by Rob » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:20 am
by goldenhopper » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:34 am
by paisajeroamericano » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:30 pm
by Rob » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:06 am
"It's not just safety but also we have to allow the area to recover because if we allow people to start trampling over regrowth then they've just set it back another year. We hope people will be patient enough, allow natural recovery to begin, and then we can get some of these areas open."
by goldenhopper » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:10 am
Gary Schenk wrote:NancyHands wrote:I can deal with avoiding certain areas, but it must really suck for people who have PCT plans that have taken months or even years of planning to find out they can't do it by the book.
Considering the number of fires thruhikers have started with their alcohol stoves over the years, it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for them.
by Tom Kenney » Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:28 pm
by goldenhopper » Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:59 pm
Gary Schenk wrote: Read some of the books and journals and you'll be amazed at how many have never backpacked before starting out. People show up in Campo with hammocks because that's what worked on the AT and are shocked to discover there are no trees.
by Rob » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:21 am
Tom Kenney wrote:SpiderSavage wrote:Closed, but not air tight.
True. (5x...wink, wink, nudge, nudge...say no more!)
Few of the routes we do to the peaks are on trail.
Another concern could be erosion. Much of the off-trail soil has been softened, making it very easy for people to 'break off' the edges of the trail.
by labgloves » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 pm
by zarka » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:54 am
I'm strongly of the opinion that the forest should be open. But, in truth there is quite a bit more work to be done on the trails . . .
In the conversations I've had with forest service folks (mostly during trail work sessions), the biggest single concern seems to be safety/liability.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests