RE: [pct-l] Banning Horses

[reynolds@ilan.com]

I was responding to someone who asked "Wouldn't it be EASIER to [work
towards] banning horses than teaching "no trace" packing. My answer was a
pragmetic NO because geritols have money and votes. They are not easy to
fight.

Ethical arguments are different. For argument, let's define morals as
something decreed by a higher power [an absolute code of conduct] and
ethics as defined by human society. In general ethics can be summed up as
"Have consideration for the other guy" Ethically speaking banning
backpackers is the equivilent of banning horse riders. If the two groups
are incompatible one has to go. One wins one loses. Who is right is defined
by society [and may change]. In general society doesn't care. Society
neither backpacks nor horespacks and, in fact, would like more road and
resorts in the wilderness. By turning backpackers and horsepackers into a
zero sum game [one wins one loses] that's the results I expect we'll get
{IMLTHO}

In the range war now going on in the Sierra I don't believe that their is
any move to ban private horses. I believe the issue is controlling
businesses -- pack stations -- that are using public land to make profit.
[They [packers] claim that they are provding a valuable service that the
public wants.]


* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

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