[pct-l] PCT usage quotas
Brett
blisterfree at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 27 15:13:55 CST 2008
I think the permit system as it currently works is mostly fine. But I
don't think artificially limiting traffic - eg, quotas - along the PCT
corridor via government regulation is a viable long-term solution to
increasing use of a National Scenic Trail. You build it so they will
come, and manage it so that they may continue to do so.
- blisterfree
Greg Kesselring wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">You're
> preaching to the choir. But how can the land management agencies
> institute quotas and permits without applying it to everyone? Are you
> saying that if quotas and permits are in place in certain areas, the
> High Sierra, for example, you think the land management agencies will
> just give a thru-hiker a permit to camp in that area any time they
> happen to hike thru? And what about JMT thru hikers, do they get a
> "by" also? Where do you draw the line? Seems like that system would
> end up getting abused.
>
> Brett wrote:
>> Reworking the permit systems in Wilderness areas and National Parks
>> as an ad hoc defense against increasing users numbers along the
>> Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail would be out of line with the
>> trail's intent as a linear, continuous recreational resource, a
>> single entity with clear purpose. Penalizing long-distance hikers
>> would seem especially perverse, given that we're greatly outnumbered
>> by other users in a majority of these areas. The seasonal Herd
>> phenomenon along the PCT in southern California would seem to be a
>> separate issue that has little to do with talk of quotas or
>> aggressive permitting procedures. Unless, of course, we want to turn
>> long-distance hiking on our NST's into the equivalent of airline
>> travel, with advanced reservations required and specific seating
>> arrangements, departure and arrival times stamped clearly on our
>> boarding passes.
>>
>> - blisterfree
>>
>>
>> Greg Kesselring wrote:
>>
>>> There are permit systems for backpacking in lots of Wilderness areas
>>> and National Parks. They have been in place for years in some
>>> areas, North Cascade National Park and the Enchantment Lakes area in
>>> Washington State are two examples. They are enforced by backcountry
>>> rangers similar to how bear cannisters are enforced in the Sierra.
>>>
>>> I suspect the way this would start on thePCT is by imposing limits
>>> to the numbers of overnight campers in certain areas, for example,
>>> in the various Wilderness Areas and National Parks that PCT goes
>>> thru. There would be restrictions in certain areas at certain times
>>> of year. How they would implement that for thru-hikers, I don't
>>> know. But it certainly could happen, and I believe it will if and
>>> when the numbers of overnight campers become too large for an area
>>> to handle.
>>>
>>> The solution: ZPG. or NPG.
>>> But that's not gonna happen in our lifetime, so we will just have to
>>> deal with restrictions in certain areas when they come up.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> Brett wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea of a quota system for the PCT is utterly ridiculous, would
>>>> be impossible to implement and enforce, and further should not be
>>>> necessary, given the tried-and-true example of the Appalachian
>>>> Trail and its great numbers of users - both short and long distance
>>>> hikers - and the vigilance of hiking clubs all along the way who
>>>> monitor and maintain the trail to a degree appropriate for its
>>>> level of use. The future of an ever-more-popular PCT needs to
>>>> follow the lead of its east coast counterpart, not that of a Mount
>>>> Whitney type of numbers-based permit system. National Scenic Trails
>>>> should remain available to everyone, and a long distance journey
>>>> along them not turned into a premeditated ordeal of phone calls,
>>>> applications, and fast mouse clicks to reserve a "spot" in front of
>>>> the excluded hordes.
>>>>
>>>> Would an AT-style PCT irrevocably alter the Wilderness character
>>>> along much of the PCT corridor? Probably, but the alternative of
>>>> increased use without sufficient stewardship of the resource would
>>>> ultimately do more real harm. This isn't to suggest the PCT needs a
>>>> shelter system, for instance, but only that active as well as
>>>> passive regulation can take other forms than sheer exclusion.
>>>>
>>>> - blisterfree
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
> </div>
More information about the Pct-L
mailing list