Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Proposed Southern AT Registration

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Datto wrote:

      Okay, I've thought this through and here's what we should do.

      We build a wall around the Appalachian Trail to keep out all the riff raff and short people. True, all hikers are equal but some hikers are more equal than others and those are the ones who get in. Then we get Native Americans to pay for the AT wall and then round up the Native Americans and send them all back to...

      Wait. That won't work. Never mind. Forget I mentioned it. It'll make hikers look foolish.


      Datto

      that's funny.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."

      She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".

      Lest we forget.....


      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC

    • Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."
      She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".

    • WanderingStovie wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".
      The DNA story has the First People arriving in North America via Eastern Asia and Siberia about 14,000 years ago. Over 80 percent of First Nations people carry a unique DNA marker from that small group. They went on to populate the entire North and South America. The first outsiders to meet up with them were Polynesians, that took the sweet potatoes from Peru back to the Islands they came from.

    • the article was disappointing in that it didn't give any specifics. all it accomplished was to tell was that change is coming...but they wouldn't -- or couldn't -- tell us much. the article should have been written 6 months or a year from now when they could actually tell us something.

      they mentioned hawk mountain and the 30 campsites they built nearby. thats great. are they gonna do that for every shelter? and if they are that's a lotta work; that many campsites aren't going to magically appear all of sudden.

      and there will be some type of registration system that will be "similar" to the gsmnp. of course it will be "similar" -- if it was "exactly" the same it would only impact overnighters and section hikers. no impact at all on thru's.

      if they were truly concerned about the bears they would have a bear box at every shelter (they have em at the new tentsites near hawk). and if ya don't use the bear box at a shelter then ya need to carry a bear canister. instead we have this lil 5 mile section.

      article was a waste of time and trees.
      2,000 miler

    • Not all Native Americans accept migration as how they got here. Some see such claims as an attempt to take what land they have left away from them. I think the Hopi. are one such nation.

      The 9 thousand year ago was one migration. 14000 years ago was another. One could have been from Europe when England and Europe were the same land mass due to lower water levels during the last ice age.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • WanderingStovie wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".

      According to some research. There were no humans in the western hemisphere until the paleoindians. Arrived.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • SandyofPA wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".
      The DNA story has the First People arriving in North America via Eastern Asia and Siberia about 14,000 years ago. Over 80 percent of First Nations people carry a unique DNA marker from that small group. They went on to populate the entire North and South America. The first outsiders to meet up with them were Polynesians, that took the sweet potatoes from Peru back to the Islands they came from.
      Pacific Islanders settled islands from Madagascar to Yap, Hawaii, and Easter Island. It makes sense they would have visited South America. In fact it is hard to believe that they would have missed it. But it also makes sense that they would not have stayed as they otherwise only settled previously unpopulated islands. They probably beat the Vikings by a few hundred years. Not sure why the Viking settlement in North America didn't last.

    • Lots of people beat the Northmen and Christopher Columbus to North America...

      The settlements on Greenland could have lasted, but the Little Ice Age caused them food and cattle problems. They slowly faded away due to malnutrition causing death. Skeletons were found that show the Norse slowly got shorter, their cattle and sheep didn't survive winters, and the settlers died from various dietery deficiencies. From what researchers have been able to find out, the Eskimo who lived in the north part of Greenland could have taught the Norse how to survive... but they saw the Greenland Inuit/Eskimos as primitives who had nothing to teach them. After all they had metal tools and the Inuit used bone tools. The seals and fish contained nutritional value that would have kept the dietary deficioncies away.

      Norse settlements have also been found on the north shore of Nova Scotia. Why they left there is unknown to me. If it is known, I haven't encountered that particular research.

      Its possible the oldest peoples came from South Asia, but due to the climate bones don't last there. This is the reason the oldest human bones were found in the Olduvai Gorge region, its a much drier climate where bones can fossilize.

      The Folsom and Chisolm points fouind near New Mexico towns of the same name, show westward and eastward points of migration.

      Something happened during the Lesser Drias that caused who ever was here between 9,500 and 13,00 to 14,000 years ago, to die off and/or migrate southwards. The 9,500 year ago migration are the paleoindians who formed the North American tribes.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • what I posted above is the standard anthropology and archeology thought on it all. There are other claims.

      There is no evidence on what happened when the Folsom point and Chisolm point people's met. If they met. There is a time distance of several thousand years so they may not have met.

      When I was working on my ancestry I found that my Shoshone and Comanche ancestral languages are related to the Aztec language. The language group is called uto-aztecean. Auto correct had a fit over that...
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • Rasty wrote:

      max.patch wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      Rasty wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      another way would be reroute the trail about 200 to 500 miles west of its current route. When that becomes worn down. Move it back.
      You could move the trail 120 feet to the left or right and get the same results. Most hikers stay within 50 feet of the trail.
      I have seen paper flowers much closer
      when i thru'd the shelters in the gsmnp on the AT did not have privy's. and the immediate vicinity around the shelters was just plain nasty. i've been in the park since then, but not on the AT. i've read that as of 2010 the shelters now have privys. that has to have improved things greatly. one would assume, at least.
      North Carolina shelters have a privy. The Tennessee shelters don't.
      No $hit... I did not know that....
      Be wise enough to walk away from the nonsense around you! :thumbup:

    • JimBlue wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".
      According to research. someones opinion, There were no humans in the western hemisphere until the paleoindians. Arrived.
      Fixed it.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • TrafficJam wrote:

      Didn't a big land mass break apart and drift away, creating the continents?
      The last super continent was called Pangea and geologists estimate it broke and drifted apart about 240 million years ago to form most of the planet's current land mass.

