Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-07-2006, 12:30 AM   #81
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Seaver
It appears he included nothing by you, whatsoever. Nada.

Sounds like your fabricated propaganda of the bear-kicking trailrunners fell on deaf ears.
Since there were only two people quoted other then the agency people, a lot of peoples remarks weren't included. I think what is important is that the DEC heard what he had to say, since they are making the decision, not the newspaper reporter.

And the "fabricated propaganda" remark does nothing to make any kind of a point that might be in favor of the trail run. On the contrary it points out the weakness of the proponents case.

It's like living in a glass house and throwing rocks when anyone with any understanding of the short history and what happened last year can plainly see not propaganda on the part of the opponents, but an outright, boldfaced lie by the organizer about no complaints.

I guess it's to be expected from an individual who claims on one hand to be a friend of the environment and on the other hand organizes a run of 60 people and claims no environmental impact.

Finally if they are now considering that the permit should not be issued next year, I would reassess the remark about falling on deaf ears".

You can be sure that those opposed to the trail run will now keep the pressure on, and will be sure to point out the distortion of the facts by the organizer. In fact I would think that the statements by the organizer would give more ammunition to the opponents.

I already have deniability from Patagonia that they were unaware of any complaints last year and that if they had known they would have withdrawn sponsorship. According to them, they were also not actually aware of the trail and any impact, taking the word of the organizers, who's credibility and veracity are now clearly in doubt.

So none of the sponsors are going to want to be connected with something that the organizers lied about if there is a chance of it becoming public.

AND You can be sure that all this will become public. We backed off last year because we were told it would not be repeated. We will not be duped next year, already a strategy is being implemented to prevent ANY trail runs in the High Peaks and other Wildernesses.

Unfortunately, because of the insistence of having this trail run, in the long run it may end up causing other established trail runs in Wilderness Areas to be discontinued.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 01:01 AM   #82
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Letter to the Editor

The following is a letter to the editor of the Times Union in regard to their article. it will be interesting to see if it gets published. I urge other opponents to the race to submit letters as well so they will see how much opposition there is to this and it might increase the coverage when we address this issue publically.


"In Reference to the article: DEC TO TAKE 2ND LOOK AT TRAIL RUN. Published May 6, 2006"
The statement by Organizer Vinny McClelland that "no one complained about last year's run" could not be farther from the truth.

Last year there was much opposition to it until The Mountaineer stated that it was to be a one time event. That statement was made after many people had contaced them in opposition to the run. Attached you will find copies of over 80 emails that i know that were personally sent to the Mountaineer opposing this event. Additionally there were letters and phone calls.

This year, the proponents of the rail run are well aware that there has been much opposition to the trail run and that the debate has been hot and heavy on internet forums such as adkforum.com.

Statements like "Trailrunners do not impact the envirnoment any more then backpackers" and that "Trailruners actually cause less impact then backpackers because they have to concentrate on their running" are some of the justifications that the proponents for the trail run have used as justification.

I think that the point that the organizer makes about bussing people to the trailhead to lessen impact from parking is interesting. if that many cars on a road in the forest would have a negative impact, then how do they feel that 60 runners on a trail won't? Common sense, which is a rare commidity these days dictate that there has to be impact.

Trail runs are not a use that were to be allowed in the Wilderness Sections of the Adirondack park. There are many outdoor venues where they could be held which would not have as negative an impact.

It's time for the DEC to start to act responsibly and prevent these events from being held in Wilderness Areas. If groups are normally limited to 9 or less backpackers, how can a permit for 60 people to run on a trail possibly be justified?

The Park is already receiving too much traffic on the trails from backpackers, peak baggers and campers. if anything, we should be finding ways to cut back on that, not expanding the use to packs of trail runners."
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 03:37 AM   #83
BarbOrdell
Running Barefoot
 
BarbOrdell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69
Hawk, don't have a cow... I would feel horrible if my little parade of emoticons were to give you an embolism. And seriously, the Times? Why not go all the way and hit the Glenns Falls Tribune? I'm sure they'd love another big scoop like the Indian Pass 20 Miler. Does anyone actually believe that run ever existed? Yet these papers believe anything they're told and print their stories without ever checking a single fact. It's on the internet so it must be true. The facts against trail runs are on the ADK Forum so they must be true. Please. This is all a fabrication and an amusing past time. Who's having fun? Time for another banana dance!

