[at-l] Camping for the Gathering and the Use of Alcohol

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

In a message dated 10/1/2004 10:31:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
cedric_maxwell@yahoo.com writes:

*
*
*
Sorry, RnR, but it is the same thing. --- Whether its
getting drunk and puking in the bushes, or deciding that no-swimming rules 
don't
apply to them it is exactly the same attitude. The attitudes need to change
before the behaviors can change. 

           *** I'm not convinced swimming in restricted ponds in Harriman is 
the same as getting a hostel shut down or changing the nature of the AT. And I 
doubt very much that those having the beer parties are giving it that much 
thought. My personal history with maintaining in Harriman is not one of 
flaunting the authorities. After my 1986 hike I went up to Fingerboard every week and 
cleaned it out. This included raking broken bottles and glass out of the spill 
area in front of the shelter. You could see it was many years worth of 
accumulation. The shelter was often used as a camping/party den as told in many a 
journal. It was only 1 mile from a parking lot. Needless to say, my associations 
with AT partying were somewhat different from those of stealth swimming. The 
main reason Harriman was set-up with no swimming rules is because it had a 
huge NYC area population using it. If swimming were permitted each bucolic lake 
would be scattered with parties and swimming groups. Bye, bye nice natural 
setting. The trash piles radiate out from Tiorati parking lot in a progressive 
manner. You would never find me giving a wink and nod to a trasher. Further up 
the Trail swimming at an occasional pond was never the same matter. Trashing is 
never OK anywhere. So far, I haven't seen any Trail-fests or hostels 
controlled because of defiant swimming. But if I were called on it I would gladly send 
everybody to the designated swimming area if it meant less party hiking (or 
more advocacy).    




And, RnR, your behavior that you described in Harriman is doing the exact same
thing. You are basically telling a bunch of thru-hikers that they are above 
the
rules and laws. Go ahead, swim there. Yea, you are not supposed to, but what
the heck? How many times do you have to hear stuff like this before you start
to really believe that you are better than everyone else, that you can do
whatever you want?


               ***    Perhaps, but the 50 mile Smokies rule kind of comes 
into play. In this case they are sort of deserving to a degree. What gets to me 
isn't a through-hiker sneaking a harmless dip on a hike, but one who trashes. I 
won't mention those who ridicule Trail advocacy.



 
When you stop the entitled attitudes, only then will you have a chance to stop
the behavior problems that are ruining relationships between the trails and 
the
towns and businesses along the trail.


          *** Do you mean if a through-hiker like myself went into Hanover 
and was sitting minding his own business in the room they generously gave me 
after doing my laundry, eating at Anchovies, getting my food drop, etc - if the 
college hosts were to look in through a peep hole and look at me and say - 
"yeah, I knew it - I can see it - that guy thinks he's entitled - look, it's 
written all over him!"  - doesn't the partying have anything to do with it? It's 
more than partying, it's increased traffic and new hiker types. Still though, 
I'm totally with WF on this. The obvious solution is to educate Trail users 
towards Trail ethics and the AT's purpose. If it starts degenerating into a party 
pack then it needs to be dealt with. The Trail's reputation (or condition 
really) is at stake whether it is one-timers or not. And I'm sure if we researched 
that "attitude" we would find organized Trail understanding wasn't high on 
the list. So we are talking the same thing here.

             Nothing more wilderness won't solve...


*
*
*