to a "yellow blaze is great" ethic have diminished one shared value among all thru hikers-- self reliance.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means setting one's self apart from the hub-bub of TVs and taverns and all that crap. Seems like that's getting harder to do on a thru hike. And would require real effort.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means occasionally camping out of sight of the Trail and away from hiker ghetos.

Maximizing tha spirit of wildness (to me) means understanding at least as much about the natural history of the Trail, as one does about "the best" gear or hostel. Sometimes if you don't know what to look for, it might as well not even exist.

Fortunately, there are people out there like Weary protcting the "real" the Wildness of the trail. These are the people who see value in having the AT bypass Monson, rather that follow a road into town. The people who will fight a car race track to the bitter end, rather than see it a a unique attraction along the way. And the people who realize that even a cute windmill diminishes something very important.

The rest of us get to reap the benefits of their tireless efforts. All I am saying is why not work to enjyoy the spirit of thier work to the fullest? Even though its not getting any easier.

Rick B

(Yea, I know this post borders on BS. It doeesn't capture my feelings exactly, but my own truth is in there somewhere. )

NotYet

02-08-2005, 15:45

People don't all choose to have the same experience as they hike along the AT. In fact, I believe it's safe to say that no two hikers share the exact same experience!

If someone chooses to experience the AT in a continuous series of dayhikes (backpacking the more remote sections), is there a negative impact on the wilderness? Is there a more negative impact than different people dayhiking each day on those same sections?

So long as they respect the regulations, the trail and others, let hikers have the experience that is best for them. I don't think we should force our own predetermined notions on others.

What we have here is people suggesting an RV meeting you every night is no different than a self-supported foot hike. That is clearly ridiculous. When pressed they say "I don't know", or, "I'm not sure", or, "I don't understand".

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

It is a different experience to do a supported hike...but it is an individual choice to have this kind of experience. It is also a choice that causes no adverse effects to others or the trail.

As an aside, I thought all I had is a van...WOW, did I win a RV?!?! :banana

On a more serious note, though, please allow me to respond to the last sentence of the above quote. The three-word statements that you quote from "they", seem to be directed towards the statements I made in the "other" thread. Nowhere in my posts were these words used as sentences...often they were (and I paraphrase myself here) more along the lines of "I don't understand how my vehicle being parked at a road crossing is different from another hiker's or maintainer's vehicle parked at the same spot." As you can see, that is very different from being asked a question, and then responding simply, "I don't understand".

There were a few spots where I didn't understand the full question that was asked; I asked for clarification, then you re-worded your questions. Again, this is very different from saying, "I don't Know", "I'm not sure" and I don't understand."

ATC is too diplomatic. It should come right out and say it. They are negligent here.

In the "other" thread, you wanted me to give you a specific example of an ATC member disagreeing with ATC policy. The ATC chose its words and you disagree with these words. You still remain a loyal and dedicated member, who obviously loves the trail and is passionate in wanting to protect it.

Next we take a van supported hike poking into the logging roads which cross the AT in the Wilderness. According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points. The 100 Mile Wilderness experience those who took the van support have is one of nightly intervention - Disruption of self-supported wilderness hiking. Their experience is not one conforming to what ATC suggests. The people who hiked there no longer have the same sense of Trail. The Trail is lessened by motorized support and civilized undoing of the challenge 100 miles of unbroken wilderness is suppose to create. The Trail is made less wild. But this is the least of the offenses.

When I saw joggers and dog-walkers in the "100-mile Wilderness" (almost every day), my experience was in no way lessened or enhanced. My experience and my interpretation of it is the one I choose for myself, and I control it. Also, I always looked both ways while crossing those logging roads...those logging trucks go fast!

MOWGLI

02-08-2005, 15:55

When I saw joggers and dog-walkers in the "100-mile Wilderness" (almost every day), my experience was in no way lessened or enhanced. My experience and my interpretation of it is the one I choose for myself, and I control it. Also, I always looked both ways while crossing those logging roads...those logging trucks go fast!

I didn't see joggers & dog walkers, but I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness". Logging equipment certainly has a larger impact on the hiking experience than the size of the backpack someone is carrying, or whether or not they are meeting a van each night.

A van supported hike is not for me at this stage in my life. I don't think that a van supported hike has any impact on the actual trail. The imapct is on the individual experience. I'd rather see a van driver anyday - than a logging truck carrying out the horizontal forest (or patches of clearcuts from every peak).

rickb

02-08-2005, 16:38

"I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness".

That must have sucked.

And dog walkers and joggers?

Damn.

I feel bad for you guys. Not seeing/hearing either was wonderfull.

Rick B

MOWGLI

02-08-2005, 17:18

"I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness".

That must have sucked.

Well it didn't exactly suck, but I would have preferred that the industrial logging be a little bit more in the background. It brought new meaning to the term "100-mile wilderness" - for this hiker anyway.

A-Train

02-08-2005, 17:39

I had a wilderness experience from Monson to the Pleasant River. As I was taking my shoes off to ford, a group of children and moms emerged and were crossing the river from the other side. I was pretty confused. Then in the next mile I passed approximately 50 more day hikers right around The Gulf Hagas Trail as it was a weekend. I had no idea there was a parking area a couple tenths of a mile from the AT.

No one should kid themselves, even the wildest parts of the AT are not true "wilderness"

NotYet

02-08-2005, 17:45

Fortunately, the dog-walkers and joggers that I saw were all very friendly. We were all just out enjoying the trail!

ed bell

02-08-2005, 18:27

I'm not sure you are reflecting what I said ed. The ideas I explained represent sort of a totality that saying "so you say no one should day-hike to remote areas" doesn't register. Let's try it another way. What do you think ATC is saying here, and why do they emphasize the experience of people who hiked there and label certain uses inappropriate? RnR,
I answered your questions and asked you a couple myself. What I got in return is something akin to what might be written on an essay paper from a teacher at school. I didn't join this discussion for that. This is what someone else touched upon in another post- you seem to wait for someone to say what you wish them to say. I will say it once more. The access points of the Trail are what they are. Walk softly and respect your fellow hikers in the remote sections of the Trail. I personally do that any time I'm hiking. I ask you again, are you reading the guidelines and coming to the conclusion that when in more remote areas of the trail, backpacking is the only appropriate use? I will strongly argue that the ATC does not consider driving to the Trail in a remote location, getting out of a vehicle and walking on the Trail inappropriate. I do not regard other hikers as diminishing to my wilderness experience. Everyone has wanted to have the Trail to themselves at one time or another. Hike smart and you can give yourself that feel even at some of the busier locations. Part of the responsibility for getting the best "wilderness" feel out of your backpacking falls upon the hiker himself.

The Old Fhart

02-08-2005, 18:34

Ed Bell-"Part of the responsibility for getting the best "wilderness" feel out of your backpacking falls upon the hiker himself."Very well put truism.

weary

02-08-2005, 19:26

Well it didn't exactly suck, but I would have preferred that the industrial logging be a little bit more in the background. It brought new meaning to the term "100-mile wilderness" - for this hiker anyway.
I sense industrial logging is on the way out. All except one of the paper companies have sold their land holdings to land investors and speculators. Most of the sales require the buyers to supply wood to the mills for a while. But it's been obvious to me for the past two decades that the paper mills that traditionally have used 90 percent of wood harvested in Maine had long range plans to leave.

The first evidence was the massive overcutting and harvesting techniques (clear cutting) that reduce the future productivity of the forest.

Then the mills themselves were sold by most of the major companies. Only International Paper of the old line paper companies still own a mill in Maine today.

Now the lands themselves have been sold. Some to the state, some to organizations like AMC and The Nature Conservancy, but mostly to investment companies whose primary product is not wood, but profits.

My worry is no longer logging, though that will continue for a while, but development. The prices being paid have gone well past levels that will support growing trees. Plum Creek has already announced a thousand new house lots and two large year round resorts on half of its million acres.

The other land companies are certain to follow that lead. Except for one relatively small family ownership, almost all the land that abuts the narrow trail corridor in Maine, has changed hands in the past few years. With the exception of the Nature Conservancy purchases south of Baxter, all of the sales have been to potential developers, including the 37,000 acres the AMC purchased.

Before TeeJ jumps on me, let me remind you that I never said AMC didn't have development plans -- only that the scheme he said AMC planned was unlikely to happen.

You've heard it before, but these changes are why a few of us have created a trail land trust. The land is all on the market. The trail community has a choice. Hikers can join in raising the money needed for buffers or they can lament the loss of what remains of the wilderness after it is too late.

What is not particularly useful is this silly debate with RnR.

Weary www.matlt.org

Jack Tarlin

02-08-2005, 19:41

Weary tells us that this silly debate with R&R is not useful.

Like there are any debates with him that ARE useful? Or that aren't silly?

DPerry, I liked your post above, and I wish you'd contribute more often. You made some good points and asked R&R some direct questions. Please don't hold your breath waiting for a similarly well-worded reply.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 21:10

RnR,
I answered your questions and asked you a couple myself. What I got in return is something akin to what might be written on an essay paper from a teacher at school.

You're dodging the questions ed. These are things ATC felt a need to include in the guidelines. But let's be frank, you refuse to confront these ATC questions because you don't like what they say.

ATC made clear in no uncertain terms that certain activities were in direct conflict with the Trail's purpose. It's wording makes clear that those activities are ones that reduce the Trail's wilderness or hiker's sense of it. Your refusal to admit this only verifies my accusation that internet members are averse to ATC and its wilderness guidelines. This is bad for the Trail. This isn't R&R vs the internet community, it's the AT...

weary

02-08-2005, 22:35

Weary tells us that this silly debate with R&R is not useful. .
Yeah, I said that. I also said things that are far more important for those who can rise above the trivial. RnR is a true believer, who happens to be basically right, though his language tends to be a bit overblown and his access to facts a bit meager.

I think it obvious to most that a wild trail is more enjoyable than a civilized trail -- otherwise we would just follow the highways and the sidewalks north.

I don't have a clue about why RnR is hung up about assisted thru hikes. All hikes on the trail, thru, day, and section, are assisted in one way or another as folks have pointed out dozens of times already. That horse was dead some time ago. Nor are more than a handful of hikers likely to shell out $10,000 to this new business, or a few hundred to Warren who does the same thing quite a bit cheaper

What is not dead is the chance of preserving, protecting, and enhancing some of the wildness that remains.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 22:35

What is not particularly useful is this silly debate with RnR.
To use Weary's own words, I doubt he could explain what exactly was silly about the discussion of AT ideas he promoted? Practice what you preach. I think what Weary is actually saying is he's willing to sell ATC's guidelines down the river if it helps his land trust (which I endorse, but not at the expense of other AT issues)...

D Perry:

Your semantic analysis of the wording in the ATC guideline paragraph I outlined is classic. You've analyzed just about everything in that paragraph EXCEPT what ATC was saying. In the end your attempt to obfuscate ATC's meaning fails. The meaning is clear, ATC is saying remote stretches comprise the most ideal embodiment of the AT's wilderness ethic and that certain activities are in conflict with that and should be discouraged. I totally agree with your suggestion that they are a little soft in their emphasis. So mild that people are ignoring them. Like yourself for instance. You are doing nothing but seeking validation for wilderness-compromising activities. You're fighting the Trail.

And I'll repeat what I said in my last post: how exactly are the supported hikers damaging the experience for everyone else? Provide specific examples of this, please. Also, please limit your response to examples of concrete phenomena, i.e., noise, pollution, overcrowding. Simply citing mental anguish caused by others' failure to live up to your standard of Trail behavior will be rejected out of hand, since in the absence of actual, real-world detriments, your feelings about what other people are doing are your problem, not someone else's.
First of all realize you are attacking ATC's description of Trail experience. If you go back to the guidelines paragraph you semanticized and actually try to read what ATC was saying, instead of fishing for excuses, you would see that they recognize the sensory impact on hikers. So, what you are really rejecting here is ATC and what they feel important. As I said, the internet AT community is at odds with ATC.

Supported hikers diminish the experience of self-sufficient hikers simply because they know that they arrived there by van while through-hikers arrived via wilderness. Big deal? Well the reason ATC thinks so is because they realize the approval of just about any means of overcoming wilderness (which van support is) is counter to the creation of it. What you people fail to realize is that there's a mental or psychic level at which the AT exists. ATC recognizes it right there in that guideline. Just because this isn't spelled out in the guide book doesn't mean ATC doesn't consider it an important part of the AT. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said ATC needs to spell it out so what you are attempting can't gain merit. Meanwhile it's right there in the guidelines (which you ignored).

Another thing you people completely ignore is how these intrusions cumulatively erode the Trail and its concept over time. If you take the 100 Mile Wilderness from 50 years ago and compare it to today the things that are causing it to change are these venal things. Since the AT is an attempt to preserve wilderness anything that diminishes it is against its purpose. That includes conceptually. You people are ignoring the conceptual Trail.

It's a straight question really. The question is does motorized van support conform to or damage either the physical Trail or conceptual Trail? The answer is yes it does. Physically it takes the challenge of long distance hiking through the wilderness and solves it by overcoming deliberately-imposed wilderness. Conceptually it undoes everything the AT stands for. The lesson it teaches is Wilderness is an obstacle, use mechanized access to overcome having to hike. Whether you admit it or not, that's counter to ATC's clear preference illustrated in the guideline. You can argue and evade all you want, but the guideline clearly says that foot travelers will be affected by persons who arrived there by other means. To deny this is just simple denial of what is there in plain writing.

Another question completely avoided in this discussion is how commercial support violates ATC's discouragement of commercialization of the AT - Especially commercialization that compromises wilderness. ATC is well-known for this and the reasons are the same. I think some people aren't being honest here.

But I shouldn't really be the one having to answer the questions here. Enough has been shown to answer some of the basic questions being asked. What should really be asked here is how you people allow yourself to evade and ignore the clearly obvious in the ATC guidelines? You're ignoring the cumulative effects of these intrusions on both the physical and psychic level and how they've changed the Trail and how it's perceived. You're also making a deliberate effort to ignore what ATC was saying in that paragraph and how it applies to van support. Let's be honest here. There's a double standard. You can see some of the main participants in here completely avoiding the points while you cry for absolute concrete evidence spelled out in firm examples. That sword cuts both ways...

Let's go back the guidelines...

ed bell

02-08-2005, 22:53

You asked for someone to comment on ATC guidelines and what they are saying. I did just that. Go ahead and say that the more remote the location the more the ATC frowns on day hiking. Then I can be sure that this is the point we disagree about. If you are not endorsing this statement then I have nothing further to add. Refusing to reply to my questions of you while dismissing my answers to questions you posed and accusing me of being evasive and adverse to wilderness is annoying and rude. I read post #1 again for like the 20th time. I think its well worded and affirms the purpose of the AT. I like what the ATC did with this document. I just think you are projecting your views into it and I'm just not seeing it.

Jack Tarlin

02-08-2005, 22:54

Geez, Rocks, now you've gone and insulted the ONE person here who still kind of half-way agreed with you. Maybe even Weary is now willing to concede you're a pain in the ass.

Idea: Now that you've managed to alienate, bore, dis-respect, and annoy everyone here with your dozens of identical posts on the same subject in recent days....why not give it a rest and try a new topic? Are you capable of this, or is it gonna be like "Groundhod Day" and you're gonna keep beating this topic to death for a few years?

Oh. If it gets to the point that nobody is responding to your comments anymore, I sure hope it doesn't go to your head. With your mindset, you'll take this as acknowledgement that you've won the debate and convinced folks with your wit and informed commentary.

Wrong.

Being given the last word, especially on an Internet board, doesn't mean you're right. It merely means that nobody is remotely interested in the discussion anymore, for any number of reasons.

Mainly because you've driven them away.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-08-2005, 23:48

Ed Bell:

You could simplify all this by answering the simple question in #91.

Frosty

02-08-2005, 23:57

Being given the last word, especially on an Internet board, doesn't mean you're right. It merely means that nobody is remotely interested in the discussion anymore, for any number of reasons.Ain't that the truth!

TJ aka Teej

02-09-2005, 00:44

Please tell me - in detail - what wilderness is, and what it is not.
You weren't asking me, but:

"Only to the white man was nature a "wilderness" and only to him was the land
"infested" with "wild" animals and "savage" people. To us it was tame. Earth
was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great
Mystery."
--Luther Standing Bear
Chief of the Oglala Tribe of the Sioux Nation
from "Land of the Spotted Eagle"
---
I recognize that there are two divergent views of wilderness, one realistic and one philosophical. MacKaye's ideas were clearly the dreamy kind, capable seeing a 'wilderness' on the harvested, cultivated, deforested, and populated lands of the Shenandoah, capable of planning a developed 'wilderness' in the woods to be inhabited by those needing recreation and re-creation. The ATC sought to connect the established network of footpaths by building on the established wilder trail model. There was a great deal of wild trail in the Appalachians that preceded MacKaye's proposal of installed utopia.
The idea of linking trails and building a "Master Trail" didn't
start with Ben's essay, (Chamberlin wrote of such a trail in 1912, and Stein
himself credits the AMC with first proposing a long north-south trail) but it
was an obvious evolution of thought in a trailbuilding community and
therefore the AT itself was inevitable. But without a doubt the publication
of the essay Ben composed with Stein's help, and the publicity Ben and
Whitaker caused, was the seed of the ATC. Ben saw the Trail as a cure for the urban ills on which he blamed his wife's suicide. His clearly expressed
utopian social intent for the Trail was rejected early however, and so the
Trail that was designed and built didn't include his settlements, farms,
logging operations, stores, asylums, guides, and work camps for tens of thousands of short-term vacationing inner city poor. "Developing Appalachia" was the term used at the first ATC Conference, but a wilder trail was sought by many others, and so rifts began. Practical philosophy and personal outlooks came into play - MacKaye saw the Shenandoah as a wilderness to defend despite the thousands of inhabitants in hundreds of hamlets. So when Avery and the ATC sought compromise with the government in SNP to keep the trail intact, MacKaye and some others left to form their own group. It's clear that the ATC trail builders sought to build a different trail than MacKaye proposed, a much wilder one in many aspects. It is indeed 'silly' to engage in a 'debate' with someone unable to understand that 'wilderness' to a turn of the century forester like MacKaye is not the same 'wilderness' as defined by present day standards. Many folks without knowledge of the ATC's early days and unfamiliar with the AT's natural history expect a Lewis and Clark type journey through uncharted, trackless, and untamed woodlands. However, the AT is a developed trail through lands that were for the most part once farmed, logged, and lived upon.
Today's AT travels through many beautiful forests, and across wondrous mountains. The AT provides an illusion of wilderness that is delightful to escape to. The delusion arises when some convince themselves that the illusion is a reality. Enjoy and celebrate what we have, but don't pretend it's something that it's not just to be argumentative.

ed bell

02-09-2005, 11:55

The Appalachian Trail is, first and foremost, a footpath open to any and all who travel on foot.

