I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[Hobbes]

The future issue will be the details of WHO gets permits. Right now it is "first come" be it quick fingers on the phone when getting a reservation or first in line at the permit station. PCT hikers are allowed to be outside the current system. Implementation of a better permit system is possible, we just have to have the legal basis (Wilderness Act) and the political will (not there yet).

Daisy, rather than overtly disagree with the various points you've made above, how about we use this thread to test out your thesis? Here is my rebuttal - I would be more than happy to review your counter-points. Just a friendly reminder that you should use this opportunity to base your argument on law & legal precedent. Perhaps with some feedback from me & others, you can tune up your position so that it can be made available as a possible starting point.

Currently, only the core high Sierra trailheads that are currently subject to permit regulations have imposed quotas. Outside of this zone, some/many wilderness areas don't even require a permit, and the ones that do don't have any quotas. This means anyone can get a permit at any time at any point along the trail south of Cottonwood pass.

It really doesn't have anything with timing and/or first come, first served basis. The PCTA has done an excellent job of obscuring the key facts by convincing some number of people they need an "official" PCT permit. This position is fiction, a creature of invention, a mere courtesy recognized by various forests & parks along the trail.

Coming from the south, the last TH without quotas is Trail pass. None of the multitude of THs from the border to Trail pass has a quota. A hiker can start @ Campo, and 750 miles later merely exit the PCT at Trail pass, go into the InterAgency visitor center (IAVC) in Lone Pine, pull a permit for TP, and resume their northerly quest.

Possible response: Impose quotas in all forest service regions and wilderness sections from the border to TP. Issue one: no budget for either manpower or facilities to house permit issuance. Issue two: no budget for on-trail enforcement ie rangers.

Issue three: No political support to close off forest access south of Cottonwood pass. This has at least four parts: (a) Local towns, businesses and other service providers are now expectant upon a surge in business as the PCT herd moves north. (b) Local residents in the areas effected would naturally be highly resistant to the specter of having their enjoyment of the outdoors restricted.

(c) People who make certain life style choices (including limited career prospects & financial hardship) to live close to these areas in order to be able to enjoy them at will would be literally incensed. It's hard to imagine a worse reaction than that of an outsider who has both the financial means & time available to personally benefit from the restrictions being proposed emerging as the chief advocate.

(d) A significant part of the country's population is opposed to federal control of lands held within the various states. This is an upper-level political philosophy based on constitutional principles. There's no reason to argue the merits here; they are irrelevant to this personal discussion. Rather, the idea of getting DC behind further restrictions and control in the current environment is futile.

Lastly, I'm curious about certain specifications in the Wilderness act, and how you envision it could be positioned to provide a legal basis for the type of control you are advocating. As examples to the contrary, first with the Valley, and then with the JMT, there is a well established history of certain zones and areas being "sacrificed" to satisfy demand. This precedent is of course already well established in Yosemite, but perhaps even more so in the Great Smokey mountains.

Just to summarize, I'm curious to see how you propose on proceeding. I think if you work through your points & counter-points here among friendly eyes, you may develop a good basis to launch a program for further inquiry and action.

[Wandering Daisy]

You are stuck in the present. I am thinking about the future. The political situation swings back and forth. Obviously, with the current politics, it would not work. It will likely swing back again. And I do not give a xxxx if it is not now possible. This country generates enough wealth to fully fund and protect our public lands. I opted to quit posting this thread because of your hostility, and this is my last post here. Take it or leave it. I do not care.

[Hobbes]

Daisy, I'm disappointed you took offense. My intent was otherwise; perhaps an HST version of summer stock. For decades, theater companies have taken their acts on the road to the Berkshires and other venues to practice, test out ideas, and generally monkey around until they are satisfied with their plays.

Only then, after months of performing before real, live audiences - albeit in small, friendly, relaxed environments - do they open on Broadway. Because it's when they open and perform under the bright lights in NYC that the sh!t hits the fan, either favorably or unfavorably.

I figured HST would provide a nice venue to test out crowd control/diversion theories, perhaps get some group input as to possible readings of existing law(s), and/or applied management practices in certain parks/forests.

---

My take is that the natural course will be to eliminate dispersed camping and install solar composting toilets in certain high impact sections during select times. Again, Valley management already has well established practices that have been in place since at least the 70s: you cannot just camp anywhere, and you certainly cannot urinate/defecate in public.

The PCT is a unique animal because hikers are trying to get to Canada. In order to achieve that objective, their Sierra window is an extremely small 4-6 weeks in June and July. They aren't interested in camping & communing in nature, but rather walking. While the Sierra are nice, they are all trying to exit @ Kearsarge to get some "real" food and re-supply in Bishop.

