MichaelH at ospreypacks.com
Tue May 18 15:36:43 CDT 2010
You're right, I mis-read Rock Dancer's post. The stairs along Beaver Brook WERE there in '92, looked fairly new, but certainly a season old already. Would have been impossible without them - would have had to route the trail away from the Brook a bit, as the stairs are installed directly up (down) near-shear rock faces. Got a cool pic in that slide show of mine.
From: at-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:at-l-bounces at backcountry.net] On Behalf Of Felix J
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:19 PM
Cc: at-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [at-l] maps
Michael Henderson wrote:
> Beaver Brook was at the bottom of the climb (descent for northbounders) on my thru in '92. I'm even thinking I remember being able to see headlights/hear cars on 112 - but I may be mis-remembering. It has been, after all, NEARLY 20 YEARS!!! WHAT THE...?!
What was it like carrying a rucksack? Did you have to use a compass?
(Said the guy whose thru-hike was nearly 12 years ago)
> 112 to Eliza Brook was a bit longer than the mileage indicated. There were no 'stairs' on that section then. I don't remember it being particularly difficult, other than the feeling you always get when you think you've walked the stated mileage, and you're not at your destination yet, so you think you must be walking slowly, so, damn, this must be harder than I thought.... kind of thing.
Aren't the 'stairs' between 112 and Beaver Brook? It's definitely a
different dog depending on which direction you're going and how well you
do with ups or downs. (sounds like that story I wrote for the ATN
at-l mailing list
at-l at backcountry.net
More information about the at-l