View Full Version : The Most Interesting Quote from the MacKaye Biography
. . .which I just finished the other day. (p. 283--all emphasis in the original)
A trail club leader had once proposed to use MacKaye's likeness on AT signs. MacKaye reminded him that the trail was "larger than any single personality." In fact, the contributions of both MacKaye and Avery were indispensable to the trail's creation, perpetuation, and success. What has appealed to the public imagination are the paired attributes of wilderness and continuity that have always characterized the Appalachian Trail. MacKaye's ideas and efforts defined the first attribute, Avery's the second. But the two men who represented each characteristic were personally irreconcilable.Discuss amongst yourselves. :D
Lone Wolf
02-24-2005, 13:49
Here we go. Another 400 posts by Rocks n Roots and friends. :rolleyes:
Here we go. Another 400 posts by Rocks n Roots and friends. :rolleyes:Ain't I a stinker? :clap
orangebug
02-24-2005, 14:41
One can only hope that this will lead others to read the biography.
NICKTHEGREEK
02-24-2005, 15:18
. . .which I just finished the other day. (p. 283--all emphasis in the original)
Discuss amongst yourselves. :D
OK-
Me- Do either of you give a flyin' hoot about this?
Myself- Heavens no!
I- Not even remotely.
Assignment completed.:D
.
Discuss amongst yourselves. :D
In the immortal words of Monty Python "Run away! Run away!" :)
"Rocks n Roots and friends" ?
Sounds like some really bad cartoon show! :) Can't wait to see the five minute segment where RnR and friends discuss MacKaye to some snappy music for a singalong!
Nightwalker
02-24-2005, 21:03
It's nice to see that there's someone here to give you guys someone to feel superior to. Yes, he's aggravating and frustrating, but it sounds here like y'all are just trying to troll him into losing it and jumping into this discussion.
I just can't go along with everything.
TJ aka Teej
02-24-2005, 22:30
I like the Aldo Leopold quote on page 155:
"By 'wilderness,' I mean a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open to lawful hunting and fishing, big enough to absorb a two weeks' pack trip, and kept devoid of roads, artifical trails, cotttages, or other works of man." in The Wilderness and its Place in Forest Management, published just one month after Benton MacKaye's Regional Planning.
It's nice to see that there's someone here to give you guys someone to feel superior to. Yes, he's aggravating and frustrating, but it sounds here like y'all are just trying to troll him into losing it and jumping into this discussion.
I just can't go along with everything.
Sorry Frank, but the "Rocks and Roots and friends" brought up visions of a cartoon show from my childhood.
I personally don't care if he joins the discussion or not. I readily admit my personal streak fof sarcasm and busting chops. My friends have it, I have it. You see us in a bar, you'd think we hated each other. Remnants of growing up in the Northeast? Or just plain uncouth..who knows. ;)
Guess what I am trying to say is that teh comment struck me as funny and was not directed to him personally. I had visions of RnR, Bob, Jack and others who participated in the segment singing (I'd include me, but you don't want to hear me sing!) Believe me, having an arguement with RnR is the bottom of my list of things I want to do.
Rocks 'n Roots
02-25-2005, 16:38
But the two men who represented each characteristic were personally irreconcilable.
D Perry:
Glad to see you looking into it. Not happy to see that internet members are more interested in using the topic for ridicule than serious discussion.
Why were they irreconcilable?
Because Avery eschewed the wilderness ethic. It's a no brainer some will never admit no matter how much evidence keeps appearing. The reason I feel it is vital to keep pointing this out is because some Trail members see the trend towards seeing the AT as a hiking trail only as a good thing and use Avery as justification. My whole point is that this serves to damage the conservation aspect MacKaye was responsible for. The trouble today is that some Trail members don't want to give MacKaye the credit acknowledged in this post...
Jack Tarlin
02-25-2005, 18:17
Rocks:
This thread began with a quote from a book.
Instead of hijacking this thread with sixty-five repetitive posts, perhaps you might want to read the book instead.
You've sent almost a hundred posts to Whiteblaze regarding what MacKaye or other Trail pioneers intended, despite the fact that you 1)hadn't actually read much of what MacKaye actually wrote and 2)insisted on your right to interpret his intentions despite acknowledging your ignorance of what he'd actually said.
On more occasions thatn I care to remember, folks asked you to back up some of your more provocative coments with actual quotes from MacKaye's own works. You habitually failed to do this. It became patently obvious to everyone here that your claims to bespeaking in MacKaye's name were ludicrous; it was apparent every time you posted that in reality, you know almost nothing about what Benton MacKaye actually said, wrote, or thought.
I respectfuly sugest that if you wish to have any of your future comments about MacKaye taken at all seriously, then you should take some time to read this book.
TJ aka Teej
02-25-2005, 23:14
blah blah no quote from the book blah blah off topic blah blah general insults blah blah incorrect information blah blah poor history blah blah
www.abebooks.com (http://www.abebooks.com)
Get a copy, R&R. It has nice pictures, too.
[On the ultimate purpose of the Appalachian Trail] "There are three things: 1) to walk; 2) to see; 3) to see what you see." -Benton MacKaye, ATC Member's Handbook, and page 364 of BMCPACOTAT.
One can only hope that this will lead others to read the biography.
