Ya know, let me attempt to offer an explanation. When you use the terms "bang for the buck" and "getting hikers" and such, many people are by nature going to question the motivation. Because it sounds an awful lot like marketing and business and not just "doing good." "Bang for the buck" implies a return on investment - that you or your church are getting something out of your expense and effort - even if that return is something intangible in nature, like access and/or a target audience, and feeling good about what you are doing. Many will interpret "getting hikers" as "targeting hikers", or perhaps "fishing for hikers" might be more apropos - with the "lure" being cast one of free food to hungry hikers. You complain that "they [WB posts] do not answer the question asked, they shove their political or philosophical agenda down someone’s throat", yet doesn't your word choice of "mission work" imply that there is at least some degree of a philosophical agenda behind the hiker feed, even if it's just a benign pamphlet or an invitation to have a conversation? What is the purpose, where does it lead...? Most people associate "mission" with at least some degree of promoting a religious viewpoint along with "good works". That many thru-hikers are seeking something in a spiritual sense is pretty obvious. A hike is often a time of self-examination and contemplation and a search for meaning or something different in life. Some hikers are very vulnerable during this time. And honestly, hikers don't need food in a mission sense. I can think of only one starvation death on the AT, Gerry Largay in ME, and the lack of a hiker feed wasn't the cause. As such, many who don't share your particular world/philosophical/religious views will react negatively to anything they see as even remotely proselytizing or evangelizing - and even more so if it pretends to be anything other than that.
As to your comments, "That is one fault with many of these types of sites", and "if you don't like a post, don't comment", really isn't in keeping with the nature of a
discussion board. Discussions by nature bring out differing viewpoints. You believe hikers need feeding and what you call "trail magic", but others don't - they think hiker feeds are detrimental to the trail. And they aren't without some backing as ATC discourages certain aspects of hiker feeds, one of which is,
"Avoid areas with a high concentration of feeds, especially Georgia in March and early April." Another, perhaps relevant here is,
"Hikers may be made to feel like a captive audience—especially if feed facilitators promote their personal world-views." https://appalachiantrail.org/home/ex...ng/trail-magic Obviously you've had replies on this and other sites that you didn't appreciate. Sometimes when we get negative reaction in life we think it's just the other guy not liking us, or in this case our church, or religion in general. And that is true in some cases. But to assume that we deserve only support and positive reaction, because
in our opinion ours is a just cause and we're "doing good", is also pretty self-righteous. So sometimes, maybe we should also ask ourselves what
we may have done - how we approached the topic, how we worded our post, etc., that led to those negative responses.
As someone who grew up hiking before hiker feeds became a thing, I have mixed emotions when it comes to them. I can see where many hikers might well appreciate the food and drink. I can also see where it detracts from the trail's intended illusion of wilderness and adds to the traveling party problem. So, do as you will, but be realistic, and just don't expect that it will be immune from criticism.