[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] R&R..the unanswered points....

I'm assuming you are serious about this and are asking for our assistance 
in this
campaign.  If so, you should know that most of us don't buy pigs in pokes.  We
need more concrete info....not spongy sloganism.  In the interest of making 
easier for you, I have assembled some questions which seem to require
specifics.  If you truly seek to convince us, and are not just attempting 
to demonize
us as "do nothings",  you will respond.

If you are presenting a thesis...we seek to inquire.

Kinnicinic asked:

 > We are now starting to see some of
 > the dregs of society, whom we had avoided by hitting the trail, out there.
 > It will only get worse on this trail, partly because of Trailplace.
Please explain what you mean specifically in this sentence.

Vcat asked:

 > I do feel that much more approving of socializing hikes is encountered on
 >websites by people intending well by accepting all forms of hike but not
 >realizing they are lending assistance to lowering Trail standards.
My impression from this statement is that you believe people who weekend or
section hike, and those who accept such hiking, are lowering trail standards.
Is that what you're saying?

DaRedhead asked:

1) In what way has this list, or the people on it, shown that we are *not*
serious about Trail advocacy?
2) How, given the earlier post by Paddler, can you say that the scales are
tipped in WF's direction on this matter?

Fur asked:

....to lowering Trail standards
Could someone please send me this list of trail standards! I've never
seen this list posted before. And, who puts out this list?

And i would like a few more details (that's where the devil lays(lies ?)

*** We'll start at the form of serious hike that ATC once took as important 
enough to require proof.

Please explain a serious hike under traditional definitions or your definition.

******The next would be one that promotes behavior true to the Trail's
definition by ATC as a primitive place to be upheld.

Please specifically define the desired behavior.

*******I guess  traditionalism would best be described as keeping such a 
level of new
interest in the Trail controlled to the point that it doesn't interfere 
with what the Trail is.

Since you have not responded positively to my suggestion that dan shut down TP,
I'm assuming you think it should continue (with the new emphasis on 
Should we take it then that you feel all other's sites should shut down if 
they fail to do likewise?
Specifically...how do you seek to suppress new interest?

Finally......about quotas.
How would these be allotted, specifically. what percentages to
thru hikers,
section hikers,
Groups such as Scouts?
How would they be allotted?
First come first served?
If the thruhiker quota was filled, and X percentage of the thru allotees
	dropped out at Neels, would those slots be reallocated to other hikers?
Would there be a staging area where hikers could await a washout slot?
How would the NPS decide if a hiker had washed out or was taking
	town time to reorganize or heal?
Would there be a time limit to town time?
Would a hiker need to keep to a proscribed schedule to maintain the daily quota
	and a smoothly managed flow?
If not, how would the differing speed be handled to prevent bunching up?
What would be the penalty for failure to meet such scheduling guidelines?
Loss of ticket?
Would dayhikers, section hikers, weekenders be banned during thru season?
When would thru season be?
How much will the ticketing and monitoring cost?
Where will the funds come from?

I admit there are a lot of questions here, but you came to  convince us.
If your serious in this quest for our support, the time spent answering would
seem worthwhile.