Re: [at-l] AT may be too tough says oldtimer ;o)

[kahley7 <kahley7@ptd.net>]

Thomas McGinnis wrote:
>then you have "bad" trail

>      routing -- and that that's when I judge the trail's route to be
>      unnecessarily tough for the terrain.

At last years Ruck, one of the highlights for me was the slide show.
I was shocked by one photo that showed an ugly gash climbing
a grassy hill.  The caption was "This is the trail".  My first thought was
that their had to be a better way to gain that hill that would not so mar
the terrain.  Rerouting this section, (can the photographer remember
and identify same?) would be a chore, but it really was an almost
ugly scene.

With AT use increasing, it would seem that an alternate route, at least
might be considered.  But of course, if it were not switchbacked the situation
would only repeat. So I vote for switchbacks to protect the terrain.

As to Earl's more current comments, speaking as one who's dreams of the
AT have little to do with purity or challange but of seeing the best of the
areas I will travel, alternate routing would be apprechiated if they included
a creek walk or some other lovely feature.  I'm thinking of comments of
some time past, which noted that a recent relo had diverted the trail from
a lovely and much favored by previous hikers pond ,up north.

Of course all this rerouting would take money and work and I am in no way
critiqing the hard work of trail crews to maintain what we already have.
I guess this is just a wish list.  I wish the original plan, in that it called for
a network of trails, could/would be pursued.  On a cloudy day, I could
easliy skip the climb to "no view" and enjoy the misty waterway blue
blaze with no violation of my hike contract with myself.

First. protect the trerrain and then if possible increase the options.   k./\

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

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