[at-l] St John's Wilderness "Misuse"

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

In a message dated 6/7/2002 12:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
texas12step@hotmail.com writes:


> This is precisely the reason to oppose the Endangered
> Species Act. Its very design promotes this sort of 
> misuse. Dig:
> 


     ***  I suppose it is easy to make such a political/philosophical point 
if it has no moral attachment to results or reality and strictly sounds valid 
by means of its own internal logic. I assume this site is centered around the 
AT and the AT is a conservation entity. Therefore I find such posts 
(noticeably missing any mention of the AT's goals as a wild land preserving 
institution) to be political taunts more than respectful appreciation of the 
Trail and its needs. This kind of view is simply a very square peg in a round 
AT hole as far as the Trail goes. 

     I don't mean to be deliberately off-topic, I say this respectfully to 
"Texas" and hope he takes it that way because I don't see any other way to 
say it. You simply can't say something like this without attaching it to the 
Trail's future plans in a realistic and meaningful way. The fact that St 
Johns proved to be worth preserving and no great catastrophe occurred either 
in land rights or power supply proves this. This type of one-sided land 
rights view appears to me as weak alongside the proven result of saving this 
river which seems to go unregistered... 


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