[pct-l] Bears, mules

[Chris Mills <cmills00@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

Hello all,

I've noticed a few postings, particularly by R.J. Baynum, which I feel
inclined to respond to.  The fact that my email address puts me in Berkeley
may make some of you think that I am, as Baynum suggested, a city dweller
who has been brainwashed by environmentalists who have never seen
wilderness.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am going to school
here, I do not normally live in such an urban environment, and would prefer
not to be now if it were possible to attend such an prestigious school
otherwise.  But I digress.

Baynum is perfectly entitled to his own opinions, and I will therefore not
comment on his invoking the bible as a justification for killing bears, but
I will put out a few opinions of my own regarding his suggestion that the
attitudes which people exhibit when trying to protect bears are such that
they deny people jobs "whose very way of life depends on natural
resources."  There are several things to keep in mind, I think:

1.  Bears rarely were a nuisance to humans in the backcountry before the
number of people in the backcountry skyrocketed, many of whom are too
ignorant or lazy to properly store their food.  For this reason, as many
others on the PCT-L have said, the bear problem has its root in people, not
bears.
2.  Most people don't make a living backpacking the wilderness, so trying
to change humans' behavior to solve the bear problem is not costing anyone
their income.
3.  People who do make a living exploiting natural resources could find a
different job.  One of the wonderful things about being human, and having a
civilization, is the ability to learn new skills and do something else to
make a living.  There are far more jobs out there in which you do not have
to exploit natural resources, than in which you do.  No person's life
depends on exploiting natural resources such that we need to kill bears.
Being a bear, however, is different.  A bear's existence actually does
depend on its being able to get the natural resources it needs to survive,
and it can't choose to get a different vocation.  Humans have already
destroyed much of the wilderness in which a bear can get the food, etc. it
needs, so it seems only appropriate that it should try to take the food we
cart into its home.
4.  Although I realize there is a need for many natural resources, there
are many alternatives available to ones we use now that are far less
environmentally destructive.

Bears belong in the wilderness.  People don't.  I love visiting the
wilderness, but I also keep in mind that a bear in the wilderness would
have as much a "right" to maul me as I would to shoot it if it walked into
my house and tried to attack me--perhaps more.

As long as I am posting a message, I also would like to point out that
Mules don't really belong in some wilderness areas, either.  While they may
be legal, they are quite destructive.  With the weight that they carry and
the shoes they wear, they tear trails to shreds.  Furthermore, they
defecate indiscriminantly, which is rather ironic because while humans
defecate about a 20th of the waste that a Mule does a day, we are taught to
bury it far away from any trail or water source, or pack it out.  And
finally, much of the wilderness area along the PCT and elsewhere is rugged
to the point of being both uncomfortable and dangerous for the Mules
themselves.  Just my opinion.


I apologize if I have insulted anyone, but I hope there are more people
that agree with me than not.
--Chris Mills
PCT in 2000


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

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