Forum Index » General Lightweight Backpacking Discussion » Trail Etiquette ?


Display Avatars Sort By:
Ron Bell
(mountainlaureldesigns) - F - M

Locale: USA
sick thoughts on 11/21/2006 17:32:22 MST Print View

-Got to thinking- not really many full-on dark humor backpacker jokes out there. Could be not enough people die while doing it to lay a good base for the humor genre. Could anyone help us out?

David Bonn
(david_bonn) - F

Locale: North Cascades
Re: sick thoughts on 11/21/2006 17:46:44 MST Print View

What? By dying?

No thanks.

larry savage
(pyeyo) - F

Locale: pacific northwest
Re: Re: Sick thoughts on 11/21/2006 18:09:28 MST Print View

Can you get a primaloft berylium carbon fiber one please?
Maybe when bikes are bisected they should be placed in a concrete monument at each trailhead kinda like the international sign for no bikes but a little more obvious. I know as a cyclist sometimes the ability to focus my eyesight is a few leagues behind my enthusiasm [even riding legally], this something "they" might notice. Like leaving pirates [don't tell the pirate] strung up but on an inorganic level.
Ron, do you know the local name for sul backpackers wrapped in a quilt? Bearitos.

Edited by pyeyo on 11/21/2006 18:14:15 MST.

Karl Keating
(KarlKeating) - MLife
Re: Re: Trail etiquette on 11/21/2006 19:07:54 MST Print View

Robert Tangen asked, "What have we become, effete nattering nabobs?"

For the sake of historical accuracy, I note that it was Spiro Agnew who spoke about an "effete corps of impudent snobs" and "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Perhaps, in the years since, the groups have merged to become "effete nattering nabobs."

Edited by KarlKeating on 11/21/2006 19:09:06 MST.

ROBERT TANGEN
(RobertM2S) - M

Locale: Lake Tahoe
Bearitos on 11/21/2006 19:50:05 MST Print View

Speaking of bearitos, my grandfather tells this story: "I was UL packing in
Alaska when I came around a corner, and there was a huge grizzly, AAARRRGHH! standing on his hind legs. I'm afraid I pooped my pants." "Don't feel bad, Grandpa," I said, "anyone coming on a grizzly that close would do the same." "No,no, I didn't do it back then, I pooped them just now when I yellled AAARRRGHH!"

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trail Etiquette; horses, bikes? on 11/22/2006 02:15:33 MST Print View

Hi Scott

> Roger, whilst i'm glad to see you do not support extreme action yourself, your last comment 'A lower chain might have been better' is not helpful. How can anything slung across a trail that can cause injury be 'Better' ?

I do NOT support such extreme action.
A low slung slack chain might have flipped the bike and dumped the rider, and maybe given him a broken arm or leg. I suggest such an injury would be better than decapitation - yes?

With the added advantage that the cops could then have given him hell by prosecuting him through the courts!

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: Bearitos on 11/22/2006 02:58:14 MST Print View

Robert, your fears of injecting undue "sickness" into the Thread seem to be a tad unfounded. Appears, several others, including our fearless leader and an UL cottage industry leader, seem to somewhat enjoy/appreciate/understand (you pick the right word; hey, add a few of your own too) your sense of humor.

Scott Ashdown
(waterloggedwellies) - F

Locale: United Kingdom
Re: Trail Etiquette; horses, bikes? on 11/22/2006 13:11:44 MST Print View

>"A low slung slack chain might have flipped the bike and dumped the rider, and maybe given him a broken arm or leg. I suggest such an injury would be better than decapitation - yes?

With the added advantage that the cops could then have given him hell by prosecuting him through the courts!"<


Roger, thank you for your reply, however, I have to question the wisdom of your postings.

Your original post referenced a wire that had been placed across a trail and that had resulted in someones decapitation.

This type of action simply needed condeming by you. Instead, you went on to offer an alternative tactic to anyone who cared to read your post, namely that a lower chain might have been better.

Whilst you have pointed out 'better' meant being less likely to get decapitated at the expense of other injuries, I fail to see any value in the comment and it falls short of condemming such behaviour.

The fact that you even considered other possible methods of blocking trails that might result in less injury (but injury all the same) I find alarming. No one should knowingly set out to do another harm or be reckless of harm being done.

