[Az-Geocaching] Re: Re: Why exclude non-smoking day hikers????

[Fred Coe]

Hmmmm,

Who is going to search the packs?  The Forest Service is way to busy under
these conditions to do it, besides, I don't think it is consititutional.

Will the non-smoking day hikers in areas otherwised closed still need/want
to be evacuated in case of a fire?  Or should they just be left to fend for
themselves?

Most, if not all of the discussion I've seen on this topic (and I'm only
home long enough to grab some clean undies before heading back to the
Bullock Fire) is addressing the issue of ignition.  Having areas closed
makes suppression far easier.  Roads in areas closed are designated as
one-way routes (and the direction of travel changes as various times of the
day) in order to facilitate the rapid response of resources. This activity
is far easier to do in a controlled area.

Casual visitors near the fire (the lookie loos) are as disruptuptive and
dangerous to the fire suppression efforts as other factors (terrain,
weather, fuel type).  I have seen some idiot in their Yugo (or whatever it
was), block a main fire control road and argue with two strike teams of
engines (that's 10 fire engines) about if he had the 'right to be parked in
the middle of the road'.  It took over 45 minutes for law enforcement
officers to get to the scene.  Since I was taking photos of this
demostration of 'common sense', I got to bring them to the case before the
Federal Magistrate.  The guy got a $2000 fine, a suspended prison sentence,
but a condition of probation was that he not set foot on BLM land (I worked
for them then) for five years (how that was to be enforced was beyond me).

Public lands are not Closed just to prevent fires (although it is hoped that
the number of fires will be reduced).  Other factors are considered in
making the decision to close these lands.  As others have said, I don't like
having the public lands closed, but I certainly understand the reasons and
the need.  There are more reasons than just preventing wildland fires.

--Fred
Team Boulder Creek

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Schwarz" <malthusian@mindspring.com>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Re: Re: Why exclude non-smoking day hikers????


> At  11:38:45 5/21/02 -0700, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >>In my opinion, the ban on entry to national forests should only apply
> >>to people in vehicles, and those intending to stay overnite.  Day hikers
> >>should still be allowed in, perhaps with their packs being searched,
> >>and having them "sign in" and "sign out" at the trailhead.  There is no
> >>threat of forest fires from nonsmoking day hikers, even with the
> >>tinder-dry conditions we have right now.
> >>
> >>Mike (Malthusian)
> >
> >Isn't that sort of an elitist attitude about the forest?  What evidence
do
> >you have that people who drive vehicles into the forest are causing
> >fires?  I can understand the overnight campers are more likely to have a
> >fire, but I fail to see why simply driving a vehicle makes you
undesirable
> >to be in the forest.  Also, why is it better to be a non-smoking day
hiker
> >instead of a non-smoking vehicle driver?
> >
> >I don't know if it was intended or not, but it seems like your belief is
> >that your use of the forest is ok, but others that want to use the forest
> >in a different way is bad.
> >
> >Personally I don't want to see any closure of the forest.  I can
understand
> >the reason why they want to do it, but I still don't agree with it.
> >
> >
> >Scott
> >Team My Blue Heaven
> >www.myblueheaven.com/geocache
> >
> >
> I will state again that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a nonsmoking
> day hiker walking thru a national forest would ever cause a forest
> fire.  When people come in in vehicles, they just have a lot more
> combustible "stuff" with them.  A spark or heat from the pickup truck
> or SUV itself could start a fire.
>
> A day hiker is limited to a day pack, water bottles, and a few other
> items.  Again, I'd like to know of a specific instance where a day
> hiker started a forest fire.  If no one can cite any such instances,
> I'll assume that means "no contest" from everybody.
>
> In general, almost all the people who are irresponsible are non-hiking
> people.  These are the types that built the illegal campfires in
> Prescott National forest.  Have you noticed that you see trash along
> the trail close to a trailhead (maybe for the first 1 or 2 tenths of
> a mile), then everything is clean after that?  Why is that?  This is
> not an "elitist attitude", this is based on 25+ years of objective
> observations on my part.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list
> listserv@azgeocaching.com
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>