[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[Gary Wright]

On Apr 11, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Ken Murray wrote:
> To send people into a burned forest that has not been examined, and had the risks mitigated, is somewhat like sending someone across an open boulder field with a thunderhead overhead making lightning strikes.  Maybe there will not be a strike, probably there will not be a strike on the person, but would you send your spouse out there?  Your child?

I'm uncomfortable with your analogy.  I don't think you are describing equivalent risks, nor do I think hiking through a burned out section has the same risk as actually clearing the section (i.e. cutting down or clearing trees). 

Getting in your car and driving to the trailhead is much more risky than walking through a burned area.  The article you linked to indicates that between 1965 and 1980 there were only 45 tree-related accidents (injury to person or property) reported in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota and Kansas.  Even if you assume that only 10% of accidents are reported and assume that those five states are representative of all the other states you come up with 281 tree accidents per year in the United States (45 * 10 * 10 / 16).  This is for recreation areas only. I'm sure tree accidents in residential areas are probably much more prevalent but that isn't the risk we were talking about.  Of course that does raise the question of whether the government should require me to have a permit to walk in my own yard without an annual 'tree hazard' inspection.

The first google stat I came up with for car accidents was: 6,500,000 car accidents, 2,900,000 injuries, and 42,636 people killed in 2005, just a single year.

> There are many who feel that they have a right to take such a risk for themselves, even though they have no skill, knowledge, or training in making the involved risk assessment.  Can the agency do this?
> They can, but they take upon that agency ALL risk and liability for what happens, and it likely cannot be waived by the participant. (such waivers often involve the concept of "informed consent", which requires that a person be reasonably educated in the risks.....and how can one do that, when one has no info about the subject, at all).

This is the core of the problem and it isn't just about trails and trees but about the entire tort system and concepts of individual responsibility.  Freedom and liberty don't mean much if you are only free to do what the government explicitly permits. The article you referenced even pointed to the legislation (The Federal Tort Claim Act (1946)) that enables lawsuits against government agencies for "negligent acts or omissions".

I don't fault government agencies for doing what is necessary to limit their liability.  The fault lies with our law makers for creating the liability in the first place and in us for encouraging our law makers to 'protect us' from every possible risk.

> In about a month, I will be leading a trail crew that will be involved in mitigating hazard trees on the PCT for the 8 or so miles north of Kennedy Meadows. 

Thank you for you and your team's efforts.  Even though I think our system of torts is severely out of whack, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate trail maintenance activities.

Radar