I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[oldranger]

Wow this thread certainly has a life of its own. Never been interested in thru hiking or following routes others have publicized. Personally, (I hope I don't offend too many people here) I view thru hiking like a series of one night stands: fun, ok but not nearly as fulfilling as a sustained relationship where you become truly intimate. Most of my hikes have involved relatively short days, lots of lay overs and, once my campsite is established, poking around (pun intended) and exploring the area, that is becoming intimate with the area. Never forget talking to a good friend, who did the PCT, about how beautiful certain areas along the PCT were. He couldn't even remember them 6 weeks later! But he could talk about the travails he experienced and the people he met. I guess my feeling is that why should wilderness which is designated to provide opportunities for solitude be prostituted for a mass of people who are not even aware of anything more than the trail ahead and the obstacles they must surmount. Thru hiking is not merely a matter of hiking your own hike but the masses on the trail, for even a few weeks (which actually is a significant portion of the backpacking window) is totally inconsistent with the concepts the Wilderness Act was designed to enhance.

[dave54]

I agree with mike. Having to get up every day to put in another 15-20 miles regardless of how I feel or how much I want to linger no longer interests me.

My trips now are short hikes of only a few miles then stay put for a couple days. Side jaunts to nearby points of interest, wetting a line in a small lake, then returning to my already set up camp. I measure smiles, not miles.

I must be getting old.

[balzaccom]

We need an "epic" trail that runs through the flyover states. Instead of the CDT, let's call it the Great Plains Trail. Sell the hell out of it. Make sure all the magazines write about it. Encourage all thru-hikers to tackle it mano a mano....leaving the mountains for those of us who want a wilderness hike, not a race track.

All in favor?

[rightstar76]

.

[fishwrong]

I don't get it. The initial article and a lot of the response to this thread are about how "Those people" affected "My experience".

There are a million reasons a person would hike the PCT, and I doubt they're exactly the same for any two people. For some it's a trophy, and satisfaction of accomplishing something difficult. For some it's belonging to the group and indulging in "trail culture". Others it's the experience of the special places in nature. For most, it's some of each, and a lot more. If the goal is to be loved and embraced by a bunch of stinky, self-absorbed, glory hounds, well that probably ended about as you'd envisioned...

I'm a big proponent of live and let live. Next time things don't work out as you think they should, maybe step off the path, let those you don't like walk on past, and continue along at your own pace. It's fair odds you'll have something in common with the next person you run into, who just so happens to be headed down the same path....

[rightstar76]

.

[Hobbes]

There are a million reasons a person would hike the PCT.

Perhaps the chief being the great bald ape (sapiens sapiens) evolved as a migratory species. It's not the wanderers who are the anomaly, it's our sedentary cousins. Until the advent of civilization - fixed domiciles - everyone walked (practically) every day: men, women, children, the elderly. How else did the **entire** globe become populated from a single starting point in sub-Sahara Africa?

The Phoenicians took to the seas partly out of opportunity, partly out of the stoke of sailing off somewhere new. The early explorers/colonialists coming to the Americas never had any lack of volunteers. The Canterbury tales is a story of a road trip; pilgrimages like the El Camino were/still are the rage.

We were literally born to walk/run/explore - it's encoded in our DNA, it's what we actually are. Trying to suppress that natural instinct is what leads to depression, crime, drug addiction and all the other ills of society. Every day, more & more people are waking up and getting (I mean, *really* getting) the saying "We were not born to just pay bills and die".

It's not a wonder so many people are hiking, the oddity is why so many people (still) aren't. Which is why trying to suppress access and/or limit exposure will only result in resistance. The natural state is people out & about getting fresh air, enjoying the day. The anomaly was a singular, unique point in time when participation was lower. However, those who became conditioned to that state of affairs can sometimes fall prey to assuming what was a (temporary) aberration was the base-line. So, it's understandable that anyone conditioned to those circumstances would react negatively to what is occurring today.

My advice is to get out and have fun. What you see today is what freedom looks like.

[Hobbes]

Totally inconsistent with the concepts the Wilderness Act was designed to enhance.