      Lest we forget.....


      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC

    • Drybones wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      So where did the "native" Americans immigrate from? Or is the New World actually the Old World, and everyone else abandoned North America?
      As a friend likes to say, "The New World was only new to the white man. To us, it's always been old."She's also fond of wearing a tee shirt portraying a group of armed Native Americans on horseback with the saying "Native Americans, fighting terrorism since 1492".
      I'm saying there could very well be a time when North America was not populated by humans. According to the Bible, humanity spread out after Noah & family landed on Mount Ararat. The "out of Africa" theory posits a common geographic origin for humankind. Either way, "Native Americans" came to North America at some point in history, although we should probably give them credit for arriving before the white man. I prefer the term "First Nations".
      According to research. someones opinion, There were no humans in the western hemisphere until the paleoindians. Arrived.
      Fixed it.

      nope. Researched by archeologists and anthropologists.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • Maybe they can set up a "joint use permit" similar to what PCT is now doing. It covers all national parks & wilderness areas where permits are required. Limit numbers on start dates. Or ATC coud recognize the BMT as an alternative for start. I don't see shelters as much of an issue anymore since they fill up so quick. Eliminating a dozen or so won't do a lot. Three years ago hiker called in that he counted 43 tents at Hawk Mt in early April. As much I I hate paying twice for something that belongs to taxpayes set up a thru hike permit. $5 shouldn't bust a budget for a thru if the money is spent to help the trail.

    • Mountain-Mike wrote:

      Maybe they can set up a "joint use permit" similar to what PCT is now doing. It covers all national parks & wilderness areas where permits are required. Limit numbers on start dates. Or ATC coud recognize the BMT as an alternative for start. I don't see shelters as much of an issue anymore since they fill up so quick. Eliminating a dozen or so won't do a lot. Three years ago hiker called in that he counted 43 tents at Hawk Mt in early April. As much I I hate paying twice for something that belongs to taxpayes set up a thru hike permit. $5 shouldn't bust a budget for a thru if the money is spent to help the trail.
      Eventually, the BMT will be as bad as the AT.
      Lost in the right direction.

    • i wouldn't worry about the BMT.
      1. you can't "thru hike" the AT and skip the first 240 miles. that's intellectually dishonest.
      2. while mountain mike and i might consider doing the BMT as a substitute for the AT as we already have done a traditional thru, your first timer is going to insist on hiking the real AT.
      3. thru hikers blue blaze if its shorter. springer to davenport gap is about 60 miles longer via the BMT.
      4. the AT has the infrastructure than most hikers enjoy; towns, hostels, etc that is few and far between on the BMT.
      i don't believe they are going to change the character of the BMT to solve the problems of the AT.
      2,000 miler

    • max.patch wrote:

      i wouldn't worry about the BMT.
      1. you can't "thru hike" the AT and skip the first 240 miles. that's intellectually dishonest.
      2. while mountain mike and i might consider doing the BMT as a substitute for the AT as we already have done a traditional thru, your first timer is going to insist on hiking the real AT.
      3. thru hikers blue blaze if its shorter. springer to davenport gap is about 60 miles longer via the BMT.
      4. the AT has the infrastructure than most hikers enjoy; towns, hostels, etc that is few and far between on the BMT.
      i don't believe they are going to change the character of the BMT to solve the problems of the AT.
      I hope not. But in the future, if the ATC decides it's an acceptable alternative, I can see more hikers choosing it and the infrastructure changing to meet their needs.
      Lost in the right direction.

    • Mountain-Mike wrote:

      Maybe they can set up a "joint use permit" similar to what PCT is now doing. It covers all national parks & wilderness areas where permits are required. Limit numbers on start dates. Or ATC coud recognize the BMT as an alternative for start. I don't see shelters as much of an issue anymore since they fill up so quick. Eliminating a dozen or so won't do a lot. Three years ago hiker called in that he counted 43 tents at Hawk Mt in early April. As much I I hate paying twice for something that belongs to taxpayes set up a thru hike permit. $5 shouldn't bust a budget for a thru if the money is spent to help the trail.
      I'm a little surprised this hasn't been done already. It would seem like an simple endeavour for GSMNP and BSP to only issue thru hiker permits to those who have registered as thru hikers with the ATC. Doing so would give the ATC start dates and restrictions a good amount of force without the need to change any major laws or policies.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      Mountain-Mike wrote:

      Maybe they can set up a "joint use permit" similar to what PCT is now doing. It covers all national parks & wilderness areas where permits are required. Limit numbers on start dates. Or ATC coud recognize the BMT as an alternative for start. I don't see shelters as much of an issue anymore since they fill up so quick. Eliminating a dozen or so won't do a lot. Three years ago hiker called in that he counted 43 tents at Hawk Mt in early April. As much I I hate paying twice for something that belongs to taxpayes set up a thru hike permit. $5 shouldn't bust a budget for a thru if the money is spent to help the trail.
      I'm a little surprised this hasn't been done already. It would seem like an simple endeavour for GSMNP and BSP to only issue thru hiker permits to those who have registered as thru hikers with the ATC. Doing so would give the ATC start dates and restrictions a good amount of force without the need to change any major laws or policies.
      but that would take cooperation. :)
      Lost in the right direction.