jfitzpat
-
Posts
420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jfitzpat
-
-
I don't know, 1:250,000 sounds pretty useless for the 'standard' topo maps. Though, if they put a QVGA 3V connector on it you could hook the display up to the spiffy sunglasses I saw at Comdex...
-jjf
-
I don't know, 1:250,000 sounds pretty useless for the 'standard' topo maps. Though, if they put a QVGA 3V connector on it you could hook the display up to the spiffy sunglasses I saw at Comdex...
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Gil:quote:
Originally posted by ApK:quote:
Originally posted by Gil:9/11 CHANGED ALL THAT !!!!!
NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN !
Umm... the government seems to disagree with you, as the GPS SA policy statement is dated 9/17.
Perhaps you could post your sources of information? Or maybe just check your facts....
Umm.... Source, In the time of war secercy is the weapon of choice.
Facts.., 9/11 is a fact and has changed the way we ourselves, and our government see the rest of the world. So this is a pointless debate since accurcy can't be proven. It's nice chatting with you.
No, SA is not re-enabled. It will probably not be re-enabled on a broadscale basis, however the government does have the ability to scramble and/or encrypt on select areas if it needs to for military or national security purposes.
However, Gil's contention that accuracy cannot be proved is false. A GPS can be compared to many known locations. Also, you can plot locations on NAPP photos and USGS maps and compare results.
My guess is that either sat. reception was/is poor at the cache location, or the firmware in the GPSr is doing low pass averaging.
-jjf
-
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you on some of your last comments.
First, the bulk of the logging roads in Oregon were built and funded by the NFS. The NFS has built and maintains about 400,000 miles of forest roads now, with plans for another 580,000 miles in the next 50 years. The second largest provider of forest roads is the state, which received federal subsidies for most of them. Even private logging companies recieved tax incentives for about 1/3 of the roads they built.
Second, all of Oregon was government land just a few generations ago - largely via a dubious treaty revokation. Large tracts entered private hands three ways, large grants to logging companies, many individual platted claims, and large grants to railroad companies. Several hundred thousand acres were reclaimed from railroad companies in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but the overall trend has remained public-to-private.
Third, by subsidy, I mean exactly that. We use our Federal tax dollars to bolster sub-market land utilization. It is very popular for us western state folks to complain about the idiots in Washington robbing us blind. But, it is somewhat hypocritical. Per resident, we are some of the largest hogs at the Federal trough. As of last year, Washington was the only NW state that gave more to the Federal Government than it received.
If your state tax burden is too high, take that up with your neighbors. Your federal taxes are the same rate as mine, and both of us (California and Oregon) have gotten more than our fair share back for the last 100 years.
-jjf
-
I did not intend to imply that you advocate the extinction of species. I was primarily trying to point out that your point of view did not appear to be very divergent from most mainstream biologists, planetologists, and environmentalists.
We can preverse large numbers of species, both plant and animal, but preserving a relatively small number of so-called 'hot spots' in a pristine state. This seems like a pretty cost effective, useful thing to do. Unfortunately, some people consider it a matter of principal to put a Starbucks or a MacDonalds on every square inch of the planet... Other, equally whacky people, want us to revert to caves and groom for lice...
I also wanted to point out that National Parks and National Forests have to worry about impact because of sheer numbers of visitors. Yes, animals make trails, but lack the sheer numbers to make the same sort of impact.
Concerning whackos in the Northwest, I'd agree that ecoterrorists are counter productive. But, I also think that some NW states are going to have to come to grips with the reality that their economies cannot be largely based on subsidized use of public land.
Since the northwest holds some of the largest tracts of relatively pristine areas under government ownership, there is going to be increasing pressure for the NFS and BLM to stop granting grazing and forestry leases at huge losses.
Washington and Oregon both recognized this trend a long time ago. Both have used the 'pristine' environment as selling points to lure higher tech industries to the region.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by SirRalanN:i rather like the petzel Teka for around town night caching, but for when I have done cache hikes in the woods I used a Petxel Mega Zoom headlamp, not a led though
Now where did I set my GPS???
I'd have to agree, The Petzl Tikka and Zipka are great products. I have a pair of Tikka's in my backpack and they have saved my bacon many times.
-jjf
-
There is really no answering your (self described) rant. You seem to be arguing:
We are a species. We should breed and overrun the environment just like any other species that finds itself unthreatened by predators. The extinction of other species as the indirect or direct result of our success as a species is a natural phenomena. It has always happened, so it should not concern us...
