[at-l] AT on FOXnews

[bullard@northnet.org (James Bullard)]

At 04:35 PM 8/29/01 -0400, you wrote:
>...clip...
>    Sometimes when people innocently (or otherwise) blunder in on top of the
>Trail's wild future they need to be "harassed". Protection of nature is no
>offense in the face of unlimited sprawl. Where do you draw the middle ground?
>Or do you just point to a comfortable politic and live with the results? I
>can't believe you are taking caution with people whose only intention is to
>develop until stopped. Believe me, they don't return to the Appalachian Trail
>project the level of concern you do towards their "rights". (Look how
>Saddleback returned that "concern")

The American concept of "property rights" is an interesting contrast to the 
view which the original inhabitants of the North America had regarding the 
same piece of real estate.  The Native Americans saw the land not as 
property which they could use any way they wished without consideration of 
their neighbors or the future but rather as a trust which they were allowed 
to use for their needs but were also responsible for preserving for future 
generations.  They were, after all, dependent upon the land for 
everything.  It wasn't until European settlers came along with notions of 
being above nature, capable of "improving" nature, and having the "God 
given right" to do as they wished with the land that natural areas began 
disappearing.

I think it entirely appropriate that this notion of property rights should 
be tempered by consideration for the need to preserve some of the landscape 
in at least a semblance of it's natural state.  If that preservation is to 
be in a more or less contiguous path through a highly developed part of the 
country (like the AT), unfortunately the preservation must sometimes depend 
on public pressure (i.e. the government of the people, by the people, for 
the people) to make it happen.  The AT was started by private individuals 
but those same individuals actively sought government sanction and 
participation.  Why?  Because they knew that without it their efforts would 
not endure.

The alternative to public protection is a patchwork of disconnected parcels 
which may or may not be voluntarily preserved through time as property 
changes hands.  As it is the start of the trail had to be moved North 
because of development intrusion.  It seems to me that without the public 
(government) participation the AT would certainly not exist as it is and 
possibly not exist at all.  Perhaps the real problem is that the "property 
rights" crowd only sees themselves as part of the public when the public 
good coincides with their personal agenda.

sAunTerer