Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions...

Posted by: cedfire

Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:00 PM

I was reading through the Dec. 2007 copy of "Backpacker" magazine and came across an article on ultralight hiking. Some suggestions are to "Swap your knife for a razor blade; which is just as effective in most medical situations", also to, "Ditch the map" and to "Empty your (water) bottles". It goes on to say "Along many mountain trails, you rarely need to carry more than a liter -- if any."

I guess being prepared doesn't carry over to the trailhead for some.
Posted by: Blast

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:09 PM

Well, maybe they are secretly trying to thin the crowds out in the woods.

Truely though, they are frigging insane!

-Blast
Posted by: CANOEDOGS

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:21 PM


ya--thats the "run the trails in your underware" crowd..
eat green algae tabs and sleep under a 3x4 plastic sheet..
mock-heroic's are right up there with body mutilation as "art"
Posted by: teacher

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:25 PM

Not much room for error...along mountain trails.
Posted by: Jeff_M

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:29 PM

People discovering they can spend a night in the woods without toting 50 pounds of gear is a good thing. But the ultralight backpacking trend has become something of a fad that is being carried too far. Some of the techniques aren't for neophytes.

Jeff
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 02:53 PM

Back in the 70s I was at a college mountaineering club weekend when we had a party with another colleges club. So there were about 30 climbers and backpackers there. We had all our gear with us because it was our cottage. As the only non-drinker I was on bottle opening duty with my fist and the edge of a table because we didn't have a bottle opener between us.
Not what you'd get now, with everyone bristling with multi-tools (which didn't exist) and swiss army knives (which I'd never seen). But shows how none of these are essential to backpacking.
If a trail is well marked and in well watered country do you need a map and water bottle? I had neither on day hikes on the appalachian trail.
simon

Posted by: RobertRogers

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 03:21 PM

In many areas the hiking is more what I might call an easy stroll through the forest. If you're just going for a little walk, traveling this light may be fine. But in the age of the cell phone, too manyrely on a 911 call to save them rather than making plans to depend upon themselves when something does not go according to plan. To ditch proper gear and supplies for a cellphone is just not right.
Posted by: Katie

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 03:45 PM

While I think not bringing a map is foolish, I can see Xeroxing the pertinent areas or cutting down the size of your map. I Xerox the pages of the guidebook that I care about, and leave the rest at home or in the car. I wouldn't go anywhere without water, but you can shave a little weight by reusing a 20 oz. plastic soda/water bottle from the cold case of the convenience store instead of bringing a giant Lexan Nalgene. Personally, I prefer the robustness of the Lexan.

Some of the ultralight crowd do go overboard -- by the time you're sawing the handle off of your toothbrush (as I've seen recommended), you need to reevaluate what shedding an additional gram or two is really going to accomplish.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 03:58 PM

We've been reading about several incidents lately where the hiker left his/her gear in camp, and "just went for a day hike", and they didn't surface for several days. Some have never been found.

"The best laid plans of mice and men..."

That's why we frequent this forum, to be ready when Ms. Karma or Ma Nature change the game plan.

Can you imagine if any of us here ended up in the newspapers as getting lost and being underequipped, how much jeering and fingerpointing there would be?

Sue
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 04:43 PM

Well, Les shows that it is quite doable to go without most supplies and make do for at least a week in most conditions. I've considered mature ultralight expeditions to be planned survival trips most times anyways. As a kid we'd call it hitting the woods.

You might get away with that in the Appalachians, but I wouldn't try it in the Cascades, the Rockies or most of Alaska without being suitably prepared. If you do, you better be darned sure what you are getting into.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 04:50 PM

I read this article too and while I don't like their advice (razor blade instead of a knife? c'mon!) you have to take it in context. They're talking about 'ultralight' hiking. Ultralight hiking is a fairly extreme form of hiking that many people don't really understand.

This breed of hiker is also the type who will spend an extra several hundred dollars on a single piece of equipment because it weigh 2 oz. less than what's cheap. They are also known for restitching clothing and gear to make it weigh less. I've seen modified ultralight packs weigh as little as just a few oz. where padding is removed and spare clothing is stuffed into waistbands and shoulder straps to help cut weight.

These people are also hiking on extremely well marked trails and are typically very familiar with the trail in question. Not everybody is ready to take on the 2175 mils of the Appalachian trail but these are the people who do it. I don't recall if it's mentioned but these trails are often well populated, in parks where there are rangers around all the time, and even have shelters and hostels along the way at regular intervals (The Appalachian has over 250 shelters peppered along it's length...doesn't seem to dumb to leave the tent at home considering that fact.

That being said, I don't like the way the article gives the feel that any average Joe can use these techniques to cut weight...I think that they're putting some people at risk by not being more clear about the sport...perhaps they're just assuming their readership are familiar with every aspect of backpacking.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 07:40 PM

Case you haven't seen this yet. Gear lists submitted by ultralighters. Not all of them are trail hikers.

Yes, some of them go out to do several hundred miles of off trail
with only a razor blade or the scissors pulled from a swiss army
knife for a cutting tool.


http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/user_gear_list_index.html
Posted by: Katie

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 08:46 PM

Maybe the razor blade is a key component so that you can slit your wrists after the agony of brushing your teeth with your finger and rationing yourself three 1-ply squares of TP per day for two weeks. smile
Posted by: DougM

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 08:53 PM

Don't depend on Backpacker Magazine for ANYTHING!!
They're the ones who started the "shallow-lug sole" myth ("deep-lug boots are destroying our trails by compacting the soil"), they didn't want anyone to know that in order for a trail to last very long the trail MUST be compacted. And this is only one example!
Posted by: wildman800

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 09:30 PM

As I recall, there is a very fine line between courage and stupidity!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 10:52 PM

Quote:
I guess being prepared doesn't carry over to the trailhead for some.


You can learn a lot from the ultralightweighters. They just suffer a little more out in the wilderness than those who are fully prepared (except when having to lug around 50lb of kit).

The following links are audio interviews.

http://backpackinglight.audioblog.com/deluge/7861d1e0-fb3b-0047-a126-8cabf5d425b2.mp3 - 14 Meg Download


http://backpackinglight.audioblog.com/deluge/167d028d-85f3-c98d-73b5-ef1ca08588a0.mp3 - 9.6 Meg Download


http://backpackinglight.audioblog.com/deluge/ebb1866a-7249-b8d3-c479-91f3d1f17981.mp3 - 17 Meg Download

Other podcasts available at http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/page73.asp





Posted by: clearwater

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/29/07 11:18 PM

It is at the campsite you doff your wafflestompers to avoid
compacting that area.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 01:07 AM

I stopped reading BP not long after their new editor recommended not carrying a first aid kit of any type, just borrowing what you need from someone else. I see that things have not improved much...
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 01:12 AM

There is a reason why I consider picking on ultralighters an unfair activity- too many of them make it too easy. It's like hunting in a petting zoo. Of course, most ultralighters hike regularly marked trails in a temperate climates, that have lean-tos provided to them, and half the time, the the AT and PT are within walking distance of a town with ATMs, resturants and motels if the weather gets really bad.

I'm not saying it can't be done- I took the ditch kit out for the weekend. (Including an inch and half of rain on Saturday night- the contractor bag poncho works.) I was a little wet and chilly a few times, but I came out fine. But if I have to cut something from your list to make it lighter, I'm not going to switch to a razor blade and leave my multitool at home, or drink water straight from a beaver pond, bag that. If you want to cut snivel gear, leave the GPS with it's batteries at home, give away your scale, and learn to use a map and compass.
Posted by: ohiohiker

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 01:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Katie
Maybe the razor blade is a key component so that you can slit your wrists after the agony of brushing your teeth with your finger and rationing yourself three 1-ply squares of TP per day for two weeks. smile


laugh

*adds razor blades to survival kit, just in case I run out of TP*
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: OldBaldGuy
I stopped reading BP not long after their new editor recommended not carrying a first aid kit of any type...


WTF?!
Posted by: Rusty

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 01:39 AM

I did enjoy the lightweight backpacker Ray Jardine's book, Beyond Backpacking. It has some pretty interesting ideas and neat stories to go along.

I don't think Ray was every crazy enough to suggest not carrying any first aid though...
Posted by: DougM

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 03:08 AM

If I wanted to (and this board allowed it? I could supply a rather lengthy list of (censored) that that magazine (and others) have considered "wisdom".
Posted by: SARbound

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 03:21 AM

I gotta admit I am one of those that didn't really understand the need for long fixed blades for hiking/backpacking. Even for fishing/camping... I carry plenty of firestarting gimmicks so I don't think I'll really need to make fuzz sticks or stuff like that to start a fire.

So I was about to start carrying a small office box cutter to cut cord and open up packages... until I started to play with food. Food is the reason i'm carrying a regular sized Victorinox One-handed Trekker on my trips. Whenever there's food, a knife comes in really handy. To cut cheese, open up packages, etc.

So don't be too rough on Backpacker Magazine, at least on the razor blade thingy (I agree no water is silly).
Posted by: TQS

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 03:33 AM

Razor blades are clumsy, especially if hands are cold, and besides, people don't carry knives into the wilderness for medical reasons.
KEEP the map, unless very familiar with the area.
Always keep one bottle full for in between water sources, even if you don't anticipate being thirsty. Keep in mind that unless you have a map, you might not know where those water sources are.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:47 AM

I'm going to have to read that article. That's bad advice to not have at least a small med kit, a map, some water, and a proper knife, even if just a Swiss Army type. A map can really save your butt by keeping you on course and preventing the need for other survival gear.

Now having said that, weight is very critical. I'm a very "be prepared" conscious person. I constantly struggle with the balance between being prepared and keeping the weight down. It's a tough balance. I do try to carry the minimum amount of water, within reason -- emphasis on reason. I do my homework and really evaluate my water needs, mileages, and where my next refill point is. I always carry a bit more than I think I'll need.

Now as to purification. There have been studies that have indicated that much of the water is still quite drinkable, particularly at higher altitudes, in the Western US. I read an article some time ago in the LA times about an MD who hikes and regularly samples water along his route. Conclusion? All drinkable. Let me add that I usually do carry a filter despite the extra weight and am very cautious about where I gather water. Nevertheless, there is a bit of overhype on the omnipresent necessity of water purifcation.
Posted by: LED

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 06:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim

Now as to purification. There have been studies that have indicated that much of the water is still quite drinkable, particularly at higher altitudes, in the Western US. I read an article some time ago in the LA times about an MD who hikes and regularly samples water along his route. Conclusion? All drinkable. Let me add that I usually do carry a filter despite the extra weight and am very cautious about where I gather water. Nevertheless, there is a bit of overhype on the omnipresent necessity of water purifcation.


