[at-l] A Different Ethical Dilemma...

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Rafe wrote:
>
>Here's another one.  How far is it ethical to drive,
>in order to hike your favorite piece of the AT?
>
<snip>
>I was thinking of a hike in the Whites.  That's
>a 300 mile round trip in the Subaru.  That's 12
>gallons of gas, or 240 pounds of atmospheric
>CO2 I'm personally responsible for.
>
>If I walk 24 miles, that's 10 lbs. of CO2 per hiker-mile.
>If I hike for two days, it's 120 lbs. per hiker-day.

Well - it's really more than that - you neglected to calculate the 
biological component.  <g>

But let add to the dilemma -

Why do you have to hike on the AT?  There are certainly trails that are 
closer to home.  And I'd bet you haven't seen all of them yet.

Not meaning to pick on Rafe in particular - it's a "general" question.  
We've spent the last few years exploring the local trails.  There are a LOT 
of them.  And you can bet that there are LOTS of local trails wherever you 
might live - all you have to do is look for them.

Every hike doesn't have to be on the AT.  In fact, we determined long ago 
that the AT is so overused that it doesn't need the impact of our boots 
added to that of the other 5 or 6 million people who hike it every year.  So 
for the last 13 years, we've been hiking trails that some of you have never 
even heard about.  Many of them are a lot closer than any part of the AT.  
Saves time, money, gas - and wear and tear on the AT.

Walk softly,
Jim

http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/