I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[Cross Country]

Mrphil- I believe that for you to use the word science strikes me as "you got to be kidding"
PS: I taught science for several years.

[rlown]

This whole thread has become toxic. If you want change, contact your state representatives.

[limpingcrab]

For those of us that haven't been keeping up, can someone please summarize this whole thread in one sentence?

[dave54]

Public policy and laws are seldom made on the best science. If they were, half the environmental laws we currently have would not exist.

[Tom_H]

This whole thread has become toxic.

I've been thinking exactly that for some time. Time to lock it?

[rlown]

It's time.

[Lumbergh21]

I don't know that it is toxic, uncomfortable, but not toxic. I would agree that it has changed from the original post into something completely different, but just because some people can't handle others disagreeing with their viewpoint, that doesn't make it toxic. These are important issues that need to be discussed. I really don't have a set opinion on this issue; I can see both sides of the argument. However, I have seen quite a bit of hurt feelings and unwillingness to debate the issue to find a reasonable solution that works for all people. I have read some mud slinging and some "get off my lawn" attitude. I have also read reasoned arguments on both sides, and I appreciate those.

[kpeter]

I suppose I should post on this subject. I worked for a time for one of the Senators who sponsored the Wilderness Act. I have personally worked on wilderness legislation. I have published in journals on environmental ethics. I also have had the benefit of having met Hobbes in the middle of the wilderness--and while I still suspect he chose the wrong handle for his own political philosophy (Locke seems like a better fit!) his opinions are humanized for me. I have many strong opinions about much that has been said here, quite a bit of knowledge, and I've been tempted to jump into the fray.

But no, not in this setting. I decided long ago that online conversations are very, very poor places to discuss political controversies--even though it is my profession to discuss them. Far better to discuss them over actual beers in an actual place--or in a classroom. Better yet, discuss them while in the wilderness. We need to be able to read faces and body language, hear a tone of voice, and sense a person's earnestness. This promotes civility and prepares the ground for active listening.

Technology mediated communication is very useful for some things. This website has been a joy to me. I have had many experiences in the Sierra that have enriched my life which I would have missed without the advice and guidance of people here. Sharing information and encouragement, making suggestions, helping keep each other safe--a wonderful community whose only core ideology is a shared love of the Sierra. That is how I want this my relationship with this community to remain, and so that shall be my first and last contribution to this thread.

[Eiprahs]

Thank you kpeter and Lumbergh21 for your thoughtful posts. I, too, don't think this thread is toxic. Controversial, yes. But I appreciate other views and do not feel locking this thread, which ends the discussion, best serves our community. That said, for those posters commenting about other posters, doing so suggests you've run out of good argument.

To return to a meme of my prior post, Cindy Ross's 1986 hiker hierarchy (Journey on the Crest), castigating other Sierra explorers is nothing new. Further back, Edward Stanley White, in his 1904 "The Mountains" devotes chapters to disparaging "Tenderfeet" and Yosemite tourists. The latter he particularly damns as physically unfit, over dressed, and too poor--the latter condition evidenced by said tourists using mercantile wagons they own to explore Yosemite rather than outfitting a proper pack train as he (White) did.

Before that is Joseph Le Conte Senior's 1870 "A Journal of Ramblings Through the High Sierras Of California", which looks down upon those so unfortunate as to toil upon the land, native peoples in general, and certain Yosemite tourists in particular. John Muir and giant bonfires received high marks, however. (This latter work is available online: http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/leconte/)

And, of course, there's Norman Clyde, who would famously drop whatever he was doing to beat anyone else out of a Sierra Peak first ascent.

So competitiveness appears universal--a dark thought informing the thinking of the original Hobbes, more recently Ayn Rand.

Vanessa, remember Vanessa, found out she was uncomfortable with the PCT crowd. But I don't begrudge her the 500 trail miles it took her to figure that out. Where she learned and bailed, others, some even less prepared, found their stride. I read her blog and my first thought was "I could hike with her". I didn't occur to me until later she wouldn't hike with me because I'm part of the problem, ie not a bad ass outdoors woman writer. Maybe her PCT experience got her to 'higher ground' and, in retrospect, was an unqualified success. But that is for Vanessa to decide. We need to allow Vanessa the freedom to find her truth on the trail--if there was a sincerity test administered at Campo, I'm sure Vanessa would have passed it.

So I'm not OK with excluding folks. Somehow our armchair punditry morphs to a discussion of the how and why of wilderness access restriction using resource degradation as justification. Maybe that's more mechanical, less personal and therefore easier to talk about.

No, I don't like the resource degradation. I do like the "long view" of the Wilderness Act. May those who have the responsibility for the resource be wise enough to balance use today with our kids and grandkids use tomorrow.


Bridge, Zion National Park, November, 2017.

[rightstar76]

.