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

[rickboudrie@xxxxxxxxxxx (rick boudrie)]

>- 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?
>

Thanks, Jim.

I think we are off to a good start.  The problem with simply redefining (or
recognizing) the AT to be a corridor or system of trails is that in so
doing, you fail to consider all those 2000 Miler applicants who
yellow-blazed part of the trail.  Or who took a blue blaze into town, but
hitched to the white-blazed trail on the way out of town.

In other words, you would be subsituting one set of rigid requirements for
another.  That's why my definition spoke about "the spirit" of walking from
one end to the other, whether one did so phsically or not.

With your approach, the "sides" of this discussion might change but the
fundamental problem would remain.  We would still have a situation where
people would feel compelled to suggest that those who "didn't meet the ATC's
definition shouldn't, blah, blah, blah".  We'd still have some other "Jim
Owen" suggesting that any commentary about applying for a 2000 Miler Award,
when the "corridor requirements" were not met, would be tanamount to
screwing a future hiker's right to hike thier own hike.

You are on the right track, though.  But you need to go farther.  Beyond how
you defined the trail under your own contract.  Read my suggestion again,
and see its beauty.  Basically, it allows everyone to make thier own
interpretations.  And to hike thier own hike.  Its what people are doing
now.  And it recognizes that the trail is more than a physical place.

Rick B

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus