ATC trail guidelines

[Jack Tarlin]

Rocks, what is your definition of "nominal use?"

Between three and four million people a year use the A.T. and most of them are there for only a few hours. They arrive and depart by automobile, and therefore, they depend on the things you despise: Parking lots, turnouts, developed trailheads with sanitary facilities, garbage cans, picnic tables, and other "infrastructure" intrusions.

So, a few questions: How do you define "nominal use." And do you think these folks are entitled to use and enjoy the Trail? If you do, I'd like to hear you say so. Likewise, if you don't, I'd like to hear that as well.

The fact of the matter, Rocks, is that 99% of the folks who use the A.T. essentially rely on "auto support".

These are also the people whose taxes help support and maintain the Trail.

So tell us: In your opinion are these folks entitled to use the Trail? Your comments seem to suggest otherwise.

[weary]

...he lives where he lives, and encourages people to shop at Wal-Mart. It would've been useful if R&R would've explained this hypocrisy when he was first questioned about it.

I suggest that if all those who have ever shopped at Walmart refrain from these discussions, there won't be many of us left. Certainly it eliminates me, who goes to Walmart every two weeks to buy bags of Purina Cat Chow for the feral cats I've managed to inherit, but can't bring myself to shoot for some reason. I did get em all "fixed."

Though I'm not happy with Walmart and its practices, I don't have much money, so I intend to buy as cheaply as possible. I compensate by donating a couple of thousand dollars a year to my two land trusts. If more would do so, some very valuable land that's on the market in Maine could be purchased from the land speculators that now own it, providing the buffers needed to keep the trail in Maine reasonably wild.

We welcome contributions. Just open

www.matlt.org

Weary

[Jack Tarlin]

You're missing the point here, Weary.

Most of us have shopped there at one time or another, even if we may have mixed feelings about the corporation and its practices.

What most of us don't do is hijack internet discussions with dozens of self-congratulatory posts about our zeal for the environment, and how nobody else really cares about these matters.

Berating one's fellow hikers for their failure to care about such matters as runaway development, threats to the Trail, and urban sprawl---this is all well and good, or at least caring about these matters is all well and good. But for the same hiker to then reveal to us that he shops at places like Wal-Mart and takes advantage of their low prices (which help kill small businesses and destroy downton retail districts) and their convenient locations (often on former forsest, marshland, swamp):

Well this is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

If someone is gonna talk the talk on environmental matters (and talk and talk and talk some more, I might add) than ya gotta walk the walk.

Or to put it another way, people that live in glass houses shouldn't shower during the daytime.

Zealouts tend to be tedious people in any case, but phony ones are insufferable.

[weary]

You're missing the point here, Weary.

Most of us have shopped there at one time or another, even if we may have mixed feelings about the corporation and its practices.

What most of us don't do is hijack internet discussions with dozens of self-congratulatory posts about our zeal for the environment, and how nobody else really cares about these matters.

Berating one's fellow hikers for their failure to care about such matters as runaway development, threats to the Trail, and urban sprawl---this is all well and good, or at least caring about these matters is all well and good. But for the same hiker to then reveal to us that he shops at places like Wal-Mart and takes advantage of their low prices (which help kill small businesses and destroy downton retail districts) and their convenient locations (often on former forsest, marshland, swamp):

Well this is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

If someone is gonna talk the talk on environmental matters (and talk and talk and talk some more, I might add) than ya gotta walk the walk.

Or to put it another way, people that live in glass houses shouldn't shower during the daytime.

Zealouts tend to be tedious people in any case, but phony ones are insufferable.

Jack: Among the thousands of problems facing the American environment, shopping at Walmart is pretty much at the bottom of the list. Far more grievous, for instance, are those who fail to criticize an administration that has engaged in a total assault on the air, water and land of the nation.

[Jack Tarlin]

Gosh, Weary, as the late Ronald Reagan put it, "There you go again!!"

Perhaps you're unaware that Wal-Mart has consistently been one of the Republican Party's largest corporate sponsors: It's given at least 2.85 million to the Party between 1999 and 2003, and thousands more last year.

I hope you and your pal Rocks think of that the next time you shop there.

By doing so, you helping elect more folks like George Bush.

Now THAT'S prety grievous.....how on earth do you two sleep at night?

[Jack Tarlin]

Actually, a quick Internet search (see MSNBC, etc. or do a Google search on "Wal-Mart Political Contributions") reveals that the company spent at least 1.3 million during the last election cycle, donating to at least 220 Senators and Republican incumbents and prospective candidates.

At least 85 per cent of these donations were to Republicans.

