[at-l] Baker? Katahdin?

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 10:12 PM 12/14/2003 -0500, Snodrog5@aol.com wrote:
>"One last question TJ: who would you rather have purchased this property?"
>Pb, as I've said. It's not who owns it, it's what they do with it that really
>matters. I'd rather see the land preserved, that the 100 mile become *more*
>of a wilderness than *less* of one. Sorry you don't agree, but you have every
>right to back those see the North Woods as an opportunity for economic
>development.

Who else was vying to to purchase this property? Did AMC beat out a 
potential buyer who was interested only in preserving/enhancing its 
wilderness qualities? You advocate for the *ideal* purchaser but do you 
even know if the ideal purchaser was a possibility?

Whether or not we care to admit it there are practical realities to 
preservation. When a prime piece of property is available there will be 
those who wish to develop it to one degree or another. Sometimes the best 
solution is a sale to the buyer who will do the least development. I 
strongly suspect that AMC is a successful organization because it does 
cater to some extent to well-to-do contributors by providing them with 
wilderness experiences that have a degree of comfort. It is no easy task to 
get some people to make large donations when all they get in return is a 
warm feeling (and I'm not talking about a camfire). OTOH it is easy to cast 
stones at those who are successful because they made some compromises to 
succeed and didn't adhere 100% to the purity of our expectations.

I don't know AMC's intentions but if it includes some increased camping 
facilities, I rather that than some other kinds of development. Hey, I've 
been known to go camping. It's not a bad thing. I've been known to hike 
trails too. More trails aren't necessarily a bad thing. If you can 
demonstrate that AMC used their money to thwart a buyer who planned the 
kind of preservation you prefer I will join you in saying this is an 
undesirable outcome but if there was no such buyer in the offing, you are 
chasing fantasies. If AMC were a different kind of group they probably 
wouldn't have bought the property but who would have? As you have been 
asked before, what other potential buyer would you have preferred?