[Cdt-l] a gentle reminder

[Brett]

I admire your perseverance, Lynne. It's nothing personal, but any of us should expect the occasional dissenting voice when our goal is to shape public opinion by soliciting the list. It isn't worth feeling persecuted over.

Here are a few additional thoughts:

We are the 1% of which Lynne speaks. Long-distance hikers of all stripes are the 1%. The 99% is everybody else. The AT sees 5 million visitors a year, of which only a few thousand are long-distance hikers; on the PCT and CDT, the numbers are progressively lower, but the ratio is arguably about the same, in terms of "person-days" along the trail in a given year. There is no getting around the fact that we, the 1%, are a drop in the bucket in terms of trail use, administrative focus, and monetary input to the surrounding communities. 

We can play the shell game by trying to entice more of the 1% away from the AT or PCT and onto the CDT, but we're still dealing with long-distance hikers, the proverbial drop in the bucket who travel by plane or bus for the odd-bird experience of walking a long way in one direction. The 99%, meanwhile, exist by virtue of the trail's proximity to their home town. Where the trail is reasonably close by, accommodating, and especially nice, the 99% travel in droves. Where the trail is more distant, remote, difficult, and/or lacking in classical beauty, the 99% stays away. This is true along each of the three triple crown trails; it's why the AT in Maine sees the least use of any state along that trail (it's remote and challenging); it's why the High Sierra PCT (wow!) is a thoroughfare of hikers during high season and why the Plumas National Forest (zzzz) section of that trail is comparatively lonely all year. And to the point at hand, it's why the majority
 of the CDT sees very little use. It's not because the CDT is a little challenging to follow in places, but rather because the 99% don't live anywhere nearby and don't find a compelling reason to go out of their way to get there. Think of the CDT in New Mexico. It's very nice, if you like the high desert, and remote places, and hiking between distant water sources. Or if you're a long-distance hiker looking to bag New Mexico. But even those of the 99% living as nearby as Albuquerque, Silver City, or Las Cruces, aren't using the trail very much, primarily because it's not compelling enough to get to in light of other options in their neck of the woods. Unlike the AT, the CDT lacks the pull of being a rare oasis for those seeking quiet recreation in nature. The West is vast, with recreation opportunities galore, and the 99% have many good options, especially for loop trips, that patently don't involve the use of the CDT. In other words, the CDT's light use
 is existential. And we aren't likely to change that to any substantial degree by focusing on improving the accommodations.

Do I think we should continue to build and maintain the CDT even though the hordes will probably never arrive? Emphatically yes! I just think we should be under no illusions of grandeur in doing so. We don't need to build the CDT to an AT type of standard, because it's neither reasonable nor necessary to do so. We also need to accept that in some areas, the official route of the CDT will always be a route of little significance, regardless of the maintenance and promotional efforts imbued upon it. For an object lesson in this reality, one need look no further than the official route of the CDT along the Black Range in New Mexico, or the Chain of Craters route south of Grants. There are parts of the trail that appeal to neither the 99% nor the 1%, that is, to no one in particular. Yet, at least in the case of the Black Range, I can vouch for the fact that it's a spectacular route, and that the CDTA and USFS had been doing a commendable job in keeping it
 up, if only for the occasional hunter or GET enthusiast that happens by. It's worth building the trail even if almost no one comes. Anyone under the illusion that a lot of hard work will pay off by drawing substantially more visitation is apt to become disillusioned in a hurry. The CDT requires a more patient, abstract vision of success.

Trail clubs for the CDT are a fine idea. We currently have some, such as the New Mexico Mountain Club based in ABQ, and while they're not focused exclusively on the CDT, they've lent valuable manpower toward its construction over the years, such as the lovely "cairned route" over the mesas and across the badlands south of Cuba. I think this is a fine model for the future: private, volunteer maintenance clubs working in concert with federal agencies to develop the official route of the CDT. Most of the support will always come from the larger towns located at some distance from the route, as this is where the avid hikers and supporting infrastructure is located. As such, the CDT will continue to see occasional work, rather than intensive maintenance, as schedules and interest allow for work trips to the distant trail. Again, it won't end up looking like the AT, because it isn't the AT and doesn't exist in that intensive social or demographic sphere of
 influence. The CDT will continue to be rough around the edges, appealing to the 1% - the long-distance hikers - and only occasionally to the 99%, such as in parts of Colorado near the interstates and resort towns west of the Front Range. This set of circumstances should be considered normal and appropriate by CDT standards. 

Maintenance and construction efforts should be of a group-focused arrangment, either top-down or in liaison with federal agencies, as described above. And they should be focused on the official route of the CDT. This is arguably the only way to get the job done and to do it right. Putting a roll of flagging tape into the hands of thru-hikers is a dangerous idea if the goal is to accurately mark and thereby "open up" the official trail route, since most hikers will lack the vigilance to mark the correct route if they're even interested in trying to follow the official route to the letter, which almost none do. Likewise, ad hoc marking of alternates routes is an unnecessary distraction at this time, just as maintaining them would be. Of course, many alternate routes follow roads or forest trails that see official maintenance of their own from time to time, so they aren't much of a concern and don't need our specific attention. 

Perhaps when the CDT was first proposed, there was a sense that the trail would someday stand alongside the AT and, to a lesser extent, the PCT, as a recreational resource in which our time and manpower invested would be returned to us in spades through intensive public use of the resource from border to border. Today, I think we know this vision of the CDT is simply not to be, is not workable, does not comport with reality. It doesn't mean we should abandon the project, by any means, but that we should accept that we're building trail in a remote place where the 99% rarely tread regardless of how we might try to entice them. We, the long-distance hiking community, should likewise accept that we're forever the 1%, our numbers simply too small to make up the difference, even if the AT were suddenly moved to the Continental Divide. I firmly believe we can both honor the legacy and vision of the CDT by completing the trail, keeping it up to an appropriate
 degree, and also leave room for the wild, untamed heart that beats along its spine for those who hear it. The trail invites us to do both. Nay, I think it implores it.

- blisterfree



--- On Mon, 3/19/12, cdt-l-request at backcountry.net <cdt-l-request at backcountry.net> wrote:

From: cdt-l-request at backcountry.net <cdt-l-request at backcountry.net>
Subject: Cdt-l Digest, Vol 54, Issue 32
To: cdt-l at backcountry.net
Date: Monday, March 19, 2012, 1:00 PM

Send Cdt-l mailing list submissions to
    cdt-l at backcountry.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/cdt-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    cdt-l-request at backcountry.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
    cdt-l-owner at backcountry.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Cdt-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Gentle Reminder (lynne whelden)
   2. Re: cache box's bootheel (PeekTrekker4 at aol.com)
   3. Re: Gentle Reminder (Helen)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:36:28 GMT
From: "lynne whelden" <lwgear at juno.com>
Subject: [Cdt-l] Gentle Reminder
To: cdt-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID: <20120319.093628.7275.0 at webmail08.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Progress is being made, for sure. My "offensive" comments are now only "fantasies" and "messianic" visions.
That's okay with me.
The CDT isn't the PCT or the AT. Nevertheless, it is a trail designated by Congress to be a long-distance hiking trail. It wasn't intended to be so rustic that only a choice few dozen each year would manage to finish. What's the point of investing millions and millions of dollars, from the government's point of view, into a trail so few might use? 
Yes, the CDT will always suffer from towns not being close to the trail, thus not spawning clubs that feel a connection and a responsibility to its maintenance. That's a hurdle but not a deal-breaker. As more people get educated about the trail's existence over time, clubs may spring up. (That's why I've made videos, as a means of educating people about long-distance hiking.)
There's a certain momentum that's needed to get any project off the ground. The CDT has never had that crucial momentum. Consequently, (now don't get offended, I'm trying to be funny), the inmates have been running the asylum. Hard core hikers have taken over the trail with their mindset that it should remain "forever wild," "forever un-blazed." To them, getting lost daily is the way it should be.

I'm struggling to break free from that small but vocal crowd mentality. I'm willing to take the hits on this forum by speaking out for the 99% (of which I include myself, even though I've done all three trails). But like I said before, the "forever wild" folks are presently in control and will be in control for the foreseeable future. That's because there's no club with money and broad support to establish a different vision.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/cdt-l/attachments/20120319/7cab677c/attachment.html