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

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

In a message dated 3/11/04 8:18:40 AM, Snodrog5@aol.com writes:


> >? 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?
> >
> >
> 
> Lack of moxie, perhaps? I've always said other parks could learn a lot from
> the way Baxter is run.
> 

           ***   Perhaps, but it is more likely that Baxter possesses a 
pre-existing wilderness code that it can refer to when taking such actions. If 
being a pain to park rangers were the only criteria, cp's would be sparse in most 
parks.

         I also congratulate TJ over the fact that he recognizes the lack of 
moxie problem with officials. It's rather obvious that the reason Baxter is 
able to ban cp's so easily isn't because it is run by a tightly controlling 
authority, but because it is able to associate it with its wildness pact. The 
reason I said you prove my point with your own logic is because, if you think 
about it, even if the reason for banning cell phones was the rangers not wanting 
to be bothered, that is still a preservation of the previous wild state where 
persons couldn't call out on cp's. It doesn't matter what their reason was. But 
you can be sure it was grouped with the electronic equipment ban based on the 
parks wilderness ethic as precedent. I understand some people really don't 
want to know that. But that doesn't mean it isn't true or important...


> 
> The philosophical anti-cell position is that communication with civilization
> is anti-wilderness. The Park has and uses two way radio equipment. You could
> argue that Millinocket isn't really civilization, but still it dulls your
> point. I fully support (unlike many Mainers) all of the Director's 'Wilder 
> Within'
> proposals, in fact I've advocated an even sterner stance that would end the
> use of some park equipment and practices. If you were to ask someone at BSP, 
> "I
> believe the reason that cell phones were banned was wildness preservation
> short and simple, is that true?" I believe you would get an interesting 
> answer,
> very similar to the "Not really," I gave you here.
> 
> TJ
> 
              ***