As someone who's had giardia, I agree with you about the need to be cautious about your water no matter what the elevation. It can be a pain to filter or treat all your water, but then again, so is living by the toilet and injesting nothing but fluids for a week waiting for the horse pills to kill everything in your intestines.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 10:49 AM

As someone else who's been infected with Giardia, I second that. I do not drink raw water unless I have absolutely no other choice.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 11:40 AM

WTF indeed. Dorn has some really screwy ideas about how to save weight, but depending on finding another hiker with a first aid kit for you to bum from was the final straw for me...
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 12:35 PM

These guys stress over a few extra ounces? Sounds to me like they need to invest in a stair-stepper.
Posted by: raydarkhorse

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 12:47 PM

You have to take into account the type of mentality the people who write these types of articles. They are the same people you see hiking in spandex shorts, a skintight tank top and a lightweight shoes. They don’t carry a fixed blade knife because they can see no conceivable situation where they could need one, most of them I have talked to wouldn’t even carry a SAK. They are like the group I passed coming down the mountain as they were going up. I was there for a day hunt and was leaving because of the nasty thunderstorm coming down the valley. I even told them (dressed like mentioned above). I was told thunderstorms didn’t pose a threat in the mountains at that time of the year. They were so sure of them self’s they wouldn’t even set up camp. Twenty minutes later dry in my truck I was wondering how they were doing and how metal-framed packs seemed a bad thing with all the lightning. They did seem less arrogant when I drove to where I had last seen them and found them huddled together. Some of them even said thank you for the ride to their vehicles below.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 02:18 PM

I carry purification tablets, an MSR MIOX pen, and a filtration straw pretty much all the time...and all that even with a couple of spare batteries and some extra salt for the MIOX pen still weighs less and take up less room than the average filter.
Posted by: cedfire

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 02:48 PM

I didn't realize they had advocated not carrying a first aid kit at one point and suggested mooching one off others. That's nuts.

I think I'll start putting my $4 a month towards other stuff. (Thankfully I don't have a subscription.) Saved up that can buy a big FAK!
Posted by: atoz

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 03:17 PM

The I know a few of these folks and they do 30+ miles a day on the CT and PT trails. You can't do that with a 50+lb day after day.
The other thing I find is that when most of us go camping we want all the comforts of home, look at RVers, UGH. One complainto of European climbers have of American climber is that US climbes sone want to be cold so carry much heavier equipment, same for BPers.
What Ultralight BPing does is to challenge the paradim that most folks have.
cheers
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 04:10 PM

I don't think anybody expects them to pack a 3 burner Coleman stove and a wall tent. And big deal if they cut their toothbrush down to a nub--that has never killed anyone. But to suggest that a razor blade is an acceptable substitute for a decent knife is stupid and irresponsible. You might get away with not carrying the essentials for your first 99 trips, but when things go bad on trip #100 it could cost you. I rarely if ever hear about an "overequipped" person getting into trouble--it always seems to be the ones who aren't carrying anything who end up dead.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: benjammin
As someone else who's been infected with Giardia, I second that. I do not drink raw water unless I have absolutely no other choice.


Yeah, pretty much my attitude. I kind of don't get it when people don't treat their water. What's the big pay off that you would risk girardia? My dad got hepatitis drinking untreated water (desert hike; he was desperate). If you filter, you get the same cool, delicious mountain stream taste as you would right out of the stream, so like I say, what's the payoff?

There are other things to keep in mind also though. There have been studies indicating that hygiene is every bit as if not more important than water treatment. The studies tested the water where girardia cases had been reported. Much of the time, the water contained no pathogens. Subject interviews revealed lapses in hygiene. The conclusion: wash your hands especially after potty time.



Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 04:51 PM

Originally Posted By: norad45
These guys stress over a few extra ounces?


I'd definitely agree that cutting essentials is a just plain bad idea, but I kind of get the ounce thing. Things really add up. As a preparedness kind of guy, I frequently load up packs that are tough to carry. 50lbs of gear for a 3 day hike probably isn't reasonable. I've had to eliminate some redundancy, carry a little bit less clothing than I'd like etc. just to make it work. There's got to be some kind of balance between preparedness and practicality. Not saying I know what that balance is, but I definitely understand cutting ounces.

For example, I bought some new gear this past summer:
Sleeping bag: 12 oz lighter than old one
Pad: 8 oz lighter
Raingear: 9 oz lighter
Pack: 15 oz lighter
Stove: 10 oz lighter
Headlamp: 3 oz lighter
Tent: 24 oz lighter
New Jacket: 9 oz lighter

Which amounts to about 5 and a half pounds of savings. Going from a 35 pound pack to a 29.5 pound pack makes a huge difference.

Originally Posted By: norad45
Sounds to me like they need to invest in a stair-stepper.


Not to get on your case smile but a lot of the ultra lighters I've met on the trail are in incredible shape. In the case of "through hikers" (those doing a major trail like the PCT, CDT, or AT from start to finish in one hike), they're doing back-to-back 20 mile days for weeks on end. They really do have to strip it down. (having said that, no I have not drilled holes in my toothbrush and exchanged my knife for a razor blade) smile
Posted by: paramedicpete

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:00 PM

While no one can debate the benefits of good hygiene, bacteria, viruses and parasites have to come from somewhere. Individuals infected with Giardia sp. are picking it up from somewhere; most likely source is the water.

It is possible a partner is infected and passing the Giardia sp. along to others due to poor hygiene via fecal contamination - oral route of exposure. However, I would think the water is still the most likely culprit, despite the test results, which may not be sensitive enough to detect low-level contamination.

Can you find and cite the studies?

Pete
Posted by: frediver

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:18 PM

Did anyone catch the advice to store your water filter element in the freezer, if you do it will likely crack when frozen rendering it useless.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: paramedicpete
Can you find and cite the studies?


Well, having limited time (and even more limited memory), smile here's one study (but not the one I was referring to earlier): Wilderness Medical Society Study

Please note that I am not advocating the abandonment of water purification! I am attempting to high light the importance of hygiene.

If I can, I'll try to find the study that I was referring to.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: NightHiker
I look at it this way: I like to have options


Here, here. When you need something in the wild, and it's sitting at home, you really a) kick yourself and b) can suffer potentially life threatening consequences. I can tell you stories of hiking with my minimalist father... There's a reason why I'm into preparedness. I have had to spend unplanned nights in the wild. Let me tell you that I will never forget.
Posted by: Katie

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:54 PM

Is this the study?

An Outbreak of Giardiasis in a Group of Campers

Unfortunately, they want you to pay to read the full article, but you can see the abstract.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 05:56 PM

OK, not to hog the forum, but here's a study I came across. It's not on sources of infection but rather on one purification method: iodine. Seems like iodine can be wholly inadequate even if directions are followed precisely. Efficacy of iodine water purification tablets against Cryptosporidium...


Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 06:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Katie
Is this the study?

An Outbreak of Giardiasis in a Group of Campers

Unfortunately, they want you to pay to read the full article, but you can see the abstract.


Good study; not the one I'm thinking of. smile
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 06:13 PM

OK, I think this is the study: http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?req...4&page=0235
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 06:29 PM

I dunno, it just seems to me folks are trying to find a way to bring their hustle and bustle work life mentality to the hills. Why would anyone want to hike 50-60 miles a day? If all they're trying to accomplish is to just cover as much ground as possible, stick to the shoulder of the road and just jog. Most of the places I would go to "get away" mean driving up into the hills somewhere, getting out of the truck, and hiking in just about any direction I choose for maybe a mile or so and I am in it. Running another 50 miles only gets me deeper in it, and means I have to then hike that far to get back out of it.

In this day and age, if you can't get in it without having to cover 50 miles on foot, then methinks you might be trying too hard. I ain't never been that ambitious about recreation. Maybe it is nice knowing for certain you can cover that much ground in a day if'n you really had to, but to do it just cuz it's something to do, that just don't make no sense...
Posted by: Blast

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 06:42 PM

+1 to Benjammin. I wouldn't want to cover 30 miles in a day. I'm out there to drink in the sights/smells. The LAST thing I want is for my time in the woods to end sooner. Power-hiking makes absolutely no sense to me.

That being said, to each their own. They can laugh at me as I dwadle along, I'll laugh at them as they zoom by the pretty butterfly.

-Blast
Posted by: RobertRogers

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 07:22 PM

Not the very Northern Appalachians, where I live. From the Maine / New Hampshire border northward some 300-miles to Mt katahdin is remote and very rugged. A "gone missing" kind of place.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 08:15 PM

Regarding water quality, here are two references (see links below). Now, both of these articles refer to the Sierra Nevada, which, while near and dear to my heart, may not be all that relevant to you, but nevertheless the findings are quite thought provoking.

Paper from 2003

LA Times Article from 2005
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: benjammin
I dunno, it just seems to me folks are trying to find a way to bring their hustle and bustle work life mentality to the hills. Why would anyone want to hike 50-60 miles a day?


Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day. A week, yes, but not in a day. 20 miles is very high mileage in day with an overnight pack. Typically, on a backpack, my goal is 8 - 12 miles for a day. 12 miles can be pretty exhausting depending on the terrain.

Originally Posted By: benjammin
Most of the places I would go to "get away" mean driving up into the hills somewhere, getting out of the truck, and hiking in just about any direction I choose for maybe a mile or so and I am in it.


Cool; glad that works for you. Speaking just for myself, I'll hike more mileage for the following reasons.
-Get away from the crowds and graffitti/garbage
-To get a better sense of the overall area
-To see a variety of terrain, including high altitude, remote terrain inacessible to the general public except by foot.
-To enjoy more frequent wildlife encounters.
Here's some photos from my 4 day backpack in Colorado. Perhaps they will speak for themselves. Jim's Rocky Mountain National Park Backpack

Originally Posted By: benjammin
In this day and age, if you can't get in it without having to cover 50 miles on foot, then methinks you might be trying too hard.


Been to Alaska lately? grin Seriously, one of the great things about the good ol' US of A is that we do have large tracts of wilderness, spots with beautiful things like imposing rock domes, spectacular natural arches, labrynthine caves, and fabulous waterfalls. Sometimes it's neat to visit a fantastic, pristine spot and have it all to yourself. smile




Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 09:28 PM

When I was a boy I would go fishing with my dad (I still do but this story is from when I was young). I asked my dad how dirty the water in the river was. We were well upstream from the city and he told me that a person could likely drink the water straight from the river without an issue...15 minutes later he unzipped and pissed where he stood. I hadn't thought about it until today.
Posted by: LED

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 10:05 PM

Thanks for sharing Jim. Really nice photos.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 11:20 PM

smile
Posted by: cedfire

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 11:28 PM

Yes, very nice photos!
Posted by: widget

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/30/07 11:57 PM

I completely agree with Hiker Jim, getting some lighter gear definately helps this old hiker up the hill! However, when it comes to the silly extremes some people go to to save an ounce, they are pushing the bounds of good sense. As someone else said, you can get by without certain gear for 99 trips and on that 100th outing you get caught in a whiteout blizzard and pay with your life.
The idea of replacing a knife with a razor blade is really ignorant. If you think all you ever need a knife for is to open the foil package on a freeze dried meal, you are not very well informed. You cannot make fuzz sticks, and shelters with a razor blade!
Some of the extreme lightweight hikers are only hiking high traffic trails and count on others to bail them out or they stay out of trouble because they are on "highway trails". If your hiking goal is to carry less, cover 30 miles a day, you are not really taking the time to enjoy the wilderness and the experience.
As for BK magazine, I gave up on it years ago, their content is really bias toward one way of thinking, not necessarily correct either.
Posted by: widget

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 12:06 AM

I will say, out west here there are lots of trails to great places to see and to camp, often they form a loop so you don't have to cover the same ground twice. If you only go in a mile, you can certainly beat the crowd and you should be able to carry about anything. Most of the weekend trips I take are on the 10-15 mile range so I can enjoy the countryside more and enjoy camping out with what I can comfortably carry. I would never hike without a map, compass, knife and water. In Arizona we usually have to carry water for the entire trip, just isn't much water available in some areas.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: widget
I completely agree with Hiker Jim, getting some lighter gear definately helps this old hiker up the hill! However, when it comes to the silly extremes some people go to to save an ounce, they are pushing the bounds of good sense.


Well said. That's exactly the balance I'm trying to strike. My poor tired knees don't take all that weight like they used to. I'm trying to pare down the weight intelligently. No leaching off of others or razor blades instead of knives here.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 12:40 AM

Originally Posted By: widget
I will say, out west here there are lots of trails to great places to see and to camp, often they form a loop so you don't have to cover the same ground twice. If you only go in a mile, you can certainly beat the crowd and you should be able to carry about anything. Most of the weekend trips I take are on the 10-15 mile range so I can enjoy the countryside more and enjoy camping out with what I can comfortably carry. I would never hike without a map, compass, knife and water. In Arizona we usually have to carry water for the entire trip, just isn't much water available in some areas.


Loops are great, aren't they?

Actually, this jogs my memory. One of the reasons I'll do 10+ miles/day with a full pack is that we do have some water here in California. A lot of the time, I will plan my hikes around known water points with camp sites. If the next camp site with a water point is 14 miles, guess how far I'll probably plan to go that day? smile
On a quick overnighter (come in on a Friday after work, exit Saturday afternoon), I can carry all the water I need, but if I'm going out for the full weekend or a three day weekend, no way. I've got to find some water or I'll be staggering. It's often hot and dry here (not quite AZ, but hot and dry enough), and consuming 1.5 gallons per day just for drinking is commonplace. Then add in hygiene, cooking, and dish washing, and you're up to at least two gallons a day in hot weather. 2 gallons = 16+lbs/day. 3 days = 48+ lbs of just water. Add in at least 20 lbs of gear, and I'm pushing 70 lbs. There's no way I can carry that for even one day, let alone 3.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 01:07 AM

"...look at RVers, UGH..."


Hey, I resemble that remark smile smile smile
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 01:20 AM

"...I must have missed that issue..."

If I recall correctly, it was not long after Dorn took over as editor. Must have been at least six or seven years ago, give or take a few years...
Posted by: widget

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim
Originally Posted By: widget
I completely agree with Hiker Jim, getting some lighter gear definately helps this old hiker up the hill! However, when it comes to the silly extremes some people go to to save an ounce, they are pushing the bounds of good sense.


Well said. That's exactly the balance I'm trying to strike. My poor tired knees don't take all that weight like they used to. I'm trying to pare down the weight intelligently. No leaching off of others or razor blades instead of knives here.


I'm 60 and sure feel a heavy pack! I would rather go slower, carry what I need to be safe than carry too little too far!
Posted by: ki7he

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 03:21 AM

Originally Posted By: OldBaldGuy
"...I must have missed that issue..."

If I recall correctly, it was not long after Dorn took over as editor. Must have been at least six or seven years ago, give or take a few years...


If you could find the specific article I'd really like to read it myself so I understand the context in which it was said. I've been reading Backpacker for several years and although I may not agree with everything I generally find it enjoyable. I just have to decide for myself which things I agree with and which I don't (just like most publications). Not that I don't believe you but I do find it hard to believe Dorn would publicly make such an absurd comment. It's one of those things I would have to see for myself. It's hard to comment on without reading the entire article.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 12:28 PM

My comment regarding the stair stepper was meant to be sarcastic; my comment about stressing over a few ounces was not. I'm sure some ultralight guys are in terrific shape. And it doesn't matter to me whether somebody wants to hike 3 miles a day or 20. What I object to is having my tax dollars go towards bailing some dumb cluck's butt out because their ego or laziness drove them to carry inadequate gear. And even if they deserve to be "Darwined", they leave behind family who suffer.

I am hoping that most people who read that piece realize--like the people at this site do--that some of it is bad advice. Maybe the editor is just an idiot or maybe he is trying to boost readership with a little controversy. I know the gun rags used to do that. That's why I quit reading them.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 01:03 PM

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, we would backpack into the Olympics and the Cascades often, usually for a week or so at a time, and averaged about 7 to 10 miles a day with 40 lb packs each. Dad was in his 40s and my brother and I were in our 20s. I've not been up backpacking as much since I started a family, except the occasional elk hunt, which fetches me a good 5-10 miles a day with rifle and gear, probably not 40 lbs anymore, but if I shoot one, then it is a big hump to pack out the quarters all day and night.

I have seen folks up in the same areas jogging the same trail and route in a day that we spent a week on. They pass us going up one day, then pass us going the other way the next. Now we took those trips because it was a nice escape and we had the time and gumption to go take a hike. If you hunt elk, then you can expect to cover many miles a day scouting the herd. In any case, getting up in the "Thules" so to speak need not require an expedtion. That's what I bought a 4WD for. I can get to within walking distance of scenery, terrain, and animals not much different from what you describe and show. The trick is to find those pristine places that aren't so obvious that everyone on the road will stop and trash it out or otherwise crowd it up. I know of several caves around Mt. Adams that are within a couple hundred yards of the main forest service roads. You might never know they were there if someone else hadn't pointed them out, or some such event.

Sometimes I suppose the destination dictates a long hike, other times it just means a tough drive and talking to a few locals. The idea is to just get out and get in it, even if it means the big woods out the back door, but no need to rush it all the time.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: norad45
What I object to is having my tax dollars go towards bailing some dumb cluck's butt out because their ego or laziness drove them to carry inadequate gear.


Here, here.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: widget
I would rather go slower, carry what I need to be safe than carry too little too far!


Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

The trick is to carry enough to take care of yourself but not so much that you actually increase the chances of injury or getting into a survival situation.

I remember a few years ago XC skiing in Sequoia NP. Some people in my group skied with only a fanny pack and a sweater tied around their waist, which seemed reasonable at the start of the trip when it was in the high 30's with clear, sunny skies. We climbed to a pass called Panther Gap (~8500'), and, yes, I had to work a lot harder with my big backpack than the fannypackers. However, while at the gap, the sky clouded up, the temperature plummeted like a stone, and it began to snow. People started seriously freaking out. For a lot of them, with only their sweater tied around their waist to fall back on, it was a shiveringly cold, miserable, frightening experience. For me, I pulled out my sweater, fleece jacket, and GoreTex parka, it was no big deal.
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 05:30 PM

Quote:
What I object to is having my tax dollars go towards bailing some dumb cluck's butt out because their ego or laziness drove them to carry inadequate gear.


In general the ultralightweighters don't usually carry inadequate gear, they usually have the best lightweight gear on the market and they know how to use their gear to its maximum. These guys tend to be pretty clued up and have researched their requirements. They are generally knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the wilderness.

I would have to say that folks who are not used to carrying heavy pack loads are at greater risk of becoming a casualty out in the wilderness. Carrying 50lbs of gear over distances greater than a few miles leads to exhaustion and tiredness. This is when mistakes begin to happen. The FAK carried by most backpackers/bushcrafters/ETS's in most circumstances will not stave of a life threatening issue for a casualty. They are there to provide relief from annoyances such as cuts and grazes (for folks who have fallen over because their pack was to heavy) to treating foot blisters and headaches. A FAK is in fact a rarely used item for experienced outdoors people because they tend not to do silly things out in the wilderness because their brains are'nt starved of oxygen wilst carrying 50lb packs.

The experienced ultralightweighter also have become experienced in means of navigation using a map and compass (GPS's being to heavy). The map may have become a single colour laser copy of the area they plan to navigate (they don't need the additional map legends. They know how to read a map already). They know where they are and know where they are going.

The knife has become a unnecessary insurance burden to the ultralightweighter as a razor blade will suffice to open packets of dehydrated silver foil food packets. Survival is not an issue to the ultralightweighter because they are not in survival mode, they are in trekking mode, they are confident being in the wilderness because they are experienced with the wilderness. (although for a few onces more a good knife becomes a much more flexible tool.)

At the end of the day the difference between the ultralightweight backpacker and the ETSer with the BOB is that ultralightweighter is planning for what lies ahead and for what they know to expect from their outdoor experiences whilst the ETSer is planning for the unknown (a much more difficult proposition).

Rather than condemn, we should learn from the ultralightweighter. (even more so than the military - as they really don't have the knowledge of good efficient camping technique compared to these guys)







Posted by: benjammin

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 06:19 PM

My earlier premise being that Les is more, referring to the 7 day expeditions Les Stroud undertakes with what I would refer to as ultra-ultra light gear and a much greater sense of adventure, those knowledgeable in the ultralight arts are far less numerous than those who are simply under-equipped for the task at hand. Thereto, even the knowledgeable ones are hedging against the risk that they may encounter a situation they too are unprepared for, being geared for the most ideal conditions one could hope for. That being the case, it seems to me that the two biggest things working against the ultralighter concept are their dependence on the good will of their environment and any they might actually encounter, and that for the pace most of them seem to set to get to a destination wherein they find their zen, they overlook the countless miracles along the way. Most trails I travel would require my eyes to be fixated and focused narrowly upon the path before me so as to make sure of my footing, were I to travel at a pace greater than my usual stroll carries me along. Why someone would elect to traverse such magnificent terrain any quicker perplexes me, save for the preservation of life and limb.

Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor
Quote:
What I object to is having my tax dollars go towards bailing some dumb cluck's butt out because their ego or laziness drove them to carry inadequate gear.


In general the ultralightweighters don't usually carry inadequate gear, they usually have the best lightweight gear on the market and they know how to use their gear to its maximum. These guys tend to be pretty clued up and have researched their requirements. They are generally knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the wilderness.

I would have to say that folks who are not used to carrying heavy pack loads are at greater risk of becoming a casualty out in the wilderness. Carrying 50lbs of gear over distances greater than a few miles leads to exhaustion and tiredness. This is when mistakes begin to happen. The FAK carried by most backpackers/bushcrafters/ETS's in most circumstances will not stave of a life threatening issue for a casualty. They are there to provide relief from annoyances such as cuts and grazes (for folks who have fallen over because their pack was to heavy) to treating foot blisters and headaches. A FAK is in fact a rarely used item for experienced outdoors people because they tend not to do silly things out in the wilderness because their brains are'nt starved of oxygen wilst carrying 50lb packs.

The experienced ultralightweighter also have become experienced in means of navigation using a map and compass (GPS's being to heavy). The map may have become a single colour laser copy of the area they plan to navigate (they don't need the additional map legends. They know how to read a map already). They know where they are and know where they are going.

