On Oct 25 2025 I drove by Eaton Saddle twice and there were several cars there. There are also recent reviews of San Gabriel Peak and Mt Lowe on AT.
Someone at Mt Wilson told me the USFS doesn't bother to enforce the burn closure, and hopefully if enough of us call this to their attention they might do something about it. And, it's not like they'd need to stake out the area for days on end, just go up there on a Saturday morning.
The group I saw in the late morning was over a dozen people and they didn't appear to all know each other. I asked two of them where they were going and they refused to tell me. So, they know what they're doing is illegal. They had a silver (photography-style) umbrella with "LAC" written on it. That could be the name of some group, someone's initials, or it could be unrelated. I don't have a Facebook account & I avoid Instagram, but if anyone can find out the group please name and shame them.
All that said, if the USFS doesn't care because there's no longer an issue, then they should just lift the burn order.
Scofflaws hiking through burn areas
-
dima
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am
- Location: Los Angeles
The closure at Eaton Saddle is being routinely violated, as you say. I've gone over there a few times as well. Can't speak to the others, but I can tell you what I'm thinking.
I don't love the idea of violating the closure. And I'll respect it if I can at the very least understand the rationale, even if I maybe don't agree with it. The Forest Service is being opaque and inconsistent in its communication, and I have zero faith that the closure is based on anything other than inertia. They put out these hard-to-find-and-to-interpret proclamations that say "this area is closed", without saying why or for how long.
The Bridge Fire closure was ridiculous. Closing the Baldy summit area made no sense, since it was nowhere near the fire. Allowing private inholdings (the ski area and the bungee-jumping operation) to legally violate the closure made a mockery of the whole thing: people paying the $ to jump off the bridge suffer the same safery risks and damage the environment as much as anybody else. Furthermore, that closure was entirely lifted after only a few months, unlike the previous large fires, which took years. Maybe it all makes sense, but the Forest Service made no effort to explain their reasoning. This, in addition to the fact that the Forest Service doesn't actually do anything in the forest other than fighting fires, makes most people think they have their heads deeply embedded in their ass, and there's no reason to pay any attention to them. And if you're one of the minority that wants to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt, then you're not going to places you want to go, while a lot of other people do it without giving it a second thought and without any consequences.
And there're plenty of other examples of this. They need to figure out how to lift the Williamson Rock closure; the current situation where they don't have enough money to re-evaluate is unacceptable: lots of people have given up, and just go climb there anyway. I haven't heard of anybody seeing a frog.
This is a shitty situation. I don't want to be breaking rules, and I'd love to have a good relationship with the forest service. I want to feel like we all have common goals, and they're an active participant in preserving the forest, and making it better for everyone. But to do that, they need to be transparent and reasonable about what they're doing. They should be more actively involved in the trail building. They need to be managing the busy areas far better, at the very least by emptying the trash bins on East Fork rd after the busy summer weekends. I know it would require more funding and I know this isn't going to happen any time soon. So here we are.
I don't love the idea of violating the closure. And I'll respect it if I can at the very least understand the rationale, even if I maybe don't agree with it. The Forest Service is being opaque and inconsistent in its communication, and I have zero faith that the closure is based on anything other than inertia. They put out these hard-to-find-and-to-interpret proclamations that say "this area is closed", without saying why or for how long.
The Bridge Fire closure was ridiculous. Closing the Baldy summit area made no sense, since it was nowhere near the fire. Allowing private inholdings (the ski area and the bungee-jumping operation) to legally violate the closure made a mockery of the whole thing: people paying the $ to jump off the bridge suffer the same safery risks and damage the environment as much as anybody else. Furthermore, that closure was entirely lifted after only a few months, unlike the previous large fires, which took years. Maybe it all makes sense, but the Forest Service made no effort to explain their reasoning. This, in addition to the fact that the Forest Service doesn't actually do anything in the forest other than fighting fires, makes most people think they have their heads deeply embedded in their ass, and there's no reason to pay any attention to them. And if you're one of the minority that wants to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt, then you're not going to places you want to go, while a lot of other people do it without giving it a second thought and without any consequences.
And there're plenty of other examples of this. They need to figure out how to lift the Williamson Rock closure; the current situation where they don't have enough money to re-evaluate is unacceptable: lots of people have given up, and just go climb there anyway. I haven't heard of anybody seeing a frog.
This is a shitty situation. I don't want to be breaking rules, and I'd love to have a good relationship with the forest service. I want to feel like we all have common goals, and they're an active participant in preserving the forest, and making it better for everyone. But to do that, they need to be transparent and reasonable about what they're doing. They should be more actively involved in the trail building. They need to be managing the busy areas far better, at the very least by emptying the trash bins on East Fork rd after the busy summer weekends. I know it would require more funding and I know this isn't going to happen any time soon. So here we are.
-
RH
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:03 pm
I thought the Bridge Fire burned both the Acorn Trail and Bear Canyon trail from Baldy Village. Those are fairly close to Baldy's summit. Was the Bridge Fire the one where people were up in arms because Icehouse Canyon was closed?
A few things to consider. If the fire is active, we've seen how fast winds can spread fires so the Forest Service (and other government entities) doesn't want hikers/bikers/campers anywhere close because if they allow it and those people perish, their families can sue. In addition, if any hikers/bikers/campers have issues and need to be rescued, this takes away resources and puts others in jeopardy. My understanding of the forest service is they are severely underpaid and understaffed. Who wants to clean remote disgusting toilets for minimum wage? Or haul away over-stuffed trash cans from weekend tourists who treat the forest lands like shit (used diapers on trails and in creeks; thousands of pounds of trash along creeks, parking lots, trails; trampled flowers; shot up or spray painted signs/rocks/buildings; burned rubber donuts in every turn turnout; radio pumping on trails; etc).
But regarding closures not in the immediate area of the fire (like Icehouse Canyon), people need to stop being selfish and think of who lives in the natural areas... namely the animals. When forest fires happen, thousands of animals have to flee their home areas. Where do they go? Far away from the fire into unburned areas. They are traumatized already so closures give the animals a break from the stress of human interactions for a few weeks or months so they can continue to find food and new places to live because their home areas are gone forever.
Just my two cents.
A few things to consider. If the fire is active, we've seen how fast winds can spread fires so the Forest Service (and other government entities) doesn't want hikers/bikers/campers anywhere close because if they allow it and those people perish, their families can sue. In addition, if any hikers/bikers/campers have issues and need to be rescued, this takes away resources and puts others in jeopardy. My understanding of the forest service is they are severely underpaid and understaffed. Who wants to clean remote disgusting toilets for minimum wage? Or haul away over-stuffed trash cans from weekend tourists who treat the forest lands like shit (used diapers on trails and in creeks; thousands of pounds of trash along creeks, parking lots, trails; trampled flowers; shot up or spray painted signs/rocks/buildings; burned rubber donuts in every turn turnout; radio pumping on trails; etc).
But regarding closures not in the immediate area of the fire (like Icehouse Canyon), people need to stop being selfish and think of who lives in the natural areas... namely the animals. When forest fires happen, thousands of animals have to flee their home areas. Where do they go? Far away from the fire into unburned areas. They are traumatized already so closures give the animals a break from the stress of human interactions for a few weeks or months so they can continue to find food and new places to live because their home areas are gone forever.
Just my two cents.
-
dima
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am
- Location: Los Angeles
Hello! I don't know about Icehouse Canyon. The Bear canyon trail was affected. But the devil's backbone and the ski hut trail weren't. Not even close. Maybe it made sense to close those too, but they should have clearly explained the rationale if they wanted those closures to be taken seriously. They didn't, which reinforced the already-prevalent idea that they don't go into the forest and don't have any clue what actually goes on there, and maybe are confused about what did or didn't burn. Their further actions (allowing the private operations to continue, and then reopening everything quickly without explanation) further reinforced this idea.RH wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 10:52 am I thought the Bridge Fire burned both the Acorn Trail and Bear Canyon trail from Baldy Village. Those are fairly close to Baldy's summit. Was the Bridge Fire the one where people were up in arms because Icehouse Canyon was closed?
Yeah. But you're projecting. It was on them to say these things, instead of you having to make up the justifications for them. Allowing the private operations to continue and then reopening the area quickly is inconsistent with those concerns anyway.RH wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 10:52 am A few things to consider. If the fire is active, we've seen how fast winds can spread fires so the Forest Service (and other government entities) doesn't want hikers/bikers/campers anywhere close because if they allow it and those people perish, their families can sue. In addition, if any hikers/bikers/campers have issues and need to be rescued, this takes away resources and puts others in jeopardy.
People need to stop being selfish and think of who lives in the natural areas... namely the animals. When forest fires happen, thousands of animals have to flee their home areas. Where do they go? Far away from the fire into unburned areas. They are traumatized already so closures give the animals a break from the stress of human interactions for a few weeks or months so they can continue to find food and new places to live because their home areas are gone forever.
