[pct-l] Paradise Corner Cafe

[Vermilion Valley Resort]

OR... it could be that this "policy" isn't true.  From what I can tell - 
this entire discussion was based on ONE person stating that the owner 
had told him they were going to open packages.

Maybe the owner was just kidding with him?  Or maybe *gasp*, the poster 
has another agenda?  I'm not accusing here - just saying - why make a 
big deal over hearsay?

Of course... if you're planning to ship drugs in your resupply package, 
I wouldn't send a resupply to the cafe (or ANY resupply point for that 
matter).

Otherwise... why make such a big deal out of something that hasn't even 
been confirmed?

Bill


Tortoise wrote:
> I generally agree with those who disapprove of the Paradise Cafe's opening
> hiker packages to "inspect" them. I haven't seen their reason for
> inspecting -- maybe it is a good one; maybe they are suspicious of "trail
> trash" or "hippies" and are on some kind of moral crusade. As to the
> legality, I'm not a lawyer so don't know about this. For those who object
> to the search, the best solution is make other arrangements and even eat
> elsewhere.
>
> Could be after the new owners have some experience with hikers they will
> change their rule.
>
> There is another big difference between this and the TSA inspections. Often
> there are no good alternatives to flying and apparently the laws allow
> this. As to the wisdom and effectiveness of the TSA screenings; that's
> another question well beyond the scope of this list.
>
> Tortoise
>
> <>   Because truth matters.<>
>
>
> On 04/15/11 16:35, Brandon McGinnity wrote:
>> No offense, but I've heard that argument used in other cases, like the TSA
>> at airports, and it really rubs me the wrong way. Like we should be
>> *happy*to give up our rights. Privacy, and encroachment upon it, is
>> something worth
>> getting upset about.
>>
>> In this case, though, just as with flying, it seems that you either agree,
>> and give up your privacy, or you do something else. It does seem silly to
>> make a big stink over this. Anyways, who would want the risk of mailing
>> drugs anywhere?
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Ate Tuna<atetuna at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>
>>> These people go out of your way to help hikers without demanding any
>>> payment, and then the hikers dictate terms and make legal threats.  It
>>> speaks volumes about the trail angels that stick it out year after year
>>> despite hikers with entitlement issues.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:42 PM, goslowgofar<goslowgofar at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    >   And yet, that still doesn't make the practice ethical or LEGAL.     I
>>>> wouldn't
>>>> want to support a business that does this.  It's a contradiction: they
>>>> provide
>>>> water to hikers, and seem to like hikers, but think they are all
>>> potential
>>>> drug
>>>> abusers?  Weird. Or, maybe they are the drug users and are looking for
>>>> their own
>>>> use?  Whatever...
>>>> Katy
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/