Busting 11 Myths about Westerners and Conservation

>

On Thursday morning, Colorado College released its Conservation in the West poll, which it has conducted since 2011. The survey asks voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho (added this year), Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah for their opinions on everything from energy development to national monuments, water usage to recreation. It also asks about political affiliation, a question that, not surprisingly, tends to matter a lot. So what did voters say? We took a look at the numbers.

In 2016, 63 percent of respondents said they’d call themselves one. This year, it was 76 percent.

The number who now identify as conservationists is 75 percent—an 18 percent increase since 2016.

The most popular activities were hiking (63 percent), camping (57 percent), and bird and wildlife viewing (37 percent).

Ninety-three percent said that it was important to the economic future of the West. Those numbers were identical whether respondents identified as Republicans, Independents, or Democrats.

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) said it was more important to protect public lands than to produce energy on them. (Wyoming was the only state where it was even close—39 percent people there said production was more important.) The lowest amount of support came from Republicans. Even then, 43 percent favored protection and only 37 favored production.

Overall, two-thirds of respondents said it was a bad idea to reduce the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. A majority in every state thought it was a bad idea, except for Utah, where 49 percent said it was a bad idea and 46 percent said it was a good one.

Just under 70 percent said it was a bad idea to reduce the size of existing national monuments. Even in Utah, 56 percent were against it.

Seventy-nine percent said their values were not shared by politicians in D.C. Local politicians fare a little better—only 49 percent say their state officials don’t share their values.

More than 80 percent said that low water conditions were a significant concern, and 47 percent said the same about uncontrollable wildfires.

Only 13 percent said more water should be diverted to cities to meet their needs, while 78 percent said they’d rather see more conservation and water recycling efforts.

More than two-thirds of those who responded said that either solar or wind was their first choice of energy development in their state. (Coal and oil were chosen by eight percent.) The only state that didn’t pick renewables as the top two preferred sources of energy? Wyoming, which chose coal and natural gas.

The Condition That's Quietly Sidelining Female Athletes

For many, the female athlete triad has stood in the way of lasting success in sports, but researchers are finally starting to understand the condition better—and help women avoid the long-term consequences

Facebook Icon

Twitter Icon

sms

email

The day before the 2010 Dextro Energy Triathlon in Hamburg, Germany, pro triathlete Jenna Parker broke out in hives for no apparent reason. Because of anti-doping rules, she couldn’t take the necessary medication, so even though she was “completely covered in the rash [from the neck down],” she raced anyway. After all, Parker wasn’t injured, and she needed a good result to make the U.S. world championship team.

When the then-26-year-old showed up in London to race another event a week later, the itchy welts still covered her body. Parker’s race was unremarkable: She finished 40th, her lowest-place finish in almost four years. When she crossed the finish line, Parker collapsed and began crying uncontrollably. “I was completely broken, mentally and physically,” she says. Her doctor shut her down for the remainder of the season and told Parker to pretend she wasn’t an athlete, chill out, and eat cartons of ice cream.

It turned out the hives were her body’s attempt to send an emergency flare. The endless hours of training and the mathematical calculations she’d been using to keep her weight in check had taken a toll. Parker had become what she calls a “functional anorexic.” “What I’ve been told is the hives were my body’s way of saying, ‘You’re killing yourself and you won’t listen. Because you won’t listen, we’re going to do drastic things so you have to listen,’” she says.

The previous year, after a swift rise up the professional triathlon ranks during college, the Harvard University graduate had wanted to take her performance to the next level. Parker found a new coach in Australia. Her training load doubled, jumping from 18 hours a week to 35, and she learned just how far she could push herself physically and mentally. That year was one of Parker’s most successful years as an athlete. She placed second at U.S. nationals and won the Pan American Cup. (Parker was featured in Outside’s October 2010 “XX Factor” issue as Jenna Shoemaker. She changed her name to Parker in 2010 for personal reasons.)

Despite her athletic success, Parker thought about her weight even more. It was the first time a coach regularly weighed her, even measuring her skin folds. “If you weren’t close to your numbers and he didn’t believe you were fit enough, he wouldn’t let you race,” she recalls. When Parker returned to training camp in early 2010, having gained a few pounds in the off-season, her coach told her she had to slim down or she’d be out of the group.

Parker did the math. She calculated her metabolic rate plus calories burned during workouts, then counted every calorie she ate. In six weeks, she lost 18 pounds from her 5'7" frame, getting down to 118. She also lost her period. “I couldn’t control how fast I got better at triathlon,” says Parker. “But if I lost the weight and got my skin folds down, he couldn’t kick me out of the group. It was the thing I could control.”


The same traits that appear to give athletes a competitive advantage—a lean build for fast times and a desire to work tirelessly and win—can sometimes put their health at risk. “For a long time, the message [to female athletes] has been ‘train harder.’ It was encouraged by coaches and everyone around them,” says Dr. Kate Ackerman, director of the Female Athlete Program at Boston Children’s Hospital. “But this was negative for their bodies, and hence the term female athlete triad emerged in the 1990s.”

While Parker was never officially diagnosed with the triad, she had all the signs. In 1997, the American College of Sports Medicine described the triad as three distinct conditions: disordered eating, amenorrhea (the absence of a period), and osteoporosis. But the more researchers studied female athletes, the more they realized there were many nuances to the triad, and women didn’t need to have a full-blown clinical diagnosis of the three conditions to be concerned. For example, while Parker didn’t experience stress fractures, the damage she inflicted on her body was serious enough that her body reacted with hives—an extreme, uncommon red flag.

The triad typically manifests itself in three different ways: low energy (with or without disordered eating), loss of a period, and lower bone density. Each of these components exists on spectrum from healthy to disordered, so depending on her eating and exercise habits, a woman can move between the two ends of the range for each component, and she doesn’t have to have all three to be diagnosed, says Dr. Aurelia Nattiv, a professor at UCLA in family medicine and sports medicine and a team physician for UCLA athletics. The presence of just one element is a call for concern, since the triad can contribute to long-term health issues like stress fractures, infertility, and impaired cardiovascular health. Some women may also be diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis at an early age.

Researchers estimate that as many as 60 percent of exercising women may experience one triad component and up to 27 percent may experience two components. The number of women presenting all three is roughly 16 percent. Women who participate in sports like the triathlon (where leanness is seen as a competitive advantage) or dance (where athletes must wear revealing uniforms) are at greater risk, but the triad can show up in any sport. A recent study of female college athletes found that those in gymnastics, lacrosse, cross-country, swimming and diving, sailing, and volleyball were at moderate or high risk for the condition. And it’s not just a problem for professional or collegiate athletes—experts say that recreational athletes are also at risk.

Yet the triad lurks largely on the sidelines. There’s a stigma surrounding eating disorders and menstrual health. Plus, women are often treated in silos: An orthopedic surgeon may tend to an athlete’s stress fractures, while a nutritionist helps with her diet and a gynecologist evaluates her menstrual cycle. Few doctors will be presented with the full picture and put the pieces together. A study of 240 health care providers found that less than half of physicians and physical therapists—and less than 10 percent of coaches—could identify the three triad components. Only 9 percent of doctors felt comfortable treating it. “Many physicians are confused, especially if this isn’t their area of expertise,” says Nattiv. As a result, researchers think the prevalence of the triad may be even higher due to inconsistent reporting and, likely, underreporting.

Doctors and coaches of former college runner Sara Scinto never connected the dots between her symptoms. Scinto says her problems started in high school, when she started training harder, lost her period, and restricted food in an attempt to look like her faster teammates. Then, during her freshman year at Ohio Wesleyan University, she was sidelined from cross-country and track by a stress fracture. Over four years, Scinto endured six bone stress injuries, as fractures bounced from one shin to the other and then to her femur. “The approach was always injury prevention. Go to the trainer. Be aware of what’s soreness and what may be an injury. I don’t remember them ever talking about the female athlete triad or anything related to it,” says Scinto, now 23. “It destroyed my collegiate career. I had one good season.”


Sport aren’t to blame for the triad’s long-term health concerns, says Dr. Adam Tenforde, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School. It’s physical activity coupled with harmful or extreme behaviors—like the belief that thinner runners are faster, or a team culture of abnormal eating behavior and inadequate rest and recovery—that may put an athlete at risk. “There’s a cascade of physiological responses to nutrition or inadequate nutrition,” says Tenforde.

Experts point to low energy availability as the underlying force behind the triad, sparking a domino effect that leads to the other symptoms. When an athlete’s nutritional intake doesn’t meet the body’s needs, whether due to reduced dietary intake—intentional or not—or increased exercise, the body shuttles resources to systems that are essential to survival, suppresses energy-intensive processes like menstruation and growth, and alters hormone levels.

That leads to a cascade of other problems. For example, when a woman doesn’t get her period due to energy deficiency, she doesn’t experience the monthly estrogen surge that’s critical for building bone, especially in adolescence and early adulthood. “You end up with decreased bone density, putting you at an increased risk for stress fractures, osteopenia, or osteoporosis in your twenties and thirties,” says Julie Granger, DPT, founder of Prism Wellness Center in Atlanta. “Females stop accumulating bone at age 20. From 20 on, all we can do is maintain what we’ve got.”

Recently, researchers have noted other symptoms beyond the triad that are connected to low energy availability and could affect long-term health. These include conditions related to immunity, cardiovascular health, protein synthesis, and mood disorders. In 2014, the International Olympic Committee proposed the term “relative energy deficiency in sport” (RED-S) to acknowledge these other symptoms and to include men who might suffer from a similar set of linked conditions.

While some athletes resort to restricting food and training nonstop in pursuit of athletic gains and experience a short, enticing period of improved performance, the negative effects eventually catch up to them. The reality is that when they properly fuel and rest their bodies, they perform better. A 2014 study of female junior elite swimmers, for example, found that those who had normal ovulatory function and ate enough to support their bodies swam faster, while those who experienced low energy availability and menstrual dysfunction saw a decrease in performance.


Many people, from recreational athletes to professionals, may find themselves caught in a cycle of underfueling their bodies. But there is a path back to health. “Just because you have this problem or had it in the past, it’s not doomsday,” says Granger.

Parker and Scinto both say their bodies are still trying to figure out what’s normal for them, but they’ve come out the other side. For Scinto, leaving the competitive running environment and talking to others who’ve had similar experiences helped. She’s now studying nutrition at Tufts University. Parker found coaches who supported her well-being and wanted her to eat well and get her period. She competed at the 2012 Olympic trials and retired in 2013. Now, for fun, she takes part in—and often wins—surf lifesaving competitions. (The events combine elements of lifeguarding, like an open-water swim, paddle, and beach run.) Both women say they need to be vigilant when training to ensure they aren’t pushing too hard or too far.

The continuing challenge—for female athletes and their doctors—is how to determine when women can return to their sport and at what level. In 2014, Nattiv and her colleagues developed evidence-based guidelines to help medical professionals screen, diagnose, and treat women for the triad and offer guidance for when it’s appropriate for an athlete to resume her sport. They recommend seeking out a multidisciplinary team that includes a physician and dietitian. If there’s an underlying body image issue, the team should also include a mental health professional. Researchers are working to better pinpoint the factors so that at-risk women are identified earlier, avoiding the long-term consequences of the triad and giving them the opportunity to continue competing at a high level.

“I learned a lot in the buildup to the breakdown, as well in the struggle to get myself back afterward,” says Parker. She wants girls to consider the long-term consequences versus the short-term gains, find coaches who support them, and recognize that they can be healthy and also crush at their sport.

Illustration by Katherine Lam

I Gave Up Coffee. This Is What I Learned.

In short: it’s miserable

If you talk to people about drinking coffee, they will often say things like “I just love the ritual of making coffee,” or “I just love the taste of coffee.”