Its sole purpose as a recreational resource is to provide an opportunity for “travel on foot through the wild, scenic, wooded, pastoral, and culturally significant lands of the Appalachian Mountains.”
Integral to this Trail experience are:

• opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world;

• a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;
• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;

• a sense of being on the height of the land;

• opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside;

• a feeling of being part of the natural environment; and

• opportunities for travel on foot, including opportunities for long-distance hiking.

Some recreational uses may affect the Trail experience because of an inherent conflict between different user groups’ expectations in a specific environment. Some might affect the Trail simply because they result in increased use of Trail lands. Other uses might affect the opportunities for solitude and reflection that certain sections of the Trail provide. The potential for conflict between other uses and the Trail’s sole recreational purpose increases as the users’ sense of remoteness and distance from the developed environment increases.

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

I really shouldn't have to rehash what I've said before, but since its up to me to clear all this up, (RnR said so) here we go. The ATC is saying that it values the hikers sense of remoteness and encourages ALL users to remain mindful of the fact. I am reading that "some activities" are those that do not involve traveling on foot. I don't think the ATC is trying to separate types of hiking here. Foot travel is a pretty simple term and concept. At the beginning of the quote I snipped, the ATC makes it crystal clear that the sole recreational purpose of the Trail is to provide the opportunity for Foot Travel. They are even nice enough to include us backpackers- " Opportunities for travel on foot, including opportunities for long-distance hiking." Nowhere do I see the ATC saying that Hiking on the trail for whatever duration is inappropriate. Nowhere do I see the ATC discouraging the use of AT access points. Once again, RnR are you claiming that the ATC views Hiking without a Backpack in more remote locations as inappropriate use?

weary

02-09-2005, 12:20

I am reading that "some activities" are those that do not involve traveling on foot.
I doubt it. Except for a couple of historical exceptions involving horses, by federal law the trail is strictly a footpath and even motorized crossing are restricted. When the trail was acquired, some landowners negotiated rights to cross the trail to reach other owned lands. But if they didn't insist on the right to cross the trail when the land was purchased, any new crossing is prohibited.

But except where the trail follows roadways in towns, and horses in the Smokies, the trail is strictly a footpath. I think commerical activities are also forbidden on the trail itself. The commercial permits, I think, are only for the surrounding park or national forest lands, not the trail itself, though I could be wrong about that.

Weary

MOWGLI

02-09-2005, 12:35

But except where the trail follows roadways in towns, and horses in the Smokies, the trail is strictly a footpath. I think commerical activities are also forbidden on the trail itself. The commercial permits, I think, are only for the surrounding park or national forest lands, not the trail itself, though I could be wrong about that.

Weary

A couple of other exceptions are the C&O Canal Path, and the Virgina Creeper Trail - both open to bikes. They total less than 3 miles of trail.

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 12:55

Weary-"I think commerical activities are also forbidden on the trail itself. The commercial permits, I think, are only for the surrounding park or national forest lands, not the trail itself, though I could be wrong about that."(From the ATC Local Management Planning Guide)

HUNTING The Trail passes through many different state and federal jurisdictions, most of which allow hunting. More than 1,000 miles of the Trail cross National Forest lands that are open to hunting. Additionally, approximately 150 miles of the A.T. are located on state gameland units that are specifically administered for game species and hunting. Hunting also is permitted on more than 100 miles of state lands administered by state forests. Additionally, on many privately owned lands adjoining the Trail, hunting is a well-established use.

SUP The National Park Service A.T. Park Office presently administers more than 50 special-use permits that authorize use of corridor lands along the Appalachian Trail. The majority of these permit agricultural uses, including grazing, haying, and crop production. Most (though not all) permits exist to maintain natural open areas or historical pastoral scenes for the benefit of Trail users. Some permits have been issued to accommodate preexisting uses, including maple sugaring and a hang-gliding site [see Chapter 4(M)]. Other permits have been issued for temporary uses, such as a weekend horseback event that required a short crossing of the Trail corridor or a wedding on Trail lands in the center of the town of Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania.

UTILITIES & COMMUNICATIONS Natural-gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, telephone trunk lines, communications towers and many smaller utility-distribution lines of all types already cross the Appalachian Trail in many locations. There also are microwave dishes, cellular transmission towers, airport hazard beacons, and wind-power generation towers that dot the landscape. Frequently, the most desirable location for these communications facilities is on the highest available terrain, often in direct conflict with the route of the A.T.

I also have had to hold an Outfitters Permit to lead trips for the NHAMC. Scouts, camp groups, etc., have to do the same. There are a lot of commercial activities that are either compatable with the trail, or have to be allowed by law. As much as some of these uses annoy us as hikers, we all use them in some form when we are off the trail.

JoeHiker

02-09-2005, 12:56

The meaning is clear, ATC is saying remote stretches comprise the most ideal embodiment of the AT's wilderness ethic and that certain activities are in conflict with that and should be discouraged.Wrong. The meaning is not clear.

Your entire argument hinges on the notion that "some activities" referred to by the ATC includes stopping a van on a public road that the ATC crosses and picking up hikers, dropping them off, or handing out supplies to them. That's it.

I totally agree with your suggestion that they are a little soft in their emphasis. So mild that people are ignoring them. Like yourself for instance. You are doing nothing but seeking validation for wilderness-compromising activities. You're fighting the Trail.People here are fighting you Rocks. Not the trail. Not the ATC. You.

Time for a reality check: You are not the trail. You are not the ATC. You are not even Benton MacKaye. You are not their representative here. You do not understand their views better than the others on this thread. In fact, you understand them less.

If you go back to the guidelines paragraph you semanticized and actually try to read what ATC was saying, The ATC was not saying what you claim that it was. That is the point of contention. Until you can establish that the ATC's "some activities" include what NotYet is doing, it is pointless for you to tell us to read what they are saying. We have read it. They disagree with you.

Supported hikers diminish the experience of self-sufficient hikers simply because they know that they arrived there by van while through-hikers arrived via wilderness. Because they now have some knowledge that they didn't have before? Rubbish.

If you are such a delicate flower that you cannot enjoy your hike merely because you have the knowledge that there are others who got there by some more convenient means, it is you who do not belong on the trail.

Meanwhile it's right there in the guidelines (which you ignored).No it is not, unless "some activities" refers to what NotYet is doing. It does not.

Since the AT is an attempt to preserve wilderness No it is not, for the 100th time.

I think some people aren't being honest here. Go look in the mirror.

But I shouldn't really be the one having to answer the questions here.You haven't answered any of them anyway. Why start now?

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 13:00

great post! :clap

ed bell

02-09-2005, 13:02

Didn't mean how one travels on the trail, just what you do when physically there. Organizing a family reunion. Using a shelter for an extended party. Having a parade. Having a large group nature walk. Shouting at your buddy to slow down. Having more than 10 people in a backpacking group. Holding a botany outdoor lab. Having a picnic close to your car. This type of thing.

rickb

02-09-2005, 13:02

Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?

Jack?

TJ?

TOF?

OB?

Fankly, with the exception of TJ, I doubt any will be brave enough to answer. :) To say "No", even with the most articulate of qualifiers would suggest that there might be a kernel of truth to Rock's position. And we can't have that.

Edit: When I say resupply services I am thinking of something like a chuck wagon / mobile outfitter which could travel to meet all hikers as they crossed roads. And would do so with wide coverage, such that hikers could count on the truck being there whenever they were.

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 13:50

rickboudrie-"Fankly, with the exception of TJ, I doubt any will be brave enough to answer. :) "Rick, being brave has nothing to do with it. :)

Not having done the PCT or CDT I can only say this. Any road crossing could be used for any thing not prohibited there. As to side trails or roads used to access services, just like Whitehouse Landing in the 100 mile "wilderness", Toulumne Meadows, Reds Meadow, Edison Lake, Muir Ranch, and other places are used as entry points or resupply- no biggie. I used several of these when I did the JMT.

I'll even include the Colorado Trail where about 4 years ago a group of A.T. thru hikers did the trail with one of the spouses running a slagwagon meeting them whenever possible. They had a great trip.

But One thing I've noticed is that PCT hikers don't seem to be hung up with the purist mentality that you find on the A.T. I doubt that resupply and van support would be an issue on other trails.

TJ aka Teej

02-09-2005, 13:55

Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?
My position is that if someone wants to use NotYet's service, I have no objection. While it's clear that the ATC does not object either, my personal opinion is not based what the ATC says. Of the many millions of A.T. users each year only a very few will be on van supported long hikes. This year, even with the Doylies added, I suspect the number will be less than two dozen. Lug soled boots and hiking poles will have more negative impact on the AT. Poor hiker behavior in towns will have more negative impact on the AT. Campfires and poor pooping techniques will have more negative impact on the AT. Boyscouts, college, and summer camp groups will have more nagative impact on the AT. Litter and cigarette butts will have more negative impact on the AT. A few van supported hikers will impact the AT much less than than the many thousands of hikers who cook and camp on the AT.
I'll leave the PCT and CDT hypotheticals to those who know more about those trails. (Although I'm pretty sure that pre-arranged water caches, shuttles, and re-supply have been part of the PCT scene for quite some time.)

rickb

02-09-2005, 14:05

OF--

You didn't answer the question.

My question was whether or not it would be a GOOD THING if commercial outfitters sprung up and offered such services up and down the PCT and CDT.

If not, why not?

Rick B

Edit: So much for my confidence in TJ :-).

rickb

02-09-2005, 14:13

Hey TJ--

You might have a point about limitting the discussion to the AT. My hypothetical would have had chuckwagons the entire way, BTW.

If I started a business out of my trunk, legally selling food, deet, rain gear and such at road crossings, would that be "all good".

Seriously, only those who wanted my goods would buy them, and I would make sure that I did everything legal like.

Or would that be a net negative for the AT?

Rick B

JoeHiker

02-09-2005, 14:20

Fankly, with the exception of TJ, I doubt any will be brave enough to answer. To say "No", even with the most articulate of qualifiers would suggest that there might be a kernel of truth to Rock's position. And we can't have that. Hey Look, if Rocks wants to tell us all how he doesn't like what NotYet is doing -- how he thinks it might lessen the experience for him, I have no debate.

It is when he attempts to dictate to us the true meaning of the ATC guidelines and expects us to simply take his word for it; when he tells us that Benton MacKaye founded the trail for Wilderness preservation and completely fails to back it up with any evidence whatsoever -- that is where I have a problem.

If you talk the talk, you'd better be able to walk the walk. I simply have no use for the "I'm right and I don't need to back it up" school of debate.

Personally I would never make use of NotYet's services. Not that I have anything against her or her idea, just that when I hike the AT, I want it to be me, my gear, my wits, and my legs and nothing else. I don't know if it would be a good idea if there were dozens of people offering similar services, but I certainly don't think it would be a bad idea.

But if I cross some road somewhere and I see a van sitting there waiting for hikers, it isn't going to affect me in the slightest.

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 14:21

rickboudrie-"OF--You didn't answer the question." Rick, read the title for my previous post ( a resounding "go for it") , I think that makes it very clear. I went to some length to say what my opinion on support was: 1) it is already being done; 2) I've used it; 3) in my opinion, it is a non-issue.

Sorry I can't start a guide service myself on the PCT to make it any clearer. :)

Frosty

02-09-2005, 14:29

Supported hikers diminish the experience of self-sufficient hikers simply because they know that they arrived there by van while through-hikers arrived via wilderness.Of all the nonsense in this thread, this is the dopiest.

How is my trip from GA to ME diminished by what anyone else has done. People FLY from GA to ME in two hours. That diminishes my hike?

It is just the opposite, in fact. I've climbe Mt Washington and Cannon Mtn, and in both cases I felt BETTER seeing the people who arrived by car, van and (in the case of Connon Mtn) by tramway.

Having climbed Cannon in late May when the trail was a snow-melt stream, my wife and I stopped near the summit, sweaty and mud-stained, and watched with amusement as tram riders walked by, daintly trying not to step in the mud as they went by.

I didn't envy them. They didn't affect my journey at all, expect to make me feel glad that I had hiked the mountain.

Ditto for Mt Washington. I admit is was a bit of a shock the first time to top the ridge and see all those people, but I didn't begrudge them their sightseeing. If anything, they were a little embarrassed because there was a line waiting to stand on the actual summit. Some offered to let me go in front, but I waited my turn.

I don't know if you are serious with all the crap you are spouting. I suspect you are only doing it for a reaction, and that you know what you are saying is nonsense. But one thing is apparent: you haven't spent much time on a trail, either hiking or just visiting by van/cog railway/car.

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 14:37

rickboudrie-"Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?"Now that you've got some answers to your question, just out of curiosity, here are questions for you. This thread is about ATC trail guidelines. Why aren't you starting a new thread called "PCT/CDT guidelines?" Why did you ask your question here?

Mags

02-09-2005, 15:02

rickboudrie-"Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?"

There already are..they are called grocery stores, hostels, gas stations, etc. :)

As others have mentioned, there have been van supported treks on the PCT and CT (not 100% sure about the CDT). Not my way of doing it, but then again it is not my hike.

This coming year a supported ultra run attempt will be done on the teh PCT with support as well.

Personally, I don't think a commercial support service would be logisitcally possible on the CDT as a whole. It will be very hard to swing on the PCT.

A van supported hike is not my idea of enjoying the wilderness...but then again I day hike and find myself immersted in nature as well.

Is it good? Is it bad? Personally, I think a van in a parking lot is just well, a van in a parking lot. If there were say 30 supported hikes a year with 30 vans all in the same parking lot with 300 people all hiking the same ten mile section of trail that woul;d be an issue. But, as Mr. Spock said "Theoretically possible, highly improbable".

At this point we are counting how many thru-hiking angels dance on a pinhead.

Spirit Walker

02-09-2005, 15:02

Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?
****************
Although I don't know of any for-profit ventures on the PCT or CDT doing this sort of thing, I do know that there are a number of hikers on the western trails who have done supported hikes. Read some of the journals. When we were on the PCT in 2000 I knew three hikers who had vehicle support - just in our immediate vicinity. One set of supporters were the parents of a couple of hikers who brought their RV out west for five months of touring the vicinity of the Trail, two supporters were partners of thruhikers who had intended to hike but decided that it wasn't what they really wanted to do, so instead they acted as support. We took advantage of them to get a ride to and from town a couple of times, and enjoyed meeting the car/van folks when we ran into them. On the CDT I know one hiker who was out the same year we were whose wife ran vehicle support for him. Some of the CDT thruhikers last year talked a local resident into acting as trail angel for two separate groups of hikers - he put out water and goodies for them on the trail for about three days of their hike in New Mexico.

That isn't the way I would want to do my hike. I enjoy being self-sufficient. I enjoy the challenge of doing it myself with little outside assistance. (Though on the PCT I was happy when I found water in the caches put out by the trail angels.) I don't like having to keep a schedule, so meeting people at road crossings on a set itinerary isn't good for me -- it removes my sense of freedom, which is a large part of why I hike. I've slacked with a group on the AT, and it soon got really old having to follow the group plan instead of allowing the trail to determine how far I hiked and what I did along the way. It gets much harder to stop and smell the roses when you know someone is waiting for you at the trailhead.

However, not everyone is seeking the same kind of experience that I am. I'm not going to dictate their experience any more than I'll allow them to dictate mine. If someone wants the structure of a group hike, why not, as long as they are environmentally sensitive? There aren't many people who are willing to pay for it when it is so easy to do the AT without paying. Pittsburgh tried to create a business several years ago doing van supported hikes and found that it wasn't as easy to make a living at it as he'd hoped. He got a lot of flack for it, but I don't see that he harmed the trail one bit.

A group hike has certain dynamics that a solo hike doesn't - it can be good or bad, depending on the group, and it certainly is different. There are a lot of groups out on the AT - hoods in the woods, college orientation groups, Outward Bound, Scouts, etc. ATC allows them to use the trail. In terms of the trail experience, I'd rather run into a small group with vehicle support than 30 college kids who don't have a clue how to camp responsibly.

rickb

02-09-2005, 15:41

In my own feeble way I was just trying to point out that intrusions at road crossings do impact one's long-distance hiking experience-- even if you don't not take advantage of them.

Reviewing the response, I don't think I was very good at framing my hypothetical question. You guys are too grounded in reality and common sense :) .

Perhaps I should have let you in on my business plan of Rick's Ice Cream and Ramen Company stationing trucks at every paved road up and down all of the big three trails. If I made that happen, you guys would shoot me!

But why? You guys like ice cream, right? I now know I am not smart enought to articulate an answer. If I did have the answer, I could probably better explain my feeling about a trail to the WHite House Landing, that I didn't have to take. And about a phone that I don't have to use. And about a hiker feed that I don't have to stop at.

Rick B (WHo is starting to think his prose is about as good as his spelling-- but know his mind is still working ;-) )

Mags

02-09-2005, 15:56

Perhaps I should have let you in on my business plan of Rick's Ice Cream and Ramen Company stationing trucks at every paved road up and down all of the big three trails. If I made that happen, you guys would shoot me!
)

...and I could do Mags' "Sawsuhge and Peppah Grindah Cahts" ("Sausage and Pepper Sandwhich Carts" for you non-New England natives) up and down the trails at all road crosssings as well. But it ain't gonna happen, just like your ice cream carts.

So, the question remains, would the occasioanl van supported hike upset my concept of wilderness? Probably not.

However, I do have a question: What brand of ice cream? If it is Ben and Jerry's, I may be more forgiving.

weary

02-09-2005, 16:09

Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?
.
Well, I'm not going to answer the question directly either, since I know very little about those two trails. But despite the denials, the availability of services in fact effects the nature of a hike.

The 100-mile-wilderness was wilder before White House began offering beer and hamburgers at mile 70. Sure, you can walk right on by. But the knowledge that it's there changes the mystique of the region. A hundred miles between resupply is different than 70 miles.

I and others who are working to minimize AMC's development in the Maine so called wilderness were chided by some members for allegedly being inconsistent because at the annual chapter meeting held at a YMCA camp, we all chose to stay in the camp cabins rather than camping on the camp lawn.

I thought the argument was silly. If services are there, they will be used. It's the fact that they are there that changes the nature of the experience, not whether one uses them or not.

I love to backpack. I love the wildness, the sense of freedom of being on my own. But I rarely tent out on my lawn. With my house there, I use it.

With an AMC facility a mile from the trail, people will use it. The experience will still be enjoyable. But the nature of the experience will change. The sense of remoteness will be gone. The so called wilderness will no longer be 100 miles between easy resupply, but just another series of 35 mile walks between resupply.

This argument with RnR is silly, not because RnR is wrong about catered long distance hiking diminishing the wildness of the trail, but because there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. I know of no laws that would forbid Not Yet from running her business, other than, perhaps, the laws of supply and demand.

AMC's development in the 100-mile-wilderness is slightly different. AMC is a private non profit club that is seeking public money to help pay for its plan. As such it can be influenced by its members and by the public that will be paying some of the land costs.

Weary

The Old Fhart

02-09-2005, 16:42

rickboudrie-“Reviewing the response, I don't think I was very good at framing my hypothetical question.” Actually the question should have been: “how supported would a thru hike have to be before it bothers you? My reply would have been the same because 100% of thru hikes are supported to some degree. Seems we already went through this some time back when someone jokingly suggested they were going to carry 7456 pounds of food so they would be self-supported. Let’s face reality, everyone goes into town for resupply, mail drops, showers, etc. Some thumb, a few walk, some have family or shuttle services meet them. If how someone else hiking the trail legally, bothers me, then I am the one with a problem, not them.

I will tell you that one of the few things that slightly annoys me on the trail are those hikers who go on and on about getting away from it all and being self sufficient. These are the ones that don’t carry watches and are always asking you what time it is. They want to see your databook, look at your maps, even borrow your stove to heat a meal. They are trying to make others hikers their support because they are either too lazy to carry their own gear or feel that they are special because they are thru hikers, even though everyone around them is also a thru hiker.

So, bottom line, asking a hypothetical question and expecting real answers just won’t work. Plus your wording was such that one could guess it wasn’t a neutral question. As to the ice cream idea, I have been doing trail magic for over 15 years but only once did we bring ice cream in to Zealand Falls hut and give it to thru hikers. I don’t recall anyone in all that time turning down trail magic, which is support.

Jack Tarlin

02-09-2005, 16:47

To Rick, who asked asked if I feel that for-profit re-supply services should be available at trail crossings on the larger Western Trails, and who further ventured the comment that he felt I wasn't brave enough to answer his question:

No, I don't. Not if you're talking about Trailheads in the middle of nowhere or people operating businesses out of their cars. The occasional permanent legitimate business located at a major road/trail crossing (like the way the Walasi-Yi Center or the Nantahala Outdoor Center are located on the A.T.) wouldn't bother me at all, provided it was a reputable business that served hikers well.

Gosh, Rick, was that brave enough for you?

You'd come across a lot better here, Rick, to simply ask your questions without challenging people or being unpleasant.

Mags

02-09-2005, 16:56

Well, I'm not going to answer the question directly either, since I know very little about those two trails. But despite the denials, the availability of services in fact effects the nature of a hike.

Weary

So we are talking about the degree of intrusion as opposed to the kind?

There is a gap between services in a remote section and a van at a parking lot.

Remeber what we are talking about here. I would oppose clear cutting in Maine in the AT corridor. I would not oppose a van at a trailhead parking lot.

FWIW, the White House Landing is not on the trail; you have to take a boat to get there (as you probably know). So, even that example is not as valid. If I chose to do the trail agian, would probably skip the White House Landing.

rickb

02-09-2005, 17:01

Dang, good thing this isn't 1804.

Rick B

Mags

02-09-2005, 17:31

Dang, good thing this isn't 1804.

Rick B

1804?

You are right..It would be 170 years before I was born. We would not be typing on computers. There would be no Ben and Jerry's in sight.

If I was alive in 1804 I could wander up north and east aways in say "Hiya!" to Lewis and Clark in an American English that sounded vaugley like they type that John or Samuel Adams spoke. I suspect the natives would wonder who I am... A strange "courer de bois" that did not speak "Francais" ?

If I was to go to where the Magnanti branch of the family would be at this point, it would be at a little mountain village somehow making a living (herding sheep or perhaps making cheese. Abruzzo isn't good for too much else I'm afriaid in terms of agriculture.) Hard life in any case.

Of course, at 30 yo in 1804 I'd be in early middle age for the most part. Probably starting to be on the down slope of life and could look foward to another 25-30 yrs or so of life (at best) for the average Joe Shmoe like myself.

Yep..good thing it is not 1804.

:)

Rocks 'n Roots

02-09-2005, 17:47

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

Joe Hiker - Frosty - Ed Bell - D Perry or anyone else. ATC (not me as Joe Hiker claims) has spelled out in clear words that those who hike to a remote location are to have their Trail experience maintained as part of the guidelines. Also, the second listed AT goal specifies "self-reliance". For those who refuse to accept what ATC is trying to impress here, they are trying to tell hikers that the Trail's wilderness experience plan is what the Trail is about and hikers should be mindful of it in their actions and approach.

The issue here is how the "Trail Community" (a term I challenge) begins to form a sense of Trail unto itself. I mean this thread itself shows that many members of the Trail community react to basic Trail descriptions with resentment. Many in here have some strong opinions on it, but do they necessarily have any credible educated understanding? Or are they direct products of the failure I'm pointing out in Trail community? What I'm seeing from many of these responses is that Trail users don't really give any credit to what even ATC expresses and seek to undermine it.

ATC and other authorities should recognize this and ask themselves if their Trail description is being threatened by the very Trail Community itself? This is all scientifically calculable. Since the goal of the AT is to maintain a wild Trail core and accompanying ethic, increases in use, and other accompanying impacts create more strain on this goal. ATC and Trail users have to understand they have a responsibility to the AT and its goals. If new forces threaten these basic goals new measures have to be taken to protect them. Simple as that. What we have here is Trail members arguing that when the Trail's goals or guidelines get in their way, challenge the goals. The quote above specifically cites the need to protect the experience of the foot traveler (but what it is really saying is the need to protect the AT's wilderness ethic)...

Mags

02-09-2005, 18:09

weary

02-09-2005, 18:46

Quote:
A parking lot in the middle of the Grayson Highlands would be very bad. A Burger King at Katahdin would be bad. But a van at a trailhead?

Well, most of us wouldn't even notice one. But what about 40? Sometimes it's best to avoid the beginnings of evil.

Weary, who thinks 40 is unlikely, but who also has been wrong before.

JoeHiker

02-09-2005, 18:47

Joe Hiker - Frosty - Ed Bell - D Perry or anyone else. ATC (not me as Joe Hiker claims) has spelled out in clear words that those who hike to a remote location are to have their Trail experience maintained as part of the guidelines. Also, the second listed AT goal specifies "self-reliance". For those who refuse to accept what ATC is trying to impress here, they are trying to tell hikers that the Trail's wilderness experience plan is what the Trail is about and hikers should be mindful of it in their actions and approach. It specifies an "opportunity for self-reliance" When you come upon NotYet in her van sitting on a public road that the trail crosses, whose opportunity for self-reliance has been taken away here? Yours? Certainly not. You can just keep right on walking. The hikers being supported by NotYet? No again. They have the opportunity all the time. They simply chose not to avail themselves of it. In fact, they are so set on choosing this that they are willing to pay over ten grand for it.

What you have conspicuously failed to show is how a car, sitting on an existing public road, detracts from the opportunities the guidelines spell out. Solitude? The road is already there. Cars travel down these roads already. NotYet isn't building new ones. Solitude on the trail comes on the trail not on the roads.

The opportunities exist whether NotYet is sitting there in her van or not.

What I'm seeing from many of these responses is that Trail users don't really give any credit to what even ATC expresses and seek to undermine it. Look again. We don't give any credit to what you express.

Since the goal of the AT is to maintain a wild Trail core and accompanying ethic, increases in use, and other accompanying impacts create more strain on this goalAnd so we have your TRUE objection. The increase in use. There will be more hikers. That's what you object to. That what NotYet is doing will allow more hikers to be on the trail.

By that logic, if simply being there increases the strain, then the problem isn't really a car on the road at all but the hikers themselves. So why aren't you campaigning to limit the number of hikers "allowed" on the AT?

Jack Tarlin

02-09-2005, 19:03

Let's keep things in perspective here.

This reminds me of the folks (including some prominent ones in the Trail community) who have spent much time and energy decrying the practice of dispensing Trail magic, or holding cookouts or hiker feeds in such public places as Trailhead parking lots, public picnic ground, Parks that the Trail goes thru (like Bear Mountain or Caledonia, etc).

These locations are NOT wilderness areas. They are public facilities located on well-travelled roads, and they contain amenities and services primarily designed for users of automobiles.

While I certainly wouldn't want to see mobile outfitters or other service providers at each and every road crossing----I'm not sure anyone would welcome this---we should keep in mind that we're talking about roadside areas that are open to the general public.

If someone offers you a ride to town at a road crossing, or the chance to buy a few hiker-oriented items, or is giving out cokes and sandwiches: If they're doing this in a parking lot, I hardly see how this interferes with anyone's "wilderness" experience. The passing hiker who is not interested in any of these offerings or services can merely smile and say "No, thank you."

How tough is that?

I think this whole debate is getting a bit needless. There are all sorts of services available to hikers in all sorts of locations. Some are in towns, some aren't. Some are very near the Trail. Some aren't. Some are actually immediately adjacent to the Trail. Some aren't.

Hikers, for decades, have decided for themselves what they require in the way of goods and services in the course of their trips, and then decide accordingly where and how they're going to spend their time and money.
This is the way it's always been.

But in the final analysis, a parking lot is just that: It's a parking lot, folks. It's not Eden. It's not virgin, untouched, isolated paradise. It's not wilderness. It's a parking lot.

People that are all worked up about this issue need to find something worthier of their time to worry about.

max patch

02-09-2005, 19:34

orangebug

02-09-2005, 20:06

Just out of curiosity, do individuals participating in this thread think that it would be a good thing if a for-profit company offered resupply services at road crossings up and down the PCT and CDT?

Jack?

TJ?

TOF?

OB?

Fankly, with the exception of TJ, I doubt any will be brave enough to answer. :) To say "No", even with the most articulate of qualifiers would suggest that there might be a kernel of truth to Rock's position. And we can't have that.

Edit: When I say resupply services I am thinking of something like a chuck wagon / mobile outfitter which could travel to meet all hikers as they crossed roads. And would do so with wide coverage, such that hikers could count on the truck being there whenever they were.
Sorry to have a life and be late in responding to being called out on this question.

Never having been to the PCT or the CDT, I have no opinion about what would be good or bad. I'd have to ask what are the qualifications for "good or bad" in such a case. I doubt it would be good for the for profit company as I doubt that long distance hikers make an adequate market for profit on the investment.

Why call me or any others out for such a hypothetical question? :confused:

Jack Tarlin

02-09-2005, 20:10

If you hike up there with a few extra apples or sodas, fine.

If you set up a full-sized cookout or big picnic at the summit, I think this is an inappropriate location. People deserve to enjoy that spot with as much quiet and solitude as possible; it's the wrong place for a big feed, which is likely to attract a lot of folks and keep them there for awhile, thus depriving other people of enjoying the summit in peace.

If you have your feed at the BOTTOM of the hill, like the parking area, that's entirely different. As stated before , passersby can decide for themselves whether or not they wish to enjoy the hospitality and stick around, or whether they wish to keep going. No one's forced to attend, and nobody is bothered.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-10-2005, 00:24

ed bell

02-10-2005, 00:51

RnR- Maybe you could suggest some of the access points along the AT where you think day use hiking is inappropriate. What are your feelings about the large number of thru hikers beginning their hike in Ga? Seems like a problem of much greater magnitude than a van at an access point when considering your position. Would you care to touch on other aspects of trail use that tend to cause much greater impact on the wilderness experience? What would be your solution to such problems as they conflict with the guidelines.

JoeHiker

02-10-2005, 01:50

You're avoiding the pertinent part Joe. Specifically where they address the experience of "people who have hiked to that location". What ATC is distinguishing between here is the wilderness experience of those who hike and those who don't.A public road is not the wilderness, RnR. The Wilderness is the wilderness. A road is a road.

A person who walks the 100 Mile Wilderness is hiking. A person who is met every night after carrying a lunch pack is hiking a less wild hike. "Hiking a less wild hike"? So what? Good for them. They're hiking their own hike. You should be hiking yours. They're not driving their cars on to the trail.

You're not answering my question about WHY ATC felt a need to make this distinction and point out its conflict?The distinction between what exactly? A "wild" hike and a "less wild" one? Those are your words, not the ATCs.

(Incidentally, you haven't answered a single question put to you except to say that it was invalid or that you don't need to. Keep that in mind before you start lecturing others about it)

The part you're failing to register is the total conceptual level of AT experience.No, RnR. what I'm failing to register is your total conceptual level of the AT experience. I intentionally ignore it. You know why? Because it's from outer space. Your idea of "the AT experience" is so far out there that it can be damaged simply by knowing the fact that someone else didn't hike as hard as you did.

Hey, guess what, RnR. There are roads out there. Real roads! People could possibly drive cars on them to get to the trail. This knowledge no doubt damages your trail experience as well. Therefore I have a suggestion. First, go to a hypnotist and have him hypnotize you into forgetting this fact. Then, the next time you hike and you suspect a road is coming up, put on a blindfold. That way, the next time you cross an actual road, you won't have to see it. With any luck, you won't even know it's there. This will protect your delicate little psyche from that evil knowledge.

The rest of us will just see the road and walk on, happily hiking our own hike. If we see NotYet, we'll say "Hi" and hike on as well. Just as we might if we saw some people handing out trail magic left there and didn't want any. We get the trail experience from the trail, not from the roads it crosses.

Your semantic excercises on the word "opportunity" as a means of avoiding ATC's meaning is another classic attempt at evading the point. They mentioned self-reliance for a reason. It increases the wilderness experience...Your convenient ignorance the word "opportunity" as a way of avoiding meanings you don't want to face is another attempt at evading the point. You see only the words you want to see. They mentioned "opportunity" for a reason. They mentioned it 7 times. That's 6 times more than "self-reliance".

Your opportunities are not damaged by what NotYet does. Nor is your self reliance.

rickb

02-10-2005, 10:00

"First, go to a hypnotist and have him hypnotize you into forgetting this fact. Then, the next time you hike and you suspect a road is coming up, put on a blindfold. That way, the next time you cross an actual road, you won't have to see it."

Not so long ago, folks coming to a road crossing might have come to it without much knowledge of what it lead to. Certainly not with the detailed knowledge of today. This was true whether speaking about the 100-Miles or a major paved road in NY. They did have blinders on, in a manner of speaking.

I think that's a big reason why people hiked longer between resupply in the past, and did not see each road crossing as an exit from the wilder part of the AT.

I suppose knowing exactly what services lie down each road one crosses is a good thing. Takes some of the mystery out of things, though. Probably changes how people look at road crossings as they relate to the rest of the Trail as well.

Rick B

The Old Fhart

02-10-2005, 11:03

rickboudrie-“I suppose knowing exactly what services lie down each road one crosses is a good thing. Takes some of the mystery out of things, though. Probably changes how people look at road crossings as they relate to the rest of the Trail as well.” There is a lot of truth in that but it isn’t just road crossings, it involves the entire trail. There are plus and minuses to knowing any part of the trail. The maps (with elevation profiles), trail guides, and databook help you plan your day and I consider that good. The trail will never hold the mystery it did for Earl Shaffer in 1948 but there is no way we could change that, even if we wanted to.

I remember in 2000 (when I was starting my third hike of the A.T.) camping with Lone Wolf, Gypsy, and 30 Seconds on that roller coaster section south of Moreland Gap. Knowing there was all those featureless ups and downs ahead of me was a bit of a drag but I knew, when I recognized the last hump with its rocky top, that I was almost to Moreland Gap shelter and on a more interesting and scenic part of the trail. So my knowledge of that section had both a negative and a positive impact, all in the same day.

If you haven’t been some place before but just read about it, it is always a rush to see how different it actually is than what you imagined. It is also very interesting to see how the trail changes over time. Over the 18 years I’ve hiked the southern part of the trail, I have taken pictures of certain individual trees and other trail features, and watched them change (or me age) over that time. For instance, in 1998 I took a picture of the same sign Ed Garvey photographed in 1971. (page 366, Appalachian Hiker II)

So if you have a sense of wonder, the trail will always have a fascination for you. Much of the wildness, awe, and wonder of the trail is in your own mind. Try to enjoy it and you will.

MOWGLI

02-10-2005, 11:38

I suppose knowing exactly what services lie down each road one crosses is a good thing. Takes some of the mystery out of things, though. Probably changes how people look at road crossings as they relate to the rest of the Trail as well.

Rick B

To take that a step further, some '05 thru-hikers were asking (on another forum) to know where the stealth campsites in The Whites were, all because thay had heard about the big bad AMC from other hikers, and wanted to know where they could conveniently camp for free.

There is a fine line between planning, and trying to learn every little detail of the trail from the comforts of your home. Some folks have already made up their mind about the AMC - before they have ever set foot in New England. Amazing, but true. My response to that inquiry was perhaps a bit harsh. I suggested that they just send in the thru-hike certificate to the ATC, cause it was a lot easier than hiking the trail and figuring this stuff out for yourself.

Some folks don't want to learn anything on their own. Others want to learn everything on their on. The vast majority of us fall somewhere in between. For me, the beauty of the thru-hike was never knowing what was round each bend in the trail.

Mags

02-10-2005, 15:18

Well, most of us wouldn't even notice one. But what about 40? Sometimes it's best to avoid the beginnings of evil.

Weary, who thinks 40 is unlikely, but who also has been wrong before.

To paraphrase what I said earlier: 40 vans with 10 people each with 400 total people on a 10 mile stretch of trail would be bad. But, as Mr. Spock said "Theoretically possible. Highly improbable".

Never knew back in 1986 when I took a bus (with approx. 20 other boyscouts and ~ 5 adult chaperones, inlcuding my father) to New Hampshire I was part of an evil act. At the time, I tought it was cool that my Dad, who almost always worked overtime on Saturdays when I was growing up, would spend all of Columbus Day Weekend with me.

The hike on Mt. Lafayette was my first time hiking a mountain. My first time on the Appalachian Trail. Can honestly say that weekend started my love affair with the outdoors.

Now I find out that rented school bus at a trail head was the beginnings of evil. All this time it was a treasured childhood memory. If I only knew. :)

Rocks 'n Roots

02-10-2005, 16:33

Rocks 'n Roots

02-10-2005, 16:40

Now I find out that rented school bus at a trail head was the beginnings of evil. All this time it was a treasured childhood memory. If I only knew. :)

I don't know if off-hand anecdotes answer what was shown here in the Trail's formative principles and ATC guidelines. In a thread designed to discuss the meaning of the guidelines as they relate to the AT's wilderness ethic, I'm not sure this kind of superficial comment should count as anything towards the topic.

I be happier if Mags mentioned the guidelines themselves or honestly recognized examples where the Trail's wildness changed because of this tide. The sum effect is people casually discounting critical Trail goals in this off-hand manner without confronting the problem. This is basically the Trail community's average response to highly sensitive guidelines...

weary

02-10-2005, 16:44

Now I find out that rented school bus at a trail head was the beginnings of evil. All this time it was a treasured childhood memory. If I only knew. :)
No. REnted school buses taking young people and their parents to the mountains is not evil, nor even the beginnings thereof. Only folks like you lucky enough to live on a trailhead avoid driving to the mountains. The type of vehicle used by the rest of us is irrelevant. What is potentially damaging would be for thru hiking to evolve into mostly day hikers being met each evening by a van for transportation to a motel.

As I said earlier this seems unlikely, but I've been wrong before.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-10-2005, 16:45

RnR- Maybe you could suggest some of the access points along the AT where you think day use hiking is inappropriate.

Ed:

This isn't what was being discussed. We were discussing how the Trail community responds to the Trail's wilderness ethic and how it is reflected in the ATC guidelines. And how current trends on the Trail are threatening this ethic from the inside. When we got to the proof the challengers suddenly got silent...

Jack Tarlin

02-10-2005, 16:52

Rocks, as a matter of curiousity, how many miles of the Trail have you actually hiked?

For someone who, as far as I know, has never thru-hiked, you're certainly very strident about how it's supposed to be done.

You snidely refer to someone's else's hiking experience as an "off-hand anecdote" and "superficial".

So tell us something about yours.

How much of the A.T., the trail that you're such an authority on, have you actually done?

And if you want anyone to listen to you or respect a word that have to say, try to insult people less often. If you want to call Mags names, (who is one of the least superficial people I know), have the integrity and maturity to show up at a hiker gathering and do it to his face.

Or, you can just hang out on the Internet that you allegedly deplore and insult people under the cover a cute pseudodym.

Dear God, you're a loser.

Mags

02-10-2005, 17:21

I be happier if Mags mentioned the guidelines themselves or honestly recognized examples where the Trail's wildness changed because of this tide.

I'll quote another science dude for you, Carl Sagan : "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof".

So, RnR, where is your proof that a guided hike is damaging the ATC's concept of wilderness?

It is not up to us to find your claim bogus, it is up to you to prove it. Statistics on amount of users? Damage caused? Impact on evironment.

Go for it! Prove yourself right!

Rocks 'n Roots

02-10-2005, 17:26

As Weary often says, "somebody hasn't been paying attention."

Mags: Care to take a shot at this ATC guideline and its meaning?

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

Myself, I find it difficult to take a request for proof seriously when people refuse to discuss even a simple passage...

Mags

02-10-2005, 17:28

No. REnted school buses taking young people and their parents to the mountains is not evil, nor even the beginnings thereof. Only folks like you lucky enough to live on a trailhead avoid driving to the mountains. The type of vehicle used by the rest of us is irrelevant. What is potentially damaging would be for thru hiking to evolve into mostly day hikers being met each evening by a van for transportation to a motel.

As I said earlier this seems unlikely, but I've been wrong before.

I live in ahouse on a street. If that''s a a trailhead..it is news to me. :)
(Though THERE is a bike path ~5 min. from my house...)

Now, like you, I need a vehicle to get to the mountains. Be it a bike the local trailheads in the foothills or a car to the divide (~45 minutes distant or so).

Having said that: You did not mention thru-hiking evolving into day hikes. You quoted me mentioning a van in aparking lot. Am I to assume you are talking about thru-hikes evolving to day hikes from a sentence about the van? Wow..you give me more insight that I deserve! ;)

I sincerely doubt thru-hike will be mainly day hikes with van support. Is this what this whole thread is about? A fear that will probably not happen? If 30 van supported hikes a year happens (a very high amount), I sincerely doubt it would have an impact on the 3000 thru-hike attempts a year.

Mags

02-10-2005, 17:37

Mags: Care to take a shot at this ATC guideline and its meaning?

Will do!

To quote:
"While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location".

So 5 people day hiking, by van support, is inappropriate?
If I drove an ATV to the shelter THAT would be inappropriate.

Hiking with a day pack for 10 miles? How is that inappropriate? Remember, I am simply parking at a trailhead. That is going to "affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location"? Esp when the theoretical day hikers HIKED there?

I don't see how your quote pertains to a supported thru-hike affecting other people's experience. I don't see where it is innappropriate.

As I said before, where is your proof?

Come on..we are waitrng. :)

>> Myself, I find it difficult to take a request for proof seriously when people refuse >>to discuss even a simple passage...[/QUOTE]

Discussed. Where's steak? You've given us enough sizzle already!

Jack Tarlin

02-10-2005, 17:39

Rocks:

You were directly asked a very simple question:

How much of the Appalachian Trail have you actually hiked?

If you choose not to answer this, you should NEVER again have the gall to accuse people of evading your questions.

So once again: You're such an authority here, on the Trail, on its founder, on the the principles of its caretaking organization. You're an expert, and one who actually cares about the Trail, unlike the rest of us. So tell us:

How much have you actually done?

Thank you in advance for the maturity of a prompt and simple response. It is, after all, a very simple question.

rickb

02-10-2005, 17:51

While some of the questions posed to Rocks are clearly rhetorical, Jack's question about how many miles have he's hiked is a fair one, I think.

Despite how the question was asked.

FWIW, I am reminded that there have been others who had strong opinions on "how the trail should be done". You guys are smarter than me, but Avery sure did, and perhaps Earl Schaffer did too.

That was OK, wasn't it?

No individual's decision to hike the Trail is worth a second thought, IMHO. I buy into that version of HYOH 100%. That said, thru hiking has changed a bit since Earl's trip, as we all know. Is it getting better for each class?

The upside of hiker feeds, and fat balding middle aged men (like me) returning to the Trail with cookies is easy too see. As is the upside of commercial enterprises willing to shuttle hikers out of thier hub for days and weeks on end. Or hiking high. And the upside of new paths which allow one to carry less food into the 100 Miles is as plain as day.

But is there any downside? With regard to how great thru hikes will be in 25 years, I mean.

For me, that's what thread like these are about.

That said, not much one can do to stem progress. Just take a look at how the AMC has evloved. :-)

Rick B

JoeHiker

02-10-2005, 18:47

Joe Hiker:
You're avoiding the point. I asked you to please tell me what you considered ATC meant when it distinguished between hikers who arrived there by foot and those who didn't and why they considered that a "conflict". You failed to do that. But even worse you tried to seek validation of that by criticizing me.
I didn't avoid your silly point. I asked you to clarify it as I did not know exactly what "conflict" you were referring to. You so often put your own words into the mouths of the ATC and Benton MacKaye that it's difficult to keep track.

The ATC talked about hiking to "remote locations". To "wilderness areas". If you see NotYet's van sitting up on a mountain in the middle of the trail, you might even have a point, RnR. But on a public road or automotive trail access point, you do not.

The ATC is talking about activities on the trail, RnR. The trail. Public roads are not the trail. Not even public roads that go through the Wilderness.

More importantly, you have still completely failed to establish that what NotYet does even comes close to falling within the scope of what the AT called "some activities".

If we apply ATC's words here to one of the Trail's most remote areas, the 100 Mile Wilderness, we can see them plainly state that foot travel is the desired method of arriving. No we do not.

Or rather, we do if we live in Rock n Roots fantasy world, where the ATC wilderness ethics are whatever we want them to be. Foot travel is the desired method of traversing the trail -- duh -- but the guidelines say nothing about how one reaches it in the first place.

But then again, silly me, I don't equate "wilderness location" with anywhere along US Route 201. I certainly wouldn't call it part of the AT. Is the ATC planning to annex it?

You refuse to answer the one single direct example I've provided.Answered. You in turn have refused to answer one single direct question that ANYONE has asked. Here's the latest one I've asked you already. How exactly is your opportunity for self reliance diminished by the knowledge that someone else didn't have to hike as hard as you did? Exactly now. Are you so weak of will that the mere knowledge of NotYet's van is going to send you running off the trail for the nearest Burger King?

Answer the question

There's no getting around that. People who refuse to answer the obvious and then return with counting the number of times an irrelevantly-construed word is mentioned, while ignoring the words they can't deny, are not arguing honestly. What exactly is the standard for an "irrelevantly construed" word here? Is there some alternate meaning of "opportunity" I've missed? Please, I'd like a guideline. So far it seems to be basically any word or passage which does not coincide your personal view of the AT doesn't matter. It must be very convenient for you, being able to only select the words you like.

The avoidance tactic of singling out road crossings as a means of denying the AT claim to a wilderness ethic is illegitimate.Bzzzt! Sorry! Wrong again! Still trying to pose your personal views as the AT Wilderness Ethic. I do not deny "the AT claim to a wilderness ethic". I deny your ridiculous interpretation of it.

If you follow this thread what we have was people asking for proof of the AT's wilderness ethic in writing. When they get it they either ignore the obvious or remain silent. That speaks for itself. What we have here is you interpreting the AT's wilderness ethic to a ridiculous extreme. When no-one agrees with you that NotYet is violating it, your only response is that we just don't understand. When we ask you to back up your claim that MacKaye's purpose for the trail was Wilderness Preservation, you come back with ...nothing.

This is the danger I've been pointing out manifesting itself. It's an insidious attack on AT wilderness. An attack on the AT itself.No, Drama Queen, it's merely an attack on your posing as the Holy High Priest of AT Wilderness ethics

weary

02-10-2005, 18:58

I live in ahouse on a street. If that''s a a trailhead..it is news to me. :)
(Though THERE is a bike path ~5 min. from my house...)

Now, like you, I need a vehicle to get to the mountains. Be it a bike the local trailheads in the foothills or a car to the divide (~45 minutes distant or so).

Having said that: You did not mention thru-hiking evolving into day hikes. You quoted me mentioning a van in aparking lot. Am I to assume you are talking about thru-hikes evolving to day hikes from a sentence about the van? Wow..you give me more insight that I deserve! ;)

I sincerely doubt thru-hike will be mainly day hikes with van support. Is this what this whole thread is about? A fear that will probably not happen? If 30 van supported hikes a year happens (a very high amount), I sincerely doubt it would have an impact on the 3000 thru-hike attempts a year.
Sorry, about that. You've told us so many times about your hikes I assumed you lived near the trail.

As for not mentioning thru hikes evolving into day hikes, as near as I could figure that seemed to me to be one of the multiple themes of this confusing thread, though as I say, "I've been wrong before."

Weary

Mags

02-10-2005, 19:21

But is there any downside? With regard to how great thru hikes will be in 25 years, I mean.

For me, that's what thread like these are about.

Rick B

Indeed. It IS a very good discussion. The problem is when someone claims to have "The one true AT faith".

We can all disagree. We can all have different opions. The problems arise when some people insult and disparage other people because they do not hold your views.

For what it is worth, I think excessive hiker feeds and such have changed the character of the trail. Heck, the PCT is evolving radidly as well. Is it bad? Is it good? I don't think it is either...it is just change.

Old story:

The king asked his wisemen to think of something that will be true today, that was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. After many months the wise men went to the king. The wisemen said "Sire, we have the one thing in life that the will be true today, will be true tomorrow and was true yesterday" The wisemen unfurled a banner. The banner said
"This too will change".

Change is the one constant in the world. Now, none of us can predict how something will change. But I will tell you this: without change anything goes into stagnation. Stagnation means decay. Decay means gone.

I'd like to think of the AT as a living, breathing entity. An entity that is evolving. Where this evolution is heading, I;m not sure. But the AT will change...and change is good. Wether the RESULT of the change is good is another whole ball of wax.

Mags

02-10-2005, 19:31

]Sorry, about that. You've told us so many times about your hikes I assumed you lived near the trail.[/QUOTE]

Weary, I am sure you know what the word assume spells? :)

The outdoor is an important part of my life. I am single (well dating someone) and have no children. I think anyone in my position would gladly go 1 hr away to go hiking. Do I detect a slightly veiled insult? Tis OK..I do the same thing, too. ;-)

[QUOTE=wearyAs for not mentioning thru hikes evolving into day hikes, as near as I could figure that seemed to me to be one of the multiple themes of this confusing thread, though as I say, "I've been wrong before."
Weary[/QUOTE]

Ah. assuming again? :)

So the questions are then: are day hikes by themselves evil? Are supported thru-hikes evil? Are many numbers of supported thru-hikes evil? If, so, how many a year? If they are evil, why are they?

NotYet

02-10-2005, 21:18

Also, the second listed AT goal specifies "self-reliance". ...

If the ATC were actually specifying that "self-reliance" is a goal for anyone hiking on the AT, they would be imposing a very difficult to define goal on others. The ATC would be taking away the hiker's right to formulate and define his or her own goals, thereby stripping the hiker of some of his or her own self-reliance.

Instead, in their guidelines the ATC chose to write...

• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;

"Opportunities" is a key word here. It is not incidental nor is it irrelevant to the meaning of the statement. Solitude, freedom, personal accomplishment, self-reliance, and self-discovery cannot be imposed on others...these are all things that must ultimately be understood from within.

If the ATC were to demand that self-reliance be the goal of everyone hiking on the trail, they would then have to define "how much" self-reliance is the correct amount. Is sleeping in a shelter that other people built self-reliant enough? Is sleeping in a tent that was purchased in a store self-reliant enough? Is it okay to use a tarp that you made even though you purchased the materials to make the tarp? Of course, these are absurd questions.

The ATC does not expect or want a hiker to head out with only a knife (that he made himself) to hunt and forage for food, skin animals for clothing, build personal shelters made of sticks, skins or even duff for protection. There are degrees of self-reliance, and the whole concept can be taken to riduclous extremes.

The point is, the ATC wants the trail to be a place where one can have the opportunity to experience self-reliance. It is such a place, and the amount or degree of your own self-reliance remains your choice.

orangebug

02-10-2005, 21:30

Jack, the nameless one is known to a precious few hikers as an old man living on a barrier island, carping about how much he worked with the AT in NY, that he hiked sometimes in the mid-80's and that he has a unique understanding of The Creator. You may notice that he sinks into the old Moral Majority defense, that his silent supporters are somehow enemies of the One True Cause as they don't parrot his liturgy. When asked for any details about his Faith, works and experience, he will be quite reluctant to share anything. His biggest asset is consistency. Of course, consistency is a problem if usually wrong.

