Wind Farm near the AT in Maine?

[SavageLlama]

Not sure how I feel about 200-foot high turbines near the AT in Maine.

http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D869H37G1-315.shtml

One seems like a novelty, but it could quickly grow to become a whole bunch of wind farms at different spots along the trail, which would definitely ruin the trail experience.

[TakeABreak]

I thought I was up to speed on this, I did not know they got the permit. I sent an email just know to the ATC, asking if they knew. If not maybe it's not too late to stop it. I agree with your statement one or two would not bother me so much, but given an inch, I am sure they will want a yard, and the entire will be full of them before we know it.

[oyvay]

Just playing devil's advocate: How would you feel about seeing a nuclear power plant from the AT instead?

I'd rather see a wind farm.

[Pencil Pusher]

Just wait till chris and Tha Wookie get wind of this. Boy they'll really air their displeasure. Gotta love the corny puns... and dead birds (which you'll soon hear about).

[Jaybird]

i've been fairly close to a massive WIND FARM out west....& it's almost totally silent....




i'd much rather have a WIND FARM near the A.T. than a whole OIL FIELD full of OIL DERRICKS! :D

[NICKTHEGREEK]

Just playing devil's advocate: How would you feel about seeing a nuclear power plant from the AT instead?

I'd rather see a wind farm.
I'm totally in agreement with you here. There a lots of fire towers, antennas, etc along the trail and at least the wind farm provides an alternative source of energy.

[Blue Jay]

Just wait till chris and Tha Wookie get wind of this. Boy they'll really air their displeasure. Gotta love the corny puns... and dead birds (which you'll soon hear about).

You're right, who cares about birds, they only sing to disturb people. They just fly around and contribute nothing to the GNP. Kill em all, as long as my TV still works.

[walkin' wally]

Pro or con, this project has been in the planning stages for years. I don't think the developer is in any hurry. I don't believe this issue will be resolved quickly. The ATC and MATC are well aware of the situation there. There are other windfarm projects in Maine such as one proposed at Mars Hill, ( I believe), near the IAT.

[Dharma]

There was a guy in Maine taking surveys from hikers. He first explained what the proposed change was and showed us some photoshopped images of what the new ridgelines woudl look like. I told him, as a thru hiker it didn't bother me at all, since my views change everyday. The ones who would truly have a strong opinion are the folks who live near there and the ATC.

I don't get angry when i see a cell tower or powerlines on the AT. I just take it as what's there and keep going. The wind towers would be no different to me.

The guy giving the survey said the farm would eliminate 60,000 lbs. of pollutants per day. (or some crazy number like that.) So, anyway, I'm not selling the idea, just passing on my convo with this guy from the project. The people of Maine will have to choose what they want.

[tlbj6142]

I hiked past a single large(?) windmill along PA's Laurel Highlands Hiking Trial last fall. They do make a weird sound. It was kind of creepy. Made me think there was some sort of strange alien lab under the Mountain at that location.

They do kill bats. I'm not a fan (pun intended) of birds (too damn noisy), but I'd hate to see bats die.

I know birds do eat bugs, so they do provide some benefit.

[tlbj6142]

Of course in Maine, birds noise isn't really an issue. Its those small red squirrels. Maybe the windmills would take out a few hundred thousand of those things.:)

[peakbagger]

There has been a testing site on Reddington for at least 10 years. It was quite a mess for awhile as there was the remants of a crashed tower that had been pushed out of the way. Endless Energy, the current developer has been using some photoshopped pictures to show how little impact the towers would have on the trail. The two that were posted on their website were bogus at best. One was taken at elevation from somewhere near the Saddleback and the other was taken looking east from some where near Bigelow. Those are both several miles from the proposed windsite. They "forgot" to show photoshopped images along the section fo the AT that runs roughly parallel to Redington and Black Nubble. These images would have to show the road network and transmission lines on the sides of the hill which arguably have more impact than the towers. This ridgeline includes Spaulding, a 4000 footer which would look directly at the project. It also doesnt show any views from the Crockers which are directly north of Redington. The project may also be visible from Abraham, which ATC is in the process of trying to protect from development.

[Peaks]

Just playing devil's advocate: How would you feel about seeing a nuclear power plant from the AT instead?

I'd rather see a wind farm.

You already can. I think that you can see Peach Bottom along the Delaware River and Three Mile Island along the Susquehenna.

[TJ aka Teej]

Photos, and other news accounts can be found at:

http://www.meepi.org/

[Megabite]

im willing to bet that most havent ever been on a wind farm. one, they dont look that bad. two, they are SILENT. three, the blades on modern wind equipment move so slowly, the bird problem is almost non-existant.

four - id rather see a wind farm than not be able to see the ridges at all due to smog / haze.

--megabite

[WalkinHome]

Hi all,

MATC has distributed this scale drawing to show how large these towers will be. There are many of these things proposed, don't remember the number of towers proposed but maybe Weary can help me out there. Do not think that this wind farm will close any fossil fueled plants.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5730

Have not done this before so if the link does not work, look for picture in "Other" gallery.

[WalkinHome]

P.S. Feel free to send this picture to any and all. MATC wishes the widest distribution. Thanks

[weary]

Not sure how I feel about 200-foot high turbines near the AT in Maine. .

The story obviously was written by a reporter who had little or no background on the issue. The actual quote by the reporter was: "would include turbines more than 200 feet tall atop both Redington Mountain and Black Nubble Mountain east of Rangeley."

Initially the developer talked about "80 meter" towers, which would be 260 feet, topped by twirling blades 125 feet in radius, for a total height of 385 feet.

More recently the developer has proposed 100 meter towers as being the "state of the art" that he wants to build. That means 325-foot towers topped by the same 125 foot turbine blades, or 450-feet of total height.

If you are not sure about 200 foot turbines close to the trail in Maine, how much less sure are you about the far more likely 450-foot high structures?

This industrial-sized power development essentially would change the whole nature of about 50 miles of the Appalachian Trail in an area that most hikers think of as one of the wildest and most remote sections of the entire 2,174 mile trail.

Let's support it or not. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. But let's try at least to remember the basic facts of what is likely.

Weary

[Pencil Pusher]

Hi Weary. While I like what you have to say sometimes, maybe you should throw a weblink out there to back up the numbers you're throwing out.

[weary]

Hi Weary. While I like what you have to say sometimes, maybe you should throw a weblink out there to back up the numbers you're throwing out.

My basic information comes from serving on MATC's wind power committee, and from conversations and press releases with the developer, Harley Lee.
A year ago I climbed Redington with Lee, along with representatives from the National Park Service, and the Appalachian Trail Conference.

Lee is a very friendly guy -- the kind of person that people dislike asking tough questions. But I made my living for 35 years by asking tough questions so I asked them.

Lee's original press release spoke of 80 meter towers (~260 feet). In conversations with regulatory agencies and with me he now says 100 meter towers are more likely. Three bladed turbines have always been in the mix, each blade with a radius of 125 feet. The conversion from meters to feet is my calculation. 39 inches time 100 meters, divided by 12 inches equals the height of the towers. I then add 125 feet for the blades.

The original release called for 29 towers, mostly on Redington. It is about 3/4 of a mile from the AT on Crocker to where Lee showed us the closest tower would be. They would be strung along the ridgeline of Redington and Black Nubble. If I remember right the towers are around 20 feet in diameter at the base and taper slightly. The turbines would be at the top of the tower.

The towers would be visible at every overlook between Saddleback and the peaks of Bigelow. The trail makes a giant "U" in the area. Redington and Black Nubble are in the middle of that "U."

I'll dig up Lee's web site and post the reference. Just remember that the photo simulations and description put the best possible light on the visual impacts of the development.

More valid information will be available when Lee actually files an application. This was promised two years ago, but never came. Rumors say he is still trying to line up investors. Maine law requires applicants to show financial ability before a construction permit can be issued.

MATC has appropriated $25,000 of reserve funds to oppose the development. The Appalachian Trail Conference says it will do whatever it can to prevent the developmemt.

The Appalachian Mountain Club, which generally supports wind energy, says it opposes this development because of its location near one of the wildest sections of the Appalachian Trail.

Weary

[funkyfreddy]

no one has mentioned the light pollution that this complex will contribute to the skies of this part of rural Maine. One might also consider the traffic, etc., as there's more to this issue than the views from surrounding peaks. Regardless of how "eco-friendly" this project seems, it's still a gigantic industrial development which will greatly impact the surrounding area.

I would like to keep Maine wild and beautiful, wouldn't you?

[Tha Wookie]

Ok, since I was practically invited in on this one, I´ll respond:

First, let´s see a show of hands of how many people here have actually SEEN or walked underneath a wind tower:-?

I have. In fact, I´ve passed under many. Here´s a pic of some I dug out at my journal site: http://trailjournals.com/photos.cfm?id=23052

I have another picture at home that shows how incredibly massive even the medium-sized ones are. In it, there is an 18-wheeler tractor trailer dwarfed by the collossal towers.

But I didn´t mind seeing them in the Mojave desert. Its not a very hospitable place, and the wind is hotter than a blowdryer. I was glad to see alternative energy at work.

But one thing I did notice was how many were not working. Many were broken, and many more were recieving maintenance. In fact, I realized after a while that there were huge tractor trailers, vans, SUVs, maintentaince structures, and myriad roads to provide access to each and every tower.

It was all good in that part of the desert, but to imagine all of that in an organic-soil mountain (steep slopes) with thick forests of some of the loviest trees, densest populations of fauna in the United States, and the single most treasure of a long-distance trail in perhaps all of the world in the immediate vicinity makes me cringe.

I think Maine is such a unique and ecologically critical area and the AT viewshed there is such a unique place, which has been largley undisturbed thus far, that these towers should not be dug in. There have been many such battles, but this one is different because it divides the trail community since it an "alternative" power source.

You have to ask yourself, and others, "What is the alternative that the towers will replace?"

Does this mean they promise to shut down a coal factory in its place?

Or is this really just another way for investors to sell new energy for rising demands? Is this just another way of making money, of selling off the pristine wilderness in the name of "not as much" impact?

Wind towers are better power-generating technology. They certainly kill less animals and people than coal-factories (which were given a huge break recently on Emissions Standards by the White House). But they must be used in the right places. In the moutainous forests of Maine, "efficiency" and "productivity" are not the most important adjectives. How about "wild", "scenic", "natural", "untrammeled", "untouched" and "unparalelled" instead?
Within the viewshed of the AT is the wrong place for wind towers in the state of Maine.

Listen to the birds, and you might learn a thing or two.

[weary]

There has been a testing site on Reddington for at least 10 years. It was quite a mess for awhile as there was the remants of a crashed tower that had been pushed out of the way. Endless Energy, the current developer has been using some photoshopped pictures to show how little impact the towers would have on the trail. The two that were posted on their website were bogus at best. One was taken at elevation from somewhere near the Saddleback and the other was taken looking east from some where near Bigelow. Those are both several miles from the proposed windsite. They "forgot" to show photoshopped images along the section fo the AT that runs roughly parallel to Redington and Black Nubble. These images would have to show the road network and transmission lines on the sides of the hill which arguably have more impact than the towers. This ridgeline includes Spaulding, a 4000 footer which would look directly at the project. It also doesnt show any views from the Crockers which are directly north of Redington. The project may also be visible from Abraham, which ATC is in the process of trying to protect from development.

As everyone knows, who has ever taken a picture of a beautiful mountain, only to see the mountain largely disappear in the photo, photo simulations are always inaccurate. By happenstance a 200-foot church steeple is visible across a cove from my living room window, almost exactly the same distance away as the windtowers would be from the Appalachian Trail.

Everyone who comes into my house for the first time exclaims about the view. I continue to marvel that I was able to buy such a view for almost nothing 42 years ago when the cove was a stinking sewer.

But no photo I've ever taken even remotely shows the scene. The reason is that the human eye magnifies the impact of dominant items in a viewshed, and diminishes everything else. The surrounding water and the dominant white painted church steeple is what visitors to my home see. Everything else is erased.

The same will be true once windtowers intrude on the trail in western Maine.

The photo simulations are what a camera sees. Giant industrial towers with twirling blades topped by strobe lights in an otherwise wild landscape is what hikers will see if the project is built.

Weary

[Flash Hand]

Ok, since I was practically invited in on this one, I´ll respond:

First, let´s see a show of hands of how many people here have actually SEEN or walked underneath a wind tower:-?

I have. In fact, I´ve passed under many. Here´s a pic of some I dug out at my journal site: http://trailjournals.com/photos.cfm?id=23052

I have another picture at home that shows how incredibly massive even the medium-sized ones are. In it, there is an 18-wheeler tractor trailer dwarfed by the collossal towers.

But I didn´t mind seeing them in the Mojave desert. Its not a very hospitable place, and the wind is hotter than a blowdryer. I was glad to see alternative energy at work.

But one thing I did notice was how many were not working. Many were broken, and many more were recieving maintenance. In fact, I realized after a while that there were huge tractor trailers, vans, SUVs, maintentaince structures, and myriad roads to provide access to each and every tower.

It was all good in that part of the desert, but to imagine all of that in an organic-soil mountain (steep slopes) with thick forests of some of the loviest trees, densest populations of fauna in the United States, and the single most treasure of a long-distance trail in perhaps all of the world in the immediate vicinity makes me cringe.

I think Maine is such a unique and ecologically critical area and the AT viewshed there is such a unique place, which has been largley undisturbed thus far, that these towers should not be dug in. There have been many such battles, but this one is different because it divides the trail community since it an "alternative" power source.

You have to ask yourself, and others, "What is the alternative that the towers will replace?"

Does this mean they promise to shut down a coal factory in its place?

