[pct-l] Washington section

[Bighummel at aol.com (Bighummel@aol.com)]

John,

I'm pleased to your passion for the trail and concern for thru-hikers this 
year.  However, before sending this note, I think it would have been wise to 
check with the PCTA and read the most recent Communicator article by Tim Stone, 
the USFS PCT Manager, on section K.  I think that you are expecting a lot from 
the PCTA and perhaps that would be appropriate if you were suggesting specific 
solutions.  Get involved in the PCTA and you will get a much better 
appreciation for all that they do, with the meager resources they have and attract.

There is a certain amount of panick in your message, as though, this is the 
single greatest obstacle that a thru-hiker could ever experience.  Many 
thru-hikers will testify that there are many, much larger obstacles on the trail, 
some of the biggest right in your own head.

You'll be dissapointed in your organization if they don't warn the 2004 
hikers of section K's status?  They already have warned them!  There have been 
several posts to the PCT-List that I have personally forwarded on this specific 
subject.  There are notes about it on their website.  There have been articles 
in the Communicator.  What else do you expect from them?  Are there other 
avenues of communication that you recommend?

I look forward to your involvement to help find solutions to this temporary, 
rather insignificant problem considering it is only 30 miles out of 2,650 
miles (just a tad over 1%).

Sincerely,

Greg Hummel


In a message dated 2/20/2004 7:01:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
sierra_marmot@yahoo.com writes:
Hi, I'm a PCTA long-timer and contributor to the Communicator.   I'm 
forwarding you a discussion thread with another member of the pct-l group.  It's my 
opinion that the PCTA should advise 2004 thru-hikers of the potential dangers of 
section K in Washington State and not skirt the issue.  Further, I believe 
it's the responsibility of the PCTA, as the sponsor of the annual thru-hike, to 
make preparations for a re-route from Stevens Pass to Rainy Pass.  This is not 
the responsibility of the Forest Service.   You can argue that the PCTA isn't 
the sponsor of the hike, but you(we) are.  The thru-hike permits come from 
the PCTA.   

With 30 miles of the PCT in section K eliminated, including all the bridges 
over the large creeks and the Suiattle River, there is NO PCT in section K this 
year, nor perhaps for several years to come.   I will be very disappointed in 
my organization if it doesn't step up to its responsibility to not just warn 
the 2004 thru-hikers of the damage, but to also provide some kind of 
pro-active solution.  We all have dealt with governments through the years.  For a 
$100,000 bridge over the Suiattle River to be built this summer, it would 
literally take an act of Congress, or some very serious patronage on the side.   The 
Forest Service is just now finishing up its budget for fiscal 2004-2005.  How 
much money is targeted for repair of the 30 miles of trail and the bridges in 
Section K?  

I bet none.  Zero.

As an organization, it is our responsibility to present the facts to our 
membership, not to sugar-coat the problems.   As I said in a previous note, if I 
was the Forest Supervisor for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, I'd put 
up a Trail Closed sign up on the north side of Stevens Pass.

John Randall
"marmot"