I gave up coffee for three months this summer, and I’ll tell you the truth: I’m in it for the drugs. The caffeine. The good shit.

Yes, the taste is nice, and I enjoy the ritual, too. But I drank some decaf coffee this summer, and the taste of decaf and the ritual of making decaf didn’t really do shit for me. I just got sad for the first couple weeks I wasn’t drinking coffee, and then learned to live without it because I was doing it for something more important.

Lots of people can’t or won’t do caffeine for a lot of reasons—no disrespect to that. But I’ve been drinking coffee for two decades and I can probably count the days I have gone without coffee on two hands, so I thought I’d share how my summer without coffee went.

Here’s why I did it: I was training for an ultramarathon for six months, and I have experienced pretty bad dehydration problems (that have also, I am fairly sure, led to altitude sickness at various times) because of my coffee habit. Which is, admittedly, probably a bit excessive. So starting June 8, I stopped drinking coffee.

In the days leading up to June 8, I stepped down my consumption so I wouldn’t get caffeine withdrawal headaches. I still got other caffeine withdrawal symptoms, like slight depression (not making this up) for about two weeks.

I joked to a friend that quitting coffee was going okay, aside from the feeling that life was meaningless. I was only partly joking. I’ve experienced quitting a number of things—I quit drinking in March of 2002 and haven’t had a sip of alcohol since, quit eating meat in September 2005, and quit smoking (from a pack-a-day habit) in November 2005. All those things were difficult to give up. I still miss pepperoni pizza and getting bombed on good beer (“I just love the taste!”), and for the first six months of not smoking, I missed standing outside, staring at nothing, and thinking for five minutes 20 times a day. And I may be forgetting some of the discomfort of all three of those things (the way you do with things like mountaineering and hard backpacking trips), but coffee was equally shitty to give up.

I hate ordering decaf in coffee shops, probably worse than turning down offers of beer and wine at restaurants, raft trips, baseball games, happy hour functions—okay, everywhere. I missed being able to give myself a little bump of 150 to 200 milligrams of caffeine during long travel days, early morning alpine starts, and drowsy afternoons at my laptop.

But here’s the big thing I learned: I don’t “have to have coffee.” I just really like it. Probably the same with all the substances we imbibe. Some things I did with zero coffee:

  • Functioned for 18-20 hours on three hours of sleep the previous night
  • Stayed awake for 42 hours (while in constant human-powered motion for 36 hours)
  • Drove a car for more than eight hours straight
  • Got out of bed at 1 a.m. to climb mountains and actually got to the summit
  • Stayed up until 2 a.m. editing video
  • Continued to write/create for a living
  • Still had insomnia induced by anxiety (dammit)
  • Ate three ounces of dark chocolate (an entire bar) almost every day, which gave me somewhere between 30 and 100 milligrams of caffeine every day

The things that didn’t happen:

  • I didn’t have nearly as many problems with dehydration while doing 20- to 30-mile trail runs in 80- to 85-degree heat
  • I did not have as many headaches
  • I didn’t visit a fraction of the coffee shops I usually do (which is a primary means of socializing when you work from home as a writer)
  • My dentist didn’t say he found anything concerning during my routine checkup for the first time in years (this could also be attributed to using an electric toothbrush, but worth noting)
  • I did not die
  • I did not become an asshole
  • I was not unbearable to live with, according to my girlfriend
  • I did not lose friends who love coffee

I also found that when I was on long trail runs, the 50 milligrams of caffeine in a half package of Dark Cherry Clif Shot Bloks felt like a rocket booster, since my body was no longer accustomed to high doses of caffeine. (When you’re drinking 400-600 milligrams of caffeine per day, 50 milligrams feels like a drop in the bucket.)

Quitting for three months felt like a marker had been taken out of my day: like lots of people mark the end of a work day with a beer, I marked the beginning of a day with coffee. I will drink this brown stuff, and be productive immediately after. I lost that punctuation mark for three months and just learned to live without it every day. I forced myself to wake up, to work, and to exercise without the jolt of caffeine.

To be honest, it really wasn’t that difficult. I think I’ve learned over the years that we can often quite easily live without the things we think we can’t live without (including but not limited to substances like coffee, alcohol, and nicotine). It might be good for you to try it yourself.

Me, I’m done quitting coffee for now. I love a good Americano from a skilled barista, I love shitty diner coffee, I love drinking coffee out of mugs of all shapes and sizes, I love sitting in coffee shops and working with the background din of good music and people having conversations, I love the ritual, and I love the taste.

But let’s be honest here: I’m mostly in it for the drugs.

Read more from Brendan Leonard at Semi-Rad.com.

20 Valentine's Day Gifts, from $16 to $550

>

When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we earn an affiliate commission that helps pay for our work. Read more about Outside’s affiliate policy.

Box of chocolates? Boring. A bouquet of roses? Useless. Try harder this year with gear your partner will actually love. The best part of all? This stuff should facilitate adventures for the two of you for years.


Pom-pom hats are the de facto uniform of the mountain town. Which means you can never have too many in your shed. 

Buy Now


This knife has a sleek stainless steel blade and beechwood handle that look nice and should last at least a few decades. 

Buy Now


Yeah, it’s a $30 cup, but it’s the last cup you’ll ever need to buy. It works almost too well, keeping hot beverages hot and cold ones cold for hours. 

Buy Now


This phone lets your partner share her location or call for help and even offers off the grid two-way texting. Spring for the unlimited data plan.

Buy Now


This bandana provides extra warmth and/or sun protection, whether she's climbing or skiing. While you'll want a Buff for any serious weather, the Jumbo works great the rest of the time.

Buy Now


For fast climbers, we recommend Black Diamond's ultralight cams, which are 25 percent lighter thanthe standard camalot.

Buy Now


River rats have long held the Paco Pad close to their hearts. It’s durable, self-inflating, and after sleeping one night on the 1.5-inch, high-density foam, it feels about as good as the mattress back home. 

Buy Now


We’ve been wearing the same pair of these moisture-wicking, temperature-regulating, made-in-the-USA bison down socks for years. The best part? For every product sold, United By Blue removes one pound of trash from oceans and waterways.

Buy Now


If your person hasn't replaced her helmet in the past two to five seasons, get her the Half Dome. It offers all the protection you need at an affordable price.

Buy Now


This vest is lightweight, breathable, and offers the option of a water reservoir in the back or bottles in the front pockets. There’s plenty of storage for food, a jacket, and a cell phone.

Buy Now


Hear us out. For reasons we’ve mentioned before, the pee funnel should have a home in the pack of every adventurous woman. The small plastic device lets her pee standing up, anywhere, anytime.

Buy Now


At 132 liters, this duffel is great for a mountaineering expedition, or a weekend trip where you want to pack easily and excessively. It’s waterproof and has backpack straps for easy hauling.

Buy Now


What's better than the gift of access? This pass gets one car free entry to 2,000 federal recreation sites across the country. It will pay for itself after three national park visits or a four-day climbing trip in Red Rock Canyon.  

Buy Now


A great addition to any home or office, this plant is easy to grow, hard to kill, and pretty to look at.

Buy Now


Sure, it's expensive but this bomber looks damn cool. Plus, it's stuffed with quality Primaloft insulation and the interior is lined with cozy flannel. 

Buy Now


 

When you’ve run out of clean clothes and your tent is full of dirt, the gift of de-greasifying one's hair feels like the ultimate luxury. 

Buy Now


This charger is powered via USB or solar panel, has two ports, and can fully juice a phone up to six times and a headlamp up to twenty times.  

Buy Now


When in doubt, a candle always makes a great gift. This one comes in a beautiful engraved glass and wafts orange-scented for 100 hours.

Buy Now


With technical features like Polartech Powerstretch and an athletic cut in a cozy package, what's not to love about this hoodie?

Buy Now


This is the uber classic, de facto textbook on the sport of climbing. Read this and then sign up for that mountaineering course on Mount Rainier.  

Buy Now

Should You Drink Beer in a Survival Emergency?

>

Welcome to Ask an Outdoorsman. Every week, Wes will answer your questions about survival, outdoor skills, and life in the woods. Have a question? Ask it on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook.

https://twitter.com/WiFiler/status/953333980958347265

I once helped rescue a couple in Death Valley whose car broke down several days’ walk from pavement. Their only source of hydration? Half a case of warm PBR. 

Conventional wisdom has it that drinks containing alcohol and caffeine are diuretics: by making you have to pee, you lose more water than you’re consuming. If that’s true, then drinking beer or coffee in a survival scenario would be a bad idea, as it would only lead to worse dehydration.

A 2013 study in the United Kingdom set out to discover if this was true. 72 test subjects in a state of normal hydration were asked to consume one liter of either water, milk, coffee, 4-percent beer, tea, orange juice, Coca-Cola, Powerade, or an oral hydration solution over the span of 30 minutes. The researches then measured their pee volume over the next four hours. The results: milk and the salt-tablet solution marginally improved hydration, while everything else resulted in the exact same water retention as plain old water. 

Of course, this was only a liter of relatively weak beer and a normal cup of coffee, not a shot of tequila or espresso. The ratio of water to alcohol and caffeine was high. Excess alcohol consumption comes with a long list of obvious and negative effects, including a rapid build up of toxins, inflammation, a reduction in your body’s ability to perform its metabolic functions, and even in short term, could lead to health problems that may otherwise impact your ability to survive. Good luck getting away from the grizzly bear if you’re nauseous or have a terrible headache.

So should you drink beer or coffee if you don’t have any water? The best answer is yes, if you do so in moderation, and try to determine if the beverage in question has more water in it than other substances. 

As with any survival scenario, there are a couple of important additional points to make:

  1. This isn’t good general health advice. You shouldn't rely on coffee or beer for daily hydration, just like you probably shouldn't eat grubs you found in a dead tree for breakfast every morning.
  2. The best way to survive something is to avoid finding yourself in a survival situation in the first place. Take more than enough water with you when you’re traveling in remote areas, and plan routes so that you’ll pass through water sources with adequate frequency. Heck, just identifying water sources on a map before you travel is a good general practice.

That couple I found in Death Valley should have had, at minimum, a couple of gallons of water in their car. Judging by all the empties in the back seat, relying on beer for hydration may also have contributed to the long list of bad decisions that eventually almost killed them.

The Official 2018 Ski Movie Anticipation Index

We spent a summer day watching ski-porn trailers and picking out our favorites

It’s hard to say just when ski season ended this year—some lifts in California spun until July 4. (And let the record show that a group of Outside staffers successfully skied a patch of snow in the Santa Fe backcountry that same weekend.) While seasons past were haunted by crushed dreams and shrubs poking out of a barely sled-worthy February snowpack, in the 2016–2017 season we all felt like stars in our own edit, with democratized face shots and unlimited refills.

Though it also felt like the season’s last ski films had just come out, new trailers were already dropping left and right. Admittedly, we weren’t stoked on every one—there were a lot of fun but generic trailers with no distinguishing features—but a handful stood out. Here are the productions we’re most looking forward to.


#1. ‘Drop Everything’

Drops: September 2017
Production Company: Matchstick Productions
Why You Know Them: 2014’s Days of My Youth

This one starts in a way that’ll be familiar to ski-film connoisseurs: aspirational voiceover and some cinematic ski porn. As the epic-movie-trailer-voice starts listing superlatives (bigger, deeper, gnarlier), it starts to get self-aware and ironic: Thank God, they’re joking! Drop Everything looks to do an amusing job of poking fun at ski movies that are too serious or trying a little too hard to draw meaning out of what’s happening (which is…a lot of skiing). The trailer is punctuated with full-screen titles making declarations about what this film has that others don’t, like “90 percent less interviews with athletes” and “100 percent more women.” (Two!)

If there’s one thing Drop Everything takes seriously, it’s the skiing. With a ripping cast featuring Michelle Parker, Elyse Saugstad, Sammy Carlson, Cody Townsend, and Chris Rubens, this film looks like a lighthearted viewing experience that still delivers on the send.


#2. ‘Rogue Elements’

Drops: September 16 (in Jackson, Wyoming)
Production Company: Teton Gravity Research
Why You Know Them: Last year’s rowdy number Tight Loose

Shot in the aforementioned magical winter of 2017 in the pow zones of California, Alaska, British Columbia, the Alps, and more, you can be sure the skiing in Rogue Elements will be appropriately dreamy. Like the title suggests, it’s centered around this idea of wild adventurers who are drawn to these equally wild and raw places. They seek the edge––the imposed limits and their own––in the face of (you guessed it) rogue weather to ski dream lines. Who are “they”? Crushers like Angel and Johnny Collinson, Sammy Carlson, and Elyse Saugstad.


#3. ‘Same Difference’

Drops: Fall 2017
Production Company: Legs of Steel
Why You Know Them: 2015’s Passenger

This documentary-style film follows a ski racer through a season of gates, freeskiers to the infamous spines of Alaska, and a freestyler on his quest to send the biggest jump ever attempted. In doing this, they draw the obvious but worthwhile comparison: It’s all the same, ain’t it? It’s all just skiing. They’re not wrong, and we’re excited for a fresh take that showcases a variety of disciplines. Because a ski movie doesn’t always mean big lines in big mountains. (Even though we do like that.)


#4. ‘Bearings’

Drops: Fall 2017
Production Company: Blank Collective
Why You Know Them: Maybe you don’t, but last year they released an inaugural film, Canvas.

The trailer features a driving soundtrack, nothing but pow, and an introduction reel for the film’s talent: Leah Evans, Chris Rubens, Alexi Godbout, Stan Rey, Josh Daiek, Jordy Kidner. It’s like the ski-movie trailer version of basketball players walking out on court to a loud pump-up song. We’re ready for the game, y’all.


#5. ‘Habit’

Drops: September 16 (Denver, Colorado)
Production Company: Level 1 Productions
Why You Know Them: They’ve been in the game forever.

They call it a movie about choice and routine: Some people “choose to be carpet salesmen, others choose to be skiers.” With the choice comes a routine you must commit to, but perhaps unlike others, the skier’s reward is pure, unadulterated freedom. Maybe so, but what we’re getting from the trailer is less a criticism of our life decisions (phew) and more fun-loving ski action that ranges from urban freestyle skiing to big-mountain lines, with a brief segue into a crash reel (eek) and a fun song. Plus, it was shot pretty much everywhere there is to shoot skiing: Iceland, British Columbia, California, Alaska, Colorado, Utah, Russia, and Finland.

Why Did the DOI Kill the North Cascades Grizzly Plan?

>

Getting to the lower 48’s second-largest swath of prime grizzly bear habitat takes less than an hour by car from Seattle. The North Cascades Ecosystem begins at Interstate 90 and stretches north into British Columbia, covering 9,800 square miles—600 more than grizzlies have around Yellowstone National Park. Yet the odds of seeing a grizzly here are essentially zero.

Hunters in the 19th century shot thousands of the bears, as they did throughout the United States, driving them to near-extinction. But recently there has been solid action to reintroduce grizzlies into the North Cascades. Last January, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a draft plan to build a population of 200 bears here over the next 25 to 100 years, a move that could diversify the gene pool in case something devastated the species in the Rockies. The federal government had already poured money into a public relations campaign to educate locals. More than 127,000 comments had been made and were being reviewed. Then—without reason or warning—the recovery process came to a halt near the end of December.

Karen Taylor-Goodrich, superintendent of North Cascades National Park, said the Department of the Interior (DOI) ordered her team to stop all work on the North Cascades grizzly environmental impact statement, the first of many steps toward reintroducing the bears. “We’re in year three of the process,” Taylor-Goodrich said, according to the Missoulian. She and her team were offered no explanation. The DOI, in fact, has yet to say why it has seemingly abandoned the North Cascades grizzly program—DOI spokesperson Heather Swift told Outside that Secretary Ryan Zinke did not make the call to end the program, and when Outside asked if Zinke was even aware of the decision, Swift did not respond.

The North Cascades region is a rugged place, with remote terrain. It is fairly road-free and loaded with plants, berries, fish, and game that the omnivorous grizzlies can dine on, which would help keep them away from cattle and orchards. Fish and Wildlife identified the area as a potential grizzly recovery zone in 1993, due in large part to its size. “There are not many places in the lower 48 that you can even think about recovering bears,” says Bill Gaines, a former Forest Service biologist who worked on the North Cascades recovery plan. “And then to have 10,000 square miles of public land, and something on the order of 40 percent be a national park or wilderness—that’s a pretty good chunk of wild country.”

Despite the habitat suitability, not a single grizzly is known to be currently living in the U.S. chunk of the range. An estimated six bears live in the Canadian section—far too few to push a meaningful population of breeding bears south. Without bringing in outside bears, biologists have concluded, local extinction of grizzlies is a major threat.

As has been the case in other recovery zones in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, the public didn’t immediately jump on board. “It’s been a challenge,” says Jack Oelfke, who coordinates Park Service workers involved in the North Cascades grizzly recovery (Oelfke spoke with Outside about the program before the DOI decision, and the Park Service has since declined to officially comment). “There are lots of people in Washington who are pretty strong conservationists. But when you bring up grizzly bears, the prospect that their favorite hiking trail might now have grizzlies makes them pause.”

To help win the war of public opinion, Fish and Wildlife and the Park Service began a three-year public education bonanza, a method successfully deployed in Montana, where the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem bear population has swelled beyond 900. Bear managers created educational websites and held public meetings—which drew hundreds of attendees—to answer questions from hikers, hunters, loggers, ranchers, and farmers about the bears.

