# Appalachian Trail



## Mason72

Anyone ever ridden the Appalachian Trail from one end to the other? I was curious I assume you could do it in phases. I am thinking it is a Bucket List Item Id Like to do one of these days.


----------



## loveduffy

this is a good question I would like to know also :?


----------



## gunslinger

I'm not sure horses are allowed on the Appalachian trail.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/hiking-basics/regulations-permits

*Can people ride or drive the Trail?*

No, with a few exceptions. The Appalachian Trail is designed, built, and maintained by hikers for foot travel. Motor vehicles are illegal on all off-road sections of the Appalachian Trail. Bicycles and mountain bikes are not permitted except where the A.T. is co-aligned with the C&O Canal towpath in Maryland and the Virginia Creeper Trail in Virginia. Pack animals, including horses, mules, donkeys, goats, and llamas, are not allowed on the A.T. (whether they are packing anything or not), except that horses are permitted along the C&O Canal towpath in Maryland and in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (where, by law, about 50 percent of the A.T. in the park is open for horses as a historical use).


----------



## Jolly Badger

I've heard that there are sections of the Appalachian Trail open to horse use, but other areas where they are not permitted at all. It's really intended for hikers, and there are some parts that simply are not safe or suitable for horses at all.

You could probably find other trails/rides that are open to horses along the entire length AND of equal or greater distance than the AT.


----------



## Darrin

I always hate to be told it's not safe or suitable for horses by those who don't own horses or don't really trail ride the horses they do have. I also really hate being told it's for hikers only just because it's for hikers only. I do see seperating out wheeled traffic from foot/hoof traffic on some trails. 

Basically I guess I hate being told to stay off a trail just because I said so when it's on public property.


----------



## DrumRunner

There are parts of the AT that are completely unsuitable for horses, I do trail ride and do know what's suitable to horses. A two foot ledge over a valley full of cut off trees and the entire pathway is big loose rock is not safe for a horse and rider.. I know that there are areas of the AT you can trail ride but I don't think you can ride the entire trail..


----------



## Darrin

DrumRunner said:


> There are parts of the AT that are completely unsuitable for horses, I do trail ride and do know what's suitable to horses. A two foot ledge over a valley full of cut off trees and the entire pathway is big loose rock is not safe for a horse and rider.. I know that there are areas of the AT you can trail ride but I don't think you can ride the entire trail..


I've ridden with pack horses over trails that were less than a foot wide, crumbling edges and steep drops with no stumps to slow you down. All a matter of perspective and experience. Basically, let me decide when a trail gets to be to much instead of trying to nanny me.


----------



## DancingArabian

Darrin said:


> I've ridden with pack horses over trails that were less than a foot wide, crumbling edges and steep drops with no stumps to slow you down. All a matter of perspective and experience. Basically, let me decide when a trail gets to be to much instead of trying to nanny me.



Most horses are not going to be exposed to that type of terrain to be reliably safe on it. Not everyone has enough common sense to know this beforehand. You're not necessarily going to be able to just turn around and go back the way you came, either. Nevermind trying to traverse narrow terrain with hikers/bikers/dogs all around. It's just a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## DrumRunner

Darrin said:


> I've ridden with pack horses over trails that were less than a foot wide, crumbling edges and steep drops with no stumps to slow you down. All a matter of perspective and experience. Basically, let me decide when a trail gets to be to much instead of trying to nanny me.


You may be able to handle it, but I guarantee that 90% of the people who just think "Oh hey, this will be cool, we'll play pioneer for a few days" will end up getting hurt.. There is enough to have to worry about on the AT already with stupid people, much less stupid people who have no business there on a horse. The game wardens and park service members have enough to deal with besides having to baby sit irresponsible horse owners.. There are designated areas for people to go to ride, if you think you can handle more, take it to someone who can give you permission to ride the harder parts of the trail. My family camp and hike the AT almost every summer throughout north GA, TN, and NC.. There are people there that don't have much business on a bicycle, much less a horse. 

If anything, it's a smart safety precaution for those people who don't know any better.


----------



## Darrin

DrumRunner said:


> If anything, it's a smart safety precaution for those people who don't know any better.


Like I said, don't want or need a nanny telling me what I can and can't do. As for those to stupid to know better, I heartily believe in Darwinism. This line of thought is what has brought around such things as Bloomberg outlawing Big Gulps. People do not need to be protected from themselves.


----------



## Joe4d

plenty of wilderness in VA as rough as you like, go ride up the side of the mountain or anywhere else. You just cant ride on the Appalachian trail, nothing to do with nanny this or nanny that. Its the law. Trail is for hikers only. Plenty of other trails for horses. Pick one.


----------



## DrumRunner

Darrin said:


> Like I said, don't want or need a nanny telling me what I can and can't do. As for those to stupid to know better, I heartily believe in Darwinism. This line of thought is what has brought around such things as Bloomberg outlawing Big Gulps. People do not need to be protected from themselves.




lol So I'm guessing you popped out of the womb in a saddle and singing "Happy Trails"? Someone along the way had to baby sit you and teach you the right way to go about things.. That's having to "nanny" you.. People have to learn somewhere, and until then they are kept to the easy trails.. Which I'm positive you started out on yourself..


----------



## Darrin

DrumRunner said:


> lol So I'm guessing you popped out of the womb in a saddle and singing "Happy Trails"? Someone along the way had to baby sit you and teach you the right way to go about things.. That's having to "nanny" you.. People have to learn somewhere, and until then they are kept to the easy trails.. Which I'm positive you started out on yourself..


Nope, sure didn't pop out in a saddle. When I was younger if it didn't have wheels and a motor I wanted nothing to do with it. And no, I didn't start out on easy trails. When I first started riding my hair was turned gray instantly, scared the hell out of me and showed me what a horse really can do. Was doing stuff that I wouldn't of done on my dirt bike.

As for a nanny, never had one. Grew up on a farm where mom kicked me out the door to go "play". I learned through scrapes, cuts, bruises and somehow no broken bones what I could and couldn't do. In other words I learned independence and reliance on myself.

Joe, I would love to ride the AT due to it's history and I bet a whole bunch of it was ridden back in the day.


----------



## DrumRunner

Darrin said:


> As for a nanny, never had one. Grew up on a farm where mom kicked me out the door to go "play". I learned through scrapes, cuts, bruises and somehow no broken bones what I could and couldn't do. In other words I learned independence and reliance on myself.


This is how it should be, it's how I was raised. If you got hurt, you had to suck it up and keep up. People just aren't brought up like that anymore.. I did end up with broken bones though lol.. I was a rough kid.


----------



## katbalu

I'm a believer in natural selection as well. However, the laws and rules arent there to protect you from your own stupid self, the laws and rules are there to protect OTHERS from your stupidity (and arrogance that one may think they can safely fit a horse anywhere a human could possibly go)
And I mean *you* in a completely generic way - I'm not trying to single out anyone


----------



## Darrin

katbalu said:


> I'm a believer in natural selection as well. However, the laws and rules arent there to protect you from your own stupid self, the laws and rules are there to protect OTHERS from your stupidity (and arrogance that one may think they can safely fit a horse anywhere a human could possibly go)
> And I mean *you* in a completely generic way - I'm not trying to single out anyone


Let me pose a simple question. How did we, as a race, make it for thousands of years without government protecting us from others stupidity?


----------



## DrumRunner

Darrin said:


> Let me pose a simple question. How did we, as a race, make it for thousands of years without government protecting us from others stupidity?


Hell if I know, because if it was meant to kill off stupid it missed.. a LOT..


----------



## katbalu

Darrin said:


> Let me pose a simple question. How did we, as a race, make it for thousands of years without government protecting us from others stupidity?


Well, define that era for me.
Not trying to be a smart butt. I don't like a nanny state either, however, I don't think I want to be hiking up a hill on the AT with a horse up the hill that may very well trip, fall, and kill me.


----------



## Darrin

Era? 100+ years ago. It's mainly been in the last 100 years we've seen rules creep in to protect us from ourselves and others stupidity. I'm not talking rules governing crimes such as robbery, murder, etc.

As for hiking the AT and having a horse trip and fall hiking. This goes back to self reliance. If you are watching what is going on around you (back to self reliance) you would see that rider above you and try to maintain yourself in a place where if they fell they wouldn't land on you. FYI, a 200 pound hiker above you on a switch back can just as easily ruin your day as a 1000 pound horse. Heck, them just knocking off a 5 pound rock can ruin your day.


----------



## katbalu

Why do you feel motorized vehicles shouldn't go on horse trails? I'd be willing to bet the same reasons could be applied to horses on hiking trails...
I'm not gonna argue with you concerning government nanny state etc, because We'd probably agree...


----------



## Celeste

As far as needing a nanny, of course we don't. But as long as we can sue people that allow us to act stupid, we are going to have nanny laws. If I can sue the state of Tennessee (or any other state) for allowing me to get myself killed, they probably are not going to want me to get killed. 

Of course that might not be it. It could just be that those sissy city folks don't want horse poo on their boots.


----------



## katbalu

I'm not sure I would call the majority of thru hikers sissy city folks...LOL. City folk usually smell better 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Darrin

katbalu said:


> Why do you feel motorized vehicles shouldn't go on horse trails? I'd be willing to bet the same reasons could be applied to horses on hiking trails...
> I'm not gonna argue with you concerning government nanny state etc, because We'd probably agree...


Actually don't have a problem with motor vehicles on horse trails. I can see keeping them off some fragile trails due to the damage they can cause. That was one of the big reasons for me to get into horses, several of the areas I liked to ride in were being shut down due to the damage done to them. One of the main areas was a watershed, foot and horses are still allowed in there.

Celeste, horse poo on the trail is a huge complaint out here in Oregon from hikers (mainly city folk). I hear hikers complain about it all the time and even had a few get nasty with me over it. Mainly it's those on the Pacific Crest Trail in wilderness areas, guess horse poop isn't natural enough for them. But I'm pretty darn sure from the human poop piles/tissue I've seen they are also using natures toilet and not hauling it out.


----------



## Mason72

thanks answers that question... good thing.. id be one of those stupd people falling off a cliff...LOL


----------



## katbalu

LOL. Oh yeah. Hey, it's the OP!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Darrin

You mean someone started this post with a question? ****, forgot all about it.

Answered my question too actually. I was curious about AT myself thinking it was similar to Pacific Crest trail and something I would like to try myself someday.


----------



## DrumRunner

Darrin, after hiking and riding in the Rockies and around the AT there is NO comparison. None.. I loved the different parts of the Smokies and the AT but after hiking and riding a few days in Estes Park, CO I ended up amazed at the difference..I love it out there. So much space.


----------



## loveduffy

There is no cure for stupid you can not ride thought Death valley:?


----------



## Darrin

I consider the Appalachians foot hills but pretty foot hills. Would love to spend some time exploring them.


----------



## Celeste

One thing about the eastern side of our country --- we don't get eaten by grizzly bears here. I am a bit south to the Appalachians. We don't even have black bears except once in a while. Lots of nice timber rattlers.........


----------



## Darrin

Grizzlies are not a problem where I'm at but mountain lions are.


----------



## DrumRunner

Celeste said:


> One thing about the eastern side of our country --- we don't get eaten by grizzly bears here. I am a bit south to the Appalachians. We don't even have black bears except once in a while. Lots of nice timber rattlers.........


How in the world do you not have black bears? I'm a few hours south of you and we have a ton of bears.. They've even reopened bear season a few days during the fall.


