[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pct-l] Bears, mules



People really do make a living backpacking in the wilderness, they are
called Outfitters, and when you live in such a small town, very poor,
hundreds of miles, from a town that even has 4,000 people in it. Job's
are very few, Plus that is the place were you were born, and you have a
lot of family there. there is literally nowhere to learn new skills,
nothing but wilderness, ranches and wheat fields. Bears kill livestock
as they are being born as also Coyotes and Cougars. they just released
some wolves, a few years ago, the first time a wolf has been seen in
Idaho, Montana states in over 50 years. As also Grizzlies will be also
released. I highly support that, although, it did not sit well with the
locals, whose Grandfather's Grandfather pioneered the land. These people
are Direct decendents.
Yes, there are other ways to build a house, but it would not be so cost
effective, or natural..
Thankfully, Bears do exist in the wilderness as well as wolves.
I believe Bears and People can live together, But Bears are wild, and in
a basic way, have no other purpose on this planet, except eat, sleep,
hunt and make new cubs. they are on top of the food chain, and are vital
to mother nature's Cycles. these are dumb animals, that have no ability
to reason, and are primitive as animals compared to humans.
Mules do cause more destructive abuse to trails, of dirt, or would you
rather pave the trails? dirt can be rebuilt easily.
Mules a generally kept on the trails, and they defecate as much has
moose, Elk, Deer, Bear and Hares! humans defecating is a different
story, because of the bacterial reasons, although some of the world's
finest garden fertilizer comes from humans...
I really like Lamas, they would be my choice of pack animal, besides
me...
So, Like I said, when you live in a place like Elk City Idaho, born and
raised, then tell me about it! 
R.J. Baynum   

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

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