Re[2]: [at-l] Seriously Speaking....

[Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> (Bob C.)]

"... Does anyone believe that by taking separate blue blazes in and out of
> shelters is being dishonest when it comes to applying for a 2000-miler
> rocker?"

The fact that the question has to be asked, illustrates the absurdity of the ATC
"rules." It's obvious that the rules were drafted without any thought. This
group -- or someone -- ought to mount a campaign to straighten out the
confusion, as opposed to trying to finagle around the absurdity. What, the hell,
is the ATC trying to say? I suspect, ATC has no idea. Someone spent 30 seconds
drafting something that no one in the organization has seriously thought about
since.

Jim seems to think it was Wingfoot who forced the ATC to adopt these silly
requirements. I doubt that. But Wingfoot is not now a serious ATC player. I hope
that will change. But regardless, he isn't now.

The basic problem is that neither thru hiking nor 2000-miler status are very
high on the ATC screen. The ATC spends its time dealing with intrusions into the
trail corridor and viewshed, battling NPS bureaucrats, trying to raise the funds
needed to keep the organization afloat, figuring out how to protect the trail
with buffers....

And rightly so. I wouldn't engage in this distraction, if I thought it would
take more than 20 seconds of rational discussion to correct.

 Weary