Posted on 10/14/2002 10:21:45 AM PDT by Conagher
I realize you'd like to elevate this topic to the technical importance of handling a firearm, but I'm not buying it.
I notice you didn't bother pointing out where I was demanding that fewer people climb high peaks, nor did you address the absurdity of someone who likes to hike promoting such.
Okay Dirtboy, just how many people are climbing this 14,000 foot peak each year? 50,000? 25,000? 10,000? 2000? 1000? If it's as rugged as you state, the number is going to dwindle significantly.
Once again, you don't understand the situation. A lot of people in Colorado are drawn to the highest peaks precisely because they are more difficult. I'll try to look up how many people climb selected peaks such as Longs Peak, Mt. Bierstadt (a very popular climb - when I climbed it, there must have been 500 people on it) and Mt. Elbert, the highest peak in Colorado.
And like you once intimated, I doubt most people are holding it until they start this climb. A very small percentage of these people actually take dumps on the mountian. Isn't that right? What we're more than likely talking about here, is fifty to a few hundred instances per year.
The point is, even if as few as five hundred people crap on a mountain each year above timberline, the stuff doesn't readily break down - even in summer, it often gets below freezing up there, or at least down to refridgerator temps.
For these few instances, I can't imagine it being more destructive to place some crap down 9 to 12 inches below the surface, than it is for humans to trample all over the same precious tundra. And it certainly isn't more destructive than thousands more people whizzing on that same tundra.
Once again, you can't dig down 9 to 12 inches above timberline. It's all rocks with a few pockets of soil with sedge-type plants growing on them, and gravelly patches an inch or two deep. People walk on the rocks to get to a spot if they need to go without walking on plants. You disturb plants up there, the scars remain for years. If folks need to whiz, they will generally look for a gravelly spot and go there. But the point is, most people who are motiviated enough to climb a 14,000 foot peak are receptive to conservation measures. They don't want crap all over the place. There will always be some folks who will just crap and put a rock over it. But a strong majority will agree voluntarily to these measures. I was gonna buy a poop kit from REI and carry it in my pack had I stayed in Colorado. On my own free will.
I realize you're doing your level best to avoid conceding any points, so that's OK. You've shown several times that your intuition is counter to the reality in this particular matter, such as your assumption that the relative difficulty of a peak is a deterrent when instead it often is an attraction.
When you have to carry over a hundred pounds of gear, it isn't going to make much difference anyway.
Hey, if you want to fly a copter up to 13,000 feet, deal with the thin air and winds just to plant a porta-potty, go for it. Seems like a much simpler and cheaper solution is to ask people to pack it out themselves.
Not to mention the problem of the climbers below you if you let it drop and a crosswind catches it just right.
Gee, DoughtyOne, there is far less level ground on El Capitan than there is on a Colorado 14er, but the climbers still figure out how to bag it. So much for that point as well. Once again, people who go out to the mountains realize there is a problem, and are taking steps to counter it. Why is that such a problem for you?
Not me! Heck, get them gubmint critters to do it. That's why I pay taxes.
Hey, I wouldn't worry so much about the guys below getting hit with a flying turd than what would happen if the same guys caught up to you later...
According to a website about the 14ers, overe 200,000 people a year climb them. A lot more don't finish the hike. And the climbers are not evenly distributed - there are 54 peaks in Colorado over 14,000 feet, and I would venture that in excess of 25,000 people a year climb popular peaks such as Longs, Bierstadt, Grays, Torreys and Elbert. So if five percent have to go during the hike (it can take over eight hours to climb some peaks, with over half that time spent above timberline), that's 1,250 per climbing season. The amount may even be higher - if you want to climb Longs Peak, for example, you need to start about 3 or 4 am to be back below timberline before noon, when the thunderstorms can kick in - ya don't want to be above timberline with lightning flashing about. Folks are generally more prone to have to go earlier in the morning.
Red
Whadda do if ya miss the target?
Red
Load another magazine and try again. That's actually kinda funny, giving people a target, although it's ironic that these targets are the only ones a lot of folks will ever aim at...
Well, I hate to remind you of this, but I gave you the chance to quantify the number of people who went up there. I didn't demand that you pin it down to the nearest
ten. You're the one claiming to know everything there is to know about these places, an expert on the number of time stuff is deposited. I ask one simple question and you tell me you'll look it up. Okay, get back to me then bud. Then you have the audacity to tell me I don't understand the situation. Let me know when you've figure out what "a lot of people in Colorado" is.
I have said that it would be best to carry a small shovel with you and bury the stuff. On different instance you informed me it was too rocky to bury anything. Then you admitted that when you want to take a whiz, you look for a gravely area. Then you have the audacity to tell me that I'm doing my best not to concede on any issues.
Let's just agree to accept the fact that each of us thinks the other person is being more than a little disingenuous on this topic.
While this initially greatly increased usage, a problem developed. The new improved targets seemed to cause constipation.
Easily explained. Not even the nastiest, vilest, venison-cookout and draft beer induced piece of modell wanted to go anywhere near the target.
-Eric
It's generally been the objective of modern sanitary science to not have solid human waste strewn all over the landscape. There are obvious health problems to having that much crap in a heavily-used recreational area, above and beyond any aesthetic ones. You wouldn't want a playground to have human waste strewn about, yet you are resisting simple efforts to deal with this matter. And, once again, elk poop is not a serious problem or health hazard as compared to human waste. I've been out there. I called the valley below my cabin Elk Sh** Valley because it was paved in the stuff because hundreds of elk migrated through there each day. Wouldn't have wanted it covered with human crap, though.
Yet you think I'm the one who's out of line for extrapolating that someone who would make that case is a little obsesive, and would more than likely secretly rather that humans not be up there disturbing mother nature.
I have never said any such thing. There is a difference between conservation and lunatic environmentalism. A conservationist is in favor of sewage systems. An envirnomentalist isn't happy until every last vestige of pollution is gone, despite the cost or the diminishing returns. I'm a conservationist. There is a distinct problem up there. For reasons already clearly conveyed, you can't just dig a hole above timberline like you can in the woods. Deal with it.
Okay, if that works for you I'm okay with it. I do disagree however. If you wish to make the opposing claim, that you don't really want this, that's okay. I still say it was a valid conclusion to come to. If you want to disagree in order to make yourself feel better, go ahead.
I'm saying you have made several conclusions based upon your intuition that were not consistent with the facts on the ground, so to speak.
Well, I hate to remind you of this, but I gave you the chance to quantify the number of people who went up there. I didn't demand that you pin it down to the nearest ten. You're the one claiming to know everything there is to know about these places, an expert on the number of time stuff is deposited. I ask one simple question and you tell me you'll look it up. Okay, get back to me then bud.
Already did.
Then you have the audacity to tell me I don't understand the situation. Let me know when you've figure out what "a lot of people in Colorado" is.
Already did. It's best to check the latests posts to a thread before trying this approach.
I have said that it would be best to carry a small shovel with you and bury the stuff. On different instance you informed me it was too rocky to bury anything. Then you admitted that when you want to take a whiz, you look for a gravely area. Then you have the audacity to tell me that I'm doing my best not to concede on any issues.
Uh, the gravelly areas are not very deep either, maybe a couple of inches. The idea is not to hose down the plants. Here's the basic guidelines for this subject above timberline - Avoid walking on the plants, walk on rocks and bare areas such as the aforementioned gravelly patches. Don't whiz on the plants, whiz on the rocks or into any gravelly patches you can find. Pack out solid waste, or see if you can get below timberline first. There just isn't enough soil (or gravel) depth to dig a hole, and the stuff just doesn't break down easily in that particular climate.
According to a website about the 14ers, overe 200,000 people a year climb them.
Did I ask you what the total for all 14ers were? No. I asked you what the total number were on the site you mentioned?
A lot more don't finish the hike. And the climbers are not evenly distributed - there are 54 peaks in Colorado over 14,000 feet, and I would venture to guess (anotherwords you still don't know) that in excess of 25,000 people a year climb popular peaks such as Longs, Bierstadt, Grays, Torreys and Elbert. So if five percent have to go during the hike (it can take over eight hours to climb some peaks, with over half that time spent above timberline), that's 1,250 per climbing season per five peaks which averages out at 250 a year per peak. And these wouldn't be deposited in the same place. Perhaps half of them wouldn't even be buried above the timberline. The amount may even be higher - if you want to climb Longs Peak, for example, you need to start about 3 or 4 am to be back below timberline before noon, when the thunderstorms can kick in - ya don't want to be above timberline with lightning flashing about. Folks are generally more prone to have to go earlier in the morning.
Thunderstorms? You mean it rains? You main the soil may not be as hard as you were claiming? You mean stuff could be burried? You mean we've been wasting our time dicussing this issue under a false premise for the most part? Duh!
As for Elk Poop, I believe in most instances you'd agree that it's on the surface, something I never suggested human waste be. And nobody suggested you should want human waste on the ground near your valley. LOL Nice try though.
For the record, a lunatic environmentalist is someone who tries to demand humans carry something out that could much easier be buried below the surface. A conservationist is the person who notes this and suggests a more reasonable approach. An environmentalist isn't happy until every last vestige of pollution is gone... Yep. I agree.
Sorry, you'll have to deal with the fact that you can bury stuff above timberline. If you chose not to, I could care less.
I'm saying you have made several conclusions based upon your intuition that were not consistent with the facts on the ground, so to speak. Yes we both know what you have been saying. And we both know what the truth is.
Well, I hate to remind you of this, but I gave you the chance to quantify the number of people who went up there. I didn't demand that you pin it down to
the nearest ten. You're the one claiming to know everything there is to know about these places, an expert on the number of time stuff is deposited. I ask
one simple question and you tell me you'll look it up. Okay, get back to me then bud.
Already did. Ah, no you didn't. You guessed at the numbers and actually believed I wouldn't notice.
Already did. It's best to check the latest posts to a thread before trying this approach. And I would suggest you reread your response. Where are the definitive figures? You claimed you were the expert, then guessed at the probable number. If the figures you gave are off by 25%, it makes a difference.
Look, you stated that there are thunderstorms after noon. You made it sound like they occur every day. Then you tried to make the case that burying things above timberline was impossible. No sale. In one of your earlier posts you stated that it wasn't a good idea to bury things because it damaged the tundra. Now you're saying something different. Is it possible or isn't it? Why are you so inconsistent?
I'm curious - if it rains in a parking lot, does that somehow make the ashphalt less hard? I'm gonna quit now. No point in attempting a logical discussion with someone as impervious to logic as granite is to rainfall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.