Or is this really just another way for investors to sell new energy for rising demands? Is this just another way of making money, of selling off the pristine wilderness in the name of "not as much" impact?

Wind towers are better power-generating technology. They certainly kill less animals and people than coal-factories (which were given a huge break recently on Emissions Standards by the White House). But they must be used in the right places. In the moutainous forests of Maine, "efficiency" and "productivity" are not the most important adjectives. How about "wild", "scenic", "natural", "untrammeled", "untouched" and "unparalelled" instead?
Within the viewshed of the AT is the wrong place for wind towers in the state of Maine.

Listen to the birds, and you might learn a thing or two.

Yeah I used to live in Arizona and drive on I-10 everytime I go to Los Angeles and Vicinity, and I love the viewing of those turbines. They are beautiful and amazing. I don't mind to see some of them in Maine.

Flash Hand :jump

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I don't get angry when i see a cell tower or powerlines on the AT. I just take it as what's there and keep going. The wind towers would be no different to me.

When I see something like this written about the AT I have to restrain myself before I get kicked-off the list. The best I can do is go back and ask the writer to learn more about the Appalachian Trail before offering a public opinion on it. Especially one to a surveyor.


As you can see from the offerings on this thread AT hikers are way behind the curve in regard to the AT and its purpose as upheld by ATC. That's why you don't see any of the authors of the uneducated viewpoints above come back and offer any responses to posts like those of Weary. God save us if any person who voices such an opinion like that above ever gets quoted as being an "AT hiker who doesn't mind" or something like that.

We obviously have a problem on the AT with its average hiker being totally uneducated as to what the AT is about and how that conflicts with industrial pylon development of the ridgeline on the wildest part of the AT. If there were any Muir-like God-damning needed in today's day, it would be here at Reddington on the AT. Ask one of those above who don't seem to mind that much and see what kind of respectful and coherent argument you get that involves the AT and its conservation purpose...


While the cleaner air argument is environmental, it is obviously being used as a red-herring, trojan horse to violate the AT's surroundings. As we have seen with the race track, local boards are playing dumb right now. Pretending insults to the AT are simply matters of permit interpretation. Sorry, but the AT's wild preservation purpose trumps phony claims of clean air in instances where it isn't appropriate. This first approval means the board hasn't recognized that the end result is a violation of the Trail. If they were recognizing the fact that the final project conflicted with the Trail then they wouldn't bother to approve the first poles. That's bad and needs to be fought.

Wake up to what the AT is about hikers!

[walkin' wally]

[QUOTE=Tha Wookie]


Does this mean they promise to shut down a coal factory in its place?

Or is this really just another way for investors to sell new energy for rising demands? Is this just another way of making money, of selling off the pristine wilderness in the name of "not as much" impact? [QUOTE]

If one thing has done a number on the environment in Maine it is the coal fired plants in the midwest that have sent in so much mercury by the prevailing winds. Many types of fish are not suitable to eat anymore. Especially for pregnant or nursing mothers. There are limits for the rest of us also on how many meals should be eaten over a period of time. If those places are profitable I imagine they won't be shutdown anytime soon.

Much of the power generated in Maine is sold out of state, in my opinion, and new projects don't seem to lower my utility bills.

[weary]

Does this mean they promise to shut down a coal factory in its place?

Or is this really just another way for investors to sell new energy for rising demands? Is this just another way of making money, of selling off the pristine wilderness in the name of "not as much" impact?
If one thing has done a number on the environment in Maine it is the coal fired plants in the midwest that have sent in so much mercury by the prevailing winds. Many types of fish are not suitable to eat anymore. Especially for pregnant or nursing mothers. There are limits for the rest of us also on how many meals should be eaten over a period of time. If those places are profitable I imagine they won't be shutdown anytime soon.

Much of the power generated in Maine is sold out of state, in my opinion, and new projects don't seem to lower my utility bills.

Much of the air pollution in Maine in fact comes from midwest power plants. But that is not why people invest in windpower plants as near as I can tell. Those who know more about investments than I do tell me that most windpower investors are not concerned with producing energy, but with using federal energy and tax laws to shelter profits from more profitable endeavors.

Regardless. Wind power is sporadic and unreliable. Which means that no coal plant will close as a result of this project. The energy output is pretty marginal by modern industrial power complex standards.

Somewhat related, though no coal plants are likely to close, some are likely to operate less efficiently. Most power plants work more efficiently at full power. If a plant is required to slow production to make room for Maine windpower, it will simply operate less efficiently, i.e. produce more pollution per unit of energy output, not less.

Weary

[micromega]

I don't want the towers. I don't want to get to the top of the ridge and get hit in the face with a reminder that I'm not really so far away from it all. I'll know I'm not, but I'd as soon not have my illusions shattered when I can cherish them just a little longer. Perhaps the towers won't pollute in the classic sense, but visual and auditory pollution (this last in form of construction and maintenance and road use, mostly) is still pollution. And for what return, really?

Aesthetic reasons for not wanting the towers aside, the towers aren't gonna just grow out of the ground on their own. Nor maintain themselves alone. Perhaps not as much a big deal out west, but here it entails a great deal of construction, road building, tree cutting, etc etc etc, in what is currently for the most part an untouched wilderness. That alone should be enough to raise the hackles of anyone who loves the trail, loves the wilderness.

If it was going to be a super reliable and steady source of power that would have a significant impact on reducing usage of other forms of power (coal, nuclear, hydroelectric), perhaps the sacrifice would be bearable. But for whats potentially going to be a marginal impact? Nah.

Further, I worry about precedents. I worry about the folks who will say, "well, it was done there and it works, so lets do it here too"; I worry about those that'll say, "since there's a road there already..."; I worry about those who see an inch and want a foot, all in pursuit of the almighty dollar in one form or another, and wilderness be damned.

I'd rather see the towers installed in already developed areas, really, if they have to be built anywhere. Put 'em on top of the powerplants and the skyscrapers. Build them up as support pylons for bridges. Just don't rip up our dwindling natural resources for, for what? For what, really?

These are merely my thoughts, and I freely admit that I'm not wholly informed on all facets of the topic. I just don't think there is much out there that I don't know that'll change the way I feel.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Don't fool yourself for one instant that those windmills weren't meant to supply power for development around the AT.

After all, once the windmills are up some airheads will come in and say "well, the Trail isn't really wild anyway"...

[Pencil Pusher]

As soon as anyone wants to provide a reference for these wild numbers and 'facts'...

[Wyoming]

Are we missing the point here??

If this comment starts a fight, I appologise as that is not my goal. But after reading about 25 comments I have yet to see anyone address a core and fundamental issue that is at stake here.

Most of the readers of this forum will most likely agree that continuing the current course of power generation, use of power and exploitation of resources absolutely cannot be continued if we are not to suffer what could be catastrophic consequennces in the relatively near future (50-100 years). Maybe less.

There is a critical need for our society to engineer alternative sources of power to those based upon petroleum. Among the alternatives most suitable at this time is of course our currrent favorite subject, wind power. Make no mistake that developing and exploiting these sources will not be disimilar to any very large scale commerical/industrial development. It is certain that there will be unfortunate environmental and visual side effects to this large scale development. These are inevitable and unavoidable. We must work to mitigate them, but not at the cost of success. The prospect of failure is so daunting that esthetics, on the whole, will have to suffer. Every location chosen for these structures, other than the desert of cental Wyoming perhaps, will entail a visual eyesore. For alomost every location there will be a body of people who have their reasons for thinking that this particular location is not suitable. The dreaded NIMBY's. (note the initeresting article in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/national/14cape.html?th
regarding a large wind farm development in Nantucket Sound that is being planned. The kind of angst that is being expressed about the Maine development is also present in their discussions. I have read a number of other accounts that are similar from other locations all over the country. We must keep our sight on the goal; preventing what appears to be certain environmental catastrophy down the road. Do do that we will have to significantly blight our skyline across the whole country (world) with wind power generating equipment (not to mention all the other kinds of power generation equipment which will require its own infrastructure). One of the nice aspects (I sort of gringe at this statement) about current coal/petroleum power generating plants is their nice compact footprints. They have high power generation to eyesore ratios; to coin a phrase. This will not be the case with solar and wind, but it is a price we will have to pay. I won't dig into the math here, but it is not real difficult to show that the landscape of America will eventually have to have millions of windmills of different sizes spread across the land. Remember pictures of telephone and power poles in the cities of America in the early 1900's. Yuck!

If everyone fights the good fight for their neighborhood (be it the hills along the AT, Nantucket Sound, the hills of California and thousands of other places) we will fail. And failure is not an option.

The world will have almost 50% more people by 2050 than it does now. Some 3 billion more people. All of those people will demand a certain amount of resources (electricity, land, housing, food, etc). Demand or die trying to get them. It is certain that our environment will suffer greatly in this growth. If we don't support the growth of industries that have the potential to replace/supplement those causing the current problems think how much worse events will be and how much sooner.

I could go on for hours here. There are 50 interesting discussions that can branch off from where we jointly have touched upon and I have a tendency to want to talk about all of them. Several books would be required and I am too tired this morning I guess.

Once again, I am not trying to start a fight, I just want to point out that there might be other concerns here that are more important than the view. Wyo

[weary]

As soon as anyone wants to provide a reference for these wild numbers and 'facts'...

Well, Pencil Pusher, you can go to the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission offices in Augusta, Maine and read the preliminary documents filed by the developer. The initial press releases have been removed from the developers web site. Few specifics remain. But the site can be found at

http://www.endlessenergy.com/index.shtml

The most important information I have came from asking questions of the developer, I've told you the answers I got. None strike me as "wild numbers."

I've also climbed Redington and walked the range with the developer. You can do the same. Carry a maps so you can find Crocker, Saddleback and Bigelow across the valleys. You may have to ask permission first. The developer recently contacted the MATC lawyer and notified him that none of his "clients" are allowed to visit his property without the developers specific permission. Since the lawyer has done work on behalf of both MATC and ATC, possibly all members of the two organizations require permission before they can climb one of New England's 4,000-foot mountains.

The rest of my information comes from a three year look at wind power, both as a member of the MATC committee, and private investigations. I've visited, for instance, most of the many wind power sites in New Brunswick and on Quebec's Gaspe Peninsula, and read the signs and pamphlets designed to convince me that wind power is cheap, harmless and environmentally friendly. I remain unconvinced.

If it will help I can send you maps showing where New Brunswick and Quebec are located so you can visit these places yourself.

Weary

[creaky bones]

I was listening to NPR this past week and in one of their stories they talked about wind power and a scientist at a conference on energy said he started thinking about the impact of multiple (and he meant multiple) wind turbines on the global ecology- mainly because of the potential to slow the wind and therefore impact global weather patterns. He said he sat there and did some calculations (the brain power of some people astounds me) and said the idea wasn't far fetched.

I'm very conflicted about this issue. Like every other Amercian I use and probably waste massive amounts of energy. Many of us give lip-service to being 'green', but if our personal habits were examined they would be wanting; we use our cars when public transportation is available, we drive larger vehicles than we need, our thermostats are turned up to comfortable settings and our air conditioner runs non-stop through the summer. We are sitting now in front of our computers! We do what we can (we recycle) but stop short of inconveniencing ourselves.

I used to live within sight of a nuclear power plant and found it very disconcerting to find a whole section in the phone book dedicated to "What to do in case of a nuclear emergency".

We all want our refrigerator to run, our car to get us places in comfort, and our homes to be comfortable- but none of us wants to see how these things are powered.

We all want clean energy, but few of us are willing to make the sacrifices required to make it a reality. We think we're being green by buying a more fuel efficient car than our neighbors and recycling and turning off lights. How many of us are using manual or electric lawn mowers instead of gas powered ones (which create a lot of greenhouse gases) or let our lawns get a little taller so we mow less often? When I joined Union of Concerned Scientists I was shocked to find out that most of what I did that I considered 'green' really had little global impact, and the things I had neglected, probably because they carried some sacrifice with them, were the things that would make a difference.

With this current administration bent on reducing regulations and indulging the American appetite, I see little hope for reducing the growing American attitude of "I want it, I want it BIG and I want it NOW!" Until we can instill in our young people (and older people) an attitude of stewardship, where we put windmills is the least of our problems.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Are we missing the point here??

If this comment starts a fight, I appologise as that is not my goal. But after reading about 25 comments I have yet to see anyone address a core and fundamental issue that is at stake here.

Ah, I believe someone is missing the point. This site is not a windpower promotion site, it's an AT site. To put things in proper perspective, you have to start at the AT and work your way out - not start at windpower rhetoric and work your way in. I have yet to see anyone address my points. Talk about "core fundamental issues"!

The flaw in your argument is that the need to preserve one of the last remaining wild places on the AT is not "NIMBY-ism". There's more involved than that. I've seen too many persons just ignore and breeze by the real AT issue involved in this,without even registering it, to keep my patience. Go and read about the AT, it's history, and wilderness mandate as designed by its creator Benton MacKaye. Nothing involved with that perspective has changed - in fact the need for his conservation intention for the AT has GROWN - not diminished.


If that developer had any respect for the AT he wouldn't even think of suggesting this ruinous project. Please answer my point about the power from these Trail-damaging windmills being used to develop this last remaining wild area of the AT. You're not trying to suggest that the development of this area is being a 'Green' neighbor are you? That's ridiculous. America's falling apart and becoming prey to rapacious developers who increasingly have no opposition besides these silly Trail-members who seem to have no sense of the Trail. Your arguments for windpower only make sense if you completely ignore the AT and its purpose. From what I read, AT officials have become weak in pointing this out the way it needs to be pointed out.

