We do understand you, we just don't agree with you. You for some reason need to prop up your thru hike by denigrating others.
I have thru hiked yet I think you may need a long hike to chill a bit. While I have never slack packed or yellow blazed I couldn't give a rats azz if others do a one, two skip a few 99, 100 approach to their hikeor hire a Sherpa to carry their pack. You keep throwing the term "abusing" around. Really? Do you think because you just walked 2000 miles that you are now the singular source of the truth on how one should hike?
Finally, as to your comment "if you disagree with me, then please don't comment and go HYOH!!" This shows your immaturity. You are just looking for validation and are upset that everyone didn't hail you as a hiking sage.
Mags, when you return we need you HMHDI post.
enemy of unnecessary but innovative trail invention gadgetry
Hhmmh … seems that I need to update Mag's HMHDI vision based on MY vision — just so it's correct.
(Everything has to be be converted to the true Canuck metric units — and rounded to even units. I.e., 10 kilograms, not £20, to accommodate the greater need for more Deet …)
Bruce Traillium, brucetraillium.wordpress.com
Well, that's an interesting claim in light of this info from the ATC site. I can't reconcile the two claims. Can you?
Source: https://www.appalachiantrail.org/hom...er-applicationThe Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) recognizes anyone who reports completion of the entire Trail as a “2,000-miler.” The term is a matter of tradition and convenience, based upon the original estimated length of the Trail. Conservancy policy is to operate on an honor system, assuming that those who apply for 2000-miler status have hiked all of the A.T. between Katahdin and Springer Mountain, either as a thru-hiker or in sections. In the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm, blue-blazed trails or officially required roadwalks are viable substitutes for the white-blazed route. Issues of sequence, direction, speed, length of time or whether one carries a pack are not considered. ATC assumes that those who apply have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail, even if they did not walk past every white blaze. If you meet these standards, please complete and sign the form below.
The ATC uses the term "thru-hiker" quite a bit on their website. If the concept doesn't exist, why do they use it?
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home...r-registration
if the concept does not exist and anyone who spends even one night off trail is a "just a section hiker", what is the term (if anything) for someone who never spends a night off trail? Just a hiker? Ironbutt hiker?
Earl did it too. Read his journal online at https://transcription.si.edu/view/67...28-0000025-007
Whitewalker, what amount of slack packing would you say disqualifies someone from being a thru-hiker?
"Chainsaw" GA-ME 2011
While I don't share the white walker's apparent vitriol, I think it's more fair to say that the point under contention is the combination of skipping sections (for reasons other than fire, flood, storm, etc) and claiming to be a thru-hiker, or 2000 miler if you like. They seem to be in conflict with how the ATC lays out the definition, which is self-certified and on the honor system. To me, there's nothing wrong with the first part by itself, until combined with the second part.
It reminds me of my soccer-playing days as a youth, when we would warm up with laps around the field. There were always some guys who would cut the corners of the field. First lap, the entire field would be within the rough oval that circumscribed the field. Second lap, they'd clip the corners. The corner kick areas would be outside the path. Third and subsequent laps, they would head diagonally for the sidelines soon after passing behind the goal. They may have seen each circuit as a lap of the field, but it really wasn't. Did they run? Yeah, they ran. Did they lap the field each time? No. Did they run laps around the goals? Yes.
So I think it's a matter of what you claim you did, relative to what you actually did. If some of you think it's OK to claim you hiked 2000 miles on the AT when you "only" hiked 1900 or 1800, well, I don't know what to say to you. Hiking 1900 miles is awesome and amazing, but self-certifying that you did more, that action is not so awesome.
Thru hikers get same 2000 miler certificate (if thats important to them), as someone completing trail over 50 years. Theres no special recognition given for thru hiking is what the ATC is saying. Registration is new and simply a way to try to spread the hordes out voluntarily. How to get people to voluntarily do this.......make them feel special with a cute little tag.
Last edited by MuddyWaters; 09-05-2016 at 09:05.
The ATC does not recognize thru hikers-- at least not as a special classification.
Rather, they acknowledge applicants who have walked the entire AT with the organization's "2000 Miler" recognition, regardless of how they hiked the Trail.
They don't care if applicants did the AT as day hikers, or thru-hikers, or section hikers or slack packers or any combination of these.
Sort of makes sense considering the ATC is first and foremost is a TRAIL organization and not a HIKING organization, right?
The definition of what constitutes a "2000 Miler" is spelled out on their application form. It is thier award so they get to define it or change it anyway they so choose. They ATC can even require that hikers looking for the "2000 Miler" recognition sign a document attesting to having met their definition. And they do.
The term "Thru Hiker" is different.
Like many words in common usage, some will use them more "correctly" than others, but no one person or organization gets to set the definition-- we all do. English a living language -- does anyone think "gang banger" still means what it did 30 years ago?
Same with "Thru Hiker". The meaning has changed over time (but not as much as some would think).
Big deal.
I’m getting in this thread late but after reading several of the posts, this is the same topic post over and over again. Last year I asked the question, why it was costing so much to thru-hike compare to the 1990s. In the 1990s, the general advises was about a dollar per/mile. Now, few hikers travel spending less than $5,000 on an average AT thru-hike.
Part of the increase is inflation of course, but a bigger part is the amount hikers are spending on lodging and related expenses. Hikers are spending more time in towns and less time on the trail. It is easier to stay in town, slackpack down the trail and then come back to a nice warm bed. The good part is also means less impact on the trail from camping, litter, etc. The draw-back is it cost more and hikers gain less experience hikers in the wilderness. If someone is spending less time camping in the woods they are not going to be as experience as someone who spend more time camping and less time in town. HYOH. The same applies to hikers who skip large section of trails. Hikers skipping hundreds of trail miles, but still calling themselves “thru-hikers” are going to be less experience in the wilderness. If you talk to them, you can tell. If someone tells you the, “White Mountains are all nice mountains.” They might have skipped them.
Some ones knowledge on equipment is the same way. It always amazes me how someone can claim they have hiked thousands of times and still ask, “What do you carry?” Wouldn’t someone who hiked thousands of miles know where, when, how all determine what equipment someone is going to carry? Call me crazy but wouldn’t it make sense on a normal Northbound thru-hike, someone hiking Georgia in March/April, would carry different equipment than hiking in Pennsylvania. I’m not saying anything someone with experience doesn’t know, but it a different generation.
Face it, this is the new generation of hikers. In WhiteWalker original post, some of the same hikers might even be the same “expert hikers” advising other hikers on how to hike the trail.
Wolf
completing the A T means you walked every White Blaze on your own two feet whether your carrying anything or not.
Skipping sections is a different matter. If you don't hike the entire trail, then you should not say you did. SIMPLE Hike your on hike is great , lying about it is not.
completing the A T means you walked every White Blaze on your own two feet whether your carrying anything or not.
Skipping sections is a different matter. If you don't hike the entire trail, then you should not say you did. SIMPLE Hike your on hike is great , lying about it is not.
I like the way you think. Colin Fletcher was a curmudgeon, Ed Abbey was a curmudgeon, I am a curmudgeon and apparently you are a curmudgeon. You are in good company.
The prevailing trend nowadays in my opinion is to experience the outdoors in smaller and smaller bites. It's the trend called DONE IN A DAY---to experience "wilderness" in much shorter time periods and by carrying the least amount of weight. Done In A Day hysteria is really the "battle" between Dayhiking and Backpacking.
This reflects my previous comment about Done In A Day types. It's also a reflection of the wired-in generation with waypoints and live-feeds and phone addictions, coupled with the Fast & Light hysteria so common nowadays. Your point---"Finishing the trail as soon as possible" and I would add---"Spending as little time as possible with uninterrupted wilderness time."
Exactly. My enjoyment of the forest has nothing to do with the Appalachian Trail or its hikers or dayhikers or slackpackers or thruhikers. In fact, I detest backpacking on the AT during most of the year because most of the backpackers I see are either rushing to a town or recently from a town. It's depressing. These outdoorsmen are severely interrupted with constant resupply and absurdly low food loads, not to mention the pitiful dependence on AT box shelters. No thanks.
First point is true. Slackers. "Nice warm bed" about says it all.
To second point: So true. Whenever I find myself on the AT during a backpacking trip I am amazed by these so-called "experts" HOLDING COURT at picnic tables by trail shelters. They invite questions from the drooling onlookers and "newbs" but never themselves ask any questions. They've been on the trail for 2 whole months and will now take your questions as they portray a cool trail weariness. It's laughable.
One time I met such a fellow at Thomas Knob shelter by Mt Rogers and he went on and on about his trail experience. I managed to get in one question: "Have you ever camped in snow??" "No" was all he said. Scratch another expert off the list.
Ridiculously low food loads. Oh, the horror...