----------



## Celeste

Never seen a black bear here in the 30 years I've lived here. I live in middle Georgia. We had them up in north Georgia.


----------



## goneriding

So when riding in "big critter country" is it feasible to say a bell around my horses neck would be a good thing?....Cougars will still be lurking, my guess. :shock:....Encountered a black bear in MI. awhile back on horseback.....cool and iffy at the same time. Our horses just looked, no spook.


----------



## DrumRunner

Celeste said:


> Never seen a black bear here in the 30 years I've lived here. I live in middle Georgia. We had them up in north Georgia.


I live in middle Georgia too.. Literally the geographical center of Georgia is like 5 minutes from my house. I live in Twiggs County.


----------



## avjudge

Darrin said:


> I've ridden with pack horses over trails that were less than a foot wide, crumbling edges and steep drops with no stumps to slow you down. All a matter of perspective and experience.


I can tell you that there are parts of the Appalachian Trail that I would not take a horse on, and I don't believe any horse could safely traverse them. 

I grew up & rode in the Mahoosucs, part of the White Mountains of NH. The AT follows its ridge, and old logging roads and hiking trails lead from the valley up to the ridge. I've been up many of them, and along parts of the AT. But parts of the hiking trails in the Whites can be something no horse could follow - I'm not talking about narrow or slippery as mentioned before, I'm talking boulders that a human scrambles over, smaller rocks with holes between them waiting to break a leg, _steep_ ledge or staircases of rock, some you might climb with help from your hands. Horse hooves & legs are not made for that terrain. 

I rode over some pretty rough terrain - very rocky trails but without holes (i.e. rocks sunk in dirt instead of precariously stacked on other rocks), ledges that weren't so steep a hoof lost traction, washouts in the old logging roads - but I knew where a horse just couldn't make it. And I don't think horses got much better at it than mine, with a lifetime of this sort of riding. You can get to some of the same places the AT goes, but not always by following the AT!

Anne


----------



## Painted Horse

My experience with cougars is that they will avoid humans if given the chance. I really don't worry about them. I've seen enough of them in the wild, They snuck up on me, because they were curious, but if I jump up and yell at them, they run off.

Most black bears, just get into trouble because they trying to get into your food. Even the Grizzlies that I've run into. will usually leave the area if you have given them enough space. Of course the exceptions are if they are protecting cubs or food.

I've never hiked or ridden any of the AT, So I can't speak for how rough it may or may not be. I can't believe it can be any worse than some areas of the west. Wilderness areas don't get any trail maintenance. So dealing with rocks, blow down trees etc is a natural occurance. And yes there are areas that I have to just tie my horse up and go explore on foot.

Once we have explored a path thru the talus field or blow downs we can ride or lead our horses thru.




























I've chased enough cougars, That I'm just not worried about them









If people are uncomfortable with this natural things, They should stick to ridding on their farms in the arena.


----------



## Celeste

If the AT requires climbing walls and rocks, then it is not usable for horses.


----------



## avjudge

Unfortunately, since I did my riding in the '70s and '80s, I don't have pictures of where I did go vs. where I don't think a horse could go, but trails in the White Mountains can look like this:










I'm not quite sure where that is - the page it's on doesn't give the trail they hiked, and as the photo credit isn't the writer of the blog entry it might not be the trail he took - I don't recognize the road or buildings in the notch below so it's not Pinkham Notch on the E side of Washington - and it's probably not on the AT itself, but it's fairly typical terrain at altitude in the area. Unfortunately, most online shots are either scenery shots, or they show the parts of the trail above treeline where it's flat and VERY well traveled, looking in photos (or to those standing on Washington's summit) like a dirt road across the rock garden, so this was the best I could find for typical steep/rocky part of a trail in the region.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can hike out this summer & post any picture of specific AT spots for you because I have an ankle (seems like the achilles tendon) that mysteriously started aching when I wake up or exercise and just doesn't want to heal up. :-( Maybe if this thread is still alive in a few months I can get you something.

Anne


----------



## avjudge

OK, I removed most of my previous msg and added in a bunch of great new info I found, but when I hit "save" I'd taken too long! Grr. So sorry for the double post & for all the unnecessary wordiness before when the following gives actual, on-topic AT info. 

After posting the previous I did a bit more searching and found the info you guys really want - at SectionHiker.com: "I just got back from the hardest hiking I've done in the past year, hiking southbound on the notorious Mahoosuc trail section of the Appalachian Trail, from Grafton Notch in Maine to Gentian Pond in New Hampshire. . ."









"The Mahoosuc Notch is a narrow ravine situated between the vertical cliffs of Fulling Mill Mountain and the Southern Peak of Mahoosuc Mountain. It is one mile long and filled with car sized boulders that you have to scramble up, over, through, and under. It took me 2 hours to hike this one mile and it required every rock climbing trick I know, wearing a full pack no less. The trail weaves in and out of several caves . . ."

And then the next day, "After hiking up from the shelter and rejoining the AT, I met my first challenge of the day, a rocky scramble up a cliff face. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out if it was even possible to scale this obstacle."

Anne


----------



## Trails

goneriding said:


> So when riding in "big critter country" is it feasible to say a bell around my horses neck would be a good thing?....Cougars will still be lurking, my guess. :shock:....Encountered a black bear in MI. awhile back on horseback.....cool and iffy at the same time. Our horses just looked, no spook.



Not to break too far way from the ongoing AT disscussion but...

I know a fair number of riders who bell their horses (and a another fair number who complain about the darn bells!). I bell mine in the spring through early summer when the bears have cubs nearby (I like to gave momma plenty of warning and time to get the kids away). 

Other than that I don't usually bother with bells while riding. Always have them on the horses when their grazing on a backcountry trip.


