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

[rafe.bustin@verizon.net (rafe.bustin@verizon.net)]

On 8 Apr 2002 at 21:20, Ron Martino wrote:

>  	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.



I think this gets near the heart of the matter, Ron.

When this (painful) subject came up in the waning days of ATML, 
I did some "word count" studies in the literature of the ATC and in 
MacKaye's essays.

What I found was that the word "wilderness" appears hardly at all, 
but the word "recreation" appears again and again.

I believe I have a reasonable appreciation for wilderness, but I do 
not enjoy being clubbed over the head by those who feel that my 
appreciation isn't pure enough or sincere enough.

There is also the matter of access.  To the extent that we impose 
(or, rather, allow) true wilderness, access becomes difficult, and 
especially so for those who are very young, very old, or not of 
perfect health.  Is wilderness something that only the fittest may 
experience?

The AT is full of compromises between wildness and access.  
Bridges and shelters exist.  I'm mostly glad that they are there, 
but they do diminish the wilderness.



rafe b.
aka terrapin