[at-l] AT special consideration

[nealb at midlandstech.edu (William Neal)]

-----Original Message-----

You then ask, "Why only those that connect to the AT?  Why do you think the
AT
is the center of the hiking world?"

WILLIAM, The Library Turtle:
This is not meant to put down either of the two main antagonists over this
question, but the AT holds a special place in trails that are protected or
promoted by national agencies and/or state agencies.  And it should hold a
special place in the agenda of the national and state governments, and in
the agenda of trail and of nature related groups.

It is near to over 50 percent of the population of the United States.  It is
a two day ride for many East of the Mississippi and many of those are only a
one day ride from the AT.  On the other hand, the other two BIG trails (and
many of the smaller trails) are near to less than half of the citizens of
the United States.  

Also, many smaller trails are near or connected to the AT.  And the trail
crosses near many places that non-hikers visit: I remember several road
crossing where people parked and walked "part" of the AT.

For people west of the Mississippi, many are "near" to the "outdoors" or to
a "wilderness" area.  East of the Mississippi, growth has been so great
(especially since WW2) that few places are near the outdoors or wilderness
-- or at least what has to pass for the outdoors or wilderness.

Thus, the AT is in the face of more people (including non-outdoors people)
than other trails -- maybe of all the other trails combined (I've met plenty
of people who have heard about the AT but not about the Pacific or
Continental or others).  And it is a representative of trails to many who
hike and many who do not hike.  Unfortunately or fortunately, without the
support of non-hikers, wantabes, etc., the AT and the other trails would not
exist -- even if the only support they give is that of the "log".

So the AT does deserve some special consideration.  Especially since
mountain land on the "East Coast" is very valuable to land/resort
developers.  Just look at Atlantic City when the gambling boom came in.

Before the gambling boom land values were circling the drain.  Then the
casinos came in.  Values shot up.  Many of the local owners were forced out
of their property: They could afford the homes but not the taxes.  Resorts
could afford the taxes and other expenses.  A similar circumstance happened
in Florida when Disney came in: I remember when lots of the Disney World
area was citrus orchards.  And all because land developers did what they
wanted.

Imagine if it was "open season" on mountain land.  The AT would soon dry up.
Even ridgeline land is valuable to the crafty land developer.  Look at the
land in California where people build on land that is in extreme danger of
wildfires.  And the areas where developers have developed flood plains.
Someone, with enough money, would break the AT into parts that did not
connect except by long, long road walks.  And ultimately, there would be no
AT.  

And if that happened, the other trails would be in danger.