That's the money quote, and where the future debate lies. The relevant issues being context and intent. We should note that the history of land use in this country was one of both sustenance & exploitation. A core component of the economy was resource extraction (mining & logging). Most people lived on/off the land, the result being huge swaths of denuded land cleared for cultivation.

I recall viewing photos of turn of the century Santa Clara valley absolutely barren before agriculture shifted to orchards - all the oaks & native vegetation had been cleared. The entire forest above Incline village in lake Tahoe was decimated as trees were cut down to provide timber for Comstock mining activities. Hell, both CA & NV were quickly incorporated as states simply because of their resource values.

How many people remember the debate over the Gettysburg battlefield? When the battle was fought, it was farmland ie cleared. But, 150 years later, large trees, forests & undergrowth had made their way back, making for a beautiful park setting, but destroying the historical relevance as site-lines were obscured:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-27/ ... g-makeover

Where I'm going with this is that the orientation of the environmental movement in the late 50s was to stop/prevent/halt additional, large-scale mass use projects. Specifically, the proposed Disney ski resort project in Mineral King. That's why the Sierra club was so successful - many people could get behind the idea of preventing another Mammoth mountain or Squaw valley. Thereafter, the environmental movement scored a string of victories, including the Coastal protection act passed in 1972. A couple of landmark, shitty projects squatting on the beaches (that still exist today) made people realize the coast was next.

OK, so the initial precedent was to prevent irrevocable, large-scale development & destruction. No one argues with this - that is what was meant by preserving the 'wilderness'. But what's alarming is the belief that a law created for specific purposes can now be conveniently re-positioned as a tool to prevent others from peaceable enjoying the very wilderness that was set-aside & protected.

If people were really interested in protecting nature, they would be advocating solutions aimed at mitigating human waste and the impact of foot traffic on alpine tundra, meadows and forest undergrowth. But that's not the game, is is? Rather, it's exclusion, plain & simple.

This smacks of rank elitism and discriminatory behavior. Hiding behind the terms of the WA, as if what was meant 54 years ago, when people were fishing, hunting, logging, extracting and basically raping the land, now applies to hikers merely passing on through is pretty transparent. It's not about the wilderness itself, or protection of nature, but a desire driven about selfish enjoyment by excluding others.

[Cross Country]

I believe what Hobbs wrote is the nail on the head. I would hope that the maximum number of the people here could see this as obvious. I'm not talking about part of what he wrote. Every part he wrote is correct, Hobbs is very educated in this area and even seems to have at least a little education in econ and maybe more.
Good job Hobbs. I loved the read.

[mrphil]

This smacks of rank elitism and discriminatory behavior. Hiding behind the terms of the WA, as if what was meant 54 years ago, when people were fishing, hunting, logging, extracting and basically raping the land, now applies to hikers merely passing on through is pretty transparent. It's not about the wilderness itself, or protection of nature, but a desire driven about selfish enjoyment by excluding others.

The whole idea of limitations placed upon capacity and human use isn't without precedent, though. If it's a logical evolution borne out of necessity or a distortion of the original intent, I don't know, but the fact that quota systems are in place (and were found necessary for preservation purposes) doesn't strike me so much as elitism or exclusion, just as an unfortunate consequence of the times in a way that wasn't foreseen 50 years ago. Some would definitely form their opinions on the basis of the former, but the latter is the driving force behind it (at least at face value), and I do think that that speaks completely to your point of only applying solutions based on their scientific merit alone: cause, effect, mitigation, but can we also remove emotion while, at the same time, allowing for and promoting the deep sense of ownership and personalization that makes stewardship and concepts such as LNT ethics so successful? That's a very fine line to walk, with potentially tragic consequences if it's not framed as an emotional appeal rather than as just a factually based argument.

Rereading the act, one other thing strikes me in terms of changes that have be initiated since inception: According to Section 2(b) no appropriation was intended ar allowed for extra or specific personnel for the purposes of management of areas simply because or their "wilderness" designation. So, assuming that agencies are managing the areas, which we know they are, ie: "wilderness rangers" for enforcement purposes, are they being fit into the existing budgets, or is this also just another necessary distortion and unfortunate consequence that requires it in order to fit the needs of current realities? It seems that the act itself was only an origination point, but that it has to be taken as a work-in-progress in order to succeed, regardless of how that changes over time.