Fwd: [at-l] Huh? Is this good for the AT or not?

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

In a message dated 7/27/04 8:33:36 PM, RoksnRoots writes:


> 
> What it said was that they were breaking up a 1000 acre zoning unit into
> smaller zones and reconsidering appropriate uses for the sections as they
> are progressively farther from the AT instead of treating the entire 1000
> acres as one zone. Is that good from the viewpoint of the AT and hikers?
> Possibly not and if so it should be opposed by reasonable means.
> 
> 
> 
> ???????? ***??? Yes, OK. I never opposed fighting by reasonable means. But, 
> if you look at recent history and publicly stated views of the AT by 
> influential outsiders, I suggest some recognizing of the Trail's conservation purpose 
> be more strenuously asserted in the public's eye. I don't see your point 
> above. Isn't it clear that they want to violate the Trail's buffer by breaking 
> it up into more and less sensitive parcels? It doesn't really matter how they 
> do it, it's the deterioration of the Trail's wildness and surroundings that 
> matters. In short your answer is just reactionary sophistry.
> 
> ???????? Sorry Saunterer, you may be complacent about this, but I support 
> the AT the way it needs to be supported. I believe my original post was more 
> accurate of what is going on here than your political reaction. It's clear to 
> me that the lands surrounding the AT are becoming more valuable for contracts 
> and development. A responsible person would go back and review what the AT 
> was formed for and why. The AT is a response to a tide of development that Ma
> cKaye knew would soon reach the hills. It's now reached the hills and these 
> people (if you can call them that) are doing the all-too-predictable, playing 
> dumb, and asking for chunks of the Trail. Some persons with less than a 
> supporting sense of the AT might call that "reasonable" - I myself call it pathetic 
> and predictable. These people just can't change their ways or thinking when 
> it comes to nature. They are specially appointed humans who see themselves as 
> persons in power who make these decisions. An honest person would see that up 
> to now those decisions have mostly lead to the destruction of wild 
> surroundings in the US as sort of and entitled expectation. However, now there's a 
> more cynical - some would even say diabolical - aspect to it in the form of 
> nascent politicizing of fundamental conservation. Who could have guessed?
> 
> ?????? To me, the idea of itemizing more and less sensitive zones near the 
> AT is a cheap counter tactic to the NPS's itemizing of such values in areas 
> like Saddleback. It's pure dirty politics and a sinister way of carving up the 
> fragile Trail buffer whilst pretending its all normal tit for tat business as 
> usual. It only says that desperate local governments have become corrupted 
> in their methods. In their own terminology they probably describe it as 
> "facing new challenges" or some other doubletalk. (That would be "reasonable" of 
> course)????
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH at
> least one poster familiar with the area suggested that the area in question
> is not visible from the trail and the only potential intrusion was noise.
> If that's the true, there may not even be a problem to the AT as long as
> the development does not involve noise that could be heard from the trail.
> 
> 
> 
> ????? ***??? These people would take everything if they could. The idea of 
> the AT is 'Regional Planning'. I suggest you look it up and get a sense of 
> what is happening with open space in our culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't trying to bring down the AT. They want to make money through
> commercial use of the property. Right or wrong (depending on your point of
> view) that's the "American Way". They need to be made to understand that
> it's not appropriate if the use will negatively affect the AT. Calling them
> names and impugning their motives will not convince them they are wrong. We
> should know the facts and not just 'shoot from the lip'.
> 
> 
> 
> ????????? ***??? Sure Saunterer, their motives are pure and natural clean 
> American ones. You can always trust that. Excuse me let me go get choked up in 
> front of a flag. Be right back.
> 
> ??????? OK. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the AT. Well if we are pointing out 
> name-calling let's point out those who abrutply shut off a discussion over AT 
> wildness by calling the other a "pontificator who is abusing this list" or 
> such. If I'm "over the top" in my reaction, perhaps undeserved complacency is 
> "under the bottom".
> 
> ?????? Saunterer, let's get real here. Those people know what the Trail is 
> and they don't respect it. They have one thing in mind and that isn't helping 
> preserve this nation's premier hiking trail, it's corridor, or philosophy. 
> It's very simple - following this grand American way you profess these people 
> have found unprotected or owned open space and they want to build on it. Let's 
> go back to AT 101 again. Look up the AT and why it was built. It was built 
> in order to address the total domination of this innocent 'way' you so 
> reasonably submit.
> 
> ?????? I know name calling and impugning is generally not tolerated by AT 
> internet members, so I have to be careful...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saunterer (anticipating another RnR blast accusing me of "not caring"
> and/or being "an AT hater")
> 
> 
> ??
> ?????????? Or perhaps a post explaining that the AT needs much more support 
> than that, or against exactly what is happening here, and the typical weak 
> response you give. It's much more complex than your post reflects and the 
> dangers for the AT are much worse than the "reasonable" position you seem to pose 
> as being above basic defense of the Trail. I don't see you as an "AT hater" 
> Saunterer, just another of many AT interested who can't let the AT penetrate 
> their personal politics which they hold as 'infallible'. An honest person 
> would admit that the horizon lines of the position you take merge at the total 
> destruction of American wild spaces over time...
> 
>