[pct-l] JMT Permit......BAD ADVICE given

[Carl Siechert]

As Jack pointed out, the dividing line is clear: 500 miles along the PCT.
The uses you've described -- JMT or "folks who get a thru permit every year,
so they can hike at will without burdening agencies or themselves with
getting individual permits" -- don't come close.

The PCT permit doesn't restrict users to a particular place and time, which
is precisely why its use should be reserved for prospective long-distance
hikers. It's a useful tool for agencies and LD hikers for all the reasons
you describe. (I wish such a convenience existed in '77!) But to say that
you're doing the land-management agencies a favor when the real purpose is
to circumvent trail quotas and the inconvenience of getting a permit for a
"short" hike into the wilderness is disingenous.

Cheers,
Carl



On 6/16/07, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with you on one thing -- the permit isn't there to be abused, or
> the
> resources of the PCTA utilized unnecessarily.  But where is the dividing
> line?  It would be best to find out from the PCTA directly on this one,
> and
> abide by their opinion.  Until then, I fail to see an issue.  It seems
> simple to me: if getting short term permits wasn't acceptable, they
> wouldn't
> have that category and wouldn't offer a permit for 500 miles.
>
> Permits appear to be an ongoing need on many levels, for different
> reasons;
> it's unlikely that they'd ever be eliminated.  What's the next best thing?
> Offload the function at no cost to the agency(ies).  It also solves the
> problem of what agency should handle the PCT permits, since the PCT passes
> through the jurisdictions of many private, county, state, and federal
> areas.
>
>
> So far, the PCT permit does not limit the number of people in a particular
> place at a particular time.  But that could easily change if the agencies
> become concerned about large numbers of people on the trail at once.  Gee,
> where does that thought lead me?
>
> L-Rod
>
>