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

[Greg Hummel <ghummel@hydrogenburner.com>]

Reynolds wrote:

>Actually, I think that we have to start further back and define *damage*.

What was it that Bill Clinton said?  "It depends on what the definition of
"is" is".  I don't need a definition of damage.  Damage is damage,
effecting in a negative way!

>If we are protecting the wilderness for future generations then *damage*
>is something that detracts from their enjoyment. If we are protecting the
>wilderness for a *wildlife habitat*, then *damage* is something else. [I
>don't think the bear cares about horse shit on the trail] From the point
>of view of nature, of course, there is no *damage*, only change.

So what is your point here?  Are you actually trying to say that trail and
environmental damage caused by horse packers is okay because nature views
it as only change?  I hope not.  We most certainly are attempting to
protect the wilderness for future generations and that includes protecting
wildlife habitat.

>In fourteen (14) years of backpacking in the Sierra, the number 1 culpret
>is air pollution from Fresno It has wiped out the crisp, clear view of the
>Great Western Divide. The trees also seem to be getting sick although I
>don't know that this is due to air pollution.

In my twenty seven (27) years of backpacking in the HIGH Sierra, the number
1 culpret of visible, smellable, physical and structural damage I have
witnessed is a direct result of horses.  I know that air pollution is
damaging trees on the western side of the Sierras but this is not a
widespread widely visible phenomenon (I don't intend to minimize air
pollution damage in the Sierras with this comment, it is also a serious
problem).

>Frankly, the Sierra seems to be doing quite well, thank you! 

I guess you didn't here the talks given at South Lake Tahoe in '97 at the
first regional Sierra Mountain Range conference (I'm not sure of the actual
name of the conference)?  They were one after another about the encroaching
development, the air pollution, the non-endemic plant invasion, overuse
damage of alpine environments, etc., etc., etc.  No the Sierra isn't doing
quite well, thank you!  It's showing the signs of over grazing, over use,
abuse, neglect and ignorance.

>So, my first question is: What's the problem? Why change anything? Let
>everybody keep doing what they are.

I suppose that if you don't really care about the resources, it is real
easy to ignore the warning signs of trouble and just suggest not changing
anything.  I'm sure glad that we noticed the warning signs of DDT's effect
on birds in time to save several species from extinction.  There were many
parties that argued loudly against the ban of DDT when it was first
proposed.  I don't think those same voices now are quite so ignorant anymore.

The problem is trails that are pulverized into dust, urine in every stream
crossing, shit on the trail and flies.  I'm offended by these things and
feel it is not unreasonable to suggest that they are incompatible with
wilderness values and preservation.  I suggested on this list last year
that the NFS would refuse to issue a permit for a contraption into the
wilderness areas nor on the trails that performed the same tasks and caused
the same damage as a horse.  So why do we allow horses into Wilderness
Areas?  I am not advocating the ban of horses everywhere.  I am just
suggesting that there are places, and for the sake of discussion I have
drawn my line at the Wilderness Area boundary, that horses should not go.
If people, backpackers and day hikers caused as much damage, on a per
person basis, as horse packers I would agree, let's ban EVERYBODY.  But
that's not the case.

Where we go from here?  Write, write, write!  Write letters to the NFS,
your state senator, state assemblyman, congressman, councilman, priest,
etc.  Stand up, shout, speak out.  They are taking the wilderness away from
our ancestors and us and I won't sit still and let them take it!

IMHO,

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

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