[at-l] Buffer around Baxter?

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

At 09:33 PM 4/17/2004 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
> > 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.

Just for fun I looked up "greenway" on Merriam-Webster Online.
It is defined as:
a corridor of undeveloped land in or near a city that is designed for 
recreational use.

The AT is that.

"Wilderness" is defined as:
1 a (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings 
(2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its 
naturally developed life community b : an empty or pathless area or region 
<in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found -- G. W. Gray 
died 1960> c : a part of a garden devoted to wild growth

Much of the AT qualifies under definition "a". We don't cultivate the land 
and no one lives there on a continuous basis. Aside from the trail itself 
it is "essentially undisturbed" considering that some of it is reclaimed 
from it's prior human use. If you want the "b" definition we'll have to 
remove the AT itself but since MacKaye proposed the trail I doubt that is 
what he had in mind when proposing the corridor. "c" refers to gardens and 
has no relevance to the AT.

I also checked "Wilderness Area" which is defined as:
  an often large tract of public land maintained essentially in its natural 
state and protected against introduction of intrusive artifacts (as roads 
and buildings)

Again most of the AT qualifies. I doubt anyone expects the removal of Hot 
Springs, Damascus, Hanover or other towns that preexisted the AT nor do I 
believe that anyone wants to add new towns, pave the trail or such. Protect 
the corridor but balance is the key.

The problem with this discussion is in the differing definitions the 
participants assign to the terms. R&R in particular prefers a very narrow 
definition of the terms that essentially excludes people. I believe there 
is a place for people in wilderness, albeit a transient one (you know, like 
backpacking). If you turn preservation into a wilderness vs people issue, 
preservation will lose.

As for the safety argument, I stand by my previous comparison of banning 
ranger's radios and other minimal protective measures to the city dweller 
who walks away without assisting someone being mugged, raped or murdered. 
Perhaps you are willing to tell your fellow humans 'go in the woods if you 
want but if you get in trouble your on your own because Gov. Baxter wanted 
it that way'. I can't and won't. If accepting a gift of land to the people 
of Maine (or any other jurisdiction) means that we value the land above the 
people it was given to, our souls are surely lost and the gift becomes a curse.