[pct-l] Arguments for Bikes on the PCT

[CHUCK CHELIN]

Good afternoon,

I entirely agree with Brick.  As a trained and experienced negotiator, I
object to the most basic premise of the discussion about bikes on the
PCT.  Between
any two conflicting sides of a question the aggressive side tends to plan
ahead, stake out a position, and frame the entire discussion, while the
other side tends to be defensive and will only react to those parameters.  Does
that seem a bit like bikers vs. hikers?

The result is, most often the aggressive side can gain something – great of
small – but at the absolute very best the defensive side can only maintain
status quo.  That’s like a bizarre football game where one team could
played offense while the other team could only play defense.  There is no
limit to what the offense can potentially score, but the best the other
team can possibly hope for is a 0-0 tie.   But it doesn’t end there because
they’ll be back:  In next week’s game the offense may score 3 points – not
much but better than zero.  The week after that, they score a touchdown or
two – and now they have what the sports-talkers call “momentum”.  The
defense can never score, and the series continues until the offense becomes
the league champions.  Again, does that seem a bit like bikers vs. hikers –
everything to gain and nothing to lose?

I wouldn’t play that defensive game:  If the bikers came to me saying,
“Lets compromise and allow bikes on the PCT,”  I would reply, “I understand
your position, but not only do I want to keep bikes off the PCT, I want all
bikes banned from the CDT as well, so let’s start talking on that basis”.

Steel-Eye

-Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT – 1965

http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye

http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09/