Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Permit maneuvers

I haven't found any fine print in the permit applicaton web site, but it seems that I've heard that if I and my two hiking partners each submit an application for three hikers, naming each other as backup leaders, we'd get our applications tossed out because they would be considered "duplicate applications". If this is the case, then leaving the "substitute leader" section blank would be a way around, but I'd just as soon do it right. Any thoughts?

My understanding is that you do not have to name alternate leaders. If you do not and the leader can't make the hike, then the others are out-of-luck -- the permit cannot be used. The Forest Service considers the permit to be a contract between themselves and the leader or alternates. It might be worth a call to the Bishop office to find out if three applications that just shuffled the names around would be considered duplicates. It wouldn't surprise me.

Look at the Wilderness Permit Reservation Application Instructions. It doesn't look like they kick you out of the lottery but that you get charged the nonrefundable $15 for every name on every application. You might want to check with the Wilderness Reservation Office directly on this issue. 760-873-2483. Rick

From my reading of the permit reservation application process, I think that multiple applications by members of the same group for what amounts to that same group taking the same hike will all be tossed. Only one application per group/hike is allowed. Best to designate alternate leaders on the single application. Here are a couple of relevant excerpts from the application process info from Inyo's site:

"We do NOT accept duplicate applications under any circumstances."

and

"In the [A]lternate [L]eaders section of the permit, please include the names of up to three people who will be traveling with you. In the event that the permit holder is unable to participate in the hike, any of these people can legally carry the permit in place of the original group leader."

Richard - Your first two sentences seem to contradict each other (perhaps the word "not" doesn't belong in one of them). As you can see from the previous quote, the contract is between the leader or any of the three alternates; and thus, only group members *other than* those four persons would be out of luck, and only if the leader AND all three alternates backed out of the hike.

Though not required, the Forest Service seems to encourage group sizes of four or less. The limitation on the number of alternate leaders to three persons (which makes a group size of four, when added to the leader) strikes me as deliberate on their part to "encourage" this four-person group size.

If you do not name alternates, then you have only a single leader. If that single leader can't go, then the permit is unusable. However, it is not mandatory to name any alternates if a group wants to take that risk. I fail to see any Forest Service conspiracy to limit group size to 4 when the application plainly states "Maximum group size is 15." Someone just figured that 3 should be enough and, besides, the form is full. There isn't room for any more.

Holding aside the technicalities of the permit process, what do you think is the right thing to do? Asked differently, if you lost out on a permit because someone else did what you are talking about, do you think it was ok?

Since you already know that it is wrong, why test to see if the park service catches you at it?

Have any of you ever wondered why the LP office never asks for your ID when you show up to get permits?

HOYL - I have wondered about their failure to ask for ID myself. Of course, you have to present the acceptance letter to get a permit, but I've never seen the rangers try to match that person's name to what is in the letter. Since some of the rangers read this board, that could change!

So the answer to my question seems to be that as long as I don't mind 'working' the system, am willing to assume the risks of not naming any alternate leaders, and can pony up the $45 between the three of us for the permit, then the Inyo Nat'l Forest doesn't have the resources nor the will to worry about it.
As to WAclimber's question, (How would I feel if I were the hiker not chosen because of this chicanery)I guess I'd just conclude, cynically, that "life's like that."
At least I wouldn't be completly cheating on the system like many of the non-permitted hikers I ran into on my Whitney ascent last July. (The only ranger I ever saw was in the office in Lone Pine.)
Thanks for all your suggestions and happy hiking.

I can not believe some of the comments on this string. I strongly agree with WAclimber. Why can't we just do what is right. If every group that put a permit in for Whitney did what you are proposing to do the lottery would be a disaster and then, you guessed it, more government involvement and hoops to jump through to clean the mess up.

Two Questions -

1. For winter ascents, does one still self register?

2. Are they now requiring bear cannisters for winter ascents?

1. Yes.

2. Dayhike only (no - year round); overnight (yes - year round). While the bear canister language on the Forest Service web site does not specifically say "year round", it doesn't specifically limit them to any "less than year round" time period either. Absent it saying something like "bear canisters are required only between the dates of [date] and [date]", I think it would be safest to assume that "year round" is implied. If it were not, specific effective dates for this requirement probably would have been mentioned.

Your comment "At least I wouldn't be completly cheating on the system" really says it all. So you know you're cheating the system and your only defense is that it is a lesser offense than others. If I couldn't climb because you and your buddies ended up with multiple permits and only used one, I would be really pissed off. If you choose to do that to your fellow climbers, it says a lot about who you are. Think about it.

An interesting question on the Bear Cans. Obviously, carrying a bear can in the dead of winter is useless, and I can't believe that anyone would be cited for that omission. They must actually have some real work to do. So, I imagine the requirement is not specified, as snow will vary from year to year. So it is probably one of those regulations that is ignored when it obviously has no merit.

It makes me wonder about doing a long ski ascent up into Tuolumne Meadows during the winter. I understand that a ranger is often there. I wonder if they check for bear cans?

Not to say it isn't possible, but I've never seen anyone, anywhere, talk about problems from the authorities about this.

Concerning the permit issue, since the rangers apparently do not check IDs, it presents the opportunity for some entrepreneur to start a website titled, "The Mt. Whitney Permit Exchange".
Here permits could be bought and sold depending on market, snow, and ranger presence conditions. This would be free market economics at its finest.
One slogan for it could be, "If you can't go, we'll make you some dough!".

I was wondering if providing 12 alternate dates rather than just let's say 2 or 3 gives you more chance to get a permit?

Also is it better to avoid week-end to get a better chance to have your application selected?

-Chris

Christophe - The answer to both your questions is yes. The more alternate dates you give increases your chances that one of them is open. Weekends always fill before weekdays. Once the lottery is underway, you can check which dates are open or full at this web site:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/recreation/wild/availability/whitney.html