Re[6]: [at-l] Failing the List requirements

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary -
As I said yesterday, you've asked some good questions - and for the most 
part they're worthy of a waltz around the barn.  Just for grins, I've got a 
couple comments on the questions.


Weary asked:
>Shall the trail be as wild as possible or as civilized and "safe" as 
>possible? You can't have both.

"You can't have both" is a "standard" or "in the box" answer - it's what I 
call a "preconceived notion".  If you think about it for a while instead of 
taking it as incontrovertible fact, you might come up with other 
possibilities.  One of my "life lessons" was that, in mathematics, there are 
ALWAYS at least three ways to solve any problem.  And then I discovered that 
it also applies to every other area of human endeavor as well.


>Will the viewsheds be protected, or will we allow local development to 
>encroach to the edge of the corridor?

What corridor?  How wide?  1000 feet - or 10 miles?  Or something in 
between?  Viewshed is a concept that I have problems with, in part because 
of past performance on the part of ATC and NPS, in part because it makes 
unwarranted assumptions, and in part because it ignores other, interrelated 
and mutually dependent issues.


>Will hunting be encouraged, tolerated or prohibited.

Why is there a question about this?  In Pennsylvania much of the AT runs 
through State Gamelands. These are specifically designated public hunting 
lands which were bought and paid for by the hunters. To deny hunting in 
those areas classifies in my mind as simple theft. For the rest of the 
Trail, I think the situation is similar if not quite so  extreme.  There's a 
concept (and a precedent) for you - hunting in a National Park.

As I recall, you're against stealing.  So am I.


>Will ski areas be allowed to expand, encroaching on the trail?

That's only a question if there's anyplace where it's likely to happen. My 
memory may be faulty, but is there anyplace where expansion is likely to be 
a problem in the future?  If not, then this is a non-issue.  If so, then 
where?


>Will new ski areas be allowed to intrude into the view shed?

Define "viewshed".   It also brings up the question of "what makes hikers so 
special that they should be accorded the power to control land, facilities, 
etc. that others have paid the price for?"  The Hump Mt debate comes to mind 
- although I did support the ATC stand on this.  But in a more general 
context, if a hiker (thruhiker or not) can't tolerate 10 to 20 minutes of 
the view of a working facility that employs tens, if not hundreds of people, 
then who has the problem?  There's a level of selfishness that strikes me as 
beyond reasonability.  Where to draw the line on this one would be an 
interesting discussion.


>Will communication towers be allowed, and where?

Except for placement of towers actually on the Trail, this is also pretty 
much a moot question - the towers on adjacent ridges are already there and 
likely to stay.  I don't have to like it, but I don't have the power to 
change it - nor does ATC, NPS, at-l, atml, the Sierra Club, AMC or any other 
group or collection of groups.  As for new towers, if there are three towers 
on the mountain across the valley, why do you think four or five or .... 
whatever number will make a difference in your hike or your experience?  If 
it does, then why?

Keep in mind that some of those towers aren't just cell phone towers - some 
of them provide *your* long distance service, as well as fire, police, NPS, 
USFS and military communications.  The FAA facility on Snowbird Mt comes to 
mind - or maybe Mt Washington?  I think we might have a problem getting rid 
of them - and create a whole new set of problems if we actually managed to 
do it. Again - actions have consequences :-)

But keep in mind that I don't like them either.


>Will the trail be designed and maintained, mostly for the thru hiker, the 
>day hiker, who?

Again, this is a moot question.  The Trail has been designed for day hikers 
and section hikers since day one.  The individual clubs generally make those 
decisions. And the people who make the decisions are rarely thruhikers, so 
the thruhikers get to hike 2000+ miles of trail built essentially for 
dayhikers/section hikers. Which means hiking trail that's built to be 
"interesting" to someone who's out for a workout over a short distance.  In 
point of fact, much of the AT - as with most other trails - is designed, 
built and maintained by people who rarely, if ever, hike at all.


