I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[Hobbes]

Good job Hobbes. I loved the read.

Thanx - here's some more. I find the apparent lack of self awareness a little bit amusing, a smidge ironic, and the remainder disappointing. What really strikes me is the absence of perspective by some who came of age after the period of wide-spread, large-scale development and utilization was successfully halted.

Before that, the forests & open spaces were actively utilized, in practically every commercial capacity, as a source of economic wealth/activity. There were people everywhere, vehicles everywhere, roads/buildings everywhere, water storage/diversion everywhere, communications equipment - poles, towers, transformers, wires, etc - strung out everywhere. In fact, the so-called "back country" was a veritable giant construction/ranching/mining operation. It doesn't take much effort to see the remnants everywhere (some still operational and actively maintained).

So, if you started working/backpacking post 1964, your only frame of reference would be your own personal 'ghost town' experience, not the history that occurred before. Secondly, the generation after WWII experienced perhaps the largest employment participation rate ever recorded - everyone worked because jobs were plentiful and high paying. Besides, debt wasn't available to support families - you had to have income. Add to that anyone not in college or working was in the military - selective service & the draft were in full force, and of course Viet Nam was raging.

Thirdly, US population was 192m, and California 16m; both approx +- half of what they are today. (At a 2% growth rate, these numbers will double again in just 35 years.)

It's not difficult to imagine an environment where all commercial activity has essentially been eliminated, but at the same time, no one is really around (except for perhaps weekends) to fill the vacuum. And, even if they were (which they weren't), there were only 1/2 as many people overall! Naturally, one could develop an expectation, and maybe a sense of entitlement, that quiet, empty nature was there for them solely to enjoy. In other words "it was the way it was supposed to be".

No to be too snarky, but since there's MADD, maybe there should be RAPA: "Rangers against public access". Really though, the key issue here is environmental degradation, in the form of human waste and compression/erosion. There's an easy, proven, straightforward means of controlling potential damage. I sympathize in some respects, but feel it provides a disservice to HST that we have people advocating preventing others from peaceful enjoyment of the outdoors. (And, as I raised the issue last year, a site can really go off the rails if the prevailing attitude becomes one of judging whether what others are doing are 'worthy' or 'deserving'.)

What we should be doing is encouraging exploration, but at the same time teaching and leading by example of how to enjoy nature without destroying it. No one cares what anyone else is doing at the beach, as long as they don't litter, play loud music, and/or kick sand. Same should hold true for hiking: don't litter, don't play loud music, and don't cause a kerfuffle next to me. Other than that, hey it rocks to be out here, doesn't it?!

[oldranger]

Good job Hobbes. I loved the read.

Thanx - here's some more. I find the apparent lack of self awareness a little bit amusing, a smidge ironic, and the remainder disappointing. What really strikes me is the absence of perspective by some who came of age after the period of wide-spread, large-scale development and utilization was successfully halted.

Before that, the forests & open spaces were actively utilized, in practically every commercial capacity, as a source of economic wealth/activity. There were people everywhere, vehicles everywhere, roads/buildings everywhere, water storage/diversion everywhere, communications equipment - poles, towers, transformers, wires, etc - strung out everywhere. In fact, the so-called "back country" was a veritable giant construction/ranching/mining operation. It doesn't take much effort to see the remnants everywhere (some still operational and actively maintained).

So, if you started working/backpacking post 1964, your only frame of reference would be your own personal 'ghost town' experience, not the history that occurred before. Secondly, the generation after WWII experienced perhaps the largest employment participation rate ever recorded - everyone worked because jobs were plentiful and high paying. Besides, debt wasn't available to support families - you had to have income. Add to that anyone not in college or working was in the military - selective service & the draft were in full force, and of course Viet Nam was raging.

Thirdly, US population was 192m, and California 16m; both approx +- half of what they are today. (At a 2% growth rate, these numbers will double again in just 35 years.)

It's not difficult to imagine an environment where all commercial activity has essentially been eliminated, but at the same time, no one is really around (except for perhaps weekends) to fill the vacuum. And, even if they were (which they weren't), there were only 1/2 as many people overall! Naturally, one could develop an expectation, and maybe a sense of entitlement, that quiet, empty nature was there for them solely to enjoy. In other words "it was the way it was supposed to be".