If we can't power our nation because of our habits, then we have to start looking at why...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

To argue for the allowance of industrial power development on the AT is to argue for communism being given firm place in our government without noticing the conflicts involved in that. How I feel about that argument and the people who dare try it in these circumstances can't be said here. It makes me think the posters are either company plants or just plain ignorant...

[FatMan]

Anyone who hikes should join in and say NO! to anything built near or in sight of the AT. I don't care if it is a shrine for Mother Teresa. NOT ON THE AT. This should not be an argument about the merits of Wind Farms. This is an argument about development on our trail.

There are many answers to the energy issues that face our world. Unfortunately, the subject has become way to political for the opposite positions to compromise. We will only proceed in a sensible way once we have destroyed our economy.

Certainly wind can and should play a part. But there are places that would welcome such an investment. Areas that mankind has already damaged would be prime sites for windfarms, ie: landfills, superfund sites, etc.

[weary]

To argue for the allowance of industrial power development on the AT is to argue for communism being given firm place in our government without noticing the conflicts involved in that. How I feel about that argument and the people who dare try it in these circumstances can't be said here. It makes me think the posters are either company plants or just plain ignorant...

RnR. Learn to make your arguments without criticizing those with different views, and you will do far more good for the trail and the trail environment. Calling those who profess different ideas "either company plants, or just plain ignorant" simply turns off potential allies.

Your characterizations may be (probably are?) fair representations, but it is counterproductive to bluntly say so. Make your arguments in terms of the issues, not the mental deficiencies and character of those who take opposite positions.

Yes. You're right. I don't criticize those with wrongheaded views because they attack your character and knowledge -- or my character and knowledge. But that's just because I don't want to tip them off about how to be effective in furthering their wrongness.

Weary

[Tha Wookie]

NIMBY??


I don't live in Maine, Buddy!

[Wyoming]

Ah, I believe someone is missing the point. This site is not a windpower promotion site, it's an AT site. To put things in proper perspective, you have to start at the AT and work your way out - not start at windpower rhetoric and work your way in. I have yet to see anyone address my points. Talk about "core fundamental issues"!

The flaw in your argument is that the need to preserve one of the last remaining wild places on the AT is not "NIMBY-ism". There's more involved than that. ...
I believe here that the "core" issue is NOT the AT, however important and admirable a goal that is. I wish it were, but it is not. This may be a site for AT discussions, but the discussion relates to issues beyond the AT. The core issue is survival. Our culture has painted itself into a bad position. To continue with consummerism, global development, a constant striving for economic growth, etc will lead us to environmental catastophe. This kind of impact is not measured in the effect it might have on the view from the AT nor how it impacts the purpose for which the AT was set aside. The looming disaster will make such small things as the state of the AT irrelevant should they occur. This is what I mean by a core issue.

All locations are NIMBY locations. It is not an insult. We all feel most strongly about what we value the most, and that is normally our homes or special places.

As population and resource pressures grow we will be forced to redefiine what can be protected, should be protected and just has to be sacrificed to preserve the end we desire.

I have acted for and supported environmental issues since I first became aware of them. However I have learned a lot since I was growing up in the 60's and that has tempered my expectations of what can be accomplished. If one really looks hard at the reslults of the environmental successes of the last 40 years it is hard to find more than a few issues that real solid meaningful progress has been made on. One good example is the reduction in ozone destroying gasses released into the atmosphere. In general, however, very little success has been obtained in effecting the most critical issues we face. Overpopulation, pollution, excess production of greenhouse gasses, the widespread use of dangerous man-made chemicals, to name a few, have seen no meaningful progress.

The issue of wind power turbines near the AT, as painful as it is going to be for some, pales in comparison to conflict that will occur concerning the Nantucket Sound location that I mentioned in my earlier note. This type of conflict will occur at almost every location where this type of technology needs to be built. There will be big issues with the locations of solar energy fields, and any other type of system that is built.

There are going to be 3 billion more people that have to share this earth and we have to plan for them. If we don't figure out how to accept new technologies and implement then we are forced to continue with the current ones. As you may have noticed the administration has already started to float the idea of building NEW nuclear powerplants as a possible solution to our dilema. You can imagine what other parts of the world, many of which are in desperate straits, will do as the population explodes and and people need to be fed, clothed and housed. It is easy to hate and place evil intentions of the people who have, and are making, the decisions which drive us down the path we walk. Whether they are bad, stupid, ignorant or just ill informed at this point, eventually everyone will realize how important it is to change our society (and power systems, and energy usage, yadda, yadda, yadda) and when that happens they will steam roll over everyone and everthing in their path. The more we accomplish now the more likely we will have set the table for them to succeed.

As you might derive from my comments, I do not believe that we have the fortitude as a culture to accompllish the tasks at hand. I did once, but no longer. We all will go down with this ship. Bailing might be in order. Wyo

[weary]

I believe here that the "core" issue is NOT the AT, however important and admirable a goal that is. I wish it were, but it is not. This may be a site for AT discussions, but the discussion relates to issues beyond the AT. The core issue is survival. ...
All locations are NIMBY locations. It is not an insult. We all feel most strongly about what we value the most, and that is normally our homes or special places....

"In wildness is the preservation of the world," remains true today as it did when Henry uttered the words on the shore of Walden pond. We don't save the world by deliberately destroying the last few wild places. It's not necessary to dam the last wild rivers, burn the last wild forests, or clutter the last wild landscapes. There's energy also in the vast library collections, the art museums. Shall we burn these also in our quest for survival?

Weary

[Wyoming]

"In wildness is the preservation of the world," remains true today as it did when Henry uttered the words on the shore of Walden pond. We don't save the world by deliberately destroying the last few wild places. It's not necessary to dam the last wild rivers, burn the last wild forests, or clutter the last wild landscapes. There's energy also in the vast library collections, the art museums. Shall we burn these also in our quest for survival?

Weary
I appreciate the sentiment. But this statement is patently not true. The world is going to survive even if we don't. The point is whether we survive or not. If we don't there will be no one here to care about the rest.

Am I willing to sacrifice everything man has created for survival. Perhaps. Every time in my life when survival was at stake I did whatever it took to survive. This is a comon trait in my experience.

I guarantee you that the forces of industry and government, backed by the bulk of the population, will not care whether a place is "wild", or not, or if a library of books or art is important if they think exploiting it will help them to survive. Don't help the people who want to continue the way we have been following from continuing their mistakes. Take every opportunity to advance a solution.

I care not about the wind mills in Maine. If you don't think that it makes sense for them to be near the AT you don't stop the development. You find a better place that makes more sense from a power generation standpoint and help get them built there. Travel down to Nantucket and make sure the wind mills get built there. Feel free to come by my place and do the same. We have no choice. Wyo

[Dharma]

When I see something like this written about the AT I have to restrain myself before I get kicked-off the list. The best I can do is go back and ask the writer to learn more about the Appalachian Trail before offering a public opinion on it.
Dear Rocks 'n Roots,
I don't need to learn anything more about the trail since I've hiked the whole thing and have had my own experiences that are meaningful to me. The statement which you reacted to: "I don't get angry when i see a cell tower or powerlines on the AT. I just take it as what's there and keep going. The wind towers would be no different to me", is something I learned while hiking the AT.

I learned that my appreciation for nature does not come from an unobstructed view, free of mankind's markings. It comes from inside of me and I would be a slave to my senses if I cursed at every poweline and cell tower, shaking my fist angrily in the air, chanting "this is the fault of those 'rapacious developers!', it's not giving me the required viewing pleasure!" No, instead she (the AT) taught me to keep my peace and enjoy what is there rather than seeing every man-made object as a cancer of society.

You have very strong feeling about the AT's wild preservation, and not wanting anything to change. I see this in myself at times. But, your judemental remarks are not going to change my or anyone's opinion on this board.

“AT hikers are way behind the curve”
“uneducated viewpoints”
“average hiker being totally uneducated”
“ silly Trail-members who seem to have no sense of the Trail”
“posters are either company plants or just plain ignorant…”
No one is going to "wake up", as you ask, to a person who is so incompassionate to their "uneducated viewpoints". The people you want to wake up, will actually go deeper into their sleep after hearing you rant.

I thank Wyoming for trying to get this discussion into deeper territory. The wind farm on the AT is a nice wake up call, not to out of control development, but to an issue of enery generation and the future ahead.

Most of the readers of this forum will most likely agree that continuing the current course of power generation, use of power and exploitation of resources absolutely cannot be continued if we are not to suffer what could be catastrophic consequennces in the relatively near future (50-100 years). Maybe less.
If we run out of oil (note the USA's occupation of Afghanistan, Saudi, and Iraq... we're getting nervous about it) you will see wind farms going up all over the place. I think there have to be better solutions than solar and wind power, and if I may don my tin-foil hat, I believe those technologies are available now, but locked up as miltary secrets.

You even asked the question yourself
If we can't power our nation because of our habits, then we have to start looking at why... That is worth focussing on and will lead you toward your goal more than trying to insult me.

[Dances with Mice]

RnR. Learn to make your arguments without criticizing those with different views, and you will do far more good for the trail and the trail environment. Calling those who profess different ideas "either company plants, or just plain ignorant" simply turns off potential allies.

Your characterizations may be (probably are?) fair representations, but it is counterproductive to bluntly say so. Make your arguments in terms of the issues, not the mental deficiencies and character of those who take opposite positions.

Weary would NEVER do that!
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2004-February/027730.html
"But the vandals that deliberately damage our land trust property are died in the wool, dumb, stupid, Rush Limbaugh, and probably Ray Stern, conservatives."

Ray (why would I die in my wool?) Stern

[WalkinHome]

Some pictures of some windmills in a town in Quebec, Canada

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5745/sort/1/cat/509/page/1

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5744/sort/1/cat/509/page/1

http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5743/sort/1/size/medium/cat/509/page/1

[weary]

Weary would NEVER do that!
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/2004-February/027730.html
"But the vandals that deliberately damage our land trust property are died in the wool, dumb, stupid, Rush Limbaugh, and probably Ray Stern, conservatives." Ray (why would I die in my wool?) Stern

Somehow, I treat people who destroy property differently than people who just say dumb things. I try to enlighten the latter. However, if I maligned any "dyed in the wool, dumb, stupid, Rush Limbaugh, and probably Ray Stern conservatives," I'm pleased. Such are beyond the reach of ordinary civilized dialogue.

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

If you read between the lines - and even the lines themselves - "Wyoming" is basically saying he doesn't care about the AT's wild surroundings nor can he articulate a coherent reference to well-understood AT histories and precedents leading up to the Trail as it is known in terms of conservation. I asked a very specific question about what these two development proponents thought about the power from the windmills being used to further develop the area around the Trail? They didn't respond either time. At that point I deem their arguments disqualified as far as having any legitimate AT content. Fight the AT all you want, just don't pretend you are some kind of insider when you haven't shown the first qualification of deserving that. Any person who pretends to argue an AT issue needs to be able to properly articulate what the AT is in a respectful manner. That hasn't happened here. The failure isn't from this side.

The point is simple. Wyoming's argument is false and doesn't have any legitimacy vs the AT, it's definition, or intentions. All the problems he outlines will still exist whether we preserve the Maine AT wilderness or not. There's no legitimate internal AT argument for developing-out the AT's wild buffers. Wisdom dictates that the trend Wyoming outlines will only continue to progress until we reach the same impasse again - only this time we'll have burned the AT in order to get right back to the same place. That's how these people work. That's also why the AT is there in the first place. The development salesman "Wyoming" should have the door slammed in his face. He offers nothing but destruction of the AT. The reason can be filled in later.


Dharma:

I guess, then, all the conservationists and Trail advocates who fought hard for years to give you the trail you walked down can just turn it over to someone who "walked down the Trail and decided it didn't bother him?"

This is what I'm talking about. We have a breed of hiker out there who are completely oblivious in their understanding of the AT. So oblivious that they don't realize from which side the "insult" comes from. Serious AT decisions should only be left to AT users who show some kind of understanding of the Trail and it's purpose and can articulate it. Anything else is just loudly-proclaimed ignorance of the AT...

[Wyoming]

If you read between the lines - and even the lines themselves - "Wyoming" is basically saying he doesn't care about the AT's wild surroundings nor can he articulate a coherent reference to well-understood AT histories and precedents leading up to the Trail as it is known in terms of conservation. I asked a very specific question about what these two development proponents thought about the power from the windmills being used to further develop the area around the Trail? They didn't respond either time. At that point I deem their arguments disqualified as far as having any legitimate AT content. Fight the AT all you want, just don't pretend you are some kind of insider when you haven't shown the first qualification of deserving that. Any person who pretends to argue an AT issue needs to be able to properly articulate what the AT is in a respectful manner. That hasn't happened here. The failure isn't from this side. ...

You are mistaken. I care. And I am familiar with its history, purpose and the individuals who strove to bring it into existence. All very admirable and deserving of respect. But what I am trying to point out is that there are many levels of caring. As much as you might care about any individual issue (the At and the purpose for which it was brought into existence for example) that issue still has to be placed in a heirarchy of concerns. What is the single most important concern you have. How does the AT issue impact it? Would stopping the building of windmills near the AT further or retard progress on the most important concern or any concern ranked above it? The AT is a wonderful place, but none of the areas I have hiked even come close to being "wilderness". ( I have not hiked the area we have been discussing so this statement is not intended to refer to that section). For most of its length it is within sight or hearing of "civilization". Not to mention that it is a foot road built by a hugh number of individuals who go as far as painting the trees every yards and building stairs and bridges and houses along its length. Do windmills, which have the potential to address higher level concerns (in my humble opinion of course) really destroy the purpose and experience of the AT? On the ridge behind my house there is a large antenna and many houses right next to the AT right of way. They do not destroy the AT here in any case. And like I said, if we need to use the ridge to place windmills to generate power (the county I live in is the fastest growing in the US and we have terrible power generation problems and fights going on) then, as much as I would not really like it I am not going to fight it. And why is that? It is because I believe that if we all act in a NIMBY fashion (as my neighbors all do) we cannot make progress. My neighbors all want the power plants we need to be located a long way away in some rural poor area and have the power broght in by high voltage transmission liines. And, oh yes, please place those lines underground so we won't have to see them as well. There are a host of reasons that I think this approach is not sound. As an example, with current technology, there is a huge resistive loss of generated electricity via this approach. This has a corresponding huge environmental impact that occurs for cosmetic reasons. We are pouring literally billions of dollars into developing power plants at long distances from the usage points and a alrge alunt of those dollars are going to heat the wire that the rest of the current is flowing down.

The drift of the argument is that we just cannot afford to waste more resources. There are not enough of them and there are going to be a lot less in the future. If we take the high ground we can help influence the directions of development in the future. If we have provided enough influence over time and have gained some respect with those that control the resources we may be in a position down the road to provide critical input at a time when it is desparately needed. I know this sounds somewhat alarmist in tone, but it is the opinion I hold and it is why I think these kind of issues need to be thouroughly examined. I admit I am just an amateur at this and probably cause as much confusion as good.


The point is simple. Wyoming's argument is false and doesn't have any legitimacy vs the AT, it's definition, or intentions. All the problems he outlines will still exist whether we preserve the Maine AT wilderness or not. There's no legitimate internal AT argument for developing-out the AT's wild buffers. Wisdom dictates that the trend Wyoming outlines will only continue to progress until we reach the same impasse again - only this time we'll have burned the AT in order to get right back to the same place. That's how these people work. That's also why the AT is there in the first place. The development salesman "Wyoming" should have the door slammed in his face. He offers nothing but destruction of the AT. The reason can be filled in later....

All arguments have their good points and weak points. The nature of real problems is that there is never a clear and cost free solution. Meaningful discussion needs to occur as often as possible or we will make mistakes almost all the time. Whether there is more wisdom in not building the windmills or in building them is not an easy yes or no question. Does not building them cause more harm to the greater good? If you win does that mean that the folks who oppose the windmill farm in Nantuckett Sound are more likely to win? And does that success build towards making it extremely difficult to build them anywhere where they impact someones visual environment? Does that bring us to the point that they can only be installed in remote locations (oops..that might be considered wilderness by someone ...hmmm better pick a poor rural area I guess) which will result in the same transmission loss issue mentioned above, again.

Across the world there is a groundswell of angst related to fundamental security (food, clothing, housing,..perhaps opportunity?) that directly relates to the lack of resources needed to handle the worlds population. That angst will grow phenominally over the next 20 years. It is clear and apparant right here in the US already. For all our minor differences related to religion and ethnic background we are pretty much all part of the same culture (the culture that fundamentally wiped out paganism). Some of the dominant characteristics of our culture are; a drive towards domination of resources, advantage over our opponents/allies/neighbors, a focus on competition vie cooperation, and an aggressive bent that quite readily turns violent. I see no reason to think that this "culture" is going to change in the near future. By its own standards it is the most successful there has ever been. When it finally decides that its survival is at stake (as it surely will) it will literally and figuratively take no prisioners. If we are to have any influence in the direction it moves, when it finally does, we must fill a valuable nich in the system. We cannot be percieved as part of the sytstem unless we clearly help try and find solutions, however painful they might be.

Sory to rattle on so long. I am home sick from work and have too much time on my hands :)


Dharma:

I guess, then, all the conservationists and Trail advocates who fought hard for years to give you the trail you walked down can just turn it over to someone who "walked down the Trail and decided it didn't bother him?"

This is what I'm talking about. We have a breed of hiker out there who are completely oblivious in their understanding of the AT. So oblivious that they don't realize from which side the "insult" comes from. Serious AT decisions should only be left to AT users who show some kind of understanding of the Trail and it's purpose and can articulate it. Anything else is just loudly-proclaimed ignorance of the AT...

Dharma most likely will not agree with the above. I will defer to him to respond. Wyo

[weary]

I appreciate the sentiment. But this statement (In wildness is the preservation of the world) is patently not true. The world is going to survive even if we don't. The point is whether we survive or not. If we don't there will be no one here to care about the rest.
.....I guarantee you that the forces of industry and government, backed by the bulk of the population, will not care whether a place is "wild", or not, or if a library of books or art is important if they think exploiting it will help them to survive. Don't help the people who want to continue the way we have been following from continuing their mistakes. Take every opportunity to advance a solution. I care not about the wind mills in Maine. If you don't think that it makes sense for them to be near the AT you don't stop the development. You find a better place that makes more sense from a power generation standpoint and help get them built there. .... We have no choice. Wyo
Those of us who have read and thought about Thoreau know that wildness is the preservation of the world, at least in the context that Thoreau made the assertion. His message essentially is that humans need wildness to live full lives, that the world is a diminished place for human existence without a leavening of wildness.

But regardless. The more central issue is how can human civilization best survive in an era of diminished resources. This is a difficult question with no easy answers. But one thing I'm certain about is that it will not be solved by willy nilly supporting every huckster that dreams of making a profit out of "green" energy sources.

Nor is it true that society will necessarily accept any alternative energy source, regardless of the damage it causes. During the height of the first oil boycott, which in constant dollars resulted in far higher prices than the present crunch, a handful of people managed to block the construction of a horribly damaging system of dams on the wild St. John River in northwestern Maine.

That victory was gained, despite support for the dams by the Senate's leading environmentalist, the powerful Edmund Muskie, and his replacement, Sen. George Mitchell, who went on to become President of the Senate.

The region at risk by the present industrial wind complex is, if anything, more precious than the river we saved 25 years ago -- certainly far more valuable than the piddling amount of energy likely to be produced by destroying a wild mountain in the viewsheds of a cluster of the wildest mountains in the East.

What is needed is a serious debate about the issues of energy, global warming and how best to cope. Sadly, these issues were almost entirely missing from the recent election debates. An important opportunity was lost while the campaigns prattled about quarter century old wartime records and how best to keep some couples from marrying.

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

You are mistaken. I care. And I am familiar with its history, purpose and the individuals who strove to bring it into existence. All very admirable and deserving of respect. But what I am trying to point out is that there are many levels of caring. As much as you might care about any individual issue (the At and the purpose for which it was brought into existence for example) that issue still has to be placed in a heirarchy of concerns. What is the single most important concern you have. How does the AT issue impact it? Would stopping the building of windmills near the AT further or retard progress on the most important concern or any concern ranked above it? The AT is a wonderful place, but none of the areas I have hiked even come close to being "wilderness".

If anybody wants to see a classic false argument please read the above. No, you don't care. What you are doing here is arguing for developing the AT and that's all. You are an enemy of the AT, no matter how you try to devalue what the AT is about in your unconvincing pertinacities, and should be treated that way. Anybody who argues for the development of the AT is an enemy of the AT - period. Don't try to warm yourself up as a "caring" insider. That's crap. You obviously care more about windmills than the AT. If you were genuinely recognizing the background and effort you cited above you would realize that nowhere in the AT's description is there any mention of "levels of caring" or ceding to outside concerns at the expense of wildness. The AT is a conservation project plain and simple. The assertion of outside concerns taking precedent is a false argument made up on the spot and nothing else.

You either fight to protect the AT for the reasons it was designed or you don't. AND YOU DON'T.

The sure sign of an invalid AT argument or position are the words "The AT really isn't a wilderness anyway." If anybody is still reading this realize that through my years of debating people on the internet I've determined that anyone who voices this opinion is only trying to work against the importance of preserving the Trail's wild buffer. The argument that the AT isn't perfect technical wilderness is just an excuse to get around the need to preserve it. Don't listen to anyone who ever voices this view. They aren't speaking valid AT language. They're just trying to weaken the Trail.

The rest is just gobbledigook from someone who really doesn't care about the AT trying to pretend he does. These are the most insidious Trail members because they sabotage the AT from inside. You can see their sincerity in how they ignore the important points Weary and I present only to return to a uninterupted flow of AT-devoid, pro-developer rhetoric. They should be given no credibility and are probably better off on a wise-use site where their deceptive arguments would fit in better. It's trolling at this point. God save the AT...



*

[Rocks 'n Roots]

We cannot be percieved as part of the sytstem unless we clearly help try and find solutions, however painful they might be.


Of course, that "pain" could never possibly involve stopping people from developing the last wild places could it? And one of those "solutions" couldn't possibly be the Appalachian Trail Project as designed by Benton MacKaye, could it? I've never seen a more "AT-blind" argument made before.

Sorry Wyoming, you lose by default because you never involved any AT substance in your response. (By the way, you didn't answer my point about them using that power to develop the region around the Maine AT for the third time - Strike 3, you're out!)



*

[tlbj6142]

Some pictures of some windmills in a town in Quebec, CanadaHow tall are those? They look like they are much shorter than those propsed on ME.

[Tim Rich]

**mercifully snipped**

If you were genuinely recognizing the background and effort you cited above you would realize that nowhere in the AT's description is there any mention of "levels of caring" or ceding to outside concerns at the expense of wildness. The AT is a conservation project plain and simple. The assertion of outside concerns taking precedent is a false argument made up on the spot and nothing else.

You either fight to protect the AT for the reasons it was designed or you don't. AND YOU DON'T.

The sure sign of an invalid AT argument or position are the words "The AT really isn't a wilderness anyway." If anybody is still reading this realize that through my years of debating people on the internet I've determined that anyone who voices this opinion is only trying to work against the importance of preserving the Trail's wild buffer. The argument that the AT isn't perfect technical wilderness is just an excuse to get around the need to preserve it. Don't listen to anyone who ever voices this view. They aren't speaking valid AT language. They're just trying to weaken the Trail.

The rest is just gobbledigook from someone who really doesn't care about the AT trying to pretend he does. These are the most insidious Trail members because they sabotage the AT from inside. You can see their sincerity in how they ignore the important points Weary and I present only to return to a uninterupted flow of AT-devoid, pro-developer rhetoric. They should be given no credibility and are probably better off on a wise-use site where their deceptive arguments would fit in better. It's trolling at this point. God save the AT...

*

Roxy, you have seized upon and verbosely cling to a mythical notion that the creation of the trail embodies all that is right. Those who created the AT were not single focused and lived productive lives separate and distinct from the trail. I invite you to do the same. The creation of the trail was met with many disappointments and compromises, such that MacKaye washed his hands of the initiative. The AT of MacKaye's day involved extended walks along country and woods roads, not wilderness. MacKaye's plans, written as he mourned his wife's suicide, involved far more than a hiking trail and included proposals about which you would cry heresy today. His work with the TVA and REA to harness "the white coal of water power", where he viewed free flowing rivers "flowing to waste, sometimes in terrifying floods, waters capable of generating untold hydro-electric energy and of bringing navigation to many a lower stream", expressly contributed to a *less* wild AT, but it addressed the greater need of rural electrification. In your AT-only philosophy, that would disquality MacKaye himself from "caring AT-insider" status. A proponent of dam building would be set upon by you as espousing "pro-developer rhetoric". MacKaye's AT vision was of a place to take two week "work" vacations at working camps, and also included provisions for permanent sanitarium and tuberculosis encampments.

[TJ aka Teej]

...just gobbledigook from someone who really doesn't care about the AT trying to pretend he does.
That pretty much sums up most of R&R's posts on this and other lists...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I take that "Roxy" as disrespectful so I won't honor the poster with a serious response even if he does attempt a disingenuous snipping of MacKaye in order to get around backing the AT - as some seem to make more of an effort at than actually standing up for it. It's very simple, are these posters making a greater effort to search out excuses for, and ways of weakening, the Trail's wilderness needs, or are they fighting for ATC-level Trail protection? The answer is the former.


It's contempt of the Trail and nothing else. Which is why I like Wingfoot, even with his ways...


I can give a very good response to that false version of MacKaye offered by Tim, but I won't do it if I'm being personally held in contempt...

[WalkinHome]

I do not know how high they are. You are right, I don't think they are very high, at least not as high as we are discussing in Maine. Based on 40 foot utility poles I would guess about 120 feet (bottom to tip) but to be safe I would say between 100 and 200 feet. Once again, maybe Weary can help here as he has been there too. Just included them to show what a nest of them looks like.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Thanks WH. You definitely showed us that there would be no semblance of wildness left after that swirling monstrosity oil derek field was constructed right next to the Maine AT...

[Tim Rich]

I take that "Roxy" as disrespectful so I won't honor the poster with a serious response even if he does attempt a disingenuous snipping of MacKaye in order to get around backing the AT - as some seem to make more of an effort at than actually standing up for it. It's very simple, are these posters making a greater effort to search out excuses for, and ways of weakening, the Trail's wilderness needs, or are they fighting for ATC-level Trail protection? The answer is the former.


It's contempt of the Trail and nothing else. Which is why I like Wingfoot, even with his ways...


I can give a very good response to that false version of MacKaye offered by Tim, but I won't do it if I'm being personally held in contempt...

I didn't realize that a variation of a pseudonym could be viewed as disrespectful. Use your real name if you wish. In the interest of advancing your carpal tunnel syndrome, I revise my original post. Do tell.

