"News" section

[Jack Tarlin]

When the "Appalachian Trail News Today" section was started, I had two reservations: I didn't like the fact that we couldn't comment on, respond to, or express approval or dis-agreement with the articles in question. Andmany of these articles would have provoked lively and hopefully thoughtful discussions.

And I was also concerned that sooner or later, an article would appear that probably wasn't so great for the website, but since it contained the words "Appalachian Trail" in its title or body, it'd appear anyway.

Well, case in point: Today, I see that we've been presented with an article asking people to get involved with an effort to keep the Continental Divide Trail accessible to mountain bikes.

Um, sorry, but I don't really think Mountain bikes belong on National Scenic Trails. And I don't think that a website devoted to one particular long-distance Trail should post stuff about another Trail that could both damage and degrade that Trail. I think the "Help Save Bike Access!" article is completely inappropriate for Whiteblaze.....what's next, an article urging the introduction or ATV's or snowmobiles to the A.T.? Um, I don't think so.

The "News" section needs to be checked regularly, and I think people should be allowed to post comments on the articles in question. I think it's unfortunate that stuff like this ends up on WB, and it's even more unfortunate that we can't discuss or debate this stuff when it does show up.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[attroll]

Jack you have brought out a very good point and this was also one of my concerns when I started the NEWS section. At the time I started it I was able to check it regularly and weed stuff out of it. Since then I have gotten overwhelmed with other things and I turned it over to someone else giving them moderating privileges to take care of it and weed all the non Appalachian Trail stuff out of it. The problem is that like every other moderator that is willing to volunteer to help us with the site this person either lost interest or stopped logging on to the web site on a regular basis. This is why is stopped getting weeded out.

If anyone else is interested in weeding out the News getting posted in this section please let me know.

[Ron Haven]

When the "Appalachian Trail News Today" section was started, I had two reservations: I didn't like the fact that we couldn't comment on, respond to, or express approval or dis-agreement with the articles in question. Andmany of these articles would have provoked lively and hopefully thoughtful discussions.

And I was also concerned that sooner or later, an article would appear that probably wasn't so great for the website, but since it contained the words "Appalachian Trail" in its title or body, it'd appear anyway.

Well, case in point: Today, I see that we've been presented with an article asking people to get involved with an effort to keep the Continental Divide Trail accessible to mountain bikes.

Um, sorry, but I don't really think Mountain bikes belong on National Scenic Trails. And I don't think that a website devoted to one particular long-distance Trail should post stuff about another Trail that could both damage and degrade that Trail. I think the "Help Save Bike Access!" article is completely inappropriate for Whiteblaze.....what's next, an article urging the introduction or ATV's or snowmobiles to the A.T.? Um, I don't think so.

The "News" section needs to be checked regularly, and I think people should be allowed to post comments on the articles in question. I think it's unfortunate that stuff like this ends up on WB, and it's even more unfortunate that we can't discuss or debate this stuff when it does show up.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Hey good luck Jack.Where are you?

[Alligator]

I don't read every article that goes through the news section. However, I do check in daily and weed out the many duplicate, triplicate, etc. articles that get collected. Just keeping my eyes on those is a chore because often the article title is slightly different. I in fact do delete articles daily as a result of this.

Oftentimes, it's takes a bit of reading to determine the connection to the trail. Many times, it's simply that Joe or Jane Hiker hiked the trail. Now, I could just delete those, but a lot of times these articles are getting read. I prefer to go very light on deleting news as I do not wish to introduce my own biases into what you folks read.

However, I do delete articles that are very unrelated (provided I've read them) . For instance, there's a racehorse called Appalachian Trail that frequently pops up and I trash those as soon as I see them.

If there is an article that you feel is totally non AT related, all you have to do is flag it and I can have it gone fairly quickly. Better yet, just PM me and I will see the note immediately. If you flag it I won't see it until I check my email.