To further lessen concerns, the feds and researchers I spoke with said any bears brought to the North Cascades likely would be designated an experimental population under the Endangered Species Act. This designation, which was used when wolves were returned to Yellowstone, allows wildlife officials more leeway to relocate or, in extreme instances, kill troublesome animals. It’s a move used primarily to gin up public support by assuring, for example, local apple farmers and loggers that they need not worry about their operations being shut down by a grizzly on their property.

The result of these efforts appears to be strong public support. The majority of public comments submitted, reviewers told me, were in favor of relocating bears to the North Cascades, and a 2016 poll suggested overwhelming support among Washington voters.

Critics, of course, remain, and have celebrated the stop-work order. Jim DeTro, a commissioner in neighboring Okanogan County, told the Capital Press, “Yes, ranchers in the Okanogan will be happy, but the opposition had bipartisan support. Even hikers and people on the green side said the North Cascades was no place for this.”

The DOI’s decision creates a murky future for grizzlies in the North Cascades. Taylor-Goodrich told a panel of grizzly experts last month that communication has stopped with Canadian partners, and Oelfke, the Park Service coordinator, told the Yakima Herald that no timetable has been issued for work to resume. NPS officials declined to comment, and Swift, the DOI’s spokesperson, said she couldn’t confirm whether the stop-work order had even been issued. Swift would only say that Zinke hadn’t personally made the decision. “It sounds like from press reports that it was stopped,” Swift wrote to Outside an email, “but if it was stopped it wasn’t because the Secretary directed them to.”

“[What is] frustrating is that the many years of science, public education, and significant taxpayer dollars that have gone into grizzly bear recovery in our region are apparently not being taken seriously by this administration,” Chase Gunnell, spokesperson for Conservation Northwest, said in a statement.

These decisions are shadowed by uncertainty of how climate change will affect grizzly bears. Critical food sources in the Rockies, such as cutworm moths and whitebark pine seeds, are particularly threatened by warming temperatures, and scientists are uncertain how grizzly populations will respond. It’s for this reason that North Cascades researchers stressed the importance of another population to the survival of the species.

Delaying action isn’t simply an inconvenience. Had the environmental impact study proceeded, a final document would have been released sometime this year, and a decision would probably have been made in mid- to late 2018. Even at this pace, implementation wouldn’t have begun for years. Meanwhile, the North Cascades grizzly population teeters on extinction as the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide populations are scheduled, and expected, to be removed from the endangered species list.

“Biologically, it’s never a good idea to have just one or two small, isolated populations,” Oelfke says. “If you’ve got at least one other population in the mix in the lower 48, that’s a long-term benefit to the species.”

It may have had wide support and been good for grizzlies. But for some reason the DOI didn’t think so. They just won’t say why.

The Couple’s Guide to Thru-Hiking (and Not Going Crazy)

Advice for taking a really, really long hike with your significant other

Welcome to Tough Love. Every other week, we’re answering your questions about dating, breakups, and everything in between. Our advice giver is Blair Braverman, dogsled racer and author of Welcome to the Goddamn Ice Cube. Have a question of your own? Write to us at [email protected].


Q: My girlfriend and I are planning a thru-hike for next summer. Our relationship is really solid, but I know that any friendship, romantic or not, can be stressed by spending that much time (four to five months) in what basically amounts to isolation. What advice do you have for keeping our relationship strong during extended time in the backcountry?

—Alone Together

Years ago, I planned a thru-hike with my then-boyfriend. Our friends told us if we still liked each other by the end, then we could handle anything. In fact, by the end of the trip, trail life had rocked us into a kind of blistered romantic bliss. Then we returned to civilization and promptly broke up.

Which is all to say that my advice on this subject is suspect. Instead, I brought your question to an expert: Julie Buckles, adventurer and all-around badass who set off on a 1,700-mile honeymoon with her husband and wrote about the experience in her book Paddling to Winter. The kicker? They’re still happily married 18 years later.

Take it away, Julie.


For our honeymoon, my husband and I embarked on a 15-month expedition from Lake Superior to the Canadian north—and though we were in our thirties and had planned the trip for nearly two years, we never really sat down and considered this question. Charly was an experienced adventurer and warned that the trip would be difficult. He wanted me to think deeply about whether I was up for it. But that’s not how I’m wired. I dive in and ask questions later. At the time, I possessed such a romantic notion of trail life—the two of us cooking over an open fire, loons warbling in the distance—that I didn’t bother to consider his warning.

It took 16 days of travel for the warning to sink in. On May 16, 1999, we had one of those hard days, paddling and portaging in the wind and rain along the Frost River. Despite the cold, the black flies, our soggy feet, heavy packs, and the constant drizzle, we covered the day’s distance—and then realized there wasn’t a legal campsite for another ten miles. Finally, miserable, we scratched out a rocky, illegal campsite. That night, I did the math. We had 434 days to go. Why were we doing this?

Charly and I talked it out: We were on an adventure. Together. And that’s all you need sometimes: someone to share your misery, validate your doubts, laugh at every absurd situation. The next day, we woke to sunshine; within another two weeks, our blisters hardened, and our packs felt lighter each day. We sat by campfires and listened to loons, took solar showers, and baked bread in our Dutch oven. We met fellow travelers, and each one of them buoyed us. Over the next four months, we traveled 1,700 miles by canoe, then paddled to our winter destination at a remote island cabin in northern Saskatchewan. We planned to overwinter, and then travel north in spring—first by snowshoe, then canoe, all the way to the Arctic sea. Those fall days passed in a blur of trout fishing, gathering blueberries and cranberries, hauling supplies, and chopping wood. People from the nearest town stopped by, curious about our situation, and brought us mail from friends and family back home.

But then came the gray days of November—the in-between season. The lake grew too rough for travel to and from town. That’s when it got really hard.