----------



## Painted Horse

There is a certain comfort to hearing the bells ringing at night as you are trying to sleep. If the bells get to excited, you know one of your horses has probably gotten loose. If you wake up and all is quiet, You wonder if they are all gone.

And yes there are a lot of areas that not suiteable for horses. I learned while big horn sheep hunting, That if I could get a horse into an area, There woud not be any sheep. The sheep choose areas that coyotes and cougars have a hard time traversing. It was their natural barrier of protection. Unlike Elk hunting where horses are valuable. in Sheep hunting the horses were basically worthless. So there will always be areas that are unsuitable. But when we think of trails, most of us think of trails that can be traversed with out the aids of ropes , harnesses and other climbing gear.

This is Chimney Canyon in Central Utah. Lots of big horn sheep on the ledges in the photo. Wild Mustangs can be found on the plateau top where I was shooting the photo from, But no horses on the shelfs.









And while Butch Cassidy and the Wild bunch found trails to traverse the area, They were not always the most direct routes or the same routes that a hiker on foot would use.


----------



## avjudge

Painted Horse said:


> And yes there are a lot of areas that not suiteable for horses. I learned while big horn sheep hunting, That if I could get a horse into an area, There woud not be any sheep. The sheep choose areas that coyotes and cougars have a hard time traversing. It was their natural barrier of protection.


Those sheep are just incredible! And beautiful country - very different than anything you'll find within 1000 (2000?) miles of the Appalachian Trail! My mom loved the west (favorite place on earth Glacier Park ca. 1958) but decided the White Mountains had their charms - including my dad.  

Also, no wildlife I'd worry about there, at least in my part of it (northern New England). The black bears will take out a chicken coop and even sometimes go into your kitchen if you give them a chance (it's been a bad spring, they woke up long before the best of their food so there's been lots of that sort of problem - including one last week next door to my dad's where they shot a bear for taking out a coop, then found out they had just orphaned 3 young cubs) but they are still non-aggressive toward people as far as I've heard. I don't worry about moose when I'm on the trail, though the time I had a close encounter while fixing fence (ca. 1980) I decided it might be a good time to take a break, go up to the house, and tell my mom what I'd just met (and then we watched from a comfortable distance as he crossed the open field across from the house and stepped over my turned-off-for-repairs electric fence - phew, no new breaks).



Painted Horse said:


> But when we think of trails, most of us think of trails that can be traversed with out the aids of ropes, harnesses and other climbing gear.


And yet every AT through-hiker goes through the terrain that was described in the article I quoted. No ropes or harnesses required, but some serious shimmying and crawling! Not what most people think of as a "hiking" trail. :?

Anne


----------



## Tazmanian Devil

I am 100% with sentiments opposing any type of nanny state. It is infuriating to be told you can't "just because" some bureaucrat has decided you can't. In reality, however, the reason is rarely "just because." They usually have a reason, even though that reason is sometimes the wrong one -provided by a user group looking to further their own cause.

I am sure there are some places where horses cannot or should not go (for safety or physical limitation reasons). I also have no doubt that these reasons are in ample supply for sections of the AT.

At the same time, I just as sure there are large sections of the AT which are perfectly safe for horses but do not allow horses. In the areas where horses are unable to travel (for whatever valid reason) there is no reason an equine friendly "bypass" could not be created to make this historic trail useable for equine purposes.

From the "www.appalachiantrail.org" FAQ: 


> CAN I RIDE A BIKE OR HORSE ON THE A.T.?
> Generally, no. The Appalachian Trail is designed, built, and maintained by hikers for foot travel.


I think the bigger issue here is why this trail was "designed, built and maintained" by hikers for foot travel? Why do hikers get exclusive rights to this historic public resource?

They claim: "The Appalachian Trail is one of the longest continuously marked footpath in the world." Sure, NOW it is a "footpath." The implication is that "back in the day" horses were also prohibited from using the trails. I doubt that.

It just bugs me that so many nice trails are being taken away from equestrians. Hikers as well as bikers seems to have considerable political clout and are very organized. I know in my area the horse people are too busy arguing amongst themselves (this discipline vs. that discipline) while the hikers and bikers are extremely organized. We have lost a bit of trail space to these other groups who don't believe in "multiple use."

When planning, designing and maintaining any large, public trail system, equine use should be included wherever physically possible. As stated on the "mission" page of the AT Conservancy: "The Appalachian Trail Conservancy’s vision is to connect the human spirit with nature – preserving the delicate majesty of the Trail as a haven for all to enjoy. " For "all" shouldn't provide exclusive access for one class of trail users.


----------



## avjudge

Tazmanian Devil said:


> In the areas where horses are unable to travel (for whatever valid reason) there is no reason an equine friendly "bypass" could not be created to make this historic trail useable for equine purposes.


There's a big reason - $$$$$$. Are you proposing to canvas & negotiate for landowner permission, and raise the money for trail construction (more than is needed for a hiking trail, I'm sure, since it needs to be smoother)? I doubt you'd find the sort of money needed, though, since I don't believe there's much interest in an alternate through-trail. 

The trail is that rough because the terrain is that rough throughout the range. There are bypasses available - they follow the valleys and are called public roads, and they're already there and free to use. 

Anne


----------



## Tazmanian Devil

avjudge said:


> There's a big reason - $$$$$$. Are you proposing to canvas & negotiate for landowner permission, and raise the money for trail construction (more than is needed for a hiking trail, I'm sure, since it needs to be smoother)? I doubt you'd find the sort of money needed, though, since I don't believe there's much interest in an alternate through-trail.


While it may not be feasible for the entire length, I am sure it can be done for little if not any more than currently being spent to maintain for hikers only. Certainly more than is open to horses now.

I would find it hard to believe that at least _some_ of the trails are currently closed to horses simply because of money. More likely, the folks raising the money and providing the maintenance want to keep it hikers only. That is usually the case when horses get shut out of a trail system. Of course, the horse community (at least around here) is less organized and less willing to word towards raising money and fighting to keep horse trails open.



