[pct-l] Pictures

[Len Glassner]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:36 AM, dsaufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> As I recall the account of the story, Scott and Joe did not brazenly go into
> a closed area past closure signs, or into a known closed area.

I think that, based on the way Joe explained it, they did:

http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/2008-August/019770.html

Quoting the most relevant paragraph:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As far as fire closures go, we were not the first or last. Yet we were
singled out cause of popularity, and people who just do not agree with our
methods of hiking. We chose the safer route, for the highway is far more
dangerous. We had extra maps, and we knew where the fires were to
relationship of the trail, thanks to calfire.com. We went in knowing we
might get to a point where we might have to turn around. We never put our
lives at risk. There turned out to be no fire anywhere near the trail. What
we did encounter was only backburning, where we met over 200 firefighters
who now are aware of the PCT, as well as interested. We met up with crew
leaders and forest service officers, who just admired us, and were
completely unaware of the PCT. All encounters were left in a possitive
matter. They gave us permission to continue, so really people, could it have
been that bad. We had Michelle post for the safety of others, who are not
familiar with the area, like us, for the trail was bulldozed. I feel the
people who recommended hiking the highway are the ones who should be
ridiculed. I think it was the year 2000, correct me if I am wrong, but two
thru-hikers, Jane and Flicka were killed by a careless driver, on a highway.
That is what I was thinking while making MY decision to continue. You may
look to the back of a data book and get that info. If I had one I would give
more information. As far as being a role model, well I never once thought of
that. For me, I never been one, so this is a first. In fact I have always
been a rebel, a person who contest authority, who breaks laws and rules that
are not fair or right. I will be the first to stand and fight for what is
right, so maybe I am not your best role model,  who ever signed me up for
that, sorry I let you down. But I am the one who stands up when something is
wrong. This year I saw a lot going on out there, and as soon as we can put
things to rest, I will begin showing you all proof of what is happening on
your trail.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The above is straight from Joe. (Well sort of straight, but with
excursions included.)  Not a rumor as Andrea suggested.

>They took an
> seemingly okay (no posted or announced warnings) alternate around a fire and
> wound up in a closed area due to the extremely fast-moving active fire
> situation.

Which I guess demonstrates what can happen when you ignore a fire
closure involving an active fire.

> They came around the bend and into the fire fight.  They got
> splashed with water from the helicopter drop. They saw and spoke with many
> fire and law enforcement officials, who could have, if it had been
> warranted, fined or even arrested them.

IF in fact they were personnel charged with enforcing the closure,
then that's all the more confusing.  Now, if the closure had come to
pass after Scott and Joe entered the area, then I don't see how they
could have justifiably been fined or arrested.  But Joe's own words
show that they knew of the closure.

> Instead they were quite supportive
> and if I remember right, someone had their picture taken with Scott & Joe.

The idea of fire and law enforcement officials, in an active burn
area, having their picture taken with...record-setting
thru-hikers...is interesting. But someone suggested back then that
they may have been fire crews charged only with fighting the fire.

> So yes, they did go through a closed area, but the circumstances are not at
> all the same.
>
I confess that I haven't yet followed the link that canoeman provided,
so maybe there's something incredibly outrageous that's at the other
end.  My assumption is that there are some pictures there that were
taken while in the closed area, taken by someone who knew that they
were in the closed area.
Scott and Joe also knew they were in a closed area, so the offense
seems similar to me.

> I recall vividly in 2007 when the fires were burning outside of Kennedy
> Meadows.  They allowed hikers in, right past the smoldering fires and the
> fire crews on the ground.  At times, they closed the area.  It was easy to
> get caught in a closure in that situation.
>
And so no law violation.  But as I think was demonstrated above, Scott
and Joe didn't get caught in a closure, they knew what they were
doing.

All the above deals with the closure that started at Quincy-Laporte
Road.  As for the one that started at Etna Summit,  I can't quote
anything from Joe about that one.  I think the timing was such that
they would have had to walk through while it was closed, but haven't
done the research.

Donna, I think the points you initially made are good ones, but I also
think criticism has to be applied similarly in both cases.  It
surprised me how many people came to Scott's and Joe's defense back in
'08.  I wondered if I (or any other nobody hiker) would get the same
level of accommodation if I had chosen do what they did that year.
I'm not so sure that would be the case.

The lively discussion that occurred at the time of the original event
can be found around the middle and end of the August 08 archive:

http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/2008-August/thread.html

Let's hope for a fire-free year, that alternate routes can be found
for the record-setting attempts, and no one has the temptation to be a
scofflaw.