[at-l] Saddleback/Gulf tract/Putnam mine---

[lwbooher@halifax.com (Leslie Booher)]

This goes back to something I've been thinking for a long time, but I don't
know if I've had enough nerve to broach the subject here.  When is enough
enough?  When will we decide that we have enough land for the trail, that
the view is sufficient, that we don't need to buy any more land, etc.?  How
much do we really need?

I know that we'll always have to be vigilant against encroachment onto trail
property, like timbering inside the corridor and folks moving shelters and
rerouting the trail without asking, but when will we decide that we have
enough land?

In the new AT Lands publication, there is an article about a tract that we
haven't been able to preserve.  There's a picture of someone with the
mention of the new road cut going up the mountain in the background.  I
really didn't find it offensive.  The rest of the world has to get along.
We buy, maintain, and protect space for the AT, then leave the rest for the
everybody else.

We're not like The Nature Conservancy, whose task is to preserve lots and
lots of land.  Realistically, the huge tracts of sidelands that the ATC
acquires is not space which we'll ever wander into, except just far enough
to get off the trail to set up camp.  Each acquisition brings with it that
much more of a burden for maintenance and upkeep requiring that much more
money to do so.  If we really live in the minimalist manner we aspire to,
what are we doing with all this extra land?

This is something that I'd like us to talk about some.  I'm not trying to
start something ugly, but I'd like to look at it from several directions,
most of which I can't see.  That's why I'm bringing it up, to get other
perspectives.   I'm an ardent trail supporter, but I'm beginning to think
that we're getting greedy, and I don't like the feeling.

anklebear