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

[icw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Wright)]

This is a great post, with one HUGE exception - namely, purporting to
label all of the wonderful diversity of other opinions as "BS" [i.e.,
bullshit - equating people's thoughts and opinions with excrement] and
"nonsense."  That is a terrible thing to do, no matter how much other
great wisdom there is in the post.  The single worse thing we as humans
ever do to each other [other than shoot, maim, rape and kill] is to
demean the thoughts, words and ideas of others on topics that inherently
involve - as the rest of the post so eloquently makes the case for - a
great deal of individual and personal choice.  The reason this issue
keeps coming up again and again is precisely the fact that each year,
several thousand new potential thru-hikers inherently have to wrestle
with their own version of thru-hiker destiny.  First and foremost, that
is a GOOD thing!  And the fact that we come back again and again to
fundamental issues that have the potential to either build common ground
or divide us is the true test for us all.  Of course it can be said that
some people fixate too much time and effort on this, but in a real
sense, all that effort is energy directed, however inefficiently, at
finding out who we are, and where we want to look for self-validation
regarding something that is important to us all . . .

thru-thinker
people
Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:

> Somehow every time I take off for a while at-l seems to get into some
> kind
> of nonsense discussion - and this one is no better than usual.
> Sometimes I
> REALLY understand why the Class of '03 wants their own discussion group.
>
> Anyway - this is intended for the Class of '03 -- and '04 -- and
> anyone else
> who finds it of interest.
>
> Baltimore Jack gave y'all his philosophy of thruhiking - and that's just
> fine -- for Jack.  And for those others who so believe.  But Jack's
> viewpoint isn't the only one - nor the final one.  Those who have
> thruhiked
> know that if you put three thruhikers together in a room, you'll get four
> (and possibly five) different opinions on any given subject.  So it
> should
> come as no surprise that there's a lack of consensus about "purity".
> Jack
> and I disagree somewhat on this subject.  Always have and probably always
> will.    <G>
>
> Not too long ago, I defined "my" version of thruhiking as "connecting the
> steps".  In other words, did you walk all the way and connect your steps
> from one end of the trail to the other?
>
> Does that leave room for those who blue-blaze?  Yep.
>
> Does that leave room for those who slackpack?  Yep.
>
> Does it REQUIRE following ONLY white blazes?  Nope.
>
> How about those who go into the shelter one way and come out another?  No
> problem.
>
> How about those who hitch around the "hard" sections?  Or the
> "uninteresting" sections?  I don't think so.  The word is
> "thruhiker".  So
> if you don't HIKE - then by definition you CAN'T  be a thruhiker.
>
> As Weary said:
>
>> I think of the Appalachian Trail as a system of trails, not a single
>> footpath.
>
>
> And that is true.  Many people fail to understand how MANY "Appalachian
> Trails" there have been over the last 60+ years - how many relocations
> - and
> how many of the present blue blazes (like the Mau-Har) WERE once the
> AT.  I
> know a little about that - I started hiking the AT in 1953.  And Ginny
> and I
> scouted some of the new PA AT maps - including some of the routes (the
> "old"
> AT) that I walked in the 50's. Some of them still even have white blazes.
> Telling me that hiking one or more of those trails instead of the
> "present
> official white-blazed" AT would disqualify someone from "thruhiker"
> status
> is something that would give me a good laugh - but make me believe that
> their thinking process needs some fine-tuning.  I'm really not
> impressed by
> that level of anal retentiveness.
>
> I'm even less impressed by those who believe that their level of anal
> retentiveness should apply to everyone else.
>
> Don't get me wrong - if someone feels that "their" hike requires them to
> follow only white blazes, that's cool.  I have a lot of friends who
> felt -
> and hiked - by that philosphy.  I like and respect them. But I don't hike
> that way - and they don't expect me to do so.  I also have a lot of
> friends
> who started out following only white blazes - and at some point said
> "screw
> it" cause they were having a miserable hike.
>
> So - how DO I hike?  I recently posted the "contract" that Ginny and I
> used
> for the CDT.  That's basically the same contract by which I hiked the
> AT -
> and the PCT. It's "freedom-based".  It says I'll hike from one end to the
> other.  It says I'll enjoy the journey.  It says I'll see the country,
> meet
> the people and learn what I can.
>
> It does NOT say I'll allow either the "white blazes"  or someone else's
> opinion about me, my hike, thruhiking or the white blazes to affect or
> influence my hike.  It does NOT mean I'm willing to trade the chains of a
> job for the tyranny of someone else's idea of what a "thruhike" is.
>
> Did you get that?  I said - I've worked for years - I've scrimped, saved,
> and sacrificed in order to be able to do a thruhike.  If anyone thinks
> I'll
> allow them, WF, the ATC or anyone else to dictate HOW I should do it,
> then
> somehow I missed the point where that was supposed to become "my"
> problem.
>
> I reserve the right to determinefor myself exactly WHAT a thruhike is
> "for
> me".  And so should you.  As someone pointed out today - that's precisely
> what the early thruhikers did.  It's what made (and still makes) the
> Trail
> so attractive to those with what might be called a "thruhiker mentality".
>
> I know - there's the "honesty" contingent.  Tell ya what - when a man
> starts
> talking to me about "honesty" - the first thing I do is to make sure my
