I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[chrisdiercks]

"Ban all GPS's, PLB's, solar chargers, and all other electronic gadgets (other than a camera) on the PCT and we would weed out a lot of non-serious PCT hikers. No lottery system needed."

NOW we are talking! Over the past 10 years or so I've felt like I needed to turn on a blinker to merge with the PCT/JMT traffic when getting back on various trails. The Sierra Nevada is being loved to death. Hopefully this will all pass like a fad and people will be bored with going into the mountains.

I read through all the links related to Toxic MA ect, and frankly I don't know what the heck to say. It does seem like most people are completely missing the point of going out into the "wilderness".

[CAMERONM]

As a measure of full disclosure I am totally opposed to the number PCT hikers that are permitted each year and the special provisions they are provided--unlimited entry and exits and exclusive use of bear boxes in parts of SEKI.

Say, I know that I saw some mention of the bear box / PCT hiker issue somewhere, don't remember where, I think ONE pdf map put out a few years ago, and I know that different rangers will tell you different things, but I probed pretty hard about this issue with a few rangers and they all told me that IT IS NOT TRUE, that the bear boxes are available to anyone, everywhere, and they do not replace canisters, where they are required. Informally both SEKI and YNP rangers at permit offices have told me it is ok to plan on depending on a box if I have planned out a route and have some minor overflow from the canister, but I don't know if that is official policy. But yes, there are bear boxes in the Rae Lakes area for instance, but if you even set foot in that greater area, you must carry a canister, PCT hiker or not.

[Troutdog 59]

It does seem like most people are completely missing the point of going out into the "wilderness".

Ditto.

The competitive folks backpacking have always been around, I'm just not one of them. Oh sure I pick up my pace a bit if I think I can get to the summit before some folks I see in back of me, but I rarely do get there in front of them and I don't think twice about it. Heck in 2012 an 9 year old and a 12 year old passed me up going over Piute Pass, one of the easiest entry's into the Sierra. I laughed with their parents about feeling old by being passed by their kids, and they just gave me kudos for still getting out and hiking. It was all good.

This issue being discussed isn't black and white. While the OP definitely seems to have had unrealistic expectations of how the thru hiking community should/would be towards her and others as well as what is being called an "It girl" attitude, the issue of harassment towards others shouldn't be so easily overlooked. IMO, more disturbingly, it shouldn't be defended. Sadly though, some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are the same the author is referring to. It seems that some just have to push current political agendas into any thread. It seems like most of us have forgotten our mothers sage advice. If you don't have something good to say to someone, then perhaps you should say nothing at all. Peace.

[oldranger]

As a measure of full disclosure I am totally opposed to the number PCT hikers that are permitted each year and the special provisions they are provided--unlimited entry and exits and exclusive use of bear boxes in parts of SEKI.

Say, I know that I saw some mention of the bear box / PCT hiker issue somewhere, don't remember where, I think ONE pdf map put out a few years ago, and I know that different rangers will tell you different things, but I probed pretty hard about this issue with a few rangers and they all told me that IT IS NOT TRUE, that the bear boxes are available to anyone, everywhere, and they do not replace canisters, where they are required. Informally both SEKI and YNP rangers at permit offices have told me it is ok to plan on depending on a box if I have planned out a route and have some minor overflow from the canister, but I don't know if that is official policy. But yes, there are bear boxes in the Rae Lakes area for instance, but if you even set foot in that greater area, you must carry a canister, PCT hiker or not.

The SEKI site that lists bear boxes has a chart and for 4 locations has this text:

CANISTERS REQUIRED, FOOD-STORAGE LOCKERS FOR PCT THRU-HIKERS

If I were still a ranger I wouldn't enforce that regulation. On the other hand if my station were near a bear box I would do everything I could to locate and cite anyone who moved on and left anything in the bear box. (I actually did it once when I was a ranger.)

[CAMERONM]

The SEKI site that lists bear boxes has a chart and for 4 locations has this text:

CANISTERS REQUIRED, FOOD-STORAGE LOCKERS FOR PCT THRU-HIKERS

Yes, I think there was a map equivalent of this before. The persistence of this may just be a poorly articulated way of indicating that while lockers exist, canisters are still required. At any rate, I talked with a few SEKI rangers and they agreed that they would never deny a locker to someone who might need it, and that even from a practical sense, no ranger is going to be parsing what is a "thru-hiker"; someone doing one section, or three, or whatever.

Now if only they could cite toxic bloggers...

[wildhiker]

Old Ranger said,

As a measure of full disclosure I am totally opposed to the number PCT hikers that are permitted each year and the special provisions they are provided--unlimited entry and exits and exclusive use of bear boxes in parts of SEKI.

I agree. It is time to start questioning the special treatment of PCT thru-hikers. When the trail was first completed as a hikable through route in the 1970s (with improvement and re-routes following over the years), there were very few people attempting thru-hikes or long section hikes. So it made sense to ease the bureaucracy for them by letting them pass through all the wilderness areas along the route on a single permit and not have to worry that their trip would be derailed somewhere along the line because permits were not available for that specific portion.

