downsides to frequent resupply: Re: [at-l] Non-food from Yoga Lady

[ellen at clinic.net (Bob C.)]

>"... Treat towns like chipmunks treat sex."

Well, I confess to a lack of detailed knowledge of chipmunk sex proclivities.
But I agree the fewer -- and shorter -- town stops the better.

Not that I don't like towns. I like beers, chatting with folks -- experiencing
different restaurants. If the "Companion" or Wingfoot praises a special eatery,
I tend to want to experience it.

But the best "wild" hiking experience I've ever had was in 1991 when I hiked
Maine with a 9-year-old after spotting food at road crossings. We did have a
noon time stop at the post office/general store in Caratunk, where we visited
with the barn swallow nestlings on the porch; and a six-hour wait in Monson,
while my wife fetched a fresh pair of my grandson's sneakers. But otherwise we
experienced 30 days of being entirely in the woods and mountains.

For weeks after our return home, I'd wake up at night thinking the red led on
our bedroom VCR was the coals from Jon's nightly campfires.

That sense of wildness was greater than anything I experienced two years later
while walking north from Springer to Katahdin, when most town stops were
separated into 5-7 day segments.

My rule on the trail in '93 was to stop every two or three days if a town was
within a mile of the AT. (relatively few, actually) Otherwise, I, regardless of
distances, planned to resupply every six days. As Sloetoe notes, too many towns
distract from the experience that attracted some (most?) of us to the trail in
the first place.

Weary