The ATC -- [Was: Re: [at-l] Re: A Walk in the Woods]

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

In a message dated 5/28/2005 11:10:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
daveh@psknet.com writes:
*
*
*
I see a future patterned on the AMC, PATC, etc -- where "members" expect to
buy "something" for cash w/o ever touching a tool, or investing sweat equity.
What is the Conservatory's goal for how many of the 100,000 members will
actually do a day of volunteer work -- at either the ATC, or Club level?
*
*
*

         The AT volunteer structure I was familiar with hardly had that many 
volunteers out of the 7000 membership. Not to insult the effort given by those 
who did volunteer (which was not insignificant), but the work the AT needed 
was far beyond what the previous structure was providing. In short, you can't 
run a National Park-level entity on an underserving and inadequate, poorly 
organized volunteer basis. 

        I'm not sure that DaveH isn't wrong about what he says above. I for 
one suspect that both PATC and certainly AMC attract a better maintenance and 
construction volunteer base than the club I was working with. 

         The problem with the New York/New Jersey Trail Conference was that 
it was maintaining thousands of miles of hiking trails in the area while trying 
to deal with the AT and its special concerns at the same time. There was, and 
is, plenty of upward room for development of the AT's oversight there. Enough 
for a separate club all together. 

        What I would like to see done there is a new 'camp'-type maintenance 
center like the farm in Pennsylvania where a permanent summer crew happened 
each year. You can't tell me the New York area couldn't easily support such a 
thing. The main problem with the current volunteer structure is that it gives 
the public the illusion that everything is covered when it really isn't and the 
main chore is being carried on the backs of a handful of individuals who are 
then thanked with a structure that makes their input impossible to carry out...