Huge numbers of environmentalists, biologists, and planetologists would *mostly* agree with you. They would change "should" to "can" in the second sentence, and drop the word "not" in the last.
The reason for refuge type conservation is simple. You can preserve a large amount of biodiversity by keeping certain 'hot spots' pristine. Maintaining biodiversity serves two purposes, it keeps our "habitat" healthier for *us*, and it makes it a more pleasant place to live.
Sierra Madre in California does not fight hill side development to protect native fauna and flora, the city fights development because a healthy, diverse, relativly pristine locale is seen by the majority of residents to be central to the city's long term economic survival. They have only to look to their neighbors (like my own beloved Glendale) to see the long term cost of "adapting" too much of the habitat to our needs.
The "pleasant place" factor is also the other side of the impact issue. If it weren't for trail systems, camping restrictions, no collecting restrictions, etc. Some of the natural areas that people most want to visit and enjoy would rapidly lose what makes them so desirable to visit in the first place.
We are talking millions of visitors to many national parks each year. If you could climb indiscriminately in the dwellings in Bandolier, the soft sandstone dwellings would disappear in a single season. If there weren't limits on collecting, what would happen to the Petrified Forest NP?
In other words, it is simple numbers. 500,000 bears, 300,000,000 people in the same area. We not only outnumber, our individual impact is higher. For example, we maintain a higher standard of living, which is good for us, but the cost per individual is higher.
When the system gets less diverse, it tends to run out of control (ex. deer population explosion, etc.) We have to do game management to keep even our 'pristine' areas in some form of environmental balance. Rather than opening hunting season on park visitors, land managers have decided that, for the most part, visitors have the capacity for cognitive reasoning and can be convinced to follow certain rules to minimize the impact of their visit.
Though, I bet the hunting would make for big TV ratings...
-jjf
-
There is really no answering your (self described) rant. You seem to be arguing:
We are a species. We should breed and overrun the environment just like any other species that finds itself unthreatened by predators. The extinction of other species as the indirect or direct result of our success as a species is a natural phenomena. It has always happened, so it should not concern us...
Huge numbers of environmentalists, biologists, and planetologists would *mostly* agree with you. They would change "should" to "can" in the second sentence, and drop the word "not" in the last.
The reason for refuge type conservation is simple. You can preserve a large amount of biodiversity by keeping certain 'hot spots' pristine. Maintaining biodiversity serves two purposes, it keeps our "habitat" healthier for *us*, and it makes it a more pleasant place to live.
Sierra Madre in California does not fight hill side development to protect native fauna and flora, the city fights development because a healthy, diverse, relativly pristine locale is seen by the majority of residents to be central to the city's long term economic survival. They have only to look to their neighbors (like my own beloved Glendale) to see the long term cost of "adapting" too much of the habitat to our needs.
The "pleasant place" factor is also the other side of the impact issue. If it weren't for trail systems, camping restrictions, no collecting restrictions, etc. Some of the natural areas that people most want to visit and enjoy would rapidly lose what makes them so desirable to visit in the first place.
We are talking millions of visitors to many national parks each year. If you could climb indiscriminately in the dwellings in Bandolier, the soft sandstone dwellings would disappear in a single season. If there weren't limits on collecting, what would happen to the Petrified Forest NP?
In other words, it is simple numbers. 500,000 bears, 300,000,000 people in the same area. We not only outnumber, our individual impact is higher. For example, we maintain a higher standard of living, which is good for us, but the cost per individual is higher.
When the system gets less diverse, it tends to run out of control (ex. deer population explosion, etc.) We have to do game management to keep even our 'pristine' areas in some form of environmental balance. Rather than opening hunting season on park visitors, land managers have decided that, for the most part, visitors have the capacity for cognitive reasoning and can be convinced to follow certain rules to minimize the impact of their visit.
Though, I bet the hunting would make for big TV ratings...
-jjf
-
Personally, we just make caching a small part of an otherwise busy day. For example, last Saturday we went to Devil's Punchbowl County Park. Hiking the loop trail and looking for a cache was just part of the day.
We took the trail spur to the stream at the 'Punchbowl Proper', followed the stream to the the small gap, and scrambled back (3 2-3' ledges) up to what is called "Wallbanger Wall". A nice picnic lunch, followed by some toprope climbing. An impromptu game of splash-the-really-chilly-water-from-the-pool, and a search for fossils and certain minerals along the stream pretty much wound up our day.
We've tried watercolors of sunsets, sketches of pictoglyphs and petroglyphs, intertubing, wind surfing, horseback riding... Anything to give the kids an opportunity to try something new.
Another thing I always do is give the kids a contest or job. Plodding relentlessly while mom or dad say "just a little farther" is tedious for anyone. I let my daughters navigate with a map and compass. It really helps them get more excited about the journey, and it teaches them a useful skill.
Sort of like teaching them to keep a score card at baseball. It gives them something to do at the games between massive doses of junk food. Paying attention to keep score, shows them that stuff is going on and makes them feel more a part of the action.
Asking questions and making decisions based on their work makes it important (no one likes makework).
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Skaymus:I want my plaNET BACKKK!!!!
Sorry, we held a tribal council, you've been voted off...
Nothing personal, I just couldn't resist responding to the tag line!
Some of the other posts though, wow. Makes me wonder if either a) some folks have been skipping their medication or
too many hours have been spent listening to the Art Bell show.I keep expecting to see a thread about either Big Brother caches where you wind up with an IRS audit if you go there or UFO caches where you wind up with a body cavity search and a creepy implant...
The NPS, in its typically bumbling way, is just trying to keep the average vistor experience to some of the most taxed natural environments in the US from degrading any faster than it already is. Education, advocacy, and exemplary behavior in unrestricted areas will take care of access issues in the long run.
Ranting about inalianable rights to stomp and stash and the evil nature of the regulators will simply set back the cause.
-jjf
-
This can be a really lengthy subject, but the short answer is: Think of UTM as a form of readout:
ddd.dddd, dd mm ss, dd mm.mmm, dd mm ss.sss, z e n...
Think of Datum as the size and shape of the ball. Since the 'ball' is a different size of NAD27 than for NAD83 (WGS84) (the latter being a lot more accurate). 1 degree, and fractions thereoff, have a different meaning.
Good Luck,
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:I didn't contradict myself. I further expanded on the premise. _Both_ my two statements were issued before you jumped up my ***. I don't really give a rip if you like it or not, it's true and you're wrong.
I do have a right at the top of the food chain to use this planet for my needs and wants. I do have a responsibility not to ruin it for others. My original intent is to illustrate that the NPS has no damned good reason to keep me out of *my* wilderness areas as both an inhabitant of this planet and a citizen of this country.
You're just pissed because I called you out on your arrogant stance that since you've found more caches, you can use that as a reason to shout me down. Well, I say again, piss off.
The last time I checked, it was *our* public lands. The NPS, NFS, BLM, and state land management agencies are far from perfect, but they answer to one of the most representative democratic governments on the planet.
Further, their administration of *our* in-trust resources is answerable to the US judiciary. IE, groups of citizens, or even a single citizen, can challenge policy in the courts.
You, personally, are not the top of the food chain. You are, by your own statements, the sick and weak. We, collectively, have decided that, in our just society, it is better to not let natural selection take its course and let you be culled from the herd by stronger predators.
The same societal system that keeps people from stomping on your bad toe, slapping you around, and taking all your stuff is what empowers the "NPS" to put constraints on your use of *our* land.
Now, it is a free country. There are many places that you can loudly express even the most stupid and illogical things. But, in a moderated forum, your 'speech' is constrained by the agreement posted when you signed up.
I suggest you keep on 'point' (assuming you have one) and keep your personal insults to yourself.
BassoonPilot: Please, do us all a favor and turn the other cheek. Some threads should just die.
-jjf
-
Member only flames is probably less controversial than the caches...
-
My Vista has been great. Do be sure to update your unit to the latest software on the Garmin site.
I have some pet peeves about some of the features (ex. you can't select between barometric and GPS alititude for waypoints and tracks, and the dialogs seem to sometimes hide important options in the little drop menu). But it has been a real champ.
