[at-l] Trail Food, How do you carry 7 days

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>Hmmm. The overwhelming consensus in this list and others, as well as 
>personal
>observations, experience, common sense, trail journals, books by thru 
>hikers ...
>all tell me that towns eat money.

Hmmm - you're obfuscating again, Bob.  You're answering objections that 
weren't made and questions that weren't asked.   Or is it just that you need 
your glasses adjusted again?  Specifically, you said:

>Light weight for most requires an early start -- because skimping on 
>clothing means more days in town, both early and late, and inevitably more 
>town expenses, as hikers face storms with inadequate gear, and usually more 
>total hike expenses.
>
>A later start, heavier gear, more food carried between towns stops,  means 
>fewer town stops, and a less expensive hike.

And that whole thing is totally ridiculous (Ginny's words, not mine - I had 
other words). Fact is that the least expensive hike (and fewer town stops) 
would be done with minimum (ultralight) gear at 30+ miles per day with a 
town stop every 2-4 days.  That won't happen with your "heavier pack."  To 
quote another source - "It's no fun hauling the pack up all those mountains 
- and the heavier the pack, the less fun it is."


>I did meet a lot of great people who quit because they ran out of money. I 
>met others who quit
>  because they found even April (my start month) too cold and uncomfortable 
>and
>  their clothing inadequate. I met others who quit because of excessive 
>weight
>  loss from eating inadequate amounts of food. For these and other reasons 
>only
>  10 percent or so of the thousands who leave Springer each spring end up 
>on
>  Katahdin. And many of the 10 percent don't truly walk the trail even by 
>my very
>  lax standards.

Yes - all true - and none of it rates even the smallest amount of sympathy.  
Those who spend their money in town do so by their own choice.  Those who 
don't eat enough do so by their own choice.  I've more than once had to 
start a force feeding program while on the trail.  It's a choice, Bob -just 
as carrying too much weight is a choice - and blows a lot more people off 
the trail than the things you bemoan so loudly.

We ALL get to live with the results of our choices.  Sometimes we get to 
regret the choices.  Tough.


>  In 1993 especially with its heavy early snows I heard numerous stories of
>  hikers being stranded in towns.

So what?  EVERYBODY who was in the vicinity of the high peaks of TN/NC 
during that storm spent some time in town.  Your implication that light pack 
weight was the culprit and that carrying a heavier pack, more food, etc 
would have avoided the town time is simply nonsense.  A lot more useful 
would be to point out that "starting time" has a lot more to do with 
avoiding those kind of storms.  Starting in mid-March or before almost 
guarantees major snow somewhere in NC - generally in the Smokies.


>Judging by the many journals and other
>  accounts, storms continue to result in town stops.

So --- what evidence do you have that "lack of clothing" is the problem?  
I've been blown out of the backcountry by a blizzard in Colorado - and 
clothing had nothing to do with the decision.  Many of us definitely carry 
less than you seem to think is necessary - but that's our choice and we've 
found it to be a good one - even under the worst conditions.  A thruhiker 
generally needs far less clothing than most "backpackers" seem to think is 
necessary.

>  As far as "ultralight" and other such terms, I don't think in such 
>categories.

Of course you do - to quote your own words -
>Light weight for most requires an early start

Which is still nonsense no matter how many times I read it.


>In my case, I go into the woods and mountains because I like to experience 
>woods
>and mountains and because I enjoy the sense of wildness that gradually 
>emerges
>and grows stronger after many days in the outdoors. For me anyway, that 
>sense of
>wildness is far less likely to occur when I go into town every 2-3 days. 
>Usually
>wildness only gradually emerges after five or six days.
>
>  But I'm not a masochist. I don't skirt a town or a resupply store, just 
>to
>  pretend I'm in the wilds. If I can walk there and back in an hour, I'll
>  resupply daily. But if I have to hitch into town, it almost always 
>becomes an
>  overnight stop -- usually an enjoyable stop to be sure -- but I prefer to 
>stay
>  exclusively on the trail when it's reasonably possible to do so.

All of which is wonderful - but has little or nothing to do with what's 
"necessary" for a thruhike.

I've said this before - staying out for 7 to 10 days is great - if you're 
not under the time and distance constraints of a thruhike.  But carrying 7 
to 10 days of food during a thruhike is something that's rarely necessary - 
and contributes to more people quitting the trail than your great concerns 
about money.  If you were really concerned about those who quit, then you'd 
be preaching "lighter pack" - not "carry more food and clothing so you can 
stay out of town longer."

If you're gonna give advice to thruhikers, then talk "thruhiking" - not 
"backpacking."  The two may be  related, but they're definitely different.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over 
limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es