Re: [pct-l] No support

[Robert Bedichek <robertb@transmeta.com>]

dear wayne,

i liked your open letter to the pcta, you ask a good question and you put
it well.

i don't know why the pcta isn't responding.  but i can tell why i am
ambivalent about this issue.  i should say in advance that i am a '99
hopeful and i've never visited the hiker's heaven.  i am a member of the
pcta, but don't represent pcta in any way.  a few weeks ago i spent maybe
30 minutes looking at the pro-randy web pages.

i assume that when (and if) i visit the hiker's haven, i'll love it.  it
sounds great.  i bet randy is a super guy.  and i have no doubt that he's
put his heart and soul into the hostel.

however, i also think it is good to keep some places wild.  most of the
lands that the pcta are more or less wild.  if i supported randy, how
about 100 folks like randy, all setting up hostels on the trail?  i'm
not actually worried about this happening any time soon.  but it would
seem inconsistent to support randy, but not willing to do so for others.

randy has made a home on public lands.  it shouldn't be a surprise that
some collection of the people who administer these lands (the fed's and
the college which have some sort of a lease) might change their minds
about whether they want randy there.  they might or might not have good
motives, but that doesn't mean that people should support those with whom
they are in conflict.

perhaps when i visit randy's place i'll change my tune.  and i'm not
arguing that randy's should lose his case.  i just explaining why one
person isn't standing up to defend the guy -- i'm conflicted about it.

as one person to another, i do wish randy well.  but sometimes individuals
suffer for the greater good.  i'm sure that you'd argue that the greater
good is served by letting randy alone.  but others might disagree.

perhaps other people feel a similar conflict.  or perhaps i'm all wet and
there is some essential part of the issue that i'm missing.  

but note that several people on this list advocated keeping the pct's
profile low by not talking to backpacker magazine about material in which
they might otherwise be interested.  their motivation: keep the pct wild,
keep the hordes from descending (*).  one who took that logic might be
conflicted about the hiker's haven issue as well.

on a perhaps-related topic, has anyone on this list had experience with
"the muir trail ranch".  i noticed that jardine doesn't list it.  perhaps
this is because he is opposes horse traffic on the pct. i am planning a
food drop there.  i found their web page from margo's post.  how are
through-hiker's treated there?  how do people feel about the environmental
impact of the ranch?  from craig's pct planner, it looks to be at about
8000'. vegetation at that altitude is fragile.

	rob

(*) i personally would be happy for more hikers to use the pct.  while i
personally would prefer to have it almost completely to myself, it isn't
mine -- it belongs to everyone.  of course, i would be sad if the
increased use hurt the natural beauty.  but from hiking in the mt. hood
area, which has huge volume, i can see how one can have a lot of visitors
(on foot) and minimal impact.

ps. i've ridden horses, i like horses, i have friends who own and ride
    horses, and i've been on a trail ride in arizona many years ago, which
    i enjoyed.  i think there are a lot of public lands on which horses
    are just great.  but i've also been dismayed by the damage caused by
    groups with horses. 






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

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