My friend's Meridian is very nice as well, but I really like the small size of the Vista. And, for me, operating temperature range is a big deal.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by mcb:But our collective society is not unique to humans. Lots of critters out there use this for it many benifits. I personlly think that the human animal's intellegence makes him the most ferrocious critter on this planet. We as a collective can make any one individual in our collective more powerefull then any other single critter. The intellegence of humans has made us far greater than anything else that lives on this planet by orders of magnitude. This does not always make us better. But there is not a creature on this planet that can't be ruled or destroyed by a single societally equip human. We are the only creature that has a chance to actually wipe ourselves out. What makes us so formadible is our brains and what lie within. Our biggest enemy is ourselves.
mcb
I'd completely agree. A research neurologist named Schwinger makes the argument that, the vast majority of the time, we use our intellect to pursue only primal desires. But, as a social group, we find it very hard to curb those primal desires in response to what our intellect tells us.
That is, a person of average intelligence posesses the reasoning skills to see that certain group behaviors (even 'government policies') will be very destructive in the long run. But, it is almost impossible to gain the societal momentum to stop those activities until the primal gratification they cause is outweighed by the primal sensation of threat or fear to a majority, or powerful minority of the social group.
IE, We can see that something is bad with reason, but we can't curb the self gratifaction (as a group) until our noses are rubbed in it.
I don't necessarily agree with the whole premise, but it is an interesting thought. Many theorists are intrigued by the contradition between our great powers of reason and our great powers of self delusion and rationalization.
Uh oh... Too depressing. Time to CLIMB!
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.
The thing to keep in mind is that you are only at the top of the food chain because, as a species, we band together and work collectively. As an individual, without the support of a huge collective society around you, you are one of the least fearsome and least capable mammals on the plant.
If you want to reap the benefits of "we", but answer only to "I", that is your largely your right. However, the luxury of that right is only afforded because of the efforts of the society around you.
-jjf
-
I'm not saying it would replace this site, but there are common interests which would probably be better served by a collective voice. For example, when dealing with Land Managers (USFS, USPS, BLM, etc.) about access issues.
A non profit could also build relationships with other groups that might, in the absense of discussion and understanding, be generally opposed to caching (Sierra Club, Wilderness Fund, etc.)
Having been involved in something similiar for another sport, I can attest it is quite a bit of work to get going, but that might be a more productive use of time and energy than arguing about Mr. Irish's business decisions.
Just a thought...
-jjf
-
This has been pretty well beat into the ground, but a couple of FWIW's:
makaio: Fixed gear (bolts and pins (pitons)) for climbing is probably not a good example to use when discussing Geocaching with land managers. Although most climbers now use camflaged bolt hangers and look for inconspicuous fixed placements (pins are generally left because it means less scaring in the long run (insert, remove, etc.), this is a really touchy subject.
Bolts have been yanked as "abandoned property", and bans are in place on new fixed gear (or at least placements without permits) in many areas.
GGJohn: The 'fear' is right, but the numbers are high. Land Managers will be concerned about any activity that would draw even 10-20 people off trail to the same spot. This is not (or should not) be an issue in areas that already see a lot of human impact, but is a legitimate concern for wilderness areas.
Anyone who has bushwacked several times to a neat spot can tell you that it does not take many visits to wear a visible trail and cause errosion.
In my opinion, this should not preclude wilderness caching, but it might warrant some guidelines and limits from land managers.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:So, what does Washington have up its butt that they "strongly opposed it"?
-----
_Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious._
I suppose that the objection is largely to maintain a military advantage. As long as the overwhelming majority of commercially available GPRr equipment is based on one system - a system that the US can selectively shut down or scramble, the US military has technological targetting and navigational advantage.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just guessing at a reason.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Park2:Yeah, but I'm a geek. The 15 second update rate isn't that bad. If you aren't confy with the idea, I'd say forget it. It is quite straightforward (still, make a backup) with a free hex editor from here:
http://www.etree.com/tech/notsofreestuff/hexedit/
Sorry, I missed this plug before. eHex isn't free, it is shareware ($19.95), but it does have a 30 day trial.
I am glad to see that someone used it to copy and paste sequences of data. It was inspired when I was copying and pasting packets from a network sniffer into source code. Visual Studio's binary mode is cool, but copy, paste, and search were really pissing me off.
Enjoy
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:I'll stand behind everything said ... I personally have seen an eastern black bear ... much less of a bear than most of those found in the west ... with half it's heart gone, lung collapsed ... go down, get up and go over 600 meters. From what I've read and from discussions with those who've had the experience out west ... the best defense is to avoid the bear .... give them their due.
FWIW, the hunter I mentioned earlier was named Alexei Pitka. I used collect clippings, etc. on bear attacks (sort of compulsively, actually).
Again, people should not suddenly be terrified of bears. Ursus Americanus, or the common black bear, is generally very timid. There are at least 500,000 in North American, human encounters are common, but there are only about 25 reported "attacks" a year. Most of the "attacks" do not result in serious injury - warning scratches or a light bite (well, light for a bear). Still, they are wild, amazingly strong animals and serious attacks happen. They should be respected and given a wide berth.
Admitedly Ursus Horribilis, or Grizzlies, are well named. Still, they are very rare in the lower 48, and don't range east of the Mississippi (lucky for us western states).
But, I can attest, they are really bad tempered creatures. If you go north to hunt a Grizzly (though I am told that the permits are now obscenely expensive), be forewarned - they have been known to stalk back.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:I'll stand behind everything said ... I personally have seen an eastern black bear ... much less of a bear than most of those found in the west ... with half it's heart gone, lung collapsed ... go down, get up and go over 600 meters. From what I've read and from discussions with those who've had the experience out west ... the best defense is to avoid the bear .... give them their due.
FWIW, the hunter I mentioned earlier was named Alexei Pitka. I used collect clippings, etc. on bear attacks (sort of compulsively, actually).
Again, people should not suddenly be terrified of bears. Ursus Americanus, or the common black bear, is generally very timid. There are at least 500,000 in North American, human encounters are common, but there are only about 25 reported "attacks" a year. Most of the "attacks" do not result in serious injury - warning scratches or a light bite (well, light for a bear). Still, they are wild, amazingly strong animals and serious attacks happen. They should be respected and given a wide berth.
Admitedly Ursus Horribilis, or Grizzlies, are well named. Still, they are very rare in the lower 48, and don't range east of the Mississippi (lucky for us western states).
But, I can attest, they are really bad tempered creatures. If you go north to hunt a Grizzly (though I am told that the permits are now obscenely expensive), be forewarned - they have been known to stalk back.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant _primarily_ to be a _deterrent_. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it _because it serves as a most effective deterrent_ to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), _you_ are much safer because of those that _do!_ Cheers ...
_~Rich in NEPA~_
http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg
__=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__
Wow, now we are really out there. I sometimes wonder, do people actually read one another's posts, or do they just assume that they are talking to a stereotype?
I don't mean that personally, I'm just amazed at how my comments - which have so far ranged from:
'Do not let a gun give you a false sense of security, you still need good planning and good sense...'
To, 'I, personally, do not believe in lethal, or potentially lethal force solely for the protection of personal property...'
Have led to comments on capitol punishment and a lecture on what I don't understand.
I must admit that I dropped my NRA membership in the '80s. The whole "jackbooted... fascist..." diatribe just rubbed the Irish-Catholic-USMC part of me the wrong way. Paramilitary uh, 'folks', deserve a voice, but they don't speak for me.
Still I shot competitively through high school, was an avid hunter until the early '90s, and still get to the range (indoor and outdoor) pretty regularly.
My views are undeniably moderate, but they are certainly not the views you seem to ascribe to me.
-jjf
-
quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant _primarily_ to be a _deterrent_. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it _because it serves as a most effective deterrent_ to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), _you_ are much safer because of those that _do!_ Cheers ...
_~Rich in NEPA~_
http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg
__=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__
Wow, now we are really out there. I sometimes wonder, do people actually read one another's posts, or do they just assume that they are talking to a stereotype?
I don't mean that personally, I'm just amazed at how my comments - which have so far ranged from:
'Do not let a gun give you a false sense of security, you still need good planning and good sense...'
To, 'I, personally, do not believe in lethal, or potentially lethal force solely for the protection of personal property...'
Have led to comments on capitol punishment and a lecture on what I don't understand.
I must admit that I dropped my NRA membership in the '80s. The whole "jackbooted... fascist..." diatribe just rubbed the Irish-Catholic-USMC part of me the wrong way. Paramilitary uh, 'folks', deserve a voice, but they don't speak for me.
Still I shot competitively through high school, was an avid hunter until the early '90s, and still get to the range (indoor and outdoor) pretty regularly.
My views are undeniably moderate, but they are certainly not the views you seem to ascribe to me.
-jjf
too many hours have been spent listening to the Art Bell show.
Mapsource Topo - yes/no?
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
The Topo maps are a nice add on for the Vista, but I would have to agree with Hawk-eye. They are no replacement for a good printed 7.5 minute quad.
-jjf