EISPIRATEN

Howdy All ?

I have a problem when the "authorities" want to limit access to our mountains. San Bernardino County Sheriff Dicus wants legislatures to close Mt Baldy during unsafe conditions (e.g. snow).

https://local.nixle.com/alert/10257319/ ... sVbzMXsa_4

How do members of this forum feel about the proposed closures?

How can individuals protest restricting winter access to Baldy?

I look forward to the discussion and advice.

Miles of smiles and thanks,
Ellen

Closures during winter storms make sense, but they seem like overkill for the season. Perhaps a permitting system and increased awareness program (better signage etc.) would suffice.

Something needs to be done though. Loss of life aside, it's a waste of resources to constantly be searching for and rescuing hikers at Baldy. It seems as though social media has made the problem worse in recent years.

"Unsafe" is not an objective standard for closing the area. Who will decide when conditions are "unsafe"? Unsafe to one person is safe to another. It depends on many factors like skill level, fitness and gear. The mountain should only be closed during official winter storm warnings, and reopened after the warning ends.

If the sheriff lacks the money and/or the will to rescue people on USFS land, then they should announce that they will no longer help the USFS. People who need help on Baldy will have to rely on the Feds. Within a year I bet hikers will be clamoring for the Feds to get out of the SoCal mountains. The best thing the sheriff could do for us is stop rescuing people on Baldy. Leave it to the Feds or volunteer SAR groups.

Sean wrote: ↑"Unsafe" is not an objective standard for closing the area. Who will decide when conditions are "unsafe"? Unsafe to one person is safe to another. It depends on many factors like skill level, fitness and gear. The mountain should only be closed during official winter storm warnings, and reopened after the warning ends.

If the sheriff lacks the money and/or the will to rescue people on USFS land, then they should announce that they will no longer help the USFS. People who need help on Baldy will have to rely on the Feds. Within a year I bet hikers will be clamoring for the Feds to get out of the SoCal mountains. The best thing the sheriff could do for us is stop rescuing people on Baldy. Leave it to the Feds or volunteer SAR groups.

I think that's a reasonable compromise. Close it during official winter storms warnings.
Isn't SAR part of the sheriff dept though? So if the sheriff stops rescuing people, doesn't that mean SAR stops rescuing people? Unless a new SAR is formed that's not associated with the sheriff? Maybe I have it wrong...
There needs to be a better awareness program too. I'm from Washington state and people are much better educated on the dangers of winter hiking. What would it take to increase the awareness/change the culture in SoCal?

https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news ... 558649007/

More details on the proposed winter Baldy closures.

Some SAR teams are police officers. Other SAR teams are volunteers affiliated with police. If the sheriff stops rescuing people, the search effort will be reduced by that many people and resources. But if a helicopter rescue is needed, maybe the USFS specially contracts for such service from the sheriff, then the sheriff has someone to bill. Basically we're seeing the sort of public squabbling that goes on between local and Federal authorities. I hope San Bernardino actually has the balls to stop service within the Forest, instead of pressuring the Feds to limit access.

Sean wrote: ↑Some SAR teams are police officers. Other SAR teams are volunteers affiliated with police. If the sheriff stops rescuing people, the search effort will be reduced by that many people and resources. But if a helicopter rescue is needed, maybe the USFS specially contracts for such service from the sheriff, then the sheriff has someone to bill. Basically we're seeing the sort of public squabbling that goes on between local and Federal authorities. I hope San Bernardino actually has the balls to stop service within the Forest, instead of pressuring the Feds to limit access.

Makes sense. Seems like the sheriff is getting the short end of the stick though. The Feds should be footing all the bills, as it's their jurisdiction. Right?

I would like to see a quota system for Baldy, it isn't worth hiking anymore unless you take an unusual route. I know it isn't in a wilderness area but it has been so abused by so many people going up there. The Ski Hut Trail used to be the cool way to hike it and it is now a mess of use trails all over the ridge. Similarly the DB when the ridge widens is scarred with used trails everywhere. I think indirectly this would also solve a lot of the problems with winter rescues as the casual hiker probably won't go through the process of getting a permit to hike. At the end of the day everyone is responsible for themselves and need to understand basic risk when hiking. I don't want ranger so-and-so to be making those judgment calls for me.

