[at-l] Don't Give A *$%& Society

[chaynes@megalink.net (Clifford R. Haynes)]

RoksnRoots writes;

    " The irony of refusing to let cars in a parking lot because they drip
oil
is that it the same purpose they were going to the AT for -pure wilderness.
The blind view involved is the fact that if the worst happened and the land
were confiscated by the AT -the land would end up preserved and not have any
oil dripped on it!"

Now that's the kind of statement that motivates folks like myself to feel
that the AT doesn't need anymore land, unless it's going to be multi use.
Here you have a situation where locals are concerned about maintaining the
quality of there water supply. I wouldn't be surprised if increased
maintance cost, litter, and bad attitude of some hikers probably has some
bearing as well. The whole problem could be solved by putting a parking lot
out on the highway, but the hikers would have to walk a little further, and
the state would have to shell out a little money for building a lot. A lot
out on the highway certainly wouldn't be anymore of a polution problem than
the road, and the litter would be out on the road with the rest of it. So
along comes the AT "conservation activist" nand says, "if the worst happened
and the land were confiscated by the AT -the land would end up preserved and
not have any oil dripped on it!"  Is it tunnel vision, greed, or are the
bumpkins supposed to be stupid?
Sorry but possible contamination of the water is the same from parking
concentration weather it's owned by the AT or the town water district.
Infact the pure water would be more at risk under AT ownership, because
noone from the AT is going to monitor the run off from it's parking lot.