[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Long Trails
- Subject: [at-l] Long Trails
- From: spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)
- Date: Sat Jan 8 13:29:11 2005
- In-reply-to: <BAY19-F14BC848704E92CA842F2ACA0950@phx.gbl>
Jim Bullard wrote:
>Attempts to quantify a hike by miles or days smack of the Trailplace debate
>over what constitutes a *true* thru-hike.
Let's hope not. I believe the answer to the original question is that ALDHA
considers anything over 50 miles to be a "long trail." That's the criteria
for a trail to make the ALDHA trail list.
>Hiking is also an individual thing. The notion that there should
>be a fixed standard ignores that fact.
>'I took a 3 week hike' rather than 'I took a long hike'. "Long" is an
>inherently relative term. I think we should leave it that way.
I completely agree that a particular distance is harder for some than for
others. Personally, I've had some really LOOONG days that didn't involve a
lot of miles. My first partner on the AT finished 300 miles. After years of
my telling her it's something to be proud of, today she IS proud of it - and
rightfully so. But she's never claiimed to be a thruhiker. And likely never
will. I'll applaud what people do - but I don't give them credit for what
they don't do.
That's part of the "slippery slope" that we hammered out years ago on this
list when there were a few people who didn't finish a significant portion of
the AT and yet wanted to call themselves thruhikers. That's why the word
"thruhiker" is defined the way it is in the Thruhiking Papers.
Which is another subject - along with some of our journals, the Thruhiking
Papers will be updated and published on a website soon. Not sure where
they'll be hosted - haven't gone looking for that yet.
Walk softly,
Jim