4 ms·

Not a fan of either film but I really enjoyed both books. I think Wild has substantially further reach, especially among women, while Bryson's book is amusing a

by meritt 11y ago

Not a fan of either film but I really enjoyed both books. I think Wild has substantially further reach, especially among women, while Bryson's book is amusing and entertaining, yet ultimately forgettable. Either way, an increase in Americans focused on exercise, spending time in the wilderness, and general soul-searching activities will be a good thing.

ghaff 11y ago
I did like the Wild film as well as (for the most part) the book. Certainly it's much more polarizing than Bryson's book which--like a lot of Bryson's work--is breezy and engaging but doesn't have a whole lot of depth. I likewise think getting people outdoors is a generally positive thing although it's also the case that Baxter in particular has a definite limit to how many people it can handle.
jlarocco 11y ago
> Either way, an increase in Americans focused on exercise, spending time in the wilderness, and general soul-searching activities will be a good thing. I disagree. The problem pointed out in the article is that a lot of people aren't there to exercise and soul search, and they're ruining it for people who would like to do so in the future by trashing the place. It's absolutely not a good thing if many of the people are going into the wilderness and destroying it with trash, vandalism, and dog shit.
- meritt 11y ago
  > dog shit You know the woods are filled with animals that shit in the woods all the time, right? People should be burying it or at least moving it off trail but feces is a purely natural occurrence. The trash and vandalism I absolutely agree with you.
  - cowsandmilk 11y ago
    The reason you aren't allowed to have dogs on Katahdin is because that type of animal doesn't actually go up into the alpine zone of Katahdin. The plants there are extremely sensitive and cannot survive being stepped on by animals. And they are only able to grow for a couple weeks a year, so one dog can kill decades of growth by stepping on a small plant. So, I agree with the woods part, bring all the dogs you want onto the trail when you're in the woods, but when the rangers in Baxter State Park complain about people bringing dogs up the mountain, they are absolutely in the right.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Those people aren't there for your benefit. Why is your rare use of the wilderness better than their common use?
sanderjd 11y ago
Yep, what we need are more places where you can do this sort of thing, so that the load is spread around. The fact is that the AT is one of only a few places where you can go walk and camp for a large number of days in a row, and it's the least wild, so it's the safest and easiest. It would be nice to see more "competitors" pop up!
- 0x0539 11y ago
  There are competitors, just in terms of the major long trails of the USA, there is the Pacific Crest(PCT) and the Continental Divide (CDT) those three make up the Triple Crown of long distance hiking in the USA ( http://aldhawest.org/triple-crown/ http://aldhawest.org/triple-crown/ ) And several others; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-distance_trails_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-distance_trails_in_the_Un... I'd say the PCT is its closest competitor as the PCT is considerable well marked, but its an easier trail grade to hike(and on the other side of the country) If you want remoteness and untouched wilderness, I went days without seeing another person (and some hikers can go weeks depending on the year) on the CDT at all though some extraordinarily beautiful locations. Of course its not as defined as the PCT or AT(compass navigation is requires as the trail doesn't always exist) The thing about the AT is it is the most accessible of any of the major trails, I've heard that about half the US population is within a 1day drive of some point of the trail.
  - GavinMcG 11y ago
    You mentioned the AT being most accessible, just in terms of being nearby, but accessibility in terms of necessary skill is an important factor as well. The Benton MacKaye Trail, for example, runs parallel to the southern part of the AT for about 300 miles, and also starts on Springer Mountain. There are lots of people that live close enough to hike on it. But the fact that it involves much more wilderness and doesn't go through a town every other day makes it a poor option for inexperienced hikers. That makes me suspect that the only way to spread out the damage, so to speak, is to raise barriers to entry. Emphatically: not so drastically that people won't hike. I certainly want more people interested in enjoying and protecting the outdoors. But at least enough that people are comfortable in a variety of settings that aren't as "urbanized" as the AT is.

by meritt 11y ago

ghaff 11y ago

I did like the Wild film as well as (for the most part) the book. Certainly it's much more polarizing than Bryson's book which--like a lot of Bryson's work--is breezy and engaging but doesn't have a whole lot of depth. I likewise think getting people outdoors is a generally positive thing although it's also the case that Baxter in particular has a definite limit to how many people it can handle.

jlarocco 11y ago

> Either way, an increase in Americans focused on exercise, spending time in the wilderness, and general soul-searching activities will be a good thing. I disagree. The problem pointed out in the article is that a lot of people aren't there to exercise and soul search, and they're ruining it for people who would like to do so in the future by trashing the place. It's absolutely not a good thing if many of the people are going into the wilderness and destroying it with trash, vandalism, and dog shit.

meritt 11y ago
> dog shit You know the woods are filled with animals that shit in the woods all the time, right? People should be burying it or at least moving it off trail but feces is a purely natural occurrence. The trash and vandalism I absolutely agree with you.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago
  The reason you aren't allowed to have dogs on Katahdin is because that type of animal doesn't actually go up into the alpine zone of Katahdin. The plants there are extremely sensitive and cannot survive being stepped on by animals. And they are only able to grow for a couple weeks a year, so one dog can kill decades of growth by stepping on a small plant. So, I agree with the woods part, bring all the dogs you want onto the trail when you're in the woods, but when the rangers in Baxter State Park complain about people bringing dogs up the mountain, they are absolutely in the right.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
Those people aren't there for your benefit. Why is your rare use of the wilderness better than their common use?

sanderjd 11y ago

Yep, what we need are more places where you can do this sort of thing, so that the load is spread around. The fact is that the AT is one of only a few places where you can go walk and camp for a large number of days in a row, and it's the least wild, so it's the safest and easiest. It would be nice to see more "competitors" pop up!

0x0539 11y ago
There are competitors, just in terms of the major long trails of the USA, there is the Pacific Crest(PCT) and the Continental Divide (CDT) those three make up the Triple Crown of long distance hiking in the USA ( http://aldhawest.org/triple-crown/ http://aldhawest.org/triple-crown/ ) And several others; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-distance_trails_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-distance_trails_in_the_Un... I'd say the PCT is its closest competitor as the PCT is considerable well marked, but its an easier trail grade to hike(and on the other side of the country) If you want remoteness and untouched wilderness, I went days without seeing another person (and some hikers can go weeks depending on the year) on the CDT at all though some extraordinarily beautiful locations. Of course its not as defined as the PCT or AT(compass navigation is requires as the trail doesn't always exist) The thing about the AT is it is the most accessible of any of the major trails, I've heard that about half the US population is within a 1day drive of some point of the trail.
- GavinMcG 11y ago
  You mentioned the AT being most accessible, just in terms of being nearby, but accessibility in terms of necessary skill is an important factor as well. The Benton MacKaye Trail, for example, runs parallel to the southern part of the AT for about 300 miles, and also starts on Springer Mountain. There are lots of people that live close enough to hike on it. But the fact that it involves much more wilderness and doesn't go through a town every other day makes it a poor option for inexperienced hikers. That makes me suspect that the only way to spread out the damage, so to speak, is to raise barriers to entry. Emphatically: not so drastically that people won't hike. I certainly want more people interested in enjoying and protecting the outdoors. But at least enough that people are comfortable in a variety of settings that aren't as "urbanized" as the AT is.