[at-l] Genuine Thru Hikes---a Last Comment

[nealb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (William Neal)]

Having been away More or Less since Dec. 20th, let me make a few short
comments:
1) A PURE thru-hike would have to consist of no blue or yellow blazing and
done completely in one continuous hike.  With no nights spent off the trail
or in motels, etc.  Few, if any, have done that.  Correction, the earliest
probably did.

2) Today's white blaze trail is not yesterday's "white" blaze trail, and
probably won't be tomorrow's white blaze trail.

3) Anyone who hike the entire white blaze trail with short side trips on
blue or yellow blazes (but not skipping the white; just looping back
around), is doing "more" than those who stay just on the white blazes: I say
this since off-list I had someone complain that coming off the trail at all
(except for a few in and out resupplies) was not "real" thru-hiking.

4) If you do 90% plus of the white blazed trail and only do blue and yellow
blazes for a very good reason (such as a blizzard or flooded bridge or
wildfires) and not for "wow, it looks too steep" reasons, then you deserve
recognition.  Walking 2,000 miles plus deserves recognition no matter what
-- unless most was done hitch-hiking.  That's not walking.

William, The Turtle

PS   When I retire, if not before then, I intend to stay out on the AT until
I complete it.  I intend to do the whole white blaze trail.  Every last inch
of it.  All in one through trip; with limited stays at home or elsewhere:
Since this is likely to be during the Easter Tridium and possibly Christmas,
I may come home for 2 to 5 days at such times.  I also intend to hike or
ride into DC, NYC, and other places that interest me.  I intend to camp out
in a tent most of the time, but to stay at motels, hotels, hostels, bed &
breakfasts when the mood or money strikes me.  I intend to eat GORP and
grits, and go to local VFD "bobby-ques", gourmet restaurants (if they'll let
me in), family style restaurants, etc.  And I defy anyone to say I don't
deserve a 2,000 miler patch.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Tarlin [mailto:baltimorejack@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:01 PM
To: at-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: [at-l] Genuine Thru Hikes---a Last Comment


   I've been away since Saturday; I've neither the time nor the desire to
address all of the comments made so far on this issue, except I feel
compelled to reply to smokinjoe, who quite indignantly wrote "...you still
did not cite any fact based statistics to strengthen your hypothesis..."

   Well, sure I did.  They were right in my original post.  I stated very
clearly that of the 450-600 odd folks who report into Harper's each year
that they've completed a thru-hike, it is my considered opinion that perhaps
fifty of them have actually made a concerted effort to hike the Trail in its
entirety, withoput skipping, yellow, or-blue-blazing sections they found
inconvenient.  If we compare this to the 2600 hundred or so folks who start
each year (based on estimates from Amicalola Falls, Baxter, and Neels Gap),
this means that perhaps 2% of the people that set out to hike the entire
A.T. in one continuous journey actually do so.

   If Joe is wondering where I get these figures, it's simple:  They are
based on years of continuous experience on the Trail, in which I met,
encountered, came to know, or hiked, with hundreds, if not thousands of
prospective thru-hikers.  When you're out that much, there's really no doubt
as to who's really hiking and who isn't; when folks disappear from the
registers for days or weeks at a time, this is hardly a secret.  For Joe to
say "You are simply co-opting Wingfoot's statement without any facts
whatsoever to back up what you say" is simply ridiculous:  First off, my
comments have nothing to do with Wingfoot's opinion on the matter, they
stand by themselves.  And secondly, for joe to baldly state (twice in fact)
that my statements were not based on facts is patently false.  It is factual
experience with untold numbers of hikers that are PRECISELY where I get my
conclusions from, and for Joe to question this is, to be honest, insulting.
Perhaps Joe would like to tell us about HIS Trail history and experience
that would lead us to believe that he's more qualified to speak upon this
matter than I am.....I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

   The fact is, as several other folks have agreed, that the majority of
folks in recent years who claim to be thru-hikers, i.e., claim to be someone
who has hiked the entire Trail, are, to say the very least, exaggerating
their accomplishment.  Most folks nowadays skip.  Some skip a mile or two.
Some skip Virginia.  But the fact that most folks skip is clearly known and
apparent to any honest person who's spent much time on the contemporary
trail, and anyone who says otherwise is either speaking untruthfully, or
speaking out of ignorance.  And this talk of blue-blazes, and scenic side
trails; this talk of the old A.T., or the trail corridor; this talk of there
being a "system of trails" is really nonsense.  The Appalachian Trail is an
actual entity:  Tho its length might change with each year due to section
closings, repairs, relocations, etc., there is each year an absolutely,
clearly set, marked, mapped, defined Trail, with two termini, one at
Springer, and one at Katahdin.  Anyone who doubts this need only examine the
Data Book, which very clearly lays out the distance of the Trail, or one can
simply follow the blazes, which is as good a way as any to see where the
Trail actually goes. When you're on the Trail, you know it, and when you
make the willful decision to leave it or deviate from it, well, you know
that, too.  Parse it any way you want, but a thru-hike is generally felt to
be a hike of the entire A.T. in one continuous journey, as opposed to
completing the Trail over a period of years.  "Entire" means just what it
says---complete, un-cut, un-adulterated.  "Entire" means "whole".

    If you've done the whole thing, you know it. Likewise, if you choose not
to, which is of course your right, well, one knows that, too.  But you
simply can't have it both ways, no matter how much one wishes one could:  If
you want to hike the whole trail, then for heaven's sake, do so.  If you
don't feel compelled to hike the whole thing, well, hell, that's fine, too.
But to do one, while claiming credit for having done the other is simply an
exercise in dis-honesty.  Most folks look askance at people seeking credit
or recognition for something that they didn't actually accomplish; most
folks recognize that this is not behavior of which most folks would approve.
  Why is this patently simple concept so difficult for some folks to grasp?
Hell yeah, hike your own hike and all that, and refrain from judging other
folks' wishes and actions.  But I wish folks would stop these ridiculous
contortions trying to spin gold out of straw.  If it's important to you to
be known as a thru-hiker, then, hell, it's very simple:  thru-hike.  If it's
not important, that's swell.  But to change your mind later is simply to
twist the truth, and all of these convoluted definitions and explanations
won't change this.  Making a dream a reality involves more than simply
wishing that it were so.   Sometimes, there's a bill to be paid.  In this
case, the bill requires hiking the entire trail, and there are evidently
folks who want full run of the restaurant without the onerous task of paying
the entire tab.  Sorry.  It just doesn't work that way.





_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus