I STOPPED HIKING THE PCT BECAUSE OF TOXIC MA

[Harlen]

... Alright, then this leaves #1, environmental impact, as the primary core objective to be addressed. Environmental impact is fairly trivial to measure, since it's completely objective and backed by decades of proven, well tested science...

OK, back to environmental impact. Typically, in order to reduce and simplify what are in many cases extremely complex topics, there are two standard considerations utilized to avoid the dreaded "matrix of unmanageable proportions". And these are, prevention vs mitigation. Next question: what exactly is being proposed that is attempting to either prevent and/or mitigate?

Glad you asked; in order:
1. Human waste
2. Compression (physical features, undergrowth, meadows, alpine flora, plant litter, etc)

IMO, anyone advocating reductions in access and traffic flow/volume would best be served by attacking these two key points of vulnerability.

Hobbes, your 2 points above are certainly valid environmental issues, but I'm afraid they only scratch the surface of deleterious human impacts. There are myriad forms of wildlife disturbance that have to be considered- from humans as disease vectors, vectors for invasive plant introduction, agents of direct and indirect "take" of rare, threatened and endangered species, and a bloody long host of other wildlife habitat disturbances, and general ecological impacts that need to be considered.

Environmental impact is fairly trivial to measure, since it's completely objective and backed by decades of proven, well tested science...

And as for this statement above, I blanch to read it-- if only it were true! Besides the fact that so many environmental impacts are, in fact, dreadfully complex, and difficult to quantify, there is a second ugly head to this monster- called "advocacy science." All biologists are not as pure as the driven snow, and some are not above white-washing real environmental impacts, and even fabricating reports that conclude that the impacts are negligible- when they are not!

Where I agree with you entirely is with regard to your overall point that people need to be willing to engage in this messy dialectical process to reach a meaningful consensus. The larger the group of advocates, the more effective will be their position. Sanders said this again and again. Buenos suerte.

[Hobbes]

Hey Ian, thanx for the input. You are absolutely correct, the field of environmental science is complex and research studies can quickly spin out of control. I was attempting to frame the core issues within an (initially) narrow scope to help establish a basic framework from which further analysis could then proceed.

I advocate & recommend efforts be directed towards scientific study, even with the potential for extraneous (hidden) agendas, because I believe it is far preferable than willingly (or, perhaps unwittingly & naively) entering the political arena.

I strongly suggest proponents avoid subjective issues such as 'quality of experience'. If people who care about this issue stick to substantive facts, rather than opinions & feelings, then they will do themselves and everyone else a huge favor. Because when core, fundamental issues with respect to broad civil rights clash with minority views on who, what, when, where, how, I think everyone can correctly surmise how that turns out.

[Hobbes]

I've mentioned the growth in state, national and global population levels a few times on this thread. (At a 2% growth rates, current levels will double in 35 years eg Calif will be 80m, while global will be 14b.) I've also acknowledged the growth in popularity in many outdoors activities and sports like surfing and backpacking.

While I'm sure most people here would prefer that everyone else 'just go away' and leave them alone to enjoy nature in solitude, that's not how it works in civil society. So, each and everyone of us is faced with a choice to make comprised of two basic options: become accustomed/adapt or complain/grow bitter.

Maybe because I'm a life-long CA native and have seen the Santa Clara valley change from agriculture to the SV, or Santa Cruz going from relatively quiet & unknown to a zoo, so I don't have have a visceral reaction to the crowd scene shown in the video at the end of this link:

https://new.surfline.com/surf-news/mali ... aces/20051

I sympathize with those who perhaps haven't been exposed to the kind of rapid change and growth that has taken place over the last 40 years; I'm sure it's pretty disconcerting. But the key to adapting is to find and seek out niches and pockets, not to tilt at windmills and experience continual disappointment.

[markskor]

The next logical step—and the sooner the better, it seems to me—is to re-route the PCT entirely out of designated wilderness.

I think that is the answer, and long overdue. Harlen.

The PCT section (~mile 750 - 942) from Kennedy Meadows South to Tuolumne Meadows is the Sierra bottleneck - everyone is sharing but one trail - JMT. In the Sierra, the PCT could easily be rerouted from the JMT. Instead of tilting at windmills - suggest -

(As thru hiking for some is mainly doing the miles, why not reroute the Sierra PCT to) The Theodore Solomons Trail - a long-distance trail in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of California, passing through Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks, and the Sierra National Forest. From the northern terminus at Glacier Point in Yosemite and the southern terminus located at Horseshoe Meadow, the trail's official length is 271.3 miles (436.6 km). For almost all of its length, the trail is in the Middle Sierra backcountry and wilderness areas.

Thus making the JMT and PCT separate trails...freeing up the bottleneck. Those choosing the now not PCT/ JMT corridor would have quota restrictions or maybe, pay something extra?

Another suggestion, instead of the JMT Donahue snafu, spread them out...make the PCT go over Waugh, Sardine, Parker.