Begging your pardon, Mr. Rocks N. Roots, sir. You, sir, have seized upon and verbosely cling to a mythical notion that the creation of the trail embodies all that is right. Those who created the AT were not single focused and lived productive lives separate and distinct from the trail. I invite you to do the same. The creation of the trail was met with many disappointments and compromises, such that MacKaye washed his hands of the initiative. The AT of MacKaye's day involved extended walks along country and woods roads, not wilderness. MacKaye's plans, written as he mourned his wife's suicide, involved far more than a hiking trail and included proposals about which you would cry heresy today. His work with the TVA and REA to harness "the white coal of water power", where he viewed free flowing rivers "flowing to waste, sometimes in terrifying floods, waters capable of generating untold hydro-electric energy and of bringing navigation to many a lower stream", expressly contributed to a *less* wild AT, but it addressed the greater need of rural electrification. In your AT-only philosophy, that would disquality MacKaye himself from "caring AT-insider" status. A proponent of dam building would be set upon by you as espousing "pro-developer rhetoric". MacKaye's AT vision was of a place to take two week "work" vacations at working camps, and also included provisions for permanent sanitarium and tuberculosis encampments.

[dperry]

These are direct quotes from Benton MacKaye's manifesto, “An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning" (accessible at http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/history/index.html so you can reassure yourself that I am not engaging in any "disingenuous snipping". All emphasis is mine.)


"Here he finds, over on the Monongehela side the black coal of bituminous and the white coal of water power. He proceeds along the great divide of the upper Ohio and sees flowing to waste, sometimes in terrifying floods, waters capable of generating untold hydro-electric energy and of bringing navigation to many a lower stream."


"Most sanitariums now established are perfectly useless to those afflicted with mental disease - the most terrible, usually, of any disease. Many of these sufferers could be cured. But not merely by "treatment." They need acres not medicine. Thousands of acres of this mountain land should be devoted to them with whole communities planned and equipped for their cure."


"There are in the Appalachian belt probably 25 million acres of grazing and agricultural land awaiting development. Here is room for a whole new rural population. Here is an opportunity - if only the way can be found - for that counter migration from city to country that has so long been prayed for."


"The various camps would require food. Why not raise food, as well as consume it, on the cooperative plan? Food and farm camps should come about as a natural sequence. Timber also is required. Permanent small scale operations should be encouraged in the various Appalachian National Forests. The government now claims this as a part of its forest policy. The camping life would stimulate forestry as well as a better agriculture. Employment in both would tend to become enlarged."


(Regarding shelters along the trail) "They should be equipped always for sleeping and certain of them for serving meals -- after the function of the Swiss chalets."





"Each would consist of a little community on or near the trail (perhaps on a neighboring lake) where people could live in private domiciles. Such a community might occupy a substantial area -- perhaps a hundred acres or more."




"Food and farm camps could be established as special communities in adjoining valleys. Or they might be combined with the community camps with the inclusion of surrounding farm lands."

"Fuelwood, logs, and lumber are other basic needs of the camps and communities along the trail. These also might be grown and forested as part of the camp activity, rather than bought in the lumber market. The nucleus of such an enterprise has already been started at Camp Tamiment, Pennsylvania, on a lake not far from the route of the proposed Appalachian trail. The camp has been established by a labor group in New York City. They have erected a sawmill on their tract of 2000 acres and have built the bungalows of their community from their own timber. Farm camps might ultimately be supplemented by permanent forest camps through the acquisition (or lease) of wood and timber tracts. These of course should be handled under a system of forestry so as to have a continuously growing crop of material. The object sought might be accomplished through long term timber sale contracts with the Federal Government on some of the Appalachian National Forests. Here would be another opportunity for permanent, steady, healthy employment in the open."


"The building and protection of an Appalachian trail, with its various communities, interests, and possibilities, would form at least one outlet. Here is a job for 40,000 souls."


Not the words of a guy who feared development near the trail, whether of living quarters, lumber operations, or of alternative energy sources, huh? Why, he even seems to have favored AMC-style huts. Man,this stuff would have taken up a lot of viewshed. Perhaps you would like to revise your opinion of MacKaye, since he seems to have been "trying to work against the importance of preserving the Trail's wild buffer." For that matter, since the ATC features this article prominently, and since such opinions show nothing but "contempt of the Trail," perhaps you should lower your estimation of their saintliness as well, hmmm?


Actually, I'd settle for your apologizing to Tim for having called him a liar. But I ain't holding my breath. :(

[dperry]

1.) If Wyoming doesn't mind, I'll take up your challenge regarding the relationship between the wind farm and further development of the area. I think that if people want to build houses, or golf courses, or whatever up there, they'll find a way to get power whether there is a wind farm or not. Not that I want to see major development up there, but I think the issue is irrevelant to the question of whether the turbines are a good idea or not.

2.) Even without getting into the thorny question of whether the ATC's opinion on the trail is the only acceptable one for hikers to hold (and I'm skeptical on that one), the fact is, as long as there are substantial holdings of private property near the trail, it's certainly not the only one that matters in the real world. Last time I checked, freedom in the use of private property was a pretty important value in this country, and people tend to get mighty upset when others try to high-handedly limit that freedom. Again, not that I want to see rampant development near the trail, but the least we can do is make sure that others don't get punished for our desires. In that regard, I have the utmost respect for Weary and his fellow land-trusters, in that purchasing important tracts is by far the most honorable solution to this problem.

3.) I fully agree with Weary that the benefits of this project are unlikely to make up for the loss in scenic values. However, I certainly don't think that it's such an idiotic idea that you need to diss people for suggesting it. I think that Dharma's initial post on the subject was quite appropriate; he calmly stated his feelings, but then concluded that the people of Maine were in freedom to make their own decision on the matter. I hope that his sort of thinking prevails on our side; a little cooperation and understanding may go a long way towards a quicker solution to the problem and towards avoiding lawsuits, etc, which consume time and resources better spent on other Trail uses.

[Youngblood]

dperry,

Very well written. It is important to realize that many issues are quite complex and far reaching. This means they affect a lot of people with different values and veiwpoints, and it is not always wise to dismiss them as ignorant, evil, etc or just plain wrong because they don't share your values and viewpoints.

Youngblood

[weary]

1.) If Wyoming doesn't mind, I'll take up your challenge regarding the relationship between the wind farm and further development of the area. I think that if people want to build houses, or golf courses, or whatever up there, they'll find a way to get power whether there is a wind farm or not. Not that I want to see major development up there, but I think the issue is irrevelant to the question of whether the turbines are a good idea or not.

.....I fully agree with Weary that the benefits of this project are unlikely to make up for the loss in scenic values. However, I certainly don't think that it's such an idiotic idea that you need to diss people for suggesting it. I think that Dharma's initial post on the subject was quite appropriate; he calmly stated his feelings, but then concluded that the people of Maine were in freedom to make their own decision on the matter. I hope that his sort of thinking prevails on our side; a little cooperation and understanding may go a long way towards a quicker solution to the problem and towards avoiding lawsuits, etc, which consume time and resources better spent on other Trail uses.
I agree that we should get back to a discussion of wind power. RnR is largely correct in his interpretation of Benton MacKayes views at least as they evolved over a long life. He began as a proponent of development in the Appalachians for the benefit of the inhabitants of the inner cities of the east. He quickly became convinced that preservation of wilderness was a more critical need. That's why he was one of the founders of the Wilderness Society.

As for leaving local decisions entirely to local people, that is a prescription for disaster. The trail, the National parks and forests are national institutions that must be protected for the national benefits that they provide.

Those living near the trail have different priorities. Many people in the area impacted by the proposed industrial power complex on Redington are addicted to ATVs. They use powerlines as ATV trails. Some resent the Appalachian Trail because use of the machines on the trail are prohibited. Some dream of jobs, though the developer says the project will require less than 10 permanent jobs. Keep in mind that the tax incentives that make these projects interesting to developers do not require that the turbines actually run and produce energy. That's why when I take pictures of wind complexes in this country most of the turbines aren't turning.

Because Redington and Black Nubble are in the half of Maine with no organized local governments, the decision will be made by a state board. These boards do not act in a vacuum. Once an application is actually filed it is important that trail supporters make their views known. The decision makers need to be reminded that the trail is important and that the viewshed from the trail are important.

That's why ATC is opposing the project, and why MATC has committed $25,000 in very scarce funds to oppose. Remember MATC has only 600 members. Total dues income is only $9,000 a year. Yet the vote by MATC directors in opposition was unanimous.

The decision board, however, needs to also hear from the Appalachian Trail community at large. Except for those who have the time and ability to study the application in detail, I hope that most of the at large comments will be from people who will talk about the importance of the trail and the protection of the trail. We should let those who are experts on the issue of wind power and its benefits and the details of this specific project discuss the merits of this specific proposal.

Surely, it is not wise for every alternative energy proposal to be automatically supported, regardless of its merits.

Weary

[radar]

NIMBY??

Not In My Back Yard

[tlbj6142]

I know you folks are busy pissing on each other, but back on subject a bit...

I just read an article in the "The Highlands Voice", a monthly(?) newsletter/paper for the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy on Windmills (there have been several in this "paper" over the past year). Seems as though Windmills are quite "popular" in WV. And many folks are trying to stop them.

I don't know if bats are "in Maine", but it seems as though they are the biggest threat to Windmill development on "forested ridges" (sound familar). A recent 2 month (?) study of a windfarm consisting of 44(?) mills resulted in the death of no fewer than 2000 bats! It should be noted that birds were the primary focus of the study, but it was found that very few birds had issues with the windmills. The bat "kill" was "alarming". And in the words of the author this represents "a number large enough to threaten the industry".

Might be worth a Google search by folks wishing to hault the development.

I also read that a tax break/credit (federal?) for windmill development has been extended for 10 years, but only for projects completed before the end of 2005.

Check out www.wvhighlands.org (http://www.wvhighlands.org/) for more details. Might want to Google "Bat Conservation International", "Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative" as well.

[Dharma]

I was googling for bats when I came upon this site which talked about avian collision mortality. Now you reactionary types, DON'T GET YOUR PANTIES IN A BIND over these numbers, they are inaccurate since the estimates are so wide. But, it was interesting to note they claim buildings are the highest killer of birds, with house cats a close second. :D

http://greengold.org/wind/faqs.php#A26

The poster of this post does not claim responsibility for the accuracy of data collected or the content or environmental posturing of the website link above, since the poster did not read the whole site and doesn't care what the whole site is about. The link is for your enjoyment purposes only and does not mean to put buildings, window glass, or cats in an unfavorable light.

[KotzyMJ]

I don't care about your fricken' disclaimer. It sure put my panties in a twist

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I fully agree with Weary that the benefits of this project are unlikely to make up for the loss in scenic values. However, I certainly don't think that it's such an idiotic idea that you need to diss people for suggesting it. I think that Dharma's initial post on the subject was quite appropriate; he calmly stated his feelings, but then concluded that the people of Maine were in freedom to make their own decision on the matter. I hope that his sort of thinking prevails on our side; a little cooperation and understanding may go a long way towards a quicker solution to the problem and towards avoiding lawsuits, etc, which consume time and resources better spent on other Trail uses.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

D. Perry:

Thanks for your input. Without sounding too offensive, may I ask what your point is? You seem to agree that the windmills aren't the best thing for that location in regard to the AT. I understand your reflexive reaction to seeing people stand up for the AT, but I don't understand it's intention.


I tend to get a bit "perplexed" by people snipping Benton MacKaye out of context and then speaking to me as if they were teaching me something new. There's a simple way to explode this false version of MacKaye on the spot. Honest people who actually know the AT and its history and what ATC pursues as its AT mission know that if they took that same rapacious developer MacKaye you clipped out of his 'Regional Planning' text and put him in the middle of this thread he would rip you apart for putting those words in his mouth. If you dared say those things to a present MacKaye he would teach YOU a lesson you wouldn't soon forget and you would probably address Rocks 'n Roots in a little more cautious way. I have no doubts whatsoever that you would receive a good environmental ass-tanning from old Benton with and AT switch.


I need to avoid being "verbose" as someone said, so we'll summarize by adding that the 'Regional Planning' you cited was of vast scale. Benton was aiming high and had big ambitions. He very much planned to develop and implant power-infrastructure in his plans. America was undergoing huge development at that time in that regard. In no way did MacKaye plan to make the Appalachian region a total wilderness. You're very much quoting him out of context for dubious purposes. If he made the entire area in question strict wilderness it would have covered several states worth of area. I don't think even Benton expected to do that.

MacKaye's plans for the AT involved creating a large strip of Trail corridor the size of a national forest for buffer. The reason he did this was because he knew he had to section off a protected zone right away or be dealing with these piecemeal fights we are currently experiencing in Maine and Pennsylvania. In no way was that national forest-sized buffer intended to be a place for the development you cited. Yes, he would have had camps and even colonies, but that was all part of the need to make it functional. In the 1920's if you told the government you were doing it to create a viable biosphere greenway you wouldn't get much cooperation (today either).

If you think this is inaccurate just look at the series of national forests, parks, etc contiguous to the AT that just happened to be built at the same time as the AT. Someone was reading MacKaye, and they were at the influential level. Strangely that original level of governmental support has now changed and the AT now seems more like a nuisance than our premier Trail Project. I personally think the US Government should be sued simply because it has pulled back and left the Appalachian National Scenic Trail unprotected. If there is any place where the government should have arranged protection for the AT it is Maine. The Shenandoahs were controversial because they involved people being moved and losing their land. Maine is not such a place. The lands in question were paper company lands. There's absolutely no excuse for the government to have not taken the obvious track in living up to its responsibility for this national scenic trail. It was an easy one, yet the Trail was left bare to some technical economic sophistry that has now resulted in some of the worst threats the AT has ever faced.

I would love to be present, D. Perry, when you told Benton MacKaye that he wasn't so averse to those windmills - It's a pity AT websites seem to be concentration points for some of the most ill-informed and unenlightened Trail views...

