[at-l] The AT is not really wilderness...

[dachsnj@hotmail.com (Trail Dude)]

You are absolutely right.  The GC is not so much more remote as it is just more inhospitable.  I also recall my last trip, which was in December of '99.  I went down the Tanner to Tanner Beach and Back and never saw a single other person the whole trip.  But you're right its no Denali.  
------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------






>From: "Jack" 


>To: "Trail Dude" 
, 


>CC: 


>Subject: Re: [at-l] The AT is not really wilderness... 

>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:59:06 -0500 

> 

> 

> > Having hiked in the back country of the Grand Canyon, I can't bring myself 

>to consider a hike on the AT to be a wilderness adventure. Far from it. 

>You can hardly be in the wilderness when you cross a road several times a 

>day (in most parts). However, I do strongly believe that hiking the AT is a 

>nature adventure. 

> 

> 

>Hey Guy, hi:) 

> 

>I too have hiked many miles in the back country of the Grand Canyon. To me, 

>that is the most unwilderness place that I have ever spent ten to twelve 

>days in at a time.... True, you can't hear traffic most of the time but you 

>only have a hike and a climb to be out and you know it. The Grand Canyon is 

>not wilderness and I am not talking about Bright Angel and South Kaibab 

>either. I have been all over. Granted, like you, I love the ridge views 

>when hiking but those are nearly never on the AT. I really do think that 

>Bill would have a few problems in the Canyon though but usually get bored 

>every time I hike in there so I think that I will stop for a few years..... 

> 

> 



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
http://explorer.msn.com

------------------------------------------




--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---