› Forums › 2006 Flags on the 48 › 2006 Signups & Status › 2007 signups
-
AuthorPosts
-
Just to add my $.02: Say in February you wanted to do a Presi traverse in Sept and wanted to hike 1 day, stay at Lakes, and finish the next day. When you made your reservation for your chosen night, suppose you were told, “All those who want to stay that night, will have their names placed in a hat, and the excitement will build as we choose who gets to stay that night, just 1 month in advance.”
😮I’m against all forms of a lottery, reservation, and pre-registration! There are many other 4000′ mtns out there and 52 3000’ers to expand on as we grow that I mentioned and we briefly discussed last year. As I said, “A flag on every mtn!!”
Interesting analogy Magic.
What if you were told that the hut you wanted or the room you wanted was full? Easy to say go to another hut…but again I think this turns people off.
BTW, they do have lottery systems for a host of NP campsites in prime season(s).
I here what people are saying about this method…I really do. And truth be told we have a fantastic system in place now that is working very well. Thanks in large part to Mr. Wonderful…er…I mean Chris. 😀
I am looking forward to this years event and many more.
Speaking of a lottery, Powerball is over 150 million. That’s a lot of flagpoles. :flag:
Peace.
Suppose I wanted a mere $8 tent platform. Da croo says all names are in the hat. We will pick names until this site is completely filled tonight. As the lottery is selected, all others will just have to move on. How would you feel? And if you are exhausted, then what?
Hike many more miles?! 🙁@SilentCal wrote:
I feel a little opposite on the pre-registration for youth groups. My reasoning for this entails a little bit of personal experience and from what some of the scout-leaders have told me.
(snip)No one wants to send young hikers with no experience on a trek above treeline.
With all due respect.
This is exactly what I am reffering to for playing favoritism towards the scouts.
With your previous post, you have just described in detail why they should be ahead of everyone else.
Primarily a schedule issue.
So where does this end?
You will eventually get special interest groups all vollying for the same privileges.
If you can’t do this for all other special interest groups, then you are playing favoritism.
This sets a very difficult precedence, IMO.Two points:
Why does a peak have to have a maximum regsitered number of participants?
Why can’t the Scoutmaster simply sign up for the peak and then worry about filling it later, or giving it up later?Next year I will register a Scout Group! :flag: :flag: :flag: :flag: :flag: :flag:
One more very important point:
This year, I had no idea which peaks were pre-registered until I began the registration process, DURING CRITICAL PEAK SELECTION PERIOD!
(first 10 min.)
What if I was planning to pick a peak, made certain plans, Hut reservations, ect, then found out it was taken by pre-registered Scouts?I was not aware that this would be in play this year, either missed the posts or forgot.
But the PEAK LIST should be available for review by all when “pre-registration” opens.
Instead, I got a “Registration countdown clock” which is cool, but could have used the Pre-Registered list prior to regular registration opening.
Everyone involved in FOT48 needs to make advanced planning, not just Scouts.Brownie
Well said Brownie.
I trust the other readers get the message!
Thank You for your thoughts!!
Magic, with due respect…you can keep changing the scenario till it fits any arguement. I simply counter your orginal one with a different view point.
What if I was planning to pick a peak, made certain plans, Hut reservations, ect, then found out it was taken by pre-registered Scouts
Well the same could be said if you weren’t the fastest at the sign-up process and did not get the peak you wanted.
I was going to move on, but can someone explain to me why a lottery system is unfair or not doable? Maybe I missed a post or two as well… 😉
Perhaps the computer logistics are too complicated…that’s not my area…but geez…it is just an idea folks. :flag:It is true…there are degrees of favortism…we reserve a couple of peaks for non-hikers or people physically unable to hike. Should we stop this as well? Again degrees.
I’m in favor of a set number of peaks being reserved for youth groups. Ok…I’m biased…I’m a youth worker. This will help the event in years to come in very positive ways.
Anyways…hope to see you all at the KOA and Magic do not forget the clock this time.
I have RESERVED a beating for you in chess. :flag:
Peace.
@Jaytrek57 wrote:
I was going to move on, but can someone explain to me why a lottery system is unfair or not doable?
I was ready to move as well, but will offer an ugly scenerio to your question.
I could get 20+ friends to each enter the lottery as a peak coordinator. I could enlist many more in fact.
Then when the name is selected, we ALL go to that peak.
Multiple chances for a single group, which would be a cheat to compromise any lottery.
Which is one reason why I am firmly against it.
NOT that “I” would actually do this, rather suggesting what someone else could do possibly do.@Jaytrek57 wrote:
It is true…there are degrees of favortism…we reserve a couple of peaks for non-hikers or people physically unable to hike. Should we stop this as well?
The few peaks (Washinton, Wildcat, Cannon) should be left available to those whom are handicapped only,
hoping that someday a Veteran will get involved.OK, I have harped on this subject long enough, we understand each other, and hopefully will continue a fair path for all.
Sometimes it is good to see the dark side of issues, as was said earlier.Brownie
Your right Brownie, there are degree’s of favortism. At our very first planning meeting, we decided that the people who showed up there, would get a chance to register first. That was a big mistake on our part. We corrected that with the framework of the sign-up system that we have now. We can manipulate it and this discussion cements the fact that we need to work on the rules governing it. Looks like we have a great topic to debate at next year’s meeting.
One thing that I’ll fight tooth and nail for is the alternate access peaks. Cannon, Washington and Wildcat D will always be made available to non – hikers, veterans and the like.
Sorry Jaytrek my money is on Magic. See if he’ll play you blindfolded.
Without getting into the details, my opinion is that reserving peaks is generally not good. It smacks of favoritism (whether deserved or not) and if people feel that we are favoring one group over another, this event will suffer. I think I expressed this at the planning meeting as well.
The only caveat is the “accessible peaks”. I think it’s our responsibility to provide a way for physically limited people to participate, however I think we can do this better than we do now. At risk of creating more work for myself, I think we should have the “accessible” peaks be part of the sign up process- if someone chooses one of these peaks, we ask if they have a physical limitation, because these peaks are designated for those with limitations. (Very much like the bus: these seats are designated for those with handicaps, etc.) If they say yes, then we register them. If they say no, we send them back to the form to choose another peak.
Sorry Cal, I can’t say I agree with reserving or pre-registering the scouts or other groups. I fully support having the scouts and other youth organizations involved, I think it’s awesome (and I used to be in one), but pre-registering these groups guarantees them a peak, that’s all it does, and we don’t offer that to anyone else. Brownie makes a good point; what if the VFW, the American Legion, the Girl Scouts, the Rainbow Girls, the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Clubs, and Big Brother/Big Sister groups all request pre-registration? They’re all very worthy organizations, but that’s a lot of peaks!
I understand they need to plan to participate ahead, but we have yet to get to the point where there aren’t any open peaks for which the scouts can register. This may change in the future, we may get to a point where all 48 peaks are taken in the first day, but it’s not likely.
The long and the short of it really is that right now none of this is really a problem because our event is not that big, but our policies now will shape the way the event grows (or doesn’t) and how we will handle things when/if we reach capacity.
Ok, so I guess I got into the details a little there. 🙂
@Brownie wrote:
Why does a peak have to have a maximum regsitered number of participants?
We restrict the peak signups to 10 people to adhere to Leave No Trace principals. However, it may make sense at some point to open the peaks up, with no restictions, and let the peak coordinators that they should split the total number into groups of no more than 10. Something to think about.
Jaytrek, a clock would only force you to lose faster! 😆
Glad to learn of this!
Brownie you’re in!!
It is a tough call with regard to the pre-registration of Scout groups. Although I was very pleased to have our group pre-registered, and MtnMagic was happy to hike a different peak this year, if it hadn’t worked out, we would have particpated on some level.
I was suprised to see 5 peaks covered by Scout groups, so it is imaginable that there would be even more interest in coming years, so to continue to allow pre-registration could become an issue.
It is great that you have such good committee and thoughtful discussion about this each year, and can address the issues as they evolve. Whatever you decide, you can be sure that we will want to participate for a long time to come and are more than willing to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Marie – Crew 147
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘2006 Signups & Status’ is closed to new topics and replies.