No to be too snarky, but since there's MADD, maybe there should be RAPA: "Rangers against public access". Really though, the key issue here is environmental degradation, in the form of human waste and compression/erosion. There's an easy, proven, straightforward means of controlling potential damage. I sympathize in some respects, but feel it provides a disservice to HST that we have people advocating preventing others from peaceful enjoyment of the outdoors. (And, as I raised the issue last year, a site can really go off the rails if the prevailing attitude becomes one of judging whether what others are doing are 'worthy' or 'deserving'.)

What we should be doing is encouraging exploration, but at the same time teaching and leading by example of how to enjoy nature without destroying it. No one cares what anyone else is doing at the beach, as long as they don't litter, play loud music, and/or kick sand. Same should hold true for hiking: don't litter, don't play loud music, and don't cause a kerfuffle next to me. Other than that, hey it rocks to be out here, doesn't it?!

Your characterization of the "old days" is blatantly false. There were many areas not touched by development, logging, and roads. Some of these areas became included in the wilderness system. I started backpacking in these areas in the 50's. As mrphil noted there is nothing elitist about quotas--the price of admission is less than a craft beer! If admission were based on who was willing to pay the most then you would be correct. Population dynamics is certainly an important consideration but my take is exactly the opposite as yours. Increased population means that we need to be more careful about how the wilderness is managed perhaps limiting the number of trips a person can take. It is not just a matter of being good stewards. It is preserving a "sense of place." Personally I would rather be limited in the amount of time I could spend if it meant that I could experience a sense of solitude someplace in the lower 48 other than locking myself in my abode. It is not a case of Rangers against Public Access. Everyone should have equal access but not all at the same time. Kind of like fire codes that limit how many people can occupy a public space at the same time. That is not elitist! But some people may be left out for a particular event

[oldranger]

Good job Hobbes. I loved the read.

Thanx - here's some more. I find the apparent lack of self awareness a little bit amusing, a smidge ironic, and the remainder disappointing. What really strikes me is the absence of perspective by some who came of age after the period of wide-spread, large-scale development and utilization was successfully halted.

Before that, the forests & open spaces were actively utilized, in practically every commercial capacity, as a source of economic wealth/activity. There were people everywhere, vehicles everywhere, roads/buildings everywhere, water storage/diversion everywhere, communications equipment - poles, towers, transformers, wires, etc - strung out everywhere. In fact, the so-called "back country" was a veritable giant construction/ranching/mining operation. It doesn't take much effort to see the remnants everywhere (some still operational and actively maintained).

So, if you started working/backpacking post 1964, your only frame of reference would be your own personal 'ghost town' experience, not the history that occurred before. Secondly, the generation after WWII experienced perhaps the largest employment participation rate ever recorded - everyone worked because jobs were plentiful and high paying. Besides, debt wasn't available to support families - you had to have income. Add to that anyone not in college or working was in the military - selective service & the draft were in full force, and of course Viet Nam was raging.

Thirdly, US population was 192m, and California 16m; both approx +- half of what they are today. (At a 2% growth rate, these numbers will double again in just 35 years.)

It's not difficult to imagine an environment where all commercial activity has essentially been eliminated, but at the same time, no one is really around (except for perhaps weekends) to fill the vacuum. And, even if they were (which they weren't), there were only 1/2 as many people overall! Naturally, one could develop an expectation, and maybe a sense of entitlement, that quiet, empty nature was there for them solely to enjoy. In other words "it was the way it was supposed to be".

No to be too snarky, but since there's MADD, maybe there should be RAPA: "Rangers against public access". Really though, the key issue here is environmental degradation, in the form of human waste and compression/erosion. There's an easy, proven, straightforward means of controlling potential damage. I sympathize in some respects, but feel it provides a disservice to HST that we have people advocating preventing others from peaceful enjoyment of the outdoors. (And, as I raised the issue last year, a site can really go off the rails if the prevailing attitude becomes one of judging whether what others are doing are 'worthy' or 'deserving'.)

What we should be doing is encouraging exploration, but at the same time teaching and leading by example of how to enjoy nature without destroying it. No one cares what anyone else is doing at the beach, as long as they don't litter, play loud music, and/or kick sand. Same should hold true for hiking: don't litter, don't play loud music, and don't cause a kerfuffle next to me. Other than that, hey it rocks to be out here, doesn't it?!

