I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[dave54]

Whether to control and restrict access in the name of preservation or allow more access for the citizens is an ongoing debate that has lasted over a century. Each has swung back and forth over time as the political winds (whims) fluctuate. Ultimately it is a public policy question not a science question. Researchers can identify the impacts and make recommendations, but the people, through their elected representatives, are the ones that must make the final decision even if the decision is to reject the recommendations of scientists.
You may disagree with the choice and consider it an error, but in a democracy the people have the right to be wrong.

[longri]

The system as it currently exists, and which some proponents wish to extend in size & scope, favors the retired, un & marginally employed.

That's true, but the ideas you floated have biases as well. It's pretty much impossible not to bias the system in some way. The goal is to minimize that. It's not trivial.

I also raise the core question as to what is the consensus agreement as to priority? A subjective human-centric measure of "quality of experience", or objectively neutral science focused on a holistic, integrated eco-system approach? Human-centric is driving on roads to remote THs, hiking/using stock on conveniently graded pathways, and engaging in unnatural 'wildlife entertainment'. Holistic is protecting wilderness utilizing full spectrum techniques, including recognizing human demands should be satisfied via careful management under controlled circumstances.

The devil is in the details of how those words are interpreted.

I don't have the answers. I know that resources are limited and demand for them is seemingly insatiable. Wilderness management, while very important, is far from the most pressing issue of our times. That said, I hope for a system that allows access for just about everybody, at some time or another. And I think we should maximize carrying capacity of the wilderness -- without "ruining it" in the process. That's tricky though.

[DAVELA]

Ok,well hiking with more than 1 person is too much fir me.I learned this from going to a few Meetups.A couple of trips involved psychos.Then again it is called 'Meetup' for a reason.The emphasis is socializing...with random,unknown variables(aka people).If i was planning a big trip or big anything,it wouldnt involve arrangements with people i dont know from a website.Maybe thats how millenials role but thats pure crazy.

[longri]

[Hobbes]

Since it should be expected that every proposal will be met with (some) opposition, it seems a worthy goal to at least attempt to achieve a plurality, if not an outright majority, opinion as to a fair resolution. HST provides a good mirror on society as a whole, and can help identify/focus key concerns/objections with respect to public land access/use that are just now loosely coalescing in the public sphere.

There's an interesting concept know as "yesterday's man", which is a term applied to people (and ideas) which may have been mainstream at one point, but over time have been eclipsed by changing fashion, tastes & opinions. For example, the initial objections raised against re-introducing wolves in MT/WY have long since passed out of the spotlight, as public opinion is now firmly in favor of wildlife rehabilitation. Of course, one must always follow the money, so increased tourism has certainly played in a part in garnering broad public support.

By way of another example, I have a friend/acquaintance who had been the director of a medical department at a local hospital. (He is now a resident researcher/lecturer @ UCI Medical.) One day, he received a workplace complaint from a nurse who claimed she was subject to workplace harassment. The cause? Another doctor & nurse, who had been dating and were in a relationship, were discussing plans for an upcoming weekend in her presence. Voila, hostile work environment. Now, you can object and say that is silly, but what he did was sit the offending doctor down and told him to keep his personal business to himself, either during lunch or after hours. His quote "I don't want my pension paying for her retirement".

The point being, society's expectations, rules, standards of conduct, etc are very fluid and ever-changing. It's a mug's game to attempt to oppose change - after all, the people complaining (some quite loudly) and initiating change are doing so for a reason, and typically are usually pretty motivated. Rather, it's easier, more efficient, and ultimately delivers more fair & equitable justice by listening, compromising and adapting. In other words, assume they are correct and figure out a solution.

Now, the reason I bring these two examples up, because unfortunately, HST does appear to have formed a resident group that is in effect echoing certain attitudes that could legitimately be labeled as 'yesterday's man'. Ask yourself this question: if you were working in the public and/or educational sphere, how would you react if a supervisor, colleague or activist asked you either privately, or at a public hearing, if some of the (bigoted) sentiments & attitudes (exclusion, discriminatory, undeserving, etc) being expressed at a media property you were involved with - if only peripherally - were indeed true?

Sure, one could claim that it respected free speech, and provided a platform for alternative, if unpopular views. So far, so good. But what if the site acted in the affirmative to quash competing claims, interests & possible solutions? That, in the form of a proxy, the respect and reputations of certain attitudes/individuals were so above reproach, that any lines of inquiry or requests for further explanation should be considered toxically offensive and stopped? At that point, interference could support a reasonable assumption that an (implicit) endorsement had been made, and any subsequent disavowal would then fall short of satisfying proof of disassociation.

That's why, if this conversation is to proceed, it's critical to maintain a position of neutrality, to shepherd the debate along and keep it focused on issues, science & facts, rather than allow it to careen off into the personal. So, let's hear some alternatives - I've laid out my case. I'm going to be out of pocket for the next week, but I will leave you with this: pro confesso. (Silence is assumed to be an admission.)

