[pct-l] Fire Closures in General

[Lou Filliger]

> Via this list, hikers have grieved the death of one lister in a trail accident. In 
> another case listers went searching for a missing hiker; sadly he was later found dead.
>
> Most of us do care for and aid our fellow hikers.
>
I presume you do it out of the bent of your nature and not because the government tells 
you to do it.

I can see how somebody could interpret "not responsible for" as meaning "not caring 
about".  Please don't confuse the two.  I'd give my last water or gladly risk my life for 
someone in trouble.   But being ordered to do something by the government, or through some 
sort of twisted collective guilt trip by my peers, leaves me cold.

The issue at hand is having an obligation to help someone out who decides to go on a 
dangerous section of the trail.  If we adopt your philosophy, it would seem we'd close the 
trail in case somebody got hurt, and we'd have a responsibility to them.   Do you have any 
idea how easily the politicians could prohibit hiking by gathering a few horror stories of 
people wounded or killed in the forest?    Case in point:  some drunk guy who didn't know 
how to swim drowns in the Kern river a few weeks ago.  All of a sudden there's cops and 
sherriffs deputies all over the river like stink on a monkey "protecting" everyone else. 
Don't you see that your caring about someone can sometimes (frequently) do more harm than 
good?  I personally enjoy the freedom of having nobody care about me, although it's a 
difficult state to attain, especially with loved ones.

LF