These donations came of course from the company's immense profits.

Weary, if you're truly that concerned about what the horrible Republicans are doing once they achieve elected office, then you shouldn't be helping them achieve it.

That's only common sense.

But thanks anyway for your support.

[Jack Tarlin]

Obviously, before Weary corrects me by pointing out that there aren't 220 Senators, I meant to say 220 Senate and House incumbents and prospective candidates.

All of whom are no doubt happy, that thanx to bargain-hunting shoppers like Weary and Rocks, the good folks at Wal-Mart are in a position to help folks like Bush get elected, never mind retaining both houses of Congress.

Nice work, fellas.

[WalkinHome]

Wal-Mart: It's not just for the Chinese anymore.

[weary]

....thanx to bargain-hunting shoppers like Weary and Rocks, the good folks at Wal-Mart are in a position to help folks like Bush get elected, never mind retaining both houses of Congress. Nice work, fellas.

Golly, Jack. You are so helpful. Now if you would just supply me with the name of a nearby cat food seller that supports Democrats, I'll switch. The owner of the only other store near me that sells big bags of cat food, ran for the Legislature last fall as a Republican -- and with my help, lost.

Since I don't really own these cats, I just started feeding them after they were abandoned by a Republican, I suppose I could just let them starve. But you know us soft hearted liberals. Do you really think Walmart would stop supporting REpublicans if I stopped buying $8.95 bags of cat food every couple of weeks?

The cats do provide a useful function of sorts. They keep the mice and chipmunks out of my garden. My crops of squash, tomatoes, carrots and the like no longer get eaten by critters since my wealthy REpublican neighbor moved away and left his pets for us liberals to care for.

We manage to freeze and cold cellar enough to keep us in vegetables year round, so you'll be glad to know we aren't tempted to shop for such things at Republican stores.

Since I managed to get my flock of cats fixed, my supply of cats is gradually diminishing. I live on a busy highway and one or two manage to get run over every summer. I usually put the road kill on the salt marsh where the eagles that nest on the island across the cove can find the bodies and feed them to their babies.

JUst think, Jack, how sad Walmart would feel if it knew that their cheap cat food is aiding the restoration of a profoundly important American symbol.

Let me know, Jack, if there is anything else you'd like to know about my cat/Walmart saga.

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Rocks, what is your definition of "nominal use?"

Between three and four million people a year use the A.T. and most of them are there for only a few hours. They arrive and depart by automobile, and therefore, they depend on the things you despise: Parking lots, turnouts, developed trailheads with sanitary facilities, garbage cans, picnic tables, and other "infrastructure" intrusions.

So, a few questions: How do you define "nominal use." And do you think these folks are entitled to use and enjoy the Trail? If you do, I'd like to hear you say so. Likewise, if you don't, I'd like to hear that as well.

The fact of the matter, Rocks, is that 99% of the folks who use the A.T. essentially rely on "auto support".

These are also the people whose taxes help support and maintain the Trail.

So tell us: In your opinion are these folks entitled to use the Trail? Your comments seem to suggest otherwise.

Good points Jack.


"Nominal use" is that use which corresponds with the expectations of an experience conforming to ATC's guidelines. In other words, use which conforms to and seeks the conditions outlined by the ATC guidelines. Yes, you are allowed to drive a car to the trailhead as part of that expectation. I do it myself.


The reason your questions are good ones is because they lead towards understanding that the AT is 'designed' or 'planned' wilderness. In other words, it is seeking the correct medium between wilderness exposure and accommodating a large public. With wilderness preservation being the main cause.

The people who visit the Trail for short periods do so with the intention of visiting for a short period. Therefore they experience the lowest form of wilderness immersion. In my maintenance trips I would park in A Wayne parking area seen beneath West Mt Ridge - A huge coverage of asphalt seen from the AT as you walk the ridgeline. It was less than a mile walk into Beechy Bottom where I did a relocation and other trailwork. In this brief experience I saw wonders of nature including larch saplings, rattlesnakes, and all sorts of Highlands woods features. It was these untouched areas just a half mile in from the lot that provided those things.

Picnic tables, parking spots, garbage cans, restrooms, are nominal facilities meant to minimize human impact. Without them there would be turd piles, toilet paper, flies, and strewn trash etc. How these are designed is important. They should be kept out of eyeshot of the Trail. Those are day trip areas and they provide a day trip experience.

