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.Wandering Daisy wrote: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).
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.