[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #645
Take me of this list
THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS IS EFFECTIVE ONLY UNTIL FEB 28, 1999
THE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS WILL BE
BoomtownDJS@hotmail.com
PLEASE MAKE A NOTE!
Chad Tibbetts
BOOMTOWN PRODUCTIONS
Mobile DJ's for ALL Occasions
*****************************
Call Toll Free
1-800-355-5926 (business phone)
668-6457 (home office)
E-Mail BoomtownDJS@hotmail.com
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, pct-l-digest wrote:
>
> pct-l-digest Tuesday, January 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 645
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
> [pct-l] Esbit and Alcohol Stoves
> [pct-l] GPS
> [pct-l] GPS again
> Re: [pct-l] GPS again
> [pct-l] Mosquito Repellent
> [pct-l] biscuits of death
> [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
> [pct-l] GPS watch
> Re: [pct-l] Casio GPS watch
> Re: [pct-l] Casio GPS watch
> [pct-l] Re: Horses and thruhikers
> [pct-l] trail towns
> [pct-l] Snow in Sth Calif?
> Re: [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
> [pct-l] Re: Horses and thruhikers
> Re: [pct-l] Banning Horses? Yes!
> Re: [pct-l] Banning Horses? Yes!
> [pct-l] Horses and thruhikers
> [pct-l] feed/seed/LNT?
> Re: [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:14:28 -0500
> From: "Mayer, Jim" <JMayer@crt.xerox.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Esbit and Alcohol Stoves
>
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE3E46.A5D67800
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Could someone who has used both Esbit and Alcohol stoves take a shot at
> comparing the two? I've found alcohol stoves incredibly convenient, and am
> wondering what the attraction of the Esbit is.
>
> The Esbit stoves have clearly generated a lot of interest, but I'm having a
> bit of trouble figuring out why!
>
> - -- Jim Mayer
>
>
>
> - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE3E46.A5D67800
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> name="Mayer, Jim.vcf"
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="Mayer, Jim.vcf"
> Content-Location: ATT-0-1EA8192134AAD211B9AD00805FB603D6-M
> AYER_%7E1.VCF
>
> BEGIN:VCARD
> VERSION:2.1
> N:Mayer;Jim
> FN:Mayer, Jim
> ORG:Xerox Corporation;CR&T/WCR&T/ADSTC
> TEL;WORK;VOICE:8*222.9407
> TEL;WORK;VOICE:1+716+4229407
> ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;128-280D;800 Phillips Road=0D=0AMS: 0128-30E;Webster;NY;14580-9701;USA
> LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:128-280D=0D=0A800 Phillips Road=0D=0AMS: 0128-30E=0D=0AWebster, NY 14580-970=
> 1=0D=0AUSA
> EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:JMayer@crt.xerox.com
> REV:19981023T151558Z
> END:VCARD
>
> - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE3E46.A5D67800--
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:50:15 -0500
> From: "Umstead, Tim (SD-EX)" <TUmstead@GI.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] GPS
>
> If you are like most thru-hikers you will be ripping the guide books apart
> and hiking from their maps. GPS's are nice, but they give you your location
> in hr:min:sec. The small maps out of the guide books do not have that data
> on them, therefore, you will not be able to cross-reference your GPS
> location to the guide book maps. GPS's will work great on the CDT, where
> you carry full size maps, but, on the PCT they are just a nice little toy.
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:55:00 +0100
> From: "Eriksen, Svein" <sveri@wmdata.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] GPS again
>
> Found the technical specs at:
>
> http://www.casio.com/corporate/pressdetail.cfm?ID=51
>
> The impressive part is that they manage to put it into a watch. The rest
> isn't quite as impressive.
>
> * 8 channels
> * 10 hours/600 readings on a battery
> * Doesn't seem to have the altimeter/thermometer functions of the
> Suunto/Casio/Avocet
>
> As someone noted, you don't (usually) need these features on the PCT, but a
> snowy year like 98 with miles and miles of snow cover it sure would have
> been useful.
>
> Svein
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:29:59 -0800
> From: "Lucian Hicks" <lucian@sierranv.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] GPS again
>
> Another drawback to the Casio wrist-mounted GPS is its weight: 5.5 oz.
> That's a lot of weight swinging from your arm.
>
> Lucian ("Bristlecone")
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:29:29 -0800
> From: Tom Rogers <tfrogers@san.rr.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Mosquito Repellent
>
> Let me cast this line out one more time. Has anyone out there had any
> experience with Cactus Juice (http://www.cactusjuicetm.com). If not,
> any suggestions on an alternative to DEET. And, yes I use a head net
> and layers when the bugs get thick, but sometimes its nice to just use
> something on face and hands while hiking or in camp.
>
> Happy Trails, Tom
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:37:45 EST
> From: Montedodge@aol.com
> Subject: [pct-l] biscuits of death
>
> We have alot of horses on PCT in Wash. in Mt. Adams to White Pass area. We use
> this trail two or three times a year with plenty of horses and their owners
> with 44 mags on their hip ( just in case of a grizzly or attacking squirrel)
> I don,t like the horse flies , trail abuse or smell of horse dung with my
> oatmeal either. My biggest problem is the weed seeds these horses bring in to
> alpine meadows in their dung. (tanzy, scotchbroom, etc.) Mt. Saint Helens is
> making a good come back, but these HORSE SEEDS are not helping. Elk Hunters in
> the fall come into the Clearwater Creek area of the Mt. and are spreading weed
> seeds in their feed and in horse biscuits. The same is happening in the goat
> rocks. In 20 plus years of hiking, I,ve seem alot of changes for us hikers (
> higher fees, access, quota,s permits up the b---) It,s now time to get the
> Cowboy Crowd to start picking up the tab with fees and quota,s. The park and
> forest service are a bunch of Horse Camp SUCK-UPS. I,ll get off my soapbox now
> . PS At least they provide fuel for ZIP STOVES Anyone for a biscuit?
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:57:13 -0800
> From: "Joanne Lennox" <goforth@cio.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
>
> I recently found a way to see if there is snow in the Mountains south of
> the Sierras - Lagunas, SanJacintos, etc.
>
> On Mark dixons snow page :
> http://missoula.bigsky.net/mdixon/snow/pct/southern/snow.http
>
> On the upper right hand there is a link to Snow Cover Maps - the CNRFC one
> covers California and Nevada, the NWRFC covers Washington, Oregon and
> Idaho, and the CBRFC covers the Colorado Basin. These give two maps that
> can be enlarged. One map shows snow by elevation, and the other tells snow
> by inches of Snow water equivalent. Thus yesterday the map showed that the
> snow stops at the southern end of the Sierras. Here the snow line begans
> at about 9,000 ft. on the West side of the sierras, and at about 10,000 ft.
> on the east side. At the south end there is 1-6" snow water at the higher
> elevations. There appears to be no snow whatever from the Sierras at 9,000
> ft. to the Mexican border. Hey all you southern Californians, did I get it
> right? what are you seeing in the Mountains down there? If so May is going
> to be dry. April is not such a bad time to start.
>
> Also there is a map on the 24-hr South Sierra Precip. map (upper left),
> that gives you an idea of where all the sensors for most of the snow data
> are in the S. Sierras.
>
> Peace
> Goforth
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:26:34 -0600
> From: Andrew Yip <AndrewY@micrografx.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] GPS watch
>
> >* Doesn't seem to have the altimeter/thermometer functions of the
> >Suunto/Casio/Avocet
>
> Most GPS devices will provide an altitude reading, although someone
> mentioned in an earlier post that they are usually inaccurate.
>
> - -Yip
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:45:34 -0600
> From: Toby Patke <tobin@mail.utexas.edu>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Casio GPS watch
>
> I was pricing a similar Casio watch a few months ago...features included a
> compass, barometer, and altimeter (no GPS).
>
> What finally turned me off was when I was reading the instruction manual. The
> watch required you to take little precautions like...DON'T EXPOSE TO COLD
> WEATHER...The "sensors" on the watch are extremely delicate and sensitive.
>
> I concluded that the watch was little more than a toy for week-end warriors to
> show-off to their friends.
>
> In my opinion it is really cool that we can do all of this with technology.
> But I think the technology is just to new, compact, unstable, and experimental
> to be reliable. If your life may depend on these tools...you will probably
> want something more "heavy duty".
>
> Toby Patke
>
>
> Andrew Yip wrote:
>
> > >* Doesn't seem to have the altimeter/thermometer functions of the
> > >Suunto/Casio/Avocet
> >
> > Most GPS devices will provide an altitude reading, although someone
> > mentioned in an earlier post that they are usually inaccurate.
> >
> > -Yip
> > * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:06:41 -0800
> From: reynolds@ilan.com
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Casio GPS watch
>
> Someone reported that the Casio weighs 5.5 ounces. That is within a couple
> ounces of a hand held job [7 oz]. Now you can't have one of these things on
> all the time unless you have a burro to carry all the batteries so you
> really are only going to use one on a cross-country, over snow -- or for
> fun. Further, as someone pointed out, finding out where you are on a map
> using Lat-Lon is difficult. Better, set up way points along a specific
> route that might be indistinct. I doubt the Casio has way point capability.
