[at-l] A Few Comments about the ATC---

[optimyst at gmail.com (Richard C Evans)]

Earl, the mystic, can't be pinned down that easily.  This, from one of
his poems:

The laws of nature,
      changeless, will decree
That man is wrong
      and will no longer be.

I discussed Earl's criticisms with Dave Field, who had much of the
responsibility for the decisions to take the Trail into a protected
corridor.  It is a very complex and nuanced issue with no absolute
right or wrong, but it is clear that the Trail gets the maximum
protection for the long term when it is moved away from towns and onto
protected land with at least some characteristics of wilderness and/or
remoteness.  That was the paradigm under which the decisions were
made.  If you look at it closely Earl's strongest points are
buttressed most by emotion and nostalgia for that good ol' fashioned
trail magic.  I can certainly understand that!

Dave admitted that Earl's criticisms cut deeply.

Happy trails,

Solar Bear

On 5/30/05, David Hicks <daveh@psknet.com> wrote:

> 
> Go read Earl's first book.  Reflect with me and the others who had the
> privilege of listening to him as he discussed and decry moving the trail away
> from the people of the hills.
> 
> 
> Chainsaw
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leslie Booher" <lbooher@pure.net>
> To: <at-l@backcountry.net>; "Richard C Evans" <optimyst@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 3:50 PM
> Subject: [at-l] A Few Comments about the ATC---
> 
> 
> Solar Bear, I am very appreciative of your responses and your insights.  They
> have made me feel far more in touch with what's happened in Harpers Ferry than
> anything that they've sent out.  Thank you for doing that.
> 
> I admit, as you may have read in the ATN a couple of issues ago, that I am
> firmly against the name change.  I think it paints us as something that I
> don't think we should be.
> 
> For a number of years, I have thought that the ATC was in the land-grabbing
> business, and I don't like anything about that.  I think we're taking on far
> too much land and using our resources unwisely there.  "Conservancy" buys
> right into that model.
> 
> I am curious to see how they're (we're) going to go about getting, what is it,
> three times the number of members as we have now?  I also have to admit to
> having more of a "they" feel about the ATC nowadays; when I first joined 15
> yrs. ago, and when I became a life member about 8 yrs. ago, I had a very "we"
> feeling about the organization.  I felt that I was a part of what was going
> on.  That feeling evaporated slowly over the past few years, even though I
> have moved geographically closer.
> 
> What has taken the place of the "we-ness" of the ATC for me has been AT-L and
> ALDHA.  Getting to know actual hiking people keeps me in touch, not with the
> higher organization, but with the hikers on the ground.  How can we plug in as
> a PAC or some kind of lobbying group with the "Conservancy"?
> 
> anklebear
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>