Your characterization of the "old days" is blatantly false. There were many areas not touched by development, logging, and roads. Some of these areas became included in the wilderness system. I started backpacking in these areas in the 50's. As mrphil noted there is nothing elitist about quotas--the price of admission is less than a craft beer! If admission were based on who was willing to pay the most then you would be correct. Population dynamics is certainly an important consideration but my take is exactly the opposite as yours. Increased population means that we need to be more careful about how the wilderness is managed perhaps limiting the number of trips a person can take. It is not just a matter of being good stewards. It is preserving a "sense of place." Personally I would rather be limited in the amount of time I could spend if it meant that I could experience a sense of solitude someplace in the lower 48 other than locking myself in my abode. It is not a case of Rangers against Public Access. Everyone should have equal access but not all at the same time. Kind of like fire codes that limit how many people can occupy a public space at the same time. That is not elitist! But some people may be left out for a particular event

[rightstar76]

.

[Hobbes]

OR, you're not going to win this debate for one simple reason: you're not philosophically consistent. You cannot on one hand claim "muh sacred spiritual cathedral", and yet on the other, be an active user/supporter of three critical invasive developments that have irrevocably altered the nature of the entire Sierra ecosystem. They are:

1. Roads that provide access to back-country regions
2. (Graded) trails that provide access within back-country regions
3. Fishing

Roads that lead into back-country regions allow far more people - orders of magnitude more people - to access critically impacted areas than those hiking in from outside. Roads that lead into back-country regions also allow for the transportation & support of pack animals that further facilitate high impact activities. Building these roads required extensive use of dynamite, grading and remainder transportation - why do you falsely claim there wasn't widespread commercial activity? Eliminate all roads leading into the parks/forests from either the Central and/or Owens valleys, and the only people in the back-country will be the ones who actually walked there.

Graded (trails) that lead into back-country regions allow far more people - orders of magnitude more people - to access critically impacted areas than those hiking cross-country. Graded trails that lead into back-country regions also allow for the transportation & support of pack animals that further facilitate high impact activities. Building these graded trails required extensive use of dynamite, grading and remainder transportation - why do you falsely claim there wasn't widespread building activity? Eliminate all graded trails leading through the parks/forests, and/or access from either the Central and/or Owens valleys, and the only people in the back-country will be the ones who actually got there via cross-country travel.

As you well know, fish are not native to any Sierra lakes and/or waterways, other than the upper tributaries of certain, select rivers such as the Kern. (Kern river rainbow; Volcano creek golden trout.) Other than perhaps as a potential source of food, fish were artificially introduced solely to provide "recreational" value (aka entertainment) to hikers and visitors to both front & back-country regions. In this context, how does one support differentiating fishing "entertainment" from either Firefall or allowing bears to freely rummage through garbage bins to provide a zoo-like experience for park visitors? Answer: you cannot logically affirm one, yet condemn the others.

Secondly, the environmental impact from the introduction of non-native, invasive species of fish has of course been of nuclear proportions on Sierra ecosystems. Much too extensive to cover here, other than to simply point out that the logical fallacy of supporting/participating in an activity that has, once again, had an impact orders of magnitude far greater than some select number of hikers simply walking through the region.

Now this is where your position is weakest, and why this exercise is really a run through of why forest/park management & superintendents are treading carefully. They do not want a vigorous court challenge, because the risk is that they will lose. You cannot, without appearing completely hypocritical, cite a spiritual connection and claim any sort of moral high ground with respect to concern about 'quality of experience' if you are a user/supporter of any of the 3 items listed above. Each, on their own, and in combination with the others, have contributed an almost incalculable impact on the Sierra ecosystem that simply dwarfs by all comparison the relatively innocuous presence of hikers merely walking through the woods.

Eliminate all 3, and (re)introduce apex predators like grizzlies, mountain lions & wolves, and then perhaps we'd be discussing a real 'return to nature'. But maintaining it just the way you like it, with the ability to cherry pick the conveniences, while at the same time criticizing the impact other people are having on your own personal experience, is well ... No wonder one is forced to make claims about concern for 'wildlife & nature'; the transparency is so obvious as to be blinding.

[dave54]

Outside of designated Wilderness Areas the National Forests are not solely for recreational backpackers. Never were, are not now, and hopefully never will be. The National Forests were created to be managed for multiple use, including grazing, logging, and other economic activities in addition to recreation. While hiking the PCT outside a Wilderness, you should expect to see evidence of multiple use including roads, mines, and tree stumps. If not, the Forest Service is not doing its job. Rural economic development is one of the primary reasons Teddy Roosevelt created the Forest Service.
Wood, Water, Forage, Wildlife, and Recreation are written into law. All are to be given equal weight in making management decisions.