The knife has become a unnecessary insurance burden to the ultralightweighter as a razor blade will suffice to open packets of dehydrated silver foil food packets. Survival is not an issue to the ultralightweighter because they are not in survival mode, they are in trekking mode, they are confident being in the wilderness because they are experienced with the wilderness. (although for a few onces more a good knife becomes a much more flexible tool.)

At the end of the day the difference between the ultralightweight backpacker and the ETSer with the BOB is that ultralightweighter is planning for what lies ahead and for what they know to expect from their outdoor experiences whilst the ETSer is planning for the unknown (a much more difficult proposition).

Rather than condemn, we should learn from the ultralightweighter. (even more so than the military - as they really don't have the knowledge of good efficient camping technique compared to these guys)


I hear you.

Some of these ultralight guys are true pros (Andrew Skurka) who are very experienced and research the heck out of things. Each to his own, but the reason I don't go that route is you have so little to fall back on if a component fails or you encounter the unexpected. These guys often really push the edge, and in so doing potentially place a burden on others. I once ran into an ultralight type on the summit of Mt. Baden-Powell (9399') who was completely out of water -- he had only brought 1.5L for a double digit mileage hike. The next water was about 6 miles and he was already a little dehydrated. I gave him 1L of my water -- which meant that my margin of safety was reduced.

Some read about the very latest fad (ultralight hiking), buy the gear, and go out without really knowing what they're doing. It's these ultralighters and the just plain ignorant that have never even heard of the 10 essentials* that I have a little bit of grace for. They just don't know any better.

However, there are those who should know better yet fail to take proper gear either due to laziness, excessive ambition, or outright negligence. These I have little tolerance for and would be perfectly happy to see them charged for any SAR efforts on their behalf.

*ETS isn't a hiking forum, so a word of explanation:
The ten essentials is a list of items that was compiled some time ago after surveying rangers, SAR personnel, etc. Each was asked for a list of items that, had they been present, would have either prevented or ameliorated situations that they had encountered on the job. Using these lists, they compiled 10 items that were in common list after list. They are:
map
compass
light
sun protection
extra clothing
extra food and water
matches (or other ignition source)
fire starter (tinder)
knife
first aid kit
Posted by: Glock-A-Roo

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: norad45
...What I object to is having my tax dollars go towards bailing some dumb cluck's butt out because their ego or laziness drove them to carry inadequate gear...


I would object to that too... if it applied to true ultralight hikers, which was the focus of the magazine article. Look through the real-life threads here at ETS where people got into trouble and needed a rescue. Were the victims ultralighters? None that I have read.

I disagree w/ not taking a map, etc too but if you're going to complain about tax dollars, show me a real ultralighter who cost you some tax dollars, not a know-nothing tourist who hadn't a clue about anything (i.e. James Kim).

This reminds me of how so many uninformed people blame "climbers" in Yosemite for SAR costs. The vast, vast majority of SAR cases there are hapless tourists & hikers, not technical climbers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 08:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Glock-A-Roo
...which was the focus of the magazine article.


When I read the article my perception was that it was aimed at anybody with a 'Here's 10 things anybody can do to cut weight!' message...which is the thing that concerns me because ultra light hiking is NOT for everybody.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 08:07 PM

Quote:
Look through the real-life threads here at ETS where people got into trouble and needed a rescue. Were the victims ultralighters? None that I have read.

I disagree w/ not taking a map, etc too but if you're going to complain about tax dollars, show me a real ultralighter who cost you some tax dollars, not a know-nothing tourist who hadn't a clue about anything...


I don't know if scanning the ETS threads would give you the proper perspective on something like this. I live in the Rocky Mountain west. I frequently read about hikers who have gone missing and are later presumed or found dead. Many of them have one thing in common: they are described as "experienced hikers." The articles don't say whether or not they were "real ultralighters". I suspect that more than a few of the dead guys thought they were. I guess maybe they were wrong--or maybe they were carrying razor blades instead of knives, or figured they didn't need a map or water. frown
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Hacksaw
When I read the article my perception was that it was aimed at anybody with a 'Here's 10 things anybody can do to cut weight!' message...


I read the article on Monday night, and that was my impression too. It was a sort of "let's everyone learn lessons from the ultralighters" article.

One of my complaints with BP magazine is that they often trivialize serious things. In a recent first aid article, they said, in conjunction with bee stings, something about "treat for anaphlyactic shock." Um, really helpful there guys. No mention of how to recognize anaphlyactic shock, how serious (life threatening) it is, or how to treat it.

In this "learn from the ultralighters" article, there was no mention of the potential consequences of a choosing a razor blade vs. a knife. The idea of carrying empty water bottles did not stress the importance of intensely scrutinizing and planning your route around water (personally, I always carry at least a liter even on hikes where I know there will be water up ahead). And the idea of not carrying a map is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What if you are forced to alter your route? (e.g. there's a section of the PCT near me that is closed) How do you check the distance to your next water point so you'll know how much you need to carry? What if a trail sign is missed, missing, or vandalized? I once missed a signed trail junction in the dark, and soon said, "this doesn't feel right," to myself. I pulled out my topo, shot a bearing on the trail and then compared it to the bearing on map. I was on the wrong trail! Thank God I had a topo. The wrong trail would have led me miles in the wrong direction, potentially into a survival situation. No topo, no real basis for making such a decision, truly a shot in the dark.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 10/31/07 08:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Glock-A-Roo


I would object to that too... if it applied to true ultralight hikers ...


I echo that thought. My criticism is toward BP magazine for presenting such ideas to a general audience without any discussion of the potential consequences of adopting the practices described. The way it was written acted as though there were no risk involved at all.

As to climbers and ultralighters themselves, every one has to make their own choices as to what is too much and what is too little in terms of gear. I respect that some will choose differently than I would choose and wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's freedom.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 01:43 AM

That is my experience and observation as well. Most ultralighters have no back up plan if something goes wrong. I've seen a number of them shake down their packs:

-no medical, or a business card piece of molskin and a couple feet of duct tape
-no firestarter, or a book of paper matches with half the matches and most of the jacket torn off to save weight
-less than liter of water
-no water purification, FOLLOWING A RIVER WITH BEAVER DAMS EVERY MILE (yes, I know I'm shouting- it is frustration)
-no whistle, no mirror
-no rain gear, or they cut down their ponchos to the point their legs weren't covered
-wearing shorts, nylon socks and tevas (in October in the Green and White Mountains)
-everything is made out of ultralight material that can't take going off the trail- I watched on pack literally come apart as the user tried cut through a rasberry thicket

They are fine if everything goes according to plan. If it doesn't, and they can't hike out to a town where their cut down credit card is accepted, they are in deep something. I've got no problem with lightening the load, so long as you don't eject your common sense in the process. Reading various websites and forums and listening to conversations at outdoors shops, it seems like too many of these guys are in a race to see who can furthest with the lightest and win the title of the baddest dude on the trail.
I take a lot of tips from them, but you won't see me using a pack that is made of material so thin it is translucent or failing to have the means to execute Plan B.
Posted by: SwampDonkey

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 02:12 AM

I agree with you ironraven about ultralighters not having a back-up plan.

I have never dealt with ultralight hikers (we just do not have the trails here) but I have a lot of exposure with wilderness canoe groups including youth groups. These are usually terrific people with lots of experience, but what I find they are missing is a means to contact the outside world if something goes wrong (eg smashed canoe) or if someone gets seriously sick or injured.

Most file good trip plans but do not carry a satellite phone, PLB, or even basic signal tools such as a mirror or flares. They also do not usually carry any simple incoming communication devices like an FM or weather radio so they are unaware of impending storms or fire dangers/restrictions.

In todays world of available high-tech communication I would not allow my child to venture off on a wilderness trip without the group having some form of outgoing emergency communication.

My opinion,

Mike
Posted by: teacher

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 02:41 AM

Backpacker also carried an article on fasting while hiking called
"walking on water."
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 05:32 AM

Now that really is nuts. What kind of advice is that?
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: SwampDonkey
Most file good trip plans but do not carry a satellite phone, PLB, or even basic signal tools such as a mirror or flares. They also do not usually carry any simple incoming communication devices like an FM or weather radio so they are unaware of impending storms or fire dangers/restrictions.


Hmm. I've been hiking and backpacking for quite a long time, including with groups such as the Sierra Club. I've never seen anyone carry a sat phone or PLB. I have seen people carry avvy beacons, and carrying a cell phone is common place (yes, I do know they're not very reliable). Now mirrors and whistles are a different matter. That's pretty standard gear with the serious hikers I've met. Flares are a pretty big no no here in Calif. This place is a tinder box much of the time. I believe we got less than 3" of rain last season. I also haven't seen FM or wx radios. The only radios I have seen are the little two way ones, some of which do have the wx band. FM radio doesn't work worth a darn in the backcountry.

Just reflecting on what's common practice out there. Pretty hard to carry it all when you're really backpacking, not just taking short trips.
Posted by: Glock-A-Roo

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim
...My criticism is toward BP magazine for presenting such ideas to a general audience without any discussion of the potential consequences of adopting the practices described. The way it was written acted as though there were no risk involved at all...


Great point, Jim; I concur. The magazine treats serious issues with a hand wave then moves on to "buy this new SUV!". What a load. BTW I absolutely loved the photo series from your big hike this summer.

I also agree w/ the notion of UL guys really riding the razor's edge (pun intended!) where any nontrivial "oh shiite!" situation is a recipe for disaster. Another climbing reference is apropos here: free soloists, those who climb 5.x terrain with no ropes or protection at all. They very rarely screw up, but when they do it is final. But again, they rarely cost taxpayers much $$$ beyond a simple body recovery... if the pieces can be found.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Glock-A-Roo
I also agree w/ the notion of UL guys really riding the razor's edge (pun intended!) where any nontrivial "oh shiite!" situation is a recipe for disaster.


There are shiites on the trail?? shocked Wow, and here I thought I was prepared for everything. smile

Glad you liked the pics.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: ....wild suggestions & sacred categories - 11/01/07 02:56 PM

Originally Posted By: NightHiker
If I come across their remains in the wilderness I'll mark their position on both my map and GPS and rummage through their gear to see if there's anything I can use. wink


Just watch out for the razor blades. grin
Posted by: frenchy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim

Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day. A week, yes, but not in a day. 20 miles is very high mileage in day with an overnight pack. Typically, on a backpack, my goal is 8 - 12 miles for a day. 12 miles can be pretty exhausting depending on the terrain.


La Diagonale des Fous (literally = the diagonal of the insane !!)
for the 2007 session, the length was 150km (about 93 miles)and the winner took all of 23h and 33 minutes to cover it.
And that's not on flat land : starting at sea level, runing thru passes at over 3000m, arriving at sea level... about 8700m of total ascents...

Granted : that's not hiking !! And those guys - and gals - are indeed insane, crazy, mad, and anything you want to name it !!
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 04:29 PM

[quote=frenchy
La Diagonale des Fous (literally = the diagonal of the insane !!)
for the 2007 session, the length was 150km (about 93 miles)and the winner took all of 23h and 33 minutes to cover it.
And that's not on flat land : starting at sea level, running thru passes at over 3000m, arriving at sea level... about 8700m of total ascents...

Granted : that's not hiking !! And those guys - and gals - are indeed insane, crazy, mad, and anything you want to name it !! [/quote]

shocked Wow. Yeah there are those Ultra Marathon types out there. I was just referring to us mere mortals. smile

Oh, and I'll be running like that real soon. Oh, yeah, I will.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 05:50 PM

The APT takes 5 to 6 months to thru-hike. That's at most 14 miles a day on average. I'm sure it's more complex than that but it's definitely not 50-60.
Posted by: SwampDonkey

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/01/07 07:17 PM

Hi Jim,

I have hiked with both a Sat. Phone and PLB (plus traditional signals) but only on short duration trips, I agree with you they are heavy and very rarely needed; but put one to use in an emergency situation (especially involving one of your children or children you are responsible for) and they are light as a feather.

Most of my long distance trips involve canoeing where the extra weight of these electronic devices is negligible on the portages.

Judging by the news reports of the fire situation in Calif. right now it is no wonder flares are banned! Flares are not banned in Ontario but fireworks are banned in our Parks. Northern Ontario is a world of interconnecting waterways, we often have Restricted Fire Zones areas declared due to dry conditions but a flare shot over a lake to summons help in an emergency is an appropriate action (everyone who fires a flare is still responsible to be sure the remains are extinguished).

The backcountry areas I frequent have decent FM radio coverage, especially at night to find out about approaching bad weather or forest fire alerts; some local radio stations even have a service called "Campers Call" that allows people to broadcast short messages to others in the field. Cell phone coverage is iffy but for some reason in certain remote places it works?

The reason I bring up the topic of wilderness communication equipment is due to the frequency each year in our area that emergencies occur in remote locations and there is no quick, reliable means of outgoing contact with authorities.

Good discussion,

Mike
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: SwampDonkey
I have hiked with both a Sat. Phone and PLB (plus traditional signals) but only on short duration trips, I agree with you they are heavy and very rarely needed; but put one to use in an emergency situation ... and they are light as a feather.


Boy, and howdy; you've got that right. I sure wish I'd had something along on this one day hike that I did in 1984. My day hike turned out to be a three day hike with two unplanned bivvies in the wild. Guess where some of my "penchant for preparedness" comes from?

Question: How much did you pay for your Sat Phone and PLB? How much is monthly service. I've seen ads, and they've always been a lot of money.

Originally Posted By: SwampDonkey
The backcountry areas I frequent have decent FM radio coverage, especially at night to find out about approaching bad weather or forest fire alerts; some local radio stations even have a service called "Campers Call" that allows people to broadcast short messages to others in the field. Cell phone coverage is iffy but for some reason in certain remote places it works?


The good FM coverage you have may be due to terrain. I think it's a litte flatter in N. Ontario than here in California where we have mountains that go up to 14,500'. When you're in one of the canyons between peaks, FM radios and cell phones are dead, dead, dead. However, on many summits, FM radios and cell phones get some coverage, albeit spotty. One time I was on a summit in S. Nevada and picked up a Southern California cell tower. Talk about line of sight!

Originally Posted By: SwampDonkey
The reason I bring up the topic of wilderness communication equipment is due to the frequency each year in our area that emergencies occur in remote locations and there is no quick, reliable means of outgoing contact with authorities.


Wish I'd had one on my 2001 ski trip to Alberta. Went backcountry skiing and fell and fx my right femur. People hiked out for help, but that took a while. I sat in the snow, in shock, for two or three hours. A PLB or Sat phone would've been mighty handy.

Originally Posted By: SwampDonkey
Good discussion,
Mike


absolutely
Posted by: verber

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 05:30 PM

I regularly read the articles here, but haven’t participated in the forum community. I registered to comment on this thread cause a friend I introduced to equipped poked me.

A couple of specific responses:

(1) Hiker Jim said "Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day.". Well Jim, there are a few people I know who have done this... thought most were typically doing their 200+ miles as an ultra-marathon with support stations rather than as a more traditional hike. There are plenty of ultralighters who do 30-40 miles / day for an extended period of time. Several have done one of the long trails likes the PCT with an average speed on ~30 miles / day which includes rest days and stopping to resupply. These folks do hit 50 miles on some of their longer / faster days. Personally, I won't go this fast because I doubt I am capable of that rate of travel, but also because I found that I like 15-20 miles in a day. More than that seems rushed.

(2) ironraven suggested that "Most ultralighters have no back up plan if something goes wrong." That is not the case with most of the ultralighters I know, and I know a lot having been part of that community for something like seven years. Admittedly, sometimes the backup plan is to "be cold and wet"... but not so cold or wet that it puts the person at serious risk given the conditions. All of the ultralighter I know or have corresponded with bring firestartering materials... though sometimes the firestarting material might have other uses. I know of no ultralighter who carries less than 1L of water unless they are someplace that has an abundance of water. Most ultralighters I know do use some sort of purification (aqua mira seems to be the most common), though some forgo purification in placed deemed to be low risk. As was cited earlier, there is some decent evident that the water is pretty safe in some locations without purifying. I have talked with several backcountry rangers in the sierras (carrying heavyweight packs) who have forgone purifying their water for years without a single incident. Not having rain gear over their legs and wearing shorts? Guilty on some trips because when I am on an ultralight hike, I spend pretty much all my time hiking. While I am hiking I am warm enough without pants or rain gear. Remember, your legs are pretty much waterproof and dry very quick, and wearing shorts avoids getting pants wet which take a long time to dry. So I am active until I stop, I quickly set of my shelter, dry my legs, and then put on additional clothing and/or get under my sleeping quilt. As to everything is made from ultralight materials that can't take off trail use... Well, sort of depends where they are hiking. If folks are hiking on trail those "ultralight" materials are good enough. There are several people who have 6000+ miles on one of those <1lb silnylon backpacks. I would say that not bad. There are plenty of ultralighters who do go cross country. Many ultralights switch from the gossamer spinnaker cloth or light silnylon to something like dyneema grid, 100% spectra, or VX-21 core fabrics.

Now to general issues.... There has been a lot of misconceptions about ultralight backpackers on this thread. Sure, there are some wildly irresponsible ultralighters who don’t bring what they need and might really be putting their lives as risk… but this is rare, and I think it has nothing to do with “ultralighting”. It has to do with some people being stupid… hence things like the Darwin awards. Several times I have helps ill-equipped people get out of the back country. It's never been an ultralighter. It has been heavy-weight packers who exceeded their ability to cope (and didn't plan well), or folks who hiked in 10 miles with a cooler filled with beer and potato chips, and a blanket over their shoulder, and realized they were in trouble as night started to fall.

First, I would like to remind everyone that life is risky. Complete safety is an illusion, and even if it wasn't, it would be so bore that I wouldn't want it. Life involves risks, what is important is to balance the risk/reward tradeoff. Some ultralighters might be willing to accept a bit more risk to achieve their goals than people on this thread are comfortable with... but I think the risks they are taking is actually smaller than the risks they take crossing a busy street in the city.

Second, lets make sure we separate "safety" from "comfort". It is possible to be uncomfortable, even in pain, but still be safe. All the ultralighters I know are extremely thoughtful individuals who are aware, typically based on extensive experience, of what is needed to be reasonable safe, and don't step over that boundary. Many ultralighter are willing to forgo some amount comfort to achieve their goals. Pick any sport or activity and you will find highly regarded individuals who felt it was worth some discomfort to push the boundaries. For example, the teenage Jack Nicholas practiced his swings even after his hands bled for the activity. There was some risk... for example his abused hands ran a great risk of getting and infection... but that was a modest risk and worth the payoff to him. Likewise, ultralight hikers typically take reasonable risks which might leave them uncomfortable in some situations, but not at an unusually high risk level.

Third, just because an ultralighter isn't bring enough stuff for YOU to feel comfortable doesn't means that they are uncomfortable. I like my comfort. I spend most of my time on my feet hiking. Typically the only thing I do in camp is sleep. So for me, comfort is mostly about the hiking... less stuff is more comfort. In camp, comfort is about being warm, dry, and getting a good night sleep. For me, a tarp, down quilt, and on most trips and insulated air mattress provides that and weights less than 3lbs.

Fourth, my experience with survival, first aid, staying safe, etc... is that the most important item is your brain. I have seem people with a pile of stuff get themselves in a world of hurt because they didn't think. I have seen people with what I thought too little stuff do better than anyone else when facing a challenging situation. At it's core, ultralight is about using knowledge, techniques, and experience to leave stuff behind that isn't needed.

So how does this all work out? Let me give one small example. I have been on several trips where people were sure I didn't have enough clothing, and worse, I had what they though was a completely inadequate 1lb down quilt to sleep under. They were sure I was going to be cold. They were wrong. Why? First, I have learned that I run a bit hotter than some people, but more to the point, I had learned through careful observations what I need to start warm and comfortable. Like maybe people who switch to an ultralight style, I started out carefully. I would commit myself to use what I thought was the right "ultralight" mix of clothing, but I brought a drybag with "emergency" clothing that I would take out if I moved from uncomfortable to "at risk". I was willing to be chilled so I would know what MY comfort range was given physical environment, clothing, and my physiological condition. [One of the things I learned was not eating enough of being really tired meant I needed more insulation.] If you don't push into uncomfortable you don't really know what your limits are. If you are unwilling to stay uncomfortable for a while you won't learn how quickly you acclimatize (some people takes weeks, others days). After carefully monitoring my comfort, conditions, and gear, I have dialed in exactly what I need to be comfortable for a given set of conditions including a safety margin which takes into consideration the variance a specific location is likely to have. This didn't happen over night. It involved a fair amount of research, experience, and experimentation. To me it's worth it. In my overly prepared days I carried a 60lb pack and I found 10 mile / day trips exhausting and painful, but worth it because of the places I got to see. These days I am carrying a 10-30lb pack depending on conditions and length of trip, can easy hiking 20 miles in a day without feeling fatigued. One of my notes on this can be found linked into http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/


--Mark

Posted by: Blast

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 05:50 PM

Mark,

Welcome to the fire, excellent first post. It sounds like you/your friends are the sort of ultralighters that we can admire.

Our main problem with the Backpacker magazine article is that we fear it'll cause people without your level of experience to shed gear without replacing it with knowledge. That's a situation which could lead to a lot of misery.

You are definately right about a majority of people in need of rescue are either the totally un-equipped or standard-gear hikers. I have to wonder though if the standard-gear hikers need more rescues because there are more of them?

I think it all boils down to, "Don't be stupid in the woods."

Wow, did I really just write that?

