[at-l] Trail Food, How do you carry 7 days

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

In a message dated 11/10/2003 11:14:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:


> I've said this before - staying out for 7 to 10 days is great - if you're 
> not under the time and distance constraints of a thruhike.  But carrying 7 
> to 10 days of food during a thruhike is something that's rarely necessary - 
> and contributes to more people quitting the trail than your great concerns 
> about money.  If you were really concerned about those who quit, then you'd 
> be preaching "lighter pack" - not "carry more food and clothing so you can 
> stay out of town longer."
> 

           ***    Some of what Jim says is true and he makes some good 
points. But, like usual, he makes partial points compared to the AT and its purpose 
that ignore or give short recognition to some of the more important points 
Weary makes. 

      Jim is correct in saying a lightweight hike at 25-30 miles per day and 
2-4 day resupply is probably the ultimate form of getting up the Trail - but 
in all of Jim's alleged Trail wisdom he completely ignores the fact that the 
*average* through-hiker won't come close to attempting this approach. The 
*average* through-hiker are the same persons Jim scolds Weary over, yet goes on to 
cite a hiking form that no average hiker will ever attempt. 

         More likely, the persons who Jim is worried about falling off the 
Trail due to bad logistics are more likely to be carrying something similar to 
what Weary references. -That is, a heavy pack. We all know most of them won't 
be coaxed away from this pack until they get some Trail experience and 
confidence. (yours truly included) I'm sure Jim would agree.

        What Jim tends to ignore is that on-trail exposure leads to a sense 
of prolonged wilderness immersion. That, whether Jim realizes it or not, is a 
key component of the AT and its purpose. I'm sure Jim is willing to dispense 
with all of that in order to scold Weary for not getting the hiking formula just 
right. - But when he does, he does so at the cost of probably the Trail's 
most critical element. So, Weary makes an important point that Jim is all too 
ready to dismiss simply because his partial Trail view (based mostly on personal 
politics -and not a respectful understanding of the Trail's background and 
purpose) allows him to. 

           The pivot point for all this in Jim's logic is the word "tough". 
OK, I can accept and appreciate Jim's conservative self-responsibility ethic. 
However, I noticed that it isn't equally distributed. If you take such a stance 
you have to do it equally. For instance, if some in the Trail community don't 
like the sound of fundamental Trail advocacy (and that advocacy is based on 
sound and registered AT principles) that, indeed, is also "tough" -isn't it? 
But, if you read Jim's writings, you won't see that same measure applied. 

              Sorry Jim, but from reading your writings I get the impression 
that you would also respond that it is "tough" about Greylock and the race 
course. I know, I know, you'll probably respond "I never said that" - but the 
truth is you don't need to and what you *don't* say speaks louder than what you 
do. And there's just a little bit too much of "not saying" happening in the AT 
community now a days for me to be totally comfortable...

         The bottom line is that anything that leads to increased 
infrastructure for convenience will inevitably come at the expense of the Trail's wild 
quality. The fact that persons who pose themselves as critical inside Trail 
voices don't register that (and fight to censor those who do) only accents a 
serious, insidious Trail problem...