[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] R&R..the unanswered points....
At 05:31 PM 6/14/01 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>. . . clip . . . Wrong impression and, as usual, interpreting my
>opinions in the worst possible way in order to attach extreme connotations to
>make them unpalatable. The response is designed to make me say "all
>non*through*hikers are illegitimate." 'Come on, I think we know better than
>that. It was meant more towards roving party, frat bender type hikes than
>the other mainstay usage's you speak of. These hikes will probably always be
>there, but seeing people enforce HYOH in defiance of persons actually
>attempting to establish a standard (not a dirty word) creates an atmosphere
>of permittance and indirectly contributes to the problem.
You really don't get it. No one is "enforcing" HYOH. HYOH is about
freedom (remember freedom? It's what we fought all those wars for) to hike
the trail in the manner that is most meaningful to you without worrying
whether you are 'doing it right' according to someone else's rules or
'seeing the landscape the right way' or 'thinking the right thoughts'.
> DaRedhead asked:
> 1) In what way has this list, or the people on it, shown that we are *not*
> serious about Trail advocacy?
> +++ My first answer would be a unanimous naysaying of all of or friend's
>efforts at Trail conservation. I have not seen one budge of admitting ANY of
>the achievements the banished one has done.
We're not saying he doesn't have good intentions or that he has done
nothing. We (at least I) are saying that we disagree with his methods,
with his insistence on his methods or none at all, on his degrading
comments about and ostracism of those who disagree and frankly, we don't
think his influence on the all those land deals was/is as great as you
purport it to be. We have already explained why we think that. If you
didn't read that part go back and read again. And... no one here banished
him. He left of his own accord and I'd bet that if he chose to return to
AT-L, Ryan would welcome him just like he has everybody else then we could
discuss these things with him directly. The only banishing that has been
done is by WF. Don't make him out to be a victim of our rejection.
>. . . clip . . .
> *** 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
> +++ I kind of agree that the main trail should be required to have been
>followed to claim a through*hike. I believe most of the Rodale hikers at
>least set out to do that * I know Garvey did. The ATC embodied the authority
>overseeing the Trail. If this agency once felt that through*hiking was
>serious enough to require detailed proof positive of actually having walked
>the entire Trail, well that gave more meaning to a through*hike.
You're still confusing 2000 miler status and thru-hiking. ATC has never,
repeat NEVER required proof of thru-hiking because they have never
*recognized* thru-hiking. The 2000 miler certificate is for *completing
the trail* regardless of whether it took one season or 40. Their request
that Earl present evidence was not to recognize his hike as a thru-hike but
as a completion of the trail which he reported to have done in one season,
something that was regarded as impossible at that time. No separate
thru-hiker status was created and the ATC certificate has always been 2000
miler status. The notion that it should recognize thru-hikes only and that
there be a specific standard is WFs alone.
> ******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.
> +++ The best way would be to first read MacKaye's intentions in the
>prospectus and then the ATC desired guidelines. The more one keeps things
>simple and natural the more he is on the true Trail. Cell phones fit in
>nowhere in these desired conditions. The AT is still a project and movement.
>It requires participation and a preexisting mindset of existing in the
>corridor according to these definitions. Most Trail enterers don't get that
>deep. The Trail wouldn't even be here if MacKaye hadn't.
Benton MacKay never intended the trail to be hiked end-to-end at all much
less in one season. As for cell phones not fitting with his prospectus,
well a lot of us aren't to crazy about them either but arguing that they
don't fit MacKay's intent is like arguing that they are unconstitutional
because they don't fit with any provisions thereof. Cell phones didn't
exist and weren't contemplated by either document so it's nonsense to argue
that they don't fit. BTW - MacKay didn't get 'that deep' as you put it. He
threw out an idea and others took the ball and ran. Kind of like the
Pitney and Bowes ad (the dreamer and the doer). Avery was probably the
biggest mover and undoubtedly most hard ball guy in getting the AT off the
ground and he didn't do it for thru-hikers either.
. . . clip . . .
> Finally......about quotas.
> How would these be allotted, specifically. what percentages to
> thru hikers,
> section hikers,. . . clip . . .
> *** This is very difficult and deserves a whole post for itself. I will
>say that Denali National Park does it without all this resistance and
>questioning. Why not the AT too?
It's more than "very difficult". There is a world of difference between
Denali and the AT. Start with the fact that the AT has a gajillion access
points compared to Denali. Just how would you propose to police access to
the AT? That same solution has been proposed for the High Peaks in the
Adirondacks and rejected as a logistic impossibility. The AT has waaay
more access points than the High Peaks area. You'd have to hire an army of
trail cops to patrol the trail and they'd end up doing as much wear and
tear as the people they kept off not to mention destroying any sense of the
escape that MacKay intended.
>I'll turn it around and ask what, then,
>would your solution to the high season crowding be?
There is *no* comparison between Denali,(or most of the other National
Parks) and the AT. The majority of the NPs are not smack in the middle of
highly populated areas. Yes, there are exceptions like the NP in downtown
Philadelphia but they don't try to limit access there. The nearest
comparison I know is the Adirondack Park which is a mix of public and
private land all within the park's boundaries. We are still wrestling with
the balance there but I would remind you that 'traditionally' (as in 'the
way it used to be') all the land in both places (Adirondack Park and the
AT) was privately held and there are some who would like it to be that way
again, in which case there would be no trail.
Like it or not the trail will change. Some of the change will be for the
better, some not, but any attempt to turn back the clock with appeals to
'traditionalism' is doomed from the outset. Any demand that everyone
support the trail in the same way, through the same forum is also doomed to
Our best bet is to discuss and educate one another then each make our own
contributions as best we can whether it's money to buy land, writing to
politicians or talking LNT with folks we meet out there. That's what
happens on AT-L. It doesn't involve sending carbon copy emails through a
prescribed web site that we know politicians will discount or ignore. That
isn't a put down of WF. It's just people saying we don't buy into his
ideology and methods and we resent being ostracized and called names *by
him* for not playing the game his way. If you feel that it's okay for him
to do that, but not okay for us to complain about it, well, pardon me, but
I think it's you that has the problem.