[Hobbes]

As an important aside, I should unequivocally state that I sympathize with the sentiments shared by OR, WD and others. Wouldn't we all just like to tell everyone else to bugger off and leave us the hell alone? But there's a real danger to channeling an inner Ted Kaczynski, of allowing a full manifestation of latent misanthropic tendencies.

Here's an anecdotal story: SoCal may seem perpetually crowded to some, but the beaches are actually quite empty during winter. My dad came down for a visit one spring and was amazed at the solitude. He remembered the crowded, hot summers towing us kids around Disneyland and going to the beach, so was surprised our beaches were much emptier than any comparable park/preserve in Silicon valley.

However, the growth of a year-round resort facilities has led to the beaches now being fairly busy all the time. Guess what types of complaints are now being heard? OK, fun fact: the city of Huntington Beach actually owns approximately 4 miles of beach. That is, under California state law, to the mean high tide line. Legally, the city could bar anyone not in possession of a permit to gain access. Imagine the support some residents would have for this plan, the idea of telling everyone else to fvck off so that we can once again enjoy our quiet, uninterrupted beach walks?

But, that's not the way civil society works. Government is supposed to be responsive to the needs of citizens, primarily in the the form of providing services that help support the commonweal. If sh!t covered TP is blowing in the wind, ending up in waterways and providing disease vectors, then proper human waste facilities should be provided. If significant environmental damage is occurring from compaction & erosion, policies should be enacted to bar dispersed camping in select regions (eg the PCT/JMT corridor) during specific periods of time. You cannot just ignore the problem, and you also cannot just tell everyone to get lost and go somewhere else.

It seems like a compelling idea to advocate the use government force to support initiating the kinds of controls you espouse, but it's certainly no fun when the favor is returned. Beware the tendency to envision utilizing the law to gain certain (temporary) advantages. You might be surprised to learn what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[oldranger]

Sorry but that is pure BS. None of what you said has any bearing on whether or not there should be some limitations on the amount of use in the wilderness. Actually they point to the need to provide restricted access to designated wilderness. It is not a matter of my personal convenience or anyone else's. I perfectly understand that designated wilderness (it is also very ethnocentric as there remains considerable amount of artifacts scattered thruout the Sierra giving evidence of long term native american use) is an artificial construct and that there are built in inconsistencies. Somebody once said that consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds. Getting back to the issue of thru hikers--I have no problem with that activity even though it is not my thing. My point has been that they should be subject to the same rules as everybody else--if there is any elitism in the management of wilderness it is the special treatment of thru hikers (my simple minded desire for consistency).

There are lots of areas in our lives that have restricted access that are open to the public--Campgrounds can be full, all the seats in a movie theater can be filled, restaurants can be fully booked. Don't understand why wilderness shouldn't be viewed as having a particular "carrying capacity" and the fact that foot travel has less impact than other potential uses is not an arguement that it should be unregulated.

[Hobbes]

Sorry but that is pure BS.

I can just imagine that succinct rebuttal to a federally filed complaint. Dismissed with prejudice, and open wide the gates. Trust me, park/forest management will need to address each point and the logic contained therein.

Somebody once said that consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.

You know when you play cards, and someone reveals a tell? The incorrect citation of this quote, and what Emerson actually meant - especially in the context of this discussion - is a classic. Here's the full quote:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Individual authority: Emerson mentions that citizens control the government so they have control. He also mentions how “nothing has authority over the self.” He says, “History cannot bring enlightenment; only individual searching can.” He believes that truth is inside a person and this is authority, not institutions like religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Reliance

I believe if you review my comments, I am entirely consistent in support of humanistic philosophy. As an aside, you might consider avoiding the use of ad hominem attacks. Attacking a position, an implied motivation or orientation is all fair game, but it's unwise to attack education, experience and situational conditions (interpretations). It's not only ineffectual, but usually exposes the purveyor.

As I mentioned to WD far upstream, I welcome reasoned rebuttals and counter-points to my position. We can all agree to disagree; but it's pointless to personalize and resort to insults.

[oldranger]

Nuff said!