Vegan shoes

I've said before; I "like" Backpacker Magazine on Facebook, which means that my feed has articles highlighted by the magazine; usually several a day.  Often these generate discussion in Facebook itself.

One that popped up recently was an article highlighting vegan shoes.

Now, I've said many times, although maybe not here exactly, that I struggle a bit with my perception of "hiker culture."  Hiker culture, at least as presented by backpacker authors and journalists, seems to skew highly towards the PNW granola set; cultural (and economic, for that matter) Marxists and hippies.  I have little patience with this vibe.  A friend of mine, who I bumped into at REI once when he was buying a replacement mouthpiece for his Camelback bladder, said that REI was the place where outdoor-loving hippies shop, while Cabela's is where outdoor-loving rednecks shop.  Although REI seems to focus much more than Cabela's on the types of activities that I enjoy outdoors (I'm not a hunter or fisherman, but I love hiking and backpacking), I still feel more at home at Cabela's than I do at REI for precisely this reason: I dislike this hippy nonsense.  Plus, Cabela's has recently made an effort to deliberately reach out to their customer base that already enjoys backpacking and other outdoor activities besides hunting and fishing, with their XPG line, and others.

Vegan shoes is exactly the type of hippy nonsense that I'm talking about.  I've never yet met a Vegan who wasn't a completely pretentious, smug, self-righteous douche-bag.  I think the movement inherently attracts exactly that type; it serves no purpose other than to be a positional good; that is, it's entire purpose is to give to its consumer (i.e., the vegan himself) a sense of self-righteousness.  This includes, for the record, many of those who responded in the Facebook comments to the article above.

I was gratified, however, to note that the presence of pro-Vegan, or even sympathetic, comments were much scarcer than I expected.  A lot of people made jokes about eating your shoes, a lot of people made mention of the fact that they've never met a Vegan who was likable and not militaristic preachy and obnoxious.  A number of other people expressed some slight dismay, or at least a warning, that they come to Backpacker for articles on backpacking, and have no interest in preachy hippy nonsense.

Of course, where I've been backpacking lately, in Utah, the climate tends to be less sympathetic to hippiness in general.  But still, I was encouraged by the trends.  Most of the pro-Vegan comments really only came from a very small set of individuals who responded a lot, making their frequency appear greater than it really was.  I think that maybe I have more in common with my fellow backpackers than I thought.  Maybe it's not a hobby that's as rife with smug granolas as I thought.

Although I will admit that the smug granolas tend to dominate a lot of the discussion and appear to be more prevalent than I suspect that they actually are.  Such is the way of things, though, in other hobbies of mine as well.



Sprite Granola Cola - Grimace from Steve Doppelt on Vimeo.

Sleeping system

Yesterday evening, I walked into REI to browse.  It wasn't my intent to actually purchase anything, but I do still have a few bucks left on a gift card, and I do need a few things.  Before long, I found myself drawn into a review and discussion with several workers there that wasn't exactly what I came in for, but which was very useful nonetheless.

One of the things I've mentioned about last summer's trip to the Uintas was that I didn't sleep very well.  Part of the reason for this was that I wasn't quite warm enough at night.  I also should have (and meant to, but for some reason didn't get around to it) brought some sleeping pills.  But that's easy to fix; the warmth was what I was less sure of.  I had a bag--a small one, it's true, but still--that was supposedly rated at 30°.  Along with a knit cap, warm base-layers, merino wool socks (midweight, although I wore two pairs to bed) and a fleece to keep my core warmer--as well as even breaking out my gloves--I should have been OK.  But I wasn't quite.

I've been thinking of replacing the bag with a slightly bigger one, but I won't find anything at a price anywhere near what I paid for that one; not without taking on a ton of bulk and weight.  I looked at liners, and REI had some pretty solid looking ones, although they cost twice as much as my bag did.  I still like them, but I'm not really looking to spend that kind of money to correct what is mostly a small problem.

I also saw tiny and inexpensive space blankets, and I thought both in terms of size/weight and price, that looked about right.  I asked one of the guys there what his experience with them was.  Naturally, he recommended the much more expensive liners, but he did make a few good points; the space blankets are very crinkly and loud, and they don't breathe at all.  On reflection, I have vague memories of one of the kids I was a Boy Scout with bringing one of them instead of a sleeping bag one over-nighter, and him having a bad experience being cold and uncomfortable.

I still think the idea has some merit, but I'm no longer seriously considering using a space blanket as a sleeping bag liner.  Oh, well.

But one thing that the guy at REI pointed out that I hadn't really considered was that I might have had problems because of other aspects of my sleeping system, notably my pad.  Without sufficient insulation from the cold in the ground, sleeping bags don't perform to their warmth rating.  Of course, he recommended me toward several REI brand or Thermarest brand inflatable pads that are also very expensive, which I'm not interested in, but he may well have a point.  In fact, I'm now thinking that he almost certainly does; using a single, cheap blue-foam pad was not a good insulator.

Luckily for me, however, I already have more options.  I, in fact, own three blue foam pads as well as a Coleman self-inflating pad.  The latter is probably bulkier and heavier than I'm interested in, but it wouldn't be hard for me to roll up two foam pads together, bundle them fairly tightly and stick them together on the bottom of my pack, where the (minimal) extra bulk won't actually cause any additional problem for me to carry.  Because the things are essentially weightless, carrying two of them is more a problem of bulk than of weight, but again; the way I can pack them will make that a moot point too.

So, I'm going to make a slighter tweak to my sleeping system than I had thought--I'll merely bring an additional pad of those I already own, and wear an additional skin-tight baselayer underneath what I wore last time.  This should, I believe, do the trick.  If, for some reason, I'm still feeling a little colder than I'd like, then I can investigate liners.  I might do that via much cheaper fleece liners that I've seen in the sporting goods section of stores like Meijer or Wal-Mart, because it's much cheaper, but it would be bulker, no doubt.  I do like the liners I saw at REI, but they're at least $60 a piece.

Boots

http://thebigoutside.com/ask-me-which-boots-do-you-recommend-for-backpacking-heavier-or-lighter/

There's some discussion from a long-time backpacker on the merits of boots, what kind of wear and when to wear them.  This is in contrast to other sites and advice I've read, which focus on the non-boot option significantly.  Such as:

http://www.cleverhiker.com/lightweight-gear-basics/episode-8-lightweight-footwear-trekking-poles

https://dave-collins-rzyi.squarespace.com/blog/ditch-boots

In any case, I think they both make some bad, or at least non-universal assumptions.  Lanza assumes that it's worth it to folks to go out and buy multiple pairs of expensive footwear.  However, most people don't have the luxury of backpacking as frequently as he does.  Most people also don't have the luxury of being given all kinds of really pricey bits of gear from manufacturers because he reviews them.  I only want one pair of footwear, and I don't want a super expensive pair.  I don't want to worry too much about conditions I'm not likely to see since my backpacking season is limited.  I don't want to spend too much money, but I don't mind replacing them every few years if necessary.

Frankly, for day hiking, I can't imagine ever not wearing trail-runner type shoes.  Since I wear those as my day to day casual and workout shoes anyway, I have three pair of them currently (although I admit that at least one pair is starting to get a bit worn down and I probably shouldn't take them anywhere serious "in the field" anymore.)

Collins, on the other hand, seems to be really focused on the concept of thru-hiking long hikes.  The majority of his advice is geared towards that specific paradigm. And sure, he talks about hiking on scree fields and whatnot, and I'm sure that he has in fact done so, but when you're walking long distances on relatively well-maintained trails, then your choice in footwear is going to necessarily be geared towards things that occasional backpackers won't.

That said, my choice is really a lot more like his than it is like Lanza's.  Is it possible that if I take my shoes out on long trips in bad conditions that they'll get trashed?  Sure, absolutely.  If that happens, I'll replace them.  But--I have no reason to think that that will happen, given the trips that I have on my docket.

