new burden with Eastern Sierra wilderness permits

[hikerduane]

I would be frustrated too Dave since most of my trips involve hours of travel and I would like to start early the next morning and not have to wait until the office opens. On my vacation a few weeks ago out of the Mammoth area, they had my info in their system from past trips or my most recent reservation I didn't ask, so it was easy to change my previously made reservation to a start that morning. I have my doubts about a LNT talk before picking up a permit. We all get a talk most times now about campfires and human waste and we all still see it happening. It will just hamper us who have to travel far or want to get an early start. I see this as no solution. On a positive note, the Mammoth RS has been nice to leave permits out the night before if you want to pick up your permit and be able to leave at you convenience the next day if you call ahead if you made reservations and the good people who issue permits into the Emigrant Wilderness will mail you a permit if you are entering from the east side or north by the Sonora Pass and driving down 395 to get there to save you the drive to the office. Sorry can't think of the tiny spot just now close to Sonora. Pinecrest?

[SSSdave]

Thanks for the inputs and I'd appreciate seeing others continue to chime in on this too so I can reflect some broad consensus with we Sierra mountain folk. Glad to hear some of you are thinking along the same lines I've already considered. First here in summary is what their basic needs are:

1. Park/forest service issues permits to overnight backcountry visitors limited by their trailhead quota policies.
2. Park/forest service needs to inform we overnight backcountry visitors on the environmental policies like LNT practice, campsite restrictions, campfire elevation and location restrictions, food storage bear issues, and possible up to date special information like forest fires and trail closures and problems.
3. Park/forest service needs to communicate the information to all those in groups not just the one person picking up permits.
4. Park/forest service backcountry rangers may check backcountry visitors for a valid wilderness permit and enforce policies and issue fines for non-compliance.

The major flaws are with items 2 and 3. Some are not reading the policies on the forms left in the night boxes. Others have read them or heard them often many times but simply for whatever reasons, inconsiderate, selfish, rebellious, careless, ignorant or whatever decided to disregard them. Some of them have likely been caught by wilderness rangers and slyly whined ignorance because they claim to have not to bothered to have read the policies and am hoping for some mercy less a citation. Due to the night box pick up at least one person should have read it but without the forced face to face session, the claim of ignorance leaves doubt with the enforcement. And I would speculate the park/forest service maybe see that as a legal hole that is letting some of those morons off the hook but would like to at least hold the permit requester responsible.

Now even with the new policy, probably only a single uno one person gets the face to face chat. And that probably is barely if at all communicated beyond. The larger the group the less so. Most of us when getting together with other supposedly seasoned backcountry users do not try educating the others just because we are not sure what they know. Heck at the trailhead, we start right up the trail without wasting time, expecting that they've heard or read the policies and practices themselves enough that they don't need additional preaching from the leader. Now with novices, yeah I take them aside for some enlightment or if later I see some veteran being naughty slap their peepee and say no-no. Like the usual stuff of camping too close to lakes or those that have a bent for making fires regardless of regs. Not in my group if I have the permit. Because of the above, I have to believe the park/forest service knows except for the leader, communicating policy to the rest is a big unknown. So this issue is more about covering up some legal loopholes than really getting at the root of the problem and exerting some pressures on all of us that over a long time will filter down maybe through peer pressure to the bottom dwellers at fault.

Now they could demand that everyone in a group show up for the permit chat. Of course that would not go over well at all since individuals in larger groups often arrive at trailheads at different times and stage the departure from different overnight camps, motels, etc. And what if someone doesn't show at all? Does everyone wait while Elmo is still sleeping down in his motel with a whiskey hangover? Or Jane who bailed out back in town Friday but never bothered to tell anyone after work because her workaholic boss wants donuts on his desk Saturday morning? So the everyone meets for the chat possibility is a dead idea no intelligent mind ought to contemplate more than a few minutoes.

But we live in the hi tech age now of communication. A lot of us use the internet including the park/forest services that all have sites now with various information. In some places there is quite a bit of information about the permit process though none of them to my knowledge have an internet accessible permit request function. Probably just as well too. As someone in hi tech and software for many years, it is easy for me to imagine a number of ways they could run programs that would get this policy information to all those in groups on a permit. Some may simply suggest some online test process for the person picking up the permit, but that does not get to the rest of the group. To do that, other participants in a group would inevitably lose their anonymous invisibility. Yes they would need to show themselves somehow, their name, address, and phone numbers is likely personal information certain to be needed. Fine with me though some might cringe.