I could continue on about how that larger original "developed" plan still contained large wilderness tracts - in fact much more than the present AT. - But that would be a "verbose" post...

[Tim Rich]

D. Perry:

[ingenuously snipped]

I could continue on about how that larger original "developed" plan still contained large wilderness tracts - in fact much more than the present AT. - But that would be a "verbose" post...

Too late...

[Tim Rich]

D. Perry:


If you think this is inaccurate just look at the series of national forests, parks, etc contiguous to the AT that just happened to be built at the same time as the AT. Someone was reading MacKaye, and they were at the influential level. Strangely that original level of governmental support has now changed and the AT now seems more like a nuisance than our premier Trail Project. I personally think the US Government should be sued simply because it has pulled back and left the Appalachian National Scenic Trail unprotected. If there is any place where the government should have arranged protection for the AT it is Maine. The Shenandoahs were controversial because they involved people being moved and losing their land. Maine is not such a place. The lands in question were paper company lands. There's absolutely no excuse for the government to have not taken the obvious track in living up to its responsibility for this national scenic trail. It was an easy one, yet the Trail was left bare to some technical economic sophistry that has now resulted in some of the worst threats the AT has ever faced.

...

Tail wagging the dog, Mr. Rocks. Any initiative involving eastern forests would likely involve the Appalachians. Saying MacKaye's writings were the reason national forests and parks were established in the east overstates it. If influentional folks in the gummint were reading his writings, why did they choose the pave the AT with Skyline Drive? The Great Depression had more to do with it than MacKaye.

MacKaye was a great man. Your idolized fawning over him, attributing all that is good and right about the world to him, does more harm than good. If you were to sit at the feet of the master and profess all to him that you have in your internet meanderings, you might just get an "ass-tanning from old Benton".

[Tha Wookie]

Not In My Back Yard
Thanks Radar, but I know what it means. I was just pointing out that I don't want towers up there, and it's not MY back yard. Go back and read the post.

Save the AT!

[Rocks 'n Roots]

It's kind of strange to me that so many internet AT interested see skepticism and attack of the AT's wilderness purpose as their main approach rather than a simple recognition of fact. That is partly why I emphasize MacKaye so much because he and his creation are vital to understanding the AT as a whole. In fact, they're inseparable. Too many AT persons see the Trail as a tribal meeting place for hikers and don't want to be bothered with either the volunteer or conservation side. That doesn't help the Trail in my opinion.

It's obvious to me who respects the AT and who doesn't. It's easy to naysay efforts at organizing people behind this effort. It's a lot more difficult to take up the AT as a cause according to its original purpose. That purpose has obviously been lost on some.


The Skyline Drive is a study in undermining of the Project and its intentions. I'd like to know if it was innocent or if certain forces saw the full Project as threatening on a political level. Certainly MacKaye saw the Drive as threatening to his concept and left after being unable to impress how damaging it was to his design. I'd like for those trying to sell us how MacKaye was a notorious developer to reconcile why the Drive drove him away from his life's purpose. And anyone who tries to tie MacKaye's motivations for the Project to his wife's suicide is simply despicable...

[Tim Rich]

The Skyline Drive is a study in undermining of the Project and its intentions. I'd like to know if it was innocent or if certain forces saw the full Project as threatening on a political level. Certainly MacKaye saw the Drive as threatening to his concept and left after being unable to impress how damaging it was to his design. I'd like for those trying to sell us how MacKaye was a notorious developer to reconcile why the Drive drove him away from his life's purpose. And anyone who tries to tie MacKaye's motivations for the Project to his wife's suicide is simply despicable...

There you go again, Mr. Roots, thinking that there was a sinister plan afoot to hamper the full realization of MacKaye's dream. In the thirties, the gummint was far more concerned with preventing starvation than MacKaye's utopian vision. MacKaye penned his initial article on the "Project" upon the urging of others as he mourned his wife's death. I believe that to be a fact. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it's coincidental that he mentions what the mentally ill need is space, not confinement. I don't think it's despicable to mention that MacKaye penned his article while experiencing a major loss or life change - I think it quite interesting that many who walk find themselves on a thruhike for that very reason.

Take Care,

Tim

[TJ aka Teej]

And anyone who tries to tie MacKaye's motivations for the Project to his wife's suicide is simply despicable...
You have just called Larry Anderson, cofounder on the Harvard Common Press and Benton MacKaye's biographer, "simply despicable." Roxy, when you began typing nonsense about Benton on the at-l you confessed that all you knew about him was what Wingy had read aloud to you while you sat at his knee. You were advised to read the retrospective about the AT's early years on the ATC's website, and you were encouraged to read Larry Anderson's biography, in the hopes that your bizarre speaking-in-tongues babbles about Benton might improve somewhat if you acquired at least a basic knowledge about the man. Once again, I suggest you read about MacKaye and "Regional Planning" at www.appalachiantrail.org (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/) and get a copy (and READ it) of "Benton MacKaye, Conservationist, Planner, and Creator of The Appalachian Trail," by Larry Anderson from your library.
From the "simply despicable" ATC's webpage: "His proposal, drawing on years of talk of a 'master trail' within New England hiking circles, was written at the urging of concerned friends in the months after his suffragette-leader wife killed herself."

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I know Weary hates pissing contests, but TJ, your credibility was finished long ago when you tried to tell us from your naysaying dungeon that WF had no input over the Mine and was self-aggrandizing. I've since seen a letter from Jay Leutze detailing how WF was virtually singally responsible for organizing his effort and the unprecedented letter campaign. Sorry, I'd like to address your pionts about MacKaye, but on the surface they appear like more of your specialty. Apparently being totally shown-up has no effect on you.


T Rich:

I see you've been backing away from your previous Limbaugh rhetoric. In your previous post it was clear that you posed MacKaye's impetus for the AT as being at least partly due to the trauma of his wife's death (therefore imparting hysteria or mania on his behalf). I think that's clear to anyone observing the context in which it was written. To try to soften that with innocent protests is disingenuous at best. Anyone with any knowledge of MacKaye and his ideas would know that his plans for great things in the mountians preceded his wife's misfortune. God forbid anyone would actually credit him with the AT he gave us instead of merely seeing him as a controversial figure of debate. Or see how his vision holds more true than ever today...




*

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Here is Jay Leutze's message posted on another forum (not sure which one), answering someone named "Snodrog", also known as "TJ", who was spreading misinformation about the efort to save Belview Mountain and the Trailplace participation in that effort ...

Hi. I saw a post by you on a forum through Google. You seem to harbor some hostility toward Dan Bruce. That's not really any of my business, but to the extent the facts of the Putnam Mine matter might clear up any misconceptions, here they are: I can't remember exactly how I got Dan's number. It was either through a web-site, or it was passed along to me through an environmental lawyer who was tired of dealing with my fanatic desire to broadast the atrocity taking place next to Hump Mountain. I do remember how I met him. I saw online that Dan lived in Hot Springs, so I called information for Hot Springs, and on about the second ring this guy picked up the phone and said "Wingfoot." For the next hour or so this guy listened to me spew every detail of a byzantine administrative nightmare and looming legal quagmire. I was, quite simply, astonished by him. I had been given the runaround from state officials and attorneys for many haywire days at that point, and Dan gobbled up everything I threw at him and started tossing out ideas. At the time, I didn't even have an internet hook up. I camped at my mother's house and at the public library and checked in with Dan. I got a hotmail account. He told me how to set up multiple accounts so I could be copied on the emails his campaign would generate for use in court. Much planning went into it. Dan was really masterful in figuring out how to set up the Trailplace web site so that the letter-writer could answer questions that would then be flushed into a coherent letter that would not appear anything like a form letter, and those letters would be sent to multiple state decision makers, including the Governor and Attorney General. He had all kinds of tracking mechanisms built in. I can tell you, I sat back and watched in amazement as the letters from Trailplace users flooded into the state agency protesting the Putnam Mine permit. After about three days of the campaign I went to the Attorney General's office in Raleigh. The secretary, who I had gotten to know, glared at me. "What's wrong?" I asked her? She said something like: "Let's just say that there's not a whole lot of work getting done around here since your friends started writing all these letters." Turns out they had to "recieve" each letter by opening and printing it and entering it into the official case record. I think after three days we were up to 700 some letters. (I've got the actual tabulations somewhere.) Over at the Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, their staff was only able to open/print/enter about 60 emails a day! Slow computers. The head of DENR begged us to stop as the state law wouldn't allow them to not open each one. Dan "apologized" to him for the inconvenience and we directed thereafter that the letters only go to the Attorney General's office. The most letters they had ever before gotten during a public comment period for an environmental issue was TWELVE letters, and we hit them with over 2,500 in four weeks. Every one of those letters (an impressive stack representing public opinion) has to be carted to every hearing and court appearance and it is all in the permanent case record. If anybody thinks Dan Bruce is grandstanding to say that Trailplace was the critical part of what success we have had thus far in fighting this and getting the attention of the people who make decisions, I say come on over and let me offer you a beer and let me tell you a little story ... a warning, it might take a while! Trail-wise, as ever, Jay Leutze, Concerned Citizens to Save Belview Mountain

[TJ aka Teej]

...you tried to tell us from your naysaying dungeon that WF had no input over the Mine and was self-aggrandizing.
Cowardly changing the subject and running away from his mistakes about Benton MacKaye to an hide behind an old issue that he still knows very little about, Roxy leaves another puddle of toady pee on the Internet highway. Some facts (And we all know how Roxy hates these) in the order they occurred after a mining permit within the viewshed of the AT was granted: 1) The NC State Mining Commission announced that the permit was issued in error and that it would revoke the Putnam Mine permit. 2) After the first public meeting in NC, the State Mining Commission announced that public input could have no impact on the decision, which would be decided as a matter of existing statute. 3) The subject of the Putnam Mine was brought to the attention of the AT community via the at-l mailing list and the ATC. 4) Months later the subject came up on TP, and Wingy started an email effort concerning the Putnam Mine. 5) Wingy claimed that TP had stopped the Putnam Mine by sending emails, and therefore people should send him donations. 6) I said that was nonsense. 7) Roxy cut and pastes some of my emails out of context, adds some words that I did not write, and sends them to Wingy. Wingy and I exchanged emails. 8) Wingy started an email effort to say I am hurting the AT by telling the truth, and includes a letter he solicited from Jay Leutze. 9) Roxy claimed Jay was "AT unconnected", so I explained to Roxy who Jay Leutze was. 10) I explained to Roxy that yes, many emails were sent, and yes, Jay credits them all to Wingy. 11) Years later, Wingy changes his tune, and now lowers his claim to merely that 'he helped get the ball rolling' on the Putnam Mine issue. 12) Roxy doesn't get Wingy's memo, and still thinks Wingy is claiming he stopped the Putnam Mine by sending emails.

For an accurate, unfiltered by Roxy, account of the Putnam Mine issue, I suggest anyone interested read the latest ATN. Wingy's email effort is mentioned. If you are not an ATC member and do not receive the ATN, you can read a copy at the ATC's website: www.appalachiantrail.org (http://www.appalachiantrail.org)

[TJ aka Teej]

Here is Jay Leutze's message posted on another forum (not sure which one), answering someone named "Snodrog", also known as "TJ", who was spreading misinformation about the efort to save Belview Mountain and the Trailplace participation in that effort ...
This is cut and pasted directly from Wingy's website. Roxy, did you obtain His permission to steal this from His website and post it here on WhiteBlaze?

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Pathetic :rolleyes:

[Kim Clark]

Pathetic :rolleyes::clap That's the way to tell him! :clap

[TJ aka Teej]

In response to Roxy's bizarre babbles about Ben MacKaye:
Once again, I suggest you read about MacKaye and "Regional Planning" at www.appalachiantrail.org (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/) and get a copy (and READ it) of "Benton MacKaye, Conservationist, Planner, and Creator of The Appalachian Trail," by Larry Anderson from your library.
In response to Roxy's conspiracy theory fantasies involving the Mining Commision and the ATC:
For an accurate, unfiltered by Roxy, account of the Putnam Mine issue, I suggest anyone interested read the latest ATN. Wingy's email effort is mentioned. If you are not an ATC member and do not receive the ATN, you can read a copy at the ATC's website: www.appalachiantrail.org (http://www.appalachiantrail.org)

In reponse, Wingy-lite limps in with:
pathetic :rolleyes
I notice you have the Trail Maintainer icon in your posts, Roxy. Care to share with us what maintaining club you've joined, and when and where you do your maintaining work? Must be a long trip for you from southern Florida. From your posts it's not clear if you've ever been on the Appalachian Trail at all, but if you really do work as a trail maintainer I hope that contact with the trail community benefits you in the future.

[weary]

Cowardly changing the subject and running away from his mistakes about Benton MacKaye to an hide behind an old issue that he still knows very little about, Roxy leaves another puddle of toady pee on the Internet highway......

Hey, TJ. When one of my kids used to get into these tantrums, I'd have him go outside and run around the house three times. Try it. He was helped a lot.

Weary

[tlbj6142]

Hey, TJ. When one of my kids used to get into these tantrums, I'd have him go outside and run around the house three times. Try it. He was helped a lot.Damn! I thought we were the only family that did that.

[TJ aka Teej]

Hey, TJ. When one of my kids used to get into these tantrums, I'd have him go outside and run around the house three times. Try it. He was helped a lot.
O.K. Weary, I'll try it -
Hey! Roxy! Go run outside and around the house three times!
He's never listened to my advice though, Weary.
Perhaps he should hear it directly from you, or Himself?