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:11:34 -0800
> From: reynolds@ilan.com
> Subject: [pct-l] Re: Horses and thruhikers
>
> Re: Walk softly in all the horse shit
> No way man, Ise hates that horse shiiit!
>
> So you endorse my plan of using a satelitte phone, personally hiring a
> cowboy and directing said slave [Now, BJ, This is what turns me on! ((:] to
> show up at a particular time and place for my afternoon hot toddy!
> [Obviously, two sattelitte phones equals instant communication].
>
> Actually, most of the PCT doesn't need a horse, only a slave and a 4WD so I
> can even make Greg happy (((:
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:18:28 -0500
> From: "Michael T. Lacasse" <mtnsmike@Nantucket.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] trail towns
>
> here are the towns I used in 95 & this summer & my thoughts on them.
>
> Mt laguna; decent store next to PO, Forest Service Campground near by
>
> Warner Spring; only thing available in 95 was gas station store with
> munchies next to PO
>
> Idyllwild; State CG with hike & bike spot for $3 a day. Great stop with
> everything available in this town. Easy hitch
>
> Big Bear; Stay at fire station, bus to large stores for $1, Hard
> hitching, would try from Hwy. instead of Canyon Rd.
>
> Wrightwood. Stayed with a trail family that has since moved. Nice town
> though
>
> Agua Dulce; Church Hostel & friendly. Decent store
>
> Mojave; Large stores, White's motel will shuttle you from trail. Contact
> PCTA for info.
>
> Onyx; Didn't use it but hitched in & would use it if I did it again.
> Easy hitch, decent store, not much else.
>
> Kennedy Meadows, Great place to meet the other Thru-hiker
>
> Lone Pine; Easy hitch, good store. Motels $60ish
>
> Independence; Easy hitch, decent store, motels $60ish
>
> Vermilion Valley ranch; Super friendly! They make their money on their
> services so it can get expensive
>
> Cedar Grove; Stopped here in 98 to meet a friend. FS campground, mail is
> a fiasco though!
>
> Tuolumne meadows: Backpacker site, great stores, but be ready for
> crowds.
>
> Markleville; easy hitch in but hard hitch back to the trail. Small
> stores & motel $50ish
>
> Echo Lake; Store, free shuttle to South lake Tahoe with motel owner
> where all is available.
>
> Truckee; got on the trail here in 98. Large stores & outfitters. State
> cg at donner lake with shuttle to town.
>
> Burney Falls camper services; Not so hiker friendly anymore. $3 hike &
> bike along with back country campsite.
>
> Castella; decent store next to the State CG
>
> Etna; easy hitch & great town, super friendly with good store &
> restraunts
>
> Seid Valley; another super friendly trail town, one hiker described it
> as pa perfect resupply. Watch out for scorpions though!
>
> Hyatt lake; don't count on the "store" here!
>
> Crater Lake; both the po & lodge seem pretty unorganized. Stores are
> mostly snack foods.
>
> Diamond Lake; decent store, FS campground next to it.
>
> Cascades Summit; Campground w/store. Do they still hold packages? heard
> ownership changed.
>
> Ollalie lake; heard the small store now holds packages, had a good hiker
> box when I was there
>
> White Pass; super friendly, FS campground close by. Store limited
>
> Snoqualimine Pass; decent store busy area
>
> Skykomish; hard hitch, limited stores but nice b&b.
>
> Stehekin; free campground, friendly town, limited store.
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:34:49 -0800
> From: Greg Hummel <ghummel@hydrogenburner.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Snow in Sth Calif?
>
> It not only doesn't rain in Sth Calif, this year it also doesn't snow!
>
> >From my vantage point there is no snow visible in the San Gabriel, San
> Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains. I know that there are only thin
> patches of snow in the forests around Lake Arrowhead and they are skiing on
> Bear Mountain at Big Bear Lake, but you can bet most of it is man-made. So
> far it looks like a dry winter. To this point last year southern
> California had a little over five inches of precipitation! So far this
> year we have had zip!
>
> Good luck 1999'ers!
