[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[dsaufley]

Personally, I don't like the fact that the forest is closed, but I try to
see beyond this inconvenience to a bigger picture of what happened in this
massive fire. From my view, the picture is more complicated than simple
liability issues due to falling trees, though certainly deadfall and safety
is often a primary concern (which really begs the question why route hikers
onto dangerous highways? almost better to say nothing). I strongly recommend
reading the entry dated 11/5/2009 at
http://pcta.org/planning/during_trip/Trail_con_SC.asp?sect=D)  What weighs
most heavily on my heart is the damage that was done to animal populations
because of the Sheep and Station Fires. To quote information on the PCTA
website, "info straight from the forest service fire zone inspection team
the U.S. Forest Service scientists":

". . . much of the wildlife that makes its home in the 655,000-acre forest
was killed or dislocated. Biologists say they found an unusually high number
of large animals caught by the fast-moving fire. Teams have come across
carcasses of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes and gray foxes,
apparently unable to find escape routes. "Deer took a big hit," said Kevin
Cooper, a wildlife biologist."

Animals that did survive need a chance to recover along with the vegetation,
and that means without being overrun by people and every harebrained thing
that people do out there in the forest. Note too that the scientists feared
a heavy rainy season back in November. All of their fears were realized by
heavy rains this winter and spring (we're not done). 

The San Gabriels, with their proximity to massive population base, are
particularly vulnerable to abuse. Thru-hikers may consider themselves
comparatively low-impact in their use, the problem is, if they allow
thru-hikers, the door is open for all other types of uses. Even with the
closures they are having a hell of a time keeping out violators.  If they
open the door an inch, the forest will be swamped by the tide, and it just
can't handle it right now. OHV abuse becomes particularly destructive when
there is no vegetation on the hillsides.  Vegetation normally channels them
onto a trail/road, and without it every surface becomes rideable.
Realistically, thru-hikers are not always low impact or no-trace in their
use of the forest (for example, food and water caches, camping at water
sources, leaving fire rings, notes intentionally left on trail for other
hikers, etc.). Thru-hikers have also started plenty of fires along the trail
in recent years. 

It's a bit baffling how different agencies (USFS, National Parks, BLM), and
different jurisdictions within those agencies, have unique policies about
dealing with burn areas.  In 2007 Mr. Mumbles was allowed to walk through an
active burn north of Kennedy Meadows, right alongside the fire crews, and
burning brush.  While they did close the trail at times thereafter, as soon
as the fire moved through, it was reopened immediately. OTOH, the burn area
created by the Buckweed Fire closed the Rowher Flat area of the Sierra
Pelona for two entire years to allow vegetation recovery.  The Angeles NF,
who I've observed is extremely restrictive, has also been closed (closing
the PCT) when there were no active fires within their boundaries, though
admittedly it was high fire danger and the humidity was so low it felt like
things would spontaneously combust. There were fires elsewhere. It's just
clear there's no uniform way that branches of government deal with trails
and burns, and probably never will be consistent.  

Even though I don't like the closure, I understand, respect, and will abide
by it. I am very hopeful that the Class of 2010 does as well.

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of AsABat
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:35 PM
To: Gary Wright
Cc: .; Ken Murray
Subject: Re: [pct-l] why close the burn areas?

> >>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.
>

I too am completely flabbergasted that any person or agency could be held
liable for natural hazards.Might as well just close all areas that haven't
been covered with buildings or pavement.

I have witnessed three trees falling in the backcountry, none of these were
in burn areas. I suggest that walking through the burn area is less
dangerous than roadwalking.

AsABat
_______________________________________________
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/