> wallet is secure. I've found that most of those who talk about
> "honesty" in
> terms of what other people should do have their own motivations that are
> generally not in my best interest.  YMMV - but I doubt it.
>
> I've also found that those who haven't - or worse, have no intention - of
> doing what you're doing or intend to do, have a nasty habit of setting
> standards - for YOU - that they can't meet.  I find that funny - and
> pathetic.  But I NEVER allow whose people to dictate my actions or set
> standards for me.
>
> Now in Baltimore Jack's case - he HAS done it - and done it - and done it
> ----
>
> So his opinion should be seriously considered.
>
> But even in Jack's case, there are factors that he hasn't considered.
> For
> example - the "purity" debate ONLY occurs in relation to the AT.  On the
> PCT, the guidebooks list numerous "alternate routes". In  some cases
> as many
> as 6 different routes - and in nearly ALL cases, some alternate route was
> highly recommended by the guidebook authors as being preferable to the
> "official" route.  Fact is that when we thruhiked the PCT, we made many,
> many decisions about which route to take.  We nearly always took the
> "official" route - and neither of us can think of a single case where
> that
> was the best route or the best choice - or where we'll take the same
> route
> the next time we walk the PCT.  And those places where we took alternate
> routes, Eagle Creek for example, were by far preferable to the 'pure'
> alternative.
>
> On the CDT, purity isn't even a possibility. I've watched  10 years of
> CDT
> hikers go off - each year there are one or two people who think they're
> gonna follow the "official" trail.  None of them have succeeded in any
> way
> that could be related to the "AT" version of purity.  Nor is it likely to
> happen in the forseeable future.
>
> Which brings me to this point - and one of several that Jack and others
> overlook.  The definition of "thruhiking" CANNOT be defined by  the
> act of
> "following the white blazes".  "Thruhiking" IS the act of walking from
> one
> end of a trail (ANY trail) to the other.  As a term it MUST therefore
> necessarily apply not only to the AT but to ALL long distance trails.
> And
> since "follow the white blazes" is NOT a possibility on the CDT, then it
> CANNOT be the criteria by which a person is or is not a "thruhiker" on
> any
> other trail.  Being a thruhiker on the AT MUST demand ONLY the same
> requirements as being a "thruhiker" on the PCT or CDT.  Otherwise the
> term
> itself is utterly meaningless.
>
> That particular bit of logic is NOT the reason I hike the way I do - it's
> simply an after-the-fact observation that destroys the pretense that the
> ONLY criteria for being a thruhiker is white-blazing.
>
> Oh, yeah - the ATC statement.  The ATC statement was published as a
> response
> to WF's attempts to usurp ATC functions. Sorry, gang, but I was there
> when
> that bit of fluff was generated.  I was even asked for an opinion.  I
> gave
> it to them.  They published it anyway.  My opinion?  was that it would
> generate exactly this kind of "discussion".  Their opinion? that their
> statement would settle the argument and short-circuit this kind of
> discussion.  And that was the ONLY reason for publishing it.  I won't
> comment further.
>
> Reality?  is that ATC operates much the same now as it did before
> publishing
> that statement in 1999 - to misuse one of Weary's statments again -
>
>> It's my guess that anyone who walks from Georgia to Katahdin, or vice
>> versa, and tells ATC precisely what and how they did it, will be
>> listed as
>> a thru hiker and awarded a 2000-miler patch.
>
>
> Yep - that's the way it happens.  Fact is that if you don't like the ATC
> 2000-miler form, I'd suggest that you write them a letter explaining your
> thruhike to them - and you'll probably get the patch and certificate.  I
> wouldn't guarantee that - but it's what I'd do.
>
> Oh yeah - to answer one of the original questions - go read Roly Mueser's
> book.  If memory serves, his answer was that 5% or less of thruhikers did
> what some today are calling a "pure" hike.  In '92, by my count, there
> were
> about 2%.  Apparently that hasn't changed much. Fact is that most people
> vote with their feet so don't let anyone snow you about how terrible
> you are
> if your hike isn't "pure" by their standards.  On the other hand, don't
> allow others to dilute "your" standards either.  Keep in mind that YOU
> are
> the one who has to be happy with the end result of what you do.  Don't
> do -
> or not do - things that you won't be happy with when you look back at
> your
> hike 5 years later.
>
> Now - this is already way too long so I won't go into anymore long
> reasoning about "purism".  But there IS more - lots more.
>
> The real point of this whole thing is that as future thruhikers YOU are
> gonna have to make up your own mind about what kind of hike you want,
> what
> you want out of it, how to do it, what you WILL do, what you WON'T do,
> where
> you'll go, how long you'll be on the trail, how much mileage to do on any
> given day, what to eat and about ten thousand other details, many of
> which
> haven't even occured to you yet.  YOU are the only one who can make those
> decisions if it's going to be YOUR hike.  And THAT is what is meant by
> your
> "contract".
>
> I'm not gonna tell you whether to be a purist or not any more than
> I'd  tell
> you what daily mileage you "have to" do or what you "should" eat or what
> your schedule "should" be or what you "should" carry while you're hiking.
> Or even what the word "purist" means.  In case you haven't discovered it
> yet, there are multiple variations of meaning to that word.  Some of them
> get REALLY ridiculous.  <VBG>
>
> 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.
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>> 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!
>
>