Of course, he is able to share his low opinion of anyone who dares to inject reason into this folly.

I suspect his eulogy will be "Frequently Wrong, but Seldom in Doubt." Obviously, he is Irish.

orangebug

02-10-2005, 21:40

..."Opportunities" is a key word here. It is not incidental nor is it irrelevant to the meaning of the statement. Solitude, freedom, personal accomplishment, self-reliance, and self-discovery cannot be imposed on others...these are all things that must ultimately be understood from within...Sort of like our Constitution promises us the "pursuit of happiness." Ain't no guarantees we will achieve happiness, but the opportunity is there to seek it.

BTW, I agree the much more useful discussion is how to help the ATC guide the inevitable changes into a means of broadening the trail experience to more of the population without creating an I-95 experience. As much as I have wished for signs at road crossings and gaps for services, I agree that the lack of commercial signage is a "good thing." I wish Uncle Johnny's signage was down in Erwin, especially as the facility is practically in the middle of the trail. I suspect that the support of good planning guides, Companions and Handbooks should help reduce the temptation of commercialism on the AT.

max patch

02-10-2005, 21:54

Jack, the nameless one is known to a precious few hikers as an old man living on a barrier island

I haven't followed this thread so I don't know what ya'll are yammering about, but I can make the observation that not only is RnR a LOT younger than OB but he has hiked the entire trail over 2 years and at least has the necessary experience as a foundation -- whether we agree with them or not -- for his opinions.

orangebug

02-10-2005, 23:41

Think so? It is a lot easier to determine my age, address and experience. I also have a tendency to be capable of education and to be receptive to criticism. I do not pretend to offer the One True Way To Interpret The Creator or the ATC Guidelines.

If those qualities detract from my credibility, at least you got what you paid for it.

BTW, on the age issue. I know a few 40-somethings much older than me. I know more 70-somethings younger. Age ain't just what the calendar reads. RnR is an old man.

Mountain Dew

02-11-2005, 01:56

What's wrong with the Irish Orangebug ?

orangebug

02-11-2005, 08:08

Well, I would complain "there goes the ethnic background" if he actually is Irish. :bse

weary

02-11-2005, 10:39

Mags

02-11-2005, 11:44

Whatever the quote means, it doesn't refer to driving ATVs to a shelter.
All motors on the trail are inappropriate, and prohibited by law, except where the trail traverses public roads, regardless of whether it is a rural, pastoral or primitive section.

Weary

Well, obviously. I used hyperbole to show how an ATV would ruin a wilderness exerpience.

So, again, I'll ask:

Are day hikes by themselves evil? Are supported thru-hikes evil? Are many numbers of supported thru-hikes evil? If, so, how many a year? If they are evil, why are they?
And I'll add another one: Why are they in direct opposition to the ATC quote that RnR brought up?

I am very much a Magnanti:We have a low tolerance for indirect answers to direct questions.

Also, be careful of using the word "evil" Bob. It is a very loaded word and not something that should be used in casual discussion on an Internet forum. However, since you did use the word, I'd like to know the answer to my questions.

Thanks!

rickb

02-11-2005, 11:55

The Old Fhart

02-11-2005, 14:03

post #1-"While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location".While this is an exact quote, it has inadvertently been taken out of context so the meaning of the phrase: “for people who may have hiked to that location" is now being argued whereas the previous part of the quote made the meaning quite clear. There are a few who incorrectly assume that the A.T. was designed for long distance hikers and even one who feels that everyone else except him should be excluded from the trail. If you look at post #1 you will see that the ATC clearly explains the “purpose” of the trail.(emphasis mine)
The lands acquired and managed for the Appalachian Trail, not only protect the footpath itself, but provide primary protection of the Trail experience. The Trail experience, as used in this context, is intended to represent the sum of opportunities that are available for those walking the Appalachian Trail to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible. Integral to this Trail experience are:
• opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world;
• a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;
• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;
• a sense of being on the height of the land;
• opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside;
• a feeling of being part of the natural environment; and
• opportunities for travel on foot, including opportunities for long-distance hiking.
As you can see, the ATC clearly states that one of the purposes of the trail is “opportunities for travel on foot,” and everyone agrees with that goal if we are talking about on trail use. Note that in this quote they have said nothing about commercial use on or off the trail but that is clearly covered by law and regulations. The ATC’s Local Management Planning Guide, section 4, available here (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/policies/lmpg.html)devotes 56 pages very clearly stating what is not allowed.

But the ATC states the trail experience is ”to represent the sum of opportunities that are available”…………….. "including opportunities for long-distance hiking." Long distance hiking is only one of many uses of the A.T., and, interestingly, the last one mentioned. Nowhere in all the quote of all the rules and regulations does it ever state, or even hint, the the purpose of the trail is thru hiking. That is why, in 1948, when Earl Shaffer completed what may have been the first reported thru hike, no one believed him because they couldn't concieve of anyone thru hiking the trail. In the ATC’s 199 page Local Management Planning Guide and all other publications, there is never any mention of thru hiking as a purpose of the A.T.. Thru hiking is a miniscule part of the "trail experience" and to claim that we, as thru hikers, have some special rights (unless specifically mentioned in the rules), is pure lunacy.

So as to Mags quote, which is very good
Mags-“Are day hikes by themselves evil? Are supported thru-hikes evil? Are many numbers of supported thru-hikes evil? If, so, how many a year? If they are evil, why are they?” I also don't like the word "evil" because the meaning is subjective, but I think the quote should read
-“Are day hikes by themselves evil? Are supported thru-hikes evil? Are many numbers of supported thru-hikes evil? If, so, how many a year? Are thru-hikes evil? Is any use of the A.T. evil? If they are evil, why are they?”Maybe the way to end this arguing is to just ban thru hikers from the trail, seems everyone else is o.k. with the use definition. :D (yes, that statement is a joke for you humor impaired)

Mags

02-11-2005, 14:10

Come on Mags, that's not playing fair.

They are no more evil than the Patagonia Wearing Hut Mongers that so many seasoned hikers (including some of the most seasoned participating in this thread) gripe about.

Rick B

(Who is at peace with the huts, and the good people who take advantage of them-- BTW.)

HEy..Bob called them (vans in parking lots supporting thru-hiikes) evil, not me. Talk to Bob. :) [1]

[1] To be fair he used the term "..the beginnings of evil".

weary

02-11-2005, 15:53

So, again, I'll ask:

Are day hikes by themselves evil?

No. Of course not.

Are supported thru-hikes evil? Are many numbers of supported thru-hikes evil?

No. But the trail experience would change if the practice became common. The sense -- the spirit in Rick's words -- of wildness that some of us seek would diminish.

Why are they in direct opposition to the ATC quote that RnR brought up?

I don't know that they are. I don't really know what ATC means by those words. I just thought that RnR's claim was at least a plausible meaning. Certainly his claim doesn't deserve all the acrimony it has generated.

Also, be careful of using the word "evil" Bob. It is a very loaded word and not something that should be used in casual discussion on an Internet forum.

Well my use was partly ironic, partly hyperbole, partly just a shortcut, a rather common cliche.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-11-2005, 16:31

While some of the questions posed to Rocks are clearly rhetorical, Jack's question about how many miles have he's hiked is a fair one, I think.

Rick:

If you've noticed Jack has presented nothing a but a string of personal attacks instead of any thoughts on the topic. I'm curious about you because you seem to grasp the idea of organized wilderness, then give it all away with things like this (Weary too). Your ice cream truck analogy was a good one. Notice it went unanswered? I would answer Jack if I thought it was anything other than a way to avoid the topic and drag the thread into the *****-slinging these guys prefer to civil discussion of serious AT matters. Isn't it obvious that certain members can't answer the topic and feel a need to retaliate? Which only proves my assertion that anyone who tries to explain even a simple interpretation of the AT is attacked by the AT community. These people don't like the AT, they just "don't understand" why...

Below is Jack's total contribution to the topic:

.

Mags

02-11-2005, 16:40

In reference to the ATC quote:

I don't know that they are. I don't really know what ATC means by those words. I just thought that RnR's claim was at least a plausible meaning. Certainly his claim doesn't deserve all the acrimony it has generated.

Weary

Yers, but Bob, none of us (you, I, Rick, Jack, et al.) claim to know the exact meaning and application of the words. You,I, Rick, Jack et al are having a nice discussion about the effects of hyperboled cliched, ironic evil vans at trailhead parking lots. And that's cool. It is OK to have difference of opinions.

What is not OK is to insult and disparage (be it a single person or a whole community) people. And that my friend is the source of acrimony. I may not always agree with your opinion Bob. But you have put countless hours of trail work and advocacy on the behalf of the AT. You have hiked the trail. We all respect your opinion, seriously. I have yet to hear you call anyone superficial. :)

RnR? It is dubious what he has done for the trail other than post on an Internet forum. To top it all off, he then insults people (again on single and community wide basis) who disagree with him. He does not deserve acrimony, nor contempt, but simply to be ignored.

Mags

02-11-2005, 16:44

In reference to vans supoprting thru-hikes:

No. But the trail experience would change if the practice became common. The sense -- the spirit in Rick's words -- of wildness that some of us seek would diminish.
Weary

Yes..but that's the crux..isn't it. Van supported hikes will more than likely not be common. Theoretically possible, highly improbable. If I see 10 van supported hikes a year, that would be a lot.

And we are back to couting thru-hiking angels on a pin head.

Let's get back tot steak and less sizzle.

The Old Fhart

02-11-2005, 16:51

RnR-" Your ice cream truck analogy was a good one. Notice it went unanswered?"Actually it was answered by several people. Once again, RnR, you don't read or understand anything.

RnR, why don't you try answering the countless questions asked of you? Are you so afraid or just incapable of organized and logical thought?

Rocks 'n Roots

02-11-2005, 17:04

I didn't avoid your silly point. I asked you to clarify it as I did not know exactly what "conflict" you were referring to.

Yes you did. I don't believe you're as unaware are you say you are Joe. You seem to have enough awareness to deliberately dodge the main point on a consistent basis.

You have nerve accusing me of picking out words I like when your specious focusing on the irrelevant word "opportunity" is such an obvious dodge. The word "opportunity" here is just ATC's soft style, it means nothing. Only a person seeking to avoid the obvious would attempt to construe this as ATC offering a way out of its own rules. Any objective observer would see what you are doing. So we can conclude that you are in contempt of the ATC guidelines and their meanings and won't ever admit to what they say. This only proves that AT internet members are more organized against AT wilderness than for it.

We have discussed, numerous times, the difference between a through-hike and a supported one. No one can deny that a through-hike of the 100 Mile Wilderness is a wilder experience than a supported one. This is why you dodge this every time. I consider that dishonest. Since the AT was designed for immersing people in wilderness, breaking up that designed experience by overcoming the challenge with motorized support is contrary to the AT's goals. Trying to divert this to a road crossing canard is only dodging the point. You simply refuse to discuss how this trend will affect the AT experience and weaken its purpose. Saying, well "why should that bother you?" is a dumb question. Why should ATC mention it in the guidelines? (unanswered)

Joe, you can say "those are your ideas", or "I don't see where ATC forbids it", but those are just means of avoiding recognition of what I just wrote. Why don't you try a response dealing with the experience-level I just outlined? Surely that is reflected in the guideline's distinguishing between those "who arrive there by foot and those who don't". To answer this with discussions of the word "opportunity" is just plain dishonest. Again, you dodge answering what, exactly, ATC meant?

Also, I think Weary knows this is true but decides to lay back for whatever reason. Which makes me wonder about him...

Also, answering this with "Are you saying day-hiking is evil" is just a way of getting around what ATC is writing there...

Rocks 'n Roots

02-11-2005, 17:22

Yes..but that's the crux..isn't it. Van supported hikes will more than likely not be common. Theoretically possible, highly improbable. If I see 10 van supported hikes a year, that would be a lot.

And we are back to counting thru-hiking angels on a pin head.

False. What we are getting to here is seeking ways to ignore the obvious.

Has the AT changed from 1937? Yes, very definitely. Since the majority of corridor has been protected and a permanent buffer established, what are those changes?

Is the AT's goal one of establishing a place where wild surroundings are created and the designed experience in those surroundings protected by a designed wilderness ethic? Yes.

Does the appearance of even 10 support operations change the Trail? Yes. (Self-reliant hikes are now supported. The continuum of wilderness experience is broken up by mechanized access, and doing so is accepted as a Trail practice)

Does this now establish a Trail access method that weakens the previous state and definition of the Trail? Yes.

Since the AT's goal is protection of that wild state and the experience gotten from it, is this contrary to the AT's purpose? - Can't be any other way folks. It's civilization. The AT is clearly the opposite.

Since the Trail has gone from no commercial support operations to 10, what will the next step be? What impact will that have on AT wildness? How will it impact the conceptual AT?

ATC is against Trail commercialization. Why? (Mags? Joe?)

You dismiss this too easily Mags. You would find ATC and NPS to take this matter more seriously. This can only show AT hikers prefer a lesser view towards Trail responsibility...

rickb

02-11-2005, 17:39

R&R--

You ever notice that these "R&R threads" don't bring out the very best in us. Any of us?

I do understand your frustration. If the ATC had more of the HYOH mind set, they would be spending money on a blue blaze to the race course in PA, rather than fighting it to the bitter end.

FWIW, I think you are a good guy who shares my own concept of a larger truth. That said, the same discussion has been going on for years. How's it working?

If you want my advise, I'll post it.

Rick B

The Old Fhart

02-11-2005, 18:08

RnR post #186-“The word "opportunity" here is just ATC's soft style, it means nothing.”
………….So we can conclude that you are in contempt of the ATC guidelines and their meanings and won't ever admit to what they say. LOL, RnR, even you must see how absurd your asinine statements are! You first accuse the ATC guidelines as being meaningless and in the next breath you “are in contempt of the ATC guidelines and their meanings and won't ever admit to what they say.” The guidelines mean exactly what they say and you can't cross out the words you don't like. How long did it take you to come up with something as stupid as that? (that is a rhetorical question)

RnR-“We have discussed, numerous times, the difference between a through-hike and a supported one. No one can deny that a through-hike of the 100 Mile Wilderness is a wilder experience than a supported one.’ LOL, RnR, what is this “WE”, you are the only one talking about this imagined difference. And the terminology is not “through hike,” it is “thru hike” which means end-to-end, i.e. the entire A.T.. By definition you can’t have a “through hike” of the 100-mile “wilderness” which even the ATC doesn’t consider “wilderness.”

Why don’t you answer even the simplest questions asked of you? Why can’t you comment on my post #179? The reason is simple. You have no ideas, no capability to understand, all you can do is recite your one line mantra that only you know the true way and everyone else, MacKaye, the ATC, and all hikers are wrong. Sounds like the definition of a paranoid delusion to me.

JoeHiker

02-11-2005, 19:49

Only a person seeking to avoid the obvious would attempt to construe this as ATC offering a way out of its own rules.I never said the ATC was "offering a way out of it's own rules. I said that your interpretation of them was wrong. Please, please try to get this straight for once. It becomes so tiresome to have to repeat it to you over and over again.

Any objective observer would see what you are doing. So we can conclude that you are in contempt of the ATC guidelines and their meanings and won't ever admit to what they say. This only proves that AT internet members are more organized against AT wilderness than for it. So let me see if I have this straight. Any objective observer can see what I'm doing? Yet apparently, of all the people on WhiteBlaze, you are the only one! You are the only objective observer here, is that it? Oops, I forgot about Weary (who I suspect wants no part of this).

We have discussed, numerous times, the difference between a through-hike and a supported one. No one can deny that a through-hike of the 100 Mile Wilderness is a wilder experience than a supported one. This is why you dodge this every time. I consider that dishonest. No, my reading-comprehension-challenged friend. I simply deny that NotYet is responsible for your experience. I deny that the ATC ever meant to refer to cars parked at a road crossing as the "certain activities' in question. I deny that your opportunity for self reliance is hindered by the knowledge that the hiker next to you is slackpacking. I deny that actually seeing (gasp!) a van as you cross a public road is any more "distressing" than seeing the road itself. If it is, you need therapy.

Since the AT was designed for immersing people in wilderness,Wait a second. I thought the AT was designed for "Wilderness Preservation"? Didn't you tell us all this, ad nauseum? Didn't you go to great lengths to stress that THIS was Benton MacKaye's purpose for it? Wilderness Preservation. I know you certainly went to great lengths to avoid putting forth any evidence of it. Until finally pinned down you had to admit you would have to "research" the topic.

But now it is designed for "immersing people in the Wilderness", eh? Check. Sounds like you're getting closer to what MacKaye actually wrote.

breaking up that designed experience by overcoming the challenge with motorized support is contrary to the AT's goals. Wrong. It's contrary to your goals though, that much is obvious.

Trying to divert this to a road crossing canard is only dodging the point. You simply refuse to discuss how this trend will affect the AT experience and weaken its purpose. Saying, well "why should that bother you?" is a dumb question. Why should ATC mention it in the guidelines? (unanswered)You simply refuse to answer the question I've asked of you 3 times: How is your opportunity for self reliance hindered by seeing NotYet's van sitting at a road crossing? How? Hell, according to you it's hindered by simply knowing that some other hiker got help from it. How?

You can't answer it, can you? Because any answer you come up with invariably resorts to some form of mental anguish over the mere knowledge.

