[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pct-l] permit rumor?



Birgitte Jensen wrote:
> 
>  Doesn't look like you got the alleged "story" straight, Jim! <g> The
> PCTA and land management agencies have good communication (so some 
> ranger is unlikely to have to "find out" about permit-issue). 

Don't be obtuse, bj - I've worked with Federal agencies for 40 years 
and the NPS/USFS are NOT the most efficient agencies with regard to 
"good communications". Don't try to kid someone who's been there.  The 
working level grunt rarely gets the word about that kind of inter-agency 
agreement until they run into the problems caused by said agreements.  
Like the ranger in Oregon who tried to force a thruhiker off the PCT 
because he didn't believe that the permit issued by PCTA was valid. 
That was a year or so ago - I'd imagine that the word has spread by
now.  
> Nobody_ has to
> "get a permit for every [area] they pass through" - it's one
> permit-per-trip for everybody: backpackers, horsemen, you name it. 

Yeah - that is the way it is now - but it wasn't always so.  And there 
are those who'd like to see it revert to forcing hikers to get - what
was it - 5(?) permits rather than one. 

>      Maybe things are different on the AT where you hiked (I don't
> remember they were when I hiked there, but it was awhile ago)....?

Really?   ,:-)

> > Why is it that some people think it's acceptable to make life
> >more difficult for others?
> 
>     "A Ranger's Lament" for sure! - if unfounded rumors like the one 
> you posted start circulating on the internet.  

You should know by now that I don't deal in rumor, inaccuracies, 
innuendo or insinuation - if it was an "unfounded rumor" (in other 
words, if I couldn't prove it) - it wouldn't have made the cut.  The 
"If I got the story straight" phrase preceded the only speculation in 
that post - and there wasn't all that much in the way of speculation
there anyway.  

> Agencies're understaffed as it
> is without having to deal with alot of worried, angry calls (based on
> idle gossip) saying "Hey! Where do you guys get off trying to destroy
> the sport of distance-hiking, harump!" - stuff like that. <VBG>

I don't think you have to worry about that - I used that as a single
example of one person who believes that thruhikers don't deserve 
"special treatment".  I didn't paint the NPS as the problem - or name 
the ranger involved.  So what are you cranked up about?  

>      From what _I_ understand, thruhikers are still given "special
> treatment" permit-wise, to make their trip logistics easier, same as
> always.....        bj

Same as always?   You've been on that side of the fence too long, bj.  
You ought to try it from this side.  It's a different perspective.  

Now - you've bitched and moaned and complained about anyone who says,
implies or even thinks that you might be a ranger. So let's just put it
on the table and ask the question - Is you is, or is you ain't a ranger?
I don't really care one way or the other, but I've long since tired of
the "secrecy" about it.  It isn't friendly.  I'm looking forward to your
answer - it would be nice to get a straight, substantive answer from
you. For me, it would be a first.  :-)

Walk softly,
Jim

* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================