Re[2]: Half serious/ Half ;-) RE: [at-l] AT Trail System

[Bob C." <ellen@xxxxxxxxxx (Bob C.)]

>"...I wonder if  anyone here really thinks that a drastic drop in the numbers
>of completed thruhikes (by "certifying ONLY those who walked ONLY white blazes)
>would be viewed in a favorable light by those who hold the purse strings?  Did
>I say that plainly enough?" argues Jim.

I understand Jim's words, but I don't believe the premise behind the words. Thru
hiking is a tiny minority of AT users. The figures the politicians are
interested in are not 300 or so thru hikers who claim to have finished, or the
3,000 who start at one end or the other. But the 5-6 million people that use
some part of the trail each year.

Thanks to the maintaining clubs and ATC, the AT is by far the cheapest national
Park in terms of dollars per user day, and among the cheapest regardless of size
and useage. There's only one ranger for a 2,000 mile park, totalling 600,000
acres (the acreage is a guess, but it's in the ball park.)

It costs the park service several million dollars a year to operate Acadia
National Park in Maine. It costs the park service a few thousand dollars to
operate the Appalachian Trail in Maine, which encompasses about the same
acreage.

Though usage of the AT in Maine is less than usage of Acadia, it's no contest if
you compare dollars per user.

A doubling or halving of the number of thru hikers is insignificant in the
overall picture.

Weary