BarbOrdell is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 09:26 AM   #84
Willie
46er #5193W
 
Willie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 240
Trail run opponents: add bite to your bark

Food for thought.

As I see it, opponents to organized trail running are simply barking (i.e. communications in various forms to the DEC, Mountaineer, event sponsors, newspapers, etc.). Perhaps the barking campaign will be successful and alter corporate and governmental conduct. Perhaps not. Here are some ideas to alter conduct (do with them what you wish). First, demand that the DEC promulgates regulations limiting group sizes in the Giant Mountain Wilderness Area (GMWA) as required by the GMWA Unit Management Plan. Second, if the DEC doesn't promulgate regulations, bring a law suit forcing it to do so. Third, when the proposed regulations go through the public comment period, be sure to voice your opinions and concerns concerning organized events in wilderness areas. Fourth, once the regulations become final, hold the DEC's feet to the fire, and if it issues permits to such activities despite the regulation limiting group size, bring a law suit.

A much more difficult approach would be to lobby local and state politicians to enact legislation changing the definition of "wilderness" or requiring the DEC to change to the definition of "wilderness." As you can imagine, this approach is much more difficult because it would require new legislation and/or a change to current DEC regulations and the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan.

Good luck.
Willie is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 09:36 AM   #85
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbOrdell
Hawk, don't have a cow... I would feel horrible if my little parade of emoticons were to give you an embolism. And seriously, the Times? Why not go all the way and hit the Glenns Falls Tribune? I'm sure they'd love another big scoop like the Indian Pass 20 Miler. Does anyone actually believe that run ever existed? Yet these papers believe anything they're told and print their stories without ever checking a single fact. It's on the internet so it must be true. The facts against trail runs are on the ADK Forum so they must be true. Please. This is all a fabrication and an amusing past time. Who's having fun? Time for another banana dance!


I guess the difference between me and some others is that I actually take caring for the envirnoment seriously. I CARE that the truth is published and that steps be taken even if it means less things for me to do.

And mainly I was referring to Tim's gloating, not yours. See it's not all about you!

And of course, anyone reading this forum can see that not everything is true, all they have to do is read a couple of your posts and realize that facts can somehow get twisted or lost
.
As for the Times Union. I relialize that it's not the New York Times. Biut then again, I'm not a New York Times kind of person. In fact I read the Hamilton County news, which is a very small weekly. It has news about the place that I live and the things I am interested in. So I do hope that those papers get their facts straight.

The Times union probably figures that people still have some integrety and not always do a lot of research. And now you are going to blame the newspaper for the lie? the times Union didn't tell the lie, the race organizers did. But I guess that's just the way you choose to look at the "facts".

My opposition to the trail race has never been about me. It's not personal, it's just another strain on the envirnoment that is not supposed to be allowed under the intended use of the Wilderness Areas.

See, this is not an "amusing past time", it's about doing something before it's too late. It's about leaving something for the generations yet to come.

And I don't think that my being concerned should be confused. And fear not about giving me an embolism. I just make observations and interpret them to the best of my ability and then I state them exactly as I see them and hope that others see the truth (or at least, what i see).

So please, try to pull someone elses strings. Trying to pull mine is the same as getting into a pi**ing contest with a skunk.

And when the races are prohibited, you will see no smilies or dancing bananas from me. Nor an I told you so or a Ha-ha.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

Last edited by redhawk; 05-07-2006 at 09:50 AM..
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 12:21 PM   #86
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Excellent letter, Redhawk! Let's hope it gets published... You may also want to consider a letter to the Adirondack Explorer - they have been following this issue pretty closely as well.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 12:28 PM   #87
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Willie - a lot of the discussion at the Forest Preserve Advisory Committee meeting on April 28th centered around some of those very issues and questions that you raised. In addition to my voice of opposition (as a panel discussion participant), several members of the actual Committee, most notably the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, focussed their argument on DEC's lack of compliance with the existing policies and guidance on wilderness usage. Their message was, "The UMP and the SLMP clearly state that this type of use is incompatible with a wilderness land use classification, so why are you letting it happen nonetheless?" While the word "lawsuit" was never breathed in that meeting, I can see where this controversy may be heading if DEC continues to ignore it's legal responsibilitiess. Interestingly enough, I had a private conversation with one of the APA people who attended this meeting, who voiced what was clearly a sense of exasperation with DEC's actions as a land steward for the Forest Preserve.

Your remarks are on point.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 07:05 PM   #88
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeclose
Excellent letter, Redhawk! Let's hope it gets published... You may also want to consider a letter to the Adirondack Explorer - they have been following this issue pretty closely as well.
I would need a copy of any articles they published to be able to comment on it to them.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 10:05 PM   #89
Kevin
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 5,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk
My opposition to the trail race has never been about me. It's not personal, it's just another strain on the envirnoment that is not supposed to be allowed under the intended use of the Wilderness Areas.
Big DITTO here!
Kevin is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 11:21 AM   #90
jpugh
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
A new voice

Some people do not care for corporations. Some do not care for competition. Some have a heightened concept of “wilderness”. Some like to back others into a legalistic corner. Some have a sense of humor. Some like to indulge in tautology. Some do not care for the balancing of interests by the DEC. Some like to have the last word. Some people combine more than one of these traits, for a bit of extra energy.

I appreciate those who work to preserve and extend the wilderness ethic. Our society needs more of this. I also appreciate those who organize activities which are compatible with given places in the Adirondacks. Our society also needs more of this. I especially like activities which get children away from a video screen and into the woods (this comment is for a separate thread).

As long as there is an established trail through the woods, I do not see the problem with allowing 60 runners to use it in a lightly used area at a light use time of the year – or 60 snowshoers or 60 cross country skiers or similar users who propel themselves in a low-impact manner. The fact of the trail cuts against the fact of wilderness. There is no wilderness on this trail. This is an appropriate use of the GMWA in the middle of June.

This is one man’s opinion. I hope it bolsters the beliefs of those who agree with the “fit” of the GATR in the management of the Adirondacks.

Jim Pugh
46r # 320
North Andover, MA
2:08.41 in last year’s GATR
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Ben.jpg (9.2 KB, 60 views)
jpugh is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 12:12 PM   #91
Little Rickie
Member
 
Little Rickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester ny
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
Some people do not care for corporations. Some do not care for competition. Some have a heightened concept of “wilderness”. Some like to back others into a legalistic corner. Some have a sense of humor. Some like to indulge in tautology. Some do not care for the balancing of interests by the DEC. Some like to have the last word. Some people combine more than one of these traits, for a bit of extra energy.

I appreciate those who work to preserve and extend the wilderness ethic. Our society needs more of this. I also appreciate those who organize activities which are compatible with given places in the Adirondacks. Our society also needs more of this. I especially like activities which get children away from a video screen and into the woods (this comment is for a separate thread).

As long as there is an established trail through the woods, I do not see the problem with allowing 60 runners to use it in a lightly used area at a light use time of the year – or 60 snowshoers or 60 cross country skiers or similar users who propel themselves in a low-impact manner. The fact of the trail cuts against the fact of wilderness. There is no wilderness on this trail. This is an appropriate use of the GMWA in the middle of June.

This is one man’s opinion. I hope it bolsters the beliefs of those who agree with the “fit” of the GATR in the management of the Adirondacks.

Jim Pugh
46r # 320
North Andover, MA
2:08.41 in last year’s GATR
Thank you. Well said. It's obvious you have thought about this for some time. I wish I could choose my words so well. #320! & 2:08.41 WOW!

Little Rickie
Little Rickie is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 04:40 PM   #92
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
Some people do not care for corporations. Some do not care for competition. Some have a heightened concept of “wilderness”. Some like to back others into a legalistic corner. Some have a sense of humor. Some like to indulge in tautology. Some do not care for the balancing of interests by the DEC. Some like to have the last word. Some people combine more than one of these traits, for a bit of extra energy.
Which has to do with what concerning this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
As long as there is an established trail through the woods, I do not see the problem with allowing 60 runners to use it in a lightly used area at a light use time of the year – or 60 snowshoers or 60 cross country skiers or similar users who propel themselves in a low-impact manner.
"60 trailrunners"+"low-impact Manner"=Oximoron

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
The fact of the trail cuts against the fact of wilderness.
So does clearcutting lumber, so based on that, should we allow it to be done? If you want to be technical, man in the wilderness "cuts against the fact". So should we all stay out of the woods? Since we won't, then the answer is to lessen the impact in whatever ways we can. The limit on group size is one of the ways. 60 people doing anything negates that remedy[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
This is an appropriate use of the GMWA in the middle of June.
And you can quote which section of the regulation to verify that opinion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpugh
This is one man’s opinion. I hope it bolsters the beliefs of those who agree with the “fit” of the GATR in the management of the Adirondacks.
I think when all this shakes out, and the DEC especially the foresters realize that people are concerned that they live up to and enforce the spirit of the regulations od the park, many activities will be disallowed or curtailed.

