Fwd: [at-l] PROPOSED 'PURISM' LANGUAGE

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings wrote:
>For what they may be worth, the following is how I would modify the 
>Appalachian Trail Conference policies for issuing 2,000 miler certificates 
>and patches. My proposed changes are in Capital letters.
<snip>
>IN ADDITION THE POLICY RECOGNIZES THE USE OF BLUE-BLAZED TRAILS LEADING 
>INTO OR FROM SHELTERS, PARALLELING THE WHITE-BLAZED TRAIL, AS WELL AS 
>BLUE-BLAZED TRAILS THAT TRAVERSE MORE DIFFICULT TERRAIN SUCH AS SUMMITS 
>BYPASSED BY THE WHITE BLAZES AND LONGER LOOPED TRAILS LEADING TO WATERFALLS 
>AND OTHER SCENIC ATTRACTIONS, PROVIDING THESE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 
>OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED TRAIL CORRIDOR.
>
>Our recognition policy does not consider: sequence, direction, speed, or 
>whether one carries a pack. ATC assumes that those who apply for 
>2,000-miler status have made honest efforts to walk the WHITE-
>BLAZED Appalachian Trail from Katahdin to Springer Mountain OR THE MORE 
>DIFFICULT BLUE BLAZED ROUTES THAT ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM OF TRAILS KNOWN 
>COLLECTIVELY AS THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL."

Bob -
To a large degree, I like it  :-)

It wouldn't *entirely* shut off the purism debate but it would close the gap 
somewhat.  Three things spring to mind immediately - the first being that 
the differentiation between "the WHITE-BLAZED Appalachian Trail from 
Katahdin to Springer Mountain" and "THE MORE DIFFICULT BLUE BLAZED ROUTES" 
would still lead to some arguments as to which one was more 
"legitimate"/whose hike was more "official"/whose hike was "second-rate."  
Possible solution - white-blaze them all.

Second - as someone else pointed out, which blue-blazed trails would be 
acceptable (more difficult/longer/more scenic/whatever)?  Would there be a 
list someplace?  How would one add other trails to the list (a newly built 
trail, for example)?

Finally - "THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED TRAIL CORRIDOR" - who defines it? How/ 
what criteria? How would it be marked on the ground?  And indicated on the 
maps?

None of this is meant as criticism, Bob - I'll freely admit that you did a 
better job than I expected.  These "objections" are only what I see as 
future points of contention that would arise once the hair-splitters and 
sea-lawyers got hold of it.  There are probably more - but I'll leave that 
to others. I'm sure someone will find them :-))

One thing to note is that your changes wouldn't have gotten off the ground 
when the original "rules" were written cause they wouldn't have satisfied 
the requirements that ATC was writing to.  But that was then and this is 
now.  Your additions might need further refinement, but they're a lot better 
than the original  :-)

Actually, ATC might buy into something like that now because it would fit 
99+% of those who walk all the way but take side-trails to more interesting 
places - like overlooks, streams, waterfalls ... whatever.  And neither ATC 
nor the thruhikers would get caught as much in the middle of the anal 
arguments.

Have a good weekend -- we're going hiking.

Walk softly,
Jim




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.