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

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

"...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." says Jim.

   And I agree. But I would leave the decision to each individual hiker. No one
   is going to be checking anyway. These things always involve individual
   decisions, based on conditions and perceptions at the time. I am just trying
   to find a system that would be more sensible and less argumentative.

   I think most would treat the guidelines as fair and would comply. Others I
   don't particularly care about.

    I've been pondering this problem ever since it dawned on me in 1993 --
    somewheres around Damascus -- that some thought those white blazes had
    special significance. I decided to hike very late and spent my time
    preparing mail drops, figuring finances, buying maps and such.

    I thought of the trail as I would have thought of any mountain hike. The
    goal was the summit. How I got there never had seemed significant.

    Once I read the ATC rules, they immediately seemed ridiculous. My first
    instinct was to ignore them and simply claim a thru hike. Gradually, I came
    to realize that I couldn't do that.

    The trigger came while hitching back to the trail with five other hikers. We
    all climbed in the back of the pick up. The driver pulled up a road that
    formed part of the trail to turn around. Four of us thanked the guy and kept
    walking. One walked back to the road (may be 100 yards) so he could "pass"
    every white blaze.

    Over the months I met several others with similar dedication to white
    blazes. Most struck me as silly, especially since they didn't seem to be
    particularly enjoying their hike. But that's beside the point. The rules
    struck me as equally silly.

    I agree that defining the official corridor is difficult, perhaps
    impossible. The corridor is clear where it goes through newly purchased
    federal lands. Some of the older lands have memoranda of understandings
    dealing with the corridor.

    But I understand many state lands and a few lands owned by non profit groups
    have no designated corridors. Both are true in Maine. I don't know about
    other states.

    Perhaps we should omit any mention of the corridor.

    I throw these things out as a way to encourage hikers to think first about
    enjoying the trail and only secondly, if at all, about rules for recording
    this marvelous walk in the woods and mountains.

     I'm sure a committee could spend many days debating the fine points and
     make improvements -- well as least some of the changes might be
     improvements.

     Weary