I am planning on reading this book soon. I have seen several posts that have mentioned the book before. I have come to appreciate the history and evolution of this Trail we all love. I was not very familliar with Aldo Leopold, but after TJ's post I did some checking and found out he was a fellow Iowan. Cool stuff. I have read lots of books about the AT, but most delt with hikers and their experiences. Its nice to find more good books to add to my library.
:sun
Rocks 'n Roots
02-26-2005, 01:40
You can see Jack and TJ can't handle the proof they were demanding when it appears. Not that anyone ever took them as serious anyway...
The quote implicitly associates wilderness with MacKaye. I'm not surprised the usual miscreants react with personal abuse. These members' pavlovian response to "MacKaye" is ridicule and abuse. This only proves what I was saying about AT internet members and their hostility towards organized wilderness. Float the word "MacKaye" by these people and their reaction will be taunting, name-calling, and personal comments. Nowhere will you see any intelligent thoughts on what MacKaye was saying. Just look at this thread...
Jack: You don't think that your inability to offer even a thought on the offered quote isn't plain for what it is? Your simple inability to confront the original topic, while trying to hijack this into another attack on me, is pretty obvious. If this wasn't the case you simply would have answered the point D Perry was making. It's plain enough in the quote. MacKaye = wilderness according to your own reference. It's poor sportsmanship to not admit you're wrong...
Jack? Any comments on the quote?
Lone Wolf
02-26-2005, 05:42
The Rocks N Roots & Friends Show has begun. Same s**t, different thread.
squirrel bait
02-26-2005, 07:01
Yea for the ignore button :clap You can join Percival. I never liked Rock and Rye whisky either, the one with the muddled fruit.
Ed Bell--
I know all about Iowa Pride-- by marriage.
You know that Bill Bryson came from Iowa, right? And then there was Dick Proenneke. I had been hearing of him years before his new found fame on PBS-- of course, his family were practically neighbors (by Iowan Standards).
"A Sand County Almanac" is a classic in every sense of the word. I had just assumed everyone with an Iowa quality education would have read it ;-).
I picked up the Benton MacKay bio, but never got through it. Not smart enough. To date, I am the only one who participates in this discussion who admits not reading it-- perhaps everyone else has, I don't know. I rather doubt it. Oh well, at least I was smart enough to marry an Iowa girl.
Which makes me rather brilliant, IMHO.
Rick B
squirrel bait
02-26-2005, 10:27
Of course Iowans know each other, there's only 8 of us growing potatoes. A good Iowa education (I graduated from Idaho State, Iowa City, Ohio) has never hurt anyone. Hope ya get the chance to visit sometime if you already haven't. Try the bluff areas around the northeast corner, beautiful. Corn raised and proud of it. Oh the sweet corn I remember..........NC has the most wonderful fishing but don't look for much corn. Close in Iowa standards are, east of the Missouri and west of the Mississippi makes us neighbors.
Rick,
Well My parents grew up on farms in Northern Iowa, but I was born in Ames while my dad was going to Iowa State. We moved before I turned a year old. Still got a decent education though. I guess Aldo was off my radar, but I'll make up for lost time. Congrats on having an Iowan in the family.:) Sorry about the off topic blip.
ed bell
Jack Tarlin
02-26-2005, 14:46
My only comment, Rocks, is this:
Until you actually take the time to read the original documents and source material you're forever expounding on, and until you take the time and trouble to actually become acquainted with what people actually wrote, said, and thought, and until you take the time and trouble to research your comments and actually back them up with substance and truth----until you do all this, your comments here are utterly worthless.
Geez, Rocks, it was really pleasant around here for a week or so.
Wanna take a guess at why that was?
Rocks 'n Roots
02-26-2005, 16:41
Yea for the ignore button :clap You can join Percival. I never liked Rock and Rye whisky either, the one with the muddled fruit.
When pressed, the AT internet community shows itself to be an ignorant mob hostile towards those who take the Trail seriously. That's the "same old" happening here folks. If you noticed, none of the "ignore button" set can muster an intelligent response to the topic.
-Case closed. The AT internet community is ignorant and in contempt of MacKaye's AT. Otherwise they could have "stayed on topic" as they used to say themselves...
All Jack is saying is that he is incapable of even simple discussion of the quote in the original post. The rest is verbiage being used as an excuse for his blatant cop-out. Anything will fit that bill. The proof comes out and the yahoos call for the ignore button. Jack has found the excuse the low bar of the internet will let him get away with and is sticking to it. Sort of like trying to hide in broad daylight...
Jack can't discuss the passage. Period...
Tim Rich
02-26-2005, 17:01
When pressed, the AT internet community shows itself to be an ignorant mob hostile towards those who take the Trail seriously. That's the "same old" happening here folks. If you noticed, none of the "ignore button" set can muster an intelligent response to the topic.
-Case closed. The AT internet community is ignorant and in contempt of MacKaye's AT. Otherwise they could have "stayed on topic" as they used to say themselves...
All Jack is saying is that he is incapable of even simple discussion of the quote in the original post. The rest is verbiage being used as an excuse for his blatant cop-out. Anything will fit that bill. The proof comes out and the yahoos call for the ignore button. Jack has found the excuse the low bar of the internet will let him get away with and is sticking to it. Sort of like trying to hide in broad daylight...
Jack can't discuss the passage. Period...
You're right Roxy - we're worthless and not worth your time. :rolleyes:
Nightwalker
02-26-2005, 17:13
The Rocks N Roots & Friends Show has begun. Same s**t, different thread.
