[at-l] Cell phones VS Nature - An attempt to clarify - LONG

[rafeb at speakeasy.net (Raphael Bustin)]

At 12:10 AM 8/4/2005 -0400, RnR wrote:

I'm not Shane, but since you've finally set
down fairly specific arguments, I'd like to
offer my own response.


>        1)    How do cell phones change the physical Trail? (ie increased
>shuttle activity and cell phone induced access points) Demographic: 
>(Increased
>usage by cell phone lifeline types who then skip the rest of what the Trail's
>about?)    - You didn't answer this.


Increased shuttle activity?  Please.  Folks will get
to and from the trail one way or another.  They did
this in large numbers well before cell phones existed.

I've dealt with the trail heads in the Whites for the
last 30 yrs, watched them get steadily busier...
well before cells appeared on the scene.

99.9% of the traffic at trailheads is to support
day hikers and weekenders.

And, please, what is a "phone induced access point"?


>        2)   How cell phones change the hike experience? (ie being able to
>call out at any time, or knowing you can.) (Also, how daily contact 
>changes the
>extended feeling of remoteness) - Unanswered.


Being able to talk with my wife is bad in what way?

"Extended feeling of remoteness" is a fine goal, but
let's be clear:  I want to be remote from the crappy
things in life.  Cars.  Noise.  Work.  Not my wife.

How long is "extended", anyway?  It's hard to walk
more than two or three days on the AT before the
real world intrudes.  There was no remoteness to
speak of in the seven miles from RPH Shelter to
the I-84 crossing.  The AT utterly failed in its mission
in that stretch.


>        3)    How cell phone acceptance as a part of hiking gear changes the
>whole attitude of how people perceive the AT from the outside. Is the Trail
>seen as a truly wild place and challenge at that point, or is it now tamed by
>quick communications allowing quick outside contact with remote sections 
>of the
>Trail?   Get this straight Shane, we are not just talking how this effects 
>you
>or your feelings, we are talking about all things involved INCLUDING the AT
>and it's condition. (Totally avoided)


Pfft.  I don't really give a hoot about how people
perceive the AT from the outside.  They don't matter
to me unless they're on the trail or involved with the trail.

"The condition of the AT" is a vast topic in its own right.
It's part of the world, with or without cell phones.  It's
nothing without the humans that maintain it, and those
that choose to walk it.


>       4)     And most importantly, how cell phone proliferation by plain
>numbers leads to an inertia that displaces important Trail concepts literally
>existing in writing in ATC's Guidelines. "Disconnectedness" is literally 
>written
>in plain words in the guidelines. Explain to me how the overt 
>'connectedness' a
>cell phone provides jibes with this main Trail goal?


I presume when you speak of "disconnectedness" and
"ATC Guidelines" you're referring to this: <http://tinyurl.com/9fdef>

I take this document to be a set of goals and ideals for the
Trail, rather than as strict rules of behavior.  Odd, but I
haven't heard you speak of this item from the same list:

    "Opportunities to experience the cultural, historical, and
    pastoral elements of the surrounding countryside."

-- which would seem to set limits on the "detachment from
civilization".

IMO, the ATC document has a much more nuanced view
than you'll admit to, distinguishing as it does between
different regions of the trail (eg., rural/pastoral vs. designated
wilderness or primitive area.)

Another word we'll never hear from you, RnR, is
"recreation" -- though it figures heavily in MacKaye's
writing, the ATC docs, and the federal legislation
covering the AT and the other long trails.

For most of us, "recreation" means enjoyment,
relaxation, and comfort -- not necessarily the hair-shirt,
self-denying, character-building experience that you
think it ought to be.


rafe b
aka terrapin


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/2005