[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Weary & Jim's Comments
<< Point 1 - The AT IS a "civilized walk". If you don't believe that then we
need to discuss it. There are most of 2000 miles of trail in Pennsylvania
alone that are far wilder than the AT, to say nothing of the Western long
distance trails. Fact is that many of those parallel roads WERE the AT at
one time - and that the Trail was much more interesting when that was so.
2000+ miles of "long green tunnel" can be awfully damn boring at times.
*** The trail is not as wild as some of us might like, but it's the only one
that goes 2,000 miles
so some of us will always attempt to make it as wild as possible.
Point 2 - The ATC's "wishy-washiness" may depend on your viewpoint - and on
your knowledge (or lack thereof) about their past actions. In spite of your
perception of "uniform wisdom", in concert with the NPS and USFS, they've
conducted a number of "negotiations" in bad faith, using hardball tactics
against people who should have been (and many times originally were) friends
of the Trail and of the hikers. That makes enemies - unnecessarily. And
people who make enemies of those who should be friends - even (or maybe
especially) in the name of "preserving the Trail" - are fools and are no
friends of either the Trail or the hikers. Just how do you think the "DMZ"
came to be? And how many centuries will it take for the bitterness about
SNP to be healed?
***I can't answer unspecified charges. But basically, ATC has only the
powers of persuasion. The
trail for the most part is owned by government authorities. ATC has the
option of going along with
the landowners, opposing the landowners or supporting the landowners. Send
some specifics and I
might be able to respond to specific cases.
Don't make the mistake of believing that I'm in favor of
"commercialization". My inclination runs more toward less shelters, fewer
outhouses, less (no?) signs, less maintenance and the elimination of many
Trail crews. I'm also a pragmatist - and it ain't gonna happen. The ATC is
a bureaucracy - and it has all the tendencies and problems that accompany
such organizations - including a need to perpetuate itself by inventing new
and wonderful definitions of it's raison d'etre.
***We are all familiar with the tendencies of bureaucracies, but as such
goes, ATC is pretty small.
Those with decision making powers probably number about 5. The rest are
clerks and peons. I've known
some of the decision makes for 30 years. Others I've met and talked with
casually, and followed
their wishy-washy ways. I think shelters will be considered an anachronism
in a decade or two.
Everyone has to carry shelter anyway. But I think privies are essential for
health, aesthetic and
environmental reasons, though of course they make the trail less wild.
Point 3 - Who ever told you why people go for a walk in the woods? Have you
ever asked them? Why in the world would you think that I go for the same
reasons you do? Why would you think everyone else (or even anyone else)
goes for the same reasons we do?
*** Well, I've been walking in the woods for six decades. That's why
Wildbill thinks I'm a
(something, I forget the details) old man. During that time I've met and
observed quite a few hikers
and have gained some insight into what a few of them hike for. Also some
people think I've helped protect some of the trail in the interest of
preserving its wild character.
If so, I guess some might think (probably mistakenly) that my views ought at
least be listened to,
if not acted upon.
If you tire of that mantra, then I've gotta believe that you may not really
understand what thruhiking is about. I know - I've said I think of you as a
thruhiker - but being a thruhiker doesn't automatically mean that one
understands all the ramifications of what it's about. I don't - Warren
Doyle doesn't - Baltimore Jack doesn't - WF certainly doesn't - why should
you?
*** Who knows? Maybe I don't. But it is human nature to think that what we
believe is true. In any
case, I simply express my views. I continue to think that dialogue between
folks with conflicting
views about things they think important can lead to wise decisions. YMMV
The fact that people go out there for different reasons (and accept no crap
about it) is no bar to discussion of "what the trail is or ought to be".
What that "mantra" DOES mean is that neither you nor anyone else has either
right or reason to tell me why I should be out there, what I should get out
of the experience or how I should do it. And that you may get more
disagreement than you'd like. And that your viewpoint may not prevail. Mine
doesn't always - why should yours? It also means that you, as well as
everyone else here, has the right?/responsibility?/opportunity? to tell it
the way you see it. And that your opinion is as valid as anyone elses,
provided you've got the experience and knowledge to back it up.
*** I think of it as a mantra, because it seems to be used in an attempt to
shut up those with
different opinions. Informed debate among trail lovers will determine what
the future holds for this
trail. I oppose everything that I think attempts to stifle that debate.
Because without debate the
trail ultimately will tend to sort of drift in directions that strike me as
harmful. That may happen
anyway (probably will happen). But those of us willing to put up with the
ignorance of Sloetoes will
continue to try anyway.
Frankly, I sometimes get the idea that your version of "rational discussion"
means that you expect ultimate universal agreement on the validity of your
ideas. And that your version of "serious discussion" means discussion of
specific subjects that are of interest to you, but that discussion of any
other topic falls under the heading of "chit-chat" and is inconsequential.
I'd like to be wrong about that, but that's what I'm hearing. Tell me I'm
wrong, Bob - I'm listening.
***I tend only to express opinions that I think are valid. Having dealt with
these matters for a
long time (six decades remember) I'm well aware that usually I lose. Though
occasionally opponents
have told me when it's too late that they are sorry they won.
I'll even give you an example -- a few weeks ago there was a short
discussion about hiking at high altitude. And some people were surprised
that AMS can occur at any elevation over 5000 ft. Did you know that many AT
hikers (not just thruhikers) experience symptoms of AMS - especially in
North Carolina and Hew Hampshire? And that most of them don't understand
what's happening to them - and most often deny it? Do you understand that
that's a "serious discussion" - that it can affect peoples hikes and health
- and their lives?
*** yes.
How about the "sexual threat" thread? Was that a "serious discussion"? It
was to some people.
*** yes
Why is a baby not "serious"? Or the quit-smoking hike? Or the Wanchor/Felix
reports? Or --- pick your own poison.
***No reason. Did I ever say they weren't. I joined in most of the
discussions you site.
I've gotten really tired of the continuing litany that one thing or another
is "a way to prevent rational discussion of what the trail is or ought to
be". And of the "this originates from an accepted unwritten rule to chase
serious topics off the board".
*** Having spent a couple of years with Wingfoot, I thought I would never
again be involved in a
debate so rigidly controlled. I find some attempt to make the list equally
controlled, though they
use different and in some ways more effective tactics.
If it's not important to you, if you don't consider the topic to be serious,
that's fine - no one said it had to be so for you. There are a lot of
topics that I either have no interest in discussing - or no time to get
involved with. But a lot of this stuff IS important to other people, so can
the complaints. The list will talk about those things that are important
(and "serious") to those who live here. If you have something "serious" to
talk about, then trot it out and lets play with it. But if, in your
opinion, what I talk about isn't "serious" enough to be worth your time,
that's your problem, not mine - and your delete key works as well as mine
does.
*** I couldn't agree more. I just don't like the attempts to belittle
inarticulate people with
unpopular ideas. Several members of the list know the code words of
contempt, that will draw out the
cheers from others who don't seem to recognize that they are being
manipulated.
>>