[pct-l] PCT usage quotas

[enyapjr at comcast.net]

I agree with much of what Brett / blisterfree has said - but I'm certainly NOT promoting starting a quota system, only stating that I firmly believe one will probably be established eventually (most likely by Cleveland NF in SoCal would be my guess - they get the "maximum impact")...

When I lived in Reno, NV, many years ago, Eldorado NF claimed that Desolation Wilderness near Tahoe was the most heavily used wilderness area in the US...  It also became the very first wilderness area to have a quota system put in place - even with hundreds of comments of "it won't work" to "they can't do that", look what the wilderness quota system has become today...  Might have seemed a little 'unfortunate' for some of us during that initial time perhaps, but very fortunate for all the future generations for the better preservation of wilderness...

In comparing the AT and PCT, the only common bonds are that both were the first official National Scenic Trails established in October, 1968, and both are 'long distance' trails...  After that, with all due respect, there are major philosophical differences - like "comparing apples and oranges"...

What government agency was put 'in charge' to oversee the AT?  The Department of Interior, National Park Service...
What government agency was put in charge to oversee the PCT?  The Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service...
Now there's two agencies that definitely march to the beat of different drummers as to what their individual primary duties and goals are!!!

Second - there is a definite distinction in how people view "the land" dependent upon where they grew up...  There is "back East" and "out West", they are a world apart...  I can't really begin to adequately describe it - but if someone has lived in both areas, each for many years, they probably would understand what I'm trying to get at, a deep down philosophical difference regarding "the land"...
The AT is "back East"; it is "within a day's drive of 2/3rds of the U.S. population"...  the PCT is "out West", and once it gets away from far SoCal is more remote with longer distances between small towns or tiny resorts 'near' the trail...  apples and oranges...

> But I don't think artificially limiting traffic - eg, quotas - along the PCT 
> corridor via government regulation is a viable long-term solution to 
> increasing use of a National Scenic Trail. You build it so they will 
> come, and manage it so that they may continue to do so.

Why do the agencies HAVE to increase use?  They are also supposed to 'preserve and protect' the "wilderness corridor" for future generations, also...  What would be that much different if an agency instituted a quota on the PCT as opposed to that same agency closing the trail entirely at times?  Oh, that's right, they normally don't close it during THRU season, but later when only day hikers, weekenders, and section hikers (but sometimes sobos, too!!) would be "banned" during high fire danger - so that must be okay, or not??  The National Scenic Trails are not reserved for only, or even primarily, the thru-hikers, but for ALL...

> Penalizing long-distance hikers would seem especially perverse, given 
> that we're greatly outnumbered by other users in a majority of these areas.

But the government can be so good at that...  it can be explained similar to "supply and demand" and long distance hikers are 'nothing' to worry about, just a drop in the bucket - much less than 1% of all users (even on the AT, where it's closer to 0.1% if you use the NPS "A.T. ... enjoyed by an estimated 4 million people each year." - kinda boggles the mind doesn't it, how insignificant we are?)...

There are no easy answers or solutions, but, again, we (the PCT community) should be leading the way in trying to help preserve the trail as much as possible and to keep it as wild as possible - for future generations, not just 'us'...

Happy trails!!!
Jim