[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[CHUCK CHELIN]

Good morning, all,



I agree with Diane.  In ’08 I had to go around the Belden fire closure, and
later the fire closure between Etna and Seiad, but in between those two was
another fire just south of Birney Falls SP.  That fire was still smoking
when I went through, and the trail was open.  Some of my photos of that fire
can be seen in Jellybean’s Class of ’08 DVD beginning about minute 22:35.  I’ve
been through fresh burns before, and I didn’t feel particularly threatened.




Steel-Eye

Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT – 1965

http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye

http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09


On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Diane at Santa Barbara Hikes dot com <
diane at santabarbarahikes.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>