Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Los Angeles Times article 10/14/03

My (long winded as usual, sorry) 2 cents:

- Interview: A talk, okay. Having to "prove" what gear you've got by having to dump the contents of your pack out for a ranger, LAME. (Talk to someone for two minutes and you ought to be able to figure out if they've got a clue or not!)
If they don't mind staging a ranger at the trailhead/Portal campground/and or wherever overnight hikers will be allowed to stage from, okay I'll show you my stuff. But having to lug everything to the ranger station for this purpose? That would be beyond lame.
And, what about overnight permit pickups? How would that work??

- Guides: On the main trail? What are they going to do: Walk in front of you and sweep the trail off? There's like two places where the trail gets a little unclear, and just cast about a bit and you'll figure it out, or just wait for someone else to come along. Don't know what function they would perform that the pre-departure ranger screening wouldn't other than holding folks hands.

- Get rid of the toilets?? Insane. Like all the weekend warriors will do this? Not a chance. The Whitney wilderness (such as it is) will turn into a festering cesspool of human waste! Yech!

When my wife and I were there in June, we asked for WAG bags at the ranger station, and did indeed pack our waste out when not in vicinity of the solar toilets. But, it's not a particularly pleasant thing to do, and most people JUST WON'T DO IT. After all, how many folks ignore the "bear can" rule? How many times have you seen some moron walk over and start washing their food utensils directly in the lake at Trail Camp? Carrying a load of doodoo around in one's pack would be a lot harder to get people to do than either of the above!

I suppose they could up the permit fee by a couple bucks and "force" a WAG back on everyone and tell them that they are required to use them. But fat chance.

- Costs: Bill folks for the cost of their rescues. Make insurance available when you purchase your permit. $10/party or something. Folks who buy the insurance who have a problem are covered. Those who don't, well don't make any mistakes! Isn't there some mandatory "rescue insurance" program in place on Shasta or Baker or someplace up north?

Mt. Shasta doesn't even have a quota, you can self permit and pick up your poop bags at the trailhead, so I don't think there are any mandatory insurance policies in place.
I think a major problem with poop bags is that people, trying to save weight, don't bring enough and can you imagine packing out loose stool? Not to mention trying to contain it. Gross. On our last trip a member of our party had to "go" 7 times in a three day period, there is no way she could have anticipated this and packed in seven bags, therefore she would of had to dig a hole. I think that is what happens on Shasta, last year I was appauled by the amount of poop around the peramiter of Helen Lake, not even burried or perhaps it was burried under snow but then the snow melted, ewwww. Sorry to get graphic and long winded, just trying to prove a point that removing the toilets is a BAD idea.

To understate things, I have not seen anyone here endorse the new rules under consideration.

Fortunately, it's early in the process. Now would be a good time to communicate your views to the people who matter.

The Inyo National Forest District Ranger quoted in the LA Times article, Garry Oye, did not seem unreasonable. HE can be reached at:

White Mountain Ranger Station
Garry Oye, District Ranger
798 North Main Street
Bishop, CA 93514
760-873-2500

by the way it is the "Leftist Times"...

I'd bet ya 100 bucks that Garry Oye reads this message board along with many other Inyo rangers. I think this board is also valuable to them, if not for resource, at least for a good laugh every once in a while.

I think that everyone here has gotten the following points:

1. Some of the folks on this board think the LA Times times has a liberal bias.

2. Some of the folks covered by #1 feel a need to communicate their belief to the rest of us.

NEWS FLASHES:

1. Everyone in the world already knows that the LA Times has a liberal bias, just as they know that the LA Daily News has a conservative bias.

2. The folks on this board can live without your political insights.

To Inyo Rangers:
You may want to read opinions of experienced climbers about your regulations proposal on the <a href="http://www.summitpost.com/show/mread.pl?f_id=22&t_id=4368">SummitPost.com California message board</a>

No, DHMeieio, I do not work for the LA Times. My only connection to it is as a subscriber. I also subscribe to the LA Daily News, which is biased in the opposite direction.

My issue is no more persistent than your criticism of the Times. I don't care if people criticize the Times. It is covered by the First Amendment. I do think that we should work to keep boards like this one free of politics.

Your view that the Times has a leftist bias is irrelevant here. Your views on matters related to Mt. Whitney are the ones that belong here. The same goes for the other half-dozen or so posters who can't resist telling the world of their political insights. There are plenty of opportunities out there on the Internet to express your political views.

Man are you easy-
yes the leftangeles times is liberal garbage however if one is so easlily goated I would bet the daily news does not grace your table.

Bet, throcker? Why not? I'll bet you $5000 that there is a copy of today's LA Daily News on my dining room table right now.

There's only one problem. Your challenge was as empty as your posts are of meaningful content.

Just an FYI re the WAG bags...

SUPPOSEDLY (it says on the bag), they can be "re-used" up to (as I recall) five times!

