Re: [pct-l] rumors?2

[Birgitte Jensen <bjensen4@juno.com>]

>> Nobody_ has to "get a permit for every [area] they pass through" -
it's one
>> permit-per-trip for everybody: backpackers, horsemen, you name it.  
bj
    >Yeah - that is the way it is now - but it wasn't always so.  And
there 
>are those who'd like to see it revert to forcing hikers to get - what
>was it - 5(?) permits rather than one.       jrowen

     Jim, since you seem to want to "talk this out" on-list, I'm gonna
make an exception and reply  to what looks to me like an invitation to
one of those "flame wars". You used the title of a post of mine
"room4everybody" (a plea _not_ to pit  people against each other) to do
that very thing: to tell the list about an alleged "story coming out of
The Gatherings" (any other Gathering attendees know about that?) that
said a ranger /rangers would require thruhikers to "get a permit for
every National Park and Forest that they pass through."  You then spelled
out what disruption this would wreak to the thruhikers' timetable, in
case somebody missed the point that rangers were out to get them <g>,
sigh... In the interest of fact, and to reassure anybody who was alarmed
by you post, I passed on the information that nobody has to - well,
you've quoted me above...worry.

     I dunno about long-ago policy being different, but I don't
understand your reason for dredging it up when things are okay now - and
have been as long as _I_remember, which is an embarassingly long time. I
also can't speak for some ominous-sounding "there are those"-types who
are out to get thruhikers or something: could you be a tad more specific?
The impression I got from your post is that you're warning folks to
beware (or something more aggressive?) of an unnamed Enemy - hardly in
the "can't we all get along"-spirit of my post! Isn't it more pleasant to
stress the positive aspects of Community, than constantly rally people
against  "outsiders"?
    You mentioned that you could give "proof". Personally, I squirm about
demanding such things, but since you brought it up <g>: what are you
offering to prove, exactly? The implication that thruhikers are gonna
have their special permit status removed, or that a bit of tittle-tattle
was/is circulating around your circle? Just going by a few posts that
crop on this list alone, it's undoubtedly true that there _are_
individuals who are not crazy about thruhiking or even thruhikers, but
why keep reminding people all the time? I doubt if there are hate crimes
against thruhikers being committed on the PCT (or even being
contemplated), so why stir folks up and make 'em possibly feel bad?
   
   As "oldtimers" on the list know, I'm one of those who appreciates the
efforts of the  agencies (like the FS) in dealing with the difficult
problems of land-management. I don't think they're perfect or ideally
coordinated, but I don't sense a conspiracy against any group, either.
I'm glad you added that you do not see the NPS as the "problem" (tho I
still don't see what "the problem" about thruhiker permits is - sorry).
If you believe "a ranger" is acting inappropriately, I suggest you write
immediately to his supervisors and tell them, so they can discipline,
re-educate, I dunno, the individual.

>  You've been on that side of the fence too long, bj.  
>You ought to try it from this side.  It's a different perspective. 

    It's true I haven't done any long-distance hiking in years, Jim; my
backpacks generally last 10 days or even less.  That fact doesn't force
me to one side of any "fence" though - you've brought up the point of my
"room4everybody post" again: why should we be stuck into arbitrary
categories, to be pushed into an unneccessary enmity with each other? I
haven't been able to ski the backcountry at all this winter, but that
doesn't automatically make me a "skier-hater".... Some people choose
thruhiking as their only form of hiking, but not _all_ people who've
"completed" a trail do, and others prefer exploration/wandering to more
linear travel. Nobody, surely, " thruhikes" all the time for years; most
of us enjoy a variety of activities and we'd go nuts leaping back/forth
over your fence each time we did! <VBG>

> Is you is, or is you ain't a ranger?
>I don't really care one way or the other, but I've long since tired of
>the "secrecy" about it.  It isn't friendly.

   Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor! <LOL> Is _that_ why
you've been heckling me all the months? Now it all falls into place -
sort of! I well-remember that time Brick, who's always grousing about The
Government, out-of-the-blue posted that I was a big-time Park Ranger or
something; the implication  was, I believe, that all rangers are the
AntiChrist, and he wanted to tar me with the same brush, so to speak.
Altho (as you say) I've flatly denied it so many times I have
wrist-damage <g>, a few die-hards like you keep that tale circulating.
(Every once in awhile, I get an e-mail from somebody wanting a souvenir
Whitney sticker or Smokey The Bear poster, and I have to go on the old "I
am not a  ranger nor have I ever been" hotseat. Remind  anyone of any era
in our nation's history, ahem?)
     Holy Canoli! talk about "unfriendly secrecy".... that behind-my-back
(thanks for spilling the beans to me,  you guys) smear-campaign has made
me miserable, and been the source of those off-the-wall posts/e-mails
too, I'll wager. 

>     you've bitched and moaned and complained about anyone who says,
>implies or even thinks that you might be a ranger.

    Well, your language is kind of nasty, but sure, wouldn't _anybody_ be
nonplussed to have somebody publicly announce something untrue (and
rather personal/astonishing) about them, and keep referring to it
publicly and privately for a long time, in spite of all  denials.? I
haven't complained, BTW, about what anybody on the list "thinks" about me
- only what they insist on saying if it's untrue, like the
ranger-nonsense. I'm sorry if my protests have been a bore to anybody,
but surely it's understandable why I'd have to keep on denying the rumor
- you keep bringing it up, Jim! 
    Notice I don't use the word "slander". As others have reminded me
(when I privately groan about your calling me names): I should take it as
a kind of compliment, like all the other attention you've paid me. I
admire ranger-as-a-group, andI'd _love_ to have a cool tan uniform and
get paid to walk around the backcountry - unfortunately I hear the job's
alot harder than that, and the pay's terrible! <g>

> it would be nice to get a straight, substantive answer from
>you. For me, it would be a first.  :-)

   That's (another) horrid thing to say to me, Jim. You're telling my
fellow pct-listers that I'm a sneak and a liar, which is 1) uncalled for
and untrue 2) I believe what the Administrator was referring to when he
promised immediate expulsion for any member who engaged in personal
attacks on another. I feel you've been terribly unfair in singling me out
for the kind of posts like the one I've had to respond to now; I'm a
competant outdoorswoman (just don't constantly bludgeon folks with
bragging that's all), I've offered/given assistance to many, many pct-l
members, and some people think I'm even a nice person. Why are you being
so mean?
    I'm not "cranked up" as you so nicely put it. I'm confused, hurt, -
and offended.       bj

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================