[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] Handicapped access

Pooh wrote:

>Ok. I'll bite...
>
>At 09:30 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Jim Owen wrote:
>> there was a proposal that the ATC support the use of
>>pack animals on the AT in order to facilitate  handicapped access. It
>>was voted down and not publicized.  But it will be back - bad ideas
>>always come back.
>
>And you think this is a bad idea why????
>
>(note...I haven't taken a stance on this one yet...)
>


Pooh -
That's a fair question because a lot of Eastern hikers don't have much
experience with horses on the trails.  So I'll hit a few of the high 
points here -

First is that there are some specifically designated stock trails - in 
Pennsylvania there's the Horseshoe Trail, built and maintained by a 
horse club.  The PCT and the CDT are both designated as stock trails by 
law and there are those who object long and loudly.  If you're not on 
pct-l then you've missed most of the semi-annual "Horse Wars".  The 
objections seem to center around what the stock leaves behind (both 
liquid and solid) and erosion/trail destruction issues.

But the top-level issue for the AT is that it's designated by law as
a"foot-path".  It would take an act of Congress to change that, but it
could happen.  If the worst happened and Congress changed the law, then
the AT as we know it would be gone.

Why? you ask.

Because pack stock require hardened trail if they're not gonna tear it 
up and destroy it.  And, for example, the AT in Maine is, for the most 
part, soft and totally unsuitable for stock use.  It was built as a 
footpath and was never meant to be used by stock animals.  

Stock animals also can't negotiate grades greater that 10 to 15 
percent.  In New Hampshire and southern Maine (the Whites, Mahoosucs,
Chairbacks, etc.) the terrain is steep, rocky, and again, totally
unsuitable for pack stock.  Can you imagine trying to get a pack train 
up Moosilauke or South Kinsman?  Or through Mahoosuc Notch and up the 
Arm?  I don't think so.

The only way to use pack stock on this part of the trail would be to 
move the Trail off the mountains and ridges in order to accomodate pack 
animals. My most conservative estimate is that over 300 miles of Trail 
would have to be moved to lower, easier, less scenic - and much less 
desireable - terrain (possibly onto logging roads?).  How would that 
affect your AT thruhiking experience? I can tell you that it wouldn't 
be the same Trail - or the same experience.  Nor would it match the 
present AT experience for those few handicapped persons who would 
actually get out there and try it. So who wins?  It's a lose-lose 
proposition.

If you want to know about erosion/trail destruction issues, go walk 
through the Smokies.  Yeah, I know - the horses are there legally 
(mostly), but the ruts on Rocky Top were still up to 2 feet deep the 
last time I was there. And those aren't "hiker ruts" because if they 
were the whole Trail would be like that.  Those ruts only exist on the 
sections where horses are allowed.

And then there's Georgia and North Carolina where miles of the Trail 
skirt the hills on dug trail.  Dug trail means that someone put a lot 
of dirty, sweaty, back-breaking work into making that trail - and it 
wouldn't take more than a dozen horses to completely destroy the 
footpath.  Even the best sidehill work doesn't stand up very well to a 
1500# horse.  I've seen a lot of this kind of damage - in Pennsylvania, 
Colorado, West Virginia - and on the AT in Virginia and North Carolina.
And knowing how much effort goes into good sidehill work, it ticks me 
off.  Again, we're talking about moving the AT - to someplace that can 
handle horse traffic - old roadbeds maybe?

And I haven't even touched on the additional traffic the shelters would
have to handle.  Or erosion, horse droppings, the effect on water
supplies, overuse - or relative "rights".

I can go into greater detail about this if you like, but I think you 
get the idea.  The AT wasn't intended, designed or built for horses. 
Nor is it, in most places, possible to make it a horse trail without 
massive relocations and/or reconstruction.  Not to mention the loss of 
most of the character of the present AT experience.

As I said --- it's a bad idea.

Walk softly,
Jim

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================