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

Appalachian Trail Thru-Hiker Voluntary Registration

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

    • max.patch wrote:




      read this on facebook so who knows if its true or not, but supposedly someone mailed their weed to themself at the hiker hostel. police showed up and had a talk with them. i guess their card worked.
      oooh, bad idea.

      how the heck do ya beat federal charges, sooooo lucky if they did.
    • max.patch wrote:

      its really held too early weather-wise to start a thru. i wish they'd hold this event at least 2 weeks later.

      I'm guessing ATKO creates some clumping of starters. If folks adjust their itineraries to attend, that means more start that weekend than what would be normal. If they stay for the whole event, and a big clump starts that Monday instead of throughout the weekend? That's potentially a big group hitting the trail together. If they set it up so that it's three days of the same stuff, folks might come for a day, spend the night in the park, and hit the trail the next morning, spreading the hikers out ... But they don't. Will March 9 this year have a big spike in starts?
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15
    • Trillium wrote:

      LDog wrote:

      As a certified bureaucrat, I've been kicking this idea around:

      ATC should adopt the AT Passport program, and make it mandatory..................

      How can we make this proposal stronger?

      By getting George Orwell to write a book about it?

      I don't think he's writing much these days, but point taken. I'm already thinking about how to implement my plan to chip thru hikers to prove they hiked past every single white blaze. I'll read 1984 again and take another look at this...

      Ohhhh .... Sleep teaching! "I love my passport. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My passport, without me, is useless. Without my passport, I am useless. I must get stamps ...
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LDog ().

    • Mount Oglethorpe may be 30 miles by car, but probably not as far by foot.

      It is 6.5 miles from the parking lot near Springer to the nearest asphalt road. Add a few more pot holes and half the vehicles will turn around (back out?) before reaching the parking lot.
      I am human and I need to be loved - just like everybody else does
    • So who's going to fly to Australia, Germany, Britain etc to run ATKO's there?
      And don't tell me that you come to the country first because time restraints of 6 months visas mean overseas hikers already have tight timetables.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • hikerboy wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Whoopie do for JPD.
      My comments stand.
      BS idea.
      Just get law enforcement searching more for weed and you cull numbers by at least 25%.


      its gonna be legal everywhere soon enough


      As long as it is not mandatory.


      you mean like beer?

      I drink wine, not beer. I must be doing it wrong. My German ancestors would not approve.
      I am human and I need to be loved - just like everybody else does
    • I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • WanderingStovie wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      WanderingStovie wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Whoopie do for JPD.
      My comments stand.
      BS idea.
      Just get law enforcement searching more for weed and you cull numbers by at least 25%.


      its gonna be legal everywhere soon enough


      As long as it is not mandatory.


      you mean like beer?

      I drink wine, not beer. I must be doing it wrong. My German ancestors would not approve.


      Riesling and Pinot Blanc!
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • OzJacko wrote:

      I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.

      you're implying the problem is with smoking dope. alcohol is a much bigger issue.
      its all good
    • hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.

      you're implying the problem is with smoking dope. alcohol is a much bigger issue.


      Abuse of both are problems. The key word is abuse. It's not called Dope for nothing.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • Sorry. Everybody is bitchin about numbers. It is a quick fix for that.
      Alcohol is many times more of a problem.
      Alcohol makes a lot of people aggressive.

      Big delay in my posts cause I just went for a 4 mile walk with Annie.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • Youth. Young adults without the education and experience to understand that the freedom to swing their fists ends before it hits other's faces. Who haven't figured out, and/or learned to care, that their actions have impacts on others. Who don't understand that we share responsibility for preserving the trail, our communities, our country, and our planet.
      -
      L.Dog
      AT 2000 Mile LASHer '12-'15
    • Rasty wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.

      you're implying the problem is with smoking dope. alcohol is a much bigger issue.


      Abuse of both are problems. The key word is abuse. It's not called Dope for nothing.


      its not called drunk for nothing either.abuse.yes. a lot more potential for violence with drunks than with potheads.except when the argument over whether crunchy cheetos are better than the regular kind.
      its all good
    • hikerboy wrote:

      Rasty wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.

      you're implying the problem is with smoking dope. alcohol is a much bigger issue.


      Abuse of both are problems. The key word is abuse. It's not called Dope for nothing.


      its not called drunk for nothing either.abuse.yes. a lot more potential for violence with drunks than with potheads.except when the argument over whether crunchy cheetos are better than the regular kind.


      I don't like working in the kitchen with pot heads. They are often careless in a potentially dangerous environment.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123
    • Sorry.
      It's me being busy (did I mention we're moving) and dropping and doing quick catch ups.
      I have been caught by an Onion article or two as well. ;)
      I just get a bit p####d off with the way that people bellyache about the numbers as if that is the only problem. I saw numbers on the Camino that make the AT still look like deep wilderness.
      The problem with the AT is the behaviour and attitude of a significant percentage. Mostly they are young and self centred. They are mostly trouble in town when they have alcohol but because alcohol is heavy many have weed on the trail. The weed isn't a problem but a significant percentage of those with it are.
      All this ATKO type stuff sounds good but start demanding an AT passport and attendance etc and it just opens a big door for rule makers to come in. They will bring more fees with them.
      I just think the ATC could maybe look at some better alliance with hostels and the like (in the south in particular) and stamp on a few troublemakers early on. The people who run the hostels can identify them easy enough.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • hikerboy wrote:

      Rasty wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I really don't seriously mean for them to do it as I have no problem with it. But it would remove more of the "problem" hikers than any other suggestion I have seen so far.
      I don't want law enforcement on the trail but the problems on the trail are a reflection of problems in society in general. A sense of entitlement and a "stuff everyone else" attitude.
      That is the problem that needs solving. The trail itself is not affected by increased thru hikers. They are a small % people on the trail. Day and section hikers are more of an issue even in Baxter. It is the BEHAVIOUR of a number of thru hikers that is the real problem, not the numbers.

      you're implying the problem is with smoking dope. alcohol is a much bigger issue.


      Abuse of both are problems. The key word is abuse. It's not called Dope for nothing.


      its not called drunk for nothing either.abuse.yes. a lot more potential for violence with drunks than with potheads.except when the argument over whether crunchy cheetos are better than the regular kind.


      Them's fighting words! The regular Cheetos are one of mankinds greatest inventions. Cunchy
      Cheetos are terrible.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      So who's going to fly to Australia, Germany, Britain etc to run ATKO's there?
      And don't tell me that you come to the country first because time restraints of 6 months visas mean overseas hikers already have tight timetables.


      If someone will cover the travel cost (business class, please), I'll gladly take that one for the team. :P
      Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee