High Sierra Topix

Well personally, style wise, I'm much more like Clyde than Muir, that's for sure! I'm more stocky than lanky and I carry WAY too heavy of loads through remote areas of the Sierra and for as much time as I spend in the wilds, I don't know all the names of trees and flowers and plants and butterflies and birds and such. I know the easy ones and common ones, but I often find myself frustrated at my ignorance of a particular flower or bird, but I still love being out there just the same! Muir, on the other hand would know everything, sketch everything, write notes about the experience, and travel lightly. My style is much more like Norman Clyde, no doubt about it. When I first visited a chiropractor, after looking at my x-rays once, he asked me if I carried heavy loads around because he could see some vertical compression in some of my lumbar discs. I guess all that pounding with heavy loads is slowly taking its toll. Thankfully I should have plenty of miles still ahead of me! I wonder what Norman Clyde's spine looked like!

Wow, Buck, that's kinda scarey about the compressed discs.... how heavy are your packs normally?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.