Certainly, what I'm wearing now should stand me in good stead when I go back to the Wasatch and Uintas this summer.  It should work well for day hiking (although I may not want to bother with my mid-hikers for day hiking.  Depends on how long and how far I'll be going.)  They'll be great for a traverse of the Lake Superior National Shoreline or Isle Royale National Park, or exploring Hocking Hills State Park, Cuyahoga National Park, the Smokies or Roans Highlands, the Guadalupe Mountains or in and around the Chisos Mountains, Coyote Gulch or various trails in and around Moab, or the Teton Crest Trail, etc.--in other words, any trail that I have any hope of doing any time in the next five to ten years.  I don't know that my boots will last 5-10 years of hiking trips, but if not, I can replace them with something very similar.

Right now, based in part on the fact that I like the brand and in part based on the fact that I like the look of these, these are near the front of my list for boots to replace them with.  Someday.  Danner Extroverts mid-hikers.  Lightweight but tough, synthetic and without a GORE-TEX lining.

After my experience with my current GORE-TEX boots, I may change my mind, though.

Backpacking on a budget

On Facebook (I "like" Backpacker magazine, so I get updates from them) there's a discussion brewing about "why does Backpacker (and other publications on the hobby) always review expensive gear that "regular people" aren't in the market for?

http://www.backpacker.com/gear/gear-pro-why-does-backpacker-review-such-expensive-gear/#bp=0/img1

I actually may have talked about something similar before. Certainly, I've touched on it here and there in various posts.  There's a trap a lot of backpackers fall into of believing that if they don't have the latest, highest tech, brand-name, expensive gear that they're taking terrible risks to their life and safety.  This is of course ridiculous, since most of the stuff that is available now has only been available in something approaching mass market availability for the last couple of decades or so, and clearly people have been successfully backpacking for much longer than that.

I will say, however, that if getting the absolute lightest weight kit you can possibly get is your fetish, then you will spend money.  If simply taking a lot of pounds out and having a decent weight at a good price is your goal (more my speed) then you can still get under 20 lbs. with a gear budget for our entire kit that is less than that of a high end tent or hardshell.

Plus, a lot of the gear; especially the expensive gear, is simply stylish.  People want to have Mountain Hardwear instead of C9 by Champions from Target because it makes them look professional and BackCountry Chic.

Of course, what works for one person may not work for another--and what works for one trip may not work for another.  Lots of people swear by trail runners, to give one example.  I was reasonably happy with my $35 trail runners experience in my last trip, but I also decided that I really wanted ankle support.  The best I could find with lightweight, trail runner style shoes with enough height to give that to me ran $99 (but of course, I had a gift card that paid for half of that.)  On sale.  But that's because I want to feel confident on off-trail rambling and scree scrambling.  If I were simply hiking on maintained trails or other areas where turning my ankles wouldn't be a concern, I'd pull my shoes back out and wear them again.  I also didn't feel like my kit was warm enough at night; my sleeping back was technically a 30° bag, but even with baselayers, my fleece, double socks, gloves and a fleece beanie cap, I was still a little bit uncomfortably cool at night.  In that case, I think my $30 tiny little bag just didn't live up to what it was billed as.  But again; the solution isn't necessarily to run out and buy a $200+ bag, or suck it up and get a much larger and heavier one.  Hiking on a budget also requires being flexible, testing stuff out, and making sure it really works for you, and adjusting what doesn't quite work.

Of course that's also true for expensive gear, though.

Let me talk just a bit about my gear, I'll try and estimate what I spent on it, and I'll talk about how well it works and how "universal" it's applications might or might not be.

