Backpacker Mag

Did anyone notice in a recent issue of Backpacker, they named Baxter's Chimney Pond as one of America's best "swimming holes"?

Hmmmm. I wonder what the rangers think of that.

Should I add a snorkel to my hiking gear?

I think they meant "best swimming hole" for moose

Well, there used to be a sign. Maybe they didn't see it.

I always felt that BACKPACKER never really wanted to reveal any of the good secrets for fear of crowding some of the last "great places".

The list of "sweetest swimming" holes was total junk. Look for their apology for mentioning Chimney Pond in the next issue

Jon Dorn, the editor of Backpacker, is a member of VFTT and has responded to posts here before.

From my dealings with the magazine as a photographer, my impression is that they do a very good job of trying to be environmentally responsible in their coverage, but mistakes do happen. Photographers who submit materials also have to make sure they act in an environmentally responsible manner when they are out shooting for the magazine, and resist the temptation to break the rules in order to get "the killer shot".

Also, I imagine it's a tough balancing act trying to feature "new" places without spoiling the "secret" ones, while attempting to satisfy the broad range of backcountry users that read their magazine.

The problem with Backpacker in the last few years is, they make way to many mistakes, to me that shows, lack of proper homework or just lack of knowledge in general. The 2 areas Im familier with CO and NH are many times peppered with mistakes, like saying Tucks is the standard route up Washington in the winter, thats not only wrong but dangerous.

Have you all experienced those websites that at first read appear to have "informative" bits of info on a specific subject but after you read a paragraph you realize it was an automatically generated page of content mixed together from crawlers on the web? You can tell b/c they are redundant come close, but don't quite make sense? I think there is a name for them but I don't know it.

Anyway, I suspect Backpacker has become much like that. I wonder what Laura W. thinks of the current mag. I gave up complaining about the advertisements showing people camped in their new tent on a bluff full of alpine flowers.

Now, the Basin ponds on the other hand... they make a fine swimming hole (or two)!

Spencer

Yeah

Dorn SEEMS to be an allright guy, but then again he's only communicated with me when he was trying weasel the best fly-fishing spots in the Andes out of me... Seriously, he probably is a cool dude (only done e-mails with him never met face-to-face). He has a young daughter he loves to hike with and he is environmentally conscious, etc. etc. But..., as far the Mag goes, they are shooting for sales so I am sure they are more into filling the ad space and making monthly budget than worrying about breasking taboos. I haven't read it in years, just seems like a string of gear ads to me.

Now, as for Baxter... There are NO swimming holes there! Repeat NO swimming holes! And the water in every lake is frigid all year long. And every pond is full of leechs and creepy crawlers. Bad for your health! The only place worth going to in B.S.P. is Katahdin, so don't even bother going anywhere else up there. It's HORRIBLE!!!

Yes, the magazine has to make money, but that doesn't mean that they have to ignore environmental principles to do so.

Seeing as though their target audience is environmentally aware as a whole, I highly doubt that they simply thumb their nose at such concerns - that would be biting the hand that feeds them.

The better part of their September issue was devoted to climate change and "green" issues, but I suppose that somebody will say that they are simply doing that because it's "fashionable".

Tim Seaver said:

The better part of their September issue was devoted to climate change and "green" issues, but I suppose that somebody will say that they are simply doing that because it's "fashionable".

Click to expand...

Only now? Where have they been the past several years? Looks like your question has answered itself...

Gris said:

Only now? Where have they been the past several years? Looks like your question has answered itself...

Click to expand...

I didn't pose it as a question, I was just predicting the response.

Accurately, it would appear.

actually...

"marketable" (not "fashionable") would be a more accurate term

i'm not being judgmental, just logical (the mag is a for profit venture)