Day hiking with overnight gear

[longri]

Why do you keep baiting the conversation instead of waiting for an answer?

Why are you baiting me??

I was done with this a page ago after George posted. He answered my question.
But then limpingcrab expressed confusion. And others chimed in. So I responded.

It's not a big deal this forum stuff. People like to post their opinions.

[rightstar76]

Wandering Daisy wrote

Unfortunately I also see a lot of "rules do not apply to me" attitude nowadays. The more we ignore the rules, the more the rules will be tightened, so the more we will be inclined to ignore them. It is a viscious circle.

That's a real interesting point. I think there's a feeling, a real feeling of grief of having lost something. Even though I know that there's a good reason for those regulations, I have felt that grief at times. In my opinion, going for a dayhike with a full pack, while it might be done consciously with the intent of getting from point a to point b, might also be unconsciously a work around to such grief. There's real resentment about these regulations. I think there's going to have to be a new approach in how they are explained, more persuasive and less authoritarian. Maybe some flexibilty in the rules themselves. Otherwise, the resentment is going to increase.

Hobbes wrote

The environment rangers find themselves in today is different than 20 years ago, and will change that much more in the next 20. This suggests that (all) rangers are going to have to become increasingly more LEO and less (friendly/helpful) ranger.

Hmm. Will there be problems with people breaking the rules? Absolutely. Backcountry rangers will have to deal with that, just like they always have. But being less friendly and less helpful? All of the wilderness rangers I have ever met have been friendly and helpful, even as more people have visited the backcountry. I don't see that changing in 20 years or 50.

[commonloon]

I have a older hiker friend who remembers hiking without permits. I can tell you he sometimes feels like permits are a total nuisance. My grandfather was a ranger so I tend to fall on the follow the rules side of things. So, I can understand both sentiments. As far as, the threads actual question, I think the best way to handle a "Full pack day hike" is to leave it up to the ranger's discretion. If anything all the discussion has IMHO lead to conclusion that it is difficult to define what is a day pack vs a pack intended for overnight.

I've met a lot of rangers on the trail, and over the years I can only remember once when I thought the ranger was curt. I'd really like it to remain that way, but it seems in more crowded parts of the Sierra (Yosemite, Rae Lakes, ...) their job is tougher now than ever. I personally want a wilderness experience that doesn't include lots of people. Permits help achieve that goal. The actual root cause of the difficulty getting permits is too many people wanting to hike the same trails. Think about the now yearly PCT northerly migration of humans, or the southern migration starting in Yosemite Valley.

[Hobbes]

As is probably quite obvious, my main point on some recent threads is that change creates stressors; it's no wonder why (most) people hate change.

Living in California and engaging in recreational activities subject to significant demand dynamics and usage/access characteristics presents some of the most significant changes taking place anywhere. There's a reason so many people remain in more placid, stable regions like the mid-west, or even their home countries vs dealing with and managing the kinds of challenges associated with the changes taking place in this state.

And, like the big bang, change in California and open space management is not only not ceasing nor reaching a steady state, but is actually increasing. Exponentially, in point of fact; which is why I keep posting this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

So, once one comes to grip with the reality of what is occurring, you have a couple of options: (a) decide to get the hell out of Dodge; (b) figure out some kind means of dealing in the margins; (c) try and resist change; or (d) say fvck it and have fun. In case some haven't figured it out by now, I'm firmly in group D.

I can completely understand group A, as have millions of other Californians splitting for the surrounding states/regions. Group B is actually associated somewhat with group D. However, my main issue is with those advocating group C. As in, be careful for what you wish for.

I don't know how many people are exposed to CA state rangers, but down here in the OC district, including Bolsa, HB & San Onofre, the rangers don't even make a pretense anymore of being anything other than LEOs. (I can actually recall a time when state rangers weren't even armed.) Recently, they've gone full "tacticool", with 2-3" lift boots, kevlar, tazer, cuffs, the whole kit and kaboodle. Way more beef than CHPs; almost SWAT. (The beach was rented out last week for a country/western festival, and one ranger squad car was a K-9 unit with a vicious snarling Shepherd in the back.)

If California is the most dynamic state, certain parts of the state itself are even more cutting edge. Perhaps the rangers down here are dealing with urban population pressures, but the bottom line is, what happens first in these zones eventually works it way throughout the state and surrounding regions. So, when the discussion turns to permits, lotteries, and enforcement policies and procedures, it many be helpful to remind yourself that this isn't just some kind of interesting academic discussion, but has very real world implications and impact.

[limpingcrab]

I don't understand your question. What other rule are you imagining someone breaking?

Ya I didn't word that clearly. My question: how, specifically, might someone end up carrying full backpacking gear on a day hike in the first place? (excluding training with weight and carrying emergency bivvy stuff because that doesn't appear to be the case)


From what I gather, someone wants to do a backpack trip that starts and ends at different trail heads (a horseshoe for example) and instead of using two cars they park at the ending spot and hike to the starting trail head. To me this means the person is actually backpacking a loop and has a permit for the wrong trail head. The exception would be if they hiked the road all the way to the starting spot.

Am I following correctly? How else does one end up day hiking with a full backpack?

PS. It's an interesting discussion and helps pass time at work. I'm not stressed about it, just curious. Cheers

[longri]

From what I gather, someone wants to do a backpack trip that starts and ends at different trail heads (a horseshoe for example) and instead of using two cars they park at the ending spot and hike to the starting trail head. To me this means the person is actually backpacking a loop and has a permit for the wrong trail head. The exception would be if they hiked the road all the way to the starting spot.

That's one scenario. Another is where there is no backpacking trip at all, just dayhikes.

One could interpret an out and back dayhike as a sort of backpacking trip. But the key difference is that zero nights are spent in the backcountry. Is the quota system intended for limiting overnight stays in the backcountry or is it for limiting backcountry use in general?

A real life example. Suppose you drive to the Grand Canyon and dayhike from the south rim to the river and back. Then you drive around to the north rim and dayhike from there to the river and back. Now consider an alternative where you dayhike from the south rim to the north rim and stay in a lodge there, then dayhike back. Now consider a third alternative where you carry overnight gear on a dayhike from south to north rim, camp in a campground there, then dayhike back.

In all three cases you covered the exact same ground and never slept in the Canyon itself, only in the front country. So at what point did it go from being just dayhiking to cheating the backpacking quota system?

[Wandering Daisy]

I have spent plenty of time in areas where there are basically no regulations or zoning. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. So what did I have in a very libertarian, wild-west state? Junk and dead cars parked all over the neighborhood. An oilfield pipe yard a block from a really nice residential area. Wife beating? Authorities just turned an eye. Rampent drunk driving. Gun toting cowyboys shooting inocent porcupines just for the fun of it on the trail. One trip to a popular area with a few other backpackers, the next fifty tents. Whether out of ignorance, arrogance or just doing it because it is what was always done, some really poor personal environmental practices, the damage only being limited becausewith about a person per year per 50 sq miles you can get by with it. After living on the ends of the spectrum, I can really see how urban folks do not understand rural and visa versa.

Hobbes is right, if the regulations really rub you so wrongly, then there are plenty of wilderness areas (some pretty fantastic ones too) where there are few regulations. But realize that there are also many areas in the world where regulations are even stricter. I do not think the Sierra is the far end of the spectrum. In densly populated areas, regulations are simply preferable to having the wilderness trashed or used so much that it ceases to be wilderness. I purposely moved from the "wild west" attitude to here, knowingly accepting more regulations, so I am more interested in making it work, rather than just put my head in the sand.

I agree a good solution is reasonably broad regulations, enforced by friendly but firm rangers who have the judgement to determine the intent of the person out of compliance or if he/she is simply scamming the system to avoid quotas. The "best" solution of course would be if all backpackers and wilderness users would agree to, and buy into, a wilderness ethic and self-regulate. Dream on with that! Given that there are "bad apples" in all factions of society, I certainly do not want to play wilderness cop when I am on my trips. I appreciate that there regulations and park rangers who enforce them. But I do think you get yourself into a web of complications and problems when regulations become too detailed.

Wow, I doubt many people are capable of backpacking from the North Rim to the South, and back, never camping along the way, AND carrying a full pack with overnight gear!! Are we being realsitic here?

[longri]

Wow, I doubt many people are capable of backpacking from the North Rim to the South, and back, never camping along the way, AND carrying a full pack with overnight gear!! Are we being realsitic here?

Reading comprehension error, Ms. Daisy. Dayhike S-N, camp in a campground on the rim, then dayhike N-S.

[TahoeJeff]

there are also many areas in the world where regulations are even stricter

My family and I spent a few days in Cocovado NP in Costa Rica last month.
Talk about regs: you cannot enter without a guide, you cannot go more than 5 meters off trail; we stayed in the heart of the park at Sirena ranger station where: you cannot bring alcohol or tobacco, you (and your guide) cannot leave before 5am and you have to be back before 6pm, you cannot bring your own food as you have to eat in the cafeteria and you cannot camp at the station, you have to stay in the bunk beds with mosquito nets in the open air dormitory and because the station is on solar, the lights go out at 8pm. And of course you have to pay for the food and lodging.
Cocovado (and the whole of the Osa peninsula) is one of, if not the most biologically diverse places on the planet. We accepted all the restrictions/regulations to experience the incredible flora and fauna.
So, not really off topic. There are some really cool places in the world, and someone has to protect them with rules we may not like.

[Wandering Daisy]

No I was not reading your scenrio incorrectly. I still say anyone, with an overnight pack suitable for camping on the rim (much colder at night than in the canyon), plus water required for this very dry hot trip, who can go rim-to-rim in the Grand Canyon is one tough dude. And then get up the next AM and do it again the opposite direction! Well, maybe in your scenario, you would also have to spend a day or two on the opposite rim chilling out and recovering before going back. I know that people, mainly trail runners, go rim-to-rim in one day, with a light day-pack (or at least somewhat light because you have to carry water). Oh yes, a few ultra-athletes may then get up and do it again the next day, but really, not 99 percent of backpackers out there. Was it Ray Jardine who wrote the book (The Man who Walked through Time) about hiking the length of Grand Canyon? Um? What kind of a permit did he have, LOL. PS, I have done the Grand Canyon.

I know we have at least one member here who does long trail-runs in the Sierra (and appears to really enjoy it and takes great photos too), but I do not think he carries a full pack while doing it. It would be great to hear what he thinks about all this.