Thanks, Steve, for posting "the rest of the story." The short version you posted earlier just didn't add up completely. I took your early report with a grain of salt, not knowing the source at PCTA.
This is not like the PCTA to act solo without consulting the responsible jurisdiction (Inyo NF). They messed up the entire process. When a public entity is going to make a decision that restricts access to our wilderness, however minor, they should be able to point to a specific problem and explain why their "solution" is necessary. That's basic public administration 101. In this case, there's no problem they can even point to, except PCTA having to collect money on behalf of Inyo. This is bad policy to restrict access in this manner, however minor, and the approach is all wrong. That's just my $0.02 and who really cares anyway.
Contrast that approach to Yosemite NP where they followed a reasonable process with the new Donohue exit permit. Many don't like the solution, but at least they were transparent with the public and the surrounding agencies. And the entire solution will be reevaluated in the comprehensive Wilderness Management Plan. That's how its supposed to work. I think we can agree on that, Salty?
