[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[Diane at Santa Barbara Hikes dot com]

Because they close the trail for liability reasons means they do not  
close the trail for my protection but for theirs. And since I've  
walked through many burn zones in my life and seen pristine trail and  
not a tree in sight, I know it's not because a tree is going to fall  
on me.

Look at the burn zone near Apache Peak where they closed the trail in  
'08. What is it, like less than a quarter mile of burned manzanita?  
How is that going to hurt me? Look at the burn zone where they closed  
100 miles of trail near Belden in '08. 100 miles of trail closed for  
about 50 yards of barely singed trees. The trees aren't even dead.  
Meanwhile, much of the trail prior to that burn zone was littered  
with hundreds of fallen trees.

In Santa Barbara they closed the trails after a fire, some for a  
year. There are no trees to fall on you. It's all chaparral and a  
moonscape. They went out with trail crews almost immediately then  
left the pristine trail to sit there closed for a year. The winter  
rains came and washed a lot of the tread work they did away but the  
trail's not closed now.

It's all about lawyers is what it is. Actually, it's all about  
appearing to the public like they are doing The Right Thing (TM) in  
regards to wildfire, which is even worse. That's just marketing.


On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:49 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> This all makes sense, and I don't disagree about any of those  
> hazards, but
> it doesn't make it right.