[pct-l] Fire Closure zones

[Joanne Lennox]

Joe Kisner wrote:
> "As far as fire closures go, we were not the first or last.... . 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.'

 So there were 200 firefighters and no fires??

THere were no fires but only backburning?? ( backburning is done because 
there is a fire and it causes multiple fires in multiple directions, a far 
more dangerous situation).

All the fire crews and Forest Service Personel were completely unaware of 
the PCT?  And these are the same people that gave you "permission to 
continue".  Since the people that manage forest fires use all available 
trails and roads to manage  and contain a fire, it appears that the people 
that you met were simply fire crews and were not in any position to give you 
" permission", but rather wanted you "to continue" to get you out of there 
as soon as possible.

You mentioned in your prior post, that there were police there as well.  But 
police do not go into active fire areas - that is not their job and they are 
not equiped or trained for such work.  They do not go into such areas unless 
they are specifically called for in  an emergency.  However, I have done 
trail Maintenence on the PCT in California  with fire crews that were 
accompanied by uniformed officiers with guns.  A number of the fire crews in 
CA are from the Department of Corrections and are prison inmates, 
accompanied by guards.  These crews are dressed and equiped exactly like all 
the other crews, and you would not necessarily know that they are prison 
immates.  It is my experience that they are very anxious to talk, to have 
personal contact with anybody, to know your life situation, to listen to 
your stories.  They would love to follow your hike any way possible 
subsequently to being back in prison. Fire crews, who can be from anywhere 
including prison, are not in charge and can not give permission to anybody 
to  wander around in an active fire zone.  Permission by its very nature 
happens PRIOR to crossing a closed area, not afterwards.

Joe Kisner wrote:
"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."
>
So you had Michelle post that the trail was dangerous for others, but not 
for you . You assumed that everybody else was  not as experienced or 
competent to do what you did - That everybody else were inferior to your 
level of route finding, and superior knowledge and strength.  You  singled 
yourself out!!  You feel that you were not the only one to illegally cross 
this area, but you were certainly the only one that did so, and then told 
everybody else not to because they were inferior to you and it would be 
dangerous for them.

So you say you" break laws and rules that are not right or fair". Therefore, 
in the above instance you believe you had the right to break the law but you 
told everybody else to obey the law because to do otherwise was dangerous 
for them. It seems you  have very little understanding of what your 
responsibilities are, and what are the responsibilities of the police and 
the forest service, and the citizenry.  Because you do not understand a law 
or rule does not make it unfair or unjust. Nor does "getting away with it" 
or getting all soft and sweet with a fire crew make it legitimate.  And 
since you now want to institute Rules of your own about PRIOR  ANNOUNCEMENT 
of intent in record establishment, perhaps you should detail what such an 
announcement ought to include and  what publication should be used ( I 
wonder if you have informed the officials in the Olympics, that they should 
have been checking all the publications for announcement of intent to break 
a world record.  Obviously, using your definition a lot of world records 
should not stand, the participatants just simply were after their gold medal 
and had not announced their intent to break a record)

The exigencies of fighting a fire are such,  that you have no rights because 
you want to hike the PCT, or set a record - which may have been a worthwile 
goal but pales in comparison to protecting natural rersources and peoples 
lives.  You had choices but it did not include going into a fire closure 
zone.  You could have stopped!!  To say: " I feel the people who recommended 
hiking the highway are the ones who should be ridiculed." is over the top. 
Ridicule seems to be high on your list, and you use it alot - especially for 
anybody that would reason with you or try to give you alternate ways of 
viewing a situation. There seems to be a crossed wire here.  If somebody 
does not ridicule you, you think that they agree with you and are supporting 
your actions. If they disagree with you, you think they are ridiculing you. 
If you disagree with somebody, they "deserve to be ridiculed" .

 The PCT and life have a way of extracting the real price, and the lessons 
start out small and get bigger and bigger, and the prices higher and higher. 
People that see things in black and white and are so self absorbed, are 
always getting blind sided, and they see everybody as being against them. 
But they are not really looking at what they are doing or what is happening, 
and how they themselves are creating the situation.  Can't control 
everybody!

But seriously, I do admire your strength and endurance, and am anxious to 
hear about your hiking methods.  I don't think the ridicule is very 
effective or skillful however in dealing with your fellow PCT hikers, 
especially since you are now a cyber hiker yourself.  And who can you 
possibily admire?  Is there no one wiser than you?

Scott is Silent!!