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

[Jack H]

Where is the dividing line? The dividing line is 500 miles. If you're not
hiking over 500 miles of the PCT in a season, the PCT permit is not for you.

On 6/16/07, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>