ATC trail guidelines

[orangebug]

I believe that the Wilderness Area designation requires that only hand tools and similar technology is required for construction and maintenance. You may recall that Roxie wished to get rid of that restriction to make use of chain saws and other machinery more convenient to his sense of wildness.

I would be surprised if the "new" Carter Gap Shelter is in a Wilderness designated area. I know the shelter south of Blood Mtn is just outside of the wilderness area, making the 0.7 mile hike necessary to reach it from the wilderness designated area.

[Jack Tarlin]

In re. to the ATC's guidelines regarding the Trail and designated wilderness areas, folks interested in this issue might wish to refer to:

http://appalachiantrail.org/protect/...ilderness.html

[Jack Tarlin]

Whoops.

Try http://www.appalachiantrail.org/prot...ilderness.html

[ed bell]

As I understand it, there is nothing in the wilderness act that requires the removal of primitive shelters. I know of a couple of instances where the USFS has done so, I suspect out of spite from having Congress (and citizen lobbyists) overriding their bureaucratic recommendations.

Weary

I personally would welcome the removal of shelters in designated wilderness areas. The spirit of the Wilderness Act is to keep areas as untouched by human hands as possible while allowing human visitors to continue to enjoy the land. Manmade hiker shelters are in conflict with that objective, unless the administrators of the area don't worry about it. If that is how they handle it, c'est la vie. I would prefer that money be spent in other areas than shelter demolition.

[ed bell]

The new Carter Gap Shelter is located inside the Southern Nantahala Wilderness. I just double checked. I was suprised as well.

[orangebug]

Be careful what you wish for.

For instance, if shelters are bad, what about bridges? Laurel Falls is in a Wilderness area. The hurricanes of September destroyed the bridges in the gorge, which either are replaced with technology appropriate bridging or we go back to the problems of putting hikers in a flash flood zone.

[ed bell]

Just passed that thought on because there are plenty of good spots to stay along the AT in the short span it runs through Southern Nantahala Wilderness. I never will say shelters are bad, believe me. I recognize that the AT predates the Wilderness Act. Hikers in a flash flood zone!?! Oh my.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

What is ridiculous (from my perspective) is worrying about the difference between a supported and non-supported hike. The trail was never designed to be thru-hiked, and RVs didn't exist in the 1920s. Trying to argue about this is like trying to figure out why the founding fathers didn't discuss AK47 use in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't an issue in the late 1700s.

This says nothing towards the point. The point was the guidelines clearly reflect a guided attempt to keep conflicts away from the Trail. Since wilderness and its definition haven't changed since the Trail's beginning, the objective is still the same. People knew what wilderness was in 1920 and they know what it is now. An RV they couldn't know about has the same affect on wilderness as one they could. You're making a non-argument here towards the subject. If anything you are backing my point that the Trail has to keep up with new threats. Van support is one of them.

Furthermore, the AT is suject to public funding, and as such, communities where the trail passes through want trailheads to attract hikers from outside the community (economic development), and provide safe parking areas for members of the community. We live in an automobile culture, and unfortunately, there is no turning back in the forseeabe future.

Your mistake here is thinking that nearby communities even know the Trail exists.

You've obviously misunderstood this passage to be about trailheads on the AT. It isn't. It's about the ATC guidelines and how they outline the need to protect the AT's remaining wilderness experiences. Something your response completely fails to reflect...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

ed bell:


I appreciate your response. It's a breakthrough of sorts for someone to actually discuss it without heckling.



The last guidelines paragraph from #64:

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

ATC is making clear that wilderness or a hiker's sense of it is paramount. This is directly derived from MacKaye and his intention for the AT as a wilderness experience. The passage above leaves no doubt they are concerned about the affect intrusions have on Trail users.

If we apply ATC's words here to one of the Trail's most remote areas, the 100 Mile Wilderness, we can see them plainly state that foot travel is the desired method of arriving. Is there any doubt from the above passage?

