Boy on the Mountain

Kieran on Mt Oberlin trail

Trail patrol is one of those marvelous “jobs” which make you embarrassed to call it work. Yes, you must go to training and study everything from wildlife management to law enforcement procedures to search and rescue. But that's enjoyable as well as educational in itself.

Trail patrol is no more dangerous than regular hiking so I took my grandson, Kieran, with me one day so he could experience the wilderness from a trail that isn't even on an official park map. We started up the climber's trail that leads to the summit of Mt Oberlin. Mt. Oberlin is one of the easier mountains in Glacier National Park to climb but that still doesn't make it easy unless you are an experienced climber. I had been up Mt Oberlin a couple of times in the weeks prior so I knew that we could go quite a way up the mountain before it would be too dangerous for Kieran.

It was a lovely day for climbing. It was a lovely day to do anything outside. It was a bit warmer than usual. The temperature was in the mid 60s. The reason they have us patrolling a climber's trail that isn't on the park map is that much of it goes through closures. Closures are areas that are legally closed to people either because the area is a sensitive wildlife habitat or there is fragile vegetation. The side of the mountain we were climbing was covered with very fragile sub-alpine vegetation with numerous large meadows. Somehow visitors who are not climbers get on this trail, see the official trail they want on the other side of a large meadow and want to cut across. My job is to keep this from happening in my best Ranger Friendly manner.

We had not gone half a mile up the mountain and were going through a narrow rocky pass between two of the large meadows when the trail was blocked by a large mountain goat billy. Kieran and I had talked about how we are supposed to act when we encounter wildlife. He could even quote the rule that one is supposed to stay 100 yards from bears, moose and mountain lions and 25 yards from all other wildlife. We were no way near 25 yards away. More like 25 feet. We moved back and the goat moved with us. He never acted aggressive. He walked with he head high. If he were being aggressive he would have held his head lower so he could use his horns. But he was displaying a behavior that, according to goat expert Douglas Chadwick(1), is often seen when an older billy is establishing his dominance with a newcomer. Dr. Chadwick tells the story of how, while doing his research in Glacier National Park, the goats had let him actually stay among them and a billy had displayed this same behavior as though to say “you can be here but I'm the boss.” That is what this billy was doing to us. We finally stopped and stood still as the big billy practically stepped on our feet as he passed us. It was an exciting encounter for both of us. I have been very close to many mountain goats but this was the first time that I had observed this behavior.

A short distance up the trail we came to a water tank. It sat where it was out of sight of the visitor center in the mountain pass below. I told Kieran that a friend and fellow volunteer had helped build the tank and move it to this spot. People don't stop to think about how a visitor's center in a mountain pass twenty miles from the nearest village gets water. The tank had to be lifted up the mountain by helicopter and then reassembled. It was strenuous and dangerous work. Not three weeks after Kieran's first time up the mountain we would encounter a small group of hikers descending at this very point. Not twenty yards further up the mountain after encountering those hikers I would respond to a radio call from Glacier dispatch that a climber had fallen on Mt. Oberlin. It was my day off but I was on the mountain already well ahead of other rescuers. I notified dispatch of my presence and said that I would locate the climber and stay with them until the rescue crew could get there. Pamela, Kieran and I would spend an hour climbing as quickly as possible to over 7,000 feet but finding no injured climber. It turned out that she had walked out with the group we had met by the water tower

and left without telling anyone she was safe. It was somewhat fortuitous because it put me at a much higher elevation than I would have been at our original pace. That's when I spotted the forest fire that had just started. When I first saw it, it looked like a ribbon of campfire smoke coming up from the trees. Within minutes there were clouds of smoke billowing upwards. I was among the first, if not the first, to report it. It eventually burned over 4,000 acres. But that's another story I'll share some day.

Kieran was anxious to hike through snow. Under normal circumstances there would still have been plenty of snow. Normally there would still be 4-5 feet of snow at this altitude in late

July but this was an unusually dry and warm year. Like good mountain trekkers we had cleats hanging from our backpacks just in case and Kieran was anxious to get to use them. Little more than a hundred yards up the mountain from the water tank Kieran got his first snow and faced his first ford across a fast moving mountain stream.

Before us was a beautiful stream cascading down the mountain. To our left was steep outcropping of rock over which the stream flowed in a plethora of miniature falls. It flowed through a field of snow making the water icy cold. To our right the stream dropped off at a steep angle down a hundred feet or more to the meadow below. Kieran was faced with the task of crossing this without getting any wetter than necessary.

When Kieran was preparing for his 30 days visit with us in the wilderness his Mother had asked about what he needed. At the top of the list was a pair of good hiking boots. It is impossible to emphasize enough the importance of good footwear. At first Kieran thought my gaiters were a bit funny. By the third or fourth major hike he was wearing my shorter summer gaiters while I wore my high winter gaiters. Kieran had arrived at Glacier with a good pair of boots. They were very good for comfort and safety. They were not as water resistant as my Keens, but kudos for Mom and a good choice.

It was as he was carefully picking his way across the snowfield and fording the stream that Kieran became aware of one of the most important pieces of the trekker's equipment – trail poles. For several years I have been a trail runner doing ultras (50-100 mile runs or races) through extreme environments and dreaming of doing one really classic extreme ultra before my running days were over. In my pictures of people doing the famous Mont Blanc 150km ultra one will notice that they all use poles even though they are running. Even for the youngest trekker or trail runner poles are important for balance and safety. I had given Kieran some instruction on using his poles, which I was sure he had ignored, but here he proved that he had indeed been listening. He did a great job of traversing the stream and getting to the other side with dry feet.

Lunch-time view

We climbed another 50-60 feet in elevation up some steep and slippery rock faces to a large and broad meadow. It was a great place to have lunch. We had a marvelous view of the valley almost 4,000 feet below. We also had plenty of space between us and any creatures that we might attract with our food. There was no way they could sneak up on us. 

Kieran was getting tired.  We had climbed the better part of 1,000 feet in elevation from the Visitor's Center at Logan Pass. Kieran had not been with us more than a couple of days.  He was using muscles that he probably didn't even use in karate or at least in a different way. He was over 6,500 feet higher than his home in Alabama.  I was very proud of him for having climbed to over 7,000 feet but I knew that he had to be feeling the effects of altitude.  

Altitude sickness is very real and can be frightening.  It is not uncommon for some people to start noticing it at elevations of 6-7,000 feet. Actually the body is dealing with it at a much lower elevation but one doesn't become conscious of it until higher altitudes. Many of our campers at Sprague Creek - only 3200 feet elevation and the lowest point in the Rocky Mountains - would complain of difficulty sleeping and tiring easily. They were dealing with altitude.  Visitors to Denver will notice the altitude and Denver is about 2,000 feet below Kieran's highest point on this day.  Pamela and I had never had any altitude problems until we were at Rocky Mountain National Park where we were camped at 8,500 feet and hiking at 12,000 feet. At night, when we were trying to sleep, we would feel like we were having trouble breathing. And we had already spent 90 days in the Rocky Mountains at 3,200-7,000 feet. 

I let Kieran pick a goal for our climb. He picked a point some 40-50 feet elevation beyond where we had lunch and about another few tenths of a mile. He was being a trooper but he was ready to go back. 

We started down the mountain about one or two o'clock.  We were at the waterfall when we saw a group of people standing on a ledge looking down into the McDonald Creek Valley. It was a marvelous spot with a magnificent view. The problem was that they had to have traversed almost 100 yards of fragile sub-alpine vegetation to get there. There was a small gully that ran down to the ledge, but there was no way that at least a dozen people went that far without tromping through the vegetation. A long-term trampling study that had been conducted in this very area found that it takes well over 50 years for this sub-alpine vegetation to recover from such abuse. As we drew near I called to the people on the ledge. I wasn't going to trample the vegetation to get to them. Besides my voice is very resonant.  Some people might say I have a loud mouth, but I prefer resonant.  In any case the group was very responsive and returned to the trail. 

Using my best Ranger Friendly voice and approach I explained why I had called them back from the ledge. I pointed out the fragile vegetation that had been damaged and asked them to please remain on the trail. It wasn't until the person in front said "I'm the tour guide" that I noticed the name badges. Opps!  But if the leader was a trained guide she should have known that they were going through a closure area and she should have known better than tromp across such fragile vegetation. Nevertheless I tried to give her a chance to recover, although it wasn't easy. This is one of the reasons that those of us who patrol these trail are here. 

As they moved on up the mountain we heard the embarrassed guide saying “now watch out for vegetation on the trail.” Kieran looked back at the group and then at me. He had a smerk on his face that belied one ready to explode with laughter. Within moments that's what happened. “Watch out for vegetation on the trail?” He doubled over in laughter. Even today, if he sees a picture of Mt. Oberlin, or almost any mountain trail. He says in the most serious voice he can muster, “watch out for vegetation on the trail.”

We continued down to the Visitor Center at Logan Pass where we caught a shuttle down the beautiful Going-to-the-Sun Road to Sprague Creek Campground and home. It was a good day and great hike. 

It it generally hard to know what a twelve year old boy really thinks about an experience. You only get an idea from what their parents tell you they say when they get home. Kieran is a very high-tech child. If he doesn't end up an aero-space engineer like his father I'll miss my guess. Nevertheless, we live in hope that spending 30 days without computers or television but hiking through mountains and kayaking high wilderness lakes will instill an appreciation and love for the nature of which we are all an integral part.  

Simply Green - China and Napkins

Our breakfast table.

I would guess that I'm as lazy as the next person, but I must admit that I miss the days before everything was disposable.  When I was growing up and asked for a napkin I didn't get a piece of paper. I got a piece of cloth 18 inches by 18 inches that was generally folded in half three times forming a rectangle. It was made either from cotton or linen, depending upon whether or not there was company. I don't know when we transitioned from cloth to paper, but when Pamela and I first started going together we realized that we both preferred cloth napkins and made the conscious decision to spoil ourselves with the luxury of the traditional gentility. The time to wash them is negligible and using cloth as opposed to paper is actually much cheaper.  Even our simple breakfast table is set with cloth.

Many years ago when my late wife, Diana, was alive and we had four small children at home, we did a great deal of canning. We bought some jars at an auction. My mother-in-law saw the jars and started chiding us for using them. "They are worth a great deal of money," she scolded, to which I replied, "not unless they have food in them."  What's the use of having something nice if you don't use it? 

Our every day table setting. Pretty, fun to use, easy to
maintain, and in the end result a lot cheaper than plastic
or paper 

Pamela and I also realized that we both prefer to have our meals on china, or at least not plastic or paper. When we brought our two households together we found that we were blessed with several lovely table settings.  One set, which is more earthy, is what we use every day. There are three more formal sets which we enjoy using to be a bit more gentile - like when Pam's son and his wife and my daughter and her husband shared a meal with us.  

Pamela's favorite of our "formal" table setting. Still pretty,
fun, and ultimately costs less. 

Some people call that 'putting on the Ritz' or 'putting on airs'. Since we do it for our own pleasure and don't really care what anyone else thinks of it, we call it enjoying nice things with which we have been blessed.  Believe it or not we have the same table habits the four months of the year we have been living in Willy, our 16 ft 35 year old camper and next year we expect that to be 7-8 months. We may be outdoors people and prefer to be in the woods many miles from so-called civilization, but that doesn't mean that we stop liking cloth napkins and china.  In fact, we even use the proper wine glasses when we're in the wilderness. 

What all this is leading to is that we realized that what we like and what we found to be financially beneficial is also simply green. If you really enjoy setting a "fancy" table for a special occasion, then why not enjoy having the nice tableware and napkins everyday. You can enjoy that special feeling and be good to the the environment at the same time.  If you don't really like setting a "fancy" table, you might want to at least consider the ease, money saving, and environmentally friendly qualities of using cloth napkins and some other tableware other than plastic and paper.

Here are some numbers.  I wasn't able to identify the individual paper product, so these numbers relate to the manufacture of all paper products.  39 gallons of water is required to make 1 pound of paper! (That one blew my mind.) 93% of paper products come from trees. Every tree produces enough oxygen for 3 people to breathe.  Another surprising fact for me is that pulp and paper is the third largest industrial polluter of air, water and soil.  Your paper plates and other household paper products can not be recycled because they are contaminated with food residue, so unless you compost, your paper products go straight to the landfill where paper produces methane gas as it rots. Methane gas is 25 times more toxic than CO2.   


How about cost?  How much is it going to cost us to give up paper products.  If you buy a case of paper towels at Sam's Club you can get them as cheaply as $0.96/roll.  Even then you're probably looking at $52/year.  Cloth napkins at Sam's Club cost $0.53/each. That's $6.36 a dozen. I can't remember the last time I threw a cloth napkin away but even if I had to replace a dozen a year I'm still paying only 12.23% of the cost of paper.  

You can buy 186 paper plates for only $17.48 at Sam's. I could not find the average number of paper plates used per year, so let's say you'll buy at least one package -- right?   One of our expensive china setting now costs $189/place setting.  We didn't pay anyways near that, but let's use that as a comparison. Highest cost for china. Lowest cost for paper. We've had this particular setting for 47 years. That means that it has cost us $4.02/setting/year for that china, and the cost goes down each year. For six people it costs $24.12 to use that china 3 times day if we like.  My china cost will go down while the paper cost will go up.  And if you really want to see a savings, compare paper to a set of 6 Corell plates for 31.98.  In two years your cost will be $15.99 for Corell compared to $34.96 in paper. 

Conclusion.  Using things like cloth napkins and china, corell or some other non-plastic or non-paper product is not only much better for the environment but is going to save you money.  

AGAIN, BEING GREEN SAVES YOU MONEY and SAVES THE ENVIRONMENT. ANOTHER WIN-WIN SITUATION. 


Reference: 

http://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Paper-Waste-Facts

http://www.livestrong.com/article/226810-environmental-effect-of-paper-plates/

www.gao.gov/assets/670/667773.pdf

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/index.html

www.walmart.com

www.samsclub.com

Simply Green - Introduction

     To say that something is “green” or something that one does is “green” denotes an item, product or action that is environmentally friendly and therefore good for nature. There are many people who put a lot of effort into being green, while there are some who really don't care. I would suspect that, if you have continued reading to this point, you are most likely closer to the former than the latter. If you tend toward the 'don't care' group but are willing to continue reading this blog, kudos to you.