>
> Greg "Strider" Hummel
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:13:39 -0500
> From: "Mike \"Snoop\" Paton" <snoop@erols.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
>
> : >On Mark dixons snow page :
> > http://missoula.bigsky.net/mdixon/snow/pct/southern/snow.http
> >
>
>
> ~~~~ message responce ~~~~
>
>
> 404 Not Found
> The requested URL was not found on this server:
> /mdixon/snow/pct/southern/snow.http
>
> (d:\ftp\pub\Website\fpmiss\htdocs\mdixon\snow\pct\southern\snow.http)
>
> Please return to the referring document and note the hypertext link that led
> you here
>
> ~~~ my responce ~~~
>
> I keep loosing the snow page address.. What is the working address?
>
>
> - -= s =-
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:21:20 -0500
> From: Owen <jrowen@ibm.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Re: Horses and thruhikers
>
> reynolds@ilan.com wrote:
> >
> > Re: Walk softly in all the horse shit
> > No way man, Ise hates that horse shiiit!
> >
> > So you endorse my plan of using a satelitte phone, personally hiring a
> > cowboy and directing said slave [Now, BJ, This is what turns me on! ((:] to
> > show up at a particular time and place for my afternoon hot toddy!
> > [Obviously, two sattelitte phones equals instant communication].
> >
> > Actually, most of the PCT doesn't need a horse, only a slave and a 4WD so I
> > can even make Greg happy (((:
>
>
> Tom -
> Hike your own hike!! :-))
>
> I won't "endorse" your hike - but it doesn't sound like something
> that'll damage the trail - well, maybe you'd want to leave the 4WD at
> home. Wouldn't want you accused of being a "yellow-blazer" now, would
> we? :-))
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:49:34 -0800
> From: reynolds@ilan.com
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Banning Horses? Yes!
>
> >From Tom Reynolds,
>
> I always am civil and I assume that others are also even if their posts
> seem inflamatory to me. Even if you call me a complete jerk I assume that
> you are talking about my opinions not me personally. I expect that people
> who feel strongly about things tend to get agitated.
>
> I am more familiar with the areas somewhat south of the area you discribe
> although I have hiked that area. The worst packer I have seen is from Rock
> Creek Pack Station. It was from here that these huge trains of saddle and
> pack animals originate. On the west side, in Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP
> the pack stations are not nearly as active. The High Sierra Trail does not
> appear to suffer more damage than horse shit. I say this because the first
> 4 miles are not used by horses and I can't tell the difference.
>
> On the east side the Bishop Pack station goes mostly to Humphrey's Basin
> and Onion Valley and Bishop Pass pack stations carry mostly dunnage and
> fishing trips into the near back country but have trashed some near
> destinations with day rides. Are these trails wider and rockier than they
> would be without horse travel? Undoubtably. Are the areas trashed? Not to
> me.
>
> Outside the National Parks and Wilderness areas nature is marred by
> clearcutting, road building and zillions of cows in otherwise fantastic
> meadows. I am thinking here mostly of the areas north of Lake Isabella
> along the highway that crosses at Sherman Pass. These seem a far better
> target because the issue is merely economic [cheap wood or beef] not
> denying older peolpe [geritols] access to the wilderness.
>
> Now to politics.
>
> Statistically, most people don't vote. If you remove the geritols that vote
> as a 90+ rate, the average person is less than 40% to vote. Second, those
> who do vote are typically swayed by well marketed sound bytes that cost
> lots of money. {I am not saying this is how it shoud be, just how it is.}
>
> The sad fact is that the budget for our National Parks and Wilderness areas
> simply suck while low level economic operations continue in our National
> Forests because of a well organized and financed interest group. If it was
> politicallty popular to support the natural areas over these economic
> interests the politicains would do it. It ain't happening man! We ain't
> getting shit!!
>
> To change this we need those "well marketed sound bytes that cost lots of
> money" We need our low level economic interest groups [the packers] to fund
> some hype!
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:26:56 -0800
> From: Greg Hummel <ghummel@hydrogenburner.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Banning Horses? Yes!
>
> Dear Reynolds (first name?),
>
>
> First, thank you for remaining non-inflammatory and civil in your
> discussion of our differences in opinion. Understanding and solutions
> come from civil discussion. =20
>
>
> I don't think that the Sierra is suffering degradation from overuse, I
> know that it is and can point to evidence on almost every trail, every
> campsite, every trail head. The key word here is "almost". Not all,
> just almost all. Sure I know of many areas that are untrammeled and
> relatively undamaged, but those areas closest to access and most popular
> all almost without exception are showing signs of degradation. By
> "degradation" I mean that the trail is wider than necessary, or there a
> several side by side parallel trails thru wet areas, or the side of the
> trail on a slope has been pushed out, or there are piles of rusted cans
> and other liter in the campsite, or erosion of the campsite or trail has
> been accelerated due to the pounding of too much weight crushing and
> pulverizing the soil into dust that is too easily blown or washed away
> leaving the rocks below, or, or, or, . . .