Let me give you an example, If I spoke to the mother of a murdered young girl and said, "I don't support murder but it would have been better if the attacker had broken your daughters legs and hit her around the face a few times with a claw hammer", it might very well have been preferable to murder but I don't think the sentiment would be seen that way. The family would instead want to hear condemnation of the murder, not a menu of better grizzly options that the offender could have used instead. Similarly I can not understand your reference to a low chain and the sentiment behind it and nor would I suspect, the family of the unfortunate individual who lost his head.

The above may be an extreme example but one that should illustrate my point.

I can only see three possibilities here, either a) you support extreme action such as wires across trails - however this is unlikely as you have already indicated that you do not, although you have only ruled out what you consider 'Extreme' conduct b) You totally oppose the placement of any articles across trails designed to unseat riders of motor cycles - In which case you should have condemed any such action outright and left it at that, or c) you think that placing low chains across trails that might flip a bike, its rider and possibly lead to a broken arm or leg is acceptable (or slightly more acceptable than a wire and not 'Extreme')- In which case, shame on you.

Your comment indicating that if the bike had been 'flipped' with a low chain, an advantage would have been that the cops could have prosecuted the rider I find deeply offensive.

As a police officer who has dealt with numerous collisions involving motorcyles and witnessing first hand the horrific injuries that riders can suffer, I am appalled at the prospect of you seeing any possible advantage in an attempt to dismount a rider from a motorbike.

People that visit this sight by its very nature are interested in the outdoors and read the postings made here. As a member who is clearly shown in the forums as BPL Staff, I suggest that your words carry more sway with many individuals and therefore your responsibilities are greater.

I can only hope that you will clarify your position and condem outright any improvised tactics by walkers to dismount motorcyclists.

Edited by waterloggedwellies on 11/22/2006 16:31:06 MST.

Brett .
(Brett1234) - F

Locale: CA
re:Trail Etiquette on 11/23/2006 01:07:18 MST Print View

Never mind, wasn't relevant..

Edited by Brett1234 on 11/23/2006 08:48:55 MST.

David Bonn
(david_bonn) - F

Locale: North Cascades
Re:Trail Etiquette on 11/23/2006 08:38:39 MST Print View

These discussions always, always degrade into an assertion that the vast majority of {insert "bike riders", "snowmachine riders", "motorcycle riders", "horse packers", "boy scouts"} are law-abiding and that they are offended by what they have read,

I'm way more offended by horse packers who build fences and smokehouses (!) in designated wilderness.

I'm way more offended by snowmachine drivers who are too drunk to drive but not, apparently, too drunk to drive illegally on ski trails at speeds in excess of 100 km per hour.

I'm way more offended by ORV operators who collide with hikers or mountain bikers and bolt from the scene.

Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry, and remember that those intemperate comments come from a pretty deep well of resentment.

Edited by david_bonn on 11/23/2006 08:39:35 MST.

Scott Ashdown
(waterloggedwellies) - F

Locale: United Kingdom
Re:Trail Etiquette on 11/23/2006 11:50:12 MST Print View

>"These discussions always, always degrade into an assertion that the vast majority of {insert "bike riders", "snowmachine riders", "motorcycle riders", "horse packers", "boy scouts"} are law-abiding and that they are offended by what they have read,"<


David,

Having read Bretts post before he deleted it, I assume that the opening line of your comment related to his reference to the wider bike riding and motorcyling communities and his assertion that they would have been offended by Rogers comments. I agree that we should all try to prevent making sweeping statements, however it is interesting then that you do the very same thing with your reference to hikers, in your comment >

"Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry, and remember that those intemperate comments come from a pretty deep well of resentment."

References to being 'Angry' and a 'Deep well of resentment' are pretty strong words to bestow on the hiking community."

I am a hiker but I am certainly not angry or full of resentment. I agree with all the things that you state offend you, they offend me too. As a police officer, I have prosecuted numerous people for drunk driving, leaving accident scenes or enforced legislation aimned at protecting our environment. As a hiker I too have done my fair share of dodging inconsiderate and in some cases, down right dangerous trail blazers on their scrambling motorcycles. However, I certainly don't feel anger or resentment. Neither feeling is productive.

You obviously were not as offended by Rogers comments as I was and that is okay. I speak for myself and no one else.

On a side note, I do not own a motor cycle, nor can I ride one. I made my comments simply because I feel that no one deserves to be injured and that inappropriate behaviour such as blocking trails to unseat motorcyclists should be challenged in a clear and unambiguous way.

