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

[at-l] Re: Commerical use

kahley7 wrote:

>
>
> The following is said with full knowledge that WF subscribes to this
> list.
> There are rules on TP about not questioning people's motive's and to
> stay off personal attacks.  Even though, in recent days, people have
> questioned others motives and made attacks, but the person in question
>
> is not on the list so I guess it's OK.

Actually, Kahley, you were the first person to mention Pittsburg in the
discussion, with a passionate defense of his character.  Up to that
point, I didn't know who was leaving pens in laundromats.

I think the discussion should not center on what his motive are or
aren't.  He'll do what he thinks is right.  What I think we might learn
more from talking about is the general question of commercial use of the
trail.  You've been right to point out the many ways in which that
occurs.  This is a more difficult question, and a more important one,
because the impact of commercial use is far greater than the Slackpack
Tour.

My original post was on the ATML, so I'll repeat a portion of it for the
benefit of AT-L listers who aren't on both <g>:  should those entities,
for-profit or non-profit, which earn fees by utilizing the resource of
the AT corridor, be required to put something back into the protection &
maintenance of that resource, either money or sweat?

My question was prompted in particular by mention of the summer camp
programs and college orientation programs which use (and sometimes
crowd) the backcountry, but it certainly has a broader implication.

I think that the answer should generally be yes, but I suspect there is
a lot of nuance, and there are practical questions of application.

Anyone care to leave Pittsburg for a moment, and think about this in a
broader context?

- Priest

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

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