>
>
> My emphasis on HIGH was to indicate that my concern is more focused on
> those alpine areas at the higher elevations in the Sierra that are the
> most delicate. The soil profiles that are there, under the meadows and
> low in the valleys have taken millions (that's right
> <italic>millions</italic>) of years to form. Any erosion caused by
> humans directly or indirectly is un-repairable and non-reversible. =20
>
>
> I have been hiking in the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River drainage
> in the Ansel Adams wilderness area for 27 years. I have hiked out of the
> Agnew Meadows trail head almost every time over that course of time and I
> can personally attest to the degradation of the trail head area (where
> there happens to be horse packer corrals and staging area) and trails up
> to Shadow, Marie, Garnet and Thousand Island Lakes, among others. These
> high alpine lakes and surrounding areas are frequented by horse packers
> due to the good access from Agnew Meadows and the pack station at Red's
> Meadow. The trail from Agnew Meadows to Thousand Island Lake has been
> degraded by the frequent pounding from the many horse packers over many
> years. I know that the pulverization of volcanic and granitic rocks and
> soils that make up most of that trail bed have not been appreciably
> degraded by vibram souls as the rubber will wear out before it will begin
> to crush, scrape, smear or any other mechanical action, the rock and
> soils. The trail bed in several stretches is a deep (say 4 to 6 inches)
> trench filled with powder, effectively hiding the more resistant rocks,
> causing frequent near-damaging ankle turns. In other stretches the trail
> has been deeply eroded and repaired and eroded and repaired. I'm sure
> that the repairs were made with the assistance of horse packers, but
> would they have been necessary in the first place if a lower volume or no
> horses had pounded the trail?
>
>
> This is only one area in the Sierras that I offer as an example, there
> are many more that I (and others on the list) can point to. It is still a
> beautiful and spectacular area that I will continue to visit. However,
> my experience is degraded from these issues and I wonder what that trail
> will look like in 200 years. You see I am not just thinking about the
> short term, my lifetime. The small degradation that I have noticed over
> twenty seven years would not be disturbing if all I was concerned with
> was my lifetime. It is the minor creep of damage over long periods of
> time that goes unnoticed due to the small amount over an individuals
> exposure to it that accumulates and accelerates and eventually is
> recognized as a major damage problem. I'm not surprised that you don't
> recognize the damage. Most people don't look for it. As a geologist I
> have been trained to observe details closely to identify lineaments,
> trends, and minor changes in texture as a sign of the beginnings of
> erosional processes. =20
>
>
> I think in geologic time scales not human time scales. The pace of
> damage and degradation in the Sierra due to man is unheralded in terms of
> the pace of erosional processes in geologic time.
>
>
> >Your solution is to WRITE letters to politicians to back your position.
> My
>
> >solution is to send MONEY to BUY politicians [they call this political
>
> >donations] to back my position. Who do you think will win?
>
>
> Well I know my state assemblyman, my state senator and my congressman
> (and several other congressman)on first name basis from the years of
> writing letters and taking opportunities to get involved and meet with
> them and running a business in the political campaign industry. No I
> don't send money and I think that maybe your money may speak very loud.
> However, I think that the 70% of the people who are willing to be charged
> more in taxes and cost of goods to pay for environmental clean-up (stat
> is from a survey that was done at least ten years ago and widely quoted)
> and wilderness preservation are more important to them on election day
> than the money you send. They (even very conservative Republicans) know
> this stat and respect it, even if they don't share the same sentiments.
>
>
> >I am trying get you to understand that
>
> >by advocating shutting out certain people [horse people for example]
> from
>
> >the wilderness you are weakening the political base of people who are
>
> >trying to preserve the wilderness [maybe not exactly as you want to=20
> and
>
> >maybe not as pristine as you hoped but still, by and large preserve
> it].
>
>
> I've heard this "divide and conquer" fear strategy before. It carries no
> weight with me as when making the argument to preserve I prefer to do so
> from a stance with as little hippocrasy as possible (a difficult and
> challenging thing to do anyway).
>
>
> >Interestingly, my reaction to the Tahoe '97 Confrence you refrence was
>
> >'Another bunch of extremists smelling their own gas'. True DDT was a
>
> >problem but we [the world] were also supposed to be out of oil by now
> and
>
> >the greenhouse effect was supposed to raise the temperature 10 degrees
> by
>
> >now.
>
>
> Well, in fact the temperature of world has risen due to the greenhouse
> effect and this is widely accepted by the scientific community, not
> wholely but a majority. The prediction that we would run out of oil was
> not put out by "extremists", but in fact was put out by experience oil
> analysts from the oil industry based on some fairly strong evidence. It
> has been revised several times due to the effects of supply and demand
> and due to an increase in the technology of finding and producing the
> ever increasingly elusive oil reservoirs. Instead of throwing around
> wild statements with little basis in fact, can we please stay focused on
> the issue at hand?
>
>
> >I advocate [and have so stated in this forum] raising the fees on
> packers
>
> >and limiting the number of stock on the trail of stock per day. This
> seems
>
> >to me a reasonable solution to most of the horse shit while still
> allowing
>
> >people to use horses [at a significantly incresesd price] and packers
> to
>
> >stay in business -- if they will simply allow the law of supply and
> demand
>
> >to work. I advocate this primarily because I want to reduce the horse
> shit
>
> >on the trail and reduce the sometimes huge horse parties. I believe
> that
>
> >this would increase most peoples enjoyment of the trail and increase
>
> >support for the wilderness.
>
>
> I think this is an excellent suggestion and merely would like to restrict
> horses from a few delicate, particularly beautiful areas. We are closer
> than we think. Thanks for the discussion on this most important issue
> and the timing couldn't be better in regards to Inyo NF review of horse
> packer permitting.
>
>
>
> Take long strides . . . . .
>
>
> Greg "Strider" Hummel=20
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:56:28 -0500
> From: Owen <jrowen@ibm.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Horses and thruhikers
>
> Tom Reynolds wrote:
> >re: [Horse packing resupply] would be contrary to the entire reason for
> >thruhiking.
> >
> >Why? I would think that hiking the entire trail without leaving it would be
> >the ultimate. Your reports indicate that you have a great time during
> >resupply sidetrips but you don't need to hike 2,700 miles to enjoy an
> >all-you-can-eat barbaque.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >PS: Yes I know that I don't understand thruhiking. That's the problem. If
> >I, a confirmed backpacker, doesn't understand where you are at, how can
> >normal people who hike zero?
>
>
>
> Tom -
> You asked a good question - it deserves an answer. But te;; me - are
> you implying that I'm not normal? Well - you're probably right. :-)
>
> I think you know more about at least the mechanics of thruhiking than
> you're admitting or maybe than you think you know, but the mindset may
> still be a little murky. But then that's murky for a lot of people,
> sometimes even for thruhikers. As an example of the difference in
> mindset, let's use some of your words - with a twist: if you want to
> hike 2,700 miles, you need to enjoy all the all-you-can-eat barbeques
> you can find. :-))
>
> Now - bj implies that there are masses of thruhikers who are using horse
> packers for resupply. So let's take a look at first the pragmatic side
> of thruhiking and then maybe some philosophy. And we'll see how it
> stacks up against her implications and maybe we can answer your
> questions. Let's start with the ground rule that I'm gonna talk about
> thruhikers - period. In great part because that's what I know and
> care about.
>
> Let's start with what a "thruhike" is - this is how I recently defined
> it for another group (yeah - the definition of what "IS" is) ---
>
> >You can find a lot of definitions out there, but my personal definition of
> >a thruhike is "the act of walking the length of a long trail from end to
> >end within one year" (or one "hiking season"). For present purposes,
> >a "long trail" is any of the three major hiking trails in the United
> >States - the AT (Appalachian Trail), the PCT (Pacific Crest Trail)
> >or the CDT (Continental Divide Trail).
>
> >IMO a thruhiker is someone who walks from Maine to Georgia (or Canada
> > to Mexico) or vice versa on one of the three major hiking trails in the US
> >(i.e. - performs a "thruhike). Pack or not, blue-blazes or not, supported
> >or not, running, walking, crawling, in one direction or both, North-to-south
> >or vice versa, whatever - no restrictions EXCEPT ---- yellow-blazing
> >(hitchhiking or riding around large sections of the Trail) particularly with
> >no intent to go back and hike those sections. "Yellow-blazing" means that
> >person isn't walking and cannot, therefore, logically claim to be a
> >"thruhiker".
>
> Basic, simple - and doesn't preclude resupply by horse if that suits
> your fancy. But that's not the whole story. One of the corollaries is
> that thruhikers "hike their own hike". And that means that, with a very
> few exceptions, a thruhiker is NOT on a strict schedule. Yeah, most of
> us
> start out with one - and it's a handy tool for planning purposes. But
> as someone once said - "No battle plan survives first contact with
> the enemy". Nor does a thruhiking schedule generally survive the first
> week on the trail. A thruhiker may plan for 18 mile days - and do
> 20's - or 30's. Or get blisters and do 12's. Or spend a couple days in
> a hospital. Plays hell with a schedule, doesn't it? :-)
>
> Now let's take a look at the horse packers side of it - if they're gonna
> resupply someone, then that someone has to be at a particular place
> at a particular time. They do, after all, operate on a time basis as bj
> pointed out - and they're not likely to wait two days for that thruhiker
> to show up. Provided, that is, that he's not already long past that
> point. While a thruhiker may make that kind of schedule over a short
> time
> period (a week?), it doesn't work well if you're planning a month or
> two in advance. And that kind of resupply would necessarily have to
> be made long in advance, because it requires planning - arrangement
> with the horse packer, delivery of the resupply to the packer - and
> then to the trailhead, payment, etc. You don't do that kind of planning
> "on the fly" while you're on the trail - you do that before leaving.
> The idea that a thruhiker would plan a resupply via horse packer is
> ridiculous simply from a time and schedule aspect.
>
> I know - maybe bj's idea is that the packer could leave the resupply at
> a particular bear box in the backcountry. I don't think so - there's no
> assurance that the thruhiker won't have passed that bear box 3 days
> before the packer gets there - or maybe they'll never get there at all.
> Bad planning. And I don't think her supervisor would approve of that
> kind of activity (blind food drops in the backcountry) any more than I
> do.
>
> Now let's consider another major factor - cost. That may not be a major
> factor for you - but most thruhikers are on a limited budget - I know
> people who've thruhiked the AT on $800, although that's not the best way
> to do it. Most thruhikers make it on $3000 - $4000 (or less). As
> someone once said - thruhiking is the most fun you can have for the
> longest time on the least amount of money. Tell me again - what does
> a horse packer charge for a resupply in the backcountry? $100? More?
> Sorry, guy - no sale. I can go into town and have a really good meal,
> get a shower, do laundry, have a quart of ice cream and a couple beers,
> make some telephone calls and maybe even sleep in a bed and have
> breakfast for the same price. You think I'm gonna pay a horse packer -
> and miss a town visit, too? I don't think so. From a financial
> viewpoint, horse packer delivery is ludicrous to a thruhiker.
>
> Now let's talk a little philosophy - The basics of a thruhike are
> simplicity, flexibility and freedom. When you reduce your material
> possessions to what you can carry on your back, life gets prettty
> simple. Flexibility is required to deal with the thousand-and-three
> problems and irritations of daily life on the trail - like heat, snow,
> mosquitos, equipment malfunctions, partners that go home, an
> appetite that would do credit to a hungry grizzly, etc. Freedom is
> making your own decisions about where and when to camp and how
> many miles to put down tomorrow, it's spending an afternoon watching
> the clouds and then hiking at night, it's doing your first 30 mile day -
> when you're ready (not because you have to be somewhere), it's a
> lifestyle and an attitude.
>
> Now - just for grins - let's say I wanted to use horse packers for
> resupply on my PCT thruhike. First I'd have to make arrangements
> with the horse packers (including times/dates/places/weights), I'd
> have to pack the resupply packages (being careful to not exceed the
> weights I arranged with the packers), mail them to the horse packers,
> pay for them - and then worry about it. And I'd be tied to a
> schedule. If I wanted a schedule I could stay home and go to work every
> day.
>
> That process certainly isn't simple - nor is it cheap. It also violates
> the flexibility clause because I'd be required to use the food that was
> in the resupply package - even if I was so sick of corn pasta that I
> gag just looking at it. (No - I don't and won't use corn pasta). It
> also violates the freedom clause - because if I don't make it to the
> prearranged pickup point, then I forfeit both my food and the delivery
> fee. So I don't have the freedom to take an extra 2 days or a week to
> get to the pickup point - or to pass the pickup point 3 days early.
> There's no simplicity - no flexibility - and certainly no freedom in
> that arrangement. Therefore - as I said before - it violates the intent
> and spirit of thruhiking.
>
> There's also the matter of "self-sufficiency" - and I know just how
> dependent most thruhikers are on town stops, so don't give me the usual
> line. But there are few people in this country who are closer to being
> really self-sufficient than a thruhiker on the trail. Some of us prize
> that little extra bit of freedom. And there are those who envy it and
> would take it from us.
