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

One can talk about current equilibrium, but that only means that the rescue that occur are equal to the rescues that are needed.
There have been many posts, here, about the lack of preparation of many whitneyists. I think it is a pervasive problem, based upon my personal observations.

I congratulate the ranger for looking for innovative approaches to the problems. There will be more pressure on the mountain, as population increases. The situation will deteriorate.

I don't know the ranger in question. I don't know his motives, but I'd not consider it reasonable to question them, without personal interaction.

I will say, though, that sophisticated politicians know how to kill ideas, by putting them out there, and letting other people do the killing...so you never know......

alan after reading your last post I have a question deary
If apeman wanted to say something let him say it.
I am sure he wanted to say what he wanted to post and does not need some meddling man looking out for what he wants to post.
As far as the forrest service is concerned a male chest beating is anti feminist.
As is the case alot of time with the forrest service the private agenda is behind most of their thinking and action

Actually cmore honey - I thought Alan's comment was humorous. That was a good outdoor joke as that sign is posted in every forest service outhouse.

People need to lighten up. Half the fun of this board is the diversity and satire but it does get a little mean sometimes. Mean people do suck but if they are mean and stupid BobR will still rescue them.

I was a litle harsh on the ranger, but I don't have much patience for a newbie (to this area)coming in all bright-eyed and bushy tailed and deciding that a 30 year old facility needs to be removed. He would do well to do some observation and study the history of the policies before changing them.

Generally I think the federal government does a good job administering National Forests and National Parks, etc. They do well balancing the interests of all the visitors with protecting the land for future visitors. I think the good sense of the government as a whole will weed out this "remove the toilets" idea. If there is high expense, increase the permit fees a bit. With thousands of permits it shouldn't take much per permit to defray the costs.

As to the rescues. I'm not being callous, but some of this is just statistics. When you have lots of people engaging in challenging activities, things are going to happen. They don't check you out before you are allowed to go into the ocean at the beach. They have lifeguards in case they are needed.

Allowing guides on the trail might be a good idea to let them earn fees (from clients) in return for being available to give assistance in emergencies. In such a system, the guide would not consume a permit.

Any necessary preparedness info could be included in the written material that comes with the permit notification.

The only reason I impune the motives of this ranger is that I don't think it matters what you would suggest or do to remove his objection to the toilets, he would still be against them. So it probably would make no sense to try to persuade him.

cmore, apeman is a fine example of a person who has a sense of humor. He seems to have had no trouble divining the motive behind my post, which certainly wasn't meddling.

Ken, I had the same reaction you did -- some newbie coming in and shuffling everything. I am willing to cut him some slack because my experience with newspapers (independent of political stripe) is that people often get quoted way out of context and are embarrassed by what they read that they said. I hope this guy was just musing about some of his crazier ideas. IMHO, getting rid of the solar toilets would be a truly bad idea.

My brother works for the forest service...15 years. I talk to him often about things going on in the wilderness area he works in. They are caught in the middle between the environmentalists, people with business interests and the goverment above them who control them and pull strings with money. Certainly they don't make sudden rash decisions without carefully considering all sides. Often we don't know enough to see the broad picture. All we can see is how protecting the wilderness limits our access.

thats why a previous poster has called the la times the leftangeles times
Its why reporters in general are held in such low regaurd.
they no longer attempt to report but make the news.
and the liberal times may have been doing that by mis quoting the ranger.
It would be nice if a fair and balanced news team like fox could do the interview

Here's the fair and balanced fox coverage:

First we need a good title. How about "Tradgedy on the Mountain" or "Terror in the Wilderness".

Then we'll throw in an interview with a college summer intern for the forest service and a local hippie to represent the whacko environmentalists. Then we'll do an indepth economic measure of the fiscal impacts of regulations and point out the economic benefits of eliminating the forest service budget and spend it on turning the portal into a quality resort. Of course this would be backed by respected members of our business community and they could get Arnold to tell everyone how this is good for the people of Caleefornia. Bush could chime in on how the trees that were cut down to build the resort will protect Americans from fire and help provide jobs for Americans.

No - I swear I don't work for Fox. I'm not in the entertainment industry.

"It would be nice if a fair and balanced news team like fox could do the interview"

Thanks, throck. I laughed so hard I almost injured myself!

Let's see... Al Franken writes a book with the subtitle "A fair and balanced look at the right." In it, he provides numerous well-documented examples of blatant lying by, among others, Fox entertainment ... er, I mean news stars. Fox does what any mediocre bully would do -- it sues Franken. The judge looks over the suit and pronounces it to be without merit (duh), admonishing Fox that it should be *defending* the First Amendment. Franken gets his just desserts when his book vaults to the top of the best seller lists, aided incalculably by Fox's suit -- the mother of all dumb lawsuits.

Can't wait for their Whitney coverage.

ahhh thats where your wrong, in zero examples did franklin find any lies or untruths.
His book is covered throughtout with the disclaimer "authors opinion"

big difference

now lets take a alook at the leftangeles times coverage of arnold, the left angeles times said that he was a admirer of hitler
yet when push came to shove they retracted it and printed the truth for once, on the last page A-46

Some day this great state of california will be rid of the left wing liberals and their agendas

HOLY CRAP - CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? I don't think Bob R intended to start such a lengthy political debate - but just to offer some info about something readers of this board might also find interesting. Why does everyone - including me - feel their opinion is so damned important?

here here...

let's stop this political bull**** and focus on the subject at hand: potential regulations changes in The Whitney Zone.

I don't think ranger Oye was mis-quoted considering that I received a mini-newspaper with my last permit that had a 1/4 page article in it titled "Human Waste, What is the future of toilets on the Whitney Trail?"
"In the 1970's, high visitor use, combined with a scarcity of soil, created a health and safety concern on the Mt. Whitney trail and pit toilets were installed at Trail Camp and Outpost Camp. Different methods for proper disposal of human waste were tried. As visitor use continued to increase, subsequent toilet facilities were built. Currently, there are two toilet buildings on the Mt. Whitney Trail. Human waste is collected in large bins, partially dehydrated by solar heated air and flown out by helicopter for disposal.
Maintaining facilities and removing human waste from a remote wilderness location is an expensive and formidable challenge.
How do we maintain current visitor use levels, protect the resource and provide a quality wilderness experience for the visitor? Should we continue to provide toilets for the wilderness user or should wilderness users practice self-sufficiency and pack out their own waste? Everyone has a different opinion for solving the human waste issue. The Inyo National Forest is analyzing the issues of human waste management through an environmental assesment."
Sheesh, looks like there used to be MORE toilets.
When I was using the facilities this past month, there was a Forest Service note posted on the wall in front of me that stated that only TOILET PAPER and solid waste were allowed.

Misha -- thank you.

I made the pitch for several days to keep politics off of this board. No one ever argued that politics belonged, the silly comments about the LA Times, etc. just continued.

At this point, people are finally getting fed up with the political posts. Great!

Mea culpa: I finally gave in and recently made a couple of off topic posts myself. But, I am certainly willing to give that up in order to get politics out of here.

At this point, I am going to pull back and let things settle down.

I am sorry that I raised such a controversial topic. I thought about deleting my original post (by clicking on the paper & pencil icon above). Then I saw that if I do that, because my post was the first, the entire thread goes away.

Hmmm.

Please don't delete it Bob. Hopefully Inyo rangers will look through it and get something useful out of it before they make any decision about this matter.
Hopefully they will be patient enough to filter out all political nonsense.

Bob R. Do it! Please!

bobby my grand pa always said talk is cheap, pull the trigger sugar
dare ya

(In a high sqeaky voice)...
No.. No.. Mr. Bob..... Noooooooo...