There was probably a side bet involved.
dperry--
Did you actually enjoy that bio? Like I said in an earlier post, I couldn't force myself to read it all. If you did enjoy it, what did you get out of it?
I know TJ read it, but I am guessing he was on pain killers at the time, so I won't ask him the same question.
Rick B
When pressed, the AT internet community shows itself to be an ignorant mob hostile towards those who take the Trail seriously. That's the "same old" happening here folks. If you noticed, none of the "ignore button" set can muster an intelligent response to the topic.
-Case closed. The AT internet community is ignorant and in contempt of MacKaye's AT. Otherwise they could have "stayed on topic" as they used to say themselves.
Wow, you have a handful of people calling you out on the things you post here and you call them an ignorant mob? With almost 5000 members here you sure are making some grand generalizations about us all. I'm not so sure you even know the views your challengers have. I think many of them are just tired of your debating style. Improve your sense of tact, try to respond to questions more often, and stop putting yourself on a pedestal by yourself. I'm sure that you would be better received. I have already tried to engage in some of these discussions, but I was ignored or patronized by you. You seem to regard being put on someones ignore list as a badge of honor, I regard it as a telling statement about your mannerisms in your posts. I suppose you sense that I am now part of that ignorant mob. I have a different opinion of my fellow Whiteblazers, and even if I disagree with some of them occasionally, I have enjoyed my time spent on this site. I wonder if you ever do?
Jack Tarlin
02-26-2005, 18:49
Gee Rocks, if I'm hiding, how come you're the one posting his rants under a pseudonym?
Since you're so curious as to what Jack thinks, here it is. I'll finally tell you, since you asked:
Jack thinks you're an ignorant, pedantic, silly, pathetic horse's ass. He thinks that if brains were holy water, you wouldn't have enough on hand to baptize a blister. And he's not alone in his opinion. Nobody gives a fiddler's f*** what you think, as the prevailing view on this board and others is that you're a blithering idiot.
You're a cancer to every discussion you enter, and you contribute nothing of value to this or any other Forum. I just spent three hours working on and posting an extended article aiming at helping folks with re-supply issues. Rocks, when have you spent three MINUTES actually trying to help people here, instead of merely spouting ill-informed and ill-spoken political rants? Fact is, you have no interest in helping or teaching others here; your sole interest is lecturing, hectoring, and sharing your insipid political philosophies.
It'd help your arguments if you ever bothered to actually read the authors and works you insist on discussing, but it's obvious you don't feel this is necessary, so instead of getting informed, you merely spout the same old s*** again and again and again, laboring under the belief that if you repeat something loudly and often enough, no matter how witless, you're going to be able to prove whatever your point of the moment happens to be.
And you know what? Nobody cares, or has an iota of respect for your opinions.
You contribute less than nothing of any value here, and it was wonderful when you went away for a few days.
And that's what Jack thinks, so now you don't have to speculate anymore.
And by the way, if you've such a poor opinion of the so called A.T. Internet community, then the easiest solution is to simply avoid it. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than spend so much of it with people you obviously detest? If you hate this community so much, do yourself a favor and stay away from it.
You won't be missed.
TJ aka Teej
02-26-2005, 20:58
I know TJ read it, but I am guessing he was on pain killers at the time, so I won't ask him the same question.
For me, books *are* pain killers :D
A comfy chair, a window with good light, and I am transported.
The nice thing about Anderson's book is it reads well as a narative, and works well as a text book. I think that's why R&R fears it. He's happy wallowing in his ignorance of MacKaye, the Appalachian Trail, and our nation's natural resource preservation/development history. If he ever reads Anderson he'll have to go back and edit 99% of his posts.
Perhaps I should give Anderson's book a second chance.
I definitely don't have a good understanding of MacKaye or what he added to the world-- seems like he never held down a job for long and went to a bunch of meetings here and there. Oh, and wrote one article that was hardly a call to arms which motivated otherwise unproductive men. And yet you get quotes like the one that dperry posted that suggested he was so important.
I just don't get that.
Anyway, these discussions don't add much to my understanding of MacKaye. I guess its not a total loss, however. At least we know what Jack thinks of R&R.
Rick B
DMA, 2000
02-26-2005, 23:41
God DAMN Jack! I say God DAMN!
wacocelt
02-27-2005, 05:00
I use to think I knew what a toungue lashing was, I was remiss.
Thank you Mr Tarlin for your well worded and terribly necessary lecture and lesson.
Lone Wolf
02-27-2005, 05:05
This is gonna be a good episode of The Rocks N Roots & Friends show. :jump
orangebug
02-27-2005, 13:29
I wonder if we need to start a Top Ten RnR Responses poll.
dperry--
Did you actually enjoy that bio? Like I said in an earlier post, I couldn't force myself to read it all. If you did enjoy it, what did you get out of it?
I know TJ read it, but I am guessing he was on pain killers at the time, so I won't ask him the same question.
Rick B
Well, I bought the book and read it. Anderson will never win any writing prizes. But I finished it because I wanted to understand Mackaye and what made him click.
He had two profound successes in his life. He wrote about a long distance trail at a very propituous time. A mood of disillusionment had begun and people were looking towards nature and the outdoors. I sense the first widespread interest in backpacking that occured in the 70s was a similar time.
Anyway. Mackaye's magazine piece was picked up by a New York columnist. And the trail caught the public's fancy -- or at least enough of the public to get the job done.
Mackaye's second success was the role he played in creating the Wilderness Society.
I view Mackaye as a kind of kindred soul. He never made much money. He rarely was employed for more than a few months at a time. The book hints that he lived on a small pension and the help of friends during his long final years.
But I suspect he went to his grave pleased with what he had accomplished.
BTW. Don't nitpick these remarks. Mackaye's biography is around here someplace, but I couldn't quickly find it. I have too many books and too many piles of papers awaiting filing or disposal to find things quickly.
Besides I've spent the weekend doing a final draft of a Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust fund raising packet, and need to print 20 copies for a board meeting tomorrow. If anyone would like a copy send me a note at
[email protected]
Weary
Rocks 'n Roots
02-28-2005, 15:24
Wow, you have a handful of people calling you out on the things you post here and you call them an ignorant mob? With almost 5000 members here you sure are making some grand generalizations about us all. I'm not so sure you even know the views your challengers have.
Says Ed completely avoiding the topic...
You're right Roxy - we're worthless and not worth your time.
If you make the case well enough, eventually you can get the challengers to expose themselves as the contemptous flamers they are. This is typical when the proof shows up...
I'm surprised at Weary, his summation of MacKaye is so thin that it almost insults his greater purposes. MacKaye strove to put conservation and appreciation of the AT's inherent wilderness ethic into AT users heads. None of that is shown in Weary's quick review. It was MacKaye's most important purpose...
Jack:
Anyone whose sole input into an intellectual discussion of MacKaye's wilderness ethic is crude ad hominem attacks is a person who has failed the topic in grand fashion. So much so as to accent everything I've been contending in bold letters.
The so called "AT Community" is a farce. Jack is a prime example. These people really don't like the AT when it is properly explained to them...
I'm surprised at Weary, his summation of MacKaye is so thin that it almost insults his greater purposes. MacKaye strove to put conservation and appreciation of the AT's inherent wilderness ethic into AT users heads. None of that is shown in Weary's quick review. It was MacKaye's most important purpose...
RnR: A very serious question:
You claim that this community is not serious and/or interested in AT history, advocacy, conservation, etc.
You also claim that Weary, a person who often agrees with your ideas (if not your methods), who has also done tireless work on behalf of the AT is "almost insulting" to MacKayes ideas.
My question is: Why do you post on these lists?
I am not arguing with your viewpoints; merely curious as to why you enjoy and/or make use of the forums for the Appalachian Trail? You do not seem to agree with the ideas presented forth (which is fine), nor do you seem to care for the AT community (which is also fine).
So, why do you interact with a community you do not seem to care for and/or agree with?
Again, no arguements. Just very curious as to why you interact with this, ano other, AT oriented communities.
orangebug
02-28-2005, 16:03
Anyone whose sole input into an intellectual discussion of MacKaye's wilderness ethic is crude ad hominem attacks is a person who has failed the topic in grand fashion.Damn, that was the clearest thing you've written yet. :clap
Any chance you'll attain the insight to understand what you've written?
Hint, it doesn't pertain to Jack at all....
"What has appealed to the public imagination are the paired attributes of wilderness and continuity that have always characterized the Appalachian Trail. MacKaye's ideas and efforts defined the first attribute, Avery's the second."-- Larry Anderson (Empahasis Mine)
I can't speak for Rocks, but don't you find it a bit ironic that the post that began this thread encapsulated everthing Rock's has been trying to get the rest of the board to "admit" since post one?
I'm not sure why that is so important, but its no secret that Rocks walks to the beat of a different drummer. So what?
Rick B
"What has appealed to the public imagination are the paired attributes of wilderness and continuity that have always characterized the Appalachian Trail. MacKaye's ideas and efforts defined the first attribute, Avery's the second."-- Larry Anderson (Empahasis Mine)
"Wilderness" and "Continuity"?
Anyway, if we accept that the attributes of Wilderness and Continuity were what characterized the AT in the 20th Century, I wonder what attribributes will characterize the Trail in the 21st.
"People" and "Community", perrhaps?
Seems that way.
Rick B
hikerltwt
02-28-2005, 16:49
I think I'd rather check in at Trailplace than deal with all the ***** on this site. Rocks and roots, jack why dont yall just get married and get it over with!
Says Ed completely avoiding the topic... Insult me, I respond. Call it avoiding the topic if you like. I guess you missed my earlier post that stated that I have yet to read the book, but I plan on doing so when I receive my copy. This is why I have not provided a favorite quote. As to the First quote provided, I believe it shows that MacKaye wanted the trail to exist more than he wanted credit for it, he was just unable to get the job done. Avery was up for that part of the job. Everyone knows the two men didn't get along. Ego clashes IMHO. Skyline Drive was just the last straw. Just because Avery decided to give in to the government on that one is no reason to say that he echewed wilderness. He worked himself to death to make the AT happen. It would be strange if he didn't care about the outdoors, yet gave his all the way he did.
Rick,
I personally would hope that the 21st century will bring some additional routes linking up with the AT like the Benton MacKaye Trail down here. Overuse issues will continue to get worse, but getting more alternate routes would help out overcrowding. Maybe we could introduce grizzlies to the trail corridor to reduce the number of users.:D
dperry--
Did you actually enjoy that bio? Like I said in an earlier post, I couldn't force myself to read it all. If you did enjoy it, what did you get out of it?
