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

[Tortoise]

Well as I recall, L-Rod has ceased to support ADZPCTO because of its 
"clumping" or "herding" effect.

The Saufley's outstanding hospitality (more than I could ever do) 
attracks lots and lots of hikers; their hospitality is available 
year-round and they do nothing to encourage lots of people to come at 
the same time. In fact by being hospitable year-round they help to 
spread the hikers into the lesser traveled times.

As long as the Saufley's neighbors don't complain, and that probably 
depends more on the hikers than the Saufleys, then they are "clean".

----------
Tortoise

<> He who finishes last, wins! <>

I switched to Mac OSX rather than fight Windows
Using Mozilla Thunderbird  http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/



Junaid Dawud wrote:
> LOL,
>
> oh man did I get a good chuckle out of that last line!
>
> Yes, where does L-Rod stand on the issue of too many
> hikers at one spot at one time. too funny.
>
> peace---------Speshul 41
>
>
>
> --- 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
> that gives answers, not web links. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
>