-Blast
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 06:40 PM

Welcome to ETS! What do you think of the article that is the subject of this thread? Your post indicates that you carry at least 1 liter of water. Do you also carry a real knife, or have you switched it for a razor blade? And when in unfamiliar territory, do you carry a map and compass?
Posted by: ducktapeguy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: verber


Now to general issues.... There has been a lot of misconceptions about ultralight backpackers on this thread....... because an ultralighter isn't bring enough stuff for YOU to feel comfortable doesn't means that they are uncomfortable.

--Mark



Finally, someone with some sense. I had been reading this thread since the beginning wondering how many of the people criticizing this article had ANY experience with ultralight hiking, or even regular hiking in general? Seems like they're quick to jump on the bandwagon in the bashing if someone even remotely suggest not carrying a piece of equipment they have. There is a lot of criticism based on assumption and just plain misinformation. Sadly, it also seems like the general tone of this forum has shifted more into the "more gear = more prepared" territory, with a lot opinions from keyboard commandos sitting in front of their computer screens. Before people with start commenting on the stupidity of other people's choices, it might be helpful if they were more knowledgeable on the subject.

I am probably the furthest thing you can get from an ultralight hiker, but that's a personal choice. I carry some gear just because it makes me feel comfortable, not necessarily because I need to. For example, I always carry a fixed blade knife with me at all times, but in the last couple decades, I have never really NEEDED to use it. Yes I've used it, but using it is different than needing it. I could have easily adapted without it. Same with my first aid kit, my space blanket, my firesteel and a lot of other gear. I could get along fine without most any of it, even in an emergency, I will find a way to make do without it. The only reason I really carry equipment is to make me feel better, so I'm not going to criticize someone who chooses to go without it. I know there are people out there who would fare much better than me in a survival situation with much less equipment, if they've got the knowledge and experience to do that, I'd rather learn from them rather than making fun of them.




Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 07:38 PM

Hello, Mark, and welcome.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I think that "ultralight backpacking" spans an enormous range of people and techniques (so does "survival" for that matter). Some of it borders on nuttiness; most of it is a worthwhile endeavour.

Loads can be pared down quite a lot based on experience, diligent research, and planning.

I've been solo backpacking for a couple of decades, and I think the "solo" part makes me more conservative than some. I'll pare away every possible ounce (an endless obsession with backpackers); but I want a stout safety margin in case something goes wrong, in case of a freak snowfall, an injury, etc. etc.

Posted by: verber

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 08:34 PM

I actually haven't read the article in question. I pretty much gave up on backpacker mag several years ago. Rarely have I found anything useful in the articles and have been very disappointed with their gear reviews.

Lets see... to answer the questions:

Carry 1L of water? There have been a couple of trips that I didn't carry any water... I knew a lot about the water supply and was following a system of river and lakes for whole hike. I would walk the short distance to the rivers edge and dip my cup in. Seriously though, I almost always start out carrying >=1.5L. How much depends on the water sources and the conditions (largerly temp). I normally have around .5L left in my pack when I get to the water source I plan to fill up at. When I was figuring out my water consumption rates I would sometimes hit a water source dry, but that hasn't happened for several years. If perceive a high risk of running out of water... e.g. I am in dessert conditions, have reason to believe that the water source is unreliable, or there is a large distance to the next water source if the one I planned on using was bad for some reason then I will bring enough water to give me a safety margin. The worst case was a hike that had be starting out with 8L and not dropping below 2L frown

Knife? I tried an experiment with using just a razer blade.. it was really annoying and not worth the weight savings. Most of the time I take my EDC, a Victorininox Rambler. I sometimes add a Benchmade 530 or Opinel if I am doing fancy cooking that needs a longer blade. In days gone past I would bring a full tang fix blade survival knife. I haven't done this for years. As an ultralighter... I always have my pack so it's unlikely I will need to improvise a shelter etc. On trips that are serious off the beaten trail and it would take a week for people to even know I am missing I would rent a PLB and not worry about living off the land for weeks.

Map & Compass? Compass always. I can imagine places that I would consider not taking a map. For example sections of Yosemite where the trails are like super highways and the landmarks are pretty hard to miss, or places where you are so close to urban (like the sky to sea trail on the california coast) with a road almost always within earshot frown. Seriously though... a map is light and very useful. I think it's a silly way to save weight. When I don't expect navigation to be tricky I would print out what I was interested in on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of the National Geo paper. If I go cross country I typically carry a full map of the area because I might end up having to deviate from my original plan.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/02/07 11:18 PM

Welcome Verber.

I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree. I base my opinion what I've seen over the past 15 years as a short hiker and hunter in the Greens and Whites, and as someone who grew up here. Cold-wet is not a back up plan- it what you put on a tombstone. Too many times I've heard the back up plan is to "power through it"- yes, a great plan. Particularly with leg injuries caused by light ice on rocks or among leaves. I don't care how "hot" you "run"- under prepared is under prepared. You're gear is a life support machine, and I see too often too little safety margin. I was walking a path not three hundred yards from my parent's house this time of year once, slipped, tried to catch myself, and dislocated my knee- and was so hypothermic that I couldn't talk straight after dragging myself home. This was in my backyard, within what would be shouting distance for most people- halfway up Washington is a really bad place to have that happen, you can have a thirty degree and 20mph difference between bottom and top. In those conditions, right now you get freeze fog without too much difficulty, and there is no one those trails during the week right now; this time of a year, most ultralighters who's packs I've seen are probably dead men if it doesn't go according to plan.

And it isn't just a matter of brains. There was a former Air Force survival instructor who died that way not too far from where I'm sitting. Slipped crossing a brook, went in the water during deer season. His fire lighter was one I've seen on a lot of ultralighter's packing lists- paper matches. He was found the next spring. He had the skills, he thought he was good enough to compensate for junk equipment.

Maybe you are the exception, but around here, I've seen too many people who are geared up as ultralighters who seem to have left their brains at home. A lot of it is good gear, I use quite a bit of it, but when one weighs everything and brags about how light they are loaded, I have to really question the planning. I'll be the first one to admit I'm not a UL'er, but I'm usually alone and weight is a factor. To me, "ultralight" is as much a mentality as it is a matter of gear, and it is a mentality akin to the guys who strip everything out of a car to get that extra five miles of top speed out of it and put slicks on as road tires. Maybe I haven't been fortunate enough to work with a true ultralighter, in which case I'll apologize. But it will be a personal apology to an exception, not a general one.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:22 AM

Quote:
You're gear is a life support machine, and I see too often too little safety margin.


I think you are on to something. I keep thinking about Aron Ralston. That guy (appropriately) got a lot of grief on this website. He broke about every survival rule there was--but at least he had a knife of some sort on him when he needed it.

I wonder if he would have been able to physically do what he did with just a razor blade?
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:23 AM

Originally Posted By: verber

(1) Hiker Jim said "Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day.". Well Jim, there are a few people I know who have done this... thought most were typically doing their 200+ miles as an ultra-marathon with support stations rather than as a more traditional hike. There are plenty of ultralighters who do 30-40 miles / day for an extended period of time. Several have done one of the long trails likes the PCT with an average speed on ~30 miles / day which includes rest days and stopping to resupply. These folks do hit 50 miles on some of their longer / faster days. Personally, I won't go this fast because I doubt I am capable of that rate of travel, but also because I found that I like 15-20 miles in a day. More than that seems rushed.


Well, then I stand corrected. smile Still, I think even 30 mile days are fairly rare (in backpacking, not talking about Ultras here), particularly as an average. Yes, I have heard of "Flyin' Brian," the man who did the PCT, AT, and CDT all in one season. (Amazing!) I think my point in saying, "Well, for the record no one that I've ever heard of does 50 - 60 miles in a day," was more to bring hiking mileages into a more realistic range. A lot of non hikers don't know that a 10 mile hike is a pretty good hike with 40 - 50 lbs on one's back. If you're routinely doing 15 - 20 mile days, my hat's off to you. Anything over 15 in a day with an overnight pack is an accomplishment in my book. The ultralight thing seems to be paying off for you.

Originally Posted By: verber

Now to general issues.... There has been a lot of misconceptions about ultralight backpackers on this thread. Sure, there are some wildly irresponsible ultralighters who don’t bring what they need and might really be putting their lives as risk… but this is rare, and I think it has nothing to do with “ultralighting”. It has to do with some people being stupid… hence things like the Darwin awards. Several times I have helps ill-equipped people get out of the back country. It's never been an ultralighter. It has been heavy-weight packers who exceeded their ability to cope (and didn't plan well), or folks who hiked in 10 miles with a cooler filled with beer and potato chips, and a blanket over their shoulder, and realized they were in trouble as night started to fall.


Definitely. The people who are typically the biggest problem are the ones who don't know what they're doing at all. This summer, I ran into a ~50 y.o. woman taking her first backpack. She was at about 11,000 ft. and had just come down from 12,500. That's a heck of a beginner's hike! She was an REI employee, had bought a bunch of stuff, put it in a big pack, and off she went. She was in really bad shape, stumbling and on the point of collapse. My friend and I split up her load and walked her down to her campsite. We thought her pack was really heavy and both of us are 6' tall, experienced hikers.

Originally Posted By: verber

First, I would like to remind everyone that life is risky. Complete safety is an illusion, and even if it wasn't, it would be so bore that I wouldn't want it. Life involves risks, what is important is to balance the risk/reward tradeoff. Some ultralighters might be willing to accept a bit more risk to achieve their goals than people on this thread are comfortable with... but I think the risks they are taking is actually smaller than the risks they take crossing a busy street in the city.


I think I'd agree with you there. Each person has to make his/her own assessment. I feel uncomfortable with a blanket statement like, "anyone who goes out without a fixed blade knife is an idiot." Everyone needs to come to terms with their own risk assesment and response.

Originally Posted By: verber

All the ultralighters I know are extremely thoughtful individuals who are aware, typically based on extensive experience...


Yeah, it's not the experienced guys like you that I worry about. You guys know what's what, how to improvise, etc. My main criticism of the Backpacker Magazine article is that there was no discussion of the pros and cons, what the trade offs are in carrying lighter gear, not carrying maps or water, etc. The article was presented as though risk wasn't an issue. My fear is that people new to backpacking will read articles like this, head out without really knowing what they need, and, like the woman I mentioned above, get themselves into real trouble. I think BP Magazine could do a better job.

Originally Posted By: verber

Third, just because an ultralighter isn't bring enough stuff for YOU to feel comfortable doesn't means that they are uncomfortable. I like my comfort. I spend most of my time on my feet hiking. Typically the only thing I do in camp is sleep. So for me, comfort is mostly about the hiking... less stuff is more comfort. In camp, comfort is about being warm, dry, and getting a good night sleep. For me, a tarp, down quilt, and on most trips and insulated air mattress provides that and weights less than 3lbs.


Well, with a tarp only, how does one prevent one's down quilt from becoming wet in a serious rain storm. Wet down = misery; I say that from hard experience. I'm asking this seriously; that question was not intended as criticism. I was in a T-Storm like you wouldn't believe at 11,000+ feet this summer. Hail pelting so hard I drew my arms in around my chest instead of using trekking poles because it just hurt too much to have my arms horizontal. When I got back to camp (we had been on a peak bagging side trip), the rain had been so intense that mud was splashed 3/4 of the way up the rain fly. Inside? Our bags were bone try (THANK, GOD!). In an open ended tarp, would not a quilt become sodden?


