[at-l] alternative trails and other stuff

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
> >"... So why do you think that anyone is actually working to provide
> >"alternative trails"?
>
>Well one reason is that on Trails Day in June, MATC officially opened a 
>newly
>constructed 17-mile loop trail that connects to the AT on East Baldpate. 
>It's
>the first segment of what will be a 42 mile blue-blazed bypass of a portion 
>of
>the Mahoosucs. It is on public and private forest lands and is a 
>cooperative
>deal involving private owners, the federal government, Maine state 
>agencies,
>AMC, MATC, Outward Bound and other organizations. The trail shows what can 
>be
>accomplished when people work cooperatively. The new trail idea was first
>publicly broached at the 1997 ATC conference in Maine. Six years later it 
>is
>becoming a reality.

Cool - uh - wait a minute - bypass the Mahoosucs?   Wow - I can see the 
blue-blazers loving you for that one.  <VBG>


>I have also championed the IAT and Earl Shaffer's dream of a new trail to 
>the
>west of the AT, in effect, creating a 3,500-mile loop trail between the 
>southern
>and northern Appalachians.

LOL!!!  - We're just completing construction of a segment of the Mid-State 
Trail that'll connect to the Finger Lakes Trail.  We're way ahead of you on 
that 3500-mile loop.  Once that link is complete, one could connect from the 
AT in SNP on the Tuscarora Trail (or from the Allegheny Trail north of 
Pearisburg) to the C&O to the Green Ridge Trail, then the Mid-State Trail 
through to the Finger Lakes Trail in NY and back to the AT.  That's only one 
of the many available loops.  Keep working on it.

>There are a lot of exciting ideas out there. But they won't happen as long 
>as
>important segments of the trail community continues to oppose new public
>preserves,

I haven't seen anyone opposing either trail protection - or new trail 
construction, Bob.  Only indiscriminate and unscrupulous land acquisition.

>and continues to spread distortions and misconceptions about about
>past public land acquisitions.

You apparently have no understanding that unless we're open about past 
public land acquisition pecadillos, unless we FIX thoe problems, we're 
setting the stage for future failure to achieve our goals.  Your advocacy of 
indiscriminate use of ED for AT land acquisiton is inimical to the 
completion of the 3500 (or as I see it - 5000) mile Earl Shaffer Trail.  
Especially when that AT land acquisition is unnecessary for actual Trail 
protection and is useful only to further your vision of a "long green 
tunnel."


>Nothing's perfect in this world. There will always be abuses by bureaucrats 
>in
>positions of power, just as there are abuses by powerful private 
>corporations.
>It doesn't help when trail users express boredom with discussions of the 
>need
>for more trails and buffers for existent trails -- or outright opposition 
>to
>more public land preserves.

As you said in a previous post - some people see villains everywhere.  Even 
when they don't exist.

You still haven't answered the questions --- or ARE you getting old and 
can't remember where we started this conversation?  You want public 
preserves - so --- how much?  Where?  Why?  Or maybe we should go back to 
the original questions?  Hmmm - maybe later.  I'm sure we'll get there again 
<G>

What I want is that the trails we have now be protected.  Further land 
acquisiton that doesn't accomplish that specific purpose is a waste of time, 
energy and money.   The AT needs very little in the way of new land 
acquisition to accomplish the basic purpose.  For the southern 1,000+ miles, 
it's 99.9% in either State or National Forests or Parks where, for the most 
part,  RnR's 10 to 20 mile wide swath already exists.  With the exception of 
road crossings, there are very few, if any, gaps left in that half of the 
Trail.  Through PA, the Trail runs through State Forests and Gamelands - 
again with buffers that exceed what's necessary to preserve - and enjoy - 
the Trail.  PA is presently fighting the race track - but the Trail corridor 
itself is NOT insecure.  In NY/NJ and into New England, I don't really know 
the situation that well - I'm sure there are others who do - so how much of 
the Trail is really "unprotected" and "in danger" as Roks continually 
claims?   I do know that large segments of the Trail are in State or 
National Parks or Forests - like the White Mountain National Forest or 
DWGNRA - and, again, protected by very large buffers - so how much of it is 
actually NOT within those kind of boundaries .  In Maine, I have no problem 
with those who are buying land tracts - even though there's a more efficient 
and cost effective way to accomplish the "stated" purpose.  But we've had 
that discussion before and there's no reason to repeat it here.

And then there are the 2000+ miles of PA trails - many of which still need 
protection.  To say nothing of the thousands of miles of trail in MD, NY, 
WV, VA, NC - and a few other places.  And you want to fiddle around with 
"widening the AT corridor" while thousands of miles of other trails are in 
real danger. You want to expand a single corridor that will generate massive 
political resistance and you ignore the  multiple corridors that NEED to be 
expanded.  Why?  Maybe because you're hung up on the AT as being the only 
trail worth fighting for?  That's dumb.  And for Roxy's benefit - Mackaye 
would have your tail roasting over a slow fire for allowing the opportunity 
to protect other trails to slip through your fingers by concentrating on 
only one corridor like that.    The AT's not the "only" trail in the world - 
or even the most important one.

Now - for all the words that have been written here - just what exactly are 
you looking for in the way of "land acquisition" -- and why?  You 
consistently fail to define those things, you're  consistently vague about 
precisely what it is that you're looking for - and you consistently accuse 
others (particularly me) of, for example, "opposing more public land 
preserves."   And yet you never precisely define your goals .  Until you do 
- you'll find me in constant opposition, if for no other reason, simply 
because the "fuzzy" words you use don't provide enough information to make 
decisions about - they're simply emotional catch-phrases that have no real 
meaning.  No wonder some of these people get bored by the "discussions."

Your first paragraph up there is good solid information - the second defines 
a "dream" that others have been working on for years.  Do  I have to wonder 
where you picked that up?  So where are you when we need help with 
establishing the Link Trail and maintaining the corridor for it so we can 
have another link in the chain?  Or weren't you serious about the Earl 
Shaffer Trail?

By the third and fourth paragraphs, you're into looking for "villains" under 
the bed, "whitewashing" the errors of the past - and claiming "opposition" 
because you apparently can't handle the truth about past ATC/NPS operation 
and want to shove the "dirty laundry" under the rug.  Well - until that 
"dirty laundry" gets cleaned up and aired out, all you're doing is making 
excuses for the "stink" that's seeping through the rug and smelling up the 
place.  If we did with the Shuttle Program what you seem to be  more than 
willing to do with the past pecadillos in the "land acquisition" arena, 
you'd accuse us of "covering up" or obstructionism" or ... whatever.  Sorry, 
Bob - but this is just another form of NIMBYism, of "whitewashing" the 
people and problems, of sweeping the problems under the rug and letting them 
fester.  And I won't join you in that nonsense.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage.   
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es