> The trail is that rough because the terrain is that rough throughout the range. There are bypasses available - they follow the valleys and are called public roads, and they're already there and free to use.


From an earlier post, it seems the AT is open to horses only for select sections in Virginia and Maryland. Are you suggesting the OP ride I-95 for the other 90% of the trail?

Much of the local trails I have to ride involve sections of public road as connectors. I have no problem with that. It is an inevitability in populated areas. The AT is also a public feature. As far as horses are concerned, it seems you would have to take public roads with a trail or two connecting them.

If everything north of Maryland and south of Virginia is actually impassable for horses, I can see your point. The AT website doesn't lead me to believe that the majority of terrain is not equine compatible. Therefore, the prohibition on horses seems arbitrary, and only as a convenience to the hikers. That holds true with most "no horses" trails I have come across. The hikers and bikers simply don't want us there and have the ear of the government people who make the rules.


----------



## avjudge

I was only addressing the portions of the trail with which I'm familiar. There it is in general not suitable for horses, but I've never seen any signs forbidding them, nor does anyone patrol it. In fact, I rarely see anyone on the trails, though they're obviously there since a car or two will be parked at trailheads and I'll pass through-hikers on the portion that is road (the AT uses the road I grew up on to cross the Androscoggin River). I always just rode where I wanted & could. 

Elsewhere, if the horse community can't organize itself to provide money and labor to keep trails open, it has little hope of having them. There just aren't big pots of money for improving trails beyond what's done (if you haven't noticed, there aren't a lot of pots of money out there for public purposes in general), and the people doing the work, if they have no interest in horses themselves, will not look kindly on creatures that definitely provide more wear on the terrain than a human hiker.

Anne


----------



## Darrin

avjudge said:


> There's a big reason - $$$$$$. Are you proposing to canvas & negotiate for landowner permission, and raise the money for trail construction (more than is needed for a hiking trail, I'm sure, since it needs to be smoother)? I doubt you'd find the sort of money needed, though, since I don't believe there's much interest in an alternate through-trail.
> 
> The trail is that rough because the terrain is that rough throughout the range. There are bypasses available - they follow the valleys and are called public roads, and they're already there and free to use.
> 
> Anne


Out here volunteer horse groups do a lot of labor to build and maintain trails for horses and used by everyone else too (this includes building camp sites). It sounds like there are restrictions against horses in and around the AT which means volunteer groups don't even have a chance building bypass trails for those areas that are impassable. And no, trails do not need to be smooth for horses to traverse. Outside of scrambling up/down cliffs and tip toeing across a tree bridges they can go over most trails.


----------



## CJ82Sky

where i live near the A.T. i've mistakenly taken horses on it and it was a BAD idea. i've ridden steeper, rockier, etc., but the problem (at least near me in High Point, NJ) that section of trail is a lot of glacier lake beds. what that means is jagged uneven rocks that can easily turn a person's let alone a horse's ankle. i've hiked a lot of it on foot - and definitely not something i'd do again. the pictures from out west a few pages back are similar however even where rocky, there are flat rocks or between rocks for the horse's feet. much of the section of AT near me is not at all like that. while less steep in spots, harder for horses to balance on, and in some cases it did include climbing rocks (also of course not a horse-friendly thing). 

not sure how well you can see from this pic, but that's the kind of unevenness of the ground - so while not steep per se (some parts are but not all), there's no where for a hoof to get a foothold.


----------



## avjudge

Wow, CJ82Sky, I didn't know that NJ had that kind of terrain! That looks so much like ground I associate with our neck of the woods (the pic I've linked to below is from the town I grew up in, so it looks more like what I'm used to than the "car sized boulders" described in my previous post, which were a few miles up the trail). We're just so arrogant up north, we figure anything south of the middle of NH is flat & smooth - probably because the part directly to our south (Massachusetts) mostly is 










Anne


----------



## avjudge

Oh, and of course, most of us see the NJTP and think that's NJ - how myopic can we be!


----------



## CJ82Sky

oooh avjudge - yes our terrain is VERY similar. i ride the Adirondacks as well - and that's got far better footing where i ride in Luzerne and even cross the hudson than the AT glacier trails. i'm at the souther edge of the glacier melt - so you can see the scraping on big rocks and boulders and if you go about 30 min south of me it IS flat. very strange. however i also am 1mi from NY State and 6mi from PA so right on that northernmost tip of NJ.

as a fun pic...the day we accidentally wound up on the glacier part of the AT trail with horses, was also Jan 2nd, cold and windy, and we wound up at the top of High Point where the monument is (highest point in NJ). the view was awesome, but we were lucky there were no rangers around! at the very top, the horse were less than thrilled with trying to pose for a picture - it felt like we all were going to get blown away...whoopsie!

don't LOL too hard - im in about 15 layers and my snowmobiling boots HAHA!









it was SO windy and they were soooo annoyed!


----------



## Painted Horse

How much of the AP is on public land? 
That may be a consideration of why it is predominately hiking only.
Unlike the west were large tracts of land are owned mostly by the public. I know the eastern part of the country is more private. Here in Utah 74% of the state is public lands


----------



## SueNH

http://www.nhdfl.org/uploads/NHB photos/Rumney2.jpg

http://www.nhdfl.org/library/images/photo-index/DSC_0080.jpg

Both of these are of a small mountain near my home. Very typical of the terrain in the area.

I'm not all that far from the Appalachian trail. Same terrain and where it crosses the roads it is clearly marked foot traffic only.

http://www.trailgallery.com/photos/7999/tj7999_082809_190440_482305.jpg

on a trail a few miles away


The snowmobile trails are better suited but most pass through private land so you need permission or pay attention to the signs. Lots of dirt roads and old logging roads. Also most of the snowmobile bridges are not horse safe. Too save money the various snowmobile clubs spaced the boards too wide. Lots of hoof and leg injuries happen to those who try to cross.