I didn’t realize until then how badly I need to be around people. I’d sooner hike a thousand miles than sit alone for a week, and here we were, trapped. No mail. Nothing. I was an extrovert stuck in an isolation tank. Charly’s an introvert, and even he was struggling. To shake off our funk, we wrote out a list of rituals to give our weeks a sense of purpose. The tasks were nothing exciting: laundry, poetry reading, bread baking, floor mopping, etc. And crazy as it sounds, it worked! For two whole days. On the third day, Charly woke me with “It’s laundry day!” and I started sobbing. When he tried to cheer me up by mentioning Knock-Knock, my husky at home, I only cried harder. I missed home. I missed my family. I missed talking to people. When Charly hugged me and offered to do whatever I needed, I realized that, in a way, that was exactly what I needed: his offer. The knowledge that he was on my side. A week or so later, the lake froze over and our world reopened. People from town rode snowmobiles to bring us mail, then came in for coffee, cookies, and shared stories. We traveled north to see the caribou herds, winter camped to explore our island, and skied to town to eat dinner with our new friends.

In April, days before we were to depart on the second leg of the expedition, we received a message that Charly’s father was in the hospital, his cancer no longer in remission. After months of wearing the same pants, eating the same food, and talking to the same person, I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to leave the intimate life we’d built on the trail, the frozen landscape and the light and the space that was ours alone. But Charly and his dad needed me to.

That’s when I did the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I quit. Eleven months after taking to the wilderness, we turned around and went home.

This is a long way of telling you that you can’t predict what will happen, that sometimes the smallest things are the hardest, and then the big things are harder still. You and your girlfriend will be a team in the truest sense of the word. You’ll be caring for each other as much as for yourselves. Here are some steps you can take to prepare.

  1. Take a Myers-Briggs personality test, just for fun. Talk through what your internal challenges might be and how you might deal with those challenges. If one of you is an extrovert or really connected to family, you may want to make plans for friends or family to meet you along the trail.
  2. Remember that conversation that Charly and I had on the sixteenth day? Here’s your chance to iron out that stuff now. Write out a mission statement. Nothing fancy—just an agreement about why you’re taking this trip and what you hope to accomplish. Most important, write out why you want to do this together. In your toughest times, pull out your mission statement and read it aloud.
  3. Learn the lyrics to your favorite songs, and to her favorite songs, and sing them on a day when she’s feeling blue. You’ll miss music, and I promise you’ll get partial lyrics stuck in your head. (Once, on Lake Winnipeg, Charly mentioned that we needed to get motoring, and for the next 20 days the chorus of Night Ranger’s “Sister Christian” looped in my head.)
  4. This will be the most creative time in your life. Take a journal and colored pencils. Write poetry and sketch the scenery. Read great literature that you’ve never had the time for. Choose books you can read aloud to each other and have conversations about. I recommend Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove; I found it on the top shelf of our winter cabin, and Charly and I laughed and cried together with those cowboys driving cattle from Texas to Montana.
  5. Make a plan for your return. However your trip ends, it takes time to adjust back to the real world of jobs, commitments, social media, and friends. Hold on to one another, and plan time for just the two of you. You’ll need to help each other adjust.

During our first days on the trail, a reporter did a story about our trip. The subhead read: “Some couples can’t wallpaper together, these two are paddling to the Arctic.” The funny thing, though, is that paddling is easier than hanging wallpaper. Embrace this precious time. Be grateful for it. I speak in public about my travels, and after every presentation, at least one person approaches with a wistful look. I know what they’ll tell me: that they, too, once dreamed of a big trip that they wished they’d taken. You and your girlfriend will have no such regrets—and that’s everything.

Your turn—ask away at [email protected].

There’s Another Way to Save (Some of) Bears Ears

>

On December 4, President Trump signed an executive order shrinking Bears Ears National Monument, prompting tribal and environmental groups—as well as major outdoor brands—to file lawsuits against the administration. Though many people see legal action as the only hope for protecting these lands, it’s not.

A significant chunk of the land just released from its national monument status sits in the Manti La Sal National Forest, which is smack in the middle of a planning process that includes considering those areas for an even higher protection status: that of Wilderness.

It’s not all of Bears Ears: approximately 92,504 of the acres removed from the monument designation are on Utah state land, 11,121 are private, and 894,381 sit on Bureau of Land Management property (which will continue to be managed under the 2008 Monticello Field Office Management Plan). The opportunity lies in the remaining 256,479 acres that fall under U.S. Forest Service management in the Manti La Sal, which is currently heading into year two of a four-year process to revise its 1986 Forest Plan. 

While revising its plan for how lands within their boundaries are managed, Manti officials are also required to identify places that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This highest level of protection for federal lands would prohibit permanent roads and structures, motorized-vehicle use, and any kind of development.

The forest planning process is also designed so that the public has a say every step of the way. That’s in addition to state, local, and tribal governments—parts of Manti in particular have historical and cultural value to Utah’s Native American groups. Of course, it’s not a perfect system. Anyone who’s ever tried to participate in this process will point out that it can be incredibly confusing. The Forest Service has gained a reputation as a dusty bureaucracy that doesn’t prioritize clarity for the public.

Officials hope to change that with a recently launched project called Your Forests Your Future, presented as an easy-to-navigate website with information on how to participate in USFS decisions. There are short films, infographics, and podcasts meant to spark discussion about what national forests mean to all types of users—from boaters and family campers to hunters and anglers. It’s run by a partnership between the USFS, the Idaho-based NGO Salmon Valley Stewardship, and the media company More than Just Parks. 

“It’s a matter of knowing how and when to comment. It’s not enough to say, I like hiking in that spot,” says Elizabeth Townley, the coordinator of Your Forests Your Future. “If you want that land to be recommended as Wilderness, you have to craft your comments around Wilderness values. So if you say, ‘I love hiking in that spot because it represents an opportunity for outstanding solitude and hiking is a primitive recreation,’ that’s much more likely to have an impact.”