Jim Colten
(jcolten) - M

Locale: MN
Trail Etiquette or Trail Rage? on 11/23/2006 12:01:39 MST Print View

Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry,

Of course we can feel anger and even resentment when seeing wrongdoing. Nothing wrong with that.

But justified anger does not equate to justifying violence. Never has, never will.

Witness the agony of life in the Balkans or middle east. One wiser than I once said "An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind."

Scott Ashdown
(waterloggedwellies) - F

Locale: United Kingdom
Re: Trail Etiquette or Trail Rage? on 11/23/2006 12:10:10 MST Print View

Wise words Jim.

Mike Barney
(eaglemb) - F

Locale: AZ, the Great Southwest!
Happy Thanksgiving! no worries on 11/23/2006 15:53:49 MST Print View

When I look at the scope of problems in the world, and think 10 minutes ago I was debating if I should get the evernew or BPL Ti Pot, and am healthy and thrifty enough to go hiking at will, I realize I really don't have any problems, be it here, the Balkans or ME.

Here's to each of you a happy and safe Tday,
MikeB

Edited by eaglemb on 11/24/2006 15:37:09 MST.

b d
(bdavis) - F

Locale: Mt. Lassen - Shasta, N. Cal.
Re: Happy Thanksgiving! I have no problems on 11/23/2006 18:17:13 MST Print View

You are right on, as we say in the US ... I guess you guys say spot on. Happy Day. b.d.

Brett .
(Brett1234) - F

Locale: CA
re:Trail Etiquette ? on 11/23/2006 22:30:09 MST Print View

Scott, I am glad at least you read my post since I agree most closely with your opinion on this subject. I deleted it because I realized I was getting too emotionally worked up over a thread that probably belongs on another website. My attempt to blog-whip someone into changing their opinions or behavior is futile.
Thank you for your service to law and order, Scott.

David Bonn
(david_bonn) - F

Locale: North Cascades
Re: Re:Trail Etiquette on 11/24/2006 13:53:19 MST Print View

Scott,

I apologize and withdraw my comments about "why hikers" are angry. Perhaps I should have said, "why *some* hikers are angry..." or perhaps "why many hikers are angry..."

I should also emphasize that I don't advocate violence, and emphatically think that causing someone injury in such a situation is wrong, and also completely self-defeating because it changes the debate from the bad behavior of the victim to the bad behavior of the vigilantes who injure him.

Still, this goes uncomfortably close to an ethical question I've wrestled with on other fronts in recent times: obviously, an important obligation of a citizen is to obey the law, but just as obviously that obligation is not absolute. From my well-fed and post-ski perspective, I doubt the issues we are talking about here require extralegal means for their resolution. But I also believe that governments have an obligation to enforce their own laws, and when they willfully blow that off it can only breed lawlessness. By definition.

I wouldn't put the plight of hikers put upon by bikers or horse-packers up there with people in Tsarist Russia, black folk in segregationist America, or the various groups who opposed the British in colonial India. All of those people had a far, far greater beef with the system than I could ever have, and thank goodness I'm not them.

David Couch
(Davidc) - F

Locale: England
Re: Re: Re:Trail Etiquette on 11/24/2006 17:16:29 MST Print View

Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin's original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?

Scott Ashdown
(waterloggedwellies) - F

Locale: United Kingdom
Trail Etiquette on 11/24/2006 19:04:51 MST Print View

David [Bonn], thank you for your last post. You make some good points, particularly the comment:

>"I should also emphasize that I don't advocate violence, and emphatically think that causing someone injury in such a situation is wrong, and also completely self-defeating because it changes the debate from the bad behavior of the victim to the bad behavior of the vigilantes who injure him."<


David [Couch],

>"Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin's original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?"<

I'm not sure I understand your comment in relation to 'joke' and 'misled'. Could you expand a little? Thanks.


Brett

>"Thank you for your service to law and order, Scott."<

You are most welcome. Thank you.

David Couch
(Davidc) - F

Locale: England
Re: Trail Etiquette on 11/25/2006 11:39:17 MST Print View

Scott,
"David [Couch],
>"Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin's original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?"<

I'm not sure I understand your comment in relation to 'joke' and 'misled'. Could you expand a little? Thanks."

Let me expand at the expense of politeness. Had Roger's post been serious, your replies would have been valid and I would have supported them. If he was joking you have been suckered into wasting your indignation.