[at-l] Saddleback & AMC

[bullard@northnet.org (James Bullard)]

At 09:15 PM 5/20/01 -0400, Arthur Gaudet wrote:
>Thanks, Bob C. and James B. for the additional insights. I guess I don't 
>remember what ATC's starting position was for the negotiations once the 4 
>Alternatives were outlined. I could look it up somewhere... But the point 
>I wanted to make applies to AMC, and perhaps to ATC as well.
>
>I've been frustrated in the past when AMC, when faced with a compelling 
>issue for hikers, immediately goes to a compromise position in order to 
>appear "reasonable" to the opposition. IMHO this dilutes the end result of 
>a real compromise, favoring the opposition's desired outcome, perhaps 
>Saddleback is a good example but there are others.      . . . clip . . .

To be truthful I wasn't happy with the ATC's soft approach to the 
Saddleback issue either.  I 'think' (perhaps speculate is a better word) 
that it had dragged on so long they thought maybe the solution was to 'out 
reasonable' the owner in the eyes of the politicians.  Would we have had a 
better result if they had pressed for the most radical option?  Who 
knows?  Politics being what they are, I doubt it.

As for other instances?  Many people were upset by the ATCs ready 
acceptance of the Skyline Drive which followed the original route of the 
trail and displaced it.  I feel that ATC was too ready to accommodate on 
the 1st thru question also.  They said "the Conference shouldn't be in the 
business of refereeing disputes over the completion of the trail" but 
frankly the ATC put itself in the position of arbitrating who made the 
first thru-hike when they demanded proof from Earl.  I was perfectly 
content with them saying in '73 'we will no longer require proof because it 
is being done so frequently' but it was disingenuous of the ATC to disown 
having set the standard in the first place by abandoning the requirement of 
proof for alleged thrus prior to Earl's.

Never-the-less, my original point was that the vast majority of credit for 
obtaining right-of-way, for acquiring, protecting and maintaining the trail 
goes to the ATC and it's affiliated clubs.  While WF (and even I) may 
provide some passionate support here and there, the *results* are mostly 
from the efforts of the ATC.  Whether or not we agree with their approach, 
whether or not the result is what we hoped, the AT's preservation is 
primarily due to the ATC and not any one individual including WF.

Saunterer