[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[at-l] Cell phones (sorry!) - Serious discourse

     I've been thinking (smell that smoke?) about all the salient points of
the cell phone debate, which has become doubly interesting now that both
list administrators are discussing it openly. (An aside - Aren't they
setting a good example of discussion? Thanks and kudos to both.)
     I understand the possibility of the CP as an emergency tool; therein is
a good and justifiable use, the only real reason I see as salient for taking
one into the woods. The chance to save a life, whether wholly or in part, is
not something to be dismissed lightly.
      On the other end of the spectrum, a total idealogical ban on CP's in
the wilderness has it's points as well, as have been well and vocally
expressed by others in several different ways.
      My personal sentiments lie closer to that end - expressed simply, CP's
may be OK, but only as an *Emergency* tool and last resort, where they could
aid in a desperately needed rescue of people from seriously debilitating or
life threatening circumstances. I'd venture that most others would agree
with me on that point. By now, everyone on this list should be fairly well
educated as to both extremes of this discussion, as well as all the
interminable varying degrees inbetween.
     Consider this: Should, somehow, a consensus be reached that CP's are
okay to have for _emergencies_, how liberally are people, especially those
who are not as educated and enlightened as we are about this topic, going to
interpret that word? For my own analogy to express this idea, I'll use the
55 mph speed limit.
     National law decreed that everyone, without exception, travel at a
speed not to exceed 55 mph. Through a slightly liberal interpretation of
that law, most people (noone on these lists, I'm sure<g>) traveled a minimum
of 5 mph *faster* than the national speed limit. Reasons varied - running
late, traffic was moving faster (or: *others* do it), "I'm a better driver
than that", "It's a ridiculous law", etc, etc. Whatever the reason, people
tend to take liberties with rules for personal convienence, when you get
right down to it. It's as simple as that.
     So, if we settle for "Alright, it's ok to have a CP with you", how long
before we all begin to be affected by the abuse ( or "personal liberties")
of those people whose knowledge of the topic is handed down, more or less,
from us and our actions? (I'm assuming here that the people on this list are
concerned enough about the AT and other wilderness areas to be considered
as, and act as, stewards of the future of these resources, and will stand
out as such). Should we stand a step to the far right of this issue, so that
when, inevitably, our good intentions are watered down by the masses, the
end result winds up being what we shot for in the first place? Or do we
sanction the presence of CP's in the backcountry, and take the chance that
we can spread the word effectively about proper etiquette concerning their
use, in the hopes that other people will understand why, and act
accordingly?

     Food for thought, and possibly personal action - though by no means do
I imply that anyone should think or act as I intend or do. I realize that
this is, as it should be, an individual choice. I think also that the
ability of people to justify their actions towards their ends should be a
factor in how we treat not only this issue, but all issues of this
importance when it comes to something as important and valuable as the AT,
or any other wilderness resource, is to all of us.

Personal thought for Charlie Thorpe - Perhaps you should add an LNT chapter
on this issue? (As should we all...)

Kurt
Ga>Me...ASAP :)

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================