So when requesting a wilderness reservation, a person might need to list the names, addresses, and phone numbers of everyone in their group which would go into the park/forest service computer database. For those like me that have been reserving permits for years, I'm already in a lot of their systems. Now the tricky part is how to remotely get each one of those people on a given list to be the genuine people that actually look at the wilderness policy information and then take an online policy test. Lacking safeguards, it would be easy for just one knowledgeable person to fake taking the test of everyone in their group. One way to do that is for the park/forest service to set up say a phone system with a caller id type function that compares the phone number of a callee to a list of current open wilderness permit reservation listings. If a person is on a list in a reserved group, then a random numerical key is provided for just that person. Could be automated with a robot voice system even. Next the person uses that numerical key to access policy information at the park/forest service internet site about the area they will be visiting. Additionally to insure they acutally read the policy information, that key then provides a modest online test to them that they need to pass. If they don't, then they are forced to sequence through the policy pages again and subsequently re-take the test until they pass. If they don't after say 3 attempts, maybe they deserve a face to face chat. Kids and youth would be exempt as long as adults were guiding a group. Those that don't have an internet access could visit their library or friends that do. Else they could listen to a face to face talk with a ranger. There would certainly be ways for people to cheat if they were determined to do so. Like setting up a list of phony phone numbers that just one person took the test for a group from. Or one knowledgeable person visiting every person on a lists residence to take their tests. However the numbers that might cheat I would expect to be low while the increase in good communication would be a huge improvement.

Someone without the technical background might think my idea a big expensive process to implement. But that is not at all the case as there are thousands of IT software people out there today that do just these kinds of things for businesses. So yeah some modest upfront cost and an IT contract and then it is a smooth process for all involved and the park/forest service is now getting much better communication to the full group of backcountry users unlike before. After Inyo/SEKI they can export it elsewhere at lower cost. If anyone is caught breaking rules there is no more ******** excuses and they get spanked. ...David

[hikerduane]

A couple things I forgot to mention yesterday, when asked if I had a bear canister when I picked up my permit at Mammoth, I said yes, they didn't even ask what kind or model. The wilderness ranger doing trail work with interns around Purple Lake didn't think I was in compliance with my green Ursack TKO w/upgrade. She thought it should be hung. I told her no. She wanted my email addy so she could let me know what she found out. No word yet and I have been back home now for almost 3 weeks. Of course all of this only involves the Forest Service not the Park Service.

[markskor]

Dave,
You make some good points in your summary, however your "in depth" attempt to place the entire burden of educating all members on FS policy - (having each member contacted individually to prove that they understand all the tenets of backcountry etiquette) appears flawed. This places a heavy burden - both in money and time - on the Park Service...forms...numerous calls...listing all names...etc. Why not place this necessary education prerequisite on the leader instead? Just make it mandatory that this "burden" of education of all members in the party falls squarely on the leader (permit signer) and also hold him or her accountable for all members in the party. Then when a backcountry violation is spotted and cited, both the leader and the actual violating member both get a ticket.

This would force us as leaders to actually take the time to set up some sort of a class at home (or at the campsite) to thoroughly educate our party on our own terms. This takes care of not letting many of those who do not care to listen to the ranger speech not get away with not listening to a stranger in the permit office. We know our party...who is or is not educated...better than those at the crowded FS permit office. We know what needs to be said after countless times hearing the same speech anyway.

