Good to hear.

I'm not saying don't get it if you want it, it's a fine lens if in good condition. However, you have the 18-135 which covers that focal length and exposures including the aperture can be set manually on that using the M setting. So it won't be any easier to set it, but the A 28mm is a prime lens so should have better resolution, albeit designed for film cameras not digital.
If you do decide to get it, make sure the aperture lever is snappy and the optics are clear with no fungal threads visible.
So ultimately, do you need it? Probably no. Would you like it? Probably yes!

I've tried a Google search for Girixx SD cards and the only thing that shows up is your own query! That's a pretty unusual occurrence. I was trying to see if others have had the same issue with that brand elsewhere but with regret I drew a blank.
I think I'd try a reliable branded one (such as Sandisk) before the trip to avoid disappointment.

You say that and in theory you're right. However Pentax's inbody shake reduction does allow surprisingly sharp hand held shots from a 300mm lens. Just keeping the minimum exposure at or shorter than 1/250 sec and you should be fine. Even longer exposures still maybe fine as shake reduction is supposed to give you several stops extra compared to not having it. The camera instruction books say to turn off shake reduction when using a tripod.
Often better than a tripod is a bean bag or similar as many smaller tripods still shake in the wind or pick up mirror bounce. Another option is a monopod if it helps.
Chasing wildlife with a telephoto lens and large tripod attached to the camera isn't always the most practical option. Don't forget that digital cameras can use a much higher ISO than was practical on film cameras as it can be upped on a one off basis (rather than having a film full of 36 to get through) which can help in poor light when previously a tripod would have been necessary.

patrickdinneen.com mzy be taken but what about patrickdinneen.co.uk ?
or patrickdinneen.net ?

Yes, the K-1 seems to have done well so surely there will be an even better one along sometime. Though I'm not sure there's much to add to what we have for a wish list. Presumably improved AF, though I'm fine with it as it is, improved video but likewise. I wonder what they'll call it?
I wonder too if they'll be FF variants such as a cut down version with just basic functions or a classic design based on K series SLRs. But the K-1's more than enough for now.

Don't forget the very budget alternative for the wide angle, the FAJ 18-35. It's great value by comparison and does the job!
The design is similar to the DAL18-55 and can't see why fitting any filter would be a problem.

Perhaps the need to install sensor shift technology.

Thanks.

A: Because I photographed it running round digging up worms and finding plenty (see OP.) I have another 72+ pictures along with that one! It is uncommon to see them in daylight so its behaviour wasn't natural.

B: On day 2 it was a dead mole on the lawn and I did do as you suggest for posterity - I said so in the comment along with the photo!
With regard to chemicals I do not use them, certainly no lawn sand or feed the weeds fertilizer but I cannot speak about neighbours. I don't think my garden can have been its regular home as we haven't had mole hills for several years.
I happened to be in a museum yesterday who had a mole on display in their natural history section. I suspect that one had passed away at least several years ago!
As with the museum, one has to make most of opportunities. To get that photo for real would be nigh on impossible as even then I had to take several to get it right. Maybe one of those PIR cameras might have captured a similar photo for real but somehow it wouldn't have the quality of using a K-1 and having a PIR camera I often find the subject gone before the camera fires. It has captured badger shots which is why I bought one as I did suspect a badger was visiting and wanted to find out for sure.
PIR badger videos:
http://jkpg.ddns.net/piwigo/picture.php?/1713/category/62

http://jkpg.ddns.net/piwigo/picture.php?/1721/category/62

But that PIR camera couldn't focus close enough for the mole shot. It would have been tiny as in this wood mouse capture:
http://jkpg.ddns.net/piwigo/picture.php?/1722/category/62