On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:46:37 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
. ."Bart" <
[email protected]> wrote in message .
news:[email protected]... .> On
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:49:26 -0800, "junobug" <
[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> > .> >Very true. We are
much more efficient travelers. In the one day that .this .> >person rode their bike, they may have
each had a single bowel movement .and .> >maybe a couple/few urinations. In the time it would take a
person .traveling .> >by foot to cover 86.1 miles (8 days?) they would have camped. Each .night, .>
>they set up camp, trampeling vegetation in 8 seperate areas. Each night .> >they use their cook
stoves or start a camp fire, releasing toxins into .the .> >air. Each morning they wake up and
deposit human waste in several .different .> >areas, along with spitting toothpaste and mouthwash.
Seeing as how they .do .> >not sleep on the trail, they are trampeling areas away from the trail.
.They .> >will do this for 8 nights. I would think someone like yourself would .rather .> >have
someone in and out of the area in a day, rather than setting up 8 .camps .> >and leaving at least 16
**** piles in the woods. .> > .> >Ken .> >Juneau, Alaska .> >www.takusmokeries.com .> > .> Let's
make it even more efficient, just pave a a highway, build a .> hotel & restaurant and drive there in
under 2 hours! .> .> I think the point is, hikers would like machinery left off the trails. .> .> So
let's start with bikes, then you've got your off roaders that say .> if bikes are allowed, why not
dirt bikes & 4-tracks? ...4WDs,.. then .> log it, put in a highway.. & develop it. .> Call it
"progress" I guess,.. .> it's going to happen most pristine places eventually. .> .> .Your position
is that we are calling allow for more and more access, the .problem is we already have limited
access by the nature of the environment, .and there are forces that seek to limit that access to a
greater and greater .degree. Nobody is asking for more routes to be open,
That's a LIE.
we only want less .routes to be closed. There is a huge difference in these two positions.
There are no closed routes. You can WALK. If you weren't too LAZY.
.What we are seeing is that as more routes are closed, then the remaining .routes get more traffic
because the same number of people must seek .recreatin from a smaller inventory of possible
locations. When more and more .people seek recreation from fewer and fewer sites, we will get
increased .conflicts, resulting in even more closures and more conflicts. The truth is .that the
vast majority of backcountry routes have been in the inventory for .several decades, and any damage
that is present is very slight. Obviously, .we would want no damage at all, but the damage is not
done by a few .visitors, it is done by decades of visitation and is compounded by weather .issues.
Even without the visitation, there is still the weather and the fact .that animals will use the
trails and cause damage that the weather will make .worse. The bottom line is that we need route
maintenance, adn to the extent .that some trails see more visitors than others we need varying
amounts of .maintenance. Simple visitation by humans using any means of transportation .is usually
not a significant factor in the migration of the animals into or .out of an area. The forces that
cause animals to flee and plants to be .destroyed are generally brought on by developement. I will
be the first to .admit that there are instances where the shear number of visitors is a .determent,
and we need to invoke more stringent restrictions, we might even .need closures to rehabilitate an
area that has suffered from visitor damage, .but these instances are a clear minority of of routes,
and are generally not .even applicable to the entire route, let alone all of the routes in the
.area. I am sure that everyone here would comply with a sign that said a .rehabilitation effort was
in progress, and the morons that would not comply .do not represent any of us. It would do everybody
well to remember that all .visitors to the backcountry want to see the backcountry preserved and
.protected so that they could enjoy it as much as possible. This means that .while we want to go in,
we respect the implications of our being there and .take every effort to be sure we have the
smallest impact we can have. Nobody .in their right mind will go into the backcountry and
maliciously destroy it. .Perhaps what we need is to give the current netwrok of routes over to the
.vehicles and create foot paths that the vehicles are not allowed on, this .would solve the
conflicts that result when pedestrians and vehicle operators .encounter one another on the trails.
Did you say something?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