If you want to discuss the articles though no one is stopping you. One could just start a thread about it in the appropriate forum, depending on topic [Idea 1]

Alternatively, if admin wishes, they can add a subforum, maybe call it "In the news discussion". Posters could then start a thread and link to the post. Of course, it would be best if the thread starter copied in the article for reference, as many times the outside links start to die. I don't think this would violate copyright but it is something to consider. [Idea 2]

Opening up the news threads to immediate posting[Idea 3].

I don't like Idea 3 because it does not slow down the, shall we say, more visceral responses.

Idea 2 is OK IMO, but as the news is often somewhat controversial, it will require moderation. Given the site dynamics, admin typically handles this type of moderation. I'll do it if you like admin, but it's my feeling that admin prefers to make the final calls on heavier moderation.

So if we choose idea 1, members can simply start new threads in the appropriate forums and there is no need to worry about new moderating.

Alligator.

[Jack Tarlin]

1. Thanx Troll and Gator for the quick resposnses!

2. Ron, I'm in Harpers Ferry, heading up to Duncanon later today to help
TrailAngelMary get ready for our annual hiker event in Duncannon, which'll
start tomorrow. After that, will either be hiking in PA with the Dude and
some other friends, or will be heading up to Mass./Vermont to hike there.
Hope you and your family are well and having a great summer.

[CaseyB]

Hey Jack, I belive we met when you were through Damascus a while back, over at the Baja. In your post above the comment about "what's next......" sort of lumps bikes in with ATV's, etc. As a mountain biker, I hate to see generalizations like this b/c bikes cause basically the same impacts on trails as do hikers and are human powered. Bikes keep singletrack trail singletrack and only weigh rider plus 30 lbs, versus rider plus 350 lbs for ATV's or motorcycles. I know that trashing bikes was not the point of your post, but I have to speak up in defense of mountain biking.

[chomp]

Agreed - mountain bikes continue to get a bad rap despite the fact that they are a quiet, non-emmisions producing, human powered mode of transportation. And having hiked, backpacked AND mountain biked on several different sections of the CDT I can tell you that everyone gets along just fine. Multi-use trails are much more widely accepted out west, and much of the terrain on the CDT is very well suited for foot and knobby traffic.

There already is a way to restrict mountain bike use in sensitive areas - designate it as Wilderness. However, I have a problem with this since horses cause way more damage than bikes, but they are still allowed in wilderness... but I digress.

Mountain biking is not the gung-ho, tear up the trails sport that it used to be. Groups that I am a member of support conservation, built sustainable trails and educate others on when not to ride (mud season, right after a big rain, etc...), and the importance of sticking to the trail so not as to widen it or erode it. Lighter bikes, smaller tires and overall better education have changed the sport.

[Skyline]

Hey Jack, I belive we met when you were through Damascus a while back, over at the Baja. In your post above the comment about "what's next......" sort of lumps bikes in with ATV's, etc. As a mountain biker, I hate to see generalizations like this b/c bikes cause basically the same impacts on trails as do hikers and are human powered. Bikes keep singletrack trail singletrack and only weigh rider plus 30 lbs, versus rider plus 350 lbs for ATV's or motorcycles. I know that trashing bikes was not the point of your post, but I have to speak up in defense of mountain biking.

Apparently you have never been a hiking trail maintainer. Bicycle-riding humans do cause a lot more damage to certain types of trail tread than do hikers alone. While the bike may only add 30 lbs. or so, all that weight of the rider + bike touches the trail in a very concentrated place--where the tires meet the dirt.

A single bicycle ridden on soft trail will cause a rut. This rut expands quickly due to:

1) Successive bicyclists seeing that it has been ridden on, they do likewise, and the rut gets deeper and wider.

2) Rain begins to flow down the rut, causing significant erosion in as short as one season.

Hiker-oriented trail maintaining clubs along the AT (or other trails) spend tens of thousands of hours each year constructing and maintaining trails. It is selfish and inconsiderate for bike riders (or others) to purposely destroy what they have created.

