[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] Evidence Of Trailplace Effectiveness

I get similar replies to letters that I write directly to my 
congressmember, senator, etc.  I can't remember how many times I've "made a 
real difference".  That doesn't mean that I can claim or deserve sole 
credit (or blame, depending on your point-of-view) for the outcome.  It's 
called courtesy.  You write nice letters to supporters thanking them for 
their assistance.  Again, you're missing the point.  No one said he did 
nothing.  But there's no point in restating it all.  You're obviously still 
not listening.


At 02:12 AM 6/18/01 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:

><< Dan:
>  [private comments about Saddleback removed]
>  I also want to thank you (belatedly) for the support you generated for the
>  Gulf tract near Max Patch. I'm familiar with that property. It will be a
>  great addition to the national forest and provide an excellent buffer for
>  the A.T. I know that the letters and calls of support generated by
>  Trailplace made a real difference with the appropriations staff in
>  Congress. Ultimately, the Gulf tract was one of only a relative handful of
>  line items in this year's LWCF appropriations bill.
>  Dave
>   >>
>     The above was written by Dave Startzell, Executive Director of the
>Appalachian Trail Conference to Dan Bruce in regard to the Gulf Tract
>Trailplace effort.
>      Further comments by WF indicated that those in the know in positions of
>influence were also aware of the significance of the Trailplace e*mail input.
>The Putnam mine was another case, as well, where the e*mails were counted as
>reason of proof for public concern by the State in revoking the mining
>permit. I could request the Tennessee representative's office for a personal
>proof of Trailplace effectiveness, but I'm afraid I would get a need to know
>response. I equally would not ask AT*L letter writers to dig up how effective
>their non*E*form letters were to prove to me how much better they were than
>Trailplace's. At this point it would be more like petty denial than honest
>      If possible, I would like to continue discussing why (in my view) I
>think some of the intentions of the original Trail project have been
>overlooked by some of the posters engaged in the debate.
>     Thanks   *   R 'n R
>AT-L mailing list