Hi, Rick,
Sorry not to reply earlier; had a major intrusion of real life over the weekend.
I actually did enjoy the book; it took me a while to read, but that had more to do with time constraints and competition with a couple of books my girlfriend wanted me to read:p :sun than the actual style of the book. I thought it was actually pretty well written by the standards of such "academic" biographies. It definitely gives one a good idea of how his family life, country upbringing, and college influences shaped his worldview. As far as not holding down a job and surviving on the kindness of others--another thing that the book brings through is that a lot of people had genuine affection for the man and that, in turn, he did show kindness and humility to others. This went a long way, for me, in counteracting the initial repugance I felt for his personality based on his ideas (note: mostly his NON-Trail ideas, people.) Even if he was a socialist, he didn't let it ruin himself too much (and in fairness, his socialism was not the completely corrupt Soviet type)
Plus, he was a very big thinker, and it's always cool to see big ideas, even if some of those ideas ran into big problems getting translated into reality. And he made really cool maps. That might have been my favorite part of the book, actually.
"What has appealed to the public imagination are the paired attributes of wilderness and continuity that have always characterized the Appalachian Trail. MacKaye's ideas and efforts defined the first attribute, Avery's the second."-- Larry Anderson (Empahasis Mine)
"Wilderness" and "Continuity"?
Rick:
I think this quote probably explains the core concept here more clearly. From the ATC's "Trail Years," p. 22-23 (emphasis mine):
Benton MacKaye rightly gets credit for the concept of the Appalachian Trail and for the networking and organizational groundwork that led to the first Applalachian Trail conference in 1925. But if MacKaye had the visionary idea, Avery had the focused understanding that turned the utopian dream into the two-thousand-mile artifact of rock, soil, wood, and white-paint blazes we follow today. Without MacKaye, the Trail might have never been envisioned and proposed. Without Avery, it might never have been built. . .
Each of the Trail's two patriarchs had his champions and his detractors. Even today, if you listen closely when longtime ATC members start talking Trail history, you may hear slighting references to "Saint Benton," who never deigned to get his hands dirty, or "Emperor Myronides I," the dictator whose single-minded push to connect the dots corrupted the dream. Neither caricature is accurate, of course. Both men were necessary. What is more, the tension between their approaches to the idea of a footpath in the wilderness remains at the heart of the Conference today. It keeps it dynamic and relevant, slow to rest on its laurels and slow to abandon the idealism that gave it birth, yet realistic about the politics and compromise required to keep such a large-scale undertaking vital.
The quote I posted earlier comes at the end of the section of the book which discusses the Skyline Drive/BRP controversy and the break between MacKaye and Avery. MacKaye, of course, was diametrically opposed to the building of roads in close proximity to the Trail, fearing it would fatally compromise the wilderness atmosphere. He seemed to feel so strongly about this issue that he would prefer the Trail not be built at all in such areas (p. 280 of the biography, from a magazine article he wrote--emphasis in the original):
Inveighing against the "crassitudes of civilization," such as billboards, radios, automobile horns, highways, and overengineered graded trails, he asserted that "the Appalachian Trail is a wilderness trail or it is nothing. . ." Rebuking what he saw as Avery's compromised conception of the trail, MacKaye stated his own position bluntly: "In any given case, on any particular stretch from Maine to Georgia, let the Appalachian Trail be real or else be absent."I think the best summary of Avery's position on the matter probably comes from his final report as chairman of ATC in 1951 ("Trail Years", p. 13):
"The Appalachian Trail derives much of its strength and appeal from its uninterrupted and practically endless character. This is an attribute which must be preserved. I view the existence of this pathway and the opportunity to travel it, day after day without interruption, as a distinct aspect of our American life." I think Avery understood that the continuous aspect of the trail was an important part of capturing the public's interest, and thereby motivating support for its preservation. For instance, it is my guess that if MacKaye's views had prevailed in their fullness at the time amongst the ATC, there would have been precious little trail between Front Royal and Greylock--maybe not even much from Roanoke to Greylock, given the Skyline Drive and BRP. I think that this would have had a detrimental effect on the future development and preservation of the trail. For instance, are nearly as many people interested in what's going on in Maine right now if we are merely talking about a "Katahdin to Greylock" trail?
There has been a lot said lately about conceptual views of the trail. No question that keeping a strong conception of the Trail's purpose is important, as it keeps the mission of Trail community on a firm track and from straying too far from the ultimate goals of the project.
By the same token, however, the greatest concept in the world is no good if it never gets translated into real-world results. There is a great aphorism from Voltaire: "the perfect is the enemy of the good." This is why Avery was willing to give in on Skyline Drive; the situation of the tim dictated that government help was needed if the trail was ever going to be realized in its fullness. That required some compromise, but in the end, the completion of the Trail was in itself a powerful weapon for its own protection. (In fact, it was not long after the Trail was completed that the first agreements with the federal and state governments to start protecting it were signed.)
So that was the main point that I took from the original quote I posted; in short, it takes all kinds to get something like the AT done.
Oh yeah, I also thought the Master's own thoughts on trying to limit an enormous phenomenon like the AT to the thoughts or wishes of one person were also interesting. :clap
Oh, yeah, Rick, also forgot to mention that I am also looking forward to reading Forest and Crag, the history of northeastern hiking (at least the parts having to do with the AT--not sure I want to read all 800+ pages), and The Appalachian Trail: A Time to be Bold."
