Re: [pct-l] RE: pct-l-digest V1 #867 bears

[Slyinmd@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/12/99 7:10:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time, 
rhubarb@dwp.net writes:

<< 
 Speaking from the perspective of a thruhiker (AT), trail hiker (JMT and 
others) and trip backpacker, I cannot agree with the above. Distance walkers 
are generally *less* concerned with living with nature than getting through 
it quickly. Walking rapidly S-N in a linear fashion from supply point to 
supply point (usually in towns)is what we thruhikers concentrate upon, and 
that does not strike me as nature's way at all. :-)

Mince my words whatever way you want, my original statement was supposed to 
read, I live as the animals do and I personally protected my food, not that I 
had too, but I didn't rely on a bear canister.  My idea of a thruhike 
considers the trail and the country I pass through, the towns and the people, 
local lore and culture.  Consider a thruhike a "people" migration.  Didn't 
you have some wonderful experiences with people of the trail?
 
 <<On the other hand, many backpack trips are planned solely with the goal of 
getting back to nature. Although few of us could honestly call ourselves at 
one with nature today, the idea of traveling to a somewhat secluded spot (not 
along a popular thruhighway) and "hanging out" for a few days or weeks 
becoming familiar with the area, seems closer to the definition of "living" 
and becoming at home.

I wish I had more time to hang out in the woods.  Call me, Jerimah  I've had 
no problem believing that the AT or PCT were wonderous trips, they was 
absolutely gourgous, why would you think otherwise?  Are you sure you're a 
long distance hiker?  Trust me, I'm an animal, give me the money and you'll 
never hear from me again.  In the meantime, I'll work to get back on the 
trail.
 
 <<Whatever our primary goals are, we all have the same responsibilities, 
don't we? Regulations apply equally to us. We all can show equal concern for 
the safety of others who will come after us, and not use high mileages and 
long days as an excuse for less care in food storage or packing out garbage. 
I have examined my collection :-)of used  wilderness permits and none states 
that thruhiker behavior in bear country can be less stringent than anyone 
else's.   

Ah, we're reaching the bottom line.  Regulations may apply equally to all of 
us, but I still refuse to wear a seat belt.  Tell me the rules.  Do you 
really think, I'd carry a bear cannister or hang my food on a weekend hike?  
Come on now, if you believe as others, that my persoanal storage of  food 
will interupt your hike you're not a very clever hiker at all.  Don't expect 
others to follow the rules, use your wits.  If you expect park regulations to 
save your ass your wrong, they deal with a bunch of idiots, the bear problem 
in the begiining.  I don't need a lecture from you.

But thanks, Sly

 




 
 <<Why cannot a thruhiker bail out as easily (especially given their stated 
superior mobility) as anyone else? Visit this list's archives for a start. 
Many of this year's thruhiker's "bailed", often repeatedly. Most of us 
realize that a thruhike is not a single uninterrupted journey, but a series 
of walks, few of which occur in actual " deep wilderness" conditions.      
Barb >>

A thru-hiker can always bail out when they wish, but they have priorities, 
getting to the end.  I apoligize if I slighted  section hikers, but their 
goals are different.  You don't have to tell me of thru-hikers that bailed 
out early, I was there.  Some may have been scared by bears (why this post 
started, but not many),  most were frightened off by snow, it was much more 
formatible.
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

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