[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[Wes Rose]

Up front, this isn't an argument for disobeying the wilderness closure orders of the 
regulatory agencies governing their use.  

Here in So Cal fires are a way of life.  As everybody knows, we get them every year because
of our hot and dry climate and the pyromaniacs that light them.  

Fires are a natural part of the environment. While I applaud the fire suppression efforts made 
in our state, one cannot help but conclude that the suppression efforts actually create a greater 
fire risk and cause more damage.  At the same time, fire management is essential due to the 
suburbanization of these fire-prone areas. 

It makes no sense to keep people out of the burn areas after a fire.  These areas will regrow and
are restored over time, whether we hike there or not.  I've seen this time and again.  As a boy I
spent a great deal of time in the environs of the No. Santa Ana Mountains.  A portion of this area 
is now a County Park (Santiano Oaks Regional Park) and vast sections are privately held by the 
Irvine Company.  Over the past five years, three major fires have rolled through, but the County decided
to leave this park open.  After the fire, the landscape looked lunar.  (Still does on google earth). Now, 
however, after the rains, the area is green and beautiful.  The pines, sumac and other indigenous 
plants are regrowing.  Although this park is heavily used park, the mountain bikers, hikers, runners, 
photographers, clubs, troops, etc. have not prevented nature from beautifully restoring the flora.  

Having responsible people in a burn area serves as a deterrent to the irresponsible types who might 
otherwise harm the environment.  After a closure, the people who will obey the order are exactly those 
people who you want there.  They are like voluntary park rangers; thru-hiker types.  Even still, how does 
closing a burn area help it grow back?  

Happy hiking, and best success to this years Thru Hikers!!  Enjoy the privilege ~