Joe, you can say "those are your ideas", or "I don't see where ATC forbids it", but those are just means of avoiding recognition of what I just wrote. I think was you wrote is a an extremist, absurd interpretetation of what the ATC wrote, RnR. I absolutely recognize it as such and I reject it.

Why don't you try a response dealing with the experience-level I just outlined? Surely that is reflected in the guideline's distinguishing between those "who arrive there by foot and those who don't".Go read Old Fhart's post #179. I think that addresses the point very clearly.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=85720&postcount=179

To answer this with discussions of the word "opportunity" is just plain dishonest. To ignore the word "opportunity" because it belies your argument is just plain dishonest

Also, I think Weary knows this is true but decides to lay back for whatever reason. Which makes me wonder about him...Tell you what, RnR. Let's let Weary speak for himself, shall we? If he "knows this is true" he is free to tell us all how right you are. He doesn't need you to speak for him any more than Benton MacKaye or the ATC do.

TJ aka Teej

02-11-2005, 20:19

Same R&R crap, different year, different forum.
It says a great deal about R&R's actual intent when spamming the at-l and Whiteblaze with his imagined history, snotty hysterics, shifting opinions, and intellectual cowardice, while posting nothing but "oh my yes, isn't that a nifty sleeping bag!" and "golly gee whiz, Mr Wingfoot, thank you for being you!" over on Trailplace. He is here and on the at-l to be a disruptive and negative influence - nothing more.

weary

02-11-2005, 20:34

Same R&R crap, ...while posting nothing but ... "golly gee whiz, Mr Wingfoot, thank you for being you!" over on Trailplace.
As often is the case, TeeJ doesn't have the vaguest idea what he is talking about. His assumed facts are totally wrong.

Weary

TJ aka Teej

02-12-2005, 00:03

As often is the case, TeeJ doesn't have the vaguest idea what he is talking about.
You want people to believe that R&R posts his same at-l and WhiteBlaze crap on TrailPlace? You're saying R&R is the same disruptive and negative Troll over on TP as he is on the at-l and WB? Weary, you either don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about, or you're intentionally being false. I hope you're just clueless. Please Bob, just to keep the debate honest, point us to those posts over on TrailPlace you are refering to. Here: www.trailplace.com (http://www.trailplace.com) I'll check in later to see the Trailplace posts you provide that back up what you've typed.

weary

02-12-2005, 00:59

You want people to believe that R&R posts his same at-l and WhiteBlaze crap on TrailPlace? You're saying R&R is the same disruptive and negative Troll over on TP as he is on the at-l and WB? Weary, you either don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about, or you're intentionally being false. I hope you're just clueless. Please Bob, just to keep the debate honest, point us to those posts over on TrailPlace you are refering to. Here: www.trailplace.com (http://www.trailplace.com) I'll check in later to see the Trailplace posts you provide that back up what you've typed.
I'm saying the latest version of Trailplace began 18 months or so ago, and R'nR didn't become a member until just three months ago today. Those who know both Wingfoot and R'nR can probably guess why.

Since November the messages I've seen of his on Trailplace have been mostly the same as his messages on WhiteBlaze, namely that the preservation and enhancement of a wild trail is important.

Weary

Jack Tarlin

02-12-2005, 13:13

Rocks, simple question for the third time:

How much of the Trail have you actually hiked?

Second question:

Why are you so reluctant to tell us?

And lastly, don't EVER accuse other folks of ducking direct questions here, unless you want to look totally ridiculous. Your excuses are puny and weak.

You've been asked a very direct and very simple question.

How bout an answer?

The Old Fhart

02-12-2005, 13:44

Jack, from what I can gather, RnR did some hiking around 1985-1986. He apparently lived in NY at that time and may have cleaned up garbage around one shelter. After that he apparently moved and has had no contact with the trail (or reality). That explains his total ignorance of anyone connected with the trail for the last 20 years. If you notice he uses the term “through hiker” rather than “thru hiker.” He is ignorant of ATC, federal law and rules, and Benton MacKaye. The only way he can justify his existence is to live in his own paranoid delusion where he is the only one who possesses the TRUTH and everyone else is against him. Don’t expect an answer from RnR because he has none. If ignorance is bliss, he is in 7th heaven.

A-Train

02-12-2005, 13:58

This thread and ones like it have gone past the point of no return. I know I'm gonna get chirped at because "I can't add to the "conversation'". This is absolutely true. This has just turned into a bunch of name calling and $hit hurling and has been so for awhile. Rocks only has interest in answering selected questions so why continue to drag this on?

weary

02-12-2005, 14:17

Why are you so reluctant to tell us?

Possibly because he has told us several times that he hiked the entire trail over two seasons and later injured his back moving rocks while on a trail crew in New York. A second reason maybe that the answer has no significance in terms of what ATC guidelines mean.

Weary

The Old Fhart

02-12-2005, 14:56

Weary-"Possibly because he has told us several times that he hiked the entire trail over two seasons and later injured his back moving rocks while on a trail crew in New York. A second reason maybe that the answer has no significance in terms of what ATC guidelines mean."Actually I don't think even you believe he "told us several times." You'd have to do a search to piece all that information together to support that he told us once. And while you are right that "the answer has no significance in terms of what ATC guidelines mean", the real problem is that RnR's rare answer has no significance in terms of what ATC guidelines mean. You know as a journalist you would be fired if you came out with wild claims and couldn't support them with facts. Everyone else can recite chapter and verse of numerous documents, why can't RnR? (That is a rhetorical question.)

Rocks 'n Roots

02-12-2005, 17:03

I simply deny that NotYet is responsible for your experience. I deny that the ATC ever meant to refer to cars parked at a road crossing as the "certain activities' in question. I deny that your opportunity for self reliance is hindered by the knowledge that the hiker next to you is slackpacking. I deny that actually seeing (gasp!) a van as you cross a public road is any more "distressing" than seeing the road itself. If it is, you need therapy.You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with ATC. I asked you to please explain exactly why ATC felt a need to differentiate between "hikers who arrive there by foot and those who don't"? You refuse once again. Instead you try to force this into a trailhead parking issue. We've explained numerous times what we are talking about is how mechanized access into remote stretches of trail affects the hiker's trail experience and conflicts with the Trail's goals? You refuse to answer this. Therefore we can conclude you are deliberately avoiding the real meaning by answering only to your dodges. You justify this by saying "I deny your extreme interpretation". What you are really saying is I deny any interpretation - even ATC's.

Your attempt to avoid the obvious is so great that you say "I deny that your opportunity for self-reliance is hindered by the knowledge that the hiker next to you is slackpacking." I'm not talking about MY self-reliance, but that of those who use the support service. Since ATC mentions self-reliance as one of its goals, and those who use mechanized support are clearly not self-reliant, we can reasonably conclude that the goal is not being upheld. No ridiculous contrivance or irrelevant focusing on the word "opportunity" can change that. But, really, we are talking about the motivation for needing to change that. That motivation is clearly a need to get around deliberately-designed wilderness and the ethic that goes with it...

"You need therapy"??? Slurs are usually the sign of those who disrespect the subject to begin with. I've noticed that those who question the AT's wilderness ethic usually resort to them early, often, and without any concern for decorum.

Quote:
Since the AT was designed for immersing people in wilderness,
Wait a second. I thought the AT was designed for "Wilderness Preservation"? Didn't you tell us all this, ad nauseum? Didn't you go to great lengths to stress that THIS was Benton MacKaye's purpose for it? Wilderness Preservation. I know you certainly went to great lengths to avoid putting forth any evidence of it. Until finally pinned down you had to admit you would have to "research" the topic.

But now it is designed for "immersing people in the Wilderness", eh? Check. Sounds like you're getting closer to what MacKaye actually wrote.

More hair-splitting semantics in replacement of acknowledging the obvious. The Trail was meant for both. This is just another fillibuster excercise in order to avoid the obvious.

Let's establish that Benton MacKaye's wilderness plans for the AT are well-known to anybody who has seriously researched the Trail. A sure sign of lack of qualification is those who challenge this. But let's not kid ourselves, the need to challenge this isn't for accuracy, but is instead a way to justify lesser Trail views towards Trail responsibility. The travesty is someone taking a patronizing tone of authorative knowledge who questions this basic AT premise.

You simply refuse to answer the question I've asked of you 3 times: How is your opportunity for self reliance hindered by seeing NotYet's van sitting at a road crossing? How? Hell, according to you it's hindered by simply knowing that some other hiker got help from it. How?
I don't think you are in any position to ask. However, for the Trail-deaf I'll repeat, it strikes the hiker at the organizational/conceptual level you refuse to recognize - though ATC seems to in its guideline. It's very hard to support an AT wilderness ethic when other hikers are so intent at denying/destroying it (as you are).

I think was you wrote is a an extremist, absurd interpretetation of what the ATC wrote, RnR. I absolutely recognize it as such and I reject it.Sounds like a considered viewpoint. But if you were honest you would simply say you reject ANY notion of AT wilderness. If you could show me ANY example of the Trail community recognizing or discussing a common wilderness understanding your comment would have more merit. However, you'll find that even ATC's written indications of this ethic are rejected. Your refusal to discuss even these exposes your position (which is just basically a non-position or denial)...

weary

02-12-2005, 17:22

Actually I don't think even you believe he "told us several times." ...
Well, I've known these things for a long time, and the bit about R'nR's two year thru hike was mentioned fairly recently, so that makes twice anyway. Besides, there's hardly anything on these forums that gets said only once.

Certainly, everything else on this thread has been said multiples of several times.

Weary

Frosty

02-12-2005, 17:42

Besides, there's hardly anything on these forums that gets said only once.You can say that again. :)

The Old Fhart

02-12-2005, 17:43

Weary-"Well, I've known these things for a long time,..."LOL! I'm sure there are a lot of things you've known for a long time so please don't try to construe that to mean it was posted here. Maybe you saw it on Trailplace. I'll wait for you to show me where it was posted here "several times," or even twice. And there is no logical connection between "everything else on this thread has been said multiples of several times," and your claim. That's like saying because the word "post" has appeared in this thread over 200 times so far that RnR has posted his trail experience over 200 times. You know better than that.

weary

02-12-2005, 18:25

LOL! I'm sure there are a lot of things you've known for a long time so please don't try to construe that to mean it was posted here. Maybe you saw it on Trailplace. I'll wait for you to show me where it was posted here "several times," or even twice. And there is no logical connection between "everything else on this thread has been said multiples of several times," and your claim. That's like saying because the word "post" has appeared in this thread over 200 times so far that RnR has posted his trail experience over 200 times. You know better than that.
Hey, relax. I don't have a clue as to when and where R'nR told of his trail experience. I certainly recall something fairly recently. When I posted originally I had the thought in my mind that he had posted the information "several times." He certainly has posted everything else several times, as has those who criticize his views of the trail.

Frankly, I could care less. I posted the "several times" (mis?)information because I was tired of hearing the meaningless question, which based on long familiarity with R'nR I knew he wasn't going to answer.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-12-2005, 18:26

Posts like #187 don't get answered for a reason...

orangebug

02-12-2005, 18:36

I am thinking of starting another thread with a poll for reasons why post #187 didn't get answered.

1) You all hate the AT
2) The ATC actually meant something other than _that_ word
3) Benton MacKaye walks on water, and you heatherns don't appreciate him.
4) AT Hikers hate the trail (possibly redundant)
5) I'll have to research that answer with books I've never seen, but I know what is in them
6) Wilderness Preservation burns the skin of disbelievers
7) You didn't answer the question!

Any other choices the poll should have?

The Old Fhart

02-12-2005, 18:41

:clap Orangebug!

Rocks 'n Roots

02-12-2005, 18:46

OB is fooling himself that that isn't just a way of not answering #187. I think we've more than proven there is a strongly represented segment of the Trail community for which this topic is beyond their ability to deal with in any intelligent, honest, or civil manner.

The AT is not exempt from physical reality. Physical reality dictates that all inputs and influences in the AT universe exist under scientifically calculable conditions. It is only scientific to argue that the large force represented by the hiking community will have an impact on the AT. What is really dangerous is having such a large potential impact guided by such abject ignorance and disrespect for basic AT goals. The question now is what ATC needs to do if it intends to keep these goals in the face of such a threat...

The Old Fhart

02-12-2005, 19:12

Rocks 'n Roots

02-12-2005, 21:38

TJ aka Teej

02-12-2005, 21:40

(From post #210, which R&R has quickly edited)That's just stupid. But thanks for showing the childish contempt your views come from...R&R,

Since you are a member of the AT Community, and have exhibited an unequaled disgust and loathing for that same community, may I suggest some ways you might modify your opinion?

First, I suggest you meet, in person, with some of the people you type against. Please consider participating in one or more of the following events listed in the Trail Calendar found here: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7083 (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7083)

Secondly, I suggest you go hike some on the AT this season. There are many easy sections and shelters near road crossings. Go meet some of today's hikers. Visit Harper's Ferry and talk with some of the great volunteers, and maybe give a ride or two to hikers passing through. Come up to Maine and stay with me at Baxter Park and meet the AT hikers coming through. I'm booking lean-tos in May, August, September, and October. I'll also be hiking in the 100 mile, the Mahoosucs, the northern Long Trail, and the Whites, as well as visiting many service providers in NH and ME, if you need a shuttle anywhere up here just ask.

And thirdly, if interacting with other members of the 'real' and 'Internet' AT Community as suggested above hasn't improved your opinion of us, I suggest you find a grander scale for your complaints. Write an article for the Appalachian Trailways News, or for the ALDHA newsletter, on why you think we are a '"farce" and what we should do to improve ourselves. Write a calm and well thought-out essay about how you feel about us and post it on WhiteBlaze, the at-l, and TrailPlace. Go to an ALDHA Gathering, stand up and be recognized during your AT year's rollcall, and speak up. And while you're there why not give a presentation at the Dartmouth Gathering? It's easy to get on the schedule and book a classroom. You could even schedule a campfire talk at the beach at Storrs Pond if you want.

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

Frosty

02-12-2005, 21:56

Sounds like a 7 year old child sassing back. I thank you for showing us your lack of credibility. Isn't it strange that people who question the topic don't restrain themselves from these kind of assinine posts...jeez, you know...i don't agree with everything the old phart says, but to attack his credibility just shows either ignorance or a desire to merely cause trouble. there is no doubt that the latter is the case here. if you have nothing to contribute, please stop posting. it is serving no good purpose and disrupts the site.

weary

02-12-2005, 22:44

What is really dangerous is having RnR guided by such abject ignorance and disrespect for basic AT goals. The question now is what RnR needs to do if he intends to honor these goals in the face of his idle threats...
Sentence one: I really have no idea what is "really dangerous" about having one guy who hiked 20 years ago and who now lives on an island in Florida being confused about "basic AT goals," even assuming the contention is true.
Sentence two: Is totally confusing. Why does R'nR need to do anything? What "idle threats.?"

Weary

JoeHiker

02-12-2005, 22:45

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with ATC. No, for the 110th time, I'm arguing with you. Just you.

I asked you to please explain exactly why ATC felt a need to differentiate between "hikers who arrive there by foot and those who don't"? You refuse once again.By "refuse" you mean when I pointed you right to Old Fhart's post which answered it better than I? I even gave you a link right to the message. That's "refusing" right? Check. No surprise that you couldn't be bothered even to click it.

Instead you try to force this into a trailhead parking issue We've explained numerous times what we are talking about is how mechanized access into remote stretches of trail affects the hiker's trail experience and conflicts with the Trail's goals? You refuse to answer this. And I've answered repeately that the roads are not the trail. The TRAIL is the trail. You refuse to acknowledge this.

Therefore we can conclude you are deliberately avoiding the real meaning by answering only to your dodges. You justify this by saying "I deny your extreme interpretation". What you are really saying is I deny any interpretation - even ATC's. No, just yours. I've heard a number of other interpretations here which make a lot more sense to me. Or did you think you were the only person posting in this thread?

Your attempt to avoid the obvious is so great that you say "I deny that your opportunity for self-reliance is hindered by the knowledge that the hiker next to you is slackpacking." I'm not talking about MY self-reliance, but that of those who use the support service.No problem I deny that their opportunity for self reliance is hindered as well. No one forces them to use NotYet's services . They choose to. They don't WANT to be self reliant to the degree that you do. So much so that they are willing to pay $10,000 to be supported by her. And if any of them ever want to take advantage of the opportunity they STILL have, all they have to do is walk right on by.

You have yet to explain how this opportunity is hindered. Does NotYet force them to take her services? Does she force-feed them Ding Dongs?

Since ATC mentions self-reliance as one of its goals, Correction -- since ATC mentions the opportunity for self reliance as one of it's goals. Darn! There's that pesky word, "opportunity" again! No matter how many times you stick your head in the sand, it isn't going away. You attempt to dismiss it as "irrelevant" is rejected ouright. The ATC's statement isn't a delicatessen from which can pick and choose only what you like.

"You need therapy"??? Slurs are usually the sign of those who disrespect the subject to begin with. I've noticed that those who question the AT's wilderness ethic usually resort to them early, often, and without any concern for decorum.I, in turn, have noticed that you are incapable of grasping the possibility that the AT Wilderness Ethic is not what you say it is -- that others have a different idea of what it means. This concept so completely baffles you that you blankly ignore it every time it is repeated.

So, though I know I am speaking to a wall here, I will repeat for the umpteenth time: I question your ridiculous interpretation. My disrespect here is for you, and you alone.

Let's establish that Benton MacKaye's wilderness plans for the AT are well-known to anybody who has seriously researched the Trail. Not much research is needed to is find the original document MacKaye wrote proposing. It's posted on the ATC site (and dozens of others). It has has been quoted to you over and over again. It lays out a few very specific purposes for the trail -- not one of which has anything to do with "wilderness preservation".

I have yet to see a single quote, passage, reference ANYTHING from you contradicting this. But hey, facts? Who need em, right RnR? That's the spirt man! Deny Deny Deny.

I don't think you are in any position to ask.Not "in any position to ask"? Look, you megalomaniac, I and anyone else on this forum "is in a position" to ask you to back up any of your silly claims. Who do you think you are?

However, for the Trail-deaf I'll repeat, it strikes the hiker at the organizational/conceptual level you refuse to recognizeThe one that you made up, you mean? Got it.

It's very hard to support an AT wilderness ethic when other hikers are so intent at denying/destroying it (as you are).Curses! You've caught on to my clever plan to destroy the AT Wilderness Ethic. Fight on, Internet Warrior!

orangebug

02-12-2005, 23:19

... It is only scientific to argue that the large force represented by the hiking community will have an impact on the AT. What is really dangerous is having such a large potential impact guided by such abject ignorance and disrespect for basic AT goals. The question now is what ATC needs to do if it intends to keep these goals in the face of such a threat...While not fooling myself that it is utterly impossible to provide an answer satisfactory to RnR, I did find this last comment telling.

Certainly, the hiking community has an impact on the AT. It takes quite a jump away from reason to assume that this impact is a threat. Thus far, the hiking community has kept breathing life into the dream of MacKaye and the schemes of Avery, et al. Without the hiking community, especially the casual day hikers and transient supported hikers - well below the pantheon of legend hikers but far more numerous - the AT would be a distant memory of an Utopian pipe dream.

No the threat to the AT is the lack of impact and use. Just ask Amtrak as its' funding fades.

NotYet, bring 'em on!

("You didn't answer the question!" RnR screetched as if singing from The Wall)

The Old Fhart

02-13-2005, 00:18

RnR post #208“What is really dangerous is having such a large potential impact guided by such abject ignorance and disrespect for basic AT goals. The question now is what ATC needs to do if it intends to keep these goals in the face of such a threat....” Ok, Weary, let’s test your journalistic integrity here by applying the logic of your reply to my pointed parody in post #209, to the original quote, above. You could have said to RnR: “Sentence one: I really have no idea what is "really dangerous" about the A.T. community or the ATC’s basic AT goals," even assuming the contention is true.” You did not say that but instead questioned the parody- why? Does that mean that you disagree with the A.T. community and think that the ATC and federal government spent all this time and effort precisely defining the guidelines for the A.T. for no good reason? I don’t think you really believe that at all. The question is why you chose to remain silent when that ridiculous statement was made but criticized my statement. Is it because, as you mentioned, you feel sorry for ”one guy who hiked 20 years ago and who now lives on an island in Florida being confused about "basic AT goals.”

Secondly, you should have said to RnR: ”Sentence two: Is totally confusing. Why does ATC needs to do anything? What are the threats to ATC policy?” You know that there is only one person here that views ATC policy (or what he imagines ATC policy to be) as a threat, or the A.T. community to be a threat to that policy, and that is RnR. You started this thread with a quote of ATC policy in post #1 that several posters, including myself, have used over and over to defend the ATC and its trail policy. In post #2 I added 2 more references that are also direct quote of trail policy. Again, you didn’t question these policy statements.

I know you are passionate about the trail but it puzzles me in this case why you fail to be forceful about protecting the A.T. guidelines. Even you have said in post #106-“ I don't have a clue about why RnR is hung up about assisted thru hikes.” So tell us truthfully, isn’t RnR’s original statement in post #208 insulting the entire A.T. community and the ATC the “real danger” (not my words) and not the parody?

Rocks 'n Roots

02-13-2005, 00:20

If the ATC were actually specifying that "self-reliance" is a goal for anyone hiking on the AT, they would be imposing a very difficult to define goal on others. ...

Why did they mention "self-reliance" then NotYet? Your attempt to pull this away into an airy rumination over hiker's choice and other undefined intangibles isn't cutting it. Face it, ATC mentioned self-reliance because self-reliance keeps the hiker into wilderness longer and accentuates the AT's goals.

The ATC would be taking away the hiker's right to formulate and define his or her own goals, thereby stripping the hiker of some of his or her own self-reliance.

Whaa??? This is one of the worst attempts at misconstruing ATC's meaning I've ever seen. Normally people would see this for what it was and call you on it, however, that doesn't happen in the AT internet free for all. The above quote is an example of the lengths some people will go to to avoid recognizing ATC's guidelines and their correct meaning. What you wrote is nothing other than an absurd attempt to avoid what ATC meant. If you are saying you disagree with ATC, OK, but be clear to state you are in opposition to the guidelines.

Quote:
• opportunities to experience solitude; freedom; personal accomplishment; self-reliance; and self-discovery;

"Opportunities" is a key word here. It is not incidental nor is it irrelevant to the meaning of the statement. Solitude, freedom, personal accomplishment, self-reliance, and self-discovery cannot be imposed on others...these are all things that must ultimately be understood from within.

No my dear, "opportunities" here is the word you focused on in an out of context way in order to dodge the meaning of the ATC guideline. The "personal accomplishment" and "self-reliance" to which they refer are those gotten from hiking independently for long stretches in the wild. Your statement is completely meaningless in terms of the Trail's wilderness ethic. In fact it is so meaningless, you could just about justify any Trail activity by it and defend it by saying these things can't be imposed and must be understood from within. But if you honestly look at the AT there are many things "imposed". The Trail has many restrictions. What I love about these false interpretations of the AT is that they allow for the opportunity of everything EXCEPT the written guidelines and their meaning...

The point is, the ATC wants the trail to be a place where one can have the opportunity to experience self-reliance. It is such a place, and the amount or degree of your own self-reliance remains your choice.

This is clearly a matter of those who choose to emphasize the word "opportunity" over the words "self-reliance". Since we were talking about self-reliance and why ATC mentioned it, the need to switch to another irrelevant word speaks for itself. Not Yet is clearly avoiding discussing WHY ATC was more than clear in its emphasizing "conflicts" (try that word NotYet) and the difference in experience between "those who walk there and those who don't". We'll use a previous argument from the anti-wilderness ethic camp - if ATC thought "choice" was important they would have mentioned it. Nowhere do they mention choice. They do, however, mention self-reliance and conflicts with the Trail experience.

That brings us back to the individual hiker's experience NotYet refuses to confront. Her interpretation of the word "opportunity" is obviously a forced version ATC did not intend. It is merely a writing technique, not a suggestion of ignoring the guidelines as she has implied...

We haven't discussed why ATC discourages commercialization?

We haven't discussed how van support in remote areas comprises a civilizing of the Trail and therefore diminishes the previous state of wilderness and therefore the hiker's sense of it.

Rocks 'n Roots

02-13-2005, 00:23

Weary:

Please don't assist Old Fhart in his attempt to pull this away from the topic and into space-taking irrelevant crap...

Rocks 'n Roots

02-13-2005, 00:27

It takes quite a jump away from reason to assume that this impact is a threat. Thus far, the hiking community has kept breathing life into the dream of MacKaye

Show me one single example of the hiking community addressing the Trail's wilderness ethic as it applies to users of the Trail (besides their dedicated effort to deny one exists)...

The Old Fhart

02-13-2005, 00:29

RnR-"Please don't assist Old Fhart in his attempt to pull this away from the topic and into space-taking irrelevant crap..."LOL! "space-taking irrelevant crap" like ATC guidelines instead of your BS! You are too funny! :D

Rocks 'n Roots

02-13-2005, 01:23

I see Joe Hiker prefers the pissing-contest style to honest response.

That's "refusing" right? Check. No surprise that you couldn't be bothered even to click it.

All you are doing here Joe is saying you can't answer it yourself. Let me tell you, it showed from the start. What ATC is saying is that hikers who arrive by foot are more in line with the Trail's desired experience. Don't try to divert this into a road crossing canard - what they are talking about is arriving by foot down the Trail. The fact that you didn't understand that speaks a lot. All you've said here is you refuse to discuss the hiker's experience and nothing else.

No problem I deny that their opportunity for self reliance is hindered as well.

The choice and opportunity strawman isn't working Joe Hiker. Any reasonable person not seeking pathetic dodges of the obvious would simply admit that a supported hike eliminates self-reliance. Your desperate attempts at avoiding this are plain for what they are. Because a hiker 'chooses' van support has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Of the words "opportunity" and "self-reliance" which can be dropped and still convey the ATC guideline? Let's see, Joe says "opportunity" is what is important here. OK, ATC drops "self-reliance" and keeps "opportunity". The ATC guideline is now - "ATC wants to provide opportunity". OK, pretty general. Next we'll drop "opportunity" and keep "self-reliance". The ATC guideline is now - "ATC wants to promote self-reliance". Hmm, makes more sense. This silly focus on the word "opportunity" is just a ruse to get around recognizing what significance "self-reliance" has in terms of ATC's wilderness experience goals. So far, Joe, you haven't answered that - short of wise-ass comebacks.

Not much research is needed to is find the original document MacKaye wrote proposing. It's posted on the ATC site (and dozens of others). It has has been quoted to you over and over again. It lays out a few very specific purposes for the trail -- not one of which has anything to do with "wilderness preservation".

This is so wrong and ignorantly defiant that anyone who would dare write such a thing is in complete contempt for the Trail. Compared to the real history of the Trail and educated knowledge of it, this statement is so wrong and so malicious towards the Trail's true purpose that it rings with mistruth. Above all the statement is false because MacKaye often discussed his desire for the Trail to be a place of wilderness experience. But more precisely, he discussed how this function was to be controled and used to immerse people in wilderness in order to produce a desired result. What you're doing is seeking ways to misquote MacKaye in order to weaken his Trail purposes. Anyone who does that is an enemy of the AT. I'd have to say that people who organize around this so enthusiastically have a particular sickness of the soul. One in complete opposition to MacKaye.

Curses! You've caught on to my clever plan to destroy the AT Wilderness Ethic. Fight on, Internet Warrior!

Or maybe you were so caught up in these obnoxious comebacks that you didn't really recognize it?

You're wrong Joe. The slow, steady, and civil discussion of the AT and its history will prove this. Which is why so many are slinging insults hoping the discussion will stop...

Tim Rich

02-13-2005, 02:24

What you're doing is seeking ways to misquote MacKaye in order to weaken his Trail purposes. Anyone who does that is an enemy of the AT. I'd have to say that people who organize around this so enthusiastically have a particular sickness of the soul. One in complete opposition to MacKaye.

Instead of making sweeping statements such as "educated trail people know this", "it's accepted in knowledgeable circles", or "four out of five dentists recommend", quote MacKaye in your posts.

orangebug

02-13-2005, 08:38

Show me one single example of the hiking community addressing the Trail's wilderness ethic as it applies to users of the Trail (besides their dedicated effort to deny one exists)...I don't know that it is possible to show a blind man a single example. I can't think of a single example of our involvement in wilderness ethic and more. Just the home page of the ATC shows at least 5 examples.

Of course, even the ATC ranks as heatherns: first under the "New and Noteworthy" is "Shuttle List."

Boggles the mind how publicizing resources for assisting hikers can assist AT Conservancy.

Nah, it only boggles your mind. Have a good day cutting the grass on your little portion of barrier island.

oldfivetango

02-13-2005, 09:29

Wal-Mart: It's not just for the Chinese anymore. For what it's worth- iI heard on talk radio the other day that China's
7th largest trading partner is guess who.........Walmart!I beieve that
Russia was running a distant 8th place.
As a firebreathing radical Republican even I have mixed reviews on Wally World.On the one hand the people support them because of the low prices which is the result of "buying power"; ie manipulation of the vendors/suppliers, particularly the smaller ones.Is this good-i dont think so.On the other hand they came in after K-Mart had owned the market for 20 years and pretty well shoved them and every mom&pop off the street.And that aint good to mom and pop for sure.Then they kill the same town by moving the store to a "bigger/better" location and causing urban blight.It has happened all around me and that aint good;it's hideous.
Wally's latest ploy is the right of imminent domain whereby they convince the city fathers to condemn a property so they can then take it and give the local politicos more in tax revenue.But then that is a classic case of reallocating the resources for the greater good is it not?Sounds like the battle cry and hue of all the socialist/communists among us.So in the end
all the liberals and socialists in our midsts should bow down and kiss Sam
Waltons feet.Just remember that you get what you pay for and what you pray for.
Cheers to all,
Oldfivetango:bse

rickb

02-13-2005, 09:51

Rocks asked why the ATC discourages commercialization?

Not sure, but I think it could be that the ATC/NPS sees the culture and wild "feel" of the Trail as worthy of support (if not protection).

It would explain why they would restrict/prohibit "harmless" 5K races and such.

What else could it be? After all, people run down the trail by themselves all the time-- what's different about an organized race?

Except that it might impact the culture and "wild feel "of the Trail.

Crazy, huh.

On the internet we have the luxury of thinking about such things in abstract ways. I'm not writing leglislation, and should I ever pass Not Yet leading a group I will be sure to smile and say hi to all. If she manages to sign up a group of 10 unknowing Japanese adventurers, I will take sollace in how she has helped our country's balance of trade.

But when clubs like the AMC decide to aquire posh facilities like the 100-Mile Little Lyford Camps, I hope that smart people do consider how that impacts the wild feel of the Trail. And try to minimize the impact. When fat, balding middle aged men return to the AT with cookies, I hope they consider it too. If the MATC ever starts to think that bridge building in Maine should rival that in other states, there too.

When making other decisions, be they about view sheds and windmills or the like, I hope they see the wild feel of the Trail as worthy of support-- even if the intellectuals have us all convince there is no wilderness in the east.

And even if we can't do a thing about it, when pondering commercial outfitters, slackpacking hubs and our pub crawling friends, lets consider how they affect the wild feel of a thru hike, too. But with individuals, HYOH. Ain't much an individual can do that is worth getting upse about-- on the contrary, celebrate the differences. Even among posters we seek to go at for years on end.

Rick B

weary

02-13-2005, 10:32

Ok, Weary, let’s test your journalistic integrity here by applying the logic of your reply to my pointed parody in post #209, to the original quote, above. You could have said to RnR: “Sentence one: I really have no idea what is "really dangerous" about the A.T. community or the ATC’s basic AT goals," even assuming the contention is true.” You did not say that but instead questioned the parody- why? Does that mean that you disagree with the A.T. community and think that the ATC and federal government spent all this time and effort precisely defining the guidelines for the A.T. for no good reason? I don’t think you really believe that at all. The question is why you chose to remain silent when that ridiculous statement was made but criticized my statement. Is it because, as you mentioned, you feel sorry for ”one guy who hiked 20 years ago and who now lives on an island in Florida being confused about "basic AT goals.”

.......
Confession time. I don't read any of these long winded, sentence by sentence back and forth posts. If you were posting a parody, I take back everything I said, whatever that was, because I've long since forgotten.

I especially don't read all of R'nR's convoluted sentences, with their strange syntax, long words with imprecise meanings, and his confrontational [insulting(?)] manner.

But I do sense that R'nR is fundamentally right, and his critics are fundamentally wrong. A wild trail is both important and fragile. ATC guidelines and policies seek to protect and enhance that wildness. The current reorganization is an attempt by ATC to better address the loss of wildness.

The theme of the ATC biennial conference in 1997 in Newry, Maine was, "are we loving the trail to death." I served on one of the key panels. Some were concerned that I did not agree that the threats were as great as ATC leadership seemed to think. But I certainly recognize the danger facing the trail as its attraction shifts more and more to being a social event, rather than a chance to enjoy a bit of wildness. I spend most of my time these days trying to provide buffers for the narrow trail corridor in Maine as land development creeps ever closer.

Weary

NotYet

02-13-2005, 13:45

If the ATC were actually specifying that "self-reliance" is a goal for anyone hiking on the AT, they would be imposing a very difficult to define goal on others. The ATC would be taking away the hiker's right to formulate and define his or her own goals, thereby stripping the hiker of some of his or her own self-reliance.

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

In reference to this statement, you asked me why the ATC mentioned self-reliance in it's guidelines. My answer to that is that I would agree that the ATC believes self-reliance is a good and important thing (I do as well).

As for the second sentence being an airy rumination...it just doesn't make logical sense to me for an organization to tell someone what his or her goal for hiking the trail must be then in the same sentence also telling him or her that another goal is freedom. I still think that you can't decide the goals of others if you want them to be free. Instead, the ATC used BOTH the words "opportunities" and "self-reliance" in the same sentence. The sentence means what is says...I think that if either of these words is ignored, the sentence is misunderstood.

You ask me to state that I disagree with the ATC's guidelines, but if I did that I would not be telling the truth, for I agree with the ATC's guidelines as specified in the first post of this thread. I simply and respectfully disagree with your interpretation of those guidelines, and I understand that you obviously don't agree with my interpretation of them.

As to my post being an "absurd attempt to avoid what the ATC meant". I can only go by what the ATC writes, not what they meant to write.

