Should the PCT pass through the San Jacinto wilderness?

[Wildhorse]

The PCT currently passes through the San Jacinto federal and state wilderness areas, as well as other wilderness areas and parks along its route. After Cheryl Strayed's book and movie Wild, traffic has increased dramatically on the PCT. Similarly, traffic has dramatically increased on the Appalachian Trail (A.T.) after Bill Bryson's book and is expected to increase again because of Robert Redford's movie. With the increased traffic, there have been reports of serious abuse of wilderness, such as Baxter State Park (a wilderness preserve that includes Mt. Katahdin) has reported.

Baxter State Park is considering telling the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) to reroute the Appalachian Trail (A.T.) out of the park to stop the abuse. The Appalachian Trail Conservancy is seeking other remedies. News reports say that the PCT Association (PCTA) now limits permits at the southern terminus to 50 per day. Even that limit accommodates a large increase in the number of people who pass through the San Jacinto wilderness every day in peak season. Ten years ago, rangers on patrol would rarely meet a PCT through hiker.

The mission of the PCTA and ATC promote hiking, rather than preserve wilderness, even while each organization supports wilderness preservation for the sake of hiking. Contrast that with the mission of the federal state governments to preserve wilderness. Their mission is to preserve the land, even while accommodating hikers in limited numbers, as long as the hikers follow the rules. Baxter State Park is particularly vigilant about protecting the land, including through maintaining what some have called "rigid" rules enforced through tough policing, as Jurek found out. So far, that approach has not stopped the abuse and that is why Baxter State Park is considering telling the ATC to reroute the trail.

Almost fifty years ago now, Roderick Nash introduced a short expression to describe what was happening even then: "loving wilderness to death." It is even worse now.

If Baxter State Park cannot protect their wilderness through rules and tough enforcement, surely we cannot either. Will they let it be loved to death? Will we let our San Jacinto Mountains be loved to death?

So, should we be proactive and reroute the PCT before we lose our wilderness? Should we even eliminate the PCT because it harms the wilderness that we seek to enjoy, to celebrate, when we hike it?

[Ulysses]

Great question and interesting topic for discussion. At this point I would be opposed to any limitations on the number of thru hikers travelling through the San Jacintos or any other wilderness areas. Mainly because I like to see more people learn about and enjoy hiking and appreciate wilderness, based upon my belief that if more people discover and enjoy hiking there will be more societal and political pressure to preserve open space and create more wilderness areas. This may be delusional thinking on my part. The increasing amounts of litter and destructive behavior by hikers in the San Jacintos makes one wonder. I noticed what seemed like a threefold increase in the number of thru hikers coming through Idyllwild this past season. Probably a result of the Cheryl Strayed book. I'm sure the local hotel and restaurant owners would be opposed to any limitation on the number of hikers allowed on the PCT.

[cynthia23]

I think I'd generally agree with Ulysses. Even though the 'trashy' behavior of some hikers is deplorable, I still think that on balance it's very important to introduce 'civilians' to wilderness, even if that wilderness incurs a little damage in the process. After all that damage pales in comparison to that wrought by climate change, overdevelopment, mining, over-grazing, etc--all issues we as citizens in a democracy have some influence. People who have experienced wilderness are more likely to vote to protect it.

[lkelly]

I think that the PCT should not be rerouted. Sure there is an increase in Thru hikers but there is an increase in hikers overall, or so it seems to me. I hate the trash out on the trails and surely some of it is Thru's but I think a lot is from day hikers too. Seems like as long as a tram is compatable with wilderness then a long distance trail should be too.

[halhiker]

During a "normal" year PCT hikers will have very little effect on San Jacinto. During a "normal" year there will be too much snow for hikers to have much impact. Hikers accessing the wilderness from the Tram and Idyllwild have 100 times the impact of all the PCT hikers passing through during the small window that they're on San Jacinto.

[Wildhorse]

Many land preserves have adopted the policy described by Ulysses and Cynthia23. If the public can use land, they support preserving it - for the sake of their continued enjoyment. That can be particularly important when the land is in or next to an urban area. Encroachments, poaching and trespassing are problems that take money to fight. They need lawyers. At the same time, preserve managers know that public use, even with permission, adversely affects preservation. They do what they can through rules and supervision or policing to partially mitigate the abuse. Covering these costs takes a steady flow of income. Trail use fees, memberships and donations help in that way.

All things considered, private preserves are thought by preservationists to be the best chance for preserving wilderness - best way to slow the progress of our loving wilderness to death. Government does not do so well. Even while it has the power, recreation (along with other land uses) beats preservation in the ballot box.

Even Baxter State Park, which is a government/private hybrid, fails in its attempt to preserve what the public can use. They hope to do better by maybe moving the A.T. Threatening hikers with fines, even when the rangers carry weapons, does not suffice. They know it. Occasionally a grieving ranger lashes out at a trail user. It happened to Jurek. I have seen it happen in our wilderness too.

Cynthia23's connection of land abuse by hikers in preserves with other land abuses is sound. Add to her list the biggest culprits: agriculture and an overwhelming population of humans. With so many mouths to feed, how could we ever cut back on agriculture? Deforestation for the sake of agriculture continues. That, and pesticides and herbicides, and agricultural water diversions, have caused rapid extinction of species. GMOs have only just begun. That is the cost to feed so many human mouths. The environmental organizations understand this, but to address it is suicide for them. They earn their income by sounding alarms, and then they compromise - which is to say, they consent to abuse for the sake of the success of their organizations. They have payrolls to meet, mouths to feed.

lkelly's and halhiker's connection of the tram with abuse is also sound. It surely seems to have a greater impact thru-hiking. Closing the tram would greatly reduce the human impact on the San Jacinto wilderness. As halhiker noted, Idyllwild is another big problem for wilderness (and not just related to hiking, but also for the major fire risk it creates and its exhaustion of water flows. Strawberry Valley would surely be enhanced without Idyllwild.

Closing the tram and the paved roads that deliver people to trailheads would greatly reduce the land abuse. It has been well established that a lack of accessibility contributes more than anything else to preservation of wilderness. A lack of trails helps too. The PCT and the A.T. designations are effectively ways to market wilderness tourism. They don't help the land. The trails would exist without these designations and marketing programs.

Ultimately, a trail is not essential to a hiker. Who needs trails? Let those who wander into wilderness, find their way out, or not. Trails lead to nowhere that matters.