• Shoes: I got Avia trail runners at JC Pennies for $35.  As mentioned above, I've upgraded them to Cabela's XPG Mid-Hikers (GORE-TEX) for $99.  I'm not unhappy with the former shoes, but on steep scree slopes, I nearly rolled my ankle a few times, and I'm not anxious to repeat that risk.
• Pack: I got a Wenzel Escape 50L pack for $50 (it was on sale; normally it's still only $60, as I recall) at Meijer's.  They also have them at Kohl's.  Two and a half pounds, and it does everything I expect from a backpack.  It's a real steal.  I don't know how well it'd port a bear canister, though.  That said, they also have 65L and 90L packs, well under $100.  Comfortable, functional, and reasonably good looking and a fraction of the cost of a "name-brand" pack.  I can't praise this bit of gear enough.
• Tarp: I got one at REI for under $10.  You shouldn't ever spend more than this on a tarp.  I could have maybe saved even a few bucks more, but I had a gift card, and it was easier than shopping around.  
• Ozark Trail sleeping pad: Picked it up at Wal-Mart for $10?  $20 maybe?  Can't remember.  This is identical to the blue pads I used to use as a kid.  Worked well then too.
• Ozark Trail Warm Weather sleeping bag: As mentioned above.  This is very small and light, but wasn't particularly warm.  While I'd like to replace it, I probably won't this year.  I have another solution in mind instead...
• Ozark Trail 2-person dome tent: Cost $30, I think.  Maybe $35?  Bought it years ago meaning it to be an essentially disposable tent for the boys to use for local Scout camp-outs.  I've used it on backpacking trips now; it's light, small, packable, and the only time I got even a little wet was when I was in the tent reading for several hours in a severe Michican downpour that lasted most of the night.  I'd like to upgrade this too, eventually, but I feel no urgency to do so, because it performs pretty well and the alternatives are all really pricey.  And frankly, I suspect even the expensive tents would have leaked (or had condensation issues, more likely) if I'd done in them what I did in this one.
• Clothes: You can spend a lot of money on hiking clothes, but I don't see the point.  Quick drying, moisture wicking, covers you from exposure to sun and scratches, etc; for the most part, what's good for hiking is what's also good for running, and you can get technical fabric running clothes at Wal-Mart, Target, or pretty much anywhere else for very little.  I tend to hop on stuff when it's on sale, but I got, for instance: $15 long-sleeved nylon mesh shirt (at an additional 40% off), Cabela's Look Out Trail hiking cargo pants (for about $15/pair; I bought three), Cabela's merino wool mid-weight hiking socks ($12 for a 4-pack), a boonie hat ($10-15), and a micro-fleece picked up at the end of the season on clearance (all kinds available for $10-$20).  Before you go, treat what you're going to actually bring with you with Permethrin,and you're good to go.
• Rain suit?  I've got a Frogg Toggs suit I picked up at Wal-Mart for, I think $15.  I also got a packable jacket from Target for about the same price; maybe $20.  Now I have two.
• Also bought some Target close-toed river sandals for about $15.  I've seen them also at Wal-Mart and Payless for about the same price.  Great for river crossings, and hanging around at camp.
• I already have gloves and a fleece cap or two.  I live where it's cold enough that this is a necessity anyway, so I didn't spring for specific hiking options on these (for that matter, I have lots of pairs of "hiking" socks that I tend to wear day to day anyway.  Same with my fleeces.  I like wearing hiking clothes--when feasible--as day to day clothes.  That way, I also don't feel bad about taking them out in the woods and banging them up; I've usually got stuff that doesn't feel new and shiny.)
• Same with base layers.  I've bought polyester rather loose-fit ones in January on clearance before.  I also got a set that includes spandex and is tightly fitted.  This time around, I'll probably bring them both and double up at night to stay a bit warmer.  The tighter ones I could actually wear under my clothes and probably be OK.  Last summer in the mountains, I found I needed my fleece pretty much all of the time during the day or I got cool; at least within seconds of stopping to rest.  But like I said; I don't have to buy these specifically for hiking; they come in handy during the winter even during my day to day.
• I got a very small pocketknife for free somewhere years ago.  If I hadn't; I could buy one at Wal-Mart for very little anyway.  In fact, much of my gear was picked up at Wal-Mart (or Meijer or Target.)  While a lot of folks in the hiking community speak disparagingly of Wal-Mart, I have yet to understand why spending twice as much on a headlamp, for instance, or a spork or compass, makes any difference whatsoever.

