[pct-l] PCT usage quotas

[Brett]

Reworking the permit systems in Wilderness areas and National Parks as 
an ad hoc defense against increasing users numbers along the Pacific 
Crest National Scenic Trail would be out of line with the trail's intent 
as a linear, continuous recreational resource, a single entity with 
clear purpose. Penalizing long-distance hikers would seem especially 
perverse, given that we're greatly outnumbered by other users in a 
majority of these areas. The seasonal Herd phenomenon along the PCT  in 
southern California would seem to be a separate issue that has little to 
do with talk of quotas or aggressive permitting procedures. Unless, of 
course, we want to turn long-distance hiking on our NST's into the 
equivalent of airline travel, with advanced reservations required and 
specific seating arrangements, departure and arrival times stamped 
clearly on our boarding passes.

- blisterfree


Greg Kesselring wrote:
> There are permit systems for backpacking in lots of Wilderness areas 
> and National Parks.  They have been in place for years in some areas, 
> North Cascade National Park and the Enchantment Lakes area in 
> Washington State are two examples.  They are enforced by backcountry 
> rangers similar to how bear cannisters are enforced in the Sierra.
>
> I suspect the way this would start on thePCT is by imposing limits to 
> the numbers of overnight campers in certain areas, for example, in the 
> various Wilderness Areas and National Parks that PCT goes thru.  There 
> would be restrictions in certain areas at certain times of year.  How 
> they would implement that for thru-hikers, I don't know.  But it 
> certainly could happen, and I believe it will if and when the numbers 
> of overnight campers become too large for an area to handle.
>
> The solution:  ZPG.  or NPG.
> But that's not gonna happen in our lifetime, so we will just have to 
> deal with restrictions in certain areas when they come up.
>
> Greg
>
> Brett wrote:
>> The idea of a quota system for the PCT is utterly ridiculous, would 
>> be impossible to implement and enforce, and further should not be 
>> necessary, given the tried-and-true example of the Appalachian Trail 
>> and its great numbers of users - both short and long distance hikers 
>> - and the vigilance of hiking clubs all along the way who monitor and 
>> maintain the trail to a degree appropriate for its level of use. The 
>> future of an ever-more-popular PCT needs to follow the lead of its 
>> east coast counterpart, not that of a Mount Whitney type of 
>> numbers-based permit system. National Scenic Trails should remain 
>> available to everyone, and a long distance journey along them not 
>> turned into a premeditated ordeal of phone calls, applications, and 
>> fast mouse clicks to reserve a "spot" in front of the excluded hordes.
>>
>> Would an AT-style PCT irrevocably alter the Wilderness character 
>> along much of the PCT corridor? Probably, but the alternative of 
>> increased use without sufficient stewardship of the resource would 
>> ultimately do more real harm. This isn't to suggest the PCT needs a 
>> shelter system, for instance, but only that active as well as passive 
>> regulation can take other forms than sheer exclusion.
>>
>> - blisterfree
>>
>>   
>
>
>