[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [at-l] AT too tough?
- Subject: RE: [at-l] AT too tough?
- From: "L. Clayton Parker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:39:22 -0600
I just came off of a short section in the Great Smoky Mountains. while the
hike was wonderful, I couldn't help noticing because of the recent
conversations on this thread a few little details that I would ordinarily
not have paid attention to. Several times I would come off of a peak where a
ridge line connected to the next peak. Rather than follow the ridge line as
it usually does, the trail would dip two hundred or even three hundred feet
below the ridge line only to climb it again fifteen or twenty minutes later.
I believe this is an excellent example of what is meant by too hard. There
was absolutely no reason for the extra effort caused by these sections of
On the flip side, there are side trails (even short ones) to views or up to
peaks that the AT DIDN'T summit, so there is a case to be made for the other
side as well. Perhaps as someone already said, it was a mixture of
providence and poor planning not purposeful attempts to make the trail
Lee I Joe
> this whole thread confuses me if you don't like it no one is
> forceing you to
> walk on it. no one is twisting your arm to walk over those viewless hills.
> dont do it if you dont like or take the time to walk to the views(if there
> are som you want to see) and walk right back to the trail. it
> seems silly
> to me maybe i am missing out on something. if anyone sees a flaw in what i
> say then do tell me but if not i am confused
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | http://www.backcountry.net *