Battle brewing over JFK 50 race use of Appalachian Trail - The Herald-Mail

[max patch]

I am glad Pam Underhill has a broader definition of what "hurt the trail" means than some people here. Just because the narrow treadway is not damaged by the runners doesn't mean the race isn't hurting the trail. Residential development, logging, commercial signage, etc may not impact the narrow treadway either but it still hurts the trail. It helps if you take a larger view of things like Pam Underhill is doing. She has my support.

Exactly. I bet no one in the "let em run" crowd has a clue what the purpose of the trail is as defined by the atc board of managers.

[weary]

I am glad Pam Underhill has a broader definition of what "hurt the trail" means than some people here. Just because the narrow treadway is not damaged by the runners doesn't mean the race isn't hurting the trail. Residential development, logging, commercial signage, etc may not impact the narrow treadway either but it still hurts the trail. It helps if you take a larger view of things like Pam Underhill is doing. She has my support.

Well, I know a bit about what hurts a trail. I started working on the AT around 40 years ago, and have been at it ever since. Last evening I made a 100-mile round trip for a meeting of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, an organization we created a decade ago to prevent incursions of residential and industrial development, and other intrusions on the narrow trail corridor through the wildlands of Maine.

Our focus recently has been on calling public attention to Maine's high peaks, the spectacular high mountains surrounding Sugarloaf and Saddleback. But last night we reviewed other critical challenges such as Whitecap, the last major unprotected peak in Maine's so called 100-mile-wilderness.

These are the major threats to the AT, not a once a year run by ultra marathoners to celebrate the memory of a fallen president.

[Sly]

4 hours of racers running on rocks doesn't hurt the AT. Power hikers with metal tipped walking poles do more damage and leave more trash.

Of course, that's bull**** and speculation. If you're going to argue points, come up with some facts. Here's a fact, ATC LNT guidelines suggest no more than 10 to a group.

[Lone Wolf]

I am glad Pam Underhill has a broader definition of what "hurt the trail" means than some people here. Just because the narrow treadway is not damaged by the runners doesn't mean the race isn't hurting the trail. Residential development, logging, commercial signage, etc may not impact the narrow treadway either but it still hurts the trail. It helps if you take a larger view of things like Pam Underhill is doing. She has my support.

Exactly. I bet no one in the "let em run" crowd has a clue what the purpose of the trail is as defined by the atc board of managers.

Of course, that's bull**** and speculation. If you're going to argue points, come up with some facts. Here's a fact, ATC LNT guidelines suggest no more than 10 to a group.

the runners are not a group. just like 40 hikers all starting at springer on the same day are not a group. and no matter what you, i or anyone else thinks, this race will continue like it has for 50 years. much ado over nothing

[joshuasdad]

Some observations. That area of the trail is pretty much a road, with the exception of the Weaverton cliffs area, which is a rocky downhill. I would hope they would not be running on the trail from the Weaverton parking area to the B&O path, as that section was narrow, muddy, and eroding near the edge of a ravine when I hiked it in September.

In short, I did not see much risk for severe damage to the trail, which is extraordinarily wide during most of the section. Plus it is difficult to damage rocks on the downhill, although safety may be an issue from the rocks on the 2k runners, who would still be relatively close together at that point. They should closely monitor the rocky switchbacks to prevent erosion from those taking shortcuts, and should not permit running on the trail past the parking area.

This does not look like a fight worth fighting.

[Sly]

Proposed is a celebration of an historical event, originally instigated by a young president some months before he was struck down by an assassin's bullet. The original ultra was part of Jack Kennedy's promotion of physical fitness for an increasingly flabby nation. Kennedy well knew the value of fitness. He had rescued a fellow service member by carrying him through enemy waters. I say let the celebration continue as proposed. We have 12 months to argue about next year.

Weary, let's not revise history. Straight from the horses mouth (race director Mike Spinnler) here's how the race was established and progressed.

Although open to the public, the JFK 50 Mile is in spirit a military race. It always has been and always will be. In 1963, the initial inspiration behind the event came from then President John F. Kennedy challenging his military officers to meet the requirements that Teddy Roosevelt had set for his own military officers at the dawn of the 20th Century. That Roosevelt requirement was for all military officers to be able to cover 50 miles on foot in 20 hours to maintain their commissions. When word got out about the "Kennedy Challenge", non-commissioned military personnel also wanted to take the test themselves as did certain robust members of the civilian population.

The public picked up on the challenge, it wasn't the original intent.

[Sly]

the runners are not a group. just like 40 hikers all starting at springer on the same day are not a group. and no matter what you, i or anyone else thinks, this race will continue like it has for 50 years. much ado over nothing

Just like? Is your math off? Yeah, it is. Forty hikers from 2000 runners is a well... a difference of 1960.

Another difference is the runners sign-up beforehand to start at a specific time. The 40 hikers that may start on any given day at Springer are there purely by coincidence, and they don't start at the sound of a pistol.

I don't mind if they continue to have the race. My object is the doubling of entrants to 2000, which I bet a beer won't happen.

[Gray Blazer]

This race has prolly caused more brains to explode right here on WB than anywhere else.

[Sly]

Well, I know a bit about what hurts a trail.

Hey Mainer, even Baxter State Park has quotas. Ayup!

[nitewalker]

Exactly. I bet no one in the "let em run" crowd has a clue what the purpose of the trail is as defined by the atc board of managers.

and the answer to that would be what wingfoot talked about before he gave up his gig....over comercialization, is that a word? lol.....

[weary]

Weary, let's not revise history. Straight from the horses mouth (race director Mike Spinnler) here's how the race was established and progressed.

The public picked up on the challenge, it wasn't the original intent.

The public picked up the challenge pretty quickly. Among the early "civilians" were Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, and the president's brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy.

[Camping Dave]

Of course, that's bull**** and speculation. If you're going to argue points, come up with some facts. Here's a fact, ATC LNT guidelines suggest no more than 10 to a group.

Try not to be a foul mouthed curmudgeon. Running on rocks doesn't hurt them. That's a fact.

[bamboo bob]

Of course, that's bull**** and speculation. If you're going to argue points, come up with some facts. Here's a fact, ATC LNT guidelines suggest no more than 10 to a group.

I think that refers to campers being no more than ten to a group.

[Camping Dave]

I don't mind if they continue to have the race. My object is the doubling of entrants to 2000.

Cool, that's exactly the object of the race director! Glad to know you agree that the race size should be doubled. Be sure to contact your congressman and ask him to support HR112-13. Instructions can be found at this link: http://www.jfk50mile.org/2011/HouseR...12congress.htm

[Rasty]

Of course, that's bull**** and speculation. If you're going to argue points, come up with some facts. Here's a fact, ATC LNT guidelines suggest no more than 10 to a group.

I think that refers to campers being no more than ten to a group.

I think guidelines are to spread out for larger groups when hiking. The larger groups need to camp at seperate campsites. It appears that sly has designated himself as the king of the AT and you must use his trail as he sees fit. I would always look for ways to accomodate our military personnel and not tell the 1% of our population they are disrupting your trail.

[Tinker]

Originally Posted by Sly
I don't mind if they continue to have the race. My object is the doubling of entrants to 2000.




Cool, that's exactly the object of the race director! Glad to know you agree that the race size should be doubled. Be sure to contact your congressman and ask him to support HR112-13. Instructions can be found at this link: http://www.jfk50mile.org/2011/HouseR...12congress.htm

I'm thinking that Sly meant "My objection is the doubling of entrants to 2000." - judging from the context.

[Sly]

I think guidelines are to spread out for larger groups when hiking. The larger groups need to camp at seperate campsites. It appears that sly has designated himself as the king of the AT and you must use his trail as he sees fit. I would always look for ways to accomodate our military personnel and not tell the 1% of our population they are disrupting your trail.

Try not to nitpick my posts and take them out of context. I fully support the race, and its original spirit, which is a race for members of the military. It's the doubling of its size and its opening to the general public I object to.

And rather than anointing myself the king, I'm only supporting the decisions of the AT manger.

As far as LNT guidelines are concerned, you think wrong. You can disagree with the guidelines, but they're there for a purpose. If someone thinks it's Ok to stretch them, next thing you know another will feel it's Ok to discard their GU packet as they please. It shouldn't be left to any one else to pick up their trash.

[Sly]

I'm thinking that Sly meant "My objection is the doubling of entrants to 2000." - judging from the context.

Tinker, yes that's what I meant. When peoples arguments are weak they start picking on obvious mistakes in spelling, grammar or choice of language.

[Rasty]

Not nit picking. Just disagree with your my way or the highway attitude. Does this group have a history of abusing the trail or not. No one has shown any evidence that they are not good stewards of the trail. Yet you see constant evidence that hikers trash the trail.

[leaftye]

Try not to nitpick my posts and take them out of context. I fully support the race, and its original spirit, which is a race for members of the military. It's the doubling of its size and its opening to the general public I object to.

And rather than anointing myself the king, I'm only supporting the decisions of the AT manger.

As far as LNT guidelines are concerned, you think wrong.

So even though you pointed out how 10 to a group pertains to LNT guidelines, you're still okay with 1000 runners?