[pct-l] Trail Maintenance and Mechanised Transport

[Cat Nelson]

I hate rules and regs not just because they are there and I must obey, I
hate them because our culture also believes rules are ment to be broken. A
don't compels/tempts us to do that which we would not do if it wasn't a
law, reg or rule. Seems to me that truth should set us free from the
bondage of selfishness to selflessness. To keep the PCT peaceful,
contiguous and terrestrial we must all have the same vision.
On Oct 25, 2012 5:53 AM, "Jim Marco" <jdm27 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> Fred,
>         Yes, I suspect that it is that way, most everywhere people need
to go. Trails are improved according to need. More traffic, more people,
more need. By extension, including bikes, ATV's, and cars as it applies to
trails. Trails have their own evolution. In the US, our history shows the
Appalachians were a major barrier breached by the Cumberland Gap and Erie
Canal. Now there are major highways along these old trails. Historical
"proof" has little or no meaning to the PCT. I agree with much that you
wrote. It is the people and how they manage their wilderness, regardless of
the country, that is important.
>         The intent of the forest service was to create a recreational
avenue. A place for people to pass. It was created well *after* there was
any real need for hiking/horse trails through the wilderness. Why did they
intentionally exclude mechanical conveyances? What was their intent by
doing so? Has that intent been changed by a lobby group wishing to use it,
in light of more recent developments? Should the law be changed? Is it safe
to change it? What are the future ramifications of changing it? These are
the questions (along with others) that the forest service will need to
answer.
>         As much as we would like to think of backpacking the PCT as a
statement of independence from modern society, it ain't so. Backpacks are
made of nylon (petroleum), cloths are made of poly (more petroleum
products), fuel is very rarely distilled by the user, shoes are synthetic,
sleeping bag shells, zippers, tents, bug dope, bear line and containers,
etc. All are products of a fairly advanced (by some definitions anyway)
civilization. Bikes are as much a part of that production as are tents.
>         It is a matter of how backpackers USE the trail. I won't mention
conservation, or, preservation...simply use. It is fairly clear that the
emphasis on recreation has one goal of allowing people to see the lands as
their ancestors saw it. To see the lands as unencumbered as was possible by
the trappings of current society. To see the trees, not the forest, if you
will allow the slight pun. To use the land as our ancestors did. To help us
maintain the illusion of freedom in a world filled with rules and
regulations. To walk to the top of a mountain and say "I am on top of the
world!" even if you really aren't. To exercise moral judgment by not
killing each other in a mad scramble to decide who is best suited to
worship who. By exercising the ethics of not building a fire when we are
cold, because the forest is dry. And, of simply eating when we are hungry,
sleeping when we are tired and walking on to see something we haven't seen
before.
>         I want to use the trail. I believe the intent of the rules and
regulations that I despise needing (and hate myself for heeding) is clear.
>
>         James D. Marco
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-
> > bounces at backcountry.net] On Behalf Of Fred Walters
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:45 AM
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Subject: [pct-l] Trail Maintenance and Mechanised
> > Transport
> >
> > I don't know about US, but in UK it is people walking
> > that keep many paths clear - not by "trail maintenance"
> > but by just walking the paths knocking vegetation and
> > keeping it clear.  Allow MTBs on non-wilderness and the
> > wilderness sections will see a massive drop in hikers
> > and thus need either loads of trail maintenance or will
> > deteriorate and disappear.  Will the Mountain Bikers
> > really participate in trail maintenance on large
> > sections they are not allowed to use ? and will the few
> > remaining hikers really be committed to maintain
> > sections virtually nobody hikes ?
> >
> > I remember reading one person's PCT thru' hike journal
> > where they adopted the principle that each day they
> > must do at least on thing for "trail maintenance" - be
> > that trivial like removing a large stone that had
> > fallen on the path or a bit more significant like
> > pulling back a branch fallen across the path.  From
> > reading other journals I suspect that such attitudes
> > are widespread.  So when you have 600 thru' hikers and
> > loads of section/weekend hikers all acting in a
> > responsible manner to help the trail that must lower
> > the requirement on the more organised trail maintenance
> > crews.  Reduce those numbers and you increase the
> > workload of organised trail maintenance, though with
> > fewer hikers interested in the trail, those volunteers
> > will become harder to find.  So you get into a "death
> > spiral", more maintenance required, fewer volunteers,
> > deteriorating path meaning even fewer hikers, even
> > fewer volunteers, faster deterioration of path.
> >  Because you can be sure MTBers will not spend their
> > precious time maintaining distant wilderness sections
> > when they could be out wizzing down some slope
> > somewhere.
> >
> > Fred
> _______________________________________________
> 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.