Originally Posted By: verber

Fourth, my experience with survival, first aid, staying safe, etc... is that the most important item is your brain. I have seem people with a pile of stuff get themselves in a world of hurt because they didn't think. I have seen people with what I thought too little stuff do better than anyone else when facing a challenging situation. At it's core, ultralight is about using knowledge, techniques, and experience to leave stuff behind that isn't needed.


I heartily agree. All the gear in the world won't help you if you lose your head or panic. Still, there's a balance to be had. Drop a man in the middle of a snowy forest in only his street clothes, and he's going to be in trouble (well, maybe if he's a smoker he'd have a lighter and could start a fire). Absolutely, the clever, those with ingenuity, those who stay cool are the ones who survive, but I'm going to suggest that a certain basic minimum of gear is equally important.

Originally Posted By: verber

So how does this all work out? Let me give one small example. I have been on several trips where people were sure I didn't have enough clothing, and worse, I had what they though was a completely inadequate 1lb down quilt to sleep under. They were sure I was going to be cold. They were wrong. Why? First, I have learned that I run a bit hotter than some people, but more to the point, I had learned through careful observations what I need to start warm and comfortable. Like maybe people who switch to an ultralight style, I started out carefully. I would commit myself to use what I thought was the right "ultralight" mix of clothing, but I brought a drybag with "emergency" clothing that I would take out if I moved from uncomfortable to "at risk". I was willing to be chilled so I would know what MY comfort range was given physical environment, clothing, and my physiological condition. [One of the things I learned was not eating enough of being really tired meant I needed more insulation.] If you don't push into uncomfortable you don't really know what your limits are. If you are unwilling to stay uncomfortable for a while you won't learn how quickly you acclimatize (some people takes weeks, others days). After carefully monitoring my comfort, conditions, and gear, I have dialed in exactly what I need to be comfortable for a given set of conditions including a safety margin which takes into consideration the variance a specific location is likely to have.


Yes, and that's just the kind of experimentation that makes me not worry about guys like you. I'm much more worried about the yahoos who go down to K mart, get some cheap crap, and head out into the woods in blue jeans and a cotton T shirt. Them and perhaps a yuppie who wants to get into backpacking, goes and buys the latest gear and goes out with no real idea of what he or she is doing. Giving advice in a magazine that one can go out into the woods without a map with out a word of caution makes me very uncomfortable. A simple admonition to the effect of, "don't try this until after you've been out a few times and are comfortable in the back country," would be a lot more responsible to my view.

Originally Posted By: verber

This didn't happen over night. It involved a fair amount of research, experience, and experimentation.


Yeah, I've spent a few cold nights out there when trying something new. Sometimes it really is "no pain, no gain."


Originally Posted By: verber

To me it's worth it. In my overly prepared days I carried a 60lb pack and I found 10 mile / day trips exhausting and painful, but worth it because of the places I got to see. These days I am carrying a 10-30lb pack depending on conditions and length of trip, can easy hiking 20 miles in a day without feeling fatigued. One of my notes on this can be found linked into http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/


20 miles in a day with out feeling fatigued is quite an acheivement.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:26 AM

Quote:
I actually haven't read the article in question. I pretty much gave up on backpacker mag several years ago. Rarely have I found anything useful in the articles and have been very disappointed with their gear reviews.

Lets see... to answer the questions:

Carry 1L of water? There have been a couple of trips that I didn't carry any water... I knew a lot about the water supply and was following a system of river and lakes for whole hike. I would walk the short distance to the rivers edge and dip my cup in. Seriously though, I almost always start out carrying >=1.5L. How much depends on the water sources and the conditions (largerly temp). I normally have around .5L left in my pack when I get to the water source I plan to fill up at. When I was figuring out my water consumption rates I would sometimes hit a water source dry, but that hasn't happened for several years. If perceive a high risk of running out of water... e.g. I am in dessert conditions, have reason to believe that the water source is unreliable, or there is a large distance to the next water source if the one I planned on using was bad for some reason then I will bring enough water to give me a safety margin. The worst case was a hike that had be starting out with 8L and not dropping below 2L

Knife? I tried an experiment with using just a razer blade.. it was really annoying and not worth the weight savings. Most of the time I take my EDC, a Victorininox Rambler. I sometimes add a Benchmade 530 or Opinel if I am doing fancy cooking that needs a longer blade. In days gone past I would bring a full tang fix blade survival knife. I haven't done this for years. As an ultralighter... I always have my pack so it's unlikely I will need to improvise a shelter etc. On trips that are serious off the beaten trail and it would take a week for people to even know I am missing I would rent a PLB and not worry about living off the land for weeks.

Map & Compass? Compass always. I can imagine places that I would consider not taking a map. For example sections of Yosemite where the trails are like super highways and the landmarks are pretty hard to miss, or places where you are so close to urban (like the sky to sea trail on the california coast) with a road almost always within earshot frown. Seriously though... a map is light and very useful. I think it's a silly way to save weight. When I don't expect navigation to be tricky I would print out what I was interested in on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of the National Geo paper. If I go cross country I typically carry a full map of the area because I might end up having to deviate from my original plan.



Then we are in absolute agreement. I hope you stick around and contribute more! smile
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By: verber
I actually haven't read the article in question. I pretty much gave up on backpacker mag several years ago. Rarely have I found anything useful in the articles and have been very disappointed with their gear reviews.

Lets see... to answer the questions:

Carry 1L of water? There have been a couple of trips that I didn't carry any water... I knew a lot about the water supply and was following a system of river and lakes for whole hike. I would walk the short distance to the rivers edge and dip my cup in. Seriously though, I almost always start out carrying >=1.5L. How much depends on the water sources and the conditions (largerly temp). I normally have around .5L left in my pack when I get to the water source I plan to fill up at. When I was figuring out my water consumption rates I would sometimes hit a water source dry, but that hasn't happened for several years. If perceive a high risk of running out of water... e.g. I am in dessert conditions, have reason to believe that the water source is unreliable, or there is a large distance to the next water source if the one I planned on using was bad for some reason then I will bring enough water to give me a safety margin. The worst case was a hike that had be starting out with 8L and not dropping below 2L frown

Knife? I tried an experiment with using just a razer blade.. it was really annoying and not worth the weight savings. Most of the time I take my EDC, a Victorininox Rambler. I sometimes add a Benchmade 530 or Opinel if I am doing fancy cooking that needs a longer blade. In days gone past I would bring a full tang fix blade survival knife. I haven't done this for years. As an ultralighter... I always have my pack so it's unlikely I will need to improvise a shelter etc. On trips that are serious off the beaten trail and it would take a week for people to even know I am missing I would rent a PLB and not worry about living off the land for weeks.

Map & Compass? Compass always. I can imagine places that I would consider not taking a map. For example sections of Yosemite where the trails are like super highways and the landmarks are pretty hard to miss, or places where you are so close to urban (like the sky to sea trail on the california coast) with a road almost always within earshot frown. Seriously though... a map is light and very useful. I think it's a silly way to save weight. When I don't expect navigation to be tricky I would print out what I was interested in on a 8.5 x 11 sheet of the National Geo paper. If I go cross country I typically carry a full map of the area because I might end up having to deviate from my original plan.


Mark, it sounds like you've got your head on straight. Everything I hear you saying sounds well reasoned, and you sound like you know the trade offs and how to strike a reasonable balance. I think you'll be in far better shape than someone who is rigid and doctrinaire.

For example, sometimes people act like water purification is some sacred tenent from on high. The reason that I posted articles about water purification was simply to suggest that we shouldn't take such a hard line on the subject. I don't intend to stop filtering, but let's not be to heavy handed on the subject. That, and based on the article, people should put a bar of soap or alcohol based hand cleaner in their PSK's and BOB's!
Posted by: verber

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: ironraven
Maybe you are the exception, but around here, I've seen too many people who are geared up as ultralighters who seem to have left their brains at home.


I am pretty normal... though maybe more loquacious that most of the people I know who ultralight. If you want to see what a community of thoughtful ultralight people look like, check out the free forums at
forums at backpackinglight.com

Warning... lots of geeks there who do things like measure the Clo values of clothing, run experiments to see how long it takes for shoes to dry after they have walked through a river, etc. But it's clean fun... well, mostly clean anyway.

Originally Posted By: ironraven
Cold-wet is not a back up plan- it what you put on a tombstone. Too many times I've heard the back up plan is to "power through it"- yes, a great plan. Particularly with leg injuries caused by light ice on rocks or among leaves. I don't care how "hot" you "run"- under prepared is under prepared.


I would agree that when we are talking sub 0F temp that the margins need to be wider. When I suggested that the back up plan was being wet and cold I try to make clear (and apparently failed) that many of the ultralight folks I know target their gear to be comfortable in the expected conditions (e.g. things go well), and be safe, but maybe uncomfortable in the worst case.

Originally Posted By: ironraven

most ultralighters who's packs I've seen are probably dead men if it doesn't go according to plan. And it isn't just a matter of brains. There was a former Air Force survival instructor who died that way not too far from where I'm sitting. Slipped, went in the water during deer season. His fire lighter was one I've seen on a lot of ultralighter's packing lists- paper matches. He was found the next spring. He had the skills, he thought he was good enough to compensate for junk equipment.


A couple of thoughts. First, given the number of people who die in the whites (small), and the odds that murray with strike (high), I wonder if they are dead men or just very unhappy men smile Second, I am sure there are ultralight folks who don't take the white's seriously enough. Of course, I think that cuts across all styles of outdoors folks. If I was going to predict the percent of people hitting the whites who had problems with exposure, I would bet that in decreasing likelihood it would be day hikers, hunters, classic backpackers, ultralighters. Why? Because the day hiker and hunter don't normally plan to handle the night and expect to be able to walk away from any problem they find. If they can't walk away, many are in trouble. Why would I expect the ultralighter to be less at risk than a classic backpacker? Because an experienced ultralight backpacker is used to explicitly managing the risk / benefit trade-off and won't assume "it's not a big deal... I will be ok".

As to to paper matches being the standard on ultralight backpacking lists... I expect it depends on the ultralighter, and also the season they are going in. There are conditions that are moderate enough that it could be argued that that paper matches are sufficient. There are conditions where paper matches are clearly completely inadequate. A thoughtful ultralight person would select what they bring based on what they are facing. I will use myself as an example. I am a pretty ultralight guy. In the middle of the summer I always have at least three types of fire lighters (box of small wood matches which is inside my cook kit and what normally gets used, spark-lite, and some customized windproof matches which live in a waterproof container with small amount of tinder -- vasaline soaked cotton balls and the tinker sold with the spark-lite for emergencies). I also have the alchohol fuel from my stove and the gel alchohol I use to clean my hands to help with starting a fire. More importantly, I know how to start a fire with these different tools in the face of harsh conditions. In the winter I will typically also have the auto-lighter on my winter stove, a windproof butane lighter, and a lmf firesteel, and of course bring more hardcore tinder. Going for ultralight doesn't mean a person is stupid or careless.