Have you ever found yourself a bit overwhelmed by all of the ideas, programs, and campaigns that want to tell you how to be green? There are a lot of people who think that being green requires a 'signed-in-blood' commitment, significant time and a substantial monetary outlay. That's really not true. Let's use the example of putting an aluminum can in recycling instead of throwing it away. So often we environmentalists get caught up in telling people the damage an act does instead of showing the tremendous benefit and savings of not doing some acts. That's true of the aluminum can. “I'm just one person,” or "it's just one can," you might say. That's very true, but you are one of 350 million people just in this country. According to the Keep America Beautiful website (www.kab.org) if you recycle one can you have saved enough energy to run your television for three hours. KAB also wrote that “The amount of energy saved just from recycling cans in 2010 is equal to the energy equivalent of 17 million barrels of crude oil, or nearly two days of all U.S. oil imports.” Wow! Think about recycling your next 24-can case of soda! That's a lot of punch for almost no effort. Hopefully “Simply Green” can help some people get past the 'it takes too much' roadblock to being green or greener. To others it might be just some more ideas, but that's good too.

The idea of Simply Green is that being green doesn't require a tremendous amount of special energy, extra time or participation in campaigns or programs. Being green is more about our life-style and how we think. Based upon that premise Simply Green is going to be a series of blogs that share minor adjustments in life-style or habits that can make a big difference to the environment. These ideas will take no extra time, or at worst a few minutes of your time. They will not inhibit your modern life-style and they will frequently save you money. If you are willing to save those aluminum cans and take them by a recycling plant, you will actually get money. Doesn't that sound like a win-win situation? You can make a positive impact upon the environment with minimal effort and no ill effects.

If you like the idea – or at least are willing to check out the first blog – let's get started. The first Simply Green idea I'd like to share is the newspaper. There is no categorical ranking or symbolism involved with this choice. I picked it because it is something that I just encountered two days ago.

I was standing in line at a Schnuck's Grocery store on Sunday morning around 7 am. The lady ahead of me plopped down a gigantic pile of newsprint. The top banner read “New York Times”. No one picked it up with one hand. It was massive. My first thought was 'how many trees did that take?' I remembered having seen some statistics about newspapers so I went looking. The New York Times prints an average of 1,217,201 newspapers every Sunday. This printing takes an average of 63,000 trees. That works out to be >19 trees for every newspaper. You can do something simply green by reading your newspaper on-line. Staying with the example of the New York times, the NY Times has an impressive digital program. The hard-copy Sunday Edition costs $5.00 in New York and $6.00 elsewhere. To get the New York Times on-line for an entire week costs $3.75/wk for for web and smartphone access, $5/wk for web and a tablet and $8.75/wk for all digital access. Obviously you can read the New York Times for an entire week for little more than the cost of a single Sunday hard-copy issue. Of course there is the down side . . . you are using electricity which may use coal. From what I understand it is really almost impossible to determine how much energy is really used for us to spend time on the internet, but here are some number of which we need to be aware. According to Michael Bluejays Saving Electricity website a lap top, modem, and router for an hour takes 15-45 watts. According to the US Energy Information Administration it takes 0.00052 short tons or 1.05 pounds of coal to generate 1kw/h (1000 watts) or 0.0168 ounces for 1 watt hour. That means that if you spend an hour reading the New York Times on-line you are using up to 0.756 oz of coal. But, we can argue, all of that energy might not be coal generated. Fair enough, but then there's the student who pointed out to the professor that when you download something from the internet you can't just take into consideration your own computer. There are other computers – servers – that must be considered. In other words, we can't really say how much coal we might cause to be burned but it is probably going to be measured in ounces. We do know that if we do not buy the hard-copy we are truly effecting the number of trees cut down to make paper. It is a small but significant act that can save >19 trees a week, if you read the New York Times, and save you money. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.  

One other issue probably needs to be addressed in this first offering. I have heard people say that they are fearful of doing things like not buying a newspapers because it will put companies out of business and people out of work.  This is not new. When the automobile was invented and people started using cars instead of carriages there was an outcry on behalf of the carriage industry and livery stables. What happened?  New industries emerged to which these could transition. Soon you had automobile plants employing the carriage makers, automobile repair shops and a new industry - the service station. This pattern has repeated itself over and over throughout human history. Sadly the newspaper will most likely be a thing of the past by the next generation, but the newspaper companies themselves are leading the way in developing replacement industries. Thus The New York Times On-line. They're being pro-active and we can use that to our benefit as well as the environments.