Yeah. I don't know how to fix any of this without more funding. The current perception is that the forest service can't/won't actually lmanage the forest. I'd love to get back to the point where they're an active participant and what they say is respected. I will continue to occasionally go into the Eaton fire closure to access some one-of-a-kind stuff there. I don't make a mess, don't fuck with the animals, and haul out lots of trash each time. I have decided that the forest is better off with me going in there.RH wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 10:52 am My understanding of the forest service is they are severely underpaid and understaffed. Who wants to clean remote disgusting toilets for minimum wage? Or haul away over-stuffed trash cans from weekend tourists who treat the forest lands like shit (used diapers on trails and in creeks; thousands of pounds of trash along creeks, parking lots, trails; trampled flowers; shot up or spray painted signs/rocks/buildings; burned rubber donuts in every turn turnout; radio
-
Sean
- Cucamonga
- Posts: 4248
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:32 pm
The rationale for the Eaton closure is provided in the first line of the order. You might disagree with the rationale or the boundary, but the FS does communicate its basic reasoning for shutting down areas. Also, please don't use this forum for finding and shaming people who go into closure areas.
-
RH
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:03 pm
Yes, allowing private operations to continue unhindered is not a good look. It definitely screams financial reasons for allowing them to continue so not about safety or animal welfare.
And I have gone into fire closure areas a few times most notably after the Station Fire when it was a ridiculous amount of time (years and years) before they'd reopen many areas. Once was Vetter/Charlton area and a sheriff came driving through the side roads in there so my friend and I ducked off-trail until they left just in case they were giving tickets. But like you we cleaned up trash, we helped throw fallen debris off the trail and even did some pruning along the trail.
We know the Forest Service doesn't have the staff/funds to do much trail maintenance and/or restoration after fires. There are volunteer groups that do some of those things but they do not get many volunteers. I'd go except they always go in the early morning and I haven't been up before 10:00am in two decades. Maybe they could get other organizations to do some of those things to reopen areas sooner? Like Boy Scout/Girl Scouts do trail work to get a merit badge? Or through local churches? Or promoting something through REI like gift cards for participating in trail restoration/maintenance activities? Just spitballing here.
And I have gone into fire closure areas a few times most notably after the Station Fire when it was a ridiculous amount of time (years and years) before they'd reopen many areas. Once was Vetter/Charlton area and a sheriff came driving through the side roads in there so my friend and I ducked off-trail until they left just in case they were giving tickets. But like you we cleaned up trash, we helped throw fallen debris off the trail and even did some pruning along the trail.
We know the Forest Service doesn't have the staff/funds to do much trail maintenance and/or restoration after fires. There are volunteer groups that do some of those things but they do not get many volunteers. I'd go except they always go in the early morning and I haven't been up before 10:00am in two decades. Maybe they could get other organizations to do some of those things to reopen areas sooner? Like Boy Scout/Girl Scouts do trail work to get a merit badge? Or through local churches? Or promoting something through REI like gift cards for participating in trail restoration/maintenance activities? Just spitballing here.
-
Nate U
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:38 pm
Publicly available information that informed the closure:
https://inciweb-prod-media-bucket.s3.us ... HRFyM93Zdm
I think the closure is a pretty reasonable measure to both encourage natural rehabilitation, and probably more importantly safeguard the public.
https://inciweb-prod-media-bucket.s3.us ... HRFyM93Zdm
I think the closure is a pretty reasonable measure to both encourage natural rehabilitation, and probably more importantly safeguard the public.
-
JeffH
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:09 am
The Forest Service doesn't list any open positions in the San Gabriels. Virtually all of the open spots listed in USAJobs are temporary for firefighting activities, with locations to be determined at some later date. Sure, we don't want to to those things and if that's the case then the FS is not the job for us.RH wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 10:52 am My understanding of the forest service is they are severely underpaid and understaffed. Who wants to clean remote disgusting toilets for minimum wage? Or haul away over-stuffed trash cans from weekend tourists who treat the forest lands like shit (used diapers on trails and in creeks; thousands of pounds of trash along creeks, parking lots, trails; trampled flowers; shot up or spray painted signs/rocks/buildings; burned rubber donuts in every turn turnout; radio pumping on trails; etc).
"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours".
Donald Shimoda
Donald Shimoda
-
Taco
- Snownado survivor
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm
Most of what I want to say was already said by Dima.
I need to add my two cents in here. I also don't really WANT to break laws or whatever, but as time goes on things become more authoritarian and things like closing Baldy because someone died are absurd to me. I know a lot of other people disagree. They are a different breed. Nonviolent protest in the form of disobeying orders which don't make sense becomes duty. Things only seem to be getting tighter and tighter and seeing others support that unsettles my gut.
I probably haven't violated the closure near Eaton, but I have on Baldy and plenty of other places. I am unlikely to need rescue (I've had that experience and been on both sides multiple times), so the argument that I'm putting SAR in harm's way and am thus selfish just makes me angry and furthers my opinions deriding the aforementioned 'different breed'.
I also second what Sean said regarding not being an 'informant'.
I suppose one could wait and speak with them in a kind and open minded fashion to discuss their motivation.
Cheers
I need to add my two cents in here. I also don't really WANT to break laws or whatever, but as time goes on things become more authoritarian and things like closing Baldy because someone died are absurd to me. I know a lot of other people disagree. They are a different breed. Nonviolent protest in the form of disobeying orders which don't make sense becomes duty. Things only seem to be getting tighter and tighter and seeing others support that unsettles my gut.
I probably haven't violated the closure near Eaton, but I have on Baldy and plenty of other places. I am unlikely to need rescue (I've had that experience and been on both sides multiple times), so the argument that I'm putting SAR in harm's way and am thus selfish just makes me angry and furthers my opinions deriding the aforementioned 'different breed'.
I also second what Sean said regarding not being an 'informant'.
I suppose one could wait and speak with them in a kind and open minded fashion to discuss their motivation.
Cheers
-
JakubRZ
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:08 pm
The issue with the San Gabriels is there is no one really in charge. No one has a vision for the range. Different areas are under different jurisdictions and funding is minimal. Fire safety seems to be the top priority, if anything at all. Unless there are endangered species, as I recently posted on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/socalhiking/co ... k_closure/
Back in the day, or so they say, the Sierra Club was the leader, but I don't see that these days. There are many amazing volunteer groups who dedicate their time and energy to do the back-breaking work of maintaining and rebuilding trails. However there is no over-arching executive group that has a vision, pushes for private-funding, lobbies on behalf of the range and unites us under one umbrella that would focus on recreation. And that includes hikers, backpackers, bikers, equestrian users, ORV, land/cabin owners, ADA and yes, conservationists. At least I am not aware of a leadership entity like that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/socalhiking/co ... k_closure/
Back in the day, or so they say, the Sierra Club was the leader, but I don't see that these days. There are many amazing volunteer groups who dedicate their time and energy to do the back-breaking work of maintaining and rebuilding trails. However there is no over-arching executive group that has a vision, pushes for private-funding, lobbies on behalf of the range and unites us under one umbrella that would focus on recreation. And that includes hikers, backpackers, bikers, equestrian users, ORV, land/cabin owners, ADA and yes, conservationists. At least I am not aware of a leadership entity like that.
-
Matthew
- Supercaff
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Pasadena
I did a survey of the Williamson rock area recently and boy does that frog thrive out there. When I say recently, im referring to back in 2002JakubRZ wrote: Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:33 am The issue with the San Gabriels is there is no one really in charge. No one has a vision for the range. Different areas are under different jurisdictions and funding is minimal. Fire safety seems to be the top priority, if anything at all. Unless there are endangered species, as I recently posted on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/socalhiking/co ... k_closure/
Back in the day, or so they say, the Sierra Club was the leader, but I don't see that these days. There are many amazing volunteer groups who dedicate their time and energy to do the back-breaking work of maintaining and rebuilding trails. However there is no over-arching executive group that has a vision, pushes for private-funding, lobbies on behalf of the range and unites us under one umbrella that would focus on recreation. And that includes hikers, backpackers, bikers, equestrian users, ORV, land/cabin owners, ADA and yes, conservationists. At least I am not aware of a leadership entity like that.
stoke is high
-
David R
- OG of the SG
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:28 pm
Both things can be true in that the reason for closures are ridiculous and the rules are the rules. It is clear that most closures have to do with lack of capability on the part of the FS and not the reason that is given to allow the area to grow back. The whole Los Padres has been left to go to waste because the FS does nothing. Any work up there is done by private individuals and some campsite areas are closed permanently because the FS can't manage them. The San Gabriels are headed in the same direction with most trail work being done by private individuals and if not then they would disappear. Having the Bridge fire area be opened and the Eaton not just goes to show the inconsistency and lack of policy. I also think the Bridge fire area was opened because everyone was flouting the law and there were exceptions for paid excursions like bungee cord jumping off the Bridge to Nowhere.
The budget to give the forest service the personnel it needs is infinitesimal compared to the budget for defense or Medicare/Social Security but it keeps on getting cut and we suffer the consequences of a forest that can't be managed and because of that long closures. I was planning on hiking Brown Mountain last Sunday but saw it was in the closure area so reluctantly decided to switch to another hike. If the closure lasts too long I'm sure I'll say screw it and get my hike in the area regardless.
The budget to give the forest service the personnel it needs is infinitesimal compared to the budget for defense or Medicare/Social Security but it keeps on getting cut and we suffer the consequences of a forest that can't be managed and because of that long closures. I was planning on hiking Brown Mountain last Sunday but saw it was in the closure area so reluctantly decided to switch to another hike. If the closure lasts too long I'm sure I'll say screw it and get my hike in the area regardless.