It's more than a little bit frustrating to read about the ambiguity that exists in the enforcement of the National Forest closure. While I understand the reasons for the closure, and I certainly don't begrudge those who have been allowed to finish their trips rather than exit immediately, Inyo NF should be going out of their way to clearly delineate what is permitted and what is not in terms that are not ambiguous.?
I also wonder about the National Parks and their decision to remain open. While I certainly am happy for those who are able to go on trips in the National Parks, are there separate firefighting capabilities that exist within the parks and not in the forests? If not, I am not sure that I understand the rationale for the parks being open while the forests are closed, if the main reason is lack of firefighting capabilities due to fires occurring elsewhere in the state.
To be clear, my own trip was affected and I would not violate any forest order, and would not encourage anyone else to, but I also think we deserve clarity and rational actions from the government, and an unambiguous level of communication regarding what is and is not permitted.?
ravi_jmt2013