I won't argue that point Sly. But there are very few areas that horses are permitted on the AT.Originally Posted by Sly
"Take another road to another place,disappear without a trace..." --Jimmy Buffet
And actually, erosion, caused by water on the trail, causes more. The solution?
"Take another road to another place,disappear without a trace..." --Jimmy Buffet
It's not fair to critisize Backpacker in your example and for most of BP's life it was an east coast publication (PA).
Wow, if he didn't watch Oprah I'd ask if he was married! lol
Yeah, and I know what issue he read. One of the writers said the AT is for post-grads and hippies who want to be able to order a pizza from a shelter. Something stupid like that.
Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread.
-Edward Abbey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly View Post
I'm under the impression horses cause the ditch effect more so than hikers. It's too bad horses can't be taken off the AT entirely.
See Restless? Now we agree on something. As you said, there are very few places where horses are permitted on the AT ... But they do do much more damage to the trail than hikers. And as far as trash goes..the very worst and most sickening trash damage I have ever seen on a trail anywhere was in GSMNP on the Hazel Creek trail where horses were allowed. (Not the AT but I did have to walk the AT for 6 miles to get there from Clingman's Dome) This wasn't trash left by hikers because it was 2 quart bean cans, 2 liter soda bottles, 1 quart vegetable oil bottles, etc..that back packers won't carry the 13 miles it takes to get there. (Calhoun Backcountry campsite # 82) It would have taken at least 4 or 5 pick up loads to haul that mess out of there. It had to have been left by horse riders. These guys didn't even have to carry out their trash. The horses would have.
In view of the fact that the horse people show the least respect for the trail maybe the horse riders should be the people who have to foot the bill by paying the fee suggested by the the OP.
Peace Dude...
You're the trail maintainer but let me guess... side graded trail and water bars?
No argument here. While working as a backcountry ranger at Mt. Rogers, I could follow the trail of empty beer cans to a group of equestrians. It always amazed me that they could carry in a full twelve pack, but couldn't seem to ever pack out their own trash. There are times when they do have their value, especially when it comes to clearing blowdowns deep in the backcountry, but horses cause considerably more damage than hikers.
"Take another road to another place,disappear without a trace..." --Jimmy Buffet
Most of the time that works fine. But there are times that there is no solution other than to relocate the trail. In some of the most heavily damaged areas though, this cannot be accomplished due to a) governmental regulations, or b). lack of adequate corridor space to accomplish a reroute. BTW-missed you last night at the PA Ruck.
"Take another road to another place,disappear without a trace..." --Jimmy Buffet
Why don't we just pave the damn trail already
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
I think making the AT a one way trail (north to south) would cut down the traffic quite a bit.
"Walk as if you are kissing the Earth with your feet."
-Thich Nhat Hahn
http://www.cranberrymountainlodge.com/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1838232611
Probably just as much traffic. If someone wants to hike it they will regardless of direction...but why not make it South to North?I think making the AT a one way trail (north to south) would cut down the traffic quite a bit.
I think his theory is that if you're looking just at thruhikers (again, a small subset of Trail users), most hike NOBO and most of these aren't likely to then do a SOBO instead. So his "plan" reduces the # of thrus.
But section hikers, all other trail users? Don't think it makes a difference.
Man I hope that's some kinda weird joke
"You know your camping trip really isn't going well when you find yourself hoping to stave off sepsis with a six-pack of Icehouse. "
"Age is not an accomplishment, and youth is not a sin."
part of the economic stimulus package
If you find yourself in a fair fight; your tactics suck.
The SOBOS are ruining everything!I think making the AT a one way trail (north to south) would cut down the traffic quite a bit.
From the # of responses to this post, I can see that we can all agree to disagree, but its an excellent opportunity to recognize that overuseiIS aproblem, and that discussion of solutions is in all of our best interests.
We go to the woods to escape humanity. If you want fewer people on the trail give them more places to go. Reroute the trail around GSMNP where there is the most traffic (oh yeah can't - no place to put it). More government, more regulations will do more harm than good - history has proven that. Leave the woods as they are and allow those who wish to go there the opportunity to do so and to enjoy them the way that is best for them. Why should I be limited by your vision? Or can I put my vision in place and have all others abide by my wishes? Who gets to decide? Let nature decide for herself. It is arrogance and selfishness that destroy the trail. It is arrogance and selfishness that will destroy our planet. Do your part, as I will do mine, and set an example for others.
Don't get me started.
(My economic stimulus package would have been "replace every fossil fuel plant in America with a nuclear one," as nuclear plants can be a virtual start-to-finish expenditure in the North American economy)
"You know your camping trip really isn't going well when you find yourself hoping to stave off sepsis with a six-pack of Icehouse. "
"Age is not an accomplishment, and youth is not a sin."
Well put. I would only argue with your point that "more regulations will do more harm than good". Perhaps from a hikers perspective , yes. But the purpose of those regulations isn't for hikers. It's for the resources. Here in Shenandoah, there is very little rerouting that can occur on park trails due to resource protection. There is sensitive habitat and endangered species to consider. Plus, a lot of the time, the red tape just isn't worth working through. But I believe you hit on the crux of the issue when you stated "If you want fewer people on the trail give them more places to go." We need to spread out a little.
"Take another road to another place,disappear without a trace..." --Jimmy Buffet
ahaha that is too good. I was really worried for the five seconds before I got it.
Posting Permissions