By managing that single aspect right there ie hard perimeter campground with toilets @ the PCT/Charlotte junction, Seki could achieve a tremendous bang for the buck. It may seem like a lot of hikers are having a negative impact on the trail, but really, in the big scheme of things, how many hikers would it take before the impact even began to compare to the Tioga road? (Or, the foot traffic and mule train supply lines traveling between the respective HSCs. Aye carumba.)

That's why I think any workable management plan is going to concede to the temporary, ephemeral nature of PCT traffic flow, rather than gin up a lot of controversy trying to crack down and limit access.

[Lodestar Lightning]

If PCT hikers "aren't interested in camping or communing with nature" they don't belong in designated wilderness areas. Nor do campgrounds or toilets. Wandering Daisy is right. Read the Wilderness Act. The purpose of the National Wilderness Preservation System it established is to secure "an enduring resource of wilderness" for posterity. Resource managers are charged by law with protection of these areas and preservation of their wilderness character, not with facilitating recreational opportunities. Structures and installations, as well as all mechanical transport, are expressly prohibited. The specified characteristics of the visitor experience are limited to "Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation."

The political horse trading involved in passage of the Wilderness Act unfortunately resulted in administration of these areas by existing agencies, rather than a Wilderness Service wholeheartedly devoted to enforcing the letter and spirit of the act's provisions. The National Park Service has a dual mandate of promoting preservation while catering to public use. The National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are active partners in commercial exploitation of natural resources. The established culture of each agency is inherently at odds with the act's mandate to ensure the preservation of wilderness areas "in an unimpaired condition."

But the fact that they often fail to enforce the act's provisions as strictly as they ought to doesn't mean they should be granted even more leeway to further accommodate recreational users — a tiny proportion, after all, of the population. The Wilderness Act established designated wilderness areas "for the permanent good of the whole people." If that permanent good is threatened by the kinds of resource degradation and erosion of solitude caused by increasing numbers of PCT hikers in designated wilderness areas, managers need no more justification than the text of the act itself to impose stricter quotas and close impacted areas to camping. If these folks are flouting regulations about group size by essentially hiking and camping in packs while holding individual use permits, it's time for restrictions there, as well. The next logical step—and the sooner the better, it seems to me—is to re-route the PCT entirely out of designated wilderness.

Finally, drawing parallels with the management of Yosemite Valley and the environmental impact of the Tioga Road is ridiculous. One is a mecca for millions of visitors each year, with a history as a "pleasuring ground" that predates its establishment as a national park. The other is... a state highway. Neither are situated in designated wilderness areas.

As far as the High Sierra Camps are concerned, Congress recognized their incompatibility with wilderness values by designating them as enclaves in the 1984 act that created the Yosemite Wilderness. The legislation directed the Secretary of the Interior to re-designate the enclaves as wilderness once the nonconforming developments were removed. At the same time, Congress asked the NPS to prepare a report on the impacts caused by the camps. It has yet to do so. Two generations of Park Service administrators have falsely claimed that the camps are in essence "grandfathered," defying the will of Congress and, thus, the American people. Yes, these commercial slums with their chronic sewage leaks and lengthy lists of other impacts are a disgrace. But don't use their existence as a make-weight in arguing that PCT impacts are relatively inconsequential. The camps, by rights, ought to be long gone. And in any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Harlen]

The next logical step—and the sooner the better, it seems to me—is to re-route the PCT entirely out of designated wilderness.

I think that is the answer, and long overdue. Harlen.

[mrphil]

You want to refer back to the 1964 Wilderness Act. https://wilderness.nps.gov/document/wildernessAct.pdf

I don't disagree with any of your opinions, but I do want to make a few quick points:

Under the terms of the legislation, established uses prior to the enactment were allowed to continue. I'm assuming that this is the basis for the NPS's argument that the HSCs are "grandfathered in". Their existence, as long as it remained limited ,was essentially written in, as was resource recovery in the form of mining and timber harvesting. The text is very specific in this.

Also according to the Act, the agency that managed the area prior to enactment was to remain under control of the area. Hence, the NPS, BLM, USFS, and their seemingly cross-mandates.

