[at-l] topic police... I'll say it ---- having been.....

[yumitori@montana.com (Ron Martino)]

	Well, RnR, you wrote your response directly to me, but I'm going to
reply back on the list. I'd much rather have this conversation in
public.

	But since your words were not posted publicly, I won't quote them here.
Oh, and by the way, you need to learn to read what I write, and not
ascribe motivations and attitudes to me that I have never espoused.

---

	What you seem to be missing is that the AT-L is essentially a social
club. Folks talk about many, many things. Some are serious, some are
not. That's the way it is. There's no requirement that any particular
list be 'should' be anything at all. If the AT-L fails to be what you
want it to be, the /workable/ answer is to create one that is.
Browbeating folks over the current direction of AT-L is not workable.

	Nor do I think you are correct that conservation is neglected on the
AT. You might wish for more. Heck, /I/ might wish for more (never
thought to actually /ask/ me what my opinions are, did you?), but it's
certainly an on-going concern. Or did I just imagine all those alerts
that get posted here?

	But there is a difference between endlessly talking about a subject and
doing something about it. There's not a lot of direct work I can do (the
commute from Montana's a killer), but I can help. So can others. But not
on the AT-L. That's not where the decisions are made. Again, instead of
telling people they aren't doing enough, perhaps you should first ask
what they /are/ doing.

	Re: 'philophobia' -

	I do not think it means what you think it does.

	Re: the relative importance of hiking, wilderness and the AT -

 	The AT is simply /not/ wilderness, and never will be. None of the long
trails are. They are, after all, National Scenic Trails, not National
Wilderness Trails. There's nowhere in this country where one /could/
build a 2100 mile wilderness trail, unless perhaps it could be made to
go round and round in circles. The AT, oddly enough, /is/ for hiking,
not wilderness. Now, that's not to say there isn't wilderness areas that
the Trail goes through, but as a whole? No, the AT cannot be wilderness.

	Wilderness does not have...

		- road crossings every ten miles.
		- downtowns
		- steel and concrete suspension bridges
		- gear outfitters
		- zoos
		- country stores
		- shelters
		- work crews using chainsaws and weedwackers

	The AT has all these and more, not within a few miles, not a short
hitchhike away, but /on/ the Trail. This isn't meant to denigrade what
the AT is, the good it serves, but it's just cannot be what you think it
should. 

	Wilderness is of great value, and should be supported, but there are
limits and tradeoffs (there's always limits and tradeoffs). Nor is it a
matter of abandoning eastern wilderness because there's more in the
western states. But your numerous comments here have led me to believe
that you have a much different idea of what 'wilderness' means than what
I think it does, or what the people who create official wilderness areas
think it does. 

	So the invitation. Think of it as an opportunity to learn. If you
though MacKaye was an advocate, let me introduce you to Leopold, and
Muir, and Pinchot, and Marshall, and Abbey, and Powell and Carson, and
Adams, and Metcalf, and Douglas, and many more...

	Ron
-- 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com