pct-l-digest V1 #645

>
>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   *

==============================================================================