Re: [pct-l] Banning Horses? Nah!

[Greg Hummel <ghummel@hydrogenburner.com>]

Birgitte Jensen wrote:

>_That's_ where most of the "horse damage"  - as well as people damage,
>ahem -  is, coincidentally.  

I'm glad to see you have recognized that horses actually do cause damage.
Now that we can agree on that, let's then simply try to remove the greatest
cause of damage to these areas, if as you say that's where most of the
damage is (I will let others attack and shred that assumption, the first of
many unsubstantiated assumptions in your letter).  Can we identify if the
greatest damage is caused by masses of day hikers, or private horse
parties, or commercial horse packers, or by the small number of
backpackers?  I don't think we need a full blown scientific study to show
this and I will venture that the National Forest Service has the numbers at
hand of the volume of each of these groups at any particular TH.  Then it
is simply the number of individual people and/or horses times the frequency
times the weight, consider the nature of materials on the foot and viola!
you can find the most guilty party.  Then, I suggest, we come up with a
rational and creative way to curb that damage.  

>Oddly, these (eastern pass) routes get little hiker use also. 

Huh?  I have been under the impression that the demand for hiker access
over many of these eastern passes has been much greater than the quotas
have allowed.  Am I misled on this point?  Where do you get your
information on this?

>And too many people using the same
>easy trails (like the PCT) 

Oh, that's just a cheap shot aimed at eliciting flame and emotion BJ.
Calling the PCT an easy trail on the PCTL is nothing less than just trying
to get the ire of the extreme out and then discredit all of us looking for
a little fairness in the way the NFS treats hikers vs packers as
extremists.  Tsk, tsk, tsk!

>To my knowledge, commercial packers do less damage, not more, than
>private horsemen. 

On what do you base this gross assumption?

>P.H. tend to ride in larger groups (the typical
>commercial venture involves 1, maybe 2 horsemen and a string for the
>dunnage), 

Huh?  I personally have never seen a large private horse group and have
often and almost without exception witnessed large commercial groups.
 
>Posts
>bringing up so-called Political Issues to exclude certain groups from
>backcountry use are merely trolls; (folks looking for a little
>flame-excitement or having an axe to grind) and should be treated as
>such, sigh... 

You, yourself, can contribute to cooling the flame war here by refraining
from labeling a group or calling names.

>    One thing that fuels these hiker vs horseman threads is the image of
>the horseman as Cowboy, America's greatest symbol of masculinity. Some of
>the most vocal of the "horse haters" (like the ones who advocate
>barbed-wire stringing) are fellows with alot invested in their own
>personal image of outdoor macho - read their tough-guy trip
>reports/posts, and you'll quickly get the picture. As a (by definition,
>disinterested) woman,  I detect in some male hikers (or internet posters
>on hiking matters at any rate) a certain sour envy of the ease many
>packers display in the backwoods environment: the packer certainly looks
>like the "genuine article" as opposed to us poor hikers in our GoreTex
>hiking-outfits, doesn't he? (_she_ often nowadays, which is another
>story.) Apparently, there is even resentment of the size of the animals
>(most than one poster has griped that he finds livestock "intimidating" -
>interesting....) A psychological phenomenon that is  understandable, but
>hardly bearing on environmental concerns, I think.

Oh, this is the most stinking pile of horse sh*t that I have ever heard! I
won't even dignify the stupidity and gross assumptions you somehow pull
together here to justify your position.

>I also think a discussion about  local (Sierra
>Nevada, as the quoted newspaper article states) politics belongs in a
>group of those involved. Since the PCT-L seems to be about thruhiking
>(getting through the Sierra Nevada on one particular trail as quickly as
>possible, usually once in a lifetime) 

ASSUMPTION!

>and many (if not most) of its
>members are not regular hikers in that area (most hike outside CA),

ASSUMPTION!

>individuals looking to inflame prejudices 

Look who is inflaming prejudices in this letter, BJ!

This whole letter sounds like a desperate attempt to defend thinly veiled
practices that are clear compromises to the charged goals of the NFS, NPS
and Wilderness Areas, that is the preservation of the natural resources.
This is not the rhetoric that will find solutions.  We need rational
evaluation of the problems, creative solutions to curb the negative impacts
and decisions based on sound unbiased information, not behind the doors
negotiations, under the table persuasions, or commercial interest favoring.   

The cost of preservation often comes at the expense of commercial or
special interests.  Witness the wars between development and the endangered
species act, the wars between logging interests and preservation of the
redwoods, the interests of the public health versus the commercial
interests of the nuclear power industry, just to name a few.  We, as a
society must pay for the preservation of those resources that we hold dear
as the greatest values in our land, whether it be the public health,
redwood old growth forests or wilderness areas in the high Sierra.  It may
be necessary for the payment to be as great as the commercial failure of
some horse packers.  It may be necessary to limit the size and frequency of
horse groups and backpackers, commercial or private.  It may be necessary
to ban one group or another from particularly sensitive areas.  Camping
overnite is banned, whether horse packing or backpacking, in many areas of
the high Sierra because of overuse, damage and ease of access.  This is one
of the prices we have already elected to pay.  

The cost may be high but in my, and I will venture most, opinion the jewel
(wilderness) is worth it.  I understand the commercial packers desire to
stay in business and would fight for my lively hood as they do if attacked
by others.  Doing nothing, or worse yet increasing commercial packers
access and extending the permit term as has been proposed, will clearly not
help to preserve the high Sierra.  It has been clearly shown that the high
Sierra ecosystem is suffering and degrading from development, commercial
activity, overuse and numerous other sources of attack.  It isn't getting
better like the air in L.A. or the pollution in our drinking water, or the
number of bald eagles.  It is getting worse.  It needs help and sacrifice
and a curbing of business as usual.  We cannot just keep doing what we have
been doing and expect to have the Sierras in a condition similar to what we
have known for our grandchildren.

A number of years ago a lecturer I heard was arguing that the price of oil
was too low!  He argued that the value of a barrel of oil should not be set
by the existing marketplace, but because it is finite, non-renewable
resource, our future generations should be allowed to bid for that barrel
of oil also.  If so, the going price for a barrel of oil might skyrocket to
$60 or $80 or more!  It would radically alter the way our society operates
and the economics of energy.  

We aren't talking about oil or energy here, of course, but we are talking
about a finite, non-renewable resource.  Once developed, once destroyed,
wilderness does not return for long periods of time without total isolation
or major efforts.  I'm not arguing for me, or my kids.  I'm arguing for my
great, great, great grand kids who upon reading my PCT journal may be
inspired to grab a backpack and go see if Forrester Pass is still a tough
one to get over in May, or if the wildflowers in the upper San Jaoquin
River watershed are still varied and solid into late July.  I think they
might argue just a bit louder than any of us if given the opportunity, or
denied the opportunity to experience it in their lifetimes.

IMHO,

Greg "Strider" Hummel
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

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