----------



## Darrin

SueNH said:


> The snowmobile trails are better suited but most pass through private land so you need permission or pay attention to the signs. Lots of dirt roads and old logging roads. Also most of the snowmobile bridges are not horse safe. Too save money the various snowmobile clubs spaced the boards too wide. Lots of hoof and leg injuries happen to those who try to cross.


Guess you guys really don't have a strong volunteer horse organizations around there. Here, the horse groups would get together with the snowmobile groups and go plug those large gaps.


----------



## SueNH

Sometimes they open the Mt. Washington auto road to horses. That seems like a fun ride.

A Splended Weekend for Horses! | Mt. Washington Auto Road


----------



## CJ82Sky

Darrin said:


> Guess you guys really don't have a strong volunteer horse organizations around there. Here, the horse groups would get together with the snowmobile groups and go plug those large gaps.


yeah a lot of the trails we ride in lake luzerne are winter snowmobile trails and because it is both a horse and snowmobile friendly community they make for great trails! just don't take the one that goes across the lake on horseback bc in the summer the lake isn't frozen LOL!


----------



## kait18

oh yea i have wondered this. 
i used to work for the park service and the main issue they have in the PA, NJ, NY area as to why they dont want to allow horses or motorized vehicles is because of a few things...

they say primarily its a money issue. they don't have the funds nor volunteers or staff to maintain a horse or motorized trail. they are not talking about the natural dirt areas but some of the rocky areas where its loose footing. 

because of the loose footing brings on issue number two... the government will and can be sued. if the people of the USA werent so fast to make bad judgement and blame it on someone else and try to sue the government for there stupidity then there would be a little more wiggle room to fight for horse access on the AT.

third issue is if they allow horses or motorized vehicles they will have to inforce another ranger division to constantly monitor trails. as a ranger you always need to be faster then what you allow on the trail. so for foot hikers having other foot patrol rangers is suffice but having a horse or motor vehicle a foot patrol wont get you anywhere... they would need there own horse or atv.. which brings in a whole other issue of who will pay for this new divison and the equipment they will need..

other then that i will say from first hand experience with working with the park service is the hikers are the ones with the biggest mouths and the most mouths...i dont mean that in a bad way but since they voice there opinions more then other people who use the trail they are able to get alot more restrictions made and they have a bigger number of people.. there was on average 40 hikers to any 1 horse or motorized vehicle rider.. those numbers when put into statistics for the parks = you are going to bend a bit more for the hikers since there is more profit out of it when they come... admission fees, parking fees, and the gift shop purchases etc... that is another reason they can accomplish more regarding how trail access is set up.

that is just some stuff the park service has told me and what i have learned... but if horse riders in each state opened there mouths about trail access in there local areas and worked together there could be changes to access restriction..


----------



## SueNH

We don't. Some down in the more populated southern part of the state and just over the border in VT. There is a group that sometimes organizes trail rides but it comes and goes as kids grow up and on.

Biggest problem... most don't have a trailer and don't show like me. You never see or hear of any attempt at organizing. Few years back I came home from work to find a bunch of horses and trailers in the snowmobile clubhouse across the road from me. Had I known anything about the ride I would have loved to tag along. Would have been fun instead of always going alone.


----------



## Darrin

People with money and political cloute ride in Oregon so that helps along with very active horse groups.

Kait, this trail enforcement thing has my head spinning. I've only ever encountered 1 ranger on a trail in my life. The rest don't get any farther than trail heads to make sure no one is there that hasn't paid their fees. That ranger was also on foot in a mixed use area. Guess we also manage things differently out west but then our states are a heck of a lot bigger with a heck of a lot less people in them.


----------



## kait18

Darrin said:


> People with money and political cloute ride in Oregon so that helps along with very active horse groups.
> 
> Kait, this trail enforcement thing has my head spinning. I've only ever encountered 1 ranger on a trail in my life. The rest don't get any farther than trail heads to make sure no one is there that hasn't paid their fees. That ranger was also on foot in a mixed use area. Guess we also manage things differently out west but then our states are a heck of a lot bigger with a heck of a lot less people in them.


that might be true at the delaware water gap national park and a few parks i worked with in NY and gettysburg the little trails we had, had to be completely hiked by atleast one ranger every 2-3 hours. when there were riders involved and the trails went further out they had volunteer riders go out or atv/gators to search the longer trails to make sure everything was in order.

it was a big deal for the rangers to get out there mostly for safety reasons because there are alot of people who over exert themselves and dont even realize what they are getting into... because of people like this there will always be limitations on the trails. not one park that i worked at had no accident/incident happen while on trail. i have seen people break there legs arms, have heart attacks, heat strokes, allergic reactions to animal bites/stings, etc and until people can take care of themselves the rangers are going to have to up there game to make sure safety and others health issues are kept under control so there are no deaths.

and yes this is nanny them or whatever you called earlier lol but on the east coast people tend to love to blame others for there irresponsibilty which is what puts these stupid things into action... which limits and hinders everyone else


----------



## shepherdhike

There are parts of the AT where it was all I could do to get myself through. Picture hand-over-hand climbing up rocks. Picture crawling under boulders and pulling the pack through after. Ride a horse? Not likely.

I'm a horse person and a hiker both. I don't know why it's too much to ask for a hiking only trail. Hikers put the work into building it. If riders want a trail, why can't they go build one just for them? Then the hikers can stay off it. Double for ATVers.


----------



## Painted Horse

Sounds like that is just what they have done, Built a Challenging hiking trail. I can't believe that the original AP trail that was used by Colonist to transport goods, travel to meet with others etc, would be so rough as to repeling ropes and climbing gear to traverse.

I have no problem with hikers having a challenging trail to enjoy. Heck I don't want all my horses trails to be multi-user trails that were built to accomadate mountain bikers. Easy grades, long switch backs, bridges over all wet spots or creeks.


----------



## avjudge

Painted Horse said:


> I can't believe that the original AP trail that was used by Colonist to transport goods, travel to meet with others etc, would be so rough as to repeling ropes and climbing gear to traverse


The Appalachian Trail is a hiking trail that follows the Appalachian chain from Georgia to Maine. It was conceived of & built in the last century - starting in the 1920s. It's not anything colonists used, in fact it's generally in the areas they avoided, since they were interested in places you could make a living from the soil, not rocky peaks! And if they wanted to get from point A to point B they had the good sense to go through the passes/gaps/notches (name dependent on local usage) rather than climb over the tops of the mountains.


----------



## SueNH

Exactly! The AP was put together using leftovers. If you poke around here you can still find markers for the roads. Most are paved over and improved(?) and still in use. The house I live in is pre-revolutionary war. The road still runs and twists and turns as it always has.


----------



## Darrin

kait18 said:


> that might be true at the delaware water gap national park and a few parks i worked with in NY and gettysburg the little trails we had, had to be completely hiked by atleast one ranger every 2-3 hours. when there were riders involved and the trails went further out they had volunteer riders go out or atv/gators to search the longer trails to make sure everything was in order.
> 
> it was a big deal for the rangers to get out there mostly for safety reasons because there are alot of people who over exert themselves and dont even realize what they are getting into... because of people like this there will always be limitations on the trails. not one park that i worked at had no accident/incident happen while on trail. i have seen people break there legs arms, have heart attacks, heat strokes, allergic reactions to animal bites/stings, etc and until people can take care of themselves the rangers are going to have to up there game to make sure safety and others health issues are kept under control so there are no deaths.
> 
> and yes this is nanny them or whatever you called earlier lol but on the east coast people tend to love to blame others for there irresponsibilty which is what puts these stupid things into action... which limits and hinders everyone else


In Oregon we occupy ~4% of the state with over 50% of it belonging to gov't. Wouldn't surprise me that our state parks and wilderness areas combined are bigger than some states. 

Loving to blame others for accidents is common in all states but Oregon has a $200k tort cap on lawsuits against the state. Since they can easily make you run up more than $200k in legal bills fighting them it's not worth even trying.


----------



## livestoride

The Appalachian trail was set up by hikers, for hikers. As an avid hiker and trail rider I understand why horses are not allowed on every trail tha tis on public land. Safety aside, this trail was intended for hikers that are out on the journey of their lifetime. Stepping in manure left behind by a trail rider is not enjoyable, safe or needed for them. I know manure from a horse is mostly grasses and grain, but who wants to step in that when they can't shower or change shoes or waste their small water supply to wash it off. I dno't know a single trail rider who uses a bag for their horses.


----------



## phantomhorse13

livestoride said:


> Stepping in manure left behind by a trail rider is not enjoyable, safe or needed for them. I know manure from a horse is mostly grasses and grain, but who wants to step in that when they can't shower or change shoes or waste their small water supply to wash it off. I dno't know a single trail rider who uses a bag for their horses.


This statement, which I have heard expressed in other ways from hikers who were def anti-horse, has always amazed me.

I know when I hike, esp on difficult terrain, I am looking down at where my feet are landing. So stepping in manure (be it dog or horse or deer) would not be an issue, as I would simply choose to put my foot down somewhere else!


----------



## Celeste

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned sissy city folks worrying about manure on their feet. Guess I was right.


----------



## Darrin

livestoride said:


> The Appalachian trail was set up by hikers, for hikers. As an avid hiker and trail rider I understand why horses are not allowed on every trail tha tis on public land. Safety aside, this trail was intended for hikers that are out on the journey of their lifetime. Stepping in manure left behind by a trail rider is not enjoyable, safe or needed for them. I know manure from a horse is mostly grasses and grain, but who wants to step in that when they can't shower or change shoes or waste their small water supply to wash it off. I dno't know a single trail rider who uses a bag for their horses.


This is the exact comments and attitudes I've heard from every hiker that has ever confronted me on a trail. I for one don't appreciate the attitude and find the reasoning behind them rather...I'm trying to be nice here so I'll just say you would easily lose a debate with that kind of reasoning.


----------



## katbalu

I believe this is actually one of the most polite threads I've ever read on here 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mason72

Painted Horse said:


> My experience with cougars is that they will avoid humans if given the chance. I really don't worry about them. I've seen enough of them in the wild, They snuck up on me, because they were curious, but if I jump up and yell at them, they run off.
> 
> Most black bears, just get into trouble because they trying to get into your food. Even the Grizzlies that I've run into. will usually leave the area if you have given them enough space. Of course the exceptions are if they are protecting cubs or food.
> 
> I've never hiked or ridden any of the AT, So I can't speak for how rough it may or may not be. I can't believe it can be any worse than some areas of the west. Wilderness areas don't get any trail maintenance. So dealing with rocks, blow down trees etc is a natural occurance. And yes there are areas that I have to just tie my horse up and go explore on foot.
> 
> Once we have explored a path thru the talus field or blow downs we can ride or lead our horses thru.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've chased enough cougars, That I'm just not worried about them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people are uncomfortable with this natural things, They should stick to ridding on their farms in the arena.


that is some awesome pictures and trails you ride.


----------



## Tazmanian Devil

kait18 said:


> other then that i will say from first hand experience with working with the park service is the hikers are the ones with the biggest mouths and the most mouths...


Thanks for your input on this. While your other points have merit, I have always found virtually anything can be done if people want it done. Those are, to a large degree, excuses and not reasons.

