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

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 08:58 PM 3/27/02 -0500, Bob C. wrote:
>"... 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.

The ATC got into the 'certification' business because they questioned 
Earl's claim of completing the first thru-hike.  They didn't intend to set 
themselves up as the arbitor of thru-hiking but they didn't believe it 
could be done.  After he demonstrated it with his journal, photos, etc. 
they acknowledged it as fact.  For many years thereafter there were few to 
no thru-hikers so it was no problem to the ATC to verify and add the new 
people to the list.  In the '70s the numbers started climbing and they 
hadn't the staff to deal with verification so they decided that since 
thru-hiking verification wasn't a part of the mission of the organization 
they would simply take people's word for it in future.

>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.

I have no knowledge of WF's role in this change but Jim says he does and I 
don't doubt Jim's word.  I do know that the ATC's lax attitude toward the 
certificate was a bone of contention to WF.  My suggestion to him was to 
set up his own.

>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....

You are correct that this is not high on the ATC's agenda.  I do know that 
the ATC is sensitive to pressure that distracts them from their primary 
mission as evidenced by it's semi-recognition of the alleged thru by 6 boy 
scout's hike which predates Earl's thru.  Evidently the author of an 
article on the alleged thru lobbied the ATC to have it listed as the first 
thru despite the fact that it was not reported at the time (the AT wasn't 
even complete at the time) and was based on nothing more than the "fading 
memories" of only one of the 6 scouts, no photos, no journal, and no 
corroboration.  As I recall ALDHA and many individuals objected but the 
author lobbying for recognition was "persistent".  Earl, modestly declined 
to object and they accepted it for the list with the notation that it was 
unverified and didn't issue a certificate hoping thereby to satisfy both 
camps.  I think they simply wanted to get everyone off their backs so they 
could get back to the real business of the ATC but ended up muddying the 
water on what was acceptable.  Because of this I don't take the ATC "rules" 
too seriously nor (I think) do they.

sAunTerer