Forest and Craig is a wonderful book.
If you are familiar with the places he writes about it brings the mountains alive with history. If you aren't it could be a long read.
One of the key threads is how people's relationships with the mountains have evolved-- but its all good.
Guy and Laura Waterman's Wilderness and Backwwoods Ethics books are good, too. He got into the cell phone debate even befor they existed!
Cheers.
Rick B
Jack Tarlin
02-28-2005, 20:56
"Forest and Craig?"
Sounds like a politically-correct trail memoir about a couple of guys.
But seriously......
Rick is correct. Forest and Crag is wonderful, as are the Waterman's other books. Incidentally, for those interested in Guy Waterman, and especially in his death by suicide on Mt. Lafayette and what lay behind it, his widow recently published an excellent memoir called "Losing the Garden." It's worth a look.
If you are familiar with the places he writes about it brings the mountains alive with history. If you aren't it could be a long read.
Sometimes reading about places before you go to them is good. Whets one's appetite. And if your imagination's good enough, you can see the places a bit even if you haven't actually been there.
Thanks,
TJ aka Teej
02-28-2005, 23:07
Without MacKaye, the Trail might have never been envisioned and proposed. Without Avery, it might never have been built. . .It's obvious that the Trail Avery built was wilder than the Trail MacKaye proposed. It's also obvious that MacKaye's "wilderness" was a dreamy illusion projected onto a landscape that was populated, farmed, lumbered and otherwise actively and traditionaly used and inhabited. MacKaye's "wilderness" was one that had room to relocate tens of thousands of ubanites, one ready for the saw, hammer, and plow.
Weary once wisely wrote:
Those who walk the entire 2,160 miles of this Appalachian Trail love Maine and its illusion of wildness. But it's a fragile illusion, a fragile trail through a fragile and sometimes degraded forest.It serves no reasonable perpose to pretend our fragile Trail is something that it is not just for the sake of arguement. The need to protect the Trail is real, hysterical hyperbole does more harm than help, and it's help that's needed now.
It's obvious that the Trail Avery built was wilder than the Trail MacKaye proposed. It's also obvious that MacKaye's "wilderness" was a dreamy illusion projected onto a landscape that was populated, farmed, lumbered and otherwise actively and traditionaly used and inhabited. MacKaye's "wilderness" was one that had room to relocate tens of thousands of ubanites, one ready for the saw, hammer, and plow.
Teej is at least partially right if you consider only MacKaye's original essay. But it was not a view he held for most of his long life. But he also never considered wilderness a purely physical thing. He once said "wilderness is both fact and feeling."
It's an idea that I think many modern hikers share. It's a definition that includes my often repeated "sense of wildness," and Rick's "spirit" of the wild.
My definition of wilderness depends on where I am. I sense wildness in Baxter Park in February; a walk between South Branch Ponds and Russell POnd or into Northwest Basin in Baxter Park any time of year.
But there is also wildness in one of our town land preserves that is only 250 acres and across a manmade pond from a busy summer highway. Ignoring the civilization around them beavers each spring repair their lodge on the tiny stream they have dammed. Piliated woodpeckers chip their square holes in the dead snags left from a three decade old logging operation, to the consternation of foresters who advise us to get rid of that junk so "real trees can grow." Deer this winter have created a yard in the evergreens as Maine experiences one of its snowiest winters in years.
That's what I mostly do these days -- find and try to protect and restore a bit of wildness for our children, grandchildren and future generations forever.
Weary
The Old Fhart
02-28-2005, 23:49
Post #42 by dperry and post #47 by TJ are real sensible and factual posts that do a great job of summing up how the A.T. got here and what the problems are without wallowing in detail or treating the trail founders like gods or saints. While all reasonable posters may differ in how to best carry out the objectives of the A.T., and still live in the real world of competing interest for our limited resources, those posts pretty much say it all. The A.T., and this discussion, would be a much better place without all the rocks and roots.....
Guy Waterman was the one who wrote about the importance of preserving a "Spirit of Wildness". I just borrowed the term.
I think he wanted to grow an ethic in the backcountry which would help preserve such a spirit and be self sustaining.
Edit to Add an OT Comment: Square holes, Weary? You got screwed up Pileated Wood Peckers up your way!
"wilderness is both fact and feeling."
It's an idea that I think many modern hikers share. It's a definition that includes my often repeated "sense of wildness," and Rick's "spirit" of the wild.
I think this is what keeps me comming back to the woods. I know that my detachment from civiliztion is always changing in degree out there, yet just leaving that parking area starts that feeling and leaves me wanting it more.
dperry,
Thanks for the well thought out post. I was hoping that your initial post was not merely stirring the pot. Considering your follow up, I applaud your posts.
Well he didn't actually post it. My apologies.
Rocks 'n Roots
03-01-2005, 00:39
Oh yeah, I also thought the Master's own thoughts on trying to limit an enormous phenomenon like the AT to the thoughts or wishes of one person were also interesting.
Sounds like fishing against the obvious to avoid admitting those who were questioning whether MacKaye ever had any thoughts at all about an AT wilderness ethic were totally ignorant. I appreciate your humble apology.