Lastly, also at cross purposes is why and how you can leave something "unimpaired" but still allow for use. By definition, any human use would be an impairment, and if you make it available for "the permanent good of the whole people", while catastrophic to the resource, it's what's intended. I completely agree with the idea of creating and enforcing strict quotas for PCT hikers and in all designated wilderness areas, but my concern is in how the "whole people" would construe it if they weren't feeling as if they had a right or opportunity to fully derive that benefit. You're suddenly left with an already inadequate budget to begin with potentially becoming even smaller. 300 some odd million tax paying citizens suddenly thinking that a resource like national parks and wilderness sound great, but since only a small percentage are gleaning any direct benefit, and the reality is, money is tight, "screw them, we need new overpasses more". While a great idea, the potential to backfire badly when access is at least perceived as denied to the many certainly has to be considered. Not unlike the little towns that would be screaming bloody murder if their annual PCT influx of income was suddenly cut off. Congress isn't necessarily adept or responsive to the needs of the people, and is largely beholden to lobbyists and their own selfish interests (as we even saw in the 1964 Wilderness Act), but they do have to be re-elected by their constituents, and at least pretend to care about the "whole people" of their districts, as well as those that bankroll their campaigns and PACs. With all that's taking place on the subject with the current administration, we're seeing that shift begin now.

[Hobbes]

If PCT hikers "aren't interested in camping or communing with nature" they don't belong in designated wilderness areas.

Hi, thanx for sharing your insight & opinion. You have clearly thought about this issue and care deeply about the impact. My orientation is wholly agnostic - my intention was to illicit the kind of input you provided. Make no mistake, I fully support your passion. However, as a kind gesture, I should point out certain areas that you will certainly face push-back and objection, some vigorous, others perhaps more vehement.

First & foremost, I highly advise dropping the use of conditional subjective terms & phrases such as "don't (belong)", "unfortunately resulted", "fail to enforce ... strictly as they ought", "managers need no more justification". In order to achieve one's desired ends, the key to any successful negotiation is first & foremost to avoid aggravating and/or antagonizing potential opposition.

Quoting law, which at its basis was originally created by men, for men, and is entirely the creation of representative government and subject to interpretation, as some kind of absolute that all must accede is, frankly, a sure recipe for failure. Likewise, accusing the respective departments and agencies charged with both interpretation and implementation as defying the will of Congress can be (correctly) construed as simple partisanship and will be dismissed - if not entirely ignored - by any politically astute manager.

May I suggest you take a step back and evaluate what you are trying to accomplish here. Understand that it is the job of government to secure both public safety and management of critical national assets. Legislation may be passed, but it is the purview of the judicial system to attempt to evaluate and divine intent. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. One perhaps shared by many others, but not necessarily accepted as mandate.

In order for you to succeed, you must work through the system to shape public opinion and convince supporters that your position provides the greatest benefit & greatest good, however that may be defined, for all citizens, present and future. Insulting potential allies, making absolutist claims, and otherwise eroding the prospective pool of supporters is the surest way of achieving the exact opposite of your intent.

Overall, I like the cut of your jib. I think it would be worthwhile for you to possibly ID what you believe is your strongest point, and to perhaps speculate how you would exactly proceed with advancing this agenda. Oftentimes those first steps are the most critical, as they set the stage for securing initial support and serve to enlist additional groups/allies.

[Hobbes]

Rather than edit my prior post, perhaps it may be more useful to use this thread as an open dialogue towards at least reaching a consensus as to what is being proposed. I believe, first & foremost, it would be incumbent upon all interested parties to reach some kind of agreement as to what we are actually attempting to address.

I think it would be easier to frame the various issues if we were able to condense it to a core set of articles, from which point they could be prioritized and analyzed. Here is my proposed list:

1. Environmental impact
2. Visitor experience

In reference to my original reply above, I think it would be highly advantageous to avoid point #2 at all cost. Visitor experience & user enjoyment are extremely contentious topics, and completely subjective depending on which group of individuals is being considered. This arena also provides the most fuel for opposition, as any experienced political player will immediately seize upon such opinions & derogatory utterances like "don't belong" as elitist epithets. Word of advice: don't go there.

Alright, then this leaves #1, environmental impact, as the primary core objective to be addressed. Environmental impact is fairly trivial to measure, since it's completely objective and backed by decades of proven, well tested science. If anyone is able to mount an effective challenge to increased hiker traffic, it is going to be through the use of long established, well understood, widely accepted (courts, administrative departments, et al) and generally favorably received research studies directed towards environmental impact.

(As a quick aside, if one were conscious that perhaps scientific support was weak, they might to decide for both strategic and tactical reasons that the political arena might be more effective. This is the classic field of traditional grievance groups and media manipulation to initiate grass root support in order to effect political change. However, it might be a high risk proposition with the matter here being discussed. Blow-back is a very real possibility as perceived allies [at risk, underrepresented] could actually emerge as opponents.)

