[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [pct-l] PCT and politics


One item you failed to mention is that much of the PCT and most of the AT
are manitained by volunteers. More and more of money it takes to feed and
equip these volunteers and also to buy land adjacent to the trails is
donated by individuals and companies.  It would ideal if everyone that hikes
the trails volunteered some of their time to maintain them as a way of
giving something back and many do. It's a great way to spend several days or

About "treehugging".  Near Carson Pass this year, I saw a lady approach a
tree and embrace it. I was taken aback as I thought it was a term for an
environmentalist and never considered someone actually doing it.  A few days
later, while hiking north of the pass I tried it myself and it was a very
cool feeling!  I suggest everyone try it. ;)


Tom wrote......It takes money to maintain a trail -- any trail. Why
shouldn't this money
come from the people who USE the trail? I agree that everyone has the right
to use federal land but the maintenance of that land needs to be paid for by
somebody. Who is that? The couch potato or you and I?

I will accept your $780 fee for argument's sake. Why isn't that fair? Why do
MY taxes have to pay for you walking the trail. Why do you get a four month
vagabond experience on my nickle? [The "you" here is not personal, rather a
thruhiker in general]

I agree that "use fees" wind up being a "kickback to the national treasury",
essentially a TAX and I object to that. However, a "use" fee that is
earmarked for the land and trail itself seems very fair.

The classic "populist" approach is to 'take from the rich to give to the
poor', the logic being the rich are fortunate and the poor unfortunate.
However, a thruhiker makes a CHOICE to not work, drop out of society and
walk the trail. The thruhiker is not 'unfortunate'. The thruhiker has no
ethical right to be supported by someone else.

"Treehugging" is something else In the simplest sense it is not destroying
our environment in persuit of profits. In the most extreme sense it is
seeing nature as superior to man; nature being almost Godlike in stature.
One can be a "treehugger" but not a "populist" [Gore is both, Bush is
neither]. I, for one, am a treehugger because I believe that the remaining
Parks and Forest need to be protected for the enjoyment of future
generations. Thus, short term profits, be they be oil, wood or cattle, need
to take a back seat to preserving these treasures. However, I am not [as you
guessed] a populist. I believe that the best way to preserve these national
treasures is to charge for their maintenance.

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

This mobile message sent using PocketMail.
Sign up for unlimited e-mail at www.PocketMail.com.

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

To:            "Reynolds, WT" <reynolds@ilan.com>
Cc:            pct-l@edina.hack.net