I see now we are forgetting this original argument and jumping ahead to a feel-good conclusion that avoids the original point. That point was how imperative is this remaining ethic in understanding and promoting today's Trail? As D Perry quoted:
the greatest concept in the world is no good if it never gets translated into real-world results.
This also holds true for the AT's wilderness ethic. It's a double-edged sword that some only want to see one side of. The Trail will never be truly wild unless its users help it stay that way. Thank you Rick...
I'd like to see D Perry offer an abstract opinion on how this original wild-core AT would better serve today's age of land development by preserving a totally wild place for perpetuity? Or is that not "real" enough?
Rocks 'n Roots
03-01-2005, 00:51
It's obvious that the Trail Avery built was wilder than the Trail MacKaye proposed. It's also obvious that MacKaye's "wilderness" was a dreamy illusion projected onto a landscape that was populated, farmed, lumbered and otherwise actively and traditionaly used and inhabited. MacKaye's "wilderness" was one that had room to relocate tens of thousands of ubanites, one ready for the saw, hammer, and plow.
Says TJ, whose only form of discussion is figuring out a way to disagree then working distorted facts into it.
Even with the failure of MacKaye to get his totally wild Trail built, the AT still has many places where unbroken woods dominate the surroundings for miles and miles.
TJ continues to insist Avery somehow made a wilder Trail when just about all accepted forms of Trail history say otherwise. Avery promoted the Skyline Drive (blasted right over the top of the path) yet somehow TJ concludes this was wilder than MacKaye's Project - even though MacKaye quit the Project when this insult was done.
It's plain TJ is just here to disagree and doesn't really know what he's talking about. He's the same one who was questioning whether MacKaye ever wrote anything about wilderness and the AT...
(Now TJ will say "That's a lie")
Sounds like fishing against the obvious to avoid admitting those who were questioning whether MacKaye ever had any thoughts at all about an AT wilderness ethic were totally ignorant. I appreciate your humble apology. After having read the book, I am perfectly willing to admit that Mr. MacKaye was quite hardcore about wilderness, and that he got more so over time. For that, I will indeed humbly apologize.
This still leaves us with the following questions:
1.) Is MacKaye the only person allowed to have opinions about the Trail? Is it possible that other people might have worthwhile ideas about the Trail that do not coincide 100% with what MacKaye thought?
2.) Is it advisable or practical to attempt to apply MacKaye's vision of the Trail with 100% faithfulness? (Even assuming we understand precisely what that is, of course.) Could it, in fact, be detrimental to the development of the trail?
I see now we are forgetting this original argument and jumping ahead to a feel-good conclusion that avoids the original point. That point was how imperative is this remaining ethic in understanding and promoting today's Trail? Well, my opinion on the subject has already been stated, as follows:
No question that keeping a strong conception of the Trail's purpose is important, as it keeps the mission of Trail community on a firm track and from straying too far from the ultimate goals of the project. So certainly, it is important to have the wilderness component of the trail always firmly in mind. We do not want the AT to simply become another bike trail, after all. (Not counting the Creeper, anyway.;) )
But by the same token, we're not building the Trail in a vacuum. It's not like the CDT or the PCT, where most of the land is pretty much already public and one can do whatever one wants. There are a lot of people already here, and to put it politely, coming in with guns blazing, calling everyone evil who stands in one's way is probably not going to make one's life any easier.
And yeah, it would have been nice if the government had bought up some more land in Maine. Maybe they just figured what a lot of other people probably figured; the logging companies had been there forever, they weren't going anywhere, there was only so much money and a lot of other places in other parts of the country that needed saving (Mojave Desert, Alaska, more of the Everglades, etc.)
So they (and a lot of other people) were wrong. Oh well; too late now. All the kvetching in the world about evil capitalists doesn't change the fact that they have the land now and we don't. Maybe we can talk the state into bailing us out, but if not, we might just have to swallow our pride and make a deal. Better that, than not getting anything, and being guaranteed to have condos backing up against the Trail. I think the MATLT is only being mature and responsible in preparing for the possibility.
Put differently, it's taken more than 80 years just to get Avery's vision of the trail (i.e., the basic footpath completed and stabilized) finished. My guess is is that it will take at least 200 years for MacKaye's vision to be fully realized, if it ever is. We don't ever want to sell out completely; but by the same token, we better be willing to bend a little bit to get a project of that magnitude done.
This also holds true for the AT's wilderness ethic. It's a double-edged sword that some only want to see one side of. The Trail will never be truly wild unless its users help it stay that way. Thank you Rick...Well, I offered the long quote from "Trail Years" as illustration of what both I and the ATC feel are the two edges of the sword; i.e., the idealistic vs. the practical, wilderness vs. continuity, MacKaye vs. Avery. I would be interested in knowing what you think the two edges are, particularly since you only seem to talk about one of them, i.e., MacKaye's side of things.
I'd like to see D Perry offer an abstract opinion on how this original wild-core AT would better serve today's age of land development by preserving a totally wild place for perpetuity? Or is that not "real" enough?I already offered a concrete opinion, which was this: if the ATC had stuck 100% to MacKaye's view in the 1930's, there would be no Appalachian Trail today, at least as we know it. There might be a "Katahdin to Greylock" trail, and there might be a "Roanoke to Springer" trail, but there would not be one trail, going 2,175 miles, up and down almost the entire length of the eastern mountain range.
