[at-l] Buffer around Baxter?

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

In a message dated 4/17/04 3:22:19 PM, the_rev_mrf@kingcon.com writes:


> Tell me RnR, what is the AT basically about?
> 
 
          ***     Very long answer. Hint: It's more about taking people into 
wild conditions to contrast with urban conditions than it is "HYOH" (which I 
don't ever remember seeing in the ATC self-definition.) It's also about having 
an intact "greenway" up the spine of the Appalachians. A concept long before 
its time that is now proving to be sound as far as fragmentation and species 
protection. 


> ?? 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.
> 

            ***    Why was safety not such a dire concern in the Trail's 
early days? The answer is because a majority of the Trail's users understood they 
were accessing something designed to be wild. If there was risk, it was an 
assumed risk. 

         The trouble with this specific argument is that it sort of mixes the 
apples and oranges of administrative infrastructure with planned-use 
infrastructure. The removal of administrative clashes with Baxter's wilderness plan is 
an unusually pure interpretation. You are much more likely to be affected by 
non-administration clashes. The real point here is that Baxter is making a 
symbolic gesture to show that wilderness isn't a joke and they want to set an 
example as to what their purpose is. I really wish ATC would follow suit so 
people who shrug-off Trail advocates would get the hint.

        As a long-term participant in this debate, I've seen the "what do you 
have against safety" argument used to completely devalue the AT's vested 
wildness principle. That's what I mean about apples and oranges. The AT's purpose 
doesn't have that much to do with the safety of wayward hikers on Pamola. But 
let's look at even that example. If anything, the summit areas of Baxter are 
some of the most heavily regulated areas on the AT. I hope you understand that 
a reasonable level of wild danger can be expected while climbing there. 

          But let's get right to the point. The issue here isn't really a 
question of my "not caring about safety" than it is persons "not caring about 
wildness". I think an appraisal of general internet traffic will bear me out that 
concern for AT wildness is not in the forefront of AT users concerns. It is, 
however, in the forefront of the Trail's self-definition under ATC and its 
history. I would hate to see persons using anecdotal instances of safety as a 
means of eliminating necessary recognition of this.

          If you look at this entire argument you will see that safety is a 
relatively minor part of the AT universe. However, if you look at how the issue 
is used you will see that it is used in a maximalist way that eclipses some 
rather sensitive components of the AT's definition. What threatens the AT is 
not the possible endangerment of stranded hikers. That is rather low on the 
list. What threatens the AT are things like institutionalized sprawl and race 
track projects. An even more insidious threat is inner abandonment of the Trail's 
philosophical purpose. An objective study of Trail personalities will show 
that those who are content to limit the argument to isolated instances of safety 
are more often those who don't mention the Trail's wilderness ethic. After 
this ethic has been described so often on this list, I'm rather frustrated that 
persons would react about their Trail sensibility being threatened when the 
true case is probably the exact opposite...
 
        

> 
> "[O]rganized wilderness ethic" is an oxymoron.
> 

        ***     My good fellow, organized wilderness ethic IS the AT. No 
matter how hard it is pressed, some just refuse to accept the AT as a wilderness 
project designed and engineered by MacKaye. People just can't understand the 
concept of "developing" wilderness...



> ? ? What if it is your child or grandchild, RnR?
> 

              ***      What if it's your AT rusty?



> 
> Baxter and the AT is not the PCT or a trail in the Andes, as much as you
> would like it to be.
> 

         ***     Is there any way you could possibly understand that the AT 
is much more of both a conceptual and manifest "wilderness" than those other 
remote wild places you mention? Wild places in wild stretches of the earth are 
not really remarkable. Wild places in close proximity to the earth's most 
significant large population are. Is it your argument that the AT should subvert 
all other programs to "safety" and slowly let its wildness ethic decline to the 
point that apathetic references are accurate and serve reasons to not make the 
effort for the Trail more than reasons to? The AT is the battle line. It 
really is. And this is the battle [as much as some might want it not to be]...