[pct-l] FWD: AN OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS BAILEY from Bob Ballou

[Craig Giffen <craig@newestindustry.com>]

AN OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS BAILEY

RE: HIKERS HAVEN & THE PCTA


Thank you for your letter which we received via the Internet and by US
Mail.  Although I have not personally visited Hikers Haven, I have heard
about it - and Randy Testman - for several months now.  I believe this
facility first came to my attention during the spring of 1997 when a
thru-hiker reported a sign on the PCT near Mission Creek advertising its
location.  To my knowledge, prior to that time, PCT users were not invited
up the 1.7 mile side trail to Testman's site.

As the 1997 season wore on, we continued to hear about this facility and
actually gave it ink in the July-August issue of the PCT Communicator,
although none of our staff or board of directors had seen it in person. 
Later, I heard some accusations about Testman's inappropriate activities on
the land, but nothing solid had been proven and the charges were apparently
dropped.

In June of 1998, Joe Sobinovsky of our staff visited Hikers Haven in person
and reported back that he was impressed by what Testman had done, but there
was apparently some question about the legality of his being on the land. 
In the fall, I heard directly from Testman.  He told me about the situation
with the university, indicated that the Wildlands Conservancy supported his
position, and asked the PCTA to support him.  A call to the Wildlands
Conservancy failed to fully verify his claim of its support.

After consulting with our President, I gave him the name of an attorney in
southern California who hikes the PCT and might assist him.  I also told
him that while we certainly appreciate and support the idea of people
helping thru-hikers and other trail users, the PCTA itself simply could not
get involved in a legal dispute between himself and the university.  He
asked if I would talk with a reporter from the local newspaper if he
called.  I said I would, and did, although I didn't recognize my words when
I saw them in print -- I used the words "valued" and "important", not
"vital", in describing how we viewed hostels and trail angel provided
accommodations.

You have accurately said that our mission is to promote and protect the
PCT.  Then you link Hikers Haven to that mission as a de facto part of the
PCT -- "due to its proximity to the trail and its usefulness to trail
users."  That, I believe, is a stretch of logic and distance (1.7 miles). 
It is not our policy to endorse any provider of services along the trail,
although some advertise in the PCT Communicator, and many, including Hiker
Haven (as Mission Creek Hostel), are listed in the Trail Town guidebook we
publish.

And yes, we have acknowledged the "good turns" of trail angels who take
hikers into their homes at no cost.  However, we view Hiker Haven as we
would any other private campground along the trail's 2,650 miles that
welcomes trail users.  We appreciate these providers of creature comforts,
but would not consider it our duty or obligation to defend any one of them
if they were found in violation of their deed of trust, local building
codes, health ordinances, or other laws.

Since I have not personally visited Hiker Haven, I cannot, and have no
desire, to deny what you have said about the beauty, educational values or
minimal environmental impacts of the facility.  However, I respectfully
disagree with your premise that the PCTA has an "obligation" to get
involved in a dispute between what the university views as a squatter and
its rights as the land patentee.  With all the other issues facing us
regarding urban/commercial encroachment on the trail itself and the safety
of users on several road-walks, the PCTA is unable to take a position for
individuals or businesses in their legal matters.

Testman has posted on his website the land patent granting La Sierra
College use of the land for "biological field station and natural history
reservation purposes."  It is my understanding that if the land is used for
purposes other than these, and if the Secretary of the Interior sees fit to
do so, the United States of America may repossess the land.  It would seem
that the college can not sell the property to an entity other than one that
will adhere to these provisions, e.g. a land trust or other scientific
research institution.

Therefore, it seems there is no threat that the land will be overbuilt with
housing, mined or logged, any one of which might cause the PCTA to get
involved from a trail corridor protection perspective.

Thank you again for your letter and comments.

FOR THE TRAIL AND THE ASSOCIATION,


s/ Bob Ballou

Bob Ballou, Executive Director
Pacific Crest Trail Association
5325 Elkhorn Blvd.  #256
Sacramento, CA  95842
(916) 349-2109

Craig Giffen
Portland, OR
http://www.newestindustry.com




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

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