Re: [pct-l] If there were no horses...

[Bighummel@aol.com]

Brick, I enjoy having these civil, well-thought out, discussions without the 
name calling and exageration that accompanied some of the former preservation 
arguments a few years back.  

Brick writes:

<<My question is:  do you expend limited resources fighting a small damage 
problem, or a big one?>>

Compromise?  Are you asking me to compromise after my long diatribe on 
incremental degradation?  I don't think so.  Every battle is worth the fight. 
 Some are short, some are longer.  Some require lots of people, political 
mite, money and influence, some require little.  The decision on the wise use 
of limited resources must be in the court of who owns the resources.  

If I fight my whole life against logging on and near the PCT and win, only to 
loose many smaller fights that I could have been fighting concurrently along 
the way then have I used my limited resources wisely?

People who live by the saying "You have to pick your fights" compromise on 
the small things in order to win the big. In some parts of my life I must 
live this way, at home, at work, on the road, etc..  However, in my opinion, 
the trail is not my home town, or a trail through a local canyon, it is THE 
most beautiful trail through THE most beautiful areas on the Pacific coast of 
the U.S. (and arguably over a larger geographic area)  We don't have enough 
wilderness areas in the Sierras, we don't have enough incredibly scenic, 
ice-laden volcanoes in Washington in order to be complacent about the ones on 
the PCT and allow them to be squandered away and overrun through neglect and 
carelessness.  The PCT is a gem, a rare gem that is to heralded and 
protected.  

And for fracturing the user group by alienating the Backcountry Horseman is 
not really a concern since you even indicated that this is a small group.  
I'll take the tradeoff there!

An analog of an overwhelming problem (like trying to protect the PCT from all 
of the potential harms to it, not just the major ones):
In southern California the Air Quality Management District was given the 
authority to mandate elimination of air polution emissions in the Los Angeles 
basin some years ago.  They began by going after the major sources first: the 
multitude of cars, refineries, chemical plants, power plants, metal plating 
companies, etc.  However, they recognized that the multitude of small 
emissions from a wide variety of sources made up a significant portion of the 
problem.  Instead of putting all of their resources just going after the big 
sources, they concurrently went after the little ones too.  They restricted 
barbecue lighter fluids, paint thinner, silk screen printing inks, dry 
cleaning fluids, lawn mowers, etc., etc.    Oh, a lot of people and 
businesses were very upset that this new authority could just come in and 
make these mandates and cause so much trouble!  But nothing had worked in the 
past.  Several agencies had tried and tried to clean up the air in Sth Cal 
for decades with no success against the powerful interests deeply rooted 
here.  So an idea was hatched to collectively put the a wide range of lawful 
authority into the hands of a central organization focused upon the complex 
problem.  I was born and raised in Sth California and have seen firsthand the 
air progressively become clearer and clearer over the years.  I cannot 
remember the last Stage 1 Smog Alert (a warning given over radio and TV not 
to exercise or exert yourself outside due to unhealthful conditions) that was 
announced here.  Back in the 60's and 70's they were a common occurence every 
summer, happening once a week or more.  The AQMD has been very successful and 
can boast of great progress.

The problem of maintaining the trail and protecting it from degrading 
interests is a complex one that only a hard line position will be successful 
with.  I draw the line here and wont back off.  I raise the PCT as a gem that 
is to be protected as one would protect the crown jewels of England.  Perhaps 
it is time to create a central authority (the PCTA?) that has jurisdiction 
over the entire trail and be given the power to enforce its mandates.  The 
danger in this, of course, is inherent.  For example the central authority 
over the National Parks, the Park Service, does not have too good of a record 
over the years in protecting its resources (albeit, recent events promise 
good things). 

I guess that I compromise so much in my life, living in the Los Angeles area, 
that I find myself going radical when it comes to areas that are so precious.

Then again, I don't think that individual runners are harmful to the trail, 
after all we can't really establish speed limits!  However, large, organized, 
commercial events seem to be contrary to the spirit of the trail.  

For instance, it was once considered by the organizers of the ADZPCTKO to 
seek commercial sponsership and media coverage.  However, we quickly realized 
that this would end up becoming an event contrary in nature to the attitude 
of the thru-hikers that we were trying to help and celebrate and to the 
nature of the PCT.  So, we intentionally keep a low profile, shunning the 
media and refusing commercial sponsership.

IMHO,

Greg "Strider" Hummel
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================