Weary's trail use restrictions Re: Re[4]: [at-l] Trip Report (off trail) update

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Sloetoe wrote:
>
>### Jim, he's not writing of a National Scenic Trail with all
>the associated exclusivity; he's writing of a local preserve,
>which exclusivity in Maine may be entirely non-existent. [Dang
>it.] So the warden *may* know his poop.

Toey -
I put my 2 cents in simply to try to suggest some other possibilities to 
Weary.  What he does with them is his business - not mine.  I won't miss any 
meals whichever way this thing goes.

But - I'm not talking the "exclusivity" that goes with National Trail 
status. The CDT, by the way, doesn't have that kind of "exclusivity" in many 
places because it uses other, sometimes multi-use trails that have not 
necessarily been "designated" - yet.  But USFS, NPS, BLM, PA DCNR, MD DNR, 
PA Fish and Game, USF&W among others - all do selective posting.  If you 
don't like the alphabet soup public agencies as examples, then consider that 
any farmer can post his land against hunters, ATVs or anything else  without 
excluding other uses (either public or private) of that land.  So --- a 
question - in what way is Weary's Land Trust so different that they lose all 
rights and are subject to trespass by any a$$**** who decides to tear up the 
landscape?

Oh yeah - while we're here - wearing a uniform does not automatically make 
one knowledgable.  Some years ago thruhikers had to get multiple (7?) 
permits to "legally" hike the PCT. PCTA negotiated with the various entities 
along the PCT and got them to issue a "single" permit to allow thruhikers 
through ALL NPS and USFS lands.  It took 4 years for some of the rangers to 
get the word.  There was one part-time ranger who was on pct-l, read about 
the permit and then when it finally dawned on her what it meant (after 2 
years of reading about it), got in a snit and proceeded to deliberately do 
everything she could think of to disrupt the list.  Pure meanness.  I 
wouldn't have wanted to run into her in the backcountry.

Bottom line - my next stop would be at a lawyers office to get a "real" 
interpretation of the law.  Maybe the warden is right - and maybe not.


>### One of the battles we're having here in Indiana is
>attempting to run the Knobstone Trail through the Hoosier
>National Forest. The HNF (entirely antagonistic towards
>"footpath only" designations) wants to run the Knobstone as a
>"multi-use" path -- in Indiana, that translates to "Horse
>Trail." {Just to remind everyone, when Jim reads "horse trail"
>he shudders his best Homer and mutters "Eeewwwwwwww, horse
>traillllll."} At this point, the thinking is "better no footpath
>Knobstone than an eroding multi-use disaster Knobstone.


Hmmm - don't mis-read me there, Toey.  I have no problem with horses - on 
"horse trails".  Most trails out west are designed and built as "horse 
trails" - even the PCT.  And many of them (not just the PCT) are selectively 
posted to keep ATVs, dirt bikes and/or Mountain bikes out.  Personally, I 
have a large problem with horses on "hiking trails" - especially when those 
trails are designed for hikers, and built and maintained by hikers and not 
horsemen.  In PA the horsemen want to lay claim to the hiking trails which 
they did not build and do not maintain.  And they expect the hikers to keep 
on maintaining those trails.  To me, that's simple theft.  Conversely, 
there's a movement by some hikers to ban horses from the PCT - which was 
built and is maintained to a large degree by horsemen.  Again, I consider 
that to be theft.

And yeah - I have feelings about this.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.