All in all, I estimate that I was able to outfit myself to hike for considerably less than $500, maybe even less than $300.  I didn't keep very good track, I admit, and I tried to repurpose stuff that I already had if it was appropriate, rather than buy something new specifically to go hiking in (true for my fleece, for instance, and some of my other gear.)  Other stuff I've picked up here and there, not necessarily for hiking, but expecting that I would use it as such.  I bought my initial rainsuit and tent, for instance, for local car camping, and only later used it for backpacking.

Although I'm not a weight fetishist, I certainly agree that carrying less weight is worth the trouble to do so.  But not if it's going to cost me hundreds of dollars to get the last few ounces out.  Without trying particularly too hard, I have a base pack weight of almost exactly 19 lbs. That's not too shabby; but it'll go up to just over 20, I'm sure, when I decide to add a backpacking stove to the mix, or upgrade to a larger pack, or have to add a bear cannister.  While I'm sure weight guys will tell me that getting below 10 (just barely) is doable, keep in mind that I'm not talking about doing something like the Appalachian Trail or the PCT where I'm carrying it every day for months on end.  For smaller trips; up to a couple weeks max, a few times a year, carrying 20 lbs. of base pack weight isn't really a big deal, and it's worth it to do so with an extremely inexpensive set-up.  My pack doesn't really feel heavy to me; I hiked miles in the Uintas last summer without ever feeling like it was tough to lug my pack around; this was not true when I was a teenager and much more fit than I am today.  I remember on one of our trips as a kid, I had just about the lightest pack at just under 50 lbs.  Of course, that wasn't base pack weight; that was total weight, but still; I'd estimate that I can't possibly add much more than 10-15 lbs. of food and water at the beginning of a trip, meaning that I'm always going to be, even at worst, a good 20 lbs. lighter than I used to be in the 80s.

And I had about the lightest set-up of anyone as a teenager.  I still remember one guy topping out at over 90 lbs.

Boots

I've been looking around for a new pair of boots, or hiking shoes more specifically.  I wasn't unhappy with the shoes that I used last summer, but I want a mid-height hiking shoe this time around, with some ankle support, so I can scramble on scree without feeling so exposed to the possibility of a rolled or twisted ankle.  On the other hand, I now prefer the technical benefits of lightweight synthetic construction hiking shoes over heavy, stiff, leather boots (although I still like a good leather boot for style!--I just don't want to hike a long time in a pair of them anymore...)

Unfortunately, while a good low-top trail shoe for under $50 isn't hard to find, I've really been struggling to find any kind of mid-height trail shoe at anywhere near that price.  Nevertheless, I persevere in my desire to have that kind of shoe, even if I have to pay three times as much for it as I did last year for my lower top hiking shoes.  I had my eye on five possibilities; all lightweight and all, more or less, at the same price, with the exception of one that was a bit less, albeit at the cost of not being exactly the kind of shoe I was looking for.

