[MA-RPC] FW: [at-l] Motocross Track Plans Fuel Debate

[Hal Wright]

On Dec 10, 2005, at 8:11 PM, ALLEN BRITTON wrote:
> I completely disagree with Hal's assessment of our options. How  
> about establishing collations with organizations like the Trails  
> lands Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and other like minded groups.  
> If we pool our resources get some influential politicians in our  
> corner we have a chance to save the AT. Why should we have to  
> except what we don't want. If money talks in our culture then lets  
> pool the money!!!

Al, exactly what is it you're disagreeing with? I said we had to find  
some deep pockets. Isn't that what you're proposing? Are you  
disagreeing that huge chunks of trail are no longer wilderness, but  
rather a thin sliver of woods running through farms and (potentially  
sprawling) towns? Do you think we are going to win every fight  
against development by partnership alone? Don't land trust  
organizations have entire states to consider, not just our parochial  
interests?

Please understand, I am 100% behind the idea of forming these kind of  
partnerships and I will help in that effort in any way I can. Don't  
interpret my comments to mean that I am not energized for this  
effort, I am, I assure you. I just meant to say, inevitably,  
realistically, we will have to pick our fights.

If you've used Google maps to look at the trail corridor, what do you  
see in MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT? Where is the trail more than a 30 minute  
walk in the woods from a road / farm / developed lot? If you've hiked  
at night in these areas, especially in the winter, how undeveloped  
does the area seem as measured by the number and proximity of lights  
you can see at any moment? When you lie down to sleep at a shelter,  
do you hear just owls and planes, or owls and planes mixed in with  
motorcycles revving, trucks clunking over expansion joints, dogs  
barking, kids yelling, and so on? Is it always just fellow hikers at  
the shelter?

By contrast, there are many sections of trail in VA where an entire  
vista may contain just a few farm buildings, and mostly relatively  
undisturbed woods. At night it's dark, dark, very, very dark, and  
dead quiet but for wild animals and airplanes.

Hikers I have met often say the AT in PA is a "backwoods expressway,"  
and that for a genuine wilderness experience, you have to keep  
driving north to places like Tioga County PA (central PA, near the NY  
border). Although I quarrel with the characterization as an  
expressway, speaking strictly in geographic and demographic terms,  
they're right. So why not embrace that role to accomplish some of  
what the new ATC has in mind: education, preservation of heritage and  
culture, wildlife monitoring, water quality monitoring, migratory  
path preservation, and so on. Whatever resources we garner, we will  
not be able to preserve everything in its present state of wildness.  
My preference would be to keep genuinely wild areas wild, and resign  
ourselves to adopt the trail to its new setting in those areas where  
we lose the fight and development creeps in. What choice do we have?

Then there is the matter of politics that you mention. Many wild  
areas through which the trail passes are undeveloped only because the  
citizenry are poor. It is Appalachia, after all. In some cases, we've  
got the land because the federal government kicked out most of the  
population that was there. Those people who remain are disconnected  
from the national and global economy, some by choice, some by  
circumstance. But for those who want it, globalization and  
technological advances have the potential to provide connectivity. In  
the decades ahead, a sea change in the economies of towns bordering  
the trail is possible. I view this as a mostly good thing for  
humanity, but it does pose a number of dilemmas for us. From a  
political point of view, it will be tough for any politician at the  
state or local level to argue against connectivity and growth. I've  
heard Rendell (PA governor) talk on this point, and he clearly states  
he will favor economic development over preservation in poverty- 
stricken areas of the state every time (and who can blame him). At  
the federal level, we are in an era where environmental concerns are  
taking a back seat, so that will be a hard sell too.

So here's what we need to do as a last resort:

* Push for development that minimizes sprawl in favor of concentrated  
housing and open space built into the development, nominally, open  
space backing up to the AT corridor. This will also be a hard sell in  
a culture that favors half-acre, fenced and groomed mini-fiefdoms for  
every family. (Everything we are doing is a hard sell, I guess that's  
an overarching theme.)

* Push for business development that has minimal impact. Right now,  
it seems the development that does occur (skiing, car racing,  
motocross, airports) has maximal impact, and helps the people who  
already live near the trail very little. In short, it's a lose-lose.

It isn't all bad. If we have a bigger population of young people  
close to the trail, moving in from other places, at least it provides  
more opportunities for outreach with people who do not have wholly- 
formed attitudes about the backwoods ingrained since birth.

By the way, I walked the area of the Trail under threat by motocross  
this summer. Walker Mountain is privately owned. It's a classic case:  
in an area that is basically connector trail between national forest  
lands, and therefore more exposed to human activity. In other words,  
just like most of the mid-Atlantic region.