I just do not understand how anyone with any degree of intelligence can state that 60 people on a trail at once does not have an impact, whether the trail is established or not.

Sooner or later, someone has to say, "Too much"! That includes peakbagging, hiking and camping in certain areas, skiing and snowshoeing (although less of an impact then most other endeavors).

There are lots of things i would like to see implemented to help take some of the strain off.

Permits for hiking or camping in the Adirondacks with a limit on how many, based on the area.

The 46'ers imposing a minimum time in which the peaks could be completed and a patch issued, say 5 to 7 years.

No flying parties into the interior laakes for hunting or fishing, I've seen the messes they leave. If they can't walk in, then let them go some place that they can.

Use fees for the trails and campsites, like the Allagash Wilderness in Maine and other places in the country. Use the money to give the Rangers better pay and hire more and for upkeep.

Shut the Dacks down from march through Memorial Day to help lessen the impact caused by human traffic on wet trails.

The problem is, all parties affected will point fingers in every other direction rather then become part of the solution.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 06:15 PM   #93
BarbOrdell
Running Barefoot
 
BarbOrdell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Big DITTO here!
You might want to try some medicated cream on that.... No wait, that would be for a big ZITTO. Sorry.
BarbOrdell is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 06:19 PM   #94
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbOrdell
You might want to try some medicated cream on that.... No wait, that would be for a big ZITTO. Sorry.
Stick to law, Comedy is not your Schtick!!
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 10:26 PM   #95
Tim Seaver
Photo-runner
 
Tim Seaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cold River Lean-to #4
Posts: 106
Tortured Tautological Tomes of Truthiness

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawk
I just do not understand how anyone with any degree of intelligence can state that 60 people on a trail at once does not have an impact, whether the trail is established or not.
I don't recall anyone stating that there would be no impact - the real question is whether the impact would be adverse.

Considering the light traffic this route receives, I think it's reasonable to say that even 60 people scampering through the woods for about 4 hours of one day out of an entire year will NOT have an adverse effect on the area*.



( *excluding tripped bears )
__________________
"It is the silence of this wilderness that most impressed me"
Reverend William Henry Harrison Murray, of his sojurn to the Adirondacks - 1869
Tim Seaver is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 10:54 PM   #96
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Seaver
I don't recall anyone stating that there would be no impact - the real question is whether the impact would be adverse.

Considering the light traffic this route receives, I think it's reasonable to say that even 60 people scampering through the woods for about 4 hours of one day out of an entire year will NOT have an adverse effect on the area*.



( *excluding tripped bears )
The problem is that one will begat another and then another and then another and then another and then another and....well I guess you get my point.

Just like the this particular event last year was going to be a one time event. well now they're trying for annual.

And as far as impact, if it's not allowing it to revert to natural then it's negative. is that a difficult concept to understand?

What no one has answered is, Why here instead of an area that is not designated as wilderness? one that is away from an area (high peaks) that gets the highest concentration of people of any place in the dacks?

If it had been a one time event, if it had been moved somewhere else, then there would not be the outcry that there is right now. The stubborn insistance to go forward, in face of the resistance may well cause maybe of the established trail runs to not be reconsidered. if that haappens then you can blame patagonia, the Mountaineer and the organizers of the trail run and the trail runners that adopted an "us against them" attitude.

But of course, if it does happen, then the blame will go on the environmentalists and the "liberals", neither of which were bad words until Reagan made them so.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 11:08 PM   #97
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk

There are lots of things i would like to see implemented to help take some of the strain off.

Permits for hiking or camping in the Adirondacks with a limit on how many, based on the area.

The 46'ers imposing a minimum time in which the peaks could be completed and a patch issued, say 5 to 7 years.