[rlown]

Ok. I'll ask you again. What good does reaching a consensus on HST do? We are all individuals and have congress and senate reps to call with our own opinions. You have not proposed what you would do with your "consensus" data. So, seems like we're back to the mental push-ups game.

You want opinions.. Leave the permit system the way it is. Easy enough to navigate. PCT'ers shouldn't get special treatment; they should go through the same planning we all go through. Trail quotas work, and if it's a days delay, that's ok. Plan ahead if you need specific dates. Go after Labor Day, as the teachers and students tend to be back at work. Don't go on Holidays. Way to crowded.

[markskor]

Interesting to where this thread has led us.
Started out as a report of questionable toxic misogyny on the PCT - now advocating that total Sierra fish removal would be a viable solution. wtf?

From the perspective of an active off-trail vagabond, have to disagree that the Sierra wilderness is overtaxed as to carrying capacity...maybe in some areas but as a whole, plenty of wide open spaces left, regions seldom explored. With the exception of those few major trails, the quota system seems to work OK once educated, does not seem to be taxed...but should have consistent set of rules for all concerned.

In our Sierra, if you subtract the numbers doing the Whitney, Half Dome (maybe any major part of the JMT corridor?)... add in that today's hiker is aided by being better equipped (lighter gear so longer miles)...but also take back that there exists a whole generation of hikers who seemingly would rather be watching their electronic devices than hiking. (Nobody ever said that hiking was not dirty and hard work.) Add it all up, and other than weekends, most local trail heads Mammoth and Yosemite are seldom filled. From the vantage point of my Tuolumne Meadows window, it does not seem that the Sierra hiking numbers are increasing.

As to this PCT kerfuffle - The first 700 miles has one set of rules. Through the desert flats - it's not National park/ forest jurisdiction land...thus not "Wilderness Act" governed. (BTW, Many start out but...soon realize what doing the miles - 20's & 30's - really means...1/3 eliminated.) During that initial PCT sections - hiking along roads - lax TH quotas, towns, trail angels, the special rules that allow leaving the trail freely... all culminates at ~mile 750 - with the now sharing of the PCT with the JMT. As a direct result of putting too much livestock through a single cattle chute...confrontations happen, specifically too many people are doing but one trail. Once into the Sierra, the hiking rules (as now Wilderness) change - But somehow they don't seem to for PCT. One should expect some toxic behavior if the rules are now different for the self-appointed elite. IE - Size of overnight party, fires, whether to carry bearcans...can come and go off trail on a whim...hitch up ahead...party on...backpacks in bear boxes...all legal?

You ask for viable fixes - alternatives...cheap? As there seems to be only one major problem...please fix the one great Sierra bottleneck first before eliminating things like bridges, roads, and fishing. As suggested previously - (Might take a few years but with effort...) re-establish the Theodore Solomon Trail (even temporarily allow chainsaws to facilitate clearing?) as the new, official, easiest-to-get-permits-for, quota'd route for long-distance Sierra PCT hikers. If their PCT goal is Canada - anything to make a PCT's life easier. It's lower - less elevation to gain/lose - allows earlier starts...easier to pass through - to do the long miles. This coincidentally frees up much of the existing congestion on today's JMT summer corridor - by establishing a second route - Horseshoe Meadows to Glacier Point. If, as mentioned above, observed hiking numbers are static except on this trail section, a second option should help alleviate a major portion of the problem.

Another alternative - make the rules consistent for all hiking through the Sierra. Once into the Sierra proper (maybe Kennedy Meadows south until after Sonora Pass?), if hiking under a PCT banner, must obey the same regs as all the rest of us - carry a bearcan where required, obey all stove/fire rules, and you cannot just leave the trail (a 15 mile restock limit?), or go somewhere for weeks on end, or hitch-hike ahead (unless closed/ fires) and return to hike the PCT without getting another permit to continue on.
After Sonora Pass, the numbers are manageable, as not many left going on to Oregon.

[ERIC]

Since it should be expected that every proposal will be met with (some) opposition, it seems a worthy goal to at least attempt to achieve a plurality, if not an outright majority, opinion as to a fair resolution. HST provides a good mirror on society as a whole, and can help identify/focus key concerns/objections with respect to public land access/use that are just now loosely coalescing in the public sphere.

Russ asks a good question. HST isn't a political organization meant to promote ideologies, nor do I want to see it be used in that way. The goal has never been to facilitate achievement of majority opinion on such matters either. It's a discussion board, not a consensus board.

[LMBSGV]

Russ asks a good question. HST isn't a political organization meant to promote ideologies, nor do I want to see it be used in that way. The goal has never been to facilitate achievement of majority opinion on such matters either. It's a discussion board, not a consensus board.

+!

[Tom_H]

Russ asks a good question. HST isn't a political organization meant to promote ideologies, nor do I want to see it be used in that way. The goal has never been to facilitate achievement of majority opinion on such matters either. It's a discussion board, not a consensus board.

+!

+2