OK, back to environmental impact. Typically, in order to reduce and simplify what are in many cases extremely complex topics, there are two standard considerations utilized to avoid the dreaded "matrix of unmanageable proportions". And these are, prevention vs mitigation. Next question: what exactly is being proposed that is attempting to either prevent and/or mitigate?

Glad you asked; in order:
1. Human waste
2. Compression (physical features, undergrowth, meadows, alpine flora, plant litter, etc)

IMO, anyone advocating reductions in access and traffic flow/volume would best be served by attacking these two key points of vulnerability. This is where the WA may provide the necessary tools to argue and carry home a point. However, it should first be noted that the law - any law - is not absolute. What is crafted generations before may, over time, be re-interpreted to better suit the current conditions of the sovereign aka the People. IOW, we are not absolutely bound by decisions made by previous generations. It is our inalienable right and duty to live in a civil society that we choose under our own making.

I think I've made my position pretty clear with regard to the core environmental impacts: direct political & financial capital towards mitigation efforts. That is, toilets & designated campgrounds. I well understand those who hold differing opinions. What I'd like to see is, rather than an attack on my position, is a well structured supporting argument for prevention. Personally, I'm well known for getting along with a lot of different people. I'm about as non-dogmatic as possible, and respect a well thought out, well reasoned argument that supports a certain POV.

If one is going to advocate access controls and restrictions, IMO its best chance of success is preventing deleterious environmental impact by proving: (a) it's more effective - both costs & results; and (b) mitigation either is insufficient in total, or doesn't sufficiently resolve long-term damage & recovery.

[mrphil]

Hobbes:

I don't think that items #1 and 2 can be held as mutually exclusive. While protection of the wilderness resource is a consideration, the Act was designed and worded with the user experience of that resource as it's primary consideration, in theoretical perpetuity. To use it is to be in it, and to be in it is to degrade it through human interaction. That's an unavoidable outcome, so I think it's all a matter of identifying at what point does that rightful use become a burden upon that resource that diminishes the intended "experience"? People's perceptions of "nature" only go as far as their ability to go out and be part of, appreciate, and enjoy it. Beyond that, it's merely a nice, feel-good concept for most. It might sound like the right thing to do, but the question most people that are being asked to support and fund it is always going to be, "Does it work for me, and is there something I would rather have that would serve me better?"

[Hobbes]

Good points, two counters with respect to referencing and quoting the WA as if it holds the ultimate last word:

1. Incorrect - In that we can both list many examples of changing legal terms, meanings and intent, some occurring over centuries. Anybody want to debate the intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment between 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified and today?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the original intent to prevent new, large scale operations like Mammoth mountain, Squaw valley, etc from being licensed & erected in our national forests? To be more specific, to block the proposed Disney ski resort @ Mineral King? How is it that a law passed in 1964, when California's population was approx 17m and the state was still based primarily on agriculture and resource extraction (mining, oil & gas, etc), is now somehow positioned as the arbiter of people **walking** freely through public lands? Sure you want to go there? Which leads to:

2. Dangerous - As in, don't bet more than you can lose. Park managers and superintendents know the legal ground for both permits & quotas is tenuous in itself and has never really faced significant court challenge(s). The right of public access, easement and freedom of passage is centuries old - it goes way, way back to English common law. In fact, there are extremely well established principles of public ingress/egress with respect to crossing/utilizing *private property*. Once you get into the commons and public domain, well, good luck with that.

I guess to summarize, if it was easy, the parks/forests would have already done something. But they know they don't want to risk a challenge to the basic premise of permits/quoatas in the first place. If they were to lose, or even suffer a TRO, executive order or some other conditional use allowance, the flood gates would be thrust wide open.

This is a sensitive case, because we have people *on foot*, freely exercising their rights as free men to cross public lands without restraint and/or restrictions. They aren't logging, they aren't riding vehicles, they aren't collecting, they aren't harvesting, they aren't engaged in activities involving force or fraud. Rather, they are exercising a fundamental, inalienable right to peaceable association and assembly ie doing nothing other than minding their own business. If one were to argue that they are diminishing 'your' personal right to quiet enjoyment, well, you better put on some flame-proof underwear.

Again, I would suggest those advocating access controls & restrictions to stick to science. Demonstrate/prove that mitigation of human waste & compression is (a) un-economical; and (b) ineffective. By so doing, you can help build a foundation that might lead to crafting policy positions aimed at preventing environmental damage and harmful, long term impacts to the natural ecology.