I'm a little bit puzzled by all this stuff. My understanding is that the 100 mile wilderness is the remains of a large timber limit in northern Maine, possibly all of northern Maine at one time. The camps such as WHL are what remains of a network of fishing and hunting camps that used to service the guests of the timber companies and others. I am familiar with such camps, as we have a few of them up here in Canada. Now I guess the area is turning into a wilderness by someone's definition, or at least the AT corridor is. So, WHL is somehow grandfathered, and is still a legal enterprise with a right to exist. The debate seems to be about bad blood over some signage "vandalism", and some ongoing maintenance on an access road that is supposed to revert to wilderness. The WHL seems to survive in part by serving 100-mile wilderness thrus, and the said thrus are largely glad of the service, to the extent that the WHL has entered into the lore of the trail, including their greasy, overpriced, much devoured and desired burgers and pizzas. Have I got it right so far?
You know, this is the sort of dispute that often ends up in court enriching nobody but the lawyers, and often ends up bankrupting the lesser of the disputants. As someone has said, "Why can't we all just get along?" Why not just work out a compromise, such as a simple sign and permission to maintain the old trail? What's the big deal?
By the way, I don't want to give the impression that Canada is lily white in this sort of this. There are a number of national parks which have had to deal with such things, and one, Fourillon in Gaspe, ended up removing a whole village by eminent domain. Not a pretty record. That's why I am so keen that people just accept a small compromise. It wouldn't be unique, nor would it be an unsustainable blotch on the pristine character of the area. The were timber limits, for heaven's sake, and the access trail was a tote road! Good grief!
If I got it wrong, never mind, as Gilda used to say.