[AlmostThere]

(As thru hiking for some is mainly doing the miles, why not reroute the Sierra PCT to) The Theodore Solomons Trail - a long-distance trail in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of California, passing through Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks, and the Sierra National Forest. From the northern terminus at Glacier Point in Yosemite and the southern terminus located at Horseshoe Meadow, the trail's official length is 271.3 miles (436.6 km). For almost all of its length, the trail is in the Middle Sierra backcountry and wilderness areas.

Thus making the JMT and PCT separate trails...freeing up the bottleneck. Those choosing the now not PCT/ JMT corridor would have quota restrictions or maybe, pay something extra?

There would be countless people lost and wandering. Theodore Solomons southern section in Golden Trout and in Sierra National Forest is nearly non existent. Given the types of people currently attempting the PCT, you can guess the volume of the whining and screeching that would ensue after about three miles of endless climbing under, over and through downed trees, trying to GPS to find the non existent trail tread, and the tons of cr*p and trash that would end up in the native waterways of the golden trout.

Best hold off on attempting to make that happen until the Theodore Solomons has been maintained - which some of us are attempting to set in motion, as an alternative to continuing to trash the JMT and PCT.

[CAMERONM]

In the Sierra, the PCT could easily be rerouted from the JMT.

To the extent that I have asked, the majority of people I know or who I have met along the trail do not seem to hold the JMT portion in any special regard; their interest seems limited to knocking back miles and resupply logistics. I have even heard comments like "it would be nice to go back and enjoy it some day."

[rightstar76]

In the good old days before the Internet and social media, during the era when the economy was more equitable, you could pretty much show people the facts and they would more the less agree that limiting access was necessary and reasonable. In other words, people trusted scientists and managers since they believed they were looking out for their best interest.

Today, the economy is much less equitable, and there is a public consensus that facts are not necessarily facts anymore. Showing scientific evidence doesn't work as well as it used to. People are much less likely to believe in the once effective line of we have to close the basin to public access because of the endangered (fill in the blank) or severe overuse is causing (fill in the blank) when the facts are perceived to be phony (even if they're true). Trust has been lost.

[mrphil]

In the good old days before the Internet and social media, during the era when the economy was more equitable, you could pretty much show people the facts and they would more the less agree that limiting access was necessary and reasonable. In other words, people trusted scientists and managers since they believed they were looking out for their best interest.

Today, the economy is much less equitable, and there is a public consensus that facts are not necessarily facts anymore. Showing scientific evidence doesn't work as well as it used to. People are much less likely to believe in the once effective line of we have to close the basin to public access because of the endangered (fill in the blank) or severe overuse is causing (fill in the blank) when the facts are perceived to be phony (even if they're true). Trust has been lost.

That's the problem. When have we ever heard the terms "fake science" or "fake news" used as frequently to describe things? People lie and twist the facts in support of their agendas, scientists included. Want people to get onboard, either tell them that scientists claim (fill in the blank), or commission a survey: decide what you want, write a check, interview a few hundred people that supposedly represent a broad consensus, ask some biased and leading questions, sound official, know that if you want your company to get more work and stay in business, you better provide the outcome they want. All too often, money supplants honesty, and peoples' truths are what they feel. Or, you can just fall back on the tried and tested methods of fear mongering and pure power grabs.

You can see it all playing out everywhere, all the time. Cynicism is rampant because of it, and it's just as easy to find someone to present another, contrary opinion, if they have a different agenda, or if there's enough profit involved. To many, "science" has largely become just another tool of politics.

[Eiprahs]

Wow, what a thread. So many possible replies. Thanks to all contributors for writing such a heck of a read!! So sorry I didn't see this sooner, and to be chiming in so late.

Maybe Vanessa figured out her path wasn't the trail. Maybe she is good now. From Carrot Quinn: "In November, Vanessa, Alley and I had the idea of bringing together a bunch of badass outdoors-oriented women writer friends". Maybe that is her path--hanging with the like minded. But isn't that like entering a house of mirrors--seeing only different reflections of yourself? But if Vanessa is at peace, maybe it is all good.

Competitive dynamics of thru hiking aren't new. From Cindy Ross's "Journey on the Crest", 1986: "Out on the trail, we long-distance hikers, for better or worse, set ourselves apart from other more casual, occasional, or inexperienced hikers. . . .we pride ourselves on being Through-hikers rather than Weekenders, Greenhorns or--God Forbid--Yahoos." A tongue-in-cheek 1986 hiking caste system, now updated to include sexual orientation and thru hiker rankings based on the shortest time to completion?

To me there is a poverty of spirit when hiker camaraderie, miles per day, days to completion, and disdain for all but a few fellow travelers dominate the narrative. How many trail logs have you read that begin with photos and descriptions of the scenery but end as notes about daily miles covered, trail town antics, and on-trail social interaction?

I agree that it is an abuse of our wilderness to make it into a race course for elite hikers. I'm just not sure how to restrict numbers, although I rather like the idea of an alternate track for those more interested in big miles and social cliques than scenery.

Hope to see you out there. I'll be the one with old, ratty gear ambling along with no real goal beyond being outdoors and maybe getting a good photo.

[rightstar76]

.