You think it's a pain trying to keep the trail buffered now? Try doing it without it being continuous, without having this wonderful long triumph that so many people have used and feel wonderful about. Think about all the thru hikers who would have never had their wonderful experiences, who wouldn't feel the attachment they do that makes them want to keep the Trail safe for future generations. Heck, the reason I'm here, and thinking about covering the whole Trail over time, is precisely because it's such a challenge, and because it goes so many different places. I don't get this excited over just any little trail, you know. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way.
That was what Avery understood: that it was imperative to get the project done, even if it wasn't 100% perfect, because by doing so, it would bring the conception into reality, where people could see it and use it and become psyched about it. The mere existence of the Trail has created a groundswell for keeping it and expanding the protection around it.
And, by the way, "totally" wild? I hate to inform, but by the mere act of building a trail through the wilderness, one has injected people into said wilderness, and opened up the door to all of the things they bring.
There is therefore only one way to guarantee that the Appalachian Trail "corridor" will remain total, unadulterated wilderness:
Completely eliminate the Appalachian Trail itself.
How's that for a double-edged sword?
"There might be a "Katahdin to Greylock" trail"
I thought Mackaye wanted the Trail to stop at Mt. Washington. :)
There is a part of this "Mackaye Business" I just don't get. Seems like people easily give him a credit for his initial idea (and indeed, many here define him by that one article), but I sense that he must have done something more.
Did he help form clubs? Inspire trail builders with seminars or talks or force of personality? Look for funding? Consult on route planning? Get the press involved? Get the public involved? Set the agenda? Help bring people together?
I know he wasn't out there building trails, but did he do much of anything in the rear echelons other than being some sort of mascott? Of the little I do know about him, it seems like he set a spark but didn't do much more.
But since that book weighed so much, I figure that he must have done something more than be an interesting charater.
Rick B
But since that book weighed so much, I figure that he must have done something more than be an interesting charater.
Rick B
Sometimes being the inspiration is enough.
Would there be an AT without Mackayes inspiration?
I honestly don't know.
But safe to say that Mackayes idealism was the spark for the AT as we know it today; Avery (and others) took the idealism and made it a reality.
Is the trail something that adheres 100% to Mackayes vision? No. Though I think Mackaye would enjoy the fact that 5 million people a year step on this trail. To leave their worries behind if only for a few hours, a few days, a few weeks or a few months.
Is it something we should love, cherish and enjoy? Yes.
TJ aka Teej
03-01-2005, 11:55
TJ continues to insist Avery somehow made a wilder Trail when just about all accepted forms of Trail history say otherwise. What I said was this:
It's obvious that the Trail Avery built was wilder than the Trail MacKaye proposed. MacKaye's proposal was dismissed by the first ATC in favor of a wilder trail model. Only someone as ignorant about Trail history as Roxy would disagree.
TJ aka Teej
03-01-2005, 12:01
...but I sense that he must have done something more.
He outlived Avery by many, many, years. Longevity has its benefits.
TJ aka Teej
03-01-2005, 12:18
He's the same one who was questioning whether MacKaye ever wrote anything about wilderness and the AT...
You claimed MacKaye's original reason for creating the Appalachian Trail was wilderness preservation. I was among several people who pointed out to you that nowhere in MacKaye's original proposal did he mention wilderness preservation, the location he planned for the Trail wasn't wilderness, and the development he planned was certainly anti-wilderness. Roxy, once again you prove you are not qualified to be in this discussion (dot dot dot)
....Did he help form clubs? Inspire trail builders with seminars or talks or force of personality? Look for funding? Consult on route planning? Get the press involved? Get the public involved? Set the agenda? Help bring people together?
I know he wasn't out there building trails, but did he do much of anything in the rear echelons other than being some sort of mascott? Of the little I do know about him, it seems like he set a spark but didn't do much more....
Rick B
He spent much of the decade after the initial article speaking to groups and promoting interest in the trail. There's quite a bit of evidence that the real reason the trail idea survived to become a footpath is a columnist for the New York Herald Tribune picked up the idea and promoted it for years. I forget the guys name and still haven't found my copy of the biography.
MacKaye saw his role as a bit more than a spark. In an interview a few months before he died at age 95, Mackaye said his role was "to put the match to the fuse."
In the middle 30s there was an interesting exchange of letters between Mckaye and Avery in which Mackaye deplored the construction of the road in Shenandoah and Avery replied by asking how many miles of trail were built in the two years Mckaye was in charge of construction. Avery answered his own question, "none."
Mackaye, however, came to respect Avery's efforts and the efforts of the thousands of volunteers who built the trail and continue to maintain and support it. He called the volunteers "the soul of the trail."
Nor, as someone claimed while lamenting the failure of the government to buy a wider trail corridor in Maine, is it now too late to correct the oversight. The land adjacent to the trail in Maine is either on the market or will be. All that is needed is a fundraising "Avery," someone who will make the oversight a personal crusade, someone who is willing to fight for at least those portions of the trail where wilderness is still possible.
Until we find such a volunteer, you can help by making a contribution to the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, PO Box 325, Yarmouth, Maine 04096. Or open www.matlt.org
For those who asked for ways to make on line contributions, we are working on it. Something should be posted on the web site in a week or so.
Weary
This is gonna be a good episode of The Rocks N Roots & Friends show. :jumpAh, the good 'ol days...:D