• Cabela's XPG Mid GORE-TEX Hikers $139.99.  Part of a new line at Cabela's (the XPG line) that is more focused on hiking, backpacking, and other outdoor activities that are other than hunting and fishing.  As an aside, the Cabela's XPG lightweight backpacking tent (2-man) is my preferred tent on the market for backpacking, although at about $300 I'm not likely to pick it up anytime too soon.
• New Balance 703 Country Walking Shoes $139.99.  Similar in most respects to the XPG mid hiker, or so it seems, except without the GORE-TEX lining.  That isn't necessarily bad, however--GTX shoes are often cited as hot, sweaty, and not really all that more likely to keep your feet dry than non-GTX shoes.  Plus, a good lightweight mesh shoe should dry quickly if it does get wet anyway, especially combined with a thickish merino wool and/or polyester blend boot sock.
• The North Face Ultra Fastpack GTX $149.99, although a non-GORE-TEX version is available, although from fewer retailers, for $130.  Same discussion as above on the benefits (if any) of GORE-TEX in a lightweight synthetic hiking shoe.
• Danner Extrovert 4.5" $140.  This is an extremely stylish boot, which I really love the look of.  However, I'd have to order it direct from Danner, since it appears to be unavailable at any retailer that I could go and visit.  I do dislike that, since it means I can't actually try them on before buying them, and I'm uncomfortable doing that.  I could try on some other Danner boot, I suppose, but Danner does have different lasts, and this is their "athletic" DT4 last.  I'm not sure that I can easily find any other shoes built on the same last to try as a surrogate.  I have to admit, I'm not thrilled with that aspect of this boot, which probably moves it to the bottom of the list in terms of likely ones.  Too bad that I like the look of it the best!  Not that I'm going hiking to be stylish in the wilderness, or anything, but everybody likes to wear stuff that they like, right?
• As a wild card, I've also included the Merrell Moab Ventilator--non GORE-TEX version $99.99.  Although it's cheaper, it also is a bit more of a traditional boot, and the weight seems to be higher than the others, it includes a fair bit of leather in the construction, and it's kind of ugly.  But to save about $40?  I couldn't completely rule it out, even though it's not, strictly speaking, the kind of hiking footwear that I was looking for exactly.

But... hold the phone!  Cabela's is having a sale!  The XPG Mid hikers and one color (the one I like better, as it happens, although I like them both) of the New Balances are on a clearance sale for a while; $99.99!  And it's my birthday in less than 2 weeks!  Those two have suddenly moved to the front of the line.  Most likely I'll drive out to Cabela's this week and try the two of them on, decide which one I like better, buy them, and bring them home for my wife to wrap up and give me on my birthday.

Assuming both fit well and are comfortable, it comes down to whether or not I decide I want a GORE-TEX lining, since one comes with one and one comes without.

I should also note that the North Face Ultra Fastpack boots are also on sale, and the same amount off. However, because their base price is $10 more, so is their final price.  They have to remain behind the other two options in potential, I'm afraid.  What I was more likely to do with those was try on the GORE-TEX ones at Cabela's or Dicks or REI and then order the non-GTX ones direct from The North Face, or some other venue.  Doing that, of course, means that I don't get any sale price applied to them at all.

Summer 2015 Uintas

The Uintas seem to be evolving into "my" mountain range.  There are a lot of places therein that I'd love to see, and for logistical reasons, it's much easier (and cheaper!) for me to get there than any other Rocky Mountain destination, to say nothing of the Sierra Nevada or Cascades, which are quite a bit more difficult.  Also; since I've been there on more than one backpacking trip, I now have more experience there than any other single location.  And the more I get to know them, the more I find it easier to go back there rather than explore somewhere fresh.

Eventually I'll move on.  I have very strong desires to backpack, say, the Teton Crest Trail, see the major sites in the Wind Rivers, do the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Loop in the Elk Mountains, go back to the San Juans (which I also saw as a teenager), hike in the Gros Ventre, Idaho Sawtooth Mountains and the Montana Beartooth Mountains, and many more besides.  I've also got wildly enthusiastic desires to do some other hikes at seasons that aren't compatible with "mountain hiking" season; the Chisos Mountains and other locations in Big Bend National Park, the Guadalupe Mountains, the Grand Canyon, Canyons of the Escalante area, Zion National Park, the Patagonian Andes, the Southern Alps, the Blue Ridge Mountains, etc.  But for 2015, it seems likely that my efforts will again be in the Uintas.

I tossed around a few itinerary ideas a few days ago, but my ideas have since evolved a bit.  It's early, obviously, so they may change yet again--many times, even--and they may end up even being adapted on the fly, since I certainly learned last summer that that's a totally doable option.

