Re: [pct-l] If there were no horses...

[Brick Robbins <brick@fastpack.com>]

At 09:26 AM 10/12/00 , Bighummel@aol.com wrote:
>On private use, just because there are few of them doesn't excuse the damage
>that they do.

OK. I see your philosophical point, but to a certain extent, ANY use of the 
backcountry causes some disruption. You could just as easily argue that 
hikers should be kept out too.

My question is:  do you expend limited resources fighting a small damage 
problem, or a big one?

Especially when "I am against overuse of public resources by commercial 
enterprises" will fly a lot better than "I am against horses on trails."

I think you could get the Backcountry Horsemen to support the first 
statement, but the second will do nothing but fracture the user group even 
more.

We PCT lovers seem to spend sooooo much energy fighting over relatively 
small stuff (which is all within the broad scope of legal uses of the 
trail) , while houses and ski lifts are being built on the trail, huge 
sections are being clearcut, and OHVs destroy miles of trail.

Strider, go ahead splinter the user group by objecting to runners and 
horses. You are really just hurting the trail in the long run.

All IMHO.
Brick

* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================