[pct-l] Fire Closure zones

[jeff.singewald at comcast.net]

Someone mentioned earlier the use of email filters to reduce these annoying posts.... I use Comcast Webmail as my email provider.  I am pretty tech savvy but haven't found a way with this particular provider to elimiate specific users like Joanne and Switchback from my mailbox.  It only allows me to identify those mail addresses that I would like to receive and this would be difficult to do.  Anyone else out there that uses this specific provider that has found a way to filter using their webmail tool?

If so, shoot me a message off-line.

Elevator

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Joanne Lennox" <goforth at cio.net> 

> 
> 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!! 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Pct-l mailing list 
> Pct-l at backcountry.net 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l