#!markdown
Fair enough - if no offense was intended, offended overreaction retracted. My
apologies. I have agree with you on one point and disagree on another. First -
I agree with what you said about minimalist adventure athletes. I get that -
simplistic gear choices and running that fine line are totally part of the
experience for them. But everyone one of them that I know do exactly like you
said: they accept the consequences when things don't go as planned. Also, they
are some of the hardest MF'ers I know and survival is in their blood. If one
of them told me tomorrow that they were going to go knock out a 100 km trail
run with a garbage bag and a stick of butter, I wouldn't blink an eye. I would
have full confidence in their survival instinct.
Here is where I disagree. Here is why I think she is a liability. It's not
that she is a woman. We have covered that. It's not the small bag. You can
pack plenty of survival kit into a fanny pack. It's not even the $600
hardtail. Plenty of people shred on low dollar rigs. None of that is a problem
for me. Here is where I get stuck. It's the bloody Birkenstocks! Footwear is
like your last line of defense in the backcountry. Your final option of
getting yourself out under your own power is to walk. the Chilcotins are big
country. I can't, for the life of me, wrap my head around birks being a
responsible choice to help you be fleet footed when you need it most. That's
what was off for me and why I am not convinced she was more of a minimalist
athlete. And sure, that is just my opinion. Maybe Birks are the quintessential
backcountry accessory that I underestimate but it still seems odd.
I could be way off base but I do know we live in a society that accepts the
mentality that allows people to put the repercussions of their choices onto
others. For example, being under prepared and then search and rescue footing
the bill to get them out. This quote from the article is what I am driving at:
" But when you look around at our overly safety-conscious world where it is
deemed necessary to warn you that your coffee could be hot, or that the
playground will be wet when it is raining, or not to eat the packaging that
your food comes in, you have to admire the minerals of the people truly
getting after it, even if they are drastically reducing their life
expectancy!"
I believe there are two camps of people who go out under prepared; minimalists
who accept the potential consequences and people who don't know any better
because they didn't do the research up front. Unfortunately, I think those are
the people that also need the warning on their coffee. Minimalists I applaud
and respect. People who wander in to big country and get in a bind? I struggle
with that. Which is Jen? I don't know, I'd have to meet her and ask.
Sept. 19, 2014, 3:31 p.m. - Cave Johnson
#!markdown Fair enough - if no offense was intended, offended overreaction retracted. My apologies. I have agree with you on one point and disagree on another. First - I agree with what you said about minimalist adventure athletes. I get that - simplistic gear choices and running that fine line are totally part of the experience for them. But everyone one of them that I know do exactly like you said: they accept the consequences when things don't go as planned. Also, they are some of the hardest MF'ers I know and survival is in their blood. If one of them told me tomorrow that they were going to go knock out a 100 km trail run with a garbage bag and a stick of butter, I wouldn't blink an eye. I would have full confidence in their survival instinct. Here is where I disagree. Here is why I think she is a liability. It's not that she is a woman. We have covered that. It's not the small bag. You can pack plenty of survival kit into a fanny pack. It's not even the $600 hardtail. Plenty of people shred on low dollar rigs. None of that is a problem for me. Here is where I get stuck. It's the bloody Birkenstocks! Footwear is like your last line of defense in the backcountry. Your final option of getting yourself out under your own power is to walk. the Chilcotins are big country. I can't, for the life of me, wrap my head around birks being a responsible choice to help you be fleet footed when you need it most. That's what was off for me and why I am not convinced she was more of a minimalist athlete. And sure, that is just my opinion. Maybe Birks are the quintessential backcountry accessory that I underestimate but it still seems odd. I could be way off base but I do know we live in a society that accepts the mentality that allows people to put the repercussions of their choices onto others. For example, being under prepared and then search and rescue footing the bill to get them out. This quote from the article is what I am driving at: " But when you look around at our overly safety-conscious world where it is deemed necessary to warn you that your coffee could be hot, or that the playground will be wet when it is raining, or not to eat the packaging that your food comes in, you have to admire the minerals of the people truly getting after it, even if they are drastically reducing their life expectancy!" I believe there are two camps of people who go out under prepared; minimalists who accept the potential consequences and people who don't know any better because they didn't do the research up front. Unfortunately, I think those are the people that also need the warning on their coffee. Minimalists I applaud and respect. People who wander in to big country and get in a bind? I struggle with that. Which is Jen? I don't know, I'd have to meet her and ask.