[at-l] ANSWERS ANYONE?

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

In a message dated 6/20/2005 9:23:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
tinman@antigravitygear.com writes:
*
*
*
30 yards away.  The whole experience - sound, smells, feel- was incredibly 
beautiful and restorative.   Never mind there was a road 250 yards away and 
a lake  1/4 mile away with powerboats that I couldn't hear or a subdivision 
at the top of the mountain with paved roads and cable tv.

Where is wilderness?  Like gold, it's where you find it and belongs to the 
individual who finds it.
*
*
*

           ***   I totally agree with the tone and intent of Tinman's post. 
Nature is quite resilient in filling any area if left for long. That is partly 
why relative wilderness is worth preserving.

          However, people wanting to develop near the Trail would be 
overjoyed to see hikers satisfied with small patches of nature near condos, 
powerboats, and roads. 

        What I don't see answered are the scientific environmental facts that 
those nearby development features serve to diminish habitat, add pollution 
and noise, and deteriorate healthy habitat and environs. There's no doubt 
retaining unfragmented greenways preserved by an AT ethic is superior to "hedge row" 
compromising and pretending.

       Sorry, I don't take extinctionist culture casually. I don't think the 
bigger picture is being recognized here...