[pct-l] why close the burn areas?

[AsABat]

I see your points, but would if I agreed then I would argue we should also
close the forests to protect the animals during drought or when snow is on
the ground, as both reduce the browse available. There are some who advocate
creating wilderness completely closed to humans. I don't agree, I think we
need to educate humans on our resources and that is best done by seeing
wilderness.

PLEASE NOTE: I do NOT advocate breaking any laws. I respect closures, I just
don't agree with them, and wish they'd go away.
I'm sure another reason not mentioned are the archaeology surveys done after
fires that almost always reveal new sites. Speaking of picking up abandoned
property, the law requires we leave any artifacts where we find them. Sure
is tempting sometimes, but always leave them alone.

It seems to me the solution is educating users on proper behavior and
getting more enforcement in the field to make sure users do behave. I would
think the tickets could cover the enforcement costs.

AsABat


On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM, dsaufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:

> Personally, I don't like the fact that the forest is closed, but I try to
> see beyond this inconvenience to a bigger picture of what happened in this
> massive fire. From my view, the picture is more complicated than simple
> liability issues due to falling trees, though certainly deadfall and safety
> is often a primary concern (which really begs the question why route hikers
> onto dangerous highways? almost better to say nothing). I strongly
> recommend
> reading the entry dated 11/5/2009 at
> http://pcta.org/planning/during_trip/Trail_con_SC.asp?sect=D)  What weighs
> most heavily on my heart is the damage that was done to animal populations
> because of the Sheep and Station Fires. To quote information on the PCTA
> website, "info straight from the forest service fire zone inspection team
> the U.S. Forest Service scientists":
>
> ". . . much of the wildlife that makes its home in the 655,000-acre forest
> was killed or dislocated. Biologists say they found an unusually high
> number
> of large animals caught by the fast-moving fire. Teams have come across
> carcasses of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes and gray foxes,
> apparently unable to find escape routes. "Deer took a big hit," said Kevin
> Cooper, a wildlife biologist."
>
> Animals that did survive need a chance to recover along with the
> vegetation,
> and that means without being overrun by people and every harebrained thing
> that people do out there in the forest. Note too that the scientists feared
> a heavy rainy season back in November. All of their fears were realized by
> heavy rains this winter and spring (we're not done).
>
> The San Gabriels, with their proximity to massive population base, are
> particularly vulnerable to abuse. Thru-hikers may consider themselves
> comparatively low-impact in their use, the problem is, if they allow
> thru-hikers, the door is open for all other types of uses. Even with the
> closures they are having a hell of a time keeping out violators.  If they
> open the door an inch, the forest will be swamped by the tide, and it just
> can't handle it right now. OHV abuse becomes particularly destructive when
> there is no vegetation on the hillsides.  Vegetation normally channels them
> onto a trail/road, and without it every surface becomes rideable.
> Realistically, thru-hikers are not always low impact or no-trace in their
> use of the forest (for example, food and water caches, camping at water
> sources, leaving fire rings, notes intentionally left on trail for other
> hikers, etc.). Thru-hikers have also started plenty of fires along the
> trail
> in recent years.
>
> It's a bit baffling how different agencies (USFS, National Parks, BLM), and
> different jurisdictions within those agencies, have unique policies about
> dealing with burn areas.  In 2007 Mr. Mumbles was allowed to walk through
> an
> active burn north of Kennedy Meadows, right alongside the fire crews, and
> burning brush.  While they did close the trail at times thereafter, as soon
> as the fire moved through, it was reopened immediately. OTOH, the burn area
> created by the Buckweed Fire closed the Rowher Flat area of the Sierra
> Pelona for two entire years to allow vegetation recovery.  The Angeles NF,
> who I've observed is extremely restrictive, has also been closed (closing
> the PCT) when there were no active fires within their boundaries, though
> admittedly it was high fire danger and the humidity was so low it felt like
> things would spontaneously combust. There were fires elsewhere. It's just
> clear there's no uniform way that branches of government deal with trails
> and burns, and probably never will be consistent.
>
> Even though I don't like the closure, I understand, respect, and will abide
> by it. I am very hopeful that the Class of 2010 does as well.
>
> L-Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of AsABat
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:35 PM
> To: Gary Wright
> Cc: .; Ken Murray
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] why close the burn areas?
>
> > >>I don't fault government agencies for doing what is necessary to limit
> > their liability.  The fault lies with our law makers for creating the
> > liability in the first place and in us for encouraging our law makers to
> > 'protect us' from every possible risk.
> >
>
> I too am completely flabbergasted that any person or agency could be held
> liable for natural hazards.Might as well just close all areas that haven't
> been covered with buildings or pavement.
>
> I have witnessed three trees falling in the backcountry, none of these were
> in burn areas. I suggest that walking through the burn area is less
> dangerous than roadwalking.
>
> AsABat
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>
>