[at-l] Re: Modern Devices, etc.

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/10/04 11:43:02 AM, Snodrog5@aol.com writes:


> The ban is rather pointless, since
> reportedly the only signal a cell can get in Baxter is from a high 
> southfacing
> mountainside. The overwhelming majority of visitors couldn't use their cell 
> phone if
> they tried.
> If "wildness" was really an issue, the Park would remove all the cabins and
> refrain from using two way radios, generators, passenger cars, snowmobiles,
> chainsaws, etc.
> The Baxter ban has nothing to do with philosophical anti-cell feelings.
> 

          ***      If you read into your answer Teej, you'll see it proves my 
point by your own logic.

         If there's no cell signal available in most of Baxter, why would 
they need to ban the devices?

           Since the tool wasn't the reason for the banning [your words] what 
reason would they have to ban it? It's obvious that the reason is because 
Baxter has a pre-existing wilderness clause in its self-description by which the 
device was banned. There are many other parks where equally foolish use of 
cp's has occurred with just as many examples. Why weren't they banned there also? 


               Weary has educated us on this list about the history and 
purpose of Baxter Park. It's very clear that they go to lengths to maintain a wild 
and primitive atmosphere. It simply defies known fact to use examples of park 
equipment to make an argument for otherwise. I believe if Baxter were formally 
asked, it would say the banning was done under the wilderness code...
    
            The AT also has such a recorded purpose. It seems like a struggle 
against the obvious...