[at-l] Buffer around Baxter?

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

At 05:38 PM 4/17/2004 -0400, Martin Fors wrote:


>          ***    I'd really love to respond to this ridiculing of what the AT
>is basically about. Especially the suggestion that shelters, silnylon, deet,
>and toilet paper are the target of obsessive Trail controllers. But, alas,
>it seems to be the thing that isn't "allowed". Funny how some people who
>frequent the AT so closely are totally averse to its organized wildness
>ethic when it comes down to it. I wonder if they are having a miserable time
>in Baxter?
>
>        I thank Baxter for having the backbone to stand up for what they
>are...
>
>  ~~~~~~~~~
>
>To which rusty [who's a bit antsy]  replies,
>
>Tell me RnR, what is the AT basically about?   Please tell me why a few
>radio towers and power to the ranger cabins is against what the "AT is
>about."  Tell me why safety for hikers in trouble on Pamola may be of such
>little concern to you?  You see, that is my overall concern.
>
>"[O]rganized wilderness ethic" is a oxymoron.  Do we sign a document that
>says 'I hereby submit that Baxter State Park is not to be responsible for
>any injury that may incur."  Then do away with the Ranger system there and
>set up a guard house.  With the numbers that hike Pamola, what happens when
>someone needs immediate help down the mountain when there is no radio
>contact?  What if it is your child or grandchild, RnR?
>
>Baxter and the AT is not the PCT or a trail in the Andes, as much as you
>would like it to be.

My current reading project is "THE APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, A 
Time To be Bold" by Charles W. Foster and published by ATC. It is 'dry' 
reading to say the least, sort of like the minutes of a 25 year long 
meeting. It deals with the preservation of the AT and its corridor (the 
political work of the AT) with scant attention the actual building, 
maintenance and use of the trail.

According to this tome, MacKaye intended that the government would become 
involved in its preservation as a "conservation and not just a recreation 
project". It appears that from the beginning of government involvement 
there have been those on both the conservation and the recreation sides of 
the project that tended to lose sight of the other aspect. There were some 
who suggested strict "wilderness" rules that would have prohibited trail 
signs, shelters, and even overnight use. What strikes me as odd is the 
blindness of those with a strict wilderness mindset to the fact that humans 
are animals too. We are part of nature too and as Max Erhmann said in The 
DESIDERATA "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the 
stars; you have a right to be here." While the conservation aspect needs 
defending, it is not the sole reason for the AT.

By all means we should preserve natural areas for posterity (and for our 
own well being) but it needs to be done with balance for the needs of 
people. I see little difference between the city dweller who turns and 
walks away from a mugging (or worse) without calling the police and one who 
opposes those things that contribute to the safety of hikers in wilderness 
areas. Even MacKaye intended the AT to be a benefit to his fellow humans. I 
strongly doubt he would advocate a callous indifference toward those who 
get in trouble while enjoying the trail he initiated. If he did hold such 
an attitude then my respect for him would be greatly diminished.