Mt. San Jacinto Outdoor Recreation

Jim Bakos wrote: maps NEED to be accurate, this isn’t the cold war!

Funny! What do you think about the idea of discussing a certain sensitive area on this message board? I'm torn because I believe in the benefits of free speech, but I also realize that it's very close to the tram and many of the tourists and some hikers disrespect the wilderness. Long Valley gets a lot of trash! The watershed for the sensitive area is very small and could easily be affected by food and waste contamination. And the rare flower that doesn't grow anywhere else...could easily be trampled. Thoughts, anyone?...

Perry wrote:

Jim Bakos wrote: maps NEED to be accurate, this isn’t the cold war!

Funny! What do you think about the idea of discussing a certain sensitive area on this message board? I'm torn because I believe in the benefits of free speech, but I also realize that it's very close to the tram and many of the tourists and some hikers disrespect the wilderness. Long Valley gets a lot of trash! The watershed for the sensitive area is very small and could easily be affected by food and waste contamination. And the rare flower that doesn't grow anywhere else...could easily be trampled. Thoughts, anyone?...

I'm OK with the names of certain spots being replaced with the text "[sensitive place]." The casual reader won't pick up where these places are, but those who are more serious hikers/trail runners that know topos and take the time to think through their plans will figure it out. I'm more worried about the "bungee visitor" (really quick in, grab just enough info to do their hike, really quick out). I don't think they're the type to consider the long term health of the wilderness or to read through "all that extraneous stuff" (safety, wilderness ethics, etc.). Those who stick around and become part of this community will probably pick up wilderness ethics if they don't have them already.

I think certain "hydrological features" shouldn't be on the map they give out to the tourists. However, for those with enough savvy to get to RMRU.org and to read topos, maybe those aren't the people we have to worry about. If they're reading up on the area (as indicated by searching out RMRU.org), then they strike me as the more deliberate type, a type that I'm less worried about doing something destructive in the wild. Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

HJ

Precisely why I put this out here on the board… I am certainly not the decision-maker on such topics – but I do have an opinion. I’m as interested in what all YOU think as what my team thinks. After all, YOU are whom we serve…

You know the area we speak of is now a “preserve”? I hear there’s a stiff fine for going off-trail in the new “preserve” (mind you, this is all second/third hand info).

Maybe this is a classic example of: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t??

I don’t know that anyone would become lost if the Aqueous Region were eliminated from all maps (Tom Harrison and MSJNHA removed it). Then again, the Sid Davis drainage is a well-beaten trail, but is shown as nothing but a creek on most maps.

Thoughts and criticism are welcome (I draw the line at flame wars…).

[Perry, perhaps you could globally edit this thread to reflect the “sensitive area” as just that. Without alluding to its liquid nature? Sorry, my faux pas…]

Hike safe.

--Jim

Perhaps we should refer to it as "veiled llyn," llyn being a Welsh word for the non-xeric focal point of a catchment basin (of course).

I think you'll be ok as long as you stick to the non-xeric focal point.

But of course! Aught else would be il(hydro)logicial.

Nice Chi'llyn with ya,

HJ