[pct-l] survey on trail conflicts

[Fred Walters]

Speaking from outside the US (from UK), I should comment that the US should
be congratulated in what it has achieved not only in preserving its "*
wilderness*" areas but also in maintaining wild natural areas of great
beauty outside designated "*wilderness*".  Few countries have made such
efforts (Costa Rica also springs to mind).  In the UK we are slaves to
development and are currently having out planning laws changed to allow
much more development in "greenfield sites".  We have also experienced a
lot of damage from pollution and destruction of our natural environment -
such that most the "wilder" areas we have now are far from their natural
state.

That the US as an industrial economy with all the pressures of development,
industrialisation and profit manages to maintain these areas and provide
appropriate access reflects very well on the country.  One would thus hope
that the authorities can see what they have achieved and will act to resist
inappropriate development.  In many respects the current access changes are
nothing more than e.g. somebody wanting to develop
factories/houses/whatever i.e. change damaging the wild aspect to something
that has already been designated for preservation (i.e. defined appropriate
uses).

There are aspects to this beyond allowing mechanised transport on a path
specifically created for non-mechanised transport, but it also cuts to the
heart of how prepared a nation is to preserve its wild natural areas.

I hope the US authorities can resist the pressure being brought that will
undoubtedly remove one of the few remaining long distance paths from
hiker/horse use.

Fred

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes <
diane at santabarbarahikes.com> wrote:

> Thank you both of you. There is so little wilderness left.
>
> It's an amazing thing we have in the US. If we lose the wildness of
> the wilderness, we lose part of what makes us who we are as a people
> and we lose a part of what makes us human.
>
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 10:00 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
>
> > From: Palomino <palomino.pct at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [pct-l] survey on trail conflicts
> >
> > +1 for Day-Late's viewpoint below, except I don't see it as being
> > selfish as much as forward-thinking. Prior generations built and
> > preserved this trail as a way to experience our land and landmarks as
> > directly and as free of modern industrialism as possible. We should
> > honor their vision and keep the trail "wild" (I shudder when I say
> > that word these days) for our children's children and beyond. To me,
> > that means no machines. And more respect by all parties.
> >
> > Palomino
> > Jim Ostdick
> > San Juan Bautista, CA
> >
> > "I don't really expect you to understand that I go out there to get
> > away
> > from what you are attempting to bring to the trail - we have a
> > completely
> > different view point on this that probably can't be reconciled.  So
> > don't
> > expect arguments with logical points to score points when the whole
> > premise
> > of your goal is against what I, again being selfish, use the trails
> > for."
> > Day-Late
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>