[pct-l] necessities

[CMountainDave@aol.com (CMountainDave@aol.com)]

In a message dated 4/16/02 11:43:29 AM, mountainbliss@juno.com writes:

<< I'm detecting a bit of elitism from the ultralighters.  Two Jardine
quotes says it better than I can:

"The equipment is only means to the end; and there are many means to the
same end. A hiker planning to tackle the Pacific Crest Trail, for
example, should not worry whether he or she has the right gear. I
have seen all sorts of equipment travel the full length of that trail.
The important thing is simply to go."

"I did not, nor would I ever say that any hiker or backpacker is doing it
wrong.  Anyone who enjoys the wilderness on foot, regardless of what kind
of gear he or she carries, is doing it right.  My philosophy of
wilderness enjoyment is based on the premise that the equipment is a
means to enjoy the end.  For me, less equipment brings greater enjoyment.
 But for someone else the opposite might be true - and if so, then they
are still doing it right."

Huzzah!  Some like camping more than others, and some like being prepared
for worst case scenarios.  It's all about choices.  Frankly, I don't care
if another hiker is carrying 7 pounds or 70 pounds.  If they're beating
boots (or running shoes) to try to make it to Canada, they all have my
admiration.

Two weeks 'til Campo!
EZ
 >>
I look at it this way: It makes sense to be Spartan on a thru hike and go as 
light as possible. The possibility of burning out due to too much exertion is 
much less. Any other time I say take the goodies. Otherwise you may burn out 
from boredom. If you hike to some pretty little mountain lake and leave 
everything behind including that "unnecessary" parka, you are quite likely to 
just crawl into your sleeping bag when you start to chill down while others 
are busy fishing and/or practicing their photographic and culinary skills. 
There's lots of things to do besides sleeping if you are willing to take the 
extra weight. I believe in lightweight backpacking, but with many caveats
  I noticed on a Grand Canyon rafting web site that rafters are allowed to 
have driftwood fires for "aesthetic" reasons. This is the very first time I 
have EVER seen a National Park admit that campfires have that sort of value. 
Mostly they try to paint those who enjoy campfires as barely tolerable 
miscreants who are selfishly destroying the wilderness environment. I love 
campfires because people gravitate to them in the evening chill for good 
conversation. Otherwise everybody just crawls into their tents and a great 
time is missed. I wish the National Parks would provide firewood at 
appropriate campsites (they do in places in Canada) for use in sanctioned 
fire rings and heavily fine the bozoes who abuse the privilege by burning 
their plastic trash in them (burning plastic puts long lasting pollutants 
into lakes - nothing disturbs me more than watching someone toss the remains 
of a rip and stir into a campfire) I would gladly pay user fees for such a 
service. Of course forest fire conditions should always take precedent, but 
they should be HONEST in determining the risk. For example, I've seen fires 
banned in the Olympics in conditions that would be considered only a moderate 
risk in the Rockies. There doesn't seem to be a standard, only the whim of 
the current Park administration, ALA Los Alamos 
  Stealth campers. If you ever want to hike the Wonderland trail around Mt. 
Rainier, it is a little known secret that you can use the trail even if all 
designated campsite reservations are taken as long as you camp at least 1/4 
mile from the trail. The quota for low elevation zone, low impact stealth 
camping is quite high, but you have to ask because it ain't advertised. 
 7 days to a great hike in the Big Ditch with a party of six!!!