[at-l] On Poles

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

>"...I find hiking poles important, if not necessary to me, to prevent further
>damage to my knees.  Sorry that that may be unacceptable to some.  Perhaps some
>of you would rather I get off the trails and into my rocking chair, but I
>refuse."

Dear Rusty:

 I'm trying desperately to resist further participation in this issue on the
 list because it is clear to me that no one is listening as evidenced by your
 most recent comment.

 No one has yet argued that poles should not be used. I have bored the list too
many times with a description of my hiking staff for any confusion on that
matter. The benefits of poles can be easily achieved without any trail damage.

 I have simply urged that poles be used in a way that minimizes damage. How does
 the fact that humans for 80 years have impacted the Appalachian trail in
 anyway, (or Jim, that some soils erode naturally without human interference)
 argue that we should unnecessarily impose further damage.

  If you are arguing that hiker knees are paramount then eventually the trail
  should be paved for use by ATVs, thus eliminating all impacts on the human
  body -- except, perhaps, obesity. My preferred solution is to equip hiking
  poles with rubber tips. This would avoid damage, be cheaper and easier than
  paving the trail -- and incidentally make poles work better.

  Sharp tipped hiking poles evolved from the discovery by walkers that
  sharp-tipped ski poles make it possible to go faster without damaging their
  knees. Sooner or later someone besides me is bound to notice that well
  designed rubber tips on hiking sticks work even better and the problem will be
  solved.

  Weary