Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:39 pm
by Buck Forester
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.

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:21 pm
by AldeFarte
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:

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:27 pm
by SandStorm
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.

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:46 am
by Wandering Daisy
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.

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:00 pm
by quentinc
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.

Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:52 pm
by mokelumnekid
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.