I like this idea

But also, the feds should pay for rescues!

Hikers should pay for being rescued, they were provided a service and they should foot the bill especially because most of the time it was their own fault.

Winter on Baldy isn't the problem. Stupid shit that encourages inexperienced and ill-prepared folks to climb it like the Six Pack of Peaks Challenge and other social media hyping is the problem IMO. Before the "great hiking era" that we're currently enduring, nobody that I recall was talking about closing Baldy. That's because by and large, the only folks that went up knew what they were doing. Yeah, you'd have an occasional rescue, but it wasn't a constant. At least that's the way I prefer to remember it. LOL

Hikers should pay for being rescued

Totally disagree with this. SAR exist for this very reason. To put it into perspective that we can all appreciate, should walker's family be billed for his search effort? I have to imagine that cost quite a bit.

It is already in place in many states, hikers that are irresponsible should be held responsible for their actions. Utah where many of the national parks are located don't have the county population to cover the fees for all the rescues and they bill out for lost hikers. There is also a philosophy that people in wilderness areas should not be rescued at all as helicopters should not even be allowed in those areas, I don't agree with that. In every situation you have to create a deterrent for bad behavior and for hikers there is none. The more rescues that occur the more states will put laws on their books allowing them to bill the hikers. I do think that it should be decided on a case to case basis and decided on whether it was an irresponsible choice or just **** happened.

Rescues cost thousands of dollars per rescue, right? If that's true, then most hikers aren't able to pay in full for their rescue, at least not immediately. Someone has to foot the bill in the short term at least.

As for Baldy not being a problem in the past, well that makes sense. Social media has changed everything.

I think closures during winter storms is a reasonable first step. I also wouldn't be against a permit system depending on how it was implemented. It would probably reduce a lot of the rescues (and costs) while also reducing congestion.

SAR should also continue. I'm pretty sure we're all glad that SAR was out looking for Colin.

But the sherif shouldn't foot the bill. I think the feds should pay and maybe implement a payment program for cases of clear negligence.

SanBern wants everything closed....to wit, even living there is fatal during winter. You chose to live there, is what he told residents...incredible.
I think its super obvious that its under-capitalized..and thats the problem. But there is a coward sherrif there to not admit the problem.

https://abc7.com/san-bernardino-sheriff ... /13625098/
"Walker said that several search-and-rescue efforts have cost San Bernardino County more than $3 million since 2020. Many of those rescues have occurred not on San Bernardino County territory, but federal land.
"It's a moral obligation to make sure we're there to take care of the community although it's not our area," said Walker."


I guess Im an illegal then.

Not to be a smart aleck or anything (that would be so antithetical to my nature), but maybe we could privatize SAR. You could buy a membership with an upfront cost and annual dues that would permit you to use the SAR services. It would be like a country club or an HOA for hikers.

Or maybe there could be SAR insurance. It would function just like health insurance. You'd pay monthly premiums, have deductibles, co pays, and caps, but if you got into trouble, then SAR would be reimbursed through insurance at a negotiated rate. You'd have to designated a "primary hiking area" where coverage was higher and then any "out of hiking areas" emergencies would be covered at a lower percentage, but you'd be covered. Unless, of course, you don't the means. Then you can either stay out of places you don't belong, eat cake, and/or just die.

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑Or maybe there could be SAR insurance.

Or there could be air5...I mean "what???". No I dont like air5, Id rather pay for some new model...is what you are saying.
I dont consider it a question for LA...my area. Its like one thing that SAR asks is trust us...and its like 'no', give me another choice.
I would hate another choice...because its who and why they are looking for. There is no Joe SAR easy to get duplicated.

I also very strongly disagree with limiting access to land.

For one thing, I disagree with keeping experienced individuals such as myself from being on my lands as a free human being because others have either died, made mistakes, been rescued, injured, etc. That is my absolute and final answer, and one of the principles by which I live. If one was to put a ban on movement in my mountains, I would violate it.

I cannot see a way in which one could try and change my stance on this. One possible example would be to try and guilt someone into changing, stating that SAR would be put in harm's way to find me if I was lost or otherwise unable to *whatever*. A response to this could go on for many pages. With all due respect to SAR, some of whom are close friends of mine, they did indeed volunteer for this fully knowing the hazards. I am not taking that statement lightly as someone who also volunteered for a dangerous line of work where death was a very real possibility. In short, I do not deem this to be something which affects my own movement in my mountains. I might add that I have twice been rescued by SAR, once locally and once in Yosemite, and I greatly appreciate their efforts and have enormous respect for them and what they do.

I also think that generally speaking SAR should be free. I don't personally consider rescue when I go out, as I rarely push the proverbial boat that far out. I like that they're there if I was in need, as I have been in the past. I think making people pay for rescue in many cases sets a bad precedent and may keep good people from going out into nature.

As far as protest, i think ignoring laws that one deems as 'wrong' is the ultimate method. It is a form of non-violent protest, one I engage in from time to time. There are a great many laws, regulations, and ways of life/principles which I disagree with. In the end it is up to my own intestinal fortitude to defy such laws at the risk of whatever it may be.

I agree that social media is a big factor in this. I don't see an end to this sort of thing, in fact I see it getting worse and worse. The past few years have demonstrated a government's willingness to continually control individual citizen's autonomy, as well as many people simply accepting such overt control regardless of whether such control is scientifically accurate or morally right. It often turns into a sports event, with one team saying yes to control and another saying no, and if you dare oppose me you're "one of them", one of THOSE people. This taints everything and makes it distasteful even more to assert control over free people.

I do not feel a permit process on Baldy is a good idea. I would not abide by this system, and may enthusiastically use the permit as toilet paper. I eat a lot of beans.

I want to ass that I had a single cup of coffee and ate a full lunch before I wrote this, which means I was more balanced and didn't give a typical Taco response of fuck them etc, though I do enjoy that method so very much. I still do feel that those who wish to control others can go fuck themselves.

Taco wrote: ↑I also very strongly disagree with limiting access to land.

For one thing, I disagree with keeping experienced individuals such as myself from being on my lands as a free human being because others have either died, made mistakes, been rescued, injured, etc. That is my absolute and final answer, and one of the principles by which I live. If one was to put a ban on movement in my mountains, I would violate it.

I cannot see a way in which one could try and change my stance on this. One possible example would be to try and guilt someone into changing, stating that SAR would be put in harm's way to find me if I was lost or otherwise unable to *whatever*. A response to this could go on for many pages. With all due respect to SAR, some of whom are close friends of mine, they did indeed volunteer for this fully knowing the hazards. I am not taking that statement lightly as someone who also volunteered for a dangerous line of work where death was a very real possibility. In short, I do not deem this to be something which affects my own movement in my mountains. I might add that I have twice been rescued by SAR, once locally and once in Yosemite, and I greatly appreciate their efforts and have enormous respect for them and what they do.

I also think that generally speaking SAR should be free. I don't personally consider rescue when I go out, as I rarely push the proverbial boat that far out. I like that they're there if I was in need, as I have been in the past. I think making people pay for rescue in many cases sets a bad precedent and may keep good people from going out into nature.

As far as protest, i think ignoring laws that one deems as 'wrong' is the ultimate method. It is a form of non-violent protest, one I engage in from time to time. There are a great many laws, regulations, and ways of life/principles which I disagree with. In the end it is up to my own intestinal fortitude to defy such laws at the risk of whatever it may be.

I agree that social media is a big factor in this. I don't see an end to this sort of thing, in fact I see it getting worse and worse. The past few years have demonstrated a government's willingness to continually control individual citizen's autonomy, as well as many people simply accepting such overt control regardless of whether such control is scientifically accurate or morally right. It often turns into a sports event, with one team saying yes to control and another saying no, and if you dare oppose me you're "one of them", one of THOSE people. This taints everything and makes it distasteful even more to assert control over free people.

I do not feel a permit process on Baldy is a good idea. I would not abide by this system, and may enthusiastically use the permit as toilet paper. I eat a lot of beans.

I want to ass that I had a single cup of coffee and ate a full lunch before I wrote this, which means I was more balanced and didn't give a typical Taco response of fuck them etc, though I do enjoy that method so very much. I still do feel that those who wish to control others can go fuck themselves.

On the matter of permits, what do you think should be done about the overcrowded garbage dump known as East Fork? Because they're talking about limiting access their at some point too. i was down there on saturday and it's a cesspool, and only seems to be getting worse and worse.

Charge for parking. Use the $ to haul out the trash.

My ideas suck. I have friendly ideas which take a long time (generational), and unfriendly ideas which are super exciting and don't take time.

I think education is key. In my special fun fantasy world in my head, public school is wildly different and kids are taken into the mountains for extended periods of time so they can see that 'nature' is in fact the real world and the city is an aberration. Uhoh, here come my opinions! Ehhh, we'll dodge that for a second. Point is I think the humans who live in the wall to wall concrete scar south of the San Gabes need to have much more respect for nature. There is no magic potion for this, just education and immersion.

I also think the human population needs to decline significantly. I don't see much changing until it does, likely a result of serious resource shortage, since the other more common option, war, is unlikely to happen in an isolated environment such as North America in such a way as to reduce human overpopulation of Southern California enough. Probably repeated crop failure and resource shortage, higher cost of everything, more crime as a result, people leaving, and so on. Now that I've completely lost everyone except maybe Dima I gotta say maybe paying for parking might help. East Fork gets hit the hardest by far, with West Fork coming in after that up towards Hoot Owl Flats. One should bike along East and West Fork on a Saturday afternoon to get an idea.

Destroying the bridge at the bottom of 39 would eliminate 99% of the garbage. This would force individuals to rely on their own physical fitness and mental fortitude to make it to East Fork before throwing trash everywhere. GMR will be conveniently closed for fireworks reasons and so on, and Baldy will be guarded by Mujahideen and also have Google Maps information magically disappeared.

Any cyclist riding up would have to stop at my Diversity and Inclusion Checkpoint (tm) at the bottom of the hill, where they will be firmly reminded that if they leave inner tubes behind, their Pinarello Dogmas will be crushed before them in a large contraption made of old mining junk. Infiniti G35 drivers will be forced to endure the same fate as well as finally appear in court. It will no longer be 'Modelo Time'.

But anyways, joking aside, I don't know. I think about it a lot. I can only come back to education and population decline, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon, especially the education since such things do not benefit a money-based society. The modern rhetoric of the mountains being for everyone and no gatekeeping (whatever that ever meant), social media access to previously hard to get to places/information, all that shit, it makes it worse in my experience. The mountains aren't for everyone cause as soon as you can friggin read you can see nothing is for everyone. You get a grip of people on Baldy and of course there are gonna be people who don't know shit doing dumb shit and getting killed. A story as old as time, but one that's now available for every asshole with their dumb hand computer to view on their lunch break.

The majority of the humans at the bottom of the hill are trained to deal with a flat world moving from one air conditioned box to another in an endless mediocre search for comfort and convenience in a life avoiding adversity while being spoon-fed rhetoric to drive them this way or that to make money or gain votes for people in bigger boxes with more money and better air conditioning. It is generally unrealistic to expect these people, who often work long hours and have little time to think deeply on much of anything outside of the shallow two-way pointless political circus or the latest cooking show contestants, to train and prepare for the real world of the mountains, deserts, and actual places not yet ruined by humanity's endless 'need' to subjugate and control all other beings and dig up every last bit of metal and battery component to continue to feed this absurd and pointless machine which is consuming most of us. Thus, in typical human fashion, they try to control each other by limiting where you can go (baldy in winter, etc etc), making permits for certain peaks and areas, conjuring up stupid systems like the whole recreation.gov clown show, and the like. Perhaps this will continue to increase? As someone who considers himself merely an observer of the universe I see no indication that this 'trend' will slow or cease, rather that it will likely increase, which will drive me mad as it is against my old school American 'liberal' mindset. This will result in much vandalism and shitting on signs and so on. Maybe they'll put a shitload of no parking signs all along East Fork. California does love putting reflective signs all over the place so that fits the bill. People certainly aren't going to wake up someday and realize they need to keep nature clean of trash and human interference as they simply haven't had experience out there to see what that looks like, as they just leave garbage and drive back to Baldwin Park or whatever. I see people throw trash out of their windows on the street all the time. What makes me think they'll treat nature any differently?

The San Gabes don't have enough $$$$ in the Forest Service or other bodies to deal with it. Nobody patrols shit and I don't blame em! I don't wanna go around East Fork and explain that you hafta pick up trash. I don't wanna deal with drunks anymore and I don't speak Spanish anyway (the vast majority of humans along East Fork on weekends are Hispanic or whatever the culturally-sensitive term is). You'd probably wanna have a buncha dudes do that and have em armed and that would look bad and I honestly don't want that, but I'd just prefer people didn't trash the place in the first place.

This is how ideas work for me. I don't want to limit anyone or infringe on their naturally-given rights because I don't want that. I accept that I have rights that nobody can take from me without a fight, and that those rights carry with them great responsibility. I learned that from an early age. I would not accept doing the same to others, for I am the same as others and regardless of our differences we are all very, very similar beings. I love people, even if it seems odd that I sometimes call em humans or say things that in magical stupid 2020 iphone world seem insensitive. So what would I think? What would I think to do? I can't say cause I can't ever really settle on anything other than making things physically more challenging. But I don't wanna make it impossible to drive in the mountains cause that would screw over Adam up at Crystal Lake as well as anyone who can't move their own body up there under their own power for real reasons and not excuses (ebikes require a personal interview/psych eval), you know? I dunno, man. I dunno. It really fucking pisses me off to the core when I ride down East Fork or up GMR as I do many many many times each year and see so much fuuuuuucking trash left behind by dipshits. I don't think that random people should be punished or have their rights limited because Joe Dipshit dumped a 36 pack of spent Modelos along Glendora Ridge Road (by the way Modelo is the newest most common trash).

One small idea I just had was to somehow pay a trash pickin' up company to deal with East and West Fork specifically. I have no idea how they'd get paid cause my experience with the last 20 years here is that there's like $80 in the coffers at any one time and it ain't going to do much, but then you'd get a private company that JUST picks up the trash and hauls it out on a monday or whatever. Couple that with some sorta parking enforcement or something on those two stretches of road and... well I think people would just drive a lil further and dump their spent diapers and Modelos near Coldbrook, or Crystal Lake, or Baldy... Fuck man, I dunno. Like I said, the educational component that I think is 100% absolutely critical wouldn't happen due to the structure of our society. Nature isn't where we come from in a human-centric universe-view, we aren't animals anymore, we have cars! And computers in our pockets *I MEAN* hands! We are better than that, which is why we take so many pills! Nature is to be put on a pedestal, sold as entertainment through an REI fake co-op lens, masturbated over and used as some sort of silly sports arena where everyone wears bright colors like NASCAR and leaves their Gu packets on the side of the trail. The form of soul-level education of respecting nature as you'd respect yourself and loved ones because you ARE nature just wouldn't fly. You can't sell it, cause it's impossible and shouldn't be done even if it was possible. Know where I'm coming from with this?

Boy do I love writing!

In short, I suppose I cannot have an answer. I'd love to keep writing but I know it's tiring to read my 'rants'. Most humans here don't get it and won't. I don't mean that as disrespect, just like I don't speak Cantonese and don't know what it's like to live in Bangladesh. I'm sure the state will place limitations and my response will likely be to violate them peacefully, highlighting them as another futile human construct with aims to control the uncontrollable. So maybe charge for parking along East and West Forks and get Athens Services to haul trash out with shameful messages on their big trucks in English and Spanish.

Little bit of a different dynamic, but the same thing happened at Santa Paula Canyon. "Influencers" plastered it all over social media and it became a total shit show. They closed it completely down for a spell during the pandemic. Then they ("they" being CalTrans I believe) severely restricted parking along the 150 and enforced it. That, coupled with an intensive volunteer clean-up effort (the Forest Service doesn't do shit) and open hostility by the locals helped quite a bit. It's still a shit show, but not as bad as it was.

People act or don't act based on incentives. So you have to remove the incentives. It's Freakonomics applied to the outdoors. Easy and convenient parking is an incentive. Lack of enforcement is an incentive. Artificial pools of water created by stacking rocks in the riverbed is an incentive. So remove those incentives. Severely limit parking. Consistently enforce that limitation with stiff penalties. Destroy all the rocks dams in the riverbed and drain the pools. When they pop back up, destroy them again. And again. And again. Eventually, you'll [hopefully] get to the point where the incentive to go sit in the river bottom with a case of bad beer and a bucket of chicken is overcome by the disincentive of getting skunked on a parking spot, getting a hefty fine for parking illegally, and having to rebuild the damn rock dam every time you go up river.

I suspect the SBCSD is trying to get the USFS to take some responsibility for what happens on their territory. Some combination of licensing, education, rangers on the mountain, etc. The USFS reply indicates they plan to do nothing.

I am opposed to closures for two reasons. First, 'non-closure' signals to some people that it is 'safe'. Second, the authorities will tend to be overly-conservative to protect themselves against the charge that they allowed people to enter the area when it was unsafe.

I don't think there is any substitute for the SAR operations of the county sheriff's departments. They provide the aerial stuff, the volunteer rescue teams provide the boots on the ground. The Feds simply are not going to come up with equivalent resources.

I do not have a problem with licensing, education, etc. I think it is overdue. For example, license people who pass a simple quiz or take a 4-6 hour course. I think a lot of novices would take the course. The quiz could be one anyone on this discussion board could pass. Are you familiar with routes, hazards, equipment, etc? Yes, I know, this would screen people on knowledge only, not on fitness, training, experience, equipment, good judgement, etc. But it would be better than nothing, and would be a good signal to send. I am also in favor of rangers on the mountain doing equipment checks, issuing warnings, giving advice. Yes, I know, people can be completely equipped from a trip to REI last week, and be otherwise completely unqualified. But I think a brief conversation could do considerable good. Are you going for the summit? Taking the Bowl or the ridge? Don't know the difference, well, not so good, fellow. Planning to take the Bowl, but don't have a helmet? Not good either. Have you had training and practice in self-arrest with that ice axe? I am willing to stand there, be insulted, and answer questions, if there is some value for the common good.

Who would do it? We have so many volunteer SAR people in Southern California that perhaps one day of service per winter would be enough for winter weekends and holidays. All the emphasis today is on SAR operations, there is none on prevention.

Full disclosure...

I don't give a shit what happens on Baldy.

HikeUp wrote: ↑Full disclosure...

I don't give a shit what happens on Baldy.

But do you care what happens on NHPS Baldy?

I got a notice for jury duty.
Its so rude..the man wasting my time.
Ill just vote not guilty if they catch me avoiding....after all if he is axe murderer, its not my problem.
Sucks to be them...the jury. Or victim..but again Im my own man.

There was a line of waiting cars...and a guy honking like a mad man. News come over to him. Classic TV.
News tell him somebody died. He said no wonder there is so much traffic. And that they are taking forever to clear it.
News is aghast ha ha ha. Pure LA. I was thinking that the news should pull back for this firebomb.

Sean wrote: ↑

HikeUp wrote: ↑Full disclosure...

I don't give a shit what happens on Baldy.

But do you care what happens on NHPS Baldy?

Quantify the "N".

AW~ wrote: ↑I got a notice for jury duty.
Its so rude..the man wasting my time.
Ill just vote not guilty if they catch me avoiding....after all if he is axe murderer, its not my problem.
Sucks to be them...the jury. Or victim..but again Im my own man.

There was a line of waiting cars...and a guy honking like a mad man. News come over to him. Classic TV.
News tell him somebody died. He said no wonder there is so much traffic. And that they are taking forever to clear it.
News is aghast ha ha ha. Pure LA. I was thinking that the news should pull back for this firebomb.

Isn't murdering-by-axe a misdemeanor now? Punishable by being ignored and free to proceed as desired?

I was wondering if anyone wanted to join in with me in a flash mob and we could go visit REI?

I have my own recent jury duty story, but will pass on it.

Looks like I might have triggered something by indicating that I care about Baldy, and am willing to submit to some regulation.

As I said, I am opposed to closures. But talk of 'individual rights' is a bit overdone. As soon as you wheel out of your driveway, you are in the public domain and your rights are limited.

David R wrote: ↑I was wondering if anyone wanted to join in with me in a flash mob and we could go visit REI?

Let's get a mob and overun the skihut...trundle any Forest Rangers or LEOs over the edge.