Norman Clyde vs John Muir | High Sierra Topix  

Norman Clyde vs John Muir

A place to explore the natural setting (geology, flora & fauna), people, constructed infrastructure and historical events that play and have played a part in shaping the Sierra Nevada as we know it today.
User avatar

Postby Buck Forester » Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:39 pm

Well, my pack is normally between 50-75lbs. Much of the extra weight comes from lugging around a couple full-size camera bodies and multiple L-glass lenses, filters, a tripod, and film. I also take lots of fishing gear. But I don't mind. I see it only getting heavier with time because I want to get a medium format camera or two.



User avatar
Buck Forester
Founding Member
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby AldeFarte » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:21 pm

I have never been over 65lb. myself. A few years ago I had an epiphany and realized I was mortal. Since then I keep it near 50 ,or less. Can you imagine Clyde carrying as much as he could tie on? Those old farts were tough. Reading about Hikin Mikes adversity gives me a healthy perspective on how lucky we are to be able ramble around in the backcountry. So much to see in so little time. jls :nod:
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Eklutna, Ak.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Postby SandStorm » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:27 pm

The premise is flawed. Apples and oranges. But for what it's worth Muir has never inspired me personally. Clyde is the man I tell stories about around the fire.
User avatar
SandStorm
Topix Acquainted
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:58 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Postby Wandering Daisy » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:46 am

I agree - apples and oranges. If you use the word naturalist, I would say Muir. Muir actually spent only a handfull of years exploring and being a naturalist in the Sierra - but he traveled worldwide. Clyde definitely wins if you consider pure exploration of the Sierra. If I could be "time reverse reincarnated" I would rather be Clyde because I am more of a mountaineer than naturalist.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Postby quentinc » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:00 pm

I don't think it's so much apples and oranges, as it is an unfair question to Clyde. It seems clear to me (for the reasons George and others have noted) that Muir was a vastly more important naturalist. However, Clyde was the better mountaineer and climber, and more significant explorer of the Sierra topography. Both had incredible accomplishments, just in different areas.
User avatar
quentinc
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Postby mokelumnekid » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:52 pm

Agree with quentinc, Muir's observations on the evidence of the significance of glaciation were very important. He had a geologists eye, among other things, and his views shaped the work of the next wave of Sierra scientists. My take on his Sierra experiences were that he was an amazingly energetic and passionate explorer but not the mountaineer as we understand that phrase now, that Clyde was.
User avatar
mokelumnekid
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Experience: N/A

Previous

Return to Sierra Nevada History / Natural History & Setting



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests