[pct-l] JMT Permit......BAD ADVICE given

[Donna Saufley]

I agree with you on one thing -- the permit isn't there to be abused, or the
resources of the PCTA utilized unnecessarily.  But where is the dividing
line?  It would be best to find out from the PCTA directly on this one, and
abide by their opinion.  Until then, I fail to see an issue.  It seems
simple to me: if getting short term permits wasn't acceptable, they wouldn't
have that category and wouldn't offer a permit for 500 miles.  

Permits appear to be an ongoing need on many levels, for different reasons;
it's unlikely that they'd ever be eliminated.  What's the next best thing?
Offload the function at no cost to the agency(ies).  It also solves the
problem of what agency should handle the PCT permits, since the PCT passes
through the jurisdictions of many private, county, state, and federal areas.


So far, the PCT permit does not limit the number of people in a particular
place at a particular time.  But that could easily change if the agencies
become concerned about large numbers of people on the trail at once.  Gee,
where does that thought lead me?

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Carl Siechert
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 9:38 AM
To: pct-l
Subject: Re: [pct-l] JMT Permit......BAD ADVICE given

I've gotta disagree with you on this one, Donna. If the agencies' goal was
to "ease the burden," they'd simply eliminate the permit requirement
altogether. The purpose of the permit system is two-fold: to limit the
number of people in a particular place at a particular time, and to gather
information about wilderness usage. Your end run around the rules (just
because you can do it without getting caught doesn't make it right) does
nothing to further either goal and, in fact, works against each one.

>From the PCTA's perspective, I don't know whether artificially inflating
the
numbers helps in the long run, but I'd correct your statement to read "it
gives the PCTA *an erroneous* statistic to use in their assessment of trail
use"

Cheers,
Carl


On 6/16/07, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff (aka Buzz Saw) and I have gotten 500+ mile permits for the PCT every
> year for the past four years.  This is not only allowable, it gives the
> PCTA
> a statistic to use in their assessment of trail use.
>
> I believe that the agencies delegated the permitting authority to the PCTA
> to ease the burden on the agencies.  I don't think there's really any
> difference -- the important thing is to have a permit for the area you're
> in, and know the rules.
>
> I know of some folks who get a thru permit every year, so they can hike at
> will without burdening agencies or themselves with getting individual
> permits.  I don't see the harm in this at all.  Lots of folks do this
>
_______________________________________________
pct-l mailing list
pct-l at backcountry.net
unsubscribe or change options:
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/851 - Release Date: 6/16/2007
12:50 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/851 - Release Date: 6/16/2007
12:50 PM