Re: [pct-l] Protecting the PCT from commercial use

["Jim Mayer" <jmayer@rochester.rr.com>]

Eeek... I just read the environmental assessment.  The most striking thing I
picked up was the cost of the different alternatives.  The government
currently receives $2,600 a year in grazing permits, and the county an
additional $900 dollars a year.  The government spends $80,000 per year
maintaining the area.

Under the no grazing alternative (alternative A), the income would
disappear, and the government's cost would decline to about $40,000 per
year, for a net SAVINGS of $36,500 a year!

Under the recommended alternative, the income would remain constant and the
government's cost would increase by $15,000 a year for the next three years,
then decrease to the current levels.

I, for one, fail to see why the U.S. government should subsidize cattle
grazing to the tune of nearly $40,000 a year for these two lots.  Just from
the economic standpoint alone, the forest service should clearly stop
grazing.

The clear advantages to the environment and recreational usage would just be
gravy.

In light of the long term historical use of the area for grazing, it might
make political sense to phase the grazing out over a ten year period, and to
compensate the county for the loss of revenue and to help them work out any
economic displacements.  That, of course, was not one of the alternatives
given.

I'll go write my letter.

-- Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brick Robbins" <brick@fastpack.com>