There are trails in many state parks, national forests, etc. that are set aside for bicyclists and other recreational users (those on horseback or on ATVs, for example) to enjoy. While hikers may also walk on some of these, their expectations (re: tread quality and solitude) are not as high, and typically these trails have not been as carefully manicured by hiking club volunteers whose work is undone by mixed use.

I won't quarrel with your assessment that ATVs are harder on hiking trails than bicycles. But bikes and their riders do cause considerable damage.

[Jack Tarlin]

I respect Casey and Chomp's comments and want to make it clear that I have nothing against Mountain bikes or mountain bike owners. I just don't think they belong on National Scenic Trails. And as for Chomp's comment suggesting that bike use be restricted in sensitive areas, I couldn't agree more.....I just happen to think the whole A.T. is "sensitive" as it is ALWAYS under some sort of threat. And maybe things are different as far as the far west, with everyone getting along. But I've had several encounters with mountain bikes and their riders on the A.T. and they were dickheads. I also dispute that bikes and bikers don't damage or threaten trails; I believe they have a negative impact on plant ond animal life, and most of all, they are intrusive when they appear on backcountry FOOTPATHS. There is certainly a time and place for Mountain biking, but I personally don't think that National Scenic HIKING Trails are the best place for them.

Lastly, in regards to damage to the Trail, negative impact, etc., I think that Trail maintainers would agree with me on this; it'd be very good to hear from them here.

[Jack Tarlin]

My above post obviously crossed with Skyline's. His comments and perspective are EXACTLY what I was hoping to see.....this is PRECISELY why I don't want to see....or encourage.....more bikes on Trails that were designed and built as FOOT paths. There are more appropriate places for their use.

[Skyline]

Mountain biking is not the gung-ho, tear up the trails sport that it used to be. Groups that I am a member of support conservation, built sustainable trails and educate others on when not to ride (mud season, right after a big rain, etc...), and the importance of sticking to the trail so not as to widen it or erode it. Lighter bikes, smaller tires and overall better education have changed the sport.

But it only takes a few of your bike-riding buds to really mess up a beautiful hiking trail. You must know that not all bike riders adhere to the code of ethics you cite. The AT would suffer greatly if bikes (or horses, or ATVs) were permitted on many parts of it. So would a lot of other hiking-only trails, especially the softer parts.

Unfortunately, official enforcement of the "no bikes" rule is spotty at best. When a hiker points at the no-bike signage so as to inform an intruder that he or she should not be there, it is likely to evoke a response involving the middle finger or just be ignored. And the penalty for getting caught is rarely even a slap on the wrist. Maybe the guilty part(ies) should be sentenced to repair the miles of trail he or she just vandalized.

[Lone Wolf]

The AT is for foot travel only. Period. The Iron Mtn. trail (old AT) north out of Damascus allows motorcycles, bicycles and horses.

[Alligator]

I think that the article Jack referred to in his initial post was deleted by Attroll, but this article references this subject
http://www.imba.com/news/action_aler...ide_trail.html

I recommend that this topic be moved to the CDT forum considering that was its initial focus, or possibly Trail Concerns if the wish is to address the impact of bicycles on the AT. Probably won't be moved though until ATtroll wakes up, so don't let that dampen your discussion.

[Lyle]

As as a trail maintainer, hiker and, to a lesser degree, biker. I couldn't agree more with Skyline. Bikes DO damage hiking trails in many areas.

They also degrade the hiking experience tremendously in popular areas. I have had to jump out of the way numerous times when a biker comes around a bend at a high rate of speed. I have also had to try to stabilize sidehill trail in sandy soil that bikers constantly are churning up. Yes, bikers cause less damage than horses or ATV's, but that doesn't mean that they don't cause more damage, and different types of damage than hikers.

If bikers want national trails, maybe they should organize and build some "bike" trails instead of relying on the bicycle manufactures to lobby for access to the trails that hikers sweat over building and maintaining. There are horse trails here in Michigan that the horse people lobbied for, built, and maintain - more power to them, they should have every right to do that. Same with bikers.

[Lone Wolf]

I have had to jump out of the way numerous times when a biker comes around a bend at a high rate of speed.

I've had to do that too,quite a few times on the Iron Mtn. trail BUT I chose to be there. I don't want to be dodging them on the AT. Footpath ONLY.

[CaseyB]

My intention here was not to start a bikes vs. hikers debate but to point out that bikes are much kinder to trails that ATV's, etc. The article referenced is not talking about opening foot trails to bikes, it is about having bikes excluded from a trail on which they are currently allowed. According to the CDNST society's website:

The Society agrees with the American Hiking Society that "the experience of a hiking trail is fundamentally altered by the presence of bicycles and other mechanical conveyances." This is particularly likely to be true in backcountry areas, where bicycles intrude upon a sense of solitude and enjoyment of nature, especially if the tread permits riders to travel at high speed.

So the argument for "tearing up the trails" seems to have been abandoned for "fundamentally altering my experience"

[Jack Tarlin]

Gee, Case.......a ripped up, rutted-out Trail would sure alter MY Trail experience, as well as altering the Trail.

So I don't think the CDNST's comments can be so quickly ignored or made light of.

The fact that Mountain Bikes do lots less damage than ATV's is not in dispute here, and never was. It's like saying that horses on the Trail would do less damage and have less impact than elephants. It doesn't alter the fact that horses have the potential to do a lot of damage. The fact the bikes have the potential to do great damage....and frequently do so.....is also not something open to dispute,as the comments above from long-time maintainers indicates.

And merely because bikes are "currently allowed " on certain Trails doesn't mean this should stay that way indefinitely. I mean, once upon atime, it was perfectly legal to drink and drive in all 50 states. Then people came to the realization that this probably wasn't such a hot idea, despite the fact that it was an old practice that had existed for years.

Just cuz something is "currently allowed" doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing, and certainly doesn't mean that it it is protected forever.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Society (who you yourself quoted) evidently feels that the Trail is fundamentally altered.....and not for the better..... by the presence of bicycles on a Trail that was designed as a footpath.

This to me speaks volumes.

[CaseyB]

To clarify my last post, that last sentence was mine, the font changed when I pasted from the other website & didn't go back when I started typing.

[CaseyB]

Gee, Case.......a ripped up, rutted-out Trail would sure alter MY Trail experience, as well as altering the Trail.

So I don't think the CDNST's comments can be so quickly ignored or made light of.

The fact that Mountain Bikes do lots less damage than ATV's is not in dispute here, and never was. It's like saying that horses on the Trail would do less damage and have less impact than elephants. It doesn't alter the fact that horses have the potential to do a lot of damage. The fact the bikes have the potential to do great damage....and frequently do so.....is also not something open to dispute,as the comments above from long-time maintainers indicates.

And merely because bikes are "currently allowed " on certain Trails doesn't mean this should stay that way indefinitely. I mean, once upon atime, it was perfectly legal to drink and drive in all 50 states. Then people came to the realization that this probably wasn't such a hot idea, despite the fact that it was an old practice that had existed for years.

Just cuz something is "currently allowed" doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing, and certainly doesn't mean that it it is protected forever.

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Society (who you yourself quoted) evidently feels that the Trail is fundamentally altered.....and not for the better..... by the presence of bicycles on a Trail that was designed as a footpath.

This to me speaks volumes.

The CDNST society exists for the purpose of removing other users from the trail. On the 1st page of their website, there is mention of the fact that they advocate a "silent trail" with a link to their reasoning for getting rid of motorized and mechanized (bikes) travel.
What I read there sounds like it has less to do with trail damage and lots to do with hikers having their solitude briefly interrupted by a biker.

[CaseyB]

Crap. I only wanted to quote your last paragraph, Jack. 46 post and still a noob.