But now we have thousands attempting to thru-hike the entire PCT every year, and many more doing long sections. This is creating an enormous impact on the wilderness areas through which the PCT passes. We would not tolerate that level of impact on other wilderness trails, nor should we on the PCT. It is time to institute quotas for thru-hikers on the PCT. Get the wilderness managers together to decide the appropriate level of use, remembering that people do drop off along the way and that we need to leave some room in the wilderness for folks doing short hikes, too. Then setup a lottery for that quota, just like there is now a lottery in Yosemite for thru-hikes southbound on the John Muir Trail and there has been a lottery in the Inyo National Forest for years for permits on the Mt Whitney trail (south end of JMT). To encourage section hikes, there could be separate lotteries to get single permits good for hiking long sections of several hundred miles that pass through multiple wilderness areas, just like the existing lotteries for JMT thru-hikes.

-Phil

[Wandering Daisy]

Totally agree. The point is that the surge of thru-hikers is degrading the resource. If use were spread out over several months, the impact would be mitigated. So be it then, that the thru-hiker may have to "flip-flop" this section. The wilderness is more important than their personal goal to be purists. You have still hiked the PCT if a few sections are mixed up in timing. I would also like PCT hikers to have to receive the same LNT lecture that all of us have to endure. Perhaps passing an on-line test of LNT practices should be a part of the permit process.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to allow a permit system to favor the serious hikers vs. the unqualified. It would be sad if qualified thru-hikers (such as those on their second or third route to get the triple crown) would be bumped for some wanna-be who has zero chance of completing the route.

[Hobbes]

Restricting access to the PCT is not going to work for one basic reason: you don't need a permit (or, if you do for short runs, there aren't (m)any quotas) to hike major parts of the first 700 miles aka the Desert section NOBO. Or, conversely, a lot of Oregon/NoCal north of Tahoe for those going SOBO.

Secondly, the permit system was established under the assumption of balance. That is, the entry & exit points within the parks and wilderness areas are expected to roughly balance out. Where the hitch then comes in is someone hiking from outside the "premier" zones into the parks, and then either exiting or continuing through. If no permit is required to enter (or they are issued, but no quotas exist), then how does a government entity deny exit?

The same hitch in regulations is now being used to hike the JMT. One can either start outside YNP @ Tioga, or start below the JMT @ Horseshoe meadows. Now, consider a long ass section hike (LASH) on the PCT: I jump on somewhere out in Tehachapi with my exit Lassen NP. I cannot foresee any condition where I would be disallowed to walk thru the Sierra Nevada.

In order to incorporate all entry/exit into the permit system, the entire range of travel would need to be included. This introduces the next level of push-back, because people who live in the those regions, or casual users, are not going to accept that they now need a permit (and definitely not a quota) to enjoy an area that always had open access. Try explaining that restrictions are in place due to a seasonal flow of hikers (temporarily) passing through either their direct area, or more accurately, 400 miles away in the Sierra Nevada.

If you look at traffic statistics, while the Sierra is being impacted, it's only relative to those who have memories of conditions before the PCT became popular. Overall, the true impact is minimal compared to what is occurring during the first 250 miles. This is where the largest volume is happening (before many hikers begin to drop out).

Once again, we need to remind ourselves that population growth is here and the impact is really beginning to be felt. The Valley long, long ago gave up the ghost as to any pretense of a peaceful, outdoor experience. The High Sierra will always present more of a challenge, but communications and equipment technology is making it both easier to access, as well as provide entertainment for those not necessarily into the full 'outdoor experience'.

You can become upset and waste your precious time fighting reality, or you can shrug your shoulders and get on with your life. Like I've mentioned a few times already upstream, everything we're seeing in backpacking already occurred a long time ago in surfing. That includes the frustration & push-back, as best exemplified by this short clip from 45 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHs3E9tva8

[cgundersen]

I LOVE the PCT and JMT simply because they disproportionately attract the kind of folks Vanessa is complaining about. Even so, I've run into plenty of interesting/entertaining &(self-deprecating) folks on the JMT/PCT, so some of it is a sampling issue. Still, for my 2 cents, I'd tell Vanessa to follow Hobbes, Daisy, Mav, JimR or Rogue on a trip. A completely different mentality, as Mark so eloquently observed............Cameron

[Wandering Daisy]

You certainly CAN require PCT permits and quotas in the Sierra! Just have the PCT general permit for everything EXCEPT the Sierra. If they can manage to get the time slot so that the Sierra fits in as they finish SoCA, then fine. The competent hikers usually hit the Sierra fairly early, so a large number likely would be able to get a timely permit. The slow-pokes would have to simply skip forward and come back to do the Sierra when they can get the permit. They are not likely to finish the PCT anyway. Inconvenient for the PCT hikers? You bet. Is their "convenience" more important than protecting the Wilderness, or all other users? No way. And on top of that, this would go a long ways to ensure that the same rules apply to everyone.

For areas where they do not now require permits, the PCT hikers can do as they please. They would just have to plan around their Sierra permit.