[at-l] Re: alternative trails and other stuff

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

Weary wrote:
> >"...I haven't seen anyone opposing either trail protection - or new trail
> >construction, Bob.  Only indiscriminate and unscrupulous land 
>acquisition."
>
>I'm sure someone can find an instance that they consider "indiscriminate 
>and
>unscrupulous land acquisition," but no one has presented any serious 
>evidence of
>same to date.

Of course they have - but --- "There are none so blind as those who will not 
see"  <G>

And hopefully, I'll have no more to say about that.

For the rest of your answers - I had to make some conscious decisions about 
how to answer. I could write volumes about them - but I won't.

Your answers are mostly unsatisfactory from my point of view - but then, 
they're not my answers.  They're yours, and there's no requirement that they 
satisfy me, is there?  I'd like to think you'd adopt that same attitude 
about others - but you never have before, so I guess I won't expect that.
But there are a few questions that I will ask - mostly out of curiosity.  
The answers could be interesting.

> >"...You want public preserves - so --- how much?  Where?  Why?
>
>Where? is easy. Where ever land is on the market at a fair price adjacent 
>to
>sections of the trail, where buffers of less than a mile exist, a wise
>government would purchase same.
>

"Buy"  --- by what means?  ED?  Or as an open "competitor" rather than the 
9,000 lb gorilla?
But more to the point - why would the government buy it?  Why not ATC 
(although ATC is a quasi-governmental agency)?  Or other land trusts - or 
the Nature Conservancy?  And what happens when ATC or the land trust - or 
the "government" - is outbid for the land?  Or the seller refuses to sell it 
to the government?

Funding is another whole can of worms - maybe we'll get to that another 
time.


>The same is true of lands that may be needed to expand hiking opportunities 
>and
>loop trails connecting to the AT.

Why only those that connect to the AT?  Why do you think the AT is the 
center of the hiking world?


>The "how much" depends on how much may be available. The Appalachian Trail 
>is an
>incredible public resource, that will become more valuable and protection 
>more
>important with each passing year.

I wouldn't disagree with that - but the question becomes - what kind of 
protection?  Just 'owning" the land doesn't necessarily protect it.  Even 
when the government owns the land, it's not necessarily protected.  This 
isn't an argument - I have some ideas, but I don't have real answers.  But 
I'd like to see if you or anyone else has any ideas.

>The where? also is where ever a willing seller can be found.
>

So what about "unwillling" sellers?  For example, sellers who want to keep 
the land in the family and want to pass it on to their children?

>Why? Like jazz, if you have to ask, you will never know.
>

No - you misunderstood.  I want to know why YOU feel as you do.  I want to 
know if you can put it into words (define it) or if it's just a warm fuzzy 
squishy feeling that you can't define?   I know what "I" feel - and your 
"assumption" that I "don't know" just means you're in reaction mode rather 
than thinking about what you're saying.  Those who "don't know" don't do 
multiple thruhikes, and plan for more - or spend their weekends hiking and 
maintaining trail - or give money to land trusts - or spend their vacations 
backpacking - or ---- a lot of other things.  Do they?  So I'll repeat that 
question.  Why?

As I said - I think the answers - and the resulting discussion could be 
interesting.  It's where we should have started two years ago.  I doubt that 
we can go back there and start over - but --- I'm curious about whether you 
(and some others - including myself) have what it takes to try.  I know I've 
tried several times before - but it didn't take.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com