The other thing to consider is that the ultralighter pretty much always has their pack with them. In the case of ending up in a lake, a much faster recovery path would be to get out of the water, take off wet clothing, pull out sleeping bag from the drybag. Get warm enough so your hands function again, and then think about the fire. The nice thing about going ultralight is that the pack is typically not much of an exuberance. When hiking, my pack rarely comes off my back until I am setting up camp. Honestly I have been known to forget it was there. There have been several trips with classic style backpackers that we will get to a place they want a break, they will all dump there packs and I will scout around a bit. When I come back they will ask why I didn't dump my pack and I say "I didn't occur to me. I am fine". Because of this I don't carry a seperate "10 essentials" because they are fully intergrated into my ultralight approach. When it's time to summit one of the 14Kers... I don't drop my pack. I take it will me. My full pack is approx the same weight as many peak-bagger summit packs.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 12:40 AM

Originally Posted By: norad45

I wonder if he would have been able to physically do what he did with just a razor blade?


He would have slit his wrist on the other arm. smile
Posted by: verber

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/03/07 01:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim

Still, I think even 30 mile days are fairly rare (in backpacking, not talking about Ultras here), particularly as an average.


The thing that was remarkable about Brian was more about doing all the trails that his speed. His speed was high, but there have been numerous thru-hikers who have done the PCT at approx the same rate Brian did. 20-30 miles on the long trails is not an uncommon pace for ultralighters. Check of some the trail journals from past years to see numerous examples of people putting in this sort of on their 2000+ mile treks. But I see this sort of millage (or higher) from weekend warriors who run off for a quick and fast weekend. When you have 16 hours of light, mostly spend you time walking, take short breaks, that is something like 14 hours of hiking. If you are slow (like me), that means you can get in approx 28 miles in a day. If you are a faster walker like some of my friends, you can get 42 miles in. This sort of millage is not uncommon with ultralight backpackers.

Of course when it's winter, I am using snowshoes rather than ski, and the days are shorter... I don't get 20+ miles in during the day.

Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim

10 mile hike is a pretty good hike with 40 - 50 lbs on one's back. If you're routinely doing 15 - 20 mile days, my hat's off to you. Anything over 15 in a day with an overnight pack is an accomplishment in my book. The ultralight thing seems to be paying off for you.


One of the key advantage of ultralight backpacking is that you are carrying a lot less weight. Until hard winter hits, my 3 day backpack is less than 20lbs. When I am really trying to go light and decide to give up my comfy air mattress (alpine summer in the sierras, lows to 30F) my 3 day pack is down to just over 10lbs. So think about my milage as you would a day hiker rather than a backpacker. In fact, my standard 3 day weekend backpack including food and water is typically lighter than my day hike backpack because I am not carrying 8 lbs of camera gear, other family members's clothing, etc.



Originally Posted By: Hikin_Jim

Well, with a tarp only, how does one prevent one's down quilt from becoming wet in a serious rain storm.


Depends on the person. My approach is that I use a shaped tarp which can be pitched in a locked down configured. Most of the year I used a 9oz gossamer gear spinnshelter. In the winter I use a 2lb GoLite Hex. You can think of these as single walled tent structures without floors. There are two other approaches. One which is popular with quilt users because it helps lower the impact of side winds are smallish tarps with bivys. The other approach is using tarps which are large enough to provide adaquate protection.

I have used tarps or tarptents in fairly serious conditions. Winds that I measure at 50mph (I love my Burton ADC Pro WeatherStation) and pouring buckets. So far my quilts been fine except for the one trip that I didn't take the time to stake down the tarptent properly and the wind pulled up the stakes leaving me exposed until I restaked the shelter.
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/05/07 06:00 PM

This spinshelter seems very interesting. The shape seems really ideal; it wouldn't be open at the ends. I don't know if you'd have the time to answer a few queries, but if you do:
  • How do you prevent water from getting in under the sides?
  • The tent material doesn't look water proof. Is the fabric intended simply to conduct the water down itself to the ground? Does one get wet if one touches the fabric when the fabric is wet?
  • How's the breathability? I've had serious condensation problems in single wall tents.
  • It appears as though one trekking pole is used inside the tent and the other outside the tent. Is that correct? How badly does the interior trekking pole interfere with lying straight inside the tent?
  • How much does this particular model help with bugs?


I've also thought of using a bivvy sack in conjunction with a tarp. The bivvy would prevent water from soaking in from the bottom and would be good bug shelter. The tarp would protect from rain as one enters and exits the bivvy and might protect some gear as well as provide a bit of a work area in the rain.

Addenda I just read your review as well as the reviews of others which answered most of my questions. I'm still curious about how you keep water from flowing in under the sides. In hard rain, I've had trouble with pooling or flowing water.
Posted by: verber

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/05/07 07:15 PM

As you noted... most of your questions are answered in my (and others) spinnshelter reviews. Something I didn't specifically address is what to do about pooling / streaming water. There are three effective ways to deal with standing water in a tarp.

(1) Avoid standing water grin ... Site selection makes a big different. In many locations it is possible to find spots that are not prone to standing ground water. Ideally you want a slight slope away from the tarp, vegetation, and porous soil. Ideally with overhanging trees and a good wind break. This does mean that you will want to avoid setting up a tarp in the middle of a high traffic (packed down) campsites than are in the bottom of a bowl. This works well for one or two people... but isn't so reliable with larger groups.

(2) Bathtub floors ... Some tarp users bring a ground cloth which has a fabric lip around the edge like a bathtub floor of a tent. The "floor" is typically smaller than the tarp footprint so outside water and any condensation that accumulates will end up on the ground, outside the floor.

(3) Raise above the water ... use something like a Hennessey hammock or sleep on a thick air matress.

Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 11/05/07 11:14 PM

Interesting. I'm going to check out those other forums as well. I really need to lighten my load. I routinely carry 40+ lbs.
Posted by: Ors

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: OldBaldGuy
WTF indeed. Dorn has some really screwy ideas about how to save weight, but depending on finding another hiker with a first aid kit for you to bum from was the final straw for me...



What if the only other backpackers you find are following Dorn's advice too?
Posted by: Ors

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 04:10 PM

Originally Posted By: norad45
These guys stress over a few extra ounces? Sounds to me like they need to invest in a stair-stepper.


I'm guessing their thinking is the same kind that drives the Altoids tin PSK group of us. Some people probably think we're crazy for trying to cram adequate kit into a small tin box.

I'm guessing the the weight issue has nothing to do with inferior physical ability...it's about scraping by with the least amount possible.

Anyone got that 3 feet of floss into a toothpick yet?
Posted by: Ors

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 04:25 PM

[quote=benjammin]I dunno, it just seems to me folks are trying to find a way to bring their hustle and bustle work life mentality to the hills. Why would anyone want to hike 50-60 miles a day?/quote]

I have never tried this myself, so I don't know from experience, but it could be that for them it is a kind of moving meditation...being so completely focused on moving that much distance a day may induce a meditative state that they find to be useful.

I think I prefer a candlelit room and chanting "OM" personally.
Posted by: wolf

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 04:32 PM

Maybe a type A kind of person for whom everything is a competition.

"Ha ha! I hiked farther and faster than YOU!"
Posted by: Ors

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: OldBaldGuy
"...look at RVers, UGH..."


Hey, I resemble that remark smile smile smile


You're one of those with the satelite dish out front, aren't you OBG? grin
Posted by: jaywalke

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Ors

I'm guessing their thinking is the same kind that drives the Altoids tin PSK group of us.


Exactly. Below a certain point it's just a hobby. I find a real diminishing point of return below fifteen pounds of base gear, but it's still fun to find a lighter item to substitute or something to cut. You start wondering how low you can go, and you test the limits on familiar trails with a bail-out plan.

There is always someone crazier. Check out www.backpackinglite.com for the real gram weenies. I've hiked with the founder of that site, and he seems normal enough until you see his pack. He hikes Yellowstone in winter and serious Alaskan treks without a lot of weight. Gossamer Gear is another site run by a weight freak. Glen is a nice guy who's done the Pacific Crest Trail and thousands of miles on other trails with a tiny pack. They avoid hairy situations, have back-up and bail-out plans and in general use their heads rather than kit. It's hard to argue with success.

Backpacker mag really went downhill when Dorn took over. Substantive articles went out the window, to be replaced by sidebars and sound bites. Welcome to the thirty-second attention-span theatre.
Posted by: Blast

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 07:14 PM

Quote:
But, hey...Blast had his latest baby manufactured in China.


Coorection: BOTH babies are from China. Definately saves wear and tear on DW's hips. grin

-Blast
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 09:42 PM

Yup. Used to have a dome on the top, but we traded that one in, and don't have the extra bucks right not to have a dome installed. My wife has her pink flamingo out too. But underneath I have a pulaski, Mcleod, shovel, you know, guy stuff...
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 09:45 PM

"...Backpacker mag really went downhill when Dorn took over..."

Indeed it did...
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 09:46 PM

Exactly!!!
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 12/31/07 09:58 PM

"...saves wear and tear on DW's hips..."

But you miss out on the morning sickness, mood swings, middle of the night grocery runs for really strange foods, etc etc etc...
Posted by: Blast

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 01/01/08 09:44 PM

Quote:
really strange foods


OBG,

Trust me, the strange foods thing was covered!
Check out my tales of the trip:
China Part 4: Eating *Things*

-Blast
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 01/01/08 10:31 PM

See, that just proves that you have (luckily for you) skipped one of the rites of passage into fatherhood. What I was refering to is your wife waking you up at at oh-dark-thirty, wanting you go go out into a hurricane to find her something that she craves and no one in their right mind has it in the pantry. So off you go, half asleep, looking for sweet and sour pickled pigs feet or something. And you'd better find it and get back with it fast! (try that living in a town of 3000, with no all night markets)

Bugs, raw snake, that kind of stuff, been there done that too...
Posted by: justmeagain

Re: Backpacker Magazine and wild suggestions... - 01/02/08 03:10 PM

I realize I'm chiming in a bit late on this post, but here are a few of my thoughts. I'm far from an ultaliter and will never likely get my pack weight down to that level, in large part as I do not desire to do so for a variety of reasons. That said, I have been successful at replacing heavier gear with lighter (but by no means cutting edge) gear. For example, I got rid of my old polarguard bag and bought a down bag (used, vintage piece on ebay). In the process I saved several pounds. I also found lighter raingear (Land's End jacket and thrift store pants). I chose a smaller and lighter pack (again a vintage piece from ebay). I use short gaiters rather than knee high gaiters. I have gone to actually weighing out food portions and cutting back on excess food. The list goes on and on. I don't weigh my gear so I can't come up with a before and after total weight but the difference adds up after a bit. I'm no less prepared now than before, but my pack weight is noticeably less heavy than in the past. Lower pack weight, up to a certain point, does not have to be a function of leaving everything at home and only carrying the latest and greatest.