>Will ATVs, motor bikes share the trail with hikers?

You are certainly right in that this "could" become a possibility, but 
unless or until Congress tries to change the law, it's also a moot question. 
  In fact, one of the lessons the hiking community has yet to learn is that 
"Congress giveth and Congress taketh away".  But if you can ask this 
question, there may yet be hope that you're a proper cynic  :-)


>After four years of controversy snowmobiles were banned in Yellowstone. Now 
>the policy is being reversed. If Yellowstone, why not the AT?

Uh-uh - not a valid analogy.  The snowmobiles have always been allowed in 
Yellowstone.  The ban was recent - and not necessarily for good reason.  Nor 
does it take an act of Congress to either ban them - or lift the ban. And I 
haven't even touched on the differences between Yellowstone and the AT.


>Do we create buffers around the corridor? Maine is seeking $100 million in 
>"forest legacy" funds to create a million acre no development zone in the 
>north woods, most of which impacts on the trail.

I think you need to expand that statement.  How does it impact the AT?  
There are three different issues here - the first is "the AT" and what part 
of that million acres the actual AT passes through and how wide a corridor 
are we talking about? And the second is - how much of that million acres is 
what should be called "wilderness preservation".  If those two are lumped 
together under the guise of "saving the AT", then I see that as a form of 
dishonesty.  If it affects the AT then specify just how it does so.  That's 
one legitimate issue.  The "preservation of wilderness" is another issue - 
and generally a legitimate issue as well - but not always, in every case, 
invariably. There are larger issues that the advocates of "wilderness 
preservation" rarely seem to understand or consider.

I know - we're talking "viewshed" too -- again, define viewshed - and go 
back to the questions regarding such.

The third issue is how it affects the world at large - the world that we all 
live in outside of the AT corridor, the world of "people" as opposed to the 
world of what some think of as "wilderness" (whether it is in actuality or 
not).  If one can't answer this part of the equation then their answers are 
short term answers, have no validity for the long term and will create even 
greater problems for the world and for humanity in the future.


>The Bush administration proposes $30 million to be spread over the entire 
>nation.

Write to your Congressmen and to the White House directly.  That's right - I 
don't like it either.  But it's not something that'll be settled on an 
e-mail list.  It's something that'll be settled by the number of letters and 
personal visits that representatives in Washington receive. If you're not 
writing, then you have no reason to complain if you don't like the end 
results.


>These and scores of other issues will be decided in part on how willing 
>trail people are to speak up. The ATC is ignoring the debate. The AT-List 
>can't decide whether such things are even part
>of its mission. ATML is sulking in its corner, hoping for a new 
>administration in four years.

The ATC is a bureaucracy, which means that it'll move when forced to - and 
then it'll generally overreact.  You've said that it's a "small" 
bureaucracy.  What you may not realize is that it's growing -- and looking 
for justification for even more growth.  And that the larger it grows the 
slower and more ossified it'll get. That's the nature of bureaucracies.

The list (at-l) is a hiking list - not a PAC.  Discussion of specific issues 
is sometimes part of the package - but as someone said last night - it isn't 
the "mission" of the list.  Nor do most of us want it to be.  But if you've 
got something to say - then say it - keeping in mind that cramming it down 
our throats will get you bitten.

As for atml - I think my only comment would be that the past is unchangeable 
and the future is unknowable - so the present is the only time we ever can 
have.  Those who wait for the future, waste their time and their lives.


>Unfortunately, by then, we will likely have passed the point of no return.

For a few issues I'd agree with you - for some of them, four years won't 
make much difference, if any - and for a few, there are no satisfactory 
solutions.  But remember - twenty years will present a whole new world, a 
whole new set of problems --- and a whole new set of solutions.  With luck 
we'll both be here to see them - and to  argue about them  :-)


>I've got to rush to put on another batch of pickles. Hmmm. Do I have my 
>priorities straight?

I'll agree with others - your priorities are right.  :-)

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp