YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT!

[Wise Old Owl]

YOU NEED TO BE POLITICAL about THE AT! unless you are deeply familiar with the tools the AT is slowly being deforested, encroched and your organizations are not in a posistion to police the AT. Hiking the Horseshoe Trail (Philadelphia>>to AT) The left over trail is dismal compared to what it was in the 1930's. So look at this:



Here is the same location and the trail in RED.

2005




ON GOOGLE EARTH Click on VIEW > HISTORICAL IMAGE and run the slide bar that appears back and forth.....

AND WONDER WHY.........

[Rain Man]

Huh? No idea what you're saying, nor is there a functioning slide bar. Did you try it after you posted it?

Rain Man

.

[Pedaling Fool]

There’s no tree problem; Pennsylvania just sucks

[Wise Old Owl]

Yes, because that's how to retrieve the images, the slide bar won't appear unless you have the latest version and click on view, Historical is at the bottom of the list click there and the bar lightly appears in the top left corner.

[Wise Old Owl]

[Wise Old Owl]

Please excuse the obvious mispelling

[chief]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.

[Slo-go'en]

Indeed, what we need is negative growth. Less people = less demand for land and other resources. Oh well, enjoy what you can now.

BTW, unless the land is converted to other uses, such as farming, housing, shopping malls or roads, trees have an amazing ability to grow back. Few realise that Vermont was 90% deforested in the 1800's due to sheep farming and much of NH was stripped for lumber. Of course, we lost most of the really big trees during that time. I'm willing to bet that even PA had a lot less trees and more open farm land 100 years ago then it does now.

[Pedaling Fool]

I think as technology progress it can only be good for the environment (in the big picture). However, as population increases that's a real problem that can counteract the technological advancements (by that I mean the advacements that will reduce pollution problems). One of the biggest problems with a growing population is land needed for agriculture and farming.

It's such a big problem we really can't cover it here. Suffice it to say: There's really no solution to a problem. In reality, when you solve a problem, you've only created another one.

But we still need to solve "problems". And it seems to me that the overwhelming number of problems have been fixed through science and technology. Of course that's producing other problems....A freakin' vicious circle.

But I agree with Slo-goen, nature will rebound. May not be to our liking, but nature isn't here to please us. Just because something isn't as aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean it's any less natural of important. Nature has done far worse to this planet than we ever could and what nature has in store is far more disastorus.

As for people that think we're a major blight on nature. Remember it was nature that created us, therefore mother nature must suffer the consequense.

Yeah she'll destroy us in the end, but she will any way, regardless of how environmentally friendly we are

[Rain Man]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

RainMan

.

[restless]

Chief made a good point which I think a lot of thru hikers fail to realize. Once one leaves Shenandoah NP, there is not a lot of public land that the trail crosses. There are state parks and game lands but in more than a few areas the trail corridor is only 500' wide or so. I have worked a boundary corridor crew and have seen places where, 200 feet from the AT there is a subdivision. In the VA example that WOO cited I believe that that is a narrow corridor as well. Rest assured, the corridor itself is protected from logging and commercial interets. Keep in mind however that our National Forests are managed for multiple uses and that include resource extraction. When logging occurs on public lands, consideration is given to the AT's viewshed and a buffer zone is typically left intact. Even the AMC, who is active in protecting the North Maine Woods, is actively logging in close proximity to the AT in Maine. But it is their lands, that is their prerogative to do so. If you don't like to see logging occur on public lands, may I suggest that people give up there timber framed houses.

[BAG "o" TRICKS]

There’s no tree problem; Pennsylvania just sucks

Not all of it!

[Pedaling Fool]

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

RainMan

.

Yes, but I'm sure they can deforest "their property" if they wish.

But all-in-all you are correct. There is no and there can not be absolute rights to property ownership or any facet of life. Absolute rights equal anarchy

[Wise Old Owl]

Indeed, what we need is negative growth. Less people = less demand for land and other resources. Oh well, enjoy what you can now.

BTW, unless the land is converted to other uses, such as farming, housing, shopping malls or roads, trees have an amazing ability to grow back. Few realise that Vermont was 90% deforested in the 1800's due to sheep farming and much of NH was stripped for lumber. Of course, we lost most of the really big trees during that time. I'm willing to bet that even PA had a lot less trees and more open farm land 100 years ago then it does now.

Very True, PA did strip the land beyond recognition. What little old growth that was left was hiddin in small unmanagable areas that could not be had due to poor roads or the ability to move the logs to water.

[Wise Old Owl]

In both sets of pics, I suspect the "deforesting" is outside the trail corridor, therefore only the business of the property owners.

250 Feet is outside the corridor? Huh? You got me, what do you mean by that?

[chief]

Actually, the concept of absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership" has probably not been an accurate concept since the beginning of time. Wasn't true for the Greeks, Romans, feudal Europe, nor "modern" civilization. In short, it's a myth.

"Property ownership" is more accurately likened to a bundle of sticks. Some sticks indeed are "owned" by the "property owner." But more may be "owned" by the mortgage company. Others by various easement holders. Others by fellow owners because of restrictions in deeds. Others by contiguous property owners entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land. Then you have taxes, zoning, eminent domain condemnation powers, land use laws, pollution and hazardous waste disposal prohibitions, mining laws, storm water run off, the concept of "waste." And etc. Heck, my parents couldn't even build until they got a permit for a driveway to access the state highway. I can not build a brush fire on my property, no matter what.

I could go on. But the short, true story is that "no man is an island."

Thus, what goes on, on that property, very much can be the "business" of many people besides the property "owner."

RainMan

.

Guess you're a lawyer huh?

I don't believe I said anything about absolute, total, self-serving, plenary "ownership". You left a few sticks out of the bundle. The trees, the minerals and the dirt are all PROPERTY which may be each owned by one or more than one person or entity. Since I was talking about "deforestation", the property in question would be the trees and barring any of the encumbrances (not ownership) you mention, the owner of said trees may deforest as they please.

[chief]

250 Feet is outside the corridor? Huh? You got me, what do you mean by that?

Huh? What makes you think the corridor is more than 250 ft at that point?

[Wise Old Owl]

FYI I wont have the edit button till next week.

Here is what I am trying to say. IMO that urban encrochment can seriously change the trail in spite of the best efforts of the organizations that exsist today. I see what happened to the Horseshoe trail as a prelude to what can happen to the AT. Large sections can become compromised by development, homeowners can become less forgiving about people treking across their land and force the trail onto roads and other areas. In short screwing up the whole idea of a national trail. Brown feilds, telecommunication towers, Gas Communication Towers, Windmills, etc. Where do we draw the line and how do we prevent it? ------Thoughts?

[Wise Old Owl]

Huh? What makes you think the corridor is more than 250 ft at that point?

There is a tool to measure the distance of an object in GE. The 250 feet in the picture is the distance from the trail line to the tree line.

[Miner]

I think most of us can appreciate how developement encroachment negatively affects the AT which is far from being a wilderness as it is. No one wants to look at developement which why the AT being so forrested is a good thing since it is often not very far from it.

However, if you think that is bad, you should be aware that the PCT in many places is on private land with a right of way only a few feet wide. And you actively hike through clear cuts in the Pacific Northwest as you cross private tree farms and public land where logging is allowed. 250ft starts to sound good in comparison.