Originally Posted by
Slumgum
Well said!
Not sure who Chris "Hawk" Mains is, but I would argue that the A.T. is a hiking trail, not a climbing route. When some of these steep trails were first laid out, there were roots and vegetation over the thin soils on top of the steep, slick bare rock faces in question. They were passable. Over time traffic has turned it into what we have today. The suggestion that hikers should risk injury to preserve a "trail" that was inadequately constructed for the foot traffic it now carries is ludicrous.
Certainly, some sections of the A.T. are far more difficult to maintain than other parts. Volunteers carry out most, if not all trail maintenance and deserve big thanks. It is my understanding that they are handcuffed to some extent regarding what they can do, i.e., permission must be granted before certain changes can be made; "engineering" has to be carried out before funds can be released for even the most basic change in a route. That is part of dealing with the complex bureaucracy that comprises the A.T. oversight. Of course, without this hierarchy we would not even have an A.T. Still, there is room for improvement.
The A.T. has widely varying levels of trail construction/maintenance. Some of the states with the most challenging terrain have the poorest maintenance ... even blazing is sketchy. No need to mention any names. Anyone who has hiked the A.T. knows.