***This is sort of an aside, but I have often thought about the rules that govern how people exist on the trail or any trail. I find it interesting that some of the LNT practices that I strongly encourage people to follow, do however, seem to ask hikers to be LESS self-reliant than the older ways. For example, instead of foraging or hunting for food and cooking over a fire...we're asked to bring food with us and use a camp stove. Instead of simply following the lay of the land, we are rightly asked to follow the trail that has been provided for us. I understand why all of this is encouraged. We are trying to preserve the natural state of the forests, while at the same time we have a large population that uses these forests. If this means that I must be more reliant/dependent on man-made contraptions, then I'm willing to do that.***

My earlier point (quoted below) which I tried to show by going to absurd and ridiculous lengths was that if the ATC mandates that hikers be self reliant, they must then define the level of self-reliance that is acceptable. Since they chose not to spell this out, I have to determine for myself what the acceptable level of self-reliance is for me, as does every other hiker. Provided they are being respectful of the trail and the natural areas that it traverses, the fact that the amount of self-reliance will be different for different individuals is perfectly acceptable to me.

If the ATC were to demand that self-reliance be the goal of everyone hiking on the trail, they would then have to define "how much" self-reliance is the correct amount. Is sleeping in a shelter that other people built self-reliant enough? Is sleeping in a tent that was purchased in a store self-reliant enough? Is it okay to use a tarp that you made even though you purchased the materials to make the tarp? Of course, these are absurd questions.

The ATC does not expect or want a hiker to head out with only a knife (that he made himself) to hunt and forage for food, skin animals for clothing, build personal shelters made of sticks, skins or even duff for protection. There are degrees of self-reliance, and the whole concept can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

The point is, the ATC wants the trail to be a place where one can have the opportunity to experience self-reliance. It is such a place, and the amount or degree of your own self-reliance remains your choice.

orangebug

02-13-2005, 13:57

Very clear, NotYet and well said.

I think your response will be "You didn't answer the question!" although "You hate the AT" might sneek thru.

Good luck with your legal entreprenurial (wish I could spell) endeavor. I'll bet that One Leg could have saved money using your service. I anticipate your market will be newbies and those with medical/mobility problems. I hope you break even with it.

TJ aka Teej

02-13-2005, 14:30

I do sense that R'nR is fundamentally right,R&R's fundamentals:
The AT was founded for wilderness preservation.
Benton MacKaye was very clear about this.
The Trail Community is organized to destroy MacKaye's wilderness plan.

and his critics are fundamentally wrong.The fundamentals of his critics:
Benton MacKaye does not mention wilderness preservation in his proposal to found an Appalachian Trail.
Benton MacKaye was very clear about what he was proposing in Regional Planning.
The Trail Community is organized to protect, preserve, and celebrate our Trail.

JoeHiker

02-13-2005, 15:17

Don't try to divert this into a road crossing canard - Since road crossings are the place NotYet's van is going to be waiting, it's a bit difficult for me to "divert" this anywhere else.

Because a hiker 'chooses' van support has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It has everything to do with what I'm talking about. Unless some hiker is having NotYet's aid forced upon them.

Let's see, Joe says "opportunity" is what is important here. No, I say that all the words are what is important here. The whole meaning, not just part of it. I say you don't get to pick the ones you like and ignore the rest. I say that "opportunity for self reliance" has a very different meaning than "self reliance" by itself -- which is why you conveniently ignored the word. Seven times.

This is so wrong and ignorantly defiant that anyone who would dare write such a thing is in complete contempt for the Trail. Silly RnR. The only one I'm in contempt of is you. If what I said about MacKaye's proposal is incorrect, you have only to direct me to the relevant passage that contradicts me.

What you're doing is seeking ways to misquote MacKaye in order to weaken his Trail purposes. Between the two of us, I am the only one who has quoted MacKaye at all. Now isn't that telling? You have been asked by virtually everyone on WhiteBlaze to quote MacKaye and show us his origin of your claims about his "true purposes" as you call them. Still you cannot do so. You have to do more "research" right?. Until you do, his purposes are exactly what his original proposal said. Disagree with me? -- with US? Fine show us the money. Quote him

Anyone who does that is an enemy of the ATAnyone who puts forth an argument without evidence, who ignores all requests to provide that evidence, who purports to know the mind of someone long dead while arrogantly assuming that they are above the rules of logical discourse -- anyone who does that is an enemy of reason and logic.

That person is a troll.

You're wrong Joe. The slow, steady, and civil discussion of the AT and its history will prove this. Which is why so many are slinging insults hoping the discussion will stop...You're wrong Rocks N Roots. The slow but thorough discussion of this topic combined with your obtuse and arrogant aversion to anything resembling evidence HAS proved it. Personally, I'll go on pointing out the gaping holes in your "arguments" for as long as you like.

weary

02-13-2005, 16:27

R&R's fundamentals:
The AT was founded for wilderness preservation.
Benton MacKaye was very clear about this.
The Trail Community is organized to destroy MacKaye's wilderness plan.
The fundamentals of his critics:
Benton MacKaye does not mention wilderness preservation in his proposal to found an Appalachian Trail.
Benton MacKaye was very clear about what he was proposing in Regional Planning.
The Trail Community is organized to protect, preserve, and celebrate our Trail.
Nay TeeJ. You've got to learn to look beyond the clutter for the essential truths. R'nR's fundamentals are: "A wild trail is both important and fragile. ATC guidelines and policies seek to protect and enhance that wildness. The current reorganization is an attempt by ATC to better address the loss of wildness."

And among the fallacies of his critics is that they can't bring themselves to see beyond a single essay in an obscure technical journal to review Mackaye's actions and writings during a long and full life. Remember. When his trail became too civilized for him, he joined a handful of intellectual buddies and founded the Wilderness Society.

Weary

Rocks 'n Roots

02-13-2005, 17:07

I especially don't read all of R'nR's convoluted sentences, with their strange syntax, long words with imprecise meanings, and his confrontational [insulting(?)] manner.
Weary, I suggest it would be better to participate in the debate and back what you believe in. I still find it rather hypocritical to post about the need to discuss serious Trail topics, then start a thread on one, only to attack the one person who makes the argument. I suspect Weary can't restrain his nature (ego?) as a journalist. One insulated in a protected column and not out in the actual environmental internet trenches. In any case, Weary (and ATC) would do better attempting practical application of these Trail ideas and how they apply rather than writing otherwise-ignored editorial-like posts. Also focusing your worst criticisms on the person you agree with doesn't tend to aid the ideas trying to be conveyed. It's kind of a betrayal.

Weary, from your non-presence in the thread you started we were aware you weren't reading. If you prefer to argue with Old Fhart about trivial quote references be my guest. I'm sure your reaction is mainly from your dislike of heated disagreement, but I think it was you yourself who said many things are decided this way. You would be more helpful backing the things you agree with. I understand you are trying to solicit the same people. What you are doing here only detracts from the topic and gives people looking for justification more room. I think what really motivates Weary is the absolute credulousness of some of the challengers and the exposure of their decrepit viewpoints - which he blames me for. I think he realizes many in here are incorrigible if not clueless and doesn't want someone continuously bringing that out...

Weary, you could be helpful if you participated in the topic...

The Old Fhart

02-13-2005, 17:21

Weary-“You've got to learn to look beyond the clutter for the essential truths" Gee, do you mean by that that we should be considering “non-essential truths”? Come on, that was a completely nonsensical statement by you and you should know better. However I’m sure that you believe it when you say: ATC guidelines and policies seek to protect and enhance that wildness (or at least protect the trail and the "opportunity" for wilderness) and that is what everyone else has been saying here as well. You know from the numerous policy meetings you have attended that the ATC didn’t come up with their 199 page Local Management Planning Guide without a lot of consideration for all the facts, realities, and laws concerning trail use. Your post #1 is from this very document so I know you believe it to be a worthwhile and serious work. These documents spell out in amazing detail what can and can't be done on the trail. If you feel there is some "essential truth" that has been missed in those 199 pages, please let the ATC know so they can correct the oversight. There has been tons of verifiable quotes explaining in detail what the official ATC trail policy guidelines are from everyone, except RnR.

So when you say:
And among the fallacies of his critics is that they can't bring themselves to see beyond a single essay in an obscure technical journal to review Mackaye's actions and writings during a long and full life, you are being disingenuous. No one here has just used that single reference and you know it. Most of the quotes are from current ATC policy posted on their web site, from USFS Wilderness policy, or from the ATC Local Management Planning Guide.

Both you and RnR have stated that you don’t read all the posts, or all of any single post, but your lack of interest in the defined meaning of “wilderness” and trail guidelines hasn’t prevented you from criticizing others who have taken the time and effort to present facts. So please, before you lose more credibility, do your homework and check the facts before you make an emotional reply that will, once again, blow up in your face.

weary

02-13-2005, 17:30

rickb

02-13-2005, 17:42

"Both you (Weary) and RnR have stated that you don’t read all the posts"

If anything, that's is a sure sign of sanity and good judgement.

TJ aka Teej

02-13-2005, 17:56

And among the fallacies of his critics is that they can't bring themselves to see beyond a single essay in an obscure technical journal to review Mackaye's actions and writings during a long and full life.
Still holding tight to your fallacy, eh Weary? The AT's founder, in the AT's founding document, does not call for Wilderness Preservation. The theme for the first ATC was "Developing Appalachia". The proposed route of the Trail was through land that had been populated, exploited, and cultivated for over a century. MacKaye's thoughts, decades later, show what he was thinking decades later - his words in his founding proposal show what he was thinking at founding of the Trail. Take his words regarding 'trailway' from 1925 and compare them to 1971:

The Appalachian Trail is to this Appalachian region what the Pacific Railway was to the Far West—a means of ‘opening up’ the country. But a very different kind of ‘opening up.’ Instead of a railway we want a ‘trailway’...But unlike the railway the trailway must preserve (and develop) a certain environment. Otherwise its whole point is lost. The railway ‘opens up’ a country as a site for civilization; the trailway should ‘open up’ a country as an escape from civilization…. The path of the trailway should be as ‘pathless’ as possible; it should be the minimum consistent with practical accessibility. —BENTON MACKAYE, founding meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference, March 2-3, 1925
The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be. The idea is a foot trail, and if there is a wheel on it at all, there is no point in the Appalachian Trail. People should get that through their heads…. –BENTON MACKAYE, AIA Journal interview where he bluntly repudiated the Trailway concept as adopted by the Appalachian Trail Conference, 1971

See how he changed? From the Founding Times where "we want a trailway ... the trailway should open up a country as an escape"? To the Preservation Times "...it's a wilderness strip ... it's not a trailway ... trailway is a very unfortunate word"? We have his own words to show us what he was thinking, and when. You might consider MacKaye's words "clutter," but I see them as the essential truth to knowing his ideas. He put his AT ideas in writing for us, why would anyone want them ignored in a discussion about his AT ideas?
Your odd idea about Ben and the Wilderness Society appears to be naught but wishful historical revisionism on your part. I'll believe what his biographer said, he left the ATC for reasons of personal ego.

Jack Tarlin

02-13-2005, 18:00

If they have that little respect for other peoples' opinions, Rick, maybe they should be a bit more prudent in spouting their own.

Rocks obviously doesn't read or give a damn what other folks say or think.

And Weary has finally admitted that his sharp rejoinders to other folk's comments aren't necessarily based on an examination of the actual wording of what they said.....since he admits he doesn't read stuff before commenting on it. Gosh, Weary, that puts you in a great debating position.

Weary and Rocks: It's cold and wet out. Why not go away somewhere and get a room. That way your admiration society can be confined somewhere snug and comforting instead of poisoning the atmosphere here.

Note to Weary:

First you tell us that Rocks has told us several times "about his vast hiking experience."

Then you tell us that you've known all about his extensive hiking resume "for a long time."

Then, you finally say "I don't have a clue" about his actual experience. My, that's an interesting admission after your repeated robust defense.

You must've been a hell of a reporter.

Query: Did you ALWAYS refuse to read background information or do any fact-checking before joining a debate or discussion, or is this recent?

And Weary, you're wrong. His experience is very germane to the discussion, as he's essentially told us many times that he's the only one on this website that cares about the Trail, knows anything about its history, and is competent to talk about its future.

If his vast experience of the Trail was gleaned (and essentially ended) twenty years ago, then this is certainly interesting, especially when he's always talking about modern hikers and contemporary thru-hiking.

Of course, he could easily clear this matter up, but like so many other things, he's dodging the question.

Bye, boys. Hope you get a nice view with the room.

TJ aka Teej

02-13-2005, 18:06

My concern is not Little Lyford, but the probability of several full service "huts," being built through AMC's facilities elsewhere in AMC's 37,000 acres.

I'm glad you're coming around, Weary.

weary

02-13-2005, 18:21

The Appalachian Trail is to this Appalachian region what the Pacific Railway was to the Far West—a means of ‘opening up’ the country. But a very different kind of ‘opening up.’ Instead of a railway we want a ‘trailway’...But unlike the railway the trailway must preserve (and develop) a certain environment. Otherwise its whole point is lost. The railway ‘opens up’ a country as a site for civilization; the trailway should ‘open up’ a country as an escape from civilization…. The path of the trailway should be as ‘pathless’ as possible; it should be the minimum consistent with practical accessibility. —BENTON MACKAYE, founding meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference, March 2-3, 1925
The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be. The idea is a foot trail, and if there is a wheel on it at all, there is no point in the Appalachian Trail. People should get that through their heads…. –BENTON MACKAYE, AIA Journal interview....
.
Teej. Thanks for posting two Mackaye quotes that prove my point.

Weary

weary

02-13-2005, 18:27

....Note to Weary:

First you tell us that Rocks has told us several times "about his vast hiking experience."......
Jack, I don't think I've ever said any such thing. You need to be more careful about your quotes

Weary

rickb

02-13-2005, 18:28

Good post TJ. (Edit here, originally my fingers put in Jack's name)

Seems like you and Weary argee that MacKaye can't be defined by a single article.

That was my point too, when I posted your second quote about the wilderness srtip a few days back (ain't google a beautiful thing).

I was thinking that those who go to such great efforts to do so (define MaKaye by a single article) were either just wanting to yank Rock's chain, or, well, I don't want to go there.

BTW, this is a good chance for me to share that I never read Larry Anderson's book. (I got it at the library, but it was too heavy. I opted to read 20 Patrick O'Brian books instead. Which explained my posting slow down here White Blaze, BTW.) Has anybody read it?

Rick B

TJ aka Teej

02-13-2005, 18:29

Teej. Thanks for posting two Mackaye quotes that prove my point.
You had a point?

TJ aka Teej

02-13-2005, 18:43

BTW, this is a good chance for me to share that I never read Larry Anderson's book. (I got it at the library, but it was too heavy. I opted to read 20 Patrick O'Brian books instead. Which explained my absence here on White Blaze, BTW.) Has anybody?
Has anybody noticed your absence, read Anderson, or read O'Brian? :D I've read Larry's book. And I've read all the Aubrey - Maturin novels 3-4 times each, as they came out, when I broke my back, after O'Brian passed away, and I dove in again when Mrs TJ bought me "21,The Final Unfinished Voyage" for Christmas. I hope to read his biography of Banks next. I'm a fan of bios, and it's the only thing by O'Brian I haven't read yet.

The Old Fhart

02-13-2005, 19:18

rickboudrie-“I was thinking that those who go to such great efforts to do so (define MaKaye by a single article) were either just wanting to yank Rock's chain, or, well, I don't want to go there.” I think you mistakenly posted that comment in the wrong thread. This thread is “AT trail guidelines,” not “the life and times of Benton MacKaye”. The quotes you see in this thread are all concerned with ATC guidelines. While the article you seem to fixate on is of historical significance, others have gone to great lengths to provide exact and lengthy quotes from the ATC, USFS, and other sources, about the current rules, laws, and regulations regarding trail use. Do you disagree with the rules that so many dedicated people spent countless days to define?

rickb

02-13-2005, 19:20

TJ, Now you have my respect. :)

Last time something similar happend was in college when I found a Rolling Stone fan hidden among my Deadhead buddies.

Rick B

Jack Tarlin

02-13-2005, 20:10

Time for re-write. I evidently erred with my quotation marks. Baaad Jack.

I'll re-rephrase it again, just for Weary:

Weary whines that he never spoke of Rocks' vast A.T. experience. At least not in those exact terms. But here's what he DID have to say on the subject:

In Post #198, above, in reference to Rock's alleged extensive hiking resume, Jack Tarlin was quoted by Weary as having asked Rocks about his A.T. history and Rocks' reticence in discussing it. Said Tarlin "Why are you so reluctant to tell us?"

Harrumphed Weary, immediately: "Possibly because he has told us several times that he hiked the entire trail..."

In other words, Weary did indeed maintain that Rocks has answered the question, and more than once, too.

No, Weary, he didn't. He's never, to my knowledge, said this. If I'm wrong, then he can say it now, if he wishes to.

But fact is Weary, you did indeed sharply tell us that my questions to him were misplaced as he'd already answered the question. And you were wrong. So instead of berating me for mis-quoting you, perhaps you should count to ten and relax. You did indeed defend your protege Rocks by staunchly maintaning that he'd told us several times about his exploits, when in fact, he didn't. And still hasn't. And probably won't.

Perhaps more careful reading on Weary's part would prevent him from making mistakes like this.

Ooh, but then he'd have to actually read other people's posts before commenting on them, which he recently acknowleged that he doesn't do.

Or am I mis-quoting you on that one Weary?

Funny thing, Weary, but if you wanna get in an argument over who said exactly what, or how many times they said it, or anything else.....if you wanna bitch about what people actually said or didn't say here, dontcha kinda think it'd be benificial ito your arguments if you actually bothered to read their posts first?

Stop me if I'm wrong, but it seems kinda tough to me for someone to defend or attack what someone else actually said if they proudly admit that they never read it in the first place.

But Weary has figured out how to intelligently debate people without inconveniencing himself by actually listening to them. Or so he says.

Wow, whatta guy.