Thus, this makes it is our job - as leaders - to educate our party, not the Rangers. We sign for the permit. Let us gladly take this responsibility on ourselves and not place any un-necessary hardships on those in the permit office. It seems better to accept that maybe we are somewhat liable for teaching manners to our followers...if not; we should accept the ticket too. That is what real leaders do.
Mark

[SSSdave]

Mark I wish your idea would work as it would sure make things easier. Thanks for taking time to toss out some ideas. Essentially it is already the system in place, though without any heavy emphasis from park/forest service policy on holding leaders responsible. A system which is effective among many groups and people but apparently is not reaching or having an effect on those that are causing problems that are now resulting in this face to face chat situation burdening us. However as one that often obtains permits, on my own group trips, I expect that anyone caught breaking rules where I've obtained the permit, may result in my personally being held accountable too. Thus if a backcountry ranger came to one of my camps where one of the group had decided to camp beside the water, I've always expected some responsibility would fall on me while an excuse of "Well I told Waldo he ought not camp there but he still did?" won't fly with rangers. To get around that in groups where several unfamiliar people are meeting for a trip I'm planning, I tend to prefer individuals to get their own permits and simply tag along with a group. That way they have a lot of independent options if they wish to diverge elsewhere or leave early. But with always smooth talking slippery lawyers and courts I have some doubts about whether those in a situation facing a citation and fine get the same stiff treatment.

If the park and forest service think they can more effectively coerce leaders to communicate policy, then great, it will make things simple with costs low. However history of backcountry users and human nature is working against it. Without someone with a hammer banging on the head of some personalities, I just don't see much change. Those rednecks only interested in reaching some lake to plunk in their PowerBait, tossing in beer cans like they do down in our low elevation public reservoirs, will continue to do so. Rebellious young persons leading groups will ignore directions to say anything to their like friends who usually don't like anyone telling them what to do. The unassertive leader that is too mild mannered will likely continue to say little to other adults as that is their quiet non-confrontational nature. So ignorant in such groups will continue to remain so not following recognized LNT practices. Even with a process in place like I outlined, some of those people will choose to ignore correct policy. But making even the rebellious or redneck person read policy and take a simple test about such will tend to confront them with some societal guilt that over time may have a considerable influence on changing their otherwise offensive ways. I could go on with more examples.

What I am basically saying is, given backcountry history of what I've seen over the years and human nature, I just don't have much confidence in any system that doesn't shake up the current system because the bottom dwellers are beyond much influence of merely applying more pressure to those picking up permits. At least given the situation that there will not be some miraculous increase in the numbers of enforcement backcountry rangers all over the wilderness areas. With few rangers out there to make them think twice, they will continue to do whatever they want and those ignorant will continue habits of morons. ...David

[dave54]

...Someone without the technical background might think my idea a big expensive process to implement. But that is not at all the case as there are thousands of IT software people out there today that do just these kinds of things for businesses ...David

The golearn.gov website run by the the Feds (OPM) already uses the same technology. Web based courses for current federal employees. It would be relatively simple to transfer the same concept to public use, especially since the instruction and orientation would not be hours in length like the golearn site, and the feds already have a license to use the software.

The Univ of Montana already offers an on-line degree program in wilderness management. Contract with them.

[SSSdave]

A low percentage of backpackers on this small board responded which makes me wonder if many of you care about this burdensome policy situation. No use for me trying to change it if the community is apathetic and instead will deal with whatever the park and forest service demands on us.. The park service will otherwise just give me lip service and simply ignore my inputs, thinking we will get used to not having night box pickups over time. That would be just fine with them as it requires nothing more to do on their part beyond what they already do. And SEKI has been doing that to those getting permits from them directlyon the west slopes anyway with the perception all is fine with the status quo. Personally I greatly dislike the lack of night box pickups in the national parks and the result has been I backpack there much less than national forest service wilderness areas. Same thing with some of the bear policies that prevent me from taking 9-day trips where I can't reach more remote locations at least 3 days from trailheads like I used to because I can't fit more than 5 or 6 days worth of food into cannisters though might with two Ursacks. I wish more of us would get together and as a coherant community of enthusiasts complain. I'm personally willing to waste some effort and time to make change.

I've created a more detailed process the forest service might easily implement that minimizes their involvement and overhead that doesn't include any serious IT software expense or hi tech approach. One can disregard what I suggested earlier as a process. It involves users emailing in ordinary computer printer sheets with an image of their drivers licence, keeping a simple paper database file of such, and maintaining some simple web pages containing policy tests that users would email back to a specific email address at the reservation office. Prevents cheating and could be maintained in simple ways without complication. The result would be better for the forest and park service in terms of having backcountry users know their policies better as well as allow us to pursue our activities without being burdened with this permit system as is the situation now. If some here would like me to post that process and review and modify it, I am willing to do so. ...David

[markskor]

Dave,
Please continue to post away my friend. Good or bad, I want all the details.