>
> There's also another problem - the horse packer would deliver the
> package AS I PACKED IT. What would bj like me to do with the
> packaging - carry it for the next 100 miles maybe? I don't think so.
> Or maybe she'd volunteer to come pick up the pieces? I don't think so.
>
> Now - there's another point that she misses - she says:
>
> < I don't think "chunching the numbers" works very well in determining
> <who's hauling what and why; there are just too many variables. Just
> <because a "typical" pack animal may be limited to a maximum of 150 lbs
> <doesn't mean he will actually be carrying it (or even half that!), you
> <see. Depends alot on the bulk/balance of the panniers' contents, the
> <individual animal (on a particular day/trail), logistics of the trip,
> <etc etc. And a haul may include mounted clients, a resupply for a
> <thruhiker, camping gear for a church group, _and_ garbage being taken
> out
> <from a fishing camp, etc etc. Not all pack strings are identical, just
> <like not all hikers have the same story, no?
>
> And one word covers that --- bullfeathers. First, because there aren't
> that many factors involved - I keep track of a lot more than that every
> day. And I think you, as a business owner/executive, do too. If
> someone wants "too many variables", try remote operation of an 85 MB,
> 8-channel Enhanced Thematic Mapper with a 408 GB Solid State Recorder
> and a variable 75-300Mb downlink through a half dozen ground sites -
> and then add the ground processing facility throughput restrictions
> as a feedback on the scheduling process. And that's the short takes -
> so don't give me this "too many variables" stuff. Determination of
> what goes in and out of the backcountry via horse packer is a
> simple-minded process that any third-year undergraduate business
> student should be able to outline without even working up a sweat.
>
> More than that, any business that doesn't keep track of the numbers
> (specifically - what they're hauling, where, when, how much, for
> who, how long it takes and how much it costs) is rapidly headed for
> extinction. Those numbers ARE available and some fairly simple
> analysis would establish traffic/weight patterns which could then
> be related directly to trail damage. And that's not even a medium-hard
> problem.
>
> Now --- let's try that again - how many 99 PCT thruhikers want to do
> their resupply via horse packer?
>
> Horses - I'm not even gonna get into that. Some people know where
> I came down in the Pennsylvania horse wars - but I'm not gonna spend
> the time debating horses in the Sierras when others know the subject
> (on both sides) better than I do.
>
> Walk softly in that horse shit,
> Jim
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:49:13 -0800
> From: bjensen4@juno.com (Birgitte Jensen)
> Subject: [pct-l] feed/seed/LNT?
>
> Monte Dodge writes:
> >oatmeal either. My biggest problem is the weed seeds these horses
> >bring in to alpine meadows in their dung.
>
> Monte, you'll be glad to hear that down here in the Sierra,
> horsepeople are required (and do, honest) to pack in cubes, not loose
> fodder, so we don't haven't had that seeding problem for a long time.
> (For the uninitiated: the processessing of extruded feeds destroys the
> fertility of not only weed seeds but other feed grains like oats, barley,
> corn, etc.) Responsible folk (riders and hikers alike) aren't supposed to
> be mucking around alpine meadows in the first place, tsk tsk, according
> to LNT. That's interesting that other area managements haven't found that
> solution, wow! bj
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:09:26 -0800
> From: bjensen4@juno.com (Birgitte Jensen)
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Snow Map South of the Sierras
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:57:13 -0800 "Joanne Lennox" <goforth@cio.net>
> writes:
> >There appears to be no snow whatever from the Sierras at 9,000
> >ft. to the Mexican border. If so May is going to be dry.
>
> Probably if La Nina stays with us, the So CA mountains (which are in
> the desert and are seldom snowy in late-spring/summer anyway) will be
> pieces of cake as usual. The lack-of-snow at present however, is more a
> reflection of the fact that the season of hard rains/snow doesn't
> normally start there until February: whatever the snow level is _now_ is
> not a good total indicator of snow levels later on.
> In normal years, the heaviest snows are yet to fall in the Sierra as
> well; also the month the snowfall ends is important in any mountain
> range. Last year was ghastly not only because heavy snowfall started so
> early, and was so constant throught the winter, but because it continued
> months beyond the time it usually stops.
> IMHO, late March is a more reasonable time for hikers to start
> seriously extrapolating from snow-sensors, stuff like that.....
> bj
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pct-l-digest V1 #645
> ***************************
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
>
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *
==============================================================================