RE: Hiking with a GPS.
I hiked 5 days with my GPS. While it was entertaining to know how far we
were from our planned camp and know how fast we were going it was not
necessary.
The trail is well marked and with a map the GPS was not required.
Plus, depending on the area, getting a lock on your position may be
difficult -- for example, a heavily wooded area cause problems in getting a
satellite lock.
Advice: Save the weight -- take a compass and a map.
-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-digest <pct-l-digest>
To: pct-l-digest@saffron.hack.net <pct-l-digest@saffron.hack.net>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:06 PM
Subject: pct-l-digest V1 #433
>
>pct-l-digest Friday, March 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 433
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> Re: [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> [pct-l] homemade stoves
> Re: [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> [pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #432
> [pct-l] Resupply at Agua Dulce
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
> [pct-l] GPS on the PCT
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:10:20 -0500 (EST)
>From: BLISTERFREE@delphi.com
>Subject: [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
>
>I was thumbing through an old issue of Backpacker magazine the other day,
>and came upon an article on North Cascades NP which mentioned there being
>a grizzly bear presence therein. According to the author, the actual bear
>population in unknown, but believed small. This is the first I've heard of
>grizzlies existing anywhere along the route traversed by the PCT. No
>mention in the Handbook, nor the guidebooks, from what I've seen. Can
>anyone confirm? Is there any reason to take precautions out of the
ordinary
>when traversing this final section on a thru-hike?
>- - Blister>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:43:41 -0600 (CST)
>From: Craig Smith <csmith@lib.drury.edu>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>Hello,
>
>I agree with Birgitte's argument considering fire in alpine areas, i.e.,
>that alpine areas can support a fire, tho' not in the sense of a raging
>wildfire; these fragile environments can be damaged. But I also agree with
>Dave G. that inappropriate rules/laws do exist and should be "beaten"
>until they reflect real-life situations that center around applications of
>justice. The verb "to beat" can be used in a sentence such as "swords
>shall be beaten into plowshares."
>
>I do _not_ support the building and use of fire in areas where "no fire"
>rules are in effect. But to support the idea of civil disobedience, I
>might point out that as a species, we usually are content to follow the
>majority rule, even if that means that minorities are repressed, or if it
>means that one or a few of our civil rights (read the U.N.'s Univeral
>Declaration of Human Rights) are abused. Persons of sincerity and who
>cared about humanity have supported civil disobedience in the past:
>Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," M. L. King, Jr.'s "Letter from a
>Birmingham Jail," are two examples of short, written works, but we
>shouldn't forget individuals like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B.
>Anthony, or more currently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, writer Rachel Carson
>(Silent Spring), and one of my personal favorites, Dave Foreman, one of
>the EarthFirst! founders.
>
>Without individuals engaged in civil disobedience, "beating on" the laws,
>we would not have the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, which have
>made great strides in restoring air and water quality in the United
>States, and consequently, over and in our beloved national forests and
>wilderness areas. Perhaps the imagery of "beating on" is violent, but
>civil disobedience can be pacific AND effective.
>
>Just my nickel cigar rant. Sorry if it seems a little off-topic for this
>list.
>
>Craig W. Smith FAX: (417) 873-7432
>Associate Librarian Phone: (417) 873-7339
>F. W. Olin Library E-mail: csmith@lib.drury.edu
>Drury College
>Springfield, MO 65802
>
>"O Solitude! If I must with thee dwell, let it not be among the jumbled
>heaps of murky buildings--Climb with me the steep, Nature's
>Observatory..."
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:04:25 -0800 (PST)
>From: Karl Brandt <brandt@snf.Stanford.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
>
>On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 BLISTERFREE@delphi.com wrote:
>
>> I was thumbing through an old issue of Backpacker magazine the other day,
>> and came upon an article on North Cascades NP which mentioned there being
>> a grizzly bear presence therein. According to the author, the actual
bear
>> population in unknown, but believed small. This is the first I've heard
of
>> grizzlies existing anywhere along the route traversed by the PCT. No
>> mention in the Handbook, nor the guidebooks, from what I've seen. Can
>> anyone confirm? Is there any reason to take precautions out of the
ordinary
>> when traversing this final section on a thru-hike?
>
>According to Ann, a very attractive ranger in Stehekin last year,
>there are some grizzlies in the North Cascades NP but not many. The
>figure she quoted was that if you see any bear up there you have a 700
>to 1 chance of it being a grizzly. So, it's probably nothing to worry
>about.
>
>- -Karl
>
>*********************************************************************
>Karl "Birdman" Brandt PCT97 (650)725-3686
>http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kbrandt/
>
>
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:10:34 -0800
>From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>At 08:43 AM 3/26/1998 -0600, Craig Smith wrote:
>>Without individuals engaged in civil disobedience, "beating on" the laws,
>
>Good point, Craig, I now understand what Brigette meant about violence
>(like "beating up") or avoidance (like "beating the system"). Neither of
>those sense was the one I meant. I meant the blacksmithing reference (like
>"beating swords into..."). And that is what court proceedings and appeals
>do. And that is why they are good.
>
>- --
>Dave Gomberg mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
>FormMaestro <http://www.wcf.com>
>Any business offer in this mail expires in 3 days unless otherwise
specified.
>- -----------------------------------------------------------------
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:54:55 EST
>From: Charcholla <Charcholla@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>In a message dated 98-03-26 10:04:27 EST, csmith@lib.drury.edu writes:
>
><< I agree with Birgitte's argument considering fire in alpine areas, i.e.,
>that alpine areas can support a fire, tho' not in the sense of a raging
>wildfire; these fragile environments can be damaged. ... I do _not_
support
>the building and use of fire in areas where "no fire" rules are in effect.
>>
>
>So far, so good, Craig.
>
>
><<But I also agree with Dave G. that inappropriate rules/laws do exist and
>should be "beaten" until they reflect real-life situations that center
around
>applications of justice. ... But to support the idea of civil disobedience
...
>>>
>
>Sorry Craig (and Dave), IMHO, civil disobedience steps "over the line."
While
>this regulation is in place, all of us as good citizens (and responsible
>campers/hikers) should abide by the regulation while we are in those areas
>named in the regulation.
>
>I DO support Dave's latest action in contacting the USDA (FS) to find out
>their intent / interpretation of this regulation. I am anxious to hear what
>they have to say and I know that Dave will share their comments with us.
>
>Once we learn the FS's "intent" of the regulation, then we ALL need to
abide
>by the regulation (whether we as individuals agree with it or not) until we
>can lobby and have it changed.
>
>Charlie Jones
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:58:31 CST
>From: "dAvId aLbErT." <V059@ACADEMIC.TRUMAN.EDU>
>Subject: [pct-l] homemade stoves
>
>While we are on the topic of stoves. I have been interested for awhile
>in making my own homemade (can type) stove. Does anybody currently on
>the list use a homemade stove? Any opinions on it? How did you make it
>exactly? How much does it weigh?
>
>Sincerely, David.
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:08:33 EST
>From: Charcholla <Charcholla@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Grizzlies in North Cascades?
>
>In a message dated 98-03-26 11:07:52 EST, Karl wrote:
>
><< The figure she quoted was that if you see any bear up there you have a
700
>to 1 chance of it being a grizzly. So, it's probably nothing to worry
about.
>>>
>
>Perhaps the numbers are reversed ("700 to 1" or '1 in 700' ?), but we
>understand that we are less likely to encounter a grizzly. However, we
should
>be prepared to recognize the difference from a considerable distance. I
don't
>think one wants to "make themselves look big" if they are facing a grizzly.
If
>you face a grizzly, losing your food is a secondary concern.
>
>Charlie Jones
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:53:51 -0800
>From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>At 11:54 AM 3/26/1998 EST, Charcholla wrote:
>>Once we learn the FS's "intent" of the regulation, then we ALL need to
abide
>>by the regulation (whether we as individuals agree with it or not) until
we
>>can lobby and have it changed.
>
>Remember, FS regs are NOT LAW, they can be authorized by law. And the
>authorization is for specific purpose. So for example, I would bet the FS
>is charged with managing fire in areas under their jurisdiction and
>authorized by law to issue regs to further their fire management goals.
>
>But the burden is on them to prove a particular application of a particular
>reg furthers fire management. And the judge is free to decide they have
>exceeded the authority they were granted. Imagine the area around Whitney
>Summit. It is so cold and exposed there that there is no vegetation. So
>unless you have something hot enough to set granite alight (I doubt it),
>there is no fire management purpose to be served by prohibiting fires there
>(provided you are far from a sheer drop where sparks could land a few
>thousand feet lower). So a citation issued there might be overturned at
>trial.
>
>That is not a matter of civil disobedience any more that the disobedience
>of an unconstitutional law is. An unconstitutional law is not a law. And
>so there is nothing to break. Except bureaucratic hot air balloons.
>
>I guessed I was raised different. I believe the government is subject to
>the rule of law and not to be slavishly obeyed just because it says so.
>
>- --
>Dave Gomberg mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
>FormMaestro <http://www.wcf.com>
>Any business offer in this mail expires in 3 days unless otherwise
specified.
>- -----------------------------------------------------------------
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:07:08 -0700
>From: "William C. Speers" <bspeers@email.msn.com>
>Subject: [pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #432
>
>John Vonhof wrote that he covered the JMT from Mt. Whitney to someplace in
>8-plus days. John, what was your destination? My wife and I are planning
>to hike from Mt. Whitney to Tuolumne Meadows on the PCT, and down to
>Yosemite Lodge in 14 -15 days. As far as I can see from my maps, the PCT
>and the JMT are the same trail for most of the way. Can we expect to make
>the 13 - 14 miles per day that such a trip will require, assuming we are
>otherwise fit enough, or is such a daily mileage unreasonable, given the
>terrain and trail conditions?
>
>On the "flame war" between Mr. Gomberg and Ms. Jensen, I would just like to
>observe that a written policy statement from the Feds is all well and good,
>but if there's a fire they may just change their policy retroactively
(which
>they MAY be able to do under the Code of Federal Regulations). And the
>arguments that policy can be fought out in the courts is not necessarily
>true, and if true, may be prohibitively expensive for an individual
>defendant litigating against the United States. Also, the courts may
decide
>to defer to the Forest Service and let their administrative hearing
>procedures be determinative. Bottom line: the courts are very good at
>assiging responsibility, but only after the damage has already been done.
>No offense to anyone: Gomberg's idea sounds interesting and Jensen's
>concerns are legitimate.
>
>
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:34:00 -0800 (PST)
>From: Beth Murdock <murdocbe@ohsu.EDU>
>Subject: [pct-l] Resupply at Agua Dulce
>
>Does anyone have the telephone number or address for the Century 21
>office in Agua Dulce? I understand they hold packages for hikers. The
>directory assistance had no number for Century 21 in that town. Have
>they moved?
>
>Thanks,
>Beth Murdock
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:24:05 PST
>From: Jim Mayer <mayer@wrc.xerox.com>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>At 08:54 AM 3/26/98 PST, Charcholla wrote:
>>In a message dated 98-03-26 10:04:27 EST, csmith@lib.drury.edu writes:
>[snip]
>><<But I also agree with Dave G. that inappropriate rules/laws do exist and
>>should be "beaten" until they reflect real-life situations that center
around
>>applications of justice. ... But to support the idea of civil disobedience
>...
>[snip]
>>
>>Sorry Craig (and Dave), IMHO, civil disobedience steps "over the line."
While
>>this regulation is in place, all of us as good citizens (and responsible
>>campers/hikers) should abide by the regulation while we are in those areas
>>named in the regulation.
>
>I've always thought of civil disobedience as a public act. In my book,
>having a fire in a no fire zone is not an act of civil disobedience. On
>the other hand, lighting a fire in the direct presence of a ranger would
>be. Cheating on your taxes is not an act of civil disobedience, but giving
>the money to charity and sending a letter to the IRS saying what you did
is.
>
>Somehow I can't imagine many people deliberately going to jail over the
>right to use a Zip stove.
>
>- -- Jim Mayer
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:41:47 -0600 (CST)
>From: Craig Smith <csmith@lib.drury.edu>
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] Fire Rules - alpine especially
>
>Hello, Charlie,
>
>I thought I'd covered my bases on objections to civil disobedience in the
>first sentence of my second paragraph when I wrote "I do _not_ support the
>building and use of fire in areas where "no fire" rules are in effect...",
>so I can only reiterate the intent of my message that, one should use
peaceful and
>non-destructive, non-harmful means to bring attention to the existence of
>unjust laws, in much the same way that Rachel Carson, M. L. King, Jr., and
>Thoreau did. And to restate, "civil disobedience can be pacific AND
>effective."
>
>Craig Smith
>
>On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Charcholla wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 98-03-26 10:04:27 EST, csmith@lib.drury.edu writes:
>>
>> << I agree with Birgitte's argument considering fire in alpine areas,
i.e.,
>> that alpine areas can support a fire, tho' not in the sense of a raging
>> wildfire; these fragile environments can be damaged. ... I do _not_
support
>> the building and use of fire in areas where "no fire" rules are in
effect. >>
>>
>> So far, so good, Craig.
>>
>>
>> <<But I also agree with Dave G. that inappropriate rules/laws do exist
and
>> should be "beaten" until they reflect real-life situations that center
around
>> applications of justice. ... But to support the idea of civil
disobedience ...
>> >>
>>
>> Sorry Craig (and Dave), IMHO, civil disobedience steps "over the line."
While
>> this regulation is in place, all of us as good citizens (and responsible
>> campers/hikers) should abide by the regulation while we are in those
areas
>> named in the regulation.
>>
>> I DO support Dave's latest action in contacting the USDA (FS) to find out
>> their intent / interpretation of this regulation. I am anxious to hear
what
>> they have to say and I know that Dave will share their comments with us.
>>
>> Once we learn the FS's "intent" of the regulation, then we ALL need to
abide
>> by the regulation (whether we as individuals agree with it or not) until
we
>> can lobby and have it changed.
>>
>> Charlie Jones
>> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>>
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:09:52 -0800
>From: phil doyle <phild@teleport.com>
>Subject: [pct-l] GPS on the PCT
>
> Has any one hiked the PCT with a handheld Global
>Positioning System?
>Are they a good idea for the trail? I would like to hear pros & cons on
>this subject.
> Phil
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of pct-l-digest V1 #433
>***************************
>
>* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
http://www.hack.net/lists *
>
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *
==============================================================================