[at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes

[icw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Wright)]

My other post really already says this, but I feel the urge to say it
again a bit differently in the context of BJ's post.  I am getting old
enough to where I tend to agree with Jack that the past 7 years have
witnessed a lot more people willing to be "looser" with their definition
of a complete AT thru-hike - and, like Jack, somehow that bothers me a
little bit.  BUT - and it is a big BUT, I like to think that I am honest
and open enough to recognize that even the hardiest, grittiest, purest
thruhiker from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's 1980's or early 1990's
simply did NOT walk every step of the actual, official AT trailbed as it
existed on the day they were at a particular point.  There simply is no
way to actually accomplish that in the purest, literal sense of the
word.  So, in the end, we are down to arguing over trends and degrees of
gray.  I think Jack's definition of a complete thru-hike would be close
to this, which is my own definition:  You hike the white blazes the
entire way, only deviating for very short distances around downed trees
and washed out sections, with the deviation as short as physically
possible.  If you are hiking NOBO and take the southern blue blaze
entrance to a shelter located 5 tenths off the Trail, you return to the
Trail via that same blue blaze [as opposed to taking the northern exit
out and thereby missing up to a mile of actual, white blazed Trail]; and
if you hitch into town, you get a return ride to the same spot you got
off, not the next road crossing up the way.  But, again, I close with
the same dose of humility - even if you do all of the above, you have
not hiked every step of the AT - nobody has and nobody ever will.

The final moral to me is this:  Even though I firmly believe nobody can
hike it all, and thus we humans are left yo wrestle with varying shades
of gray, that does not excuse us from the wrestling process, and from
being as true as we can with ourselves and each other.  The first and
most important rule is to hike your own hike.  My second rule is to
recognize that your own definition of what kind of "thru-hike" you want
to hike may change over time and with new experiences.  My third rule is
that whatever kind of hike you actually hike, your truest test of
personal character is to thereafter be honest with yourself and others
about just what kind of hike you did - and if you blue-blazed a section
somewhere, then don't go to Trail Days or Rucks or your grandmothers
house and tell everyone that you hiked the complete AT - in the end, you
know what you did and did not do, and that ought to be good enough to
tell others, too!  One of the greatest temptations in society today is
to want to tell others about something you did in one, pithy, often
self-serving phrase - well, truth be known, life is simply not lived in
one-sentence "I hiked the entire AT" sound bites . . . while it is
sometimes harder to do, thinking of more meaningful ways to talk about
your experiences is a good test in personal responsibility in and of
itself .

thru-thinker

Jack Tarlin wrote:

