EDITED to add information from a reliable source on the ground:

On Sept 1, Inyo issued a Q&A document that appears to allow a hiker who legally entered Inyo before the closure date to continue their hike to their intended exit (at least if they don't exit and re-enter). The text reads "What if I am exiting a backpack? The Inyo National Forest understands that people have trips planned and vehicles staged. This is not an emergency evacuation, but a closure. People should make an expedient, orderly, and safe completion of their hikes. However, people who are planning hikes and backpacks and are aware that they will enter a closed area should change those plans." Inyo then reposted the same Q&A language yesterday. Both posts can be found on the Inyo FB page

ADDED information to original post: I heard this today (Friday) via a Facebook direct message from a person on the 395 corridor who is talking with a number of hikers and other sources and who has been a very reliable source of information in the past. I was asked to pass on the information without identifying the source. (No one on the East Side can risk antagonizing the Inyo front office) Slightly edited to make it more concise: "Many of the backcountry Rangers did not agree with the shutdown of trails and for interfering with JMT/PCT hikes that were already planned and in progress. They are passively allowing hikers to complete their trip, even with brief exits to resupply. There is no danger to hikers out there other than the usual risks. It is clear and beautiful. Little smoke. There has been no ranger activity at the usual resupply exit & return points in at least the southern part of the JMT. Hikers at this point have been allowed to come and go. Whitney Portal is "closed" but people allowed to come and go for shuttling to cars and such and allowed down from Whitney. Some hikers have ended their trips prematurely but others have successfully returned to the trail after resupply off-trail." The 395 corridor merchants who support us are being hurt. Continuing on the trail is some relief for them. (Also note that VVR, MTR and Mt Williamson are all holding resupplies and that the hiker buckets are overflowing for people who didn't send a resupply).
--
John Curran Ladd
1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA? 94114-3707
415-648-9279

开云体育

开云体育

Yet someone said they were driven out of the trail when they reached Reds.?

Jim, you raised the key point.? According to Inyo's Q&A, that permission to finish would not apply unless you are both on the Forest and not crossing or reentering it from a Park to exit.? Which would raise the interesting circumstance, for instance, that a SoBo hiker out of VVR could finish over Piute Pass to pick up a car staged at North Lake - maybe - but a NoBo Hiker could not, because that would require entering the Forest from the Park.? The maybe is because even the SoBo would have to exit the Sierra and enter the Inyo at the Crest.? Inyo does a lot of things very well,? I am sure, but thinking through its orders and communicating them to the public is not one of them.

I just finished an extended telephone conversation with a public information specialist at Inyo National Forest.

I requested, without success, a clearer statement of the rule and the Q&A as it applies to people who were already hiking on the JMT when the order was issued. They will apparently not be changing the Q&A anytime soon. They seem to be willing to leave the situation ambiguous with the "expedient, orderly and safe completion" language found the current Q&A. (Quoted more fully in my original post)

They clearly want people to exit safely. I.e., people shouldn't feel compelled to use the closest exit trail if is hazardous or there is no good way to get from the exit trailhead back to transportation. I.e., don't try to exit somewhere like Taboose or Sawmill if hiking a bit further north or south would lead to a safer exit.

The main message I got out of the conversation is that Inyo would also like people to come up with a reasonable hike exit plan that minimizes impact on Forest Service resources.

My take on this, trying to best understand a position that Inyo has left ambiguous, and applying it to some of the specific situations people may find themselves in:

1) The decision to continue South from Reds, where the next 52 miles are within the closed forest would have high impact on USFS resources and therefore would go against the goals of the closure order, even if it does not clearly violate the language of the Q&A. I would therefore not feel comfortable continuing south from Reds (or North from the Piute junction) even if a literal reading of the Q&A would seem to permit it/

2) By contrast, a decision to continue to hike south from Muir Trail Ranch, where one would reach still-open Park Service land within about 5 miles, is quite different. Taking the fastest way out southbound from MTR would be over Piute Pass (or Northbound over Duck). But those exits would actually involve more miles and time on USFS land than continuing on the open NPS land and have only a few miles on USFS land by exiting at Cottonwood Pass (about 5 miles, by memory).

3) Other decisions are closer calls (what to do if at Lake Edison) but one should keep in the mind exiting safely and trying to reduce the demands on the Forest Service.

I think what hikers need to do here is to exercise reasonable judgment respecting the USFS need to reserve their strained resources. There is probably no one right answer that applies to every hiker. Sound judgment is probably more important than a literal reading of either the Rule or of the Q&A statement.

Be safe out there. And responsible.

--
John Curran Ladd
1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA? 94114-3707
415-648-9279

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.?

The national Park Service typically fights fires with its own resources. Historically, they have been able to control files within the Parks with those resources.?
--
John Curran Ladd
1616 Castro Street
San Francisco, CA? 94114-3707
415-648-9279