[pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure

[Will Hiltz]

Not meaning to snark but does anyone know if Scott and Joe obeyed the
aforementioned frog closure?


YITOOD,

Easy

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kent Spring <kjssail at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi -
>
> I guess that I would agree with some of the sentiment in this note,
> although I can't agree totally.  I hiked the section from Campo to Kennedy
> Meadows this year before needing to leave the trail due an injury.  During
> the time I was on the trail we faced three "official" trail closures, two
> for previous fires and one for habitat of endangered frogs.
>
> I can see where hikers have no business in active fire scenes.  That
> helicopter that dropped water might have dropped fire retardant - which
> might have been serious, plus hikers could either endanger themselves or the
> fire fighters.
>
> However, these closures due to "old" fires were very questionable and
> apparently aimed at keeping off-road vehicles at bay, but hikers get caught
> in the wide brush of Forest Service policy.  The result is that hikers were
> put at risk by being told to take a long road walk, where they exposed to
> many vehicles.  Yet the hikers who went thru the area said that the trail
> was in fine shape, and there were no risks to either them or the habitat.
>
> I think that the FS/gov't needs to take a much more nuanced approach.  They
> should keep hikers out of areas where they really don't belong.  Yet the
> authorities should still understand that hikers are not the same as off-road
> vehicles or other users in their destructive ability, and thus can safely
> hike areas where some "users" are excluded.
>
> It would appear that Scott and Joe were wrong to go thru an active area,
> but we should let them answer for themselves before we convict them….
>
> Kent
>
> > From: "Will Hiltz" <will.hiltz at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure
> >
> > I'm sorry- am I the only one who has a problem with
> > this?
> >
> > Fire closures are for everyone are they not?  As stewards
> > of the trail,
> > shouldn't scott and joe be striving to display proper
> > respect for the rules
> > and regulations of the trail, especially considering they
> > are role models
> > and particularly well-known along the trail?  Won't
> > this increase the
> > likelihood of other thrus doing the same thing and becoming
> > less respectul
> > of wilderness regulations/bear can laws/closures/LNT
> > practices etc. because
> > they think they're "experts"?  I know we all
> > think Scott and Joe are
> > super-awesome and hike really quickly but do we as a
> > long-distance
> > community, want to be seen as a group of hikers that view
> > themselves "above"
> > restrictions?  In case it isn't clear, no I don't
> > think going for the record
> > exempts them.   A record-breaking pace hike isn't any
> > more important than
> > someone trying to get from mexico to canada for the first
> > time.  Or should
> > we all be ignoring fire closures?
> >
> >
> > YITOOD,
> >
> > Easy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>