It can't be argued that the more remote and distant a place is the more wild it is. Therefore remote places are a different class of AT experience. They generally take longer to get to, some taking days, and generally provide a better wilderness experience. Jack, you're looking at it backwards. Because road crossings and minimal facilities exist at some access points, that in no way should be used to argue against the protection of other more wild AT areas or experiences. That is why ATC is clever, Weary's guidelines clearly say that areas expected to be wild should remain that way. That goes for expectations and experiences too. ATC doesn't emphasize "remote" and "detached" for nothing.


Though 99% of users are day hikers, 99% of those seen as the Trail's most noted users are long distance hikers. Name me some famous day hikers. Now name me some famous through-hikers. See? The reason for this is because those hikers spend more unassisted time in nature. Wilderness exposure. The difference between the Appalachian Trail and other parks is that the AT provides the opportunity for long duration nature exposure for prolonged lengths. Lots of woods time. This is something that distinguishes it from other parks and separates its day users as well. No one can argue that the AT experience isn't enhanced as wilderness increases. The AT's main distinguishing feature is that it has a planned wilderness experience in close proximity to a large population and developed region. It takes an effort to keep it as wild as possible. This is that effort.


As a person who has been expressing this for several years on the internet, I'm still puzzled why so many Trail members seem to prefer arguing against the validity of AT wilderness instead of recognizing what is there and how it was planned...

[dperry]

For instance, let's hypothesize a 100 Mile Wilderness van support hike and how it affects the hiker vs the original self-sustained one in terms of wilderness experience...

First, we must distinguish between the specific hiker who is using the van support, and "the hiker" in general, i.e., the greater community of hikers who use the AT.

The effect of van support on the second group? I daresay very little. To address the specific areas you mentioned:

van support, parking lots, civilized infrastructure

well, there should be no change regarding the last two items, since NotYet has quite explicitly disavowed any desire or intent to have new roads, parking areas, or any sort of support facilities built to support her project. I suspect that if anyone else made such a proposal, it would be met with great hostility and resistance from the AT community.
As far as van support itself goes:
a.) as Jack T. has pointed out, there is very little practical difference between what Not Yet is proposing and what millions of people every year do when they go day-hiking. As long as no additional roads, parking lots, etc. are built, there will be no effect on the remote places in between road crossings.
b.) As far as any increase in hikers this may bring, well, many people on this board have expressed their great disinterest in participating in such an expedition, and I think this can be taken as a good sample of the opinions of the hiker community at large. Not to mention, I think the $10,000+ price tag will itself protect us from the scourge of overcrowding due to "slackpack tourism."

OK, so what about the effect on the experience of the actual slackpack hiker? Well, we can argue about that until the cows come home, but you know what, Rocks? Why do you care? It would be one thing if Not Yet were going to be leading motorcycle tours up and down the Trail, or sponsoring wild parties at every shelter, but she's not. Therefore, since there's no effect on your experience, what does it matter to you if someone else doesn't see it in the way you think they should? It's sort of like going to a museum, whose main purpose is to display beautiful works of art for the aesthetic edification of the viewer, and becoming enraged because some people just go there because it's a nice place to have lunch. As long as they don't smear food over the paintings, or crunch their ice in your ear while you're trying to look at some sculpture, what does it matter to you what they're getting out of it? That's why everyone is telling you to "Hike your own hike;" because obsessing over other people's behavior and choices when they create no detriment to you or to others is not a healthy way to live.

[squirrel bait]

Interesting stuff. Great reading. I'm just glad ya'll got off the barrier island stuff.

[weary]

....These are also the people whose taxes help support and maintain the Trail.....

I think it important to note that the Appalachian Trail is a taxpayer bargain among the National Park Service properties, since much of the work is done by volunteers and the money needed is largely donated.

The appropriation for the care of the entire 225,248 acres that constitutes the trail corridor is just $1,024,000 and has been shrinking in recent years. I'm most familiar with the 280 miles of the trail in Maine. MATC operates on an annual budget of $150,000, of which only about $25,000 or so comes from taxpayers if my memory serves me.

Our goal in Maine is to keep the trail as wild as possible and since we raise most of the money I think our wishes should get at least least equal weight with the wishes of taxpayers -- especially since our goal is also the goal of the National Scenic Trails Act which presumably represents the wishes of taxpayers.

It's my suspicion that actually there is very little difference in the goals of these various interest groups. We all go to the mountains, hills and forests to experience a bit of wildness -- even the auto tourists in Shenandoah.

If anyone has any real evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. Now no anecdotes. Real research. If what I see with my eyes isn't sufficient to document the damage of sharp-pointed hiking sticks, I don't want to hear about folks carrying two-burner Coleman's a quarter mile down the AT to cook supper unless a scientist has interviewed them first.

Weary

[Alligator]

If anyone has any real evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. Now no anecdotes. Real research. If what I see with my eyes isn't sufficient to document the damage of sharp-pointed hiking sticks, I don't want to hear about folks carrying two-burner Coleman's a quarter mile down the AT to cook supper unless a scientist has interviewed them first.

Weary

Wow Weary, you carry a lot of baggage around. You should let it go once in a while, it's really not healthy. But I bet there are some interesting user surveys that would be of special benefit to this discussion. I have three AT studies tucked away in my office that had crossed my desk at one point, one was about safety and the others I think I kept just to read the methods, so I forget the topics. It would certainly be useful to have some hard numbers about use patterns, it would go far to deflate some of the more exagerated rhetoric occuring.

I thought it was very kind of you to care for the strays as you did. We adopted two strays that were born in a neighbors woodpile. I haven't seen many moles the last few years in the lawn. But it's a clowder of cats not a flock .

[weary]

....I bet there are some interesting user surveys that would be of special benefit to this discussion....

JUst remember. We believe in science and only science on WhiteBlaze -- well at least if we disagree with what is being claimed. Otherwise anything goes. We even get upset with where people end up living if they say something we don't like.

A clowder of cats you say. It's amazing what one can learn if one listens carefully.

Weary

[Alligator]

... It's amazing what one can learn if one listens carefully.

Weary

How does that go again, one has to not talk to listen properly? I'm going back to listening now.

[orangebug]

Interesting stuff. Great reading. I'm just glad ya'll got off the barrier island stuff.

Especially if you endorse arson for other people's residences.

[orangebug]

Someone can explain how the lack of "trail legend" day and short section hikers makes the 99% of AT users less important. It seems to me that this 99% of the user population is far more important than isolated wannabe legends, much those of us who regularly put action behind our words.

[orangebug]

If an individual makes the decision to hike the A.T., whether in one lump sum, or over the '20 Year Plan" as Jaybird is, it becomes a personal endeavour. With that in mind, who cares if said hiker slackpacks, has van support, or carries an 85 pound pack...
While I did fall short some 300 miles in my own personal quest, I came away with a feeling of sweet success in my own mind. I hiked my own hike and left the others to do the same....

Some folks appear to care too much. If we are to follow their logic to their extreme conclusion, not only did you miss 300 miles (a heck of a lot more miles than I ever thought possible), but you somehow missed out having a wilderness experience that can be certified by the purists. You should have either stayed at home, or carved your pegleg from an alder sapling to keep someone else's sense of wilderness sanctified.

Congratulations on hiking your hike, and attaining as many goals as you accomplished.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Someone can explain how the lack of "trail legend" day and short section hikers makes the 99% of AT users less important. It seems to me that this 99% of the user population is far more important than isolated wannabe legends, much those of us who regularly put action behind our words.

We should try to remain on topic.


It's clear to me that this response is one of a stream of attempts to fish out worst possible meanings in order to distort what I was saying. It's long clear that some refuse, under any circumstances, to acknowledge the ATC wilderness goals we've been discussing...

99% of the user population is far more important than isolated wannabe legends, much those of us who regularly put action behind our words

I'm sorry, could you please clarify that action? Are you talking about harassing internet posters who try to explain AT wilderness with nitpicking snipes? Or perhaps an ongoing effort to portray Trail officials and internet advocates as "idolatrous extremists" etc. Attacking AT wilderness ethics? Why do you try to put words in my mouth instead of answering what I wrote? The topic here is the existence of the AT's wilderness ethic as displayed by ATC's guidelines. So far you haven't touched it.



To me the building of a residential neighborhood on a wetlands island only increases the need for a place where development is kept out. Are you arguing that no one should promote AT conservation because they somehow aren't qualified because they live in a house? If you knew where I lived, it is the most protected barrier island in Florida with the highest percentage of preserved land in Florida per acre. There are strict codes and fines for violating the wetlands restrictions.

Myself, I would like to live in an ecological neighborhood with an environmental blueprint. A place where you could let your lawn go to field in order to save water and lawn chemicals - CO2 emissions and fuel for lawn care. A place with a solar panel code requiring a certain percentage of energy be harvested from rooftops. Cisterns, gutter water collection, a water recycling plant. A place where if wildlife took up in the fields, urban culture people wouldn't call for exterminators or sue because a child was bitten. City code gestapo wouldn't come and fine. An earth first neighborhood instead of this primitive sprawl culture politics have forced on us. All perfectly possible.


Now I'd like to ask a question:


How does one explain going to the AT and enjoying the wildness many spent extreme effort to create and protect only to come back and attack those who promote it and how it came to be?