Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

This is a forum for trip reports that pre-date the Portland Hikers forum, trail photos from pre-digital era, or any other discussions that focus on trail history.
User avatar
Don Nelsen
Posts: 4067
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

Post by Don Nelsen » November 26th, 2012, 4:45 pm

Thanks for a great report, Tom. Good to know I wasn't the only one sans pack, water, etc. for hikes like that!

dn
"Everything works in the planning stage".

User avatar
Sean Thomas
Posts: 1647
Joined: February 25th, 2012, 11:33 pm

Re: Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

Post by Sean Thomas » November 26th, 2012, 5:56 pm

Well considering I am invincible and know everything I suggest...


Wait :o :shock: Me at 22 on Elk/Kings loop no pack! I dont have the 70's to blame either!! :( In fairness I did have a pack for the first loop :? :)


Image


But :D If you notice the PH button on my shirt it becomes clear I 'm fully prepared 8-) Not to mention it looks like im right on track to be just like you guys someday 8-) :twisted: If I make it :? :shock:


In all seriousness I love these old reports, Tom. The view of Beachie from Battle Axe is something else.

User avatar
Splintercat
Posts: 8237
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Re: Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

Post by Splintercat » November 26th, 2012, 11:11 pm

Sean, in your defense, BOTH of your boots COMBINED weigh about the same as one shoestring off those old Vasque's that I used to run around in, so it makes sense that you'd get by with less rations -- plus, with Kings there are plenty of slugs and snails to eat for energy and fluids..! :D

BTW, I'm still waiting for the TFF youngsters on this site to equal a trip I did as a 21-year-old: hike the Salmon River Trail to the jump-off point to Split Falls, descend to the falls, bushwhack upstream to Stein Falls, scramble back up to the trail, then return to the trailhead. Should be about 16 miles, including about a mile of off-trail, scrambling, so pretty doable compared to your 30+ mile days! (...oh, and take plenty of photos... and you'll need a 50-foot rope for one spot...)

-Tom :)

User avatar
Double Tree
Posts: 223
Joined: September 6th, 2012, 10:51 am

Re: Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

Post by Double Tree » January 13th, 2013, 4:30 pm

Welcome Lakes area completely burnt up as mentioned, but West Lake just beyond them, is untouched. We camped there on the overlook bluff one night this last fall. There is a map posted at the Pansy Lake trailhead showing the burnt areas of BOW. We ran into one backpacker who camped in a burnt area, Twin Lakes I think he said. Said it was spooky because the curled bark of burnt trees would occasionally fall, making unexpected noise at night...

wildcat
Posts: 16
Joined: September 14th, 2021, 4:48 pm
Location: 360-896

Re: Old School: Bull-of-the-Woods Backpack - Sept 1981

Post by wildcat » September 21st, 2021, 3:14 pm

Nothing wrong with hiking in short shorts and subpar footwear if that's what turns you on. In fact that standard 1981 uniform is somewhat coming back in style (7 or 8 years after this thread initially started and died, but just a note for posterity).

One of my first kid hikes (Hamilton Mountain summit out-and-back circa 1993) was done in a cotton T-shirt, short cutoffs much like Splintercat's and Vans SK8-Hi's which really aren't too terribly different from Chucks (padded in the ankles and a little stiffer, I guess). That actually stayed my regulation summer hiking outfit up through high school and college in the early and mid 20-ohs. Oh yeah, sans gear and anything more than a little 20-ounce water bottle (of course) because I was young, invincible and dumb. Actually I still am young and invincible but these days I've gotten sort-of borderline smart and I now carry some supplies and maps. I also now hike in boots or Chacos rather than skateboard shoes. Yet somehow I'm still here and intend to turn 40 in a couple years.

40 being the new 20, that means at present, mathematically speaking, I'm really only in the older half of 17. :shock: :o Hmmm.

Post Reply