[at-l] Baker? Katahdin?

[ellen at clinic.net (Bob C.)]

Come on TJ. Tell us the source of your information on AMC plans for the
100-mile-wilderness. And while you are at it, document your charge that AMC is
actively denying any wilderness is involved anyway.

 We need to know whether this information is as erroneous as your confusion of
 Baker Mt. with Katahdin.

 I agree of course that what happens to the land is more important than who owns
 it. That's why I'm pleased that AMC is the buyer. AMC was outbid on the first
 piece in the "wilderness" that they tried to buy by timber liquidators. Timber
 liquidators mostly strip the land and then sell the residual to developers.

 DEspite your opinion to the contrary, AMC will not liquidate the forest. Nor
 will they sell out to developers. The club certainly will do some development
 of its own. The best way to prevent harmful development, is for the hiker
 community to present a fair and rational critique of AMC decisions.
 Unsubstantiated claims tend to destroy our credibility and make us unlikely to
 be influential.

 I agree at least partially with Rockdancers analysis, though the Maine Chapter
 finds the AMC "rules" far less onerous than he does. I'm surely glad the club
 moved from a deficit to being in a position to protect a great piece of the
 100-mile-wilderness.

 And no, AMC in Boston does not have to follow the advice of the Maine Chapter.
 But I'm confident that if the chapter mounts a responsible and broad-based
 position, we will be seriously listened to.

 The challenge will be to get rank and file members involved. Hikers seem just
 naturally reluctant to get involved in trail issues. We tend to be users, not
 voices for protection.

 Weary