While I'm at it, I'm including an itinerary for a putative third trip to the Uintas, maybe with my next son, who'll be old enough a little bit down the road.  I think concentrating my western end of the Uintas into South and North of the main ridge is a smart strategy; while my central/eastern Uintas is pretty much just coming down from the north (the southern approaches are very long.)  And I may yet, one of these days, through-hike the entire Uinta Highline Trail.  If I do so, it'll be on yet another separate trip, and it's debatable which starting point I'll pick; the Chepeta Lake one (the shortest) which concentrates on the High Uinta Wilderness Area and is the nearest trailhead that allows you to traverse the entire wilderness, the Hacking No 1 Lake in the shadow of Leidy Peak, which is longer, and which is completely contained on one Trails Illustrated map, or the actual beginning of the trail at Hwy 191 north of Vernal.  The eastern High Bollies part of the Uintas is on a separate map, I hear it requires some route-finding and dodgy trail conditions, and lacks much of the scenic drama that comes to the west and central parts of the range, so many hikers clip it in the interest of getting more bang for their hiking buck.  There are other options too, I suppose; but those are the three main options.  I'm currently leaning towards the middle one if I can pull it off.  But that's a discussion for another day.

For the 2015 trip, my itinerary would look like this:

• Arrive on the Mirror Lake Highway around mid-day of the first day.  Have reservations already in place for a campsite at, maybe, Moosehorn camping area (or Mirror Lake itself if available.)  Set up tent and climb to the trailed summit of Bald Mountain.  Come back down and spend the evening in camp.
• Spend another full day hiking out to Notch Mountain (not to be confused with Notch Peak, which is in a totally different area of Utah), doing a loop which allows me to hike through the actual notch.  Maybe summit East (or West) Notch.  Keep in mind, that while I like a few summits, I don't want to get into the trap of feeling like summiting is the whole reason that I'm going.  That strikes me as a kind of metrics driven, joyless experience that I want to avoid, and is in fact one of the main reasons I want to get into the wilderness in the first place is to avoid that very attitude.  But a few peaks here and there is fun, a nice accomplishment, and something that I want to share with my kids.  After this, spend the night in the same camp again.
• Break camp early and set out from the Highline Trailhead, making for Naturalist Basin.  Shouldn't have any trouble getting to either Blue Lake or Faxon Lake before it's too late, and then have plenty of time to explore the basin in the afternoon/evening after camp is established.  Again; peak-bagging?  Aggasiz and Spread Eagle are right there.  Could do one, but not likely that I'd do both; certainly not on the afternoon in which I arrive in the area.  I do want to thoroughly explore the upper bench, however, and the ridge that separates Naturalist from Middle Basin.  This will likely take a day and a half, so my plan is to spend two nights in the same campsite, and not rush myself the first afternoon that I arrive, expecting to do too much in one day.  By the way, between this more thorough exploration of the area and the more brusque exploration I had last year, I'll probably have seen enough of Naturalist that I'm ready to explore other areas from this point on and leave Naturalist alone after that.  Unless I have some unforeseen opportunity to take someone else there that really wants to see it, of course.
• After two nights in Naturalist, I'll break camp early, head back to the Highline Trail, and rather than heading back west to the trailhead and my car, head east to Rocky Sea Pass.  Following (more or less) the itinerary of Peter Potterfield from Classic Hikes of North America, I'd then spend two nights in Rock Creek Basin, exploring what I can of that enormous and less trammeled area.
• I've now spent six nights out, and should be close to wrapping up.  If I can swing one more destination out of the trip, I'd head back early the next morning to the car and get to the East Fork Blacks Fork trailhead, where I can do one more rather ambitious loop.  Taking the Bald Mountain trail (no relation to the other Bald Mountain mentioned on day 1) I'd see if, depending on how long it takes me to get back to the car and get my car to the new trailhead, I can make it all the way to the Red Castle area for the next night, where I'd set up camp by one of the three Red Castle Lakes.  Most likely I'd stay on the trail, but there's also an interesting possibility of doing a significant ridge walk from Bald Mountain's summit all the way to "Squaw Mountain", i.e. Peak 12,990, and from there down to Upper Red Castle Lake to set up camp.  Of course, ridge walks are a bit iffy, especially when you're trying to do them in the afternoon, when the weather in the Rockies can turn nasty, so I also have the option of sticking to the trail if it feels smarter.
• From Upper Red Castle Lake, there's an off-trail route (or perhaps an old trail that's fallen into disuse) that allows you to cross a lowish pass and end up just to the west of Porcupine Pass, where you can rejoin the Highline Trail.  From here, an above treeline hike of several miles past Lambert Meadows and Mount Lovenia takes you to Red Knob Pass.  This gives me the opportunity to turn onto Trail 102, the East Fork Black Forks Trail.  But I'd probably want to set up camp one more time before getting too far along this trail, and then early the next morning, climb up to "Wasatch Benchmark", or Peak 13,156 and gaze the the wonder of Tokewanna.  There's another ridge walk potential here; from "Wasatch Benchmark" I can continue on the ridge to "Northwest Wasatch" (13,039) and on to Tokewanna itself, where there's a gentle northeast ridge that heads back down towards the trail.  This avoids prolonged hiking in the trees where I can't see anything.  I could also, of course, go up the ridge of "Wasatch BM" a ways, take a good look at the scenery from that vantage point, and then just come back down and bushwhack through the open meadow slash alpine tundra that rings the ridge rather than heading lower into the trees.  Either way, by the end of this day, I'm back at my car and heading towards Vernal, my backpacking experience behind me.  