>
> To address some of Rick's issues/questions:
>
>  It is widely assumed (and incorrectly), that about 10% of the folks who
> begin a thru-hike actually complete it, i.e., hike the trail in its
> entirety.
>
>  If we examine the "completion" figures from the folks who've reported
> into
> Harper's Ferry that they've finished a thru, this completion  figure
> actually is closer to 15-18% of those who started.
>
>  These figures are, and always will be incomplete, as nobody knows for
> sure
> how many folks start out each year; nobody "reports in" anywhere when
> they
> quit the Trail; and some who have finished never report into Harper's
> that
> they have.  Come to think of it, I know I never reported in for 2002,
> and I
> don't think I did in 2001, either.  There are some folks I can think of
> (ahem!) who collect multiple completion certificates and 2000-miler
> badges
> as trophies; they make sure that every article of outdoor clothing
> they own
> has a 2000-miler rocker on it, and their completion certificates are the
> first thing you see when you enter their house.  There are other folks
> for
> whom this isn't such a big deal.
>
>   In any case, we can never know for sure of the percentage of
> starters who
> finish, just as we'll never know for sure how many of the "claimants"
> have,
> in fact, actually hiked the whole thing.
>
>   We can, hover, guess at it, and it is my considered opinion that of the
> 500-odd folks who report into Harper's each year, perhaps 50 of them were
> absolute purists, i.e., were absolutely certain that they'd hiked the
> whole
> thing, and took great pains NOT to miss anything.  How do I come by this
> figure?  Easy.  It comes from having hiked with, and having spent more
> time
> in the woods these past 8 years as a thru-hiker than just about anyone
> else;
> this has given me a fairly unique perspective on who's really hiking and
> who's skipping around.
>
>  Back to the math:  If we consider that perhaps 50 (and maybe fewer)
> of the
> folks who report to Harper's actually did complete thrus, and if we
> consider
> that about 2600 a year (more or less) set out from Georgia or Maine
> with the
> intention of hiking thru, this means that the actual percentage of
> folks who
> have REALLY completed a thru, at least in recent years, is something
> like 2%
> of those who start.  It is certainly less than 5%, and probably a lot
> less.
>
>  I qualify this with the phrase "in recent years" because with each
> passing
> year, the practice of blue or yellow-blazing unwanted sections is a
> phenomena that's grown by leaps and bounds, at least since 1995 when I
> started long-distance hiking on the A.T.  As recently as the middle of
> the
> last decade, if one jumped or skipped, one was fairly quiet about it, as
> there was still a good degree of remorse or regret (or even shame?) about
> skipping.  Those who skipped bits didn't advertise the fact, as up until
> very recently, the practice of skipping was somewhat frowned on, at
> least it
> was if you wanted to consider and call yourself a genuine thru-hiker.
>
>  It's changed dramatically in recent years---nobody really cares anymore,
> and the practice of skipping sections and miles is so prevalent now, that
> nobody considers it to be something shameful or dishonorable; nobody
> attempts to "hide" what they've done, and for good reason---nobody cares.
> This is perfectly fine with me, as it should be with anyone else.
> Everyone
> has to decide for themselves what they wish their journey to be---if
> people
> want to skip sections they've already done, or have no interest in
> doing, or
> find too onerous---well, that's really nobody else's business.
>
>   That being said, the problem arises when these people decide to check
> into Harper's in order to receive permanent acknowledgment for saomething
> that, in fact, most of them have not actually done, and in that, at
> the very
> least, 95% of today's "thru-hikers" have not, in fact, hiked the entire
> Trail, I think the problem can be viewed very simply as this:  While
> anyone
> absolutely has the right to hike their hike anyway they so choose, it
> seems
> somewhat unseemly for so many folks to be claiming recognition for
> something
> that they did not, in fact, accomplish.  Or to put it another way---if
> you
> don't want to walk every mile, fine.  That's your business.  But if
> it's not
> important enough for you to hike the Trail in its entirety (which is,
> after
> all, what a "thru-hike" actually entails), then it shouldn't be important
> for you to report into Harper's that you did, or to put it another
> way, if
> having the 2000-mile rocker is that important to you, or hanging that
> certificate over the mantle is that important to you, then, for heaven's
> sake, you should actually DO what you're claiming to have done.  Anything
> less is to live a lie.
>
>
>    All that being said, this thread came about because of comments
> from D.
> Bruce in a recent newspaper article.  Am I the only one who finds it
> amusing
> that Mr. Bruce, in light of questions regarding the genuineness of his
> own
> hikes, is STILL telling reporters that he's finished seven thrus?  Pretty
> nervy, no?
>
>    Anyway, Rick B. asked for comments from recent hikers, so there you
> have
> it---the fact of the matter is, most recent "thru-hikers" have not
> actually
> hiked the whole Trail, yet the vast majority of these folks with missing
> miles have STILL reported into the A.T.C. that they have, and nobody
> seems
> bothered by this.   Reporting in to Harper's is, of course, done on the
> honor system.  Evidently, different folks have a different definition
> of the
> term "honor" system.  But call it what you will, the plain and simple
> truth
> is that most of the folks who've claimed to have thru-hiked in recent
> years
> have not, in fact, actually done so.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>> From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
>
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!
>
>