Inyo NF Closure 8/31 - 9/17

[ericmcornelius]

That is a bit pessimistic. Although fires are getting worse, not every year is going to be a drought year. Not every year will a fire like the Caldor fire threaten an iconic location like Tahoe.

I do think Inyo should have something like a "pass through" and open trailheads to those who will get into SEKI without overnight camping on Inyo.

I just made a request for a permit from Yosemite. Talked to the ranger, and he said it is not likely that they will shut anything down. There were quite a few permits still available. My request was for Labor Day, Rafferty Creek TH, and there were 11 permits available. The Yosemite permit system is quite easy and friendly, not currently through reserve.gov and it is quite easy to get a real person on the phone.

Actually saw a study that for Inyo south the monsoon has a far higher correlation with fire risk in a given season than snowpack.

We had a substantial monsoon this year, instead of all the dry lightning nightmares of last season.

[ericmcornelius]

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest just posted a closure notice for the Carson Ranger District and a day-use only order for the Bridgeport Ranger district.

It is interesting they are keeping hosted campgrounds open for the Bridgeport District and are allowing day use only.

Sounds like they've got a different risk profile.

Sure would be nice to see those discussions and criteria shared in a transparent manner becoming a governmental organization.

It really shows the different management ideologies from the regional offices. They could have aligned with the Pacific NW region and closed their CA portion to all camping and backcountry but they did not. I am curious too about how this decision was made and who pushed for this decision to close all the National Forests in CA

That's precisely why I want transparency into the decision making.

Randy Moore was just promoted to Chief, after all. Hard to go wrong repeating the boss's decisions from last year.

Hence my concern about this becoming a habitual action.

[maverick]

Inyo NF:

[redbear]

My 2 cents.. the government is trying to regulate people's safety yet again. One of their concerns is "entrapment" of campers/hikers if another fire were to break out. Here's an idea.. let a free American citizen decide what risks they choose to take in their own lives, rather than banning them from certain areas for "the greater good". Total BS in my opinion. Also, to everyone saying oh those poor firefighters working long hours in the tough conditions... well, they signed up for that job and most of them love it. If they don't, they can always quit just like any other job. As well as being mostly seasonal work, I highly doubt any of them are complaining about the OT right now. You really want to try to stop fires from starting? How about increasing the punishment for not following the fire restrictions already in place. Basically, the gov doesn't "trust" us to not start fires... even though there are already laws in place that disallow fires. I'm sorry.. but it is not the government's place to "trust" us or not. That is not their purpose. Rather than close everything, stop giving those who start fires a slap on the wrist and a fine. Make it hurt, make some examples out of idiots that don't get the damn clue. Jail time for anyone caught with a fire, and anyone who is convicted of starting a wildfire is accused of attempted manslaughter. If they can pin that on PG&E, surely they can pin it on an individual too. I'm sick of this crap. Because the gov is so incapable of managing OUR lands, they just shut them down? Typical California politicians being completely out of line. Oh and yes, I live in a serious fire danger area. Around here more fires are started from moron truckers that roast their brakes coming down highway 80 than any ohv'er/camper would start. Rant off

My exact thoughts and... surprised how many people here think it's ok or even necessary. But hey, you reap what you sow, isn't it?

[Wandering Daisy]

I think we are putting too much politics into our opinions. In spite of numerous rationalizations such as backpacker's safety, etc, the bottom line seems to be "resources". This word is used a lot. NPS ranger at Yosemite said the NPS is staying open because the NPS has "more resources". FS budgets have been decimated by fire fighting and not only do they have nothing left to fight new fires, there is little for regular duties, like enforcing the wilderness rules. Add to that COVID problems with staffing. And the headache of a new permit system. I do not see anything changing in the future unless the USDA-FS budgets are increased. You get what you pay for.

[iainmacdonald]

If you feel as strongly about this as some of you seem to, it's probably a better use of your time and energy to contact your senators and representative. They have a bit more sway over the USFS and their policies than any of the people on this forum.

[c9h13no3]

I think we are putting too much politics into our opinions.

This is absolutely true. I'm certainly in agreement with the view that there should be a way to mitigate fire risk without a full closure, especially since this is starting to become a predictable pattern during fire season. But when people start using talking points that are popular with a certain political viewpoint... I tune out.

I get that we're mostly coming here to vent, maybe it's too much to ask for this ****-fest to be constructive :P

[riromero]

All the bullet points in the notice are about safety and fire prevention. Not budgets or anything else. If they really want to prevent fires, they should permanently close all NF land to lightening strikes and power lines.

[texan]

WD is absolutely correct. "You get what you pay for". There are not enough resources because budgets have not been increased.

Texan

[SSSdave]

Generally agree with WD. Much like with broadly cast pandemic policies last year, issues with backpacking would obviously be well down a list of reasons the NFS issued the policy.