[pct-l] new resource for home-made equipment (was: REI past&present)

[dave at livebythepark.com (David Davis)]

I totally agree with this.  I do the ultra light thing and can whiz around
anywhere on my local mountain, San Jacinto in just a few hours walk.  To me
it makes no sense to backpack because I'm in and out of the major backpack
destinations in an hour or less.  At the same time, I see lots of families
Boy Scouts and others have apparently wonderful backpacking / camping
experiences in an area that no longer qualifies as remote in my new set of
definitions built around ultra-light enabled miles.

In other words, my wilderness shrunk so much when I went ultra-light that
just about everything became a day hike.  I lost something along the way.
There's something to be said for gourmet food, camp chairs, fishing tackle,
photo equipment, a book, a lantern, a nice tent and some booties.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ronald Moak" <rmoak@fallingwater.com>
To: "'Brett'" <blisterfree@isp01.net>; <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: [pct-l] new resource for home-made equipment (was: REI past
&present)


> >> Capitalism flourishes and that's great. I take no issue with the core
> principle of the system. But I do think there are a lot of good examples
of
> "bad" capitalism out there. <<
>
> First on capitalism. When it comes to the outdoor industry, what kinds of
> "Bad Capitalism" are you referring to. While visions of Enron and WorldCom
> dance in most peoples heads when "Bad Capitalism" is mentioned theses
days,
> I don't see how it relates to outdoor related business. Just because I'm a
> tiny Nat in comparison to say an Elephant size REI, doesn't make me
anymore
> virtuous.
>
> My problem with "Ultralight Principles" as preached by Ray and others, is
> that the message that's frequently delivered, misses the point and often
> doesn't provide a sound basis for evaluating equipment choices. Primarily
> because the emphasis is almost solely based on weight and constrained to a
> fairly narrow usage.
>
> The prevailing assumption is the lighter the load, the more enjoyable the
> trip. It's as if there is a 1 to 1 relationship between pack weight and
hike
> enjoyment. Simply put, when Ray was developing his principles, his primary
> goal was to make his trip more pleasurable. He analyzed what he liked to
do
> (ie walk long days), then he adapted both his gear and hiking style to
> accommodate his goal. The result was to make his hike more pleasurable.
>
> So the real goal for Ray or anyone else for that matter is to make your
hike
> more pleasurable. The relationship between gear weight and pleasure
depends
> to a large part upon your definition of pleasure.
>
> Now granted for virtually any outdoor activity, reducing weight can
> generally have a positive impact on the pleasure derived from the
> experience. However, the primary emphasis in ultralight is on weight and
not
> pleasure. Which is due, as I mentioned before, to the assumption that the
> two are directly tied together.
>
> So if we really want to train people to comfortably shed pounds off their
> pack, the first thing they need to decide is what they want to do in the
> backcountry. Only then can they really start looking at how their gear
> selection effects, either positively or negatively, their backcountry
> experience.
>
> I believe in the light or ultralight experience, however it needs to be
> applicable to a wide range of interest and circumstances. Only then will
it
> stand a chance of taking hold and having a lasting effect.
>
> Consider that only a tiny fraction of backpackers to long hikes in a
> lifetime. Of them, only small subset would be considered ultralight. That
> doesn't mean the rest of the backpacking community can't take advantage of
> ultralight techniques, however they must be applicable in a wider context.
>
> - Fallingwater
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l