[at-l] ATC's Vision and that of Others

[DaRedhead@aol.com (DaRedhead@aol.com)]

In a message dated 4/14/02 12:09:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time, 
rickboudrie@hotmail.com writes:


> I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people who have arranged thier 
> lives around protecting the wildness of the trail, and land in general, to 
> have more and more people simply relate to the AT as just another 
> recreational opportunity and something to be achieved rather than 
> 

I think it is sad, but true, that without the hundreds of thousands of people 
who enjoy the AT only on a "recreational" basis, there wouldn't be a Trail.  
Some of us participate in Trail advocacy because of a deep and abiding love 
for wilderness in general and the Trail in particular.  But those numbers are 
quite small in the scheme of things, percentage wise.  So if we didn't have 
all those recreational users who don't quite get the thru hiking thing but 
like to be able to get out there for a weekend or two every now and then, 
with their family, maybe, and recognize the value of wilderness even though 
it doesn't play a huge part in their *own* lives - well - what would we have? 
 A very small percentage of the population trying to get politicians to 
invest time and money and votes in maintaining, preserving and helping the 
Trail.  I doubt that anyone on this list is naive enough to think that any of 
that stuff would happen if we didn't have a whole lot more people than just 
the AT junkies advocating out there, voting and writing letters.  (and I use 
that term affectionately, believing that the AT is like a drug, although not 
a bad one, in terms of obsession and need, for some of us).

All the need for preserving wilderness in the world won't get politicians to 
advocate something that won't win them reelection, unless they happen to not 
care about reelection and really do believe in the job they were elected to 
do.  Call me cynical, but I don't think that happens too often.  Clancy 
created a fictional character who ended up in the White House and believed 
that political jobs should go to those who didn't really want to be there but 
were there because they owed it to their country, not because they cared 
about politics or election.  That D.C. needed more people who did things in 
real life and knew how to make things happen then PAC's and people whose only 
goal was to get elected or get money and laws for their cause, not to 
actually do the job.  Naturally, it was fiction.  Because it isn't how real 
life politics work, no matter what our founding fathers wanted.

So while it may be frustrating for those wonderfully dedicated people who do 
all they can to preserve wilderness, and trails, to see so many people who 
see the Trail as a challenge to overcome instead of an opportunity to revel 
in nature and enjoy the incredible gifts it offers . . . isn't it necessary?  
And mustn't those recreational users see some value in the Trail too, even if 
their lives don't revolve around it - else why would they use the Trail, even 
recreationally, and add their voices to ours on the issues, ensuring that 
occasionally the politicians will do the right thing, whatever the reasons?

Red

  


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---