Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm pretty sure he/she has no idea what the PCT is. I have nothing but the highest respect for anyone who has done it. I'd love to do the northern section someday, but the desert takes some serious dedication. The 100 mile wilderness in the poster's own home state doesn't even compare to the backcountry on the PCT.
Palm Springs to about Fresno was some of the most serious backcountry traveling I've ever done and I've been all over the country backpacking. It was some of the most beautiful country as well. I've trekked with my SUV through the middle of the desert in winter time for weeks at a time. If anyone thinks the desert is a walk in the park even during winter they are clueless. It's some serious terrain. Now try hiking it on foot.
If you knew anything about grizzly bears, you'd know that they can be very aggressive, they're very unpredictable and if they close the distance in a bad mood then you're just plain screwed.
If you just so happened to have bear mace handy and the bear is getting closer to your child/wife/uncle/neighbor do you trust that it's going to stop the grizzly? It'd be on helluva gamble to take. If I didn't think I had a choice, then you bet I'd shoot the bear.
If you can get inside without leaving anyone at risk then sure, call 911 and they can get ahold of the right people to tranq the bear and ship him off to where he's supposed to be.
Bears are not that unpredictable. You can usually figure out the bear's intent pretty rapidly. If you want an example of a truly unpredictable critter, that would be moose.
Most people survive being mauled by a bear, but damn few survive being stomped by moose.
In Alaska, when there is a problem with the wildlife, we relocate the tourist causing the problem, not the wildlife.
Palm Springs to about Fresno was some of the most serious backcountry traveling I've ever done and I've been all over the country backpacking. It was some of the most beautiful country as well. I've trekked with my SUV through the middle of the desert in winter time for weeks at a time. If anyone thinks the desert is a walk in the park even during winter they are clueless. It's some serious terrain. Now try hiking it on foot.
You need to get out of California. Northern Colorado, Wyoming, western Montana, and northern Idaho have some of the most spectacular scenery anywhere to be found in the lower-48. Only Alaska surpasses them in splendor.
You need to get out of California. Northern Colorado, Wyoming, western Montana, and northern Idaho have some of the most spectacular scenery anywhere to be found in the lower-48. Only Alaska surpasses them in splendor.
Please the Sierras and northern California has some of the most beautiful country this side of planet earth. I lived in Colorado for 7 years. The front range is terribly ugly. Especially during the summer months. Colorado is the same everywhere you go. My wife lived in Alaska for 10 years when she was a kid. I will admit it sounds like it takes the cake. But CA is VERY beautiful. The entire west coast from Big Sur to Lincoln City, OR is more beautiful than anything Colorado has to offer. 14ers all look the same after a while. Half of Wyoming looks like Kansas what are you talking about? Idaho does have spectacular scenery as well.
You need to get out of California. Northern Colorado, Wyoming, western Montana, and northern Idaho have some of the most spectacular scenery anywhere to be found in the lower-48. Only Alaska surpasses them in splendor.
The only turn-off for me are the stunted growth trees as one increasingly heads north, in the interior. The boreal forest has its charm... but as an east coaster used to huge lush forests... the stunted trees is perhaps a turn-off for me (the other being way too many coniferous trees, not enough deciduous trees - but that's a west coast problem, in general).
SE AK doesn't seem to have that problem, being a lush rainforest... but I don't know if I could handle that much rain (and the accompanying fog which probably blocks the view, most of the year).
Too much of the state is wetland in the drainage areas... that would be one additional gripe. I'm sure some would say that just increases the biodiversity... yadda' yadda'... but wetland is wetland... good for most animals, perhaps... not so much for humans (can make traveling between Point A to B within a valley somewhat difficult).
Do they have the big beetle kill problem up there to like they are having in Colorado and Montana?
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 08-25-2011 at 08:50 PM..
Please the Sierras and northern California has some of the most beautiful country this side of planet earth. I lived in Colorado for 7 years. The front range is terribly ugly. Especially during the summer months. Colorado is the same everywhere you go. My wife lived in Alaska for 10 years when she was a kid. I will admit it sounds like it takes the cake. But CA is VERY beautiful. The entire west coast from Big Sur to Lincoln City, OR is more beautiful than anything Colorado has to offer. 14ers all look the same after a while. Half of Wyoming looks like Kansas what are you talking about? Idaho does have spectacular scenery as well.
