[at-l] AT Trail system (was:Genuineness of ...........)

[spiriteagle99@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

rick boudrie wrote:
>"The ONLY question here is - how does this relate to the ATC patch?  And
>THAT is a personal decision that each person has to make for themselves.
>The chivying of people on this list to "be honest" is nothing but
>interference in the decision process of future thruhikers. It's THEIR hike,
>it's THEIR ethics/morality, it's THEIR decision, it's THEIR prerogative to
>make whatever decision works for them - whether anyone here agrees or not."
>Says Jim
>
>And he is almost correct.
>

Almost, Rick --- <VBG>


>The bigger question is whether or not the ATC has the right to set the
>conditions for an award which it confers.  I suspect that most of us would
>agree that they do.

I've never questioned that - nor do I consider it a "big" question - the ATC
is THE agency responsible for the AT. It's their bag.  And it's not up to
ALDHA or Trailplace or anyone else to usurp that responsibility.


>So the secondary question is whether the ATC has currently set those
>conditions correctly as articualted on thier web site and on the written
>2000 Miler application.  By both word and deed it seems that 95% of
>thru-hikers seem to believe that the answer to that is "no".

Yep -

>So the final question is, why are we getting mad at each other when what we
>should be doing is asking the ATC to change thier current 2000 Miler
>standards?

Now you've got a good idea.


>Here is what I might suggest be substituted for their current requirements
>that state a blue blaze is not considered a viable alternative for the
>official white-blazed footpath:
>
>"The AT is more than just a footpath.  It is an experience.  The ATC
>recognizes everyone who partakes of that experience over its entirety from
>Maine to Georgia with a 2000 Miler Award.  While this experience can be
>realized by physically hiking every bit of the official footpath, it might
>also be realized in somewhat different ways by different people.  For
>purposes of the 2000 Miler award it is more important that hikers travese
>its entire length in spirit than in body"

Let's take it a step further -

The ATC is looking for a way to "redefine" itself.  In spite of the opinion
of some to the contrary, the AT is nearly totally "protected" with a large
part of the present effort going into providing "buffer zones".  Nor do I
have any real disagreement with that concept - except where it destroys
lives and overrides basic human rights.  And it does exactly that in some
places.  BUT - all that aside, basically, the ATC is running out of
justification for future growth of the organization.  In other words,
they're facing stagnation.  They need a new vision.

So let's see what we can come up with here.  Sly just brought up the
Tuscarora Trail as an alternate trail.  Weary suggested that he thought of
the AT as a system of trails.  Kahley once suggested that the Trail should
have been built much further West.  Earl Shaffer wanted to make the AT a
5000 mile loop trail.  So - does ANY of that sound to you like those people
think of the AT as a static single line between two points?  Not meaning to
imply that that your solution was bad - but let's get down to a 'real' - or
maybe a "bigger" solution here.

How about a proposal that the AT be converted from a "Trail" to a "Trail
system".  There IS precedent for this - there are a number of local trail
"systems" that contain multiple linked trails administered by a single
agency.  One example is the trail "system" in the Sproul State Forest in
northern PA.  A number of separate trails have been built in the past.  The
present effort is to link those trails into a system such that one could
hike for hundreds of miles going from one trail to another via
cross-connectors.

There is no conceivable reason why the AT should be a single line trail.
Why should it not consist of the present AT with links (as Sly suggested) to
the Tuscarora Trail - or from even further south, the Allegheny Trail,
connecting somewhere north (far north) of the PA/NY line?  Why is the Iron
Mountain Trail considered to be an unacceptable blue blazed side trail to
the AT - if memory serves, it used to BE the AT. Why should there not be a
loop through western PA into New York, through Vermont and New Hampshire?
Why should there not be a loop through western Maine? What reason is there
for excluding the Benton MacKaye from an AT system?

In fact, even now, one could leave the present AT just north of Pearisburg
on the Allegheny Trail, turn right on the American Discovery/Potomac
Heritage Trail, head north on the Green Ridge Trail, connect with the Mid
State Trail, branch off on the North Country Trail and meet the AT again
somewhere in either New England.  Or take one of several cross-connectors
and get back to the AT somewhere in the middle.  Or you could turn off on
the Tuscarora out of the Shenandoah to Hancock, MD, then either stay on the
Tuscarora to the AT junction or cut off on the Green Ridge Trail to take the
PA loop.

No - I didn't hike all those during my AT thruhike - but I've hiked many of
them since that time.  And they're at least as interesting, at least as
tough, certainly wilder - and a lot longer than the present AT.

So - does anyone think it's not a viable idea to link those (and other)
trails as well as some of the presently being-built cross-connectors into a
single Appalachian Trail System?  C'mon - I want to hear the objections.

Some things to think about are that it would change the nature of thruhiking
the AT - and that it would settle the eternal dissension about blue/white
blazing.

Don't get the idea that this is an "original idea" being aired for the first
time - there are some of us who have been building trail for the last 10
years with this concept in the back of our minds.  If you take a look at a
map of the trail systems in PA, NY, VA, WV, NC, TN, GA - and if you have the
vision to connect the dots - well, it's an obvious next step.

>Someone else might come up with something better.  Jim and the ALDHA might
>be able to help craft something that reflects the real sentiments of the
>thru-hiking community.   Together we could draft a letter over our
>signatures and send it into the ATC.

Now - none of what I said above negates the fact that the problem here is
the shot-full-of-holes ATC statement that utterly fails to cover the ground
with respect to the realities of what thruhikers are actually doing. That
statement does exactly what I told them it would do when I first saw it in
1998.  It creates dissension.  It puts limits on something that's not
limitable - the human spirit.  It's the Trail equivalent of Prohibition.  So
- for the interim, until someone can get it together to propose and push
through something with regard to a Trail system (and that'll take some time)
- your suggestion is a good one.  So maybe someone should write that letter?

Walk softly,
Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail