Ed Dunleavy called me yesterday in follow up on prior email exchanges. He's doing public outreach on a personal level instead of the cumbersome process of soliciting comments formally, like the typical environmental process. He admitted this wasn't the ideal way to handle public input, but technically, they seem to be within their authority to make the adjustments they are proposing without any public input. So we're lucky they're doing any outreach I guess.
I'll keep echoing what I learn back to the group and other forums as well. I assume others like Salty will also continue that. This needs to be a 2-way street, so please continue posting suggestions that might be useful for addressing this problem within the limits of their ability to respond administratively. They can't make huge changes without a lengthy process.
The numbers speak for themselves, which explains the sense of urgency created by the dramatic increase in JMT permit requests. The problem is a little complicated with a lot of feeder trails people can use to access the JMT, thru-hikers vs park hikers, and all the various work-a-rounds that people come up with.
As an engineer, I approach these things in a predictable manner. I'm working to better define the problem, list out options, and evaluate pros and cons of various solutions. I'm probably overthinking this because their administrative options for quick response are so limited. To do this logically, the total permit numbers shown above need to be broken down better and there must be other data out there about trail usage on different portions of through the park. Not sure any of that will happen, but I'll keep trying to include a system engineering approach to the problem.
I stressed the importance of coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions and taking a Regional approach for addressing long distance trails like the JMT and PCT. They intend to do that later.