Some of us are very much behind you and all your efforts to keep our backcountry freedoms alive and readily accessible.
I too strongly believe in being pro-active on any future and relevant rule changes...as the song says _
"You don't know what you got till it's gone."

Maybe it is a reflection on today's couch-potato society mentality...less and less venture out today into the wilds...more and more seem just do not give a rat's ass until they wake up, and sorrowfully find that what they remember as great about their childhood mountain experiences from years past has been covertly taken away by some bureaucrat sitting in a plush office...clueless. The Sierra still belongs to us.

Maybe all those who really care are out rambling in the mountains...nothing like summer in the Sierra; nevertheless...all will eventually and eagerly react after it is too late to make a difference.
So all my friends...speak up now...or lose what you have later.
I still like the idea of putting a heavy fine on the leader/permit signer...taking much of the responsibility on ourselves...if allowed. Having those in the office do anything extra seems a waste of time...I know they wasted a lot of mine in the past already.
Keep up the good fight!
Mark

[hikerduane]

It finally came thru today, that you already have to get a permit in person in some Parks like Yosemite. Lassen Volcanic National Park you can get a permit ahead of time which makes it nice. I have finally started visiting Yosemite after realizing there aren't the hoards of people there on the east side at least and Pooch is no longer around. If you make reservations for a back country overnight trip you have to pick up the permit the day before. If picking up a permit the day you start, you have to wait until 8:00 AM to get it. This is from my few short years hitting the parks since I never went bping where dogs were not allowed until Pooch passed on. We can always avoid the areas where it is inconvenient like Dave said I believe but the permit process can get more restrictive to the point where we have no new place to go or variety of places to visit.

[SSSdave]

Per my above posts in this thread, I've considered the last few days what we backpackers might do to convince SEKI to modify or change the face to face chat policy so at least we more frequent enthusiasts can once again use the night box pickups for reasons both I and others have commented about. Accordingly I've brainstormed some form of testing or internet web site request and testing system. All those ideas would require a little or a lot of upfront work and costs as well as overhead on their daily workloads. The less we can burden their current system the more likely they will be agreeable to any change.

I do have one very simply idea that would work that someone probably has already mentioned to them but for whatever reason was not considered workable. Currently anyone with a reservation that wants a night box pickup needs to phone the ranger station where they wish to pick up their permit within a day of their trip starting date. I make that call during the work day we will be driving up, giving the forest service person my name and reservation number. After the call they then crank the permit out of their computers, add the information packet, and at some point place all those next day permits in their night boxes before the end of the work day. Usually I ask them at that time if there are any special new warnings in the area we will be visiting like forest fires etc.

Now why not simply have the forest service give the speech over the phone at that time? They have all the information that needs to be communicated right at their disposal and usually have been repeating such regularly during the day to others. Whether the person talks to them face to face or over the phone ought not make any difference to experienced users given the simple information being conveyed. Information that most of we wilderness veterans have heard many times. They ought not have any doubts about who they are talking to since only the trip leader will have the permit reservation number. Now the forest service could require the person phoning in to have the mailed policy sheet right there along with a topographic map while talking to them in case they wanted to emphasize something like no camping or fire restrictions in some areas with a map. So really there is nothing more that needs to be communicated, nor a reason why simply making that communication over the phone ought not work well in at least communicating policy to the leader. If they wish to improve communication to the rest of the group, they can either emphasize the need for leaders to do so lest they be also subject for fines if other members in their group break rules.

This morning I phoned up SEKI and spoke with the wilderness coordinator who pleasantly took the time to listen to my above ideas and relate their reasons for the current policy. He said there are reasons why a face to face talk will be more effective than one over the phone and I agreed that would tend to be the case especially with less experienced users and novices while experienced backcountry users can probably listen to policy information over the phone and absorb that information effectively because it is simple information they are already familiar with. He said the current policy would continue through the rest of the season but that they will consider and explore ways to implement the policy with less inconvenience to users next year. Thus we can at least hope for a change by next summer. As I have his email address, I will be summarizing the above and emailing him in the near future on what we discussed. ...David