In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

184 Conclusion Hiking through History When walking through the carefully managed Appalachian Trail corridor today, more than 99 percent of which is now protected through public ownership, it is difficult for hikers to see evidence of the hard-fought political battles that created a place so seemingly removed from the world of people and politics. The eastern forests that have regenerated after at least two or three major cutting periods tend to hide the landscape’s history and provide a sense of wildness and timelessness. Yet there are places along the trail that lead hikers out of the woods and through small towns, behind suburban developments, and across active farms. In these places, where the effects of human activities are more obvious, travelers on the Appalachian Trail (AT) might begin to wonder about what they are seeing. Why are there corn and soybeans growing along this footpath through the wilderness? Who owns these cows whose pasture I’m walking through? Why are the people in this town so friendly to hikers? Or, in some rare areas, why are they so rude or hostile? Back in the forest, one might wonder why trees in certain areas were cut or burned. Particularly rugged sections might cause a hiker to pause and consider why the trail was routed on what seems to be the most challenging terrain possible. To truly “see what you see” on the AT, as Benton MacKaye instructed, one must look deeply into the surrounding scenic surfaces, and consider the complex human histories contained along the corridor. From MacKaye’s grand plans for transforming America’s hinterlands in the 1920s to new initiatives in the twenty-first century, the history of the Appalachian Trail demonstrates the power of collaboration and partnership . It also reveals that in a pluralistic society, conflict is often necessary to achieve large-scale goals, and people from all points along the political spectrum need to be willing to engage in meaningful interaction in order Conclusion 185 to arrive at pragmatic outcomes. The trail’s history also illustrates that the line between public and private efforts to conserve land and protect park resources has never been clear-cut. Since the 1920s, those involved in building the AT—as volunteers, federal agents, and landowners—adapted to broader changes in the national political landscape by relying on the interaction of grassroots action and the power of the centralized state. The project started as a seed in the Progressive Era—one of the first proposals of the recently formed Regional Planning Association of America that combined the growing authority of federal experts with the voluntary spirit of dedicated citizens. This seed took root in the 1930s, first through the efforts of a handful of influential citizens, then with support from the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The involvement of the CCC—one of Roosevelt’s most popular New Deal programs—reflected a commitment by Washington to become a more active player in developing the AT as well as other park resources. This commitment by Washington helped to put into effect many of the Progressive ideas expressed by MacKaye and his contemporaries, and would later blossom in the 1960s and 1970s as the modern environmental movement coevolved along with the growing power of the federal regulatory state. As unchecked economic growth during the postwar era began to cause ineradicable damage to the nation’s natural resources, more and more Americans grew concerned about environmental issues. In response to widespread public support for environmental protection, Congress passed a series of environmental laws, including the 1964 Wilderness Act, the 1970 Clean Air and Water Acts, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the 1976 National Forest Management Act. At the same time, the number and power of federal agencies began to grow, and federal regulators began experimenting with new rule-making processes to help them achieve congressionally mandated goals. The National Trails Act in 1968 and the National Park Service ’s land acquisition program for the AT were a small part of this bigger regulatory package that sought to use federal power to achieve large-scale environmental goals. By using the power of the centralized state to counteract the forces of private industry, AT project partners and organized environmental interests navigated complex legislative and executive processes to protect resources for the common good. Like many other federal projects, protecting the AT for the public good sometimes had negative effects on smaller populations within the American public. As the environmental movement gained strength with broad federal...

Share