The website lays out what Wilderness values are, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, in an infographic accompanied by a minute-long film. It also has a short video infographic on forest planning that explains when and how people can have a say in designing the future of their public lands. Eventually the website will connect people to all of the 154 national forests and 20 grasslands in the U.S., with real-time updates on where each currently is in the forest planning process and the opportunities for public participation—including the Manti La Sal. 

In July 2017, Manti’s managers wrapped up a 30-day public comment period on their Draft Assessment, which provides an overview of existing conditions and trends in the forest. The next opportunity for people to speak up will be an online public comment period starting January 26 and running through February 29. Beginning in May 2018, a series of open houses—public meetings to give updates on the process and solicit feedback—will focus on setting goals and objectives for the revised Forest Plan components. 

Now, Utah has a notoriously scant record of actually passing Wilderness into law. The state had zero acres protected in the original 1964 Wilderness Act and currently has less designated Wilderness, at 1.1 million acres, than any Western state. A significant forest Wilderness bill hasn’t passed in Utah since 1984. Which is why it’s all the more important to speak up in January. 

“Because of the strong anti-public-lands-protection stance of some Utah politicians, local Forest Service officials are not used to hearing good things about wilderness,” says Tim Peterson, a Utah Wildlands program director with the Grand Canyon Trust, which has been working to secure Wilderness recommendations for qualifying lands across the forest for many years. “Utah politicians had an outsized influence on Trump’s shrinking Bears Ears, against the wishes of the public. But national forests are public lands owned by all Americans, and the more people that reach out in support of robust Wilderness recommendations, the better.”

Elected officials do still play a role in the process of protecting lands as Wilderness. While the Manti can recommend areas for Wilderness, it’s up to Congress to formally grant that designation. But there’s a catch, which is why public participation is so critical: even without official Wilderness designation, an area can be identified under the Forest Plan as being "managed for Wilderness values." For example, if those 250,000-plus acres that were released from Bears Ears National Monument were identified under the Manti La Sal Forest Plan as having Wilderness values and managed as such, a proposal for oil and gas exploration would be rejected, because the area isn’t managed for that use. 

“Forest planning can be dry stuff. Those involved seem to skew older and older, and the process stretches on and on,” says Peterson. “The agency has always expressed a desire to get more people more involved in planning, and I hope Your Forests Your Future can engage a new generation. History is written by those who show up, after all.”

6 Breweries on the Edge of National Parks

You may be in the middle of the wilderness, but a local IPA isn’t that far away

You’ve just scaled Half Dome, hiked deep into Grand Canyon, or climbed Grand Teton. You deserve a beer. Here’s where to get a pint of local brew after visiting some of America’s finest national parks.

South Gate Brewing Company

Oakhurst, California

(Courtesy South Gate Brewing)

South Gate Brewing Company, which opened in the Sierra foothills town of Oakhurst in 2013, is less than two hours on scenic roads from Yosemite Valley. If you leave Yosemite National Park via the south entrance on Highway 41, you’ll pass right through here. After climbing big walls or hiking to waterfalls, stop in for a pint of South Gate IPA or a Deadwood porter, named after the peak you can see from your table. Pair it with a brick-oven pizza or a plate of blonde ale beer-battered fish and chips.

Rock Cut Brewing Company

Estes Park, Colorado

(Courtesy Rockcut Brewing)

There are 12 beers on tap at Rock Cut Brewing Company, which opened in 2015 at the foot of Prospect Mountain in the high-altitude town of Estes Park, the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park. After summiting the 14,258-foot Longs Peak, try the East Portal IPA or the Altruism amber, for which $1 per pint is donated to a local charitable organization. Water for the brewing process comes from glacier-fed rivers that flow through Rocky Mountain National Park. You can bring food in from elsewhere or order chicken wings from the food truck parked out front.

Atlantic Brewing Company

Bar Harbor, Maine

(Courtesy Atlantic Brewing)

Atlantic Brewing has two locations in the sleepy coastal town of Bar Harbor, ten minutes from Acadia National Park. After biking the park’s Carriage Roads or catching the views atop Cadillac Mountain, the park’s high point, you can take a tour of the brewing facility, buy a growler of New Guy IPA to go, or dig into a platter of barbecued ribs at Mainely Meat at the Town Hill headquarters. At the new Midtown tasting room, which opened this summer, you can sample experimental small-batch beers and order a burger with goat cheese and kimchi from the new Midtown Burger.

Grand Teton Brewing

Victor, Idaho

(Courtesy Grand Teton Brewing)

Grand Teton Brewing, in Victor, Idaho, on the other side of Teton Pass from the town of Jackson, Wyoming, is less than 30 miles from Grand Teton National Park and about two hours from Yellowstone. Try the crisp, golden Old Faithful Ale, or order a pint of Bitch Creek for a sturdy brown ale. The tasting room and pub are part of an 11,000-square-foot facility that makes and ships beers to more than a dozen states. They don’t serve food on site, but the food truck that’s usually parked outside has good beer brats and fried pickles.

Nantahala Brewing Company

Bryson City, North Carolina

(Courtesy Nantahala Brewing)

Four outdoor-loving friends opened Nantahala Brewing Company in 2010, located just outside Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the town of Bryson City, North Carolina. You can tour the facility or listen to live music while drinking a pint of Noon Day IPA, the brewery’s flagship ale, in the taproom. Water for the beer comes straight from the untouched watersheds in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There’s no food on site, so order a takeout pizza from Anthony’s next door and bring it over.

Mother Road Brewing Company

Flagstaff, Arizona

(Courtesy Mother Road Brewing)

It’s an 80-minute drive from the rim of Grand Canyon to Mother Road Brewing Company, but you’re probably driving through Flagstaff on the way back from your Grand Canyon adventure anyway, so you might as well stop in for a Tower Station IPA. The taproom, which opened in 2011, has board games and a rotating cast of about nine beers on tap. Order a banh mi, delivered from nearby Proper Meats and Provisions. (There’s also excellent pizza from Pizzicletta, two doors down.) This winter, Mother Road is opening another 8,000-square-foot production facility and tasting room a mile away.