No flying parties into the interior laakes for hunting or fishing, I've seen the messes they leave. If they can't walk in, then let them go some place that they can.

Use fees for the trails and campsites, like the Allagash Wilderness in Maine and other places in the country. Use the money to give the Rangers better pay and hire more and for upkeep.

Shut the Dacks down from march through Memorial Day to help lessen the impact caused by human traffic on wet trails.

The problem is, all parties affected will point fingers in every other direction rather then become part of the solution.
I agree with most of this, and if I may be so bold (at the risk of pissing alot of people off here), I think the major negative impact in the High Peaks is this obsessive compulsion to "bag all 46 high peaks". This activity, day in and day out all year long (no matter the weather or condition of the trails) by thousands of hikers, causes more damage by far than this 1 time (per year?) trail run by 60 people could ever cause. Don't get me wrong- I don't support either. But I do think it a bit hypocritical to see the opposition to this run by a large part of the hiking community.

Having hiked the High Peaks sporadically over the past 35 years, I've seen the damage firsthand to trails which are now a muddy mess in so many areas, and areas stripped of vegetation around backcountry camping areas- we can't blame that on these trail runners. This peak bagging obsession compels people to get out there, no matter what the conditions, and tear up the trails even further. Personally, I'd like to see the High Peaks area virtually shut down for at least a decade and allow some recovery to take place..........
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 11:42 PM   #98
Tim Seaver
Photo-runner
 
Tim Seaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cold River Lean-to #4
Posts: 106
Quote:
The problem is that one will begat another and then another and then another and then another and then another and....well I guess you get my point.
I don't buy the "floodgate" argument, no. That's why a permit system exists, to evaluate these types of activities.

Quote:
Just like the this particular event last year was going to be a one time event. well now they're trying for annual.
I believe you have already covered that several times. The fact that they changed their minds doesn't really strike me as a blow to their overall credibility, but that is a separate issue from the event itself in any case.

Quote:
And as far as impact, if it's not allowing it to revert to natural then it's negative.
The trail would have to be closed completely, to all travel, for it to "revert to natural". I am not sure you have a point here.

Quote:
What no one has answered is, Why here instead of an area that is not designated as wilderness? one that is away from an area (high peaks) that gets the highest concentration of people of any place in the dacks?
The High Peaks as a general area does get a lot of use, however, this event is not routed through any high use areas. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I hiked and ran the route last week, and the only thing it is suffering from is a massive amount of blowdown.

Quote:
If it had been a one time event, if it had been moved somewhere else, then there would not be the outcry that there is right now. The stubborn insistance to go forward, in face of the resistance may well cause maybe of the established trail runs to not be reconsidered. if that haappens then you can blame patagonia, the Mountaineer and the organizers of the trail run and the trail runners that adopted an "us against them" attitude.
You see an "outcry" - I see a few people making a lot a noise about nothing. A tempest in a teapot. A mountain out of a molehill. In any case, I'll be perfectly comfortable with the outcome, whatever it is.

Quote:
And green and blue his sharp eyes twinkled
Like a candle flame where salt is sprinkled;
And ere three shrill notes the pipe uttered,
You heard as if an army muttered;
And the muttering grew to a grumbling;
And the grumbling grew to a mighty rumbling;
And out of the houses the rats came tumbling:

The Pied Piper of Hamlin
__________________
"It is the silence of this wilderness that most impressed me"
Reverend William Henry Harrison Murray, of his sojurn to the Adirondacks - 1869
Tim Seaver is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 11:56 PM   #99
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Jim Pugh said, "I also appreciate those who organize activities which are compatible with given places in the Adirondacks."

Then you obviously appreciate the Mountaineer.

But the fact is (and this is what you, and every other defender of this event simply do not "get": It's wilderness. Organized events involving large groups of people are antithetical to the very definition and existence of wilderness. You can parse and argue to whatever degree of niggling detail you want about the relative impacts of trail runners vs. hikers, but that is not the real issue.

When you understand this point, you'll understand the objection - and why these events are wrong.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 05-13-2006, 12:01 AM   #100
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Tim Seaver quotes (ironically), ""It is the silence of this wilderness that most impressed me"
Reverend William Henry Harrison Murray, of his sojurn to the Adirondacks - 1869 "

Fortunately for the good Reverend, he never saw a trail run in the wilderness.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.