[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #1283



At 7:05 AM -0800 10/14/00, Cheryl Ross wrote:

>Is there a group of people who are saying that I do not have the right to do
>this?  Is it being said that our use of the trail will be more destructive
>than that of others who are on foot?
>
>I am still going to make the ride.  Exclusion and discrimination are not new
>to those of us who are disabled.  It is just one more eye-opener to see that
>no place is free of discriminations.


The enuendo (sp?)  and defensiveness are untoward.  You say you "still are
going to
make the ride" like we were trying to personall dissuade you!!  NOT TRUE!

The weight and hooves of a horse, of course, cause more damage
than a 100/200 lbs person given the same trail and same trail conditions.
The deep ruts you will see were not put there by hikers or bikes but by
horses. (eg, **too many** horses). Especially in wet/muddy conditions
(when BTW, most hikers are snuggled up in their tents or tarps!) :-))

This is not discrimination.  It is a weighty fact ONLY.

We propose to LIMIT COMMERCIAL horse travel with a quota- ***just like
people***
are now limited.

It is all too easy for disabled people to yell discrimination when they should
read their mail closer and find out what is being said.

A similar accusatory thing happened, more notabley, to Clint Eastwood--
that was thrown
out of court becasue there was no substantiation to the charge of
discrimination as
it was all a misscommunication.

Have a safe, wonderous journey.

Rich

PS_

Anyone else wanting to sign a well-crafted petition to propose to limit
commercial
horse traffic on the trails please email me **off-line**.





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

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