Re[2]: [at-l] Baxter State Park: Wilder within

[Bob C." <ellen@xxxxxxxxxx (Bob C.)]

>"... What would another 10 AT hikers mean in the overall scheme of Baxter
>things?" asks RnR.

It would mean nothing to the wilderness, but it would probably have a severe
impact on Caverly's ability to reduce the overcrowding on the Katahdin summit by
making some of the campgrounds drive in only.

 His proposed plan is one I've been espousing for decades. The only way to keep
 a place "wild" in 2002 is to limit motorized access. The proposed plan does
 this in two ways. First it makes people walk to Roaring Brook, thus opening up
 more backpacking sites. More importantly it closes off the "perimeter trail,"
 so that it no longer provides access to places north of the park.

  Now when the parking lots are filled, people driving through the main gate are
  asked where they are going. If we say we want to climb the mountain, we are
  told the park is full and turned away. If we say we are just driving through
  on the perimeter road, we can then squeeze in where ever we can find a space
  and climb Katahdin.

  If Caverly's plan seems likely to be approved, there will ensue a bitter
  political debate. We'll hear again claims that the park is discriminating
  against the handicapped, the elderly and ancient veterans who "fought for our
  country," in favor young and vigorous folks like me.

  Any obvious concessions to thru hikers wpuld be cited as evidence of this
  discrimination.

  Weary