No there's an appealing thought! (Fortunately not one we had to test!)

It's actually a pretty good system, a bag inside of another bag, ziplock tops (of course), with that new "goo" that they use for fire suppression gel, but as a powder so it works in reverse (i.e. it absorbs the moisture).

Don't believe, however, that the doo somehow gets dried out and crystalized or anything. The bag still retains a revolting "squishiness"...

(Sorry for being so explicit!)

alan the funny thing is , your so easy to get to reply.
ring ring
its time to eat
is your name really pavlow?

In regards to the three issues in the LA Times Article:

1) A simple check at the ranger station while picking up the permit is all that's needed to ascertain condition and gear. A ranger can easily tell if someone is likely to make it.
2) Guides are not needed on the main trail. There are more than enough people to show the way and help others in trouble. The MR is a different story.
3) It's absurd to require No. 2 bags on the Whitney trail. The main trail on Whitney is not a true "wilderness experience"; there are simply too many hikers. If there's a problem of cost to maintain the solar toilets, simply raise the hiking fee, or better, make the restrooms pay toilets. That way, they could show a profit. Pay potties seem to be popular everywhere else.

WhitWalker,
Regarding 1) - what do you propose to do about picking up permits overnight? Also, how would you deal with groups that split up/arrive separately and meet somewhere on the trail? Requirement for the group to show up at the ranger station will eliminate these options. How about HST/JMT hikers that arrive to the Whitney area from the other side and don't even see the ranger right before the Whitney hike?

Also, I disagree about the idea of allowing guides on MR/North Fork Lone Pine Creek and allocating for them already very limited # of permits. This trailhead is used to climb many peaks and routes in the area, and it is simply not fair to Russell, East Face of Whitney, Keeler Needle, etc. climbers.

IMO, this proposal is not well thought-through.

not thought out? yes thats the forrest service for ya
think about something, would the crowds be the same or less if their was a portal store at the bottom not the top?

Hey Bob R - thanks for pointing out a simple fact that there would be an interesting article on Whitney. Most of my backpacking buddies would be interested in reading that and could care less what paper it was published in. But some of the Whitney crowd sure gets excited about things that have little to do with the wilderness. Whitney is a wilderness and people that treat it like Disneyland have lost sight of what a treasure it is. For those that feel it isn't a wilderness then perhaps the forest service isn't doing enough to keep it that way. Hopefully the article will educate some people so Bob doesn't have to go out on as many rescues. Maybe some people need a reminder of what a great place California is and try something besides Whitney. Arnold ain't gonna help solve the Whitney issue. The LA times sells papers and reports the news. You can choose to read it or not - just like these posts.

If you have nothing better to do and read this far then here is my opinion. Remove all structures and amenities. Issue poop sacks. Start a fee system to staff enough wilderness rangers to enforce regulations that the majority of people seem to not understand. Make people be self sufficient. Now that is my ideal but obviously it ain't happening. I would gladly pay for the solar toilets because I realize people can't follow rules. I could do without burgers but the concession doesn't bother me since it's not in the wilderness area. Keep access to as many people as possible which means keeping the fee's reasonable and accessible equally to all. The quota is this mountain's only hope. Lastly - read any paper you wish - I don't give a crap, use it for tp if you have to!

apeman: "Lastly - read any paper you wish - I don't give a crap, use it for tp if you have to!"

I'm sure you meant to add: And please don't throw it, or any other tp, down the solar toilets! Pack it out!

I agree with those who think this ranger's proposals are poorly thought out. An important measure is: how much change (negative human impact) to the Whitney trail and camping area has there been since the 70's when the solar toilets were installed. If it has remained fairly stable in that time, then no changes are needed, especially not changes that add inconvenience to everyone. My impression is that the system is in relative equilibrium.

While I oppose change for change sake, I think the ongoing efforts to refine the permit system are good.

I only say this last because I think it is the real explanation for the motivation behind this ranger's plans. He is probably a chest-beating macho environmentalist who has to show that he is more concerned about the wilderness than anyone else at the table.

Wow! A "chest-beating macho environmentalist who has to show that he is more concerned about the wilderness than anyone else at the table."

You had a nice, intelligent post going but you had to go and join the macho, chest-beating ranters.

Actually, Oye came across as a pretty reasonable fellow. I don't like some of the ideas he's weighing, but he certainly didn't across as a change for the sake of change type. I am hopeful that the bad ideas will quietly die when he receives reasonable input a la the first part of your post.

Just an FYI - this is the link to the US forest service mission statement. It's unfortunate that one of their roles is policing which seems to give a lot of people problems. I have never had a bad experience with an employee - maybe because I read, understand and follow regulations. Notice that much of their mission statement involves input from us. Seems fair enough.

You can print this statement and use it as TP if you wish but read it first and don't throw garbage in the backcountry toilets!

http://www.fs.usda.gov/fsjobs/mission.html