Since wilderness experience and expectation of remoteness are spelled out here we can see how this applies to the 100 Mile Wilderness. A person, like myself, who hikes over Katahdin with 14 days of food and heads to Monson is a person who experiences the maximum of wilderness. Since the 100 Mile Wilderness is expected to be remote (100 Mile Wilderness is remote by definition) ATC is spelling out that the Trail's purpose is enhanced by maximizing those qualities which the Trail aspires towards. I experienced a rough and challenging 100 miles full of uninterupted nature. The effect on the mind was created by producing an environment in which 100 miles of wilderness was had. Since the Trail's purpose is wilderness immersion we can reasonably conclude this was in line with the Trail's intention and produced the desired result.

Next we take a van supported hike poking into the logging roads which cross the AT in the Wilderness. According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points. The 100 Mile Wilderness experience those who took the van support have is one of nightly intervention - Disruption of self-supported wilderness hiking. Their experience is not one conforming to what ATC suggests. The people who hiked there no longer have the same sense of Trail. The Trail is lessened by motorized support and civilized undoing of the challenge 100 miles of unbroken wilderness is suppose to create. The Trail is made less wild. But this is the least of the offenses.

The main offense here is making the Trail and its expected image less wild in the public's mind. The AT is clearly a place designed to be fought to be kept wild. ATC does it on a daily basis. The guidelines outline it in unavoidable terms. No matter what the motivation, any time your personal input serves to decrease the AT's wilderness ethic you are at odds with the Trail. Either mental or physical. We had people saying "ATC doesn't mention anything about wilderness". Now that we show where they do and how it's meant these people start name-calling.

ATC is pretty clear in its concern for wilderness experience. Where it is lacking is its failing to clearly outline how planned wilderness experience is part of the Trail's purpose. They need to say it directly. They need to start restricting wilderness-conflicting activities. They need to express the AT's purpose.

The proper context of this effort is trying to get people to understand that changing times, technology, and Trail approaches put strains on the previously existing Trail. The very idea of the Appalachian Trail is that the side of wilderness should be erred on each and every time - especially conceptually. Anything else is an effort to undo previously existing levels of wilderness or previous Trail concepts. That can only hurt the Trail...

[ed bell]

The access points are what they are. I gather that you are saying day-use and section hikers should stay away from more remote areas? If someone wishes to hike on the Appalachian Trail then they may access the trail at any number of trailheads. Creativity in establishing routes doesn't change a thing. If someone decides to run through the 100 Mile Wilderness in one day, did they spoil it for everyone? Its all peception in the end. By the way, I wasn't aware of a trend of nightly support in the 100 mile stretch in Maine. Is this becoming a problem?

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I'm not sure you are reflecting what I said ed. The ideas I explained represent sort of a totality that saying "so you say no one should day-hike to remote areas" doesn't register. Let's try it another way. What do you think ATC is saying here, and why do they emphasize the experience of people who hiked there and label certain uses inappropriate?

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

[dperry]

:


If we apply ATC's words here to one of the Trail's most remote areas, the 100 Mile Wilderness, we can see them plainly state that foot travel is the desired method of arriving. Is there any doubt from the above passage?

Um, yes, there actually is quite a bit of doubt:

While some activities may be appropriate along a rural or pastoral section of the Trail where other aspects of civilization are clearly evident, they may be entirely inappropriate in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or other remote area, where they may affect the experience significantly for people who may have hiked to that location."

In my experience, when one wishes to make it clear that they are making a definite statement, one uses words like "all", "must", "none", "is", "always." No such words are used here; therefore, it is impossible to reach any general statement on the ATC's opinions about any class of activities. Also, when one wishes to make a statement about a specific activity, one usually mentions it by name. Well, van support is not mentioned here specfically as something verboten, and I am not aware of any definite statements that ATC has made on the topic elsewhere. (If there are such statements, by all means direct me to them.)

What we do know, however, is that a.) the ATC certainly has no objections, per se, to people accessing the Trail via car as long as it is done at established road crossings and parking areas. Perusing my copy of the new AT Guide to Maine, I note quite detailed instructions for accessing the 100-mile Wilderness via logging roads at several different points. Therefore, it seems clear that ATC has no objections to reaching this area by car, either.
b.) Given that the ATC prominently posts and regularly updates a long list of shuttle providers, and since shuttling is another form of motorized support, it is also difficult to conclude that the ATC makes much of a distinction between people who are are taking themselves to the trailhead, and people who are being taken.

According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points.

And I'll repeat what I said in my last post: how exactly are the supported hikers damaging the experience for everyone else? Provide specific examples of this, please. Also, please limit your response to examples of concrete phenomena, i.e., noise, pollution, overcrowding. Simply citing mental anguish caused by others' failure to live up to your standard of Trail behavior will be rejected out of hand, since in the absence of actual, real-world detriments, your feelings about what other people are doing are your problem, not someone else's.

The main offense here is making the Trail and its expected image less wild in the public's mind.

Ahem. . .your quote from post 88 immediately above. . .

Your mistake here is thinking that nearby communities even know the Trail exists.

Can't have this one both ways, dear heart. Either the public pays attention to the AT, or else it doesn't. Which would it be?

I'm not sure you are reflecting what I said ed.

No, he reflected exactly what you said. You are asserting that a particular practice will damage the Trail. He asked you to a.) distinguish between that practice and other, similar practices which no one in their right minds--and certainly not the ATC--thinks are bad for the Trail in and of themselves. Then, he b.) requested evidence that the practice you believe is a problem actually is one. You failed to meet either request. Instead, you were too busy accusing other people of ducking questions.

[MOWGLI]

People knew what wilderness was in 1920 and they know what it is now.

I think you are dead wrong. What is Wilderness other than a label you impose when you feel like it? Please tell me - in detail - what wilderness is, and what it is not.

[rickb]

Apart from "real" wilderness, it seems ot me that hikers sometimes work overtime to erase some of the "spirit of wildness" that's left.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means not knowing exactly what's around the next corner. Seems like the journals, detailed web advise, and media (for all the benefits they provide) takes a toll on the mystery and feeling of wildness of the Trail thats hard to measure.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means having to be self-reliant. Seems like everything from cell phones to slack-packing hubs to a "yellow blaze is great" ethic have diminished one shared value among all thru hikers-- self reliance.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means setting one's self apart from the hub-bub of TVs and taverns and all that crap. Seems like that's getting harder to do on a thru hike. And would require real effort.

Maximizing that spirit of wildness (to me) means occasionally camping out of sight of the Trail and away from hiker ghetos.

Maximizing tha spirit of wildness (to me) means understanding at least as much about the natural history of the Trail, as one does about "the best" gear or hostel. Sometimes if you don't know what to look for, it might as well not even exist.

Fortunately, there are people out there like Weary protcting the "real" the Wildness of the trail. These are the people who see value in having the AT bypass Monson, rather that follow a road into town. The people who will fight a car race track to the bitter end, rather than see it a a unique attraction along the way. And the people who realize that even a cute windmill diminishes something very important.

The rest of us get to reap the benefits of their tireless efforts. All I am saying is why not work to enjyoy the spirit of thier work to the fullest? Even though its not getting any easier.

Rick B

(Yea, I know this post borders on BS. It doeesn't capture my feelings exactly, but my own truth is in there somewhere. )

[NotYet]

People don't all choose to have the same experience as they hike along the AT. In fact, I believe it's safe to say that no two hikers share the exact same experience!

If someone chooses to experience the AT in a continuous series of dayhikes (backpacking the more remote sections), is there a negative impact on the wilderness? Is there a more negative impact than different people dayhiking each day on those same sections?

So long as they respect the regulations, the trail and others, let hikers have the experience that is best for them. I don't think we should force our own predetermined notions on others.

What we have here is people suggesting an RV meeting you every night is no different than a self-supported foot hike. That is clearly ridiculous. When pressed they say "I don't know", or, "I'm not sure", or, "I don't understand".

Hi Rocks 'n Roots,

It is a different experience to do a supported hike...but it is an individual choice to have this kind of experience. It is also a choice that causes no adverse effects to others or the trail.

As an aside, I thought all I had is a van...WOW, did I win a RV?!?!

On a more serious note, though, please allow me to respond to the last sentence of the above quote. The three-word statements that you quote from "they", seem to be directed towards the statements I made in the "other" thread. Nowhere in my posts were these words used as sentences...often they were (and I paraphrase myself here) more along the lines of "I don't understand how my vehicle being parked at a road crossing is different from another hiker's or maintainer's vehicle parked at the same spot." As you can see, that is very different from being asked a question, and then responding simply, "I don't understand".

There were a few spots where I didn't understand the full question that was asked; I asked for clarification, then you re-worded your questions. Again, this is very different from saying, "I don't Know", "I'm not sure" and I don't understand."

ATC is too diplomatic. It should come right out and say it. They are negligent here.

In the "other" thread, you wanted me to give you a specific example of an ATC member disagreeing with ATC policy. The ATC chose its words and you disagree with these words. You still remain a loyal and dedicated member, who obviously loves the trail and is passionate in wanting to protect it.

Next we take a van supported hike poking into the logging roads which cross the AT in the Wilderness. According to the ATC guideline above, the people who hike to a 100 Mile Wilderness location by foot can be affected by people who are day-hiking between van support points. The 100 Mile Wilderness experience those who took the van support have is one of nightly intervention - Disruption of self-supported wilderness hiking. Their experience is not one conforming to what ATC suggests. The people who hiked there no longer have the same sense of Trail. The Trail is lessened by motorized support and civilized undoing of the challenge 100 miles of unbroken wilderness is suppose to create. The Trail is made less wild. But this is the least of the offenses.

When I saw joggers and dog-walkers in the "100-mile Wilderness" (almost every day), my experience was in no way lessened or enhanced. My experience and my interpretation of it is the one I choose for myself, and I control it. Also, I always looked both ways while crossing those logging roads...those logging trucks go fast!

[MOWGLI]

When I saw joggers and dog-walkers in the "100-mile Wilderness" (almost every day), my experience was in no way lessened or enhanced. My experience and my interpretation of it is the one I choose for myself, and I control it. Also, I always looked both ways while crossing those logging roads...those logging trucks go fast!

I didn't see joggers & dog walkers, but I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness". Logging equipment certainly has a larger impact on the hiking experience than the size of the backpack someone is carrying, or whether or not they are meeting a van each night.

A van supported hike is not for me at this stage in my life. I don't think that a van supported hike has any impact on the actual trail. The imapct is on the individual experience. I'd rather see a van driver anyday - than a logging truck carrying out the horizontal forest (or patches of clearcuts from every peak).

[rickb]

"I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness".

That must have sucked.

And dog walkers and joggers?

Damn.

I feel bad for you guys. Not seeing/hearing either was wonderfull.

Rick B

[MOWGLI]

"I heard feller bunchers working perhaps 90% of the time that I was in the 100 mile "wilderness".

That must have sucked.

Well it didn't exactly suck, but I would have preferred that the industrial logging be a little bit more in the background. It brought new meaning to the term "100-mile wilderness" - for this hiker anyway.

[A-Train]

I had a wilderness experience from Monson to the Pleasant River. As I was taking my shoes off to ford, a group of children and moms emerged and were crossing the river from the other side. I was pretty confused. Then in the next mile I passed approximately 50 more day hikers right around The Gulf Hagas Trail as it was a weekend. I had no idea there was a parking area a couple tenths of a mile from the AT.

No one should kid themselves, even the wildest parts of the AT are not true "wilderness"

[NotYet]

Fortunately, the dog-walkers and joggers that I saw were all very friendly. We were all just out enjoying the trail!