Actually, half of Wyoming looks like Nebraska and northeastern Colorado. But that is only because part of Wyoming spills into Nebraska and Colorado. If it was not for Wyoming, Nebraska would be as flat as Kansas, but the panhandle is covered in sand hills, and a great place to hunt grouse. You will also be hard-pressed to find anything like the Grand Tetons or Yellowstone in Kansas.
Comparatively speaking, the California Sierras are runts compared to the Rockies. But you are right about one thing, 14,000 foot peaks are nothing special. They are a dime a dozen in Alaska.
The one thing the Sierras has going for it is that it is a relatively young (around 40 million years old) range, so it has not been as eroded and worn as the Rockies (around 80 to 100 million years old). Now compare that to the Alaskan Range that is only 6 million years old.
The only turn-off for me are the stunted growth trees as one increasingly heads north, in the interior. The boreal forest has its charm... but as an east coaster used to huge lush forests... the stunted trees is one turn off for me (the other being way too many coniferous trees, not enough deciduous trees - but that's a west coast problem, in general). SE AK doesn't seem to have that problem, being a lush rainforest... but I don't know if I could handle that much rain (and the accompanying fog which probably blocks the view, most of the year). Too much of the state is wetland in the drainage areas... that would be one additional gripe. I'm sure some would say that just increases the biodiversity... yadda' yadda'... but wetland is wetland... good for most animals, perhaps... not so much for humans (can make traveling between Point A to B within a valley somewhat difficult).
Do they have the big beetle kill problem up there to like they are having in Colorado and Montana?
The forest also becomes less dense the further north you get. Alaskan forests, for example, are four times less dense than forests in Washington or Oregon. Which means the wood you can gather in an acre of land in Washington, would require at least four acres of land in Alaska to gather the same amount of wood. There are two reasons why the trees are stunted this far north:
They are most likely attempting to grow through permafrost (85% of Alaska is covered in permafrost); and
The extremely short growing season may only allow them as little as one month to do all their growing (above the Arctic Circle). A six foot tall tree could be well over 500 years old.
Southeastern Alaska is not a boreal forest, but rather a temperate rainforest. Once you get north of Cordova, AK, the boreal forest kicks in until it reaches just south of the Brooks Range which is the treeline.
We had a problem with the spruce beetle during the 1990s, which killed a few hundred thousand acres of trees, but they seem to be coming back (the trees, not the beetles).
Those women only exist in a Maxim magazine. LOL.....you must not date much or have much experience with beautiful women.
You'd be suprised, we have some great looking women around here, and a fair number like to get out and spend time in the mountains. Of course, there are plenty that would rather spend time shopping than say dirt biking or ATVing. I think they're CA transplants...
Hike, horseback ride, ATV, dirt bike, Jeep or mountain bike...it's all good. At least these are people that actually get out into the back country...something that probably 1-2% of the population actually does.
You'd be suprised, we have some great looking women around here, and a fair number like to get out and spend time in the mountains.
A rare breed indeed! Most of the women I know prefer the creature comforts of indoor plumbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Of course, there are plenty that would rather spend time shopping than say dirt biking or ATVing. I think they're CA transplants...
These are the variety I typically meet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Hike, horseback ride, ATV, dirt bike, Jeep or mountain bike...it's all good. At least these are people that actually get out into the back country...something that probably 1-2% of the population actually does.
I agree. And by "1% to 2% of the population," you also need to include men, not just women. Even then I think you are being overly generous. I would place the percentage closer to 0.1% to 0.2% of the population.
Most are merely back-country "tourists," following managed, well-marked (sometimes even paved) trails and camping in designated campgrounds. Very few actually experience true wilderness, were they may be well over 100 miles from the nearest road.
I understand the bears were on Hill's 20 acre property. This doesn't help much. If they are on a far corner of the property, say 300 yards away, it's hard to justify the killing as a response to an immediate threat. If they are 50 feet from a house, they are a threat, and have lost fear of humans. That alone makes them a grave danger. Also not stated were were the kids were in relation to the bears, or the house.
I think most people are reasonable enough to agree that if these bears were close to the house, and were attacking the owners livestock (pigs), they can be viewed as an honest threat, and need to be put down.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 08-25-2011 at 10:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the women I know prefer the creature comforts of indoor plumbing. 
