From: karlm@sequent.com (Karl Maerz)
Subject: Re: Oregon Wallowas
Keywords: alpine lakes - where?
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 00:13:43 GMT

trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
Wayne:
>>>Pack animals should not be allowed beyond the parking lot, as they
>>>further reduce in scale the tiny fragments of remaining wilderness.
>>
Karl:
><mock self-righteous assertions deleted>
>
>>Wayne, you often sound like a spoiled little boy who wants only
>>his way to prevail and all the toys to himself.  Why don't you
>>just say "Everyone and every thing should be banned from the
>>backcountry except for me and the things I like?"  That is a
>>more honest approach.
>
>
>Wilderness is scarce and diminishing.  Access and wilderness run
>contrary to each other.  The question is where to draw the line.
>Do you want an interstate highway put through your favorite
>backcountry area?  I doubt it.  Does this make you self-righteous?
>I don't know, but I doubt that you care whether it does or not.
>You will probably speak up against that interstate highway
>when it is proposed.  I say good luck to you in that fight!
>

You are dodging the issue by comparing a legal (yet asthetically
unpleasing to you) wilderness/backcountry activity with something
which would clearly be a giant leap backward from our current
position.  (Actually, that's pretty clever of you -- you've managed 
to get in a lick against horses by associating them with interstate
highways.  Touche'!)

You ask where to draw the line.  My reply is the line has already
been drawn (in 1964, I believe) and you and I are on the same side of 
it.  I see no reason why we should be enemies, yet, as a horseman, I
find myself under continual attack here from a vocal few.  

You (collectively) want to redraw the line.  You want exclusive use of 
the backcountry without those pesky critters spoiling your backcountry
experience.  The complaints against horses are nearly universally
oriented on asthetic values, although occasionally someone does
mention land impact and/or bonehead outfits -- arguments, I might add,
which can also be applied to the two-legged variety, as well.

First of all, let me say this... *Anyone* who steps foot (or hoof) in 
the backcountry, including wilderness and non-wilderness areas, should be 
aware of their impact and take the appropriate measures to minimize it.  
I have no more tolerance for horsepeople who ring trees, trample fragile
areas, pollute water, etc., than for hikers who engage in equivalent
activities -- and I've seen several examples.  I would favor a system
which severely penalizes offenders, including revoking their rights
to enter wilderness areas; though, to be fair, I don't know how it
would be enforced.

Regarding arguments centered on asthetics, I frankly don't care if
you like me or my horses or not.  Your opinions and your tastes are
yours to hold or change as you please.  However, I will never allow
your taste to subjugate my behavior any more than you would be willing
to submit to mine.  For instance, my own backcountry experience is not
exactly improved when I look up at rock formations and see pink lycra
and ropes and chalk dust.  Personally, I would much rather see the
rock all by itself, but it doesn't spoil my life not to.  The climbers
won't stay there forever and the chalk will wash away.  And you can
bet the climbers don't give a damn if I like them there or not.

I hear complaints about horse crap (all from this newsgroup).  Its true,
horses are real good at producing dung, but you guys sound like someone
had spread a pit toilet on the trail.  What a bunch of horseshit (heh heh,
sorry, couldn't help it).  Horses eat grass and/or hay and perhaps grain 
and maybe some feed supplements.  They poop little balls which pile if
they're standing still and string out if they're walking.  It does have
an initial odor which is not excessively unpleasant to many people.  If it 
is strung out on a warm sunny day it will completely dry out in a few
hours.  When dry, it has virtually no odor at all and the consistency of 
finely chopped hay or grass (which makes sense, since that's what it is).  
The bottom line is, the stuff is not the noxious, stinking, disgusting 
substance you make it out to be.  I often wonder if the connotation of
it being excretement makes people wrinkle their nose and say "Eeewwww"
as a conditioned response.  Try taking a whiff of horse crap as versus
human or other meat-eater crap and believe me you'll prefer the horse doo.
And, of course, you do have the option of stepping over or around it when 
you do encounter some.

Finally, banning a single class of user from wilderness areas will not
solve the longer term overuse problem.  Restricted or permit-based access
may help.  With non-overuse policies in effect there is no reason why 
horsepeople and backpackers can't coexist in the wilderness, personal
taste notwithstanding.

I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in a lengthy net.debate
on this subject.  This took too long as it was.  Feel free to post or
reply and I'll respond as I'm able.

Regards,
Karl Maerz
karlm@sequent.com

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry