Re[2]: [at-l] Handicapp Access

[tmcginnis@ucclan.state.in.us (Thomas McGinnis)]

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [at-l] Handicapp Access
Author:  "Howard D. Lyons; Sr." <turtle@aryeh.com> at ima
Date:    11/19/99 12:47 PM

To experience what remains is a noble goal. My kids will never 
experience camping on Springer as I have. <small snip> How many of us 
would give up fleece for Ed Garvey's kakis. We certainly couldn't endure 
what our fore-fathers endured. Wilderness (and wilderness travel) will 
be defined by each generation. Each generation will define their own 
challenges and carry parts of their own civilization into their 
wilderness attempting to overcome what ever is there.
     
Just an old man's thoughts,
Turtle

     ********>>>>>SloeYesterday'sToe disagrees with the above comments:
     Having "the wilderness experience" be "defined by each generation" 
     would be a catastrophe. (Whoa. Strong words. But I'll stick with 'em.) 
     It is up to each generation to preserve and provide the wilderness 
     experience for those generations which follow. This is a very 
     different view from Turtle's thoughts above.
     
     There's few reasons your kids can't experience camping on Springer (or 
     other places) as you have. In the White Mountains, I can visit places 
     along the then-unpaved Kancamangus Highway that were pull-off-and-camp 
     spots, complete with fire ring and picnic table, back in the early 
     '60s. Fire Permits required. I was pretty young, but I can still tell 
     you that litter was common and the ground was denuded. The last time I 
     was there was 1992, and it was beautious, but there was "No Camping" 
     anymore. Hmmmm. 
     
     In the later 60's, the family camping thing (for our family) was more 
     adventurous, and we went to "undeveloped" camping areas farther off of 
     the road, still avoiding the Jigger Johnson developed USFS 
     campgrounds. Jigger Johnson is still open, of course, but the spots we 
     went to (Doug's Pond, Anna's Field) are now just open spots on the map 
     along the Swift River. Why? Pressure. They were being denuded, waters 
     were being fouled, etc. So up came the berms to prevent driving in, 
     out came the regulations to control user impact, and away went the 
     fire rings and pic-a-nic tables. But you can still camp there, you 
     just have to walk/hike in. But the experience is more pristine than 
     even when I was a kid.
     
     And similarly, for as much as I bitch/moan about the AMC and its 
     over-cosy relationship with the WMNF/USFS, they have "recovered" the 
     White's alpine areas from indiscriminate high impact users. My kids 
     can have the same experience in the Presidentials as I.
     
     In conclusion, it is up to responsible users/citizens to insure the 
     passage of worthwhile life experience, including wilderness travel, to 
     future generations. Might that include denying "Camping" at some 
     spots? Yes. Might that include restrictions on access at other spots? 
     Yes. But, _if_done_right_, the overall benefit of such policies should 
     be the passage of a whole (and even an improved) resource to the next 
     generation. And a better experience.
     
     If my kids were to camp at Jigger Johnson in 2020, they should be able 
     to give their kids the same experience that I would give them in 2000. 
     And if I can get them to Anna's Field, they'll have cleaner water and 
     a better campsite than I had as a kid.
     
     
     Have a seventh generation day,
     Sloetoe.


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

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