[pct-l] Fw: Re: Scott and Joe hiking closure

[jeff.singewald at comcast.net]

Nice touch Peppermint.  Good list manners!  There is no need to forward off-line email exchanges, especially those containing vulger or offensive language.  If you and Kent can't get along offlist, don't bring you disagreements on the listor all of us to see.

By the way, not everyone agrees with your initial statements.  Sure, there have been a number of posts that have shared the same, but I am sure that there are many of us that have hiked the trail that feel differently.

For me, I know it would be a difficult decision to make.  Why, because I was forced to make similar decisions in 2006.  During the first fire closure, I actually discussed crossing the barrier with a BLM supervisor at the trailhead and he agreed to let me pass as it was his understanding the fire had not breached the PCT and he understood that as a thru-hiker I would make it through the 12 mile closure in 3-4 hours.  Turns out the fire had in fact breached the PCT and I ended up walking thru 2 miles of trail that was on-fire.  When I reached Big Lake Youth Camp I was able to call him and provide additional fire intel.  

On the second, at Harts Pass in the Pasayten Wilderness, the Forest Service had closed the final 35 miles of trail for precautionary reasons as the fire was some 5-10 miles away and they wanted to allow several days for the numerous weekend hikers to evacuate.  I decided to go through as I knew that I could cover 47 miles that final day and get through to Manning before many of the weekend hikers had evacuated.  But, to do this I still had to cross through this closure.

My point is that each person out there will make their own decisions.  Specific to Scott and Joe, the point I find interesting is that while they were "caught" by official personnel, they were apparently not reprimanded or fined for going through this closed section.  I would think that if the Forest Service wanted to make a point and show that these closures do mean just that, that some action would have been taken.

So Peppermint, let's play nice and when you can't play nice, many of use would like to request that you  keep your foul language off-list.

Enjoy your day,
Elevator

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: patti kulesz <peprmintpati88 at yahoo.com> 

> Well Kent how bout I forward this to everyone so they can give their opinions 
> too....then I won't look like a "god" to u anymore... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patti 
> 
> --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Kent Spring wrote: 
> 
> From: Kent Spring <> 
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure 
> To: peprmintpati88 at yahoo.com 
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 1:24 AM 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PAtti - 
> 
> I always enjoy seeing these flames on the PCT-L. Calling people assholes is a 
> real nice touch. I suppose someone died and left you the "God of the PCT" 
> title. 
> 
> I tried to say, but you apparently have trouble reading anything subtle, that 
> there are closures that are done where hikers really do need to stay away, such 
> as the frogs and active fires. 
> 
> However, you must really believe that the authorities in the forest service 
> always get it right, and never just use a ban for everyone, when what they 
> really want to keep out is the motor vehicles. 
> 
> I guess if you want to make judgements about two hikers with-out ever hearing 
> from them, then you will just go ahead. If you want to make judgements about 
> me, then the same goes. 
> 
> see ya, and hike your own hike, Kent 
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, patti kulesz wrote: 
> 
> From: patti kulesz 
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure 
> To: kjssail at yahoo.com 
> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 11:11 PM 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the closures are not just for the safety of the hikers and fire fighters....the 
> frog closure should be obvious, but just incase it wasn't. They are endangered 
> and need to be in a safe habitat. People walking through, picking them 
> up...accidentally stepping on them...doesn't keep them safe...therefore people 
> need to stay out. As for the areas where the old fires where...that's b/c the 
> area needs to grow back and people trampling through it off trail, etc will just 
> keep it fom growing back...not to mention that it can and will eventually cause 
> land slides in areas that would not have occured had people stayed out like they 
> were told. 
> 
> So yes I am judging those guys....I think they are assholes too. Everyone else 
> obviously agrees...or havent you been keeping up? Stay out of the closure areas 
> or I'll send my ranger friends after you! 
> 
> 
> 
> patti 
> 
> --- On Wed, 7/23/08, Kent Spring wrote: 
> 
> From: Kent Spring 
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure 
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net 
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 1:07 PM 
> 
> Hi - 
> 
> I guess that I would agree with some of the sentiment in this note, although I 
> can't agree totally. I hiked the section from Campo to Kennedy Meadows 
> this year before needing to leave the trail due an injury. During the time I 
> was on the trail we faced three "official" trail closures, two for 
> previous fires and one for habitat of endangered frogs. 
> 
> I can see where hikers have no business in active fire scenes. That 
> helicopter 
> that dropped water might have dropped fire retardant - which might have been 
> serious, plus hikers could either endanger themselves or the fire fighters. 
> 
> However, these closures due to "old" fires were very questionable and 
> apparently aimed at keeping off-road vehicles at bay, but hikers get caught in 
> the wide brush of Forest Service policy. The result is that hikers were put at 
> risk by being told to take a long road walk, where they exposed to many 
> vehicles. Yet the hikers who went thru the area said that the trail was in 
> fine shape, and there were no risks to either them or the habitat. 
> 
> I think that the FS/gov't needs to take a much more nuanced approach. They 
> should keep hikers out of areas where they really don't belong. Yet the 
> authorities should still understand that hikers are not the same as off-road 
> vehicles or other users in their destructive ability, and thus can safely hike 
> areas 
> where some "users" are excluded. 
> 
> It would appear that Scott and Joe were wrong to go thru an active area, but we 
> should let them answer for themselves before we convict them…. 
> 
> Kent 
> 
> > From: "Will Hiltz" 
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Scott and Joe hiking closure 
> > 
> > I'm sorry- am I the only one who has a problem with 
> > this? 
> > 
> > Fire closures are for everyone are they not? As stewards 
> > of the trail, 
> > shouldn't scott and joe be striving to display proper 
> > respect for the rules 
> > and regulations of the trail, especially considering they 
> > are role models 
> > and particularly well-known along the trail? Won't 
> > this increase the 
> > likelihood of other thrus doing the same thing and becoming 
> > less respectul 
> > of wilderness regulations/bear can laws/closures/LNT 
> > practices etc. because 
> > they 
> think they're "experts"? I know we all 
> > think Scott and Joe are 
> > super-awesome and hike really quickly but do we as a 
> > long-distance 
> > community, want to be seen as a group of hikers that view 
> > themselves "above" 
> > restrictions? In case it isn't clear, no I don't 
> > think going for the record 
> > exempts them. A record-breaking pace hike isn't any 
> > more important than 
> > someone trying to get from mexico to canada for the first 
> > time. Or should 
> > we all be ignoring fire closures? 
> > 
> > 
> > YITOOD, 
> > 
> > Easy 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Pct-l mailing list 
> Pct-l at backcountry.net 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Pct-l mailing list 
> Pct-l at backcountry.net 
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l