If all of this were to pan out, that ends up being two nights in the Bald Mountain area, two nights in Naturalist, two nights in Rock Creek and two nights on the final loop.  Do I really have eight nights to spend?  Not sure.  That's a long trip.  And as I discovered last summer, I might get tired of it before I spend that much time, especially if I'm not sleeping well, not having good weather, or otherwise just get done before I'm done.  If that ends up being the case, I'd rather cut the Rock Creek stuff out instead of the last leg, but of course, we'll see what ends up happening.  Lots of variables could conspire to change my plan.  A perhaps better (although optimistic) way to shorten the trip by a day or two is if I have a good day when I arrive in Naturalist and see more of it than I expected, I can leave the next day.  I could also cut Rock Creek Basin short, spend a day and half in it, and then start hiking back, making camp at Scudder Lake just a mile or two from the trailhead.  This would also make it much easier to get an early enough start to the last leg of my trip that I can actually hope to maybe do the ridge walk and get to the Red Castle area before it's too late.  But I might feel rushed in Naturalist and Rock Creek.  I'd have to play that by ear.

For fun, here's an image I got on GIS of Tokewanna from, it appears, the summit of "Wasatch Benchmark."

What a clear sky!

My next completely separate trip would be a "northern basins" feature, and would have me (potentially) going back to Hell Hole and getting, if not to the summits of Kletting and/or A-1, then at least up in the saddle between them, as well as Middle Basin, and Allsop Lake, probably by making that one a loop and crossing over to Priord Lake for the way back.  If I still have time after that, I'd do my long-delayed Henry's Fork Basin trip as a finisher for that trip, and see about the summit of King's Peak, the highest in Utah.

This all still leaves me plenty to do in the Uintas.  But by the time I've done both of these big trips (or broken them up into components and rearranged them, if it comes to that) I'll probably be anxious to do something else and see somewhere else anyway.  Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado all have destinations that call as loudly as Utah, and some day I've got lots to see in California, Oregon and Washington too.

Naturalist Basin

Prior to posting my own trip report (and poor photographs); I thought I'd link to this image gallery.  From the looks of it, he did the same trip I did, including stopping at Scudder Lake, ringing Jordan Lake by taking the right hand fork in the Naturalist Basin, and then climbing up to Shaler and Faxon Lakes.

Then he did more than I did, by getting up on the ridge separating Mount Agassiz and Spread Eagle Peak, and taking a bunch of pictures from the ridge.  Then he went further along the bench to the Morat Lakes and Blue Lake.  I never got quite that far; I headed for Blue Lakes twice from the floor of Naturalist Basin, but the first time I lost the trail and turned around.  The second time, I found the trail, but was pretty beat and gave up climbing up to the bench rather than continuing on to Blue Lake.  Regrets, regrets!

http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/uinta-mountains/naturalist-basin-photographs.html