[at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes (LONG)

[RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 1/5/2003 9:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:


> So - go think about all this, make up your own mind, decide on "your"
> contract - and ignore the rest of the BS.  Cause on this subject, that's
> all
> it is.
>


          ***    Jim did all right up to here. I haven't chimed in on this
one because I feel conservation is more critical at this point...

     Some points:

        Those who argue that some alternate trails give a better experience
make a valid point. Heck, if the Appalachians are there to be explored you
should see what's best on your journey. On the other hand, ATC used to be
pretty precise about how a hike was conducted. That was when a through-hike
was still an extraordinary thing...

      The reason there is so much controversy over this matter is because
there is no single answer. There are cases of varying degrees of rightness
and this is one of them. I don't go as far as saying HYOH, because that isn't
a single answer either. Nor is saying it is "all BS" - because there are some
valid concerns involved...

        Some suggestions would be allowing a mileage equivalent to qualify as
long as the spine of the trip was the AT. The points about the AT changing
and blue blazes having once been the official trail are valid. I can't
imagine a person walking the old route that Earl got credit for being denied
the same credit Earl received. On the other hand, you can't deny WF's
assertion that he who respects the institution or formal idea of "AT" doing
justice to it by hiking the actual route. If most were honest, they would
admit that the corner cutting is done for reasons of convenience...

       So it's not really fair to make accusations of being called 'liars' if
indeed they are lying (well, let's say using a generous definition). Of
course, the Trail doesn't possess an atmosphere of strict demands in itself,
but perhaps this is part of the problem?

       Outside WF's authoritarian nature I feel that not all of his draconian
rule setting is ill-intended at its heart. I mean - look - if it was once
considered important to hike the whole Trail as it comes, then perhaps that
isn't necessarily a bad tradition to try to keep going. Especially if times
are changing and standards are slacking. At no point should someone who makes
the effort and hikes in good faith be considered stupid, or not with it for
trying to live up to a challenge. I'm sorry, but if you have an honest sense
of values you'll admit that the uptight square who hikes the Trailbed
faithfully deserves credit for actually having done the whole AT. If this
wasn't a least partially true there really wouldn't be that much question
over it. Nor would ATC offer a 2000 miler certificate. A HYOH sparkling
pinwheel would be nice, but I don't think it would cut the 2000 miler
diamond. Judging others hikes is not fitting to the AT's tone. However, there
is a point where a person who made hard efforts to do justice to a pure end
to ender deserves to be distinguished from a roving pack of hostel wreckers
who yellow-blazed to keep up with the party. (That's as far as I want to get
into internal hiker stuff) All in all, asking people to shape up their hikes
isn't that horrible an offense...

         Which brings me around to the point that the worst yellow-blazing
done on the AT is done by people who shrug off or ignore the Trail's
conservation cause and its vital inclusion in the Trail's purpose...

                   (Are we seeing a community that, through its evolving
Trail actions, behavior, and approach, is embodying the need for the Trail
camps MacKaye had originally planned? )