[Tim Rich]

I see you've been backing away from your previous Limbaugh rhetoric. In your previous post it was clear that you posed MacKaye's impetus for the AT as being at least partly due to the trauma of his wife's death (therefore imparting hysteria or mania on his behalf). I think that's clear to anyone observing the context in which it was written. To try to soften that with innocent protests is disingenuous at best. Anyone with any knowledge of MacKaye and his ideas would know that his plans for great things in the mountians preceded his wife's misfortune. God forbid anyone would actually credit him with the AT he gave us instead of merely seeing him as a controversial figure of debate. Or see how his vision holds more true than ever today...
*

Mr. Roots, nothing is clear to you or made clear by you. If you actually read and comprehended my posts, you'd see that I admire MacKaye as the man who fostered the AT, as a man who overcame personal tragedy, and finally as a man who had a meaningful existence exclusive of the trail. We all should measure ourselves in the same way. If I had no life other than debating the narrow issue of all things AT, I'd be a sorry specimen for sure...

Take Care,

Tim

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Let's stick to the topic. MacKaye was very specific about the AT being a preserved place for wilderness experience and a conservation core. Windmills are basically air-type oil dereks. If somebody came and said "Look we have this great plan to build numerous moving oil dereks along the ridge a mile from the last remaining wild section of AT" (Maine) they would be laughed out of the room. It's only when this insane monstrosity takes the form of windmills that they get serious consideration from people who lack serious consideration for the AT...

[rgarling]

http://www.mountaintimes.com/history/1970s/windmill.php3

I had the opportunity to see this particular windmill in person. It made a lot of racket, killed a lot of birds, interfered with broadcast TV & radio reception for miles around, and was an imposing eyesore for the area. Eventually it was torn down. Good riddance!

I can't even imagine what a cluster of similiar monstrosities would do to the views & lives of those nearby. These things need to be where people aren't.

[Tim Rich]

Let's stick to the topic. MacKaye was very specific about the AT being a preserved place for wilderness experience and a conservation core. Windmills are basically air-type oil dereks. If somebody came and said "Look we have this great plan to build numerous moving oil dereks along the ridge a mile from the last remaining wild section of AT" (Maine) they would be laughed out of the room. It's only when this insane monstrosity takes the form of windmills that they get serious consideration from people who lack serious consideration for the AT...

Just so you can be made "clear", I think when you say "let's stick to the topic" you really mean "let me call you a liar, be called on it, and then ignore it under the guise of remaining on topic". A public or private admission that you're wrong is beyond you.

I don't think the oil derek analogy translates well to the windmill issue since oil extraction involves issues other than the purity of the viewshed. I'm against the windmills, although my view that more nuclear plants are the best answer (over wind farms, additional damming and fossil fuel plants) probably isn't widely shared on the list.

Take Care,

Tim

[TJ aka Teej]

MacKaye was very specific about the AT being a preserved place for wilderness experience and a conservation core.

Roxy, have you EVER read anything MacKaye wrote? Thank goodness the Trail that Myron Avery built wasn't the one MacKaye proposed!


“An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning"] [/font]

"Here he finds, over on the Monongehela side the black coal of bituminous and the white coal of water power. He proceeds along the great divide of the upper Ohio and sees flowing to waste, sometimes in terrifying floods, waters capable of generating untold hydro-electric energy and of bringing navigation to many a lower stream."

"Most sanitariums now established are perfectly useless to those afflicted with mental disease - the most terrible, usually, of any disease. Many of these sufferers could be cured. But not merely by "treatment." They need acres not medicine. Thousands of acres of this mountain land should be devoted to them with whole communities planned and equipped for their cure."

"There are in the Appalachian belt probably 25 million acres of grazing and agricultural land awaiting development. Here is room for a whole new rural population. Here is an opportunity - if only the way can be found - for that counter migration from city to country that has so long been prayed for."

"The various camps would require food. Why not raise food, as well as consume it, on the cooperative plan? Food and farm camps should come about as a natural sequence. Timber also is required. Permanent small scale operations should be encouraged in the various Appalachian National Forests. The government now claims this as a part of its forest policy. The camping life would stimulate forestry as well as a better agriculture. Employment in both would tend to become enlarged."

(Regarding shelters along the trail) "They should be equipped always for sleeping and certain of them for serving meals -- after the function of the Swiss chalets."

"Each would consist of a little community on or near the trail (perhaps on a neighboring lake) where people could live in private domiciles. Such a community might occupy a substantial area -- perhaps a hundred acres or more."



"Food and farm camps could be established as special communities in adjoining valleys. Or they might be combined with the community camps with the inclusion of surrounding farm lands."

"Fuelwood, logs, and lumber are other basic needs of the camps and communities along the trail. These also might be grown and forested as part of the camp activity, rather than bought in the lumber market. The nucleus of such an enterprise has already been started at Camp Tamiment, Pennsylvania, on a lake not far from the route of the proposed Appalachian trail. The camp has been established by a labor group in New York City. They have erected a sawmill on their tract of 2000 acres and have built the bungalows of their community from their own timber. Farm camps might ultimately be supplemented by permanent forest camps through the acquisition (or lease) of wood and timber tracts. These of course should be handled under a system of forestry so as to have a continuously growing crop of material. The object sought might be accomplished through long term timber sale contracts with the Federal Government on some of the Appalachian National Forests. Here would be another opportunity for permanent, steady, healthy employment in the open."

"The building and protection of an Appalachian trail, with its various communities, interests, and possibilities, would form at least one outlet. Here is a job for 40,000 souls."

[TJ aka Teej]

I'm against the windmills, although my view that more nuclear plants are the best answer...
I think it's clear that if modern windmill technology were known to Benton MacKaye, he'd have included them along with the hydro-electric dams in his regional planning proposal.

[rickb]

If I am not mistaken, MacKaye had a life-long involvement with the AT and that began, not ended, with what TJ quotes. I also think he became rather involved wilderness-related issues.

Reading that "anything" may be more missleading than it is enlightening.

Rick B

[Kim Clark]

I think it's clear that if modern windmill technology were known to Benton MacKaye, he'd have included them along with the hydro-electric dams in his regional planning proposal.
:confused: That's not clear AT ALL!:confused:

What's the difference between clear cutting a forest section and a humongous windmill?

In both cases Forest resources are sent outside the Appalachians and an ugly scar is left behind! The difference is that the clear cut might heal and regrow.

[Youngblood]

It is not always wise to try and judge someone's thoughts and actions in other places or times that you have no firsthand knowledge of. What seems foolish by todays standards, might have been brilliant in another time and place with different standards, conditions and concerns. Obviously I wasn't there, but the depression that occured around 1930 had some folks concerned about whether this country would survive (the Russian revolution wasn't that far removed and some folks thought that young impoverished folks with no future played a part in that) and many projects were considered employing great numbers of people and giving them hopes for a better live. It is my understanding that a lot of the dams were built with that in mind, as well as the CCC program that I think was involved with the building of the AT.

Youngblood

[TJ aka Teej]

If I am not mistaken, MacKaye had a life-long involvement with the AT and that began, not ended, with what TJ quotes.
Mistaken, you are not, Rick. However, when a poster claims others are ignorant of Ben MacKaye's original intent, and that to him alone it's "clear" what MacKaye's original intent was, don't you think that quoting from MacKaye's original proposal is the only appropriate response? That poster has claimed such quoting "isn't fair," and so he's been asked many times (here and elsewhere, as you know) to provide the words he claims were "very specific" that contradict what everyone else reads in MacKaye's 'Regional Planning.' That poster continually complains that we lesser beings know naught about our Trail's history, and that our lack of knowledge will be the Trail's downfall. And yet, aside from hissy-fits and scoldings, he provides nothing to back up his accusations. Perhaps he really does know how wrong he is. Perhaps his original intent remains what it was when he joined the at-l with a blitz of disruptive trolling. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I must conclude that "R&R" is not a serious person. His intent is not to contribute positively to the forums he joins, but to be a negative influence on them.

[TJ aka Teej]

...the clear cut might heal and regrow.
You could for Governor of Maine (and win) with that slogan, Kim.

[weary]

You could [run] for Governor of Maine (and win) with that slogan, [...the clear cut might heal and regrow.] Kim.
Possibly. That's why it so nice that our present governor is a supporter of wilderness and a champion of responsible forestry. No, TJ, you don't have to remind us that Baldacci, like most humans, is not perfect.

But he does have the most responsible overall environmental position compared with other Maine governors over the past several decades. Ken Curtis is the last governor to come to mind whose record challenges the incumbent.

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

TJ:

I already answered that. Your not realizing that is probably a sign of your greater interest in personal contest than any analysis of information. Your snips of MacKaye are out of context as "Youngblood" duly cited.

I tend to get a bit "perplexed" by people snipping Benton MacKaye out of context and then speaking to me as if they were teaching me something new. There's a simple way to explode this false version of MacKaye on the spot. Honest people who actually know the AT and its history and what ATC pursues as its AT mission know that if they took that same rapacious developer MacKaye you clipped out of his 'Regional Planning' text and put him in the middle of this thread he would tear you apart for putting those words in his mouth. If you dared say those things to a present MacKaye he would teach YOU a lesson you wouldn't soon forget and you would probably address Rocks 'n Roots in a little more cautious way. I have no doubts whatsoever that you would receive a good environmental ass-tanning from old Benton with and AT switch.


I need to avoid being "verbose" as someone said, so we'll summarize by adding that the 'Regional Planning' you cited was of vast scale. Benton was aiming high and had big ambitions. He very much planned to develop and implant power-infrastructure in his plans. America was undergoing huge development at that time in that regard. In no way did MacKaye plan to make the Appalachian region a total wilderness. You're very much quoting him out of context for dubious purposes. If he made the entire area in question strict wilderness it would have covered several states worth of area. I don't think even Benton expected to do that.

MacKaye's plans for the AT involved creating a large strip of Trail corridor the size of a national forest for buffer. The reason he did this was because he knew he had to section off a protected zone right away or be dealing with these piecemeal fights we are currently experiencing in Maine and Pennsylvania. In no way was that national forest-sized buffer intended to be a place for the development you cited. Yes, he would have had camps and even colonies, but that was all part of the need to make it functional. In the 1920's if you told the government you were doing it to create a viable biosphere greenway you wouldn't get much cooperation (today either).

If you think this is inaccurate just look at the series of national forests, parks, etc contiguous to the AT that just happened to be built at the same time as the AT. Someone was reading MacKaye, and they were at the influential level. Strangely that original level of governmental support has now changed and the AT now seems more like a nuisance than our premier Trail Project. I personally think the US Government should be sued simply because it has pulled back and left the Appalachian National Scenic Trail unprotected. If there is any place where the government should have arranged protection for the AT it is Maine. The Shenandoahs were controversial because they involved people being moved and losing their land. Maine is not such a place. The lands in question were paper company lands. There's absolutely no excuse for the government to have not taken the obvious track in living up to its responsibility for this national scenic trail. It was an easy one, yet the Trail was left bare to some technical economic sophistry that has now resulted in some of the worst threats the AT has ever faced.

I would love to be present, D. Perry, when you told Benton MacKaye that he wasn't so averse to those windmills - It's a pity AT websites seem to be concentration points for some of the most ill-informed and unenlightened Trail views...

[TJ aka Teej]

I tend to get a bit "perplexed" by people snipping Benton MacKaye out of context and then speaking to me as if they were teaching me something new. There's a simple way to explode this false version of MacKaye on the spot. Honest people who actually know the AT and its history and what ATC pursues as its AT mission know that if they took that same rapacious developer MacKaye you clipped out of his 'Regional Planning' text and put him in the middle of this thread he would tear you apart for putting those words in his mouth.
Go outside and run around the house three times, Roxy. When you get back, show us where MacKaye said he didn't mean the things he wrote in Regional Planning. There's a simple way to explode the quotes you were provided - produce quotes that back up your version of his intended purpose for the AT. Here's a hint: you won't find them in Regional Planning. You whine the quotes are "out of context", well here's the whole thing:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/pdfs/MacKaye.pdf
"Putting words in his mouth"? You DO know MacKaye wrote Regional Planning, don't you?

[TJ aka Teej]

[regarding Baldacci of Maine] But he does have the most responsible overall environmental position compared with other Maine governors over the past several decades.
That's quite the qualifier, Weary. You'd almost think that he was endorsed by more than one enviormental group when he ran for the office. You will admit, won't you, that he is in favor of windmills in Maine?

[weary]

That's quite the qualifier, Weary. You'd almost think that he was endorsed by more than one enviormental group when he ran for the office. You will admit, won't you, that he is in favor of windmills in Maine?
Most of the mainstream environmental groups do not endorse candidates for governor because it would jeopardize their nonprofit status. The Sierra Club is the exception because they are no longer a 401 c3 group. But in my frequent conversations with environmentalists in Maine I'm confident that most happily voted for Baldacci. The Sierra Club, of course, publicly endorsed Baldacci over both the Green and Republican candidates.

The Sierra Club is now working closely with the governor's administration to preserve land adjacent to the trail in the socalled "100-mile-wilderness." I am pleased, especially, that the person who has worked for two decades -- longer, harder and with more success than anyone I know -- to preserve Maine wild areas is now deputy commissioner of the Department of Conservation.

I'm in favor of windmills in Maine -- just not in the viewshed of what now is among the wildest sections of the entire 2,170-mile Appalachian Trail. As near as I can tell my view parallels that of ATC and AMC. Of the seven or eight windmill projects near the trail in New England, they only are opposing the proposed industrial windpower complex on Redington and Black Nubble, across a narrow valley from where the trail traverses mountain ridges between Saddleback and Crocker.

Weary

[mdionne]

Not sure how I feel about 200-foot high turbines near the AT in Maine.

http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D869H37G1-315.shtml

One seems like a novelty, but it could quickly grow to become a whole bunch of wind farms at different spots along the trail, which would definitely ruin the trail experience.


I didn't read all the posts on this thread because i had a feeling most of them went off topic and then way off topic. But here is my feeling on the original intent of the thread. I believe in less dependency on foriegn oil and on oil as a whole. The U.S. only consumes one percent of NG production and is supposed to increase 50% over the nest few years. So drilling in ANWR is a for profit venture only. I like the idea of solar and wind energy. As far as bird and bat mortality goes. Studies show that it is greatly variable from one windfarm to another. Altamont Windfarm in California and Foote Creek Rim in Wyoming have the highest mortality rates for than any other windfarm. Other windfarms have showed no major changes in species composition. The one in Searsburg, VT is a very low impact site. As an eye sore, I would hate to climb Saddleback or any other mountain in maine and see wind farms. I even think, in terms of power production, that the generators would be better off on the coastline. But the non-Mainers wouldn't have it. As a Maineiac, I would love to see the jobs open up in our state. So there it is. Confusing? You bet! I would like to see the wind farm built but it isn't the right place for them. Why can't they build them in Bush #1's backyard? State law...bush has to have wind turbines in his back yard or move out of the state. This would also cut down on security costs the state incurs around the Kennebunk area. :-?

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I didn't read all the posts on this thread because i had a feeling most of them went off topic and then way off topic.

The "off-topic" part being that which emphasizes the Trail's conservation purpose. Anyone else notice that those who promote development rhetoric over the AT tend to omit the Trail's basic premise in their thoughts? If you're for industrial wind derek development of the Maine AT's wild ridges you're against the AT. Can't have it both ways...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Sorry TJ, but if you insist on ignoring MacKaye's real meaning and context I can't help you. It's obvious that nothing shown to you will make any difference and your presence here is mostly for irritating naysaying and distorting of otherwise known and commonly-accepted understandings of MacKaye.

Personally I think that anyone who engages a serious argument about the AT's founder and his philosophy with "Go outside and run around the house three times Roxy" is a joker and a loudly self-advertised one at that. You obviously don't have the first inkling of knowledge of MacKaye and seem to be here more for disruption than anything else. The fact that your thoughts can only be made in an ever descending delivery of name-calling and personal abuse speaks for itself. I'm also impressed by those who criticize others for remaining silent or "timid" doing so themselves while giving credibility to wrongheaded ignorance of MacKaye...


Anyone who thinks that because MacKaye had broad development plans for the Appalachian region, that he would therefore approve of wilderness-ruining wind dereks along the Trail in Maine, is completely ignorant of the AT, MacKaye, and the AT Conservancy's purpose. If "TJ" presented this thread to a living and present Benton MacKaye he'd have that attitude corrected in short order. Of that there's no doubt...

[Kim Clark]

Sorry TJ, but if you insist on ignoring MacKaye's real meaning and context I can't help you. ...

Personally I think that anyone who engages a serious argument about the AT's founder and his philosophy with "Go outside and run around the house three times Roxy" is a joker and a loudly self-advertised one at that. ....

... If "TJ" presented this thread to a living and present Benton MacKaye he'd have that attitude corrected in short order. Of that there's no doubt...
Well said! Anyone that would advise someone else to run around the house three times must be a complete idiot. I can't believe anyone with any sense at all would advise someone else to do that. What a moron!

Do cut TJ a little slack, though. He's not a member of PEA.

[Dances with Mice]

Well said! Anyone that would advise someone else to run around the house three times must be a complete idiot. I can't believe anyone with any sense at all would advise someone else to do that. What a moron!

Uh...Kim? Ma'am? Or sir? You must have missed this, but...

Oh, nevermind. I agree! :clap

[mdionne]

The "off-topic" part being that which emphasizes the Trail's conservation purpose. Anyone else notice that those who promote development rhetoric over the AT tend to omit the Trail's basic premise in their thoughts? If you're for industrial wind derek development of the Maine AT's wild ridges you're against the AT. Can't have it both ways...

excuse me rocks, but i'm pretty sure the wind gererators are not being built in the middle of the AT. but if what you mean is that everything within an eye shot should be preserved then this is incomprehensible. even the conservation loving AMC wouldn't allow that. you can see a glimmer of the ocean from Katahdin on a clear day. should all development cease between Katahdin and the atlantic? you can see new york city from bearfoot mountain. how are we going to get rid of that eye sore? oh and thanks for jumping on me when i didn't feel like reading the posts on WWBMD. i think you're a little on the defensive now that you've been going on and on about this subject. if you would have read closer, you would see that i don't agree with building the windfarm where it is proposed to go up. however, if the ATC or some other conservation effort doesn't buy it you'll probably get a nice clearcut for houses or a resort instead of windmills. which do you prefer?

[Tim Rich]

When one of my kids used to get into these tantrums, I'd have him go outside and run around the house three times. Try it. He was helped a lot.

Weary

Rocks N Clark, you may want to know read the whole thread to see who you're calling a moron...

[weary]

Rocks N Clark, you may want to know read the whole thread to see who you're calling a moron...
No problem. A lot of us pioneer reporters of facts/experimental psychologists/philosophers are misunderstood in the early days of our careers. By the time I get really old, most people will realize the truth that I and RnR profess.

I've gone through these phases of public misunderstanding many times -- in the 50s when I promoted clean waters in a small town, while a conventionally perceptive and otherwise wise and progressive planning board member proclaimed that the natural way to dispose of sewage was in rivers; and when I wrote an energy book that the leading "energy" organization in Maine refused to sell in its book store because it didn't hew to the conventional understanding, (a quarter later when I offer copies for free on the internet, recipients tell me, "yeah, I know that, it was in a book I read last year"); when I perceived that the paper industry was about to leave Maine and said so to a chorus of derision. But all but one of the paper millls have changed hands in the past six years or so -- and all of them have either sold their timberlands or have them on the market.

My current perception is that the currently wild Appalachian Trail in Maine is about to be swamped by development unless we can find the people to contribute the money needed to buy some buffers for the trail out the millions of acres already sold or currently on the market.

Many will wait until it's too late. That's why it is important that a few wise people join in this effort. All help is important. But from those wise enough to put unpleasant facts together, we truly need "capital" contributors; contributions not out of ordinary income, but out of the wealth many of us have accumulated over the years.

It's easy to do. Just click on http://www.matlt.org/

If you have problems, let me know.

Weary

[mdionne]

Agreed Weary. There is definately a conflict of interest, however. Although I would love to see all the land around that area untouched as far as the eye can see. I am also concerned that due to increasing pollution moving into that area (from the industrial belt) could easily kill a number of keystone species and hence create a deadzone there. Which is why it is still important to havest power from the wind, to cut down on emissions. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of conservation, but i don't like the idea of a vast wilderness area filled with ten legged toads and three eyed fish. With that out of the way, do you know of any other potential windfarm areas that are being looked at that can yield equivalent power?

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I doubt the future of wind power is at stake with the denial of windmills too close to the AT.

I think mdionne should ask himself if a culture that creates dead zones should be one that isn't asked about itself and its methods? Maybe the Trail is serving its true purpose if it forces society to confront that instead of thinking up excuses to yield. Ever consider that those dead zones are the accumulated result of generations thinking of those excuses and yielding?


The buck stops here. Let's honor MacKaye and carry that project he created which has given us so much...

[TJ aka Teej]

...show us where MacKaye said he didn't mean the things he wrote in Regional Planning. There's a simple way to explode the quotes you were provided - produce quotes that back up your version of his intended purpose for the AT. Here's a hint: you won't find them in Regional Planning. You whine the quotes are "out of context", well here's the whole thing:
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about/pdfs/MacKaye.pdf
"Putting words in his mouth"? You DO know MacKaye wrote Regional Planning, don't you?

Sorry TJ, but if you insist on ignoring MacKaye's real meaning and context I can't help you.
Asking you to read MacKaye is "ignoring" MacKaye? Keep typing away, Roxy - the more you do, the more foolish you look.

[TJ aka Teej]

You will admit, won't you, that he is in favor of windmills in Maine?
Most of the mainstream environmental groups do not endorse candidates for governor because it would jeopardize their nonprofit status. The Sierra Club is the exception because they are no longer a 401 c3 group. But in my frequent conversations with environmentalists in Maine I'm confident that most happily voted for Baldacci. The Sierra Club, of course, publicly endorsed Baldacci over both the Green and Republican candidates.

The Sierra Club is now working closely with the governor's administration to preserve land adjacent to the trail in the socalled "100-mile-wilderness." I am pleased, especially, that the person who has worked for two decades -- longer, harder and with more success than anyone I know -- to preserve Maine wild areas is now deputy commissioner of the Department of Conservation.
I'm in favor of windmills in Maine -- just not in the viewshed of what now is among the wildest sections of the entire 2,170-mile Appalachian Trail. As near as I can tell my view parallels that of ATC and AMC. Of the seven or eight windmill projects near the trail in New England, they only are opposing the proposed industrial windpower complex on Redington and Black Nubble, across a narrow valley from where the trail traverses mountain ridges between Saddleback and Crocker.

Weary
So... you will admit, won't you, that he's in favor of windmills in Maine?

[mdionne]

I doubt the future of wind power is at stake with the denial of windmills too close to the AT.

I think mdionne should ask himself if a culture that creates dead zones should be one that isn't asked about itself and its methods? Maybe the Trail is serving its true purpose if it forces society to confront that instead of thinking up excuses to yield. Ever consider that those dead zones are the accumulated result of generations thinking of those excuses and yielding?


The buck stops here. Let's honor MacKaye and carry that project he created which has given us so much...

I believe methods and processes in society have brought us to the point where we are considering wind energy as a clean supplemental source of energy. If you read my posts, rocks, you would see i asked if there are any other options being looked at as to where these generators could go. I didn't say that's the only place there is. And, like you, not a whole lot of people here are going to want them in their backyard. Also, like I said, If conservation groups don't step up to the plate you will see a lot worse than wind generators there. Maine is also mulling over a plan to run a NG line through the state. Does this make it okay as long as it doesn't interfere with the AT or it's viewpoints? I would chaulk that up as a victory for the oil industry and not for preservationists. Think about it. Environmentalists fight for wind power then fight against it. This argument is good for oil. So much attention was focused on this issue by the ATC and their members that a plan for a race track near the trail in PA had far less trouble getting through.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

It's a travesty that people don't notice that the real "NIMBYism" here is developers not wanting a trail corridor in their backyard (It's not even their backyard. They buy near-trail land because it's wild and then complain about restrictions) . How many Appalachian Trails are there? This is the real "NIMBY" here! It's a crime that you get foolish hikers to claim the reverse...

[Rocks 'n Roots]

mdionne:


If the AT was based on environmental energy sources you would have a point. However, if you research the AT and its history and study what ATC is about you would find the need for primitive wildness and preserved greenways come before broader energy issues. Your argument completely ignores the Trail and its purpose - as I've written several times.

You can only make a legitimate AT argument if you involve genuine AT concerns. So far, if you noticed, you haven't mentioned the AT's wildness mission in your apology for Trail-wrecking wind dereks.

Developers LOVE people like you, mainly because they don't involve any AT concern either...

[mdionne]

mdionne:


If the AT was based on environmental energy sources you would have a point. However, if you research the AT and its history and study what ATC is about you would find the need for primitive wildness and preserved greenways come before broader energy issues. Your argument completely ignores the Trail and its purpose - as I've written several times.

You can only make a legitimate AT argument if you involve genuine AT concerns. So far, if you noticed, you haven't mentioned the AT's wildness mission in your apology for Trail-wrecking wind dereks.

Developers LOVE people like you, mainly because they don't involve any AT concern either...

I'm pretty sure eastward polluting winds have their effect on the AT, and ever broader (as you mentioned) the entire east coast. Look at your beautifully polluted sunsets, acidifying soils, and mercury poisoned waters. Now lets say we go ahead and preserve all of northern maine as a wilderness area. I personally like the idea. But that does NOTHING to stop all the trees from dying (soil acidification) and the water from killing you and the wildlife. The sunsets would be great though wouldn't they? No trees to block your view and blood red skies as far as the eye can see. Wow! If you could breathe it would be like paradise. I understand your argument and your right your argument is purely AT based, unfortunately pollution covers more than the AT. It effects everyone within and outside the AT community. Making this solely an AT argument undermines the importance of the issue to the entire country.

[Wanderingson]

Wow,

Now here's a post I can dig up from the old files and get rekindled.

I see any alternative fuels to fossil fuels a step in the right direction. The Japanese have this on the forefront. While living in Northern Japan, I was exposed to numerous wind farms. Everytime I saw a new one, I smiled a huge smile and pondered the question why we were not doing more of this in the Good Ole US of A. I consider myself a friend of the earth and when I see alternative fuel initiatives, it finds that warm spot in my heart. Now, take a look at how many vehicles travel along Skyline Drive and spew nausious fumes up and down the road. Sure I could be overly sensitive and say that wind farms are OK just so long as they do not impeed upon me or my views, but who would I be kidding. I recall a very heated debate in Florida where the homeowner's accociation of a very exclusive neighborhood was trying to block a celluar tower from being constructed in their pristine neighborhood. The photo on the front page of the newpaper was a classic. The president of the homeowner's accociation was standing along side the rest of the nieghborhood at the proposed cellular tower site talking on his cell phone. Who's neighborhood was the tower located that gave him his signal?

I would support wind power in my backyard or within sight of the AT. I would rather be sucking wind than to continue to suck all of these wonderful greenhouse gases we continue to excrete into our skies.