[at-l] "Human crap"

[ellen at clinic.net (Bob C)]

"...So maybe you can explain then what purpose wilderness has if there aren't any people?" suggests Shane.

Not a very useful query, since these are not either/or things. Without people by definition everything is "wilderness."

Add people and a variety of people concerns intrude. Virtually all users of the trail seek some compromise with wildness -- like the clearing of brush and blowdowns from the footpath. Most also like developed campsites and shelters, things that both compromise and protect the trail's wildness. (By encouraging use in one area, developed campsites help keep the balance of the trail wild.)

The builders and the maintainers of the trail are also compromisers. They seek ease of maintenance (even R'nR) while for the most part keeping the trail otherwise as wild as possible. Some users argue that since the trail isn't truly wild, it doesn't matter if further unnecessary intrusions of civilization are allowed. This strikes me as both silly and illogical. The only reason for hiking a trail as opposed to a roadside or a sidewalk is that a trail is wilder.

Compromises may be necessary for many reasons. But surely one should not deliberately choose civilization when there is no reason other than a desire for civilization. We already have bountiful miles of sidewalks. 

Weary