[at-l] Wilderness WAS celll phones revisited

["Coosa" <coosa@fox21.net>]

Karen Berger writes:
<snip>. Personally, my soluton is to go to more remote places -- but this
>is the AT we're talking about.


>I think this is an interesting debate about the nature of wilderness.
><snip>


THANK YOU for that statement -- "but this is the AT we're talking about."
It is about a 'remote' as the next new logging road and cell tower on the
nearest hill.  It is not "remote for detachment" any longer.  All that is a
romantic dream for advertising purposes.

Now I can get into a debate about the nature of wilderness.  I believe
wilderness can be internal as well as external.  A hiker can have all the
'toys' -- GPS, cellphone, pocketmailer/palmpilot and hiking poles and be
hiking on the CDT 400 miles from the nearest 'town' and still have his/her
'soul' stuck in the city.  NOT because of the toys, but because of his or
her internal make-up and inability to release his/her emotional ties to the
things in the city and breathe deeply of the wildness within as well as
without.   The second hiker, same 'toys' lives in the wilderness even while
residing amid the hustle and bustle of a city of 400,000 inhabitants,
because the second hiker isn't 'attached at the hip' to the city.

"Wilderness designation" is just a term to describe an area where there
won't be any  __additional__  logging roads, among other things, it doesn't
mean that the area is going to be restored to its original pristine
condition or that there won't be a town a couple miles away with all the
amenities.  I think this is where the debate starts.  Somehow some of us
want to think that by designating an area as "wilderness" that area will
suddenly and miraculously be transformed into "early Americana" with no
electricity, running water, roads, or other human behaviors within a
thousand miles.   Only reality is what we're debating and we want it to be
what we think it should be and not what it really is.

Our forebears (or mine, who would be Daniel Boone's dad) knew a different
world and a different wilderness.  IF more areas and larger areas
(especially in the East) had been designated wilderness 100 years ago -- IF
BLM didn't allow grazing and mining -- IF the USFS didn't advocate
clearcutting in the past -- lots of IFs -- then the 'wilderness' of the
books and poetry of Emerson, Muir, Marshall, MacKaye, Leopold, Nash and
Abbey would be a wilderness we would get to enjoy.   Truth is, it's not and
we can't make it as it could have been, BUT we can make it better than it
currently is -- and that involves political action.

How many political activists do we have?  How many write their State and
Federal legislators?  How many attend Forest Watch meetings?  How may donate
time and money to various wilderness causes and organizations?   How many
stand up to speak when there are debates over the use of land?

Here in North Georgia, I missed the USFS open meetings on the Forest Plan
last fall -- but I heard about them -- those who wanted more wilderness
designation were booed.  There were verbal fights and the ratio was 90%
against additional land protection to 10% willing to stand up and explain
their pro-wilderness positions.  Kids who are pro-wilderness were shunned in
the schools.   In my opinion, the USFS had already made up their plan before
they held the "open meetings" -- but then I'm still wanted by the USFS for
leaving small notes in shelters, (an unnamed AT club told the FS that I had
"posted signs" in shelters) so what do I know?

Still on the lam, Coosa







* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================