What it usually comes down to is the part quoted above. The group with the largest and biggest mouths generally get their way. If horse groups were better organized and really wanted access to the AT, it could be done. Might not be able to ride the whole thing due to geography, but we wouldn't be excluded from the majority of it.

From reading about the AT, they talk about a "public/private partnership."

I see this in many park/natural areas around here. Government owns the land and doesn't have the funds/manpower to maintain it. Some special interest group comes along and makes a deal to do some level of trail work/maintenance in exchange for permission to use the trail. Usually, it is a win-win situation. Problem is when some groups seek to shut out others and grab exclusive rights. The biggest problem we have in this area are the bikers. As a rule, they *hate* horses on "their" trails and always make trail deals which specifically exclude any equine use. They are very organized and have very big mouths. The local/state folks listen to them.

Interesting case in point... a short time ago a local government was doing a "master plan" for a large preserve. The preserve has a system of horse trails. It was created from an old estate and deeded with several restriction. Bikes are not allowed due to the "preserve" status (which is part of the original deed restriction). As part of the planning process, the local government brought in a trail "expert" to determine future uses of the preserve. That "expert" was president of the largest mountain bike club in the area. Horse organizations currently maintain those trails and hold events there, but weren't given the same status in the planning process.


----------



## Darrin

Same deal here Taz, lands deeded to the state with the provision that it was for horse use but others could also use it. Along come hikers who don't like horse apples in the trail and next thing you know the state is trying to kick horses out of the are. Local horse groups have to then band together and go give the state a bloody nose over it. Gets repeated every 5-10 yrs.


----------



## livestoride

I am not a "sissiy city folk" I do endurance, sped weeks hikinh, backpacking and canoeing. Please keep rude comments to yourself if you don't know any better. even with my active outdoor lifestyle I have zero interest in stepping in someone else's crap - be it horse, dog, human. 

I love it when horse riders complain of trails being ruined by bikers or ATVs but refuse to realize the impact a horse has on a trail. Everys ee a well use dtrail after a rainy season? When horses are sinking up the their knees, how passable is that for a hiker?


----------



## Celeste

I apologize if I offended you. When I hike, I wear boots, and a little manure shakes off pretty well. I watch where I put my feet as well. We have rattlesnakes here. I assumed that only city folks would worry about manure.


----------



## Tazmanian Devil

livestoride said:


> I am not a "sissiy city folk" I do endurance, sped weeks hikinh, backpacking and canoeing. Please keep rude comments to yourself if you don't know any better. even with my active outdoor lifestyle I have zero interest in stepping in someone else's crap - be it horse, dog, human.
> 
> I love it when horse riders complain of trails being ruined by bikers or ATVs but refuse to realize the impact a horse has on a trail. Everys ee a well use dtrail after a rainy season? When horses are sinking up the their knees, how passable is that for a hiker?



Not sure who was being rude.

I have always felt that multi-use trails were the way to go. Each use has its own issues, but if more people were willing to get along and not be so intolerant of other users, it would mean more trails for everyone.

Granted, I would probably agree that hikers have the least impact on trails. After that it is up in the air. I have seen studies done by bike groups showing horses have a greater impact. I have seen studies done by horse groups showing bikes has a greater impact. Most agree that ATVs and motorized vehicles have more impact than any other group.

The fact is ALL groups have at least some impact. If we start with the "you get to use this trail ONLY and I get to use that trail ONLY" it means less for everyone. If everyone used the trails responsibly, all helped out in maintenance and were a little more open-minded/tolerant about other groups everyone would benefit.



I guess you must be an avid hunter or strong advocate of hunting. If excrement is such a bother to you, I am sure you are for the elimination of deer, bear, raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, etc. from trails.

I have ridden some fairly "busy" trails - Small park trails used by commercial barns with regular trail rides. I have ridden them on horse and bike. I have hiked them. Never have I found a trail so full of horse manure that it couldn't be easily avoided by someone on bike or foot.

If you are in the woods, you should expect to find some animal waste. You certainly have the right to "want" the park all to yourself, free of other groups, people, animals and what they entail. That, however, is an opinion many others might consider "rude."


----------



## Darrin

I don't want to step in crap either but what I do is actually watch where I step to avoid the bombs. What I don't do is try and tell those bomb droppers not to use the trail because I don't like stepping in them.

ATV's can absolutely tear up a trail in a single day, I've seen it happen when I used to ride dirt bikes. Bicycles don't tear up the trail as fast but still do it. What bikes and atv's have in common is they create really good channels for water to run down, accelerating erosion. Yes, horses can also damage a trail but unlike popular opinion of a lot hikers so do hikers. I put human and horses at about the same level of damage per passage, which is a lot lower than bikes/atv's. But there is a heck of a lot more hikers than horses on those trails so hikers actually do a lot more damage to the trails over a years time.


----------



## Celeste

A lot of hikers take their dogs along and the dogs defecate on the trails. They also can chase wildlife and harass or even bite other hikers. The worse damage that I have seen to trails is done by 4 wheel drive trucks and ATV's. They dig ruts so deep that they can't use the trail any more.


----------



## gunslinger

Ever see what a tornado does to a forest?

What about a clear cut in the Nationl Forest?

Forest Fire?

No horse, nor ATV, creates near as much havoc.

A place to ride ATV's is almost non-existent around here.....are horses next?

Once you exclude a group, it becomes much easier to exclude the next group.

Think about it.


----------



## Celeste

The ATV's share the dirt roads with the horses here. My horses are quite used to them.


----------



## hberrie

If anyone cares I will interject my two cents. Horses hooves can do alot of damage to foot trails especially on soft or muddy ground. The AT is intended for foot traffic. I am not big on government imposition, but sometimes laws are there for practical reasons, not just to infringe upon your personal freedom. Sorry about your dissappointment, it has always been a dream of mine to hike the AT and now that I have a horse it would be even better to ride it. But I can't.


----------

