SURVEY: Ultralight Hunting at Backpacking Light

[Ryan Jordan]

Hello Everyone,

In light of the recent commentary about hunting and the Pak-Rifle review, I'd like to invite you to take our reader survey about ultralight hunting in the context of Backpacking Light. Results will be available to all after we collect enough responses to get a feel for what you all think.

Click here to take survey

Best,
Ryan

[Diplomatic Mike]

There is nothing to stop a mass influx of voters to support either position. Shouldn't this vote only be open to members who actually pay for the content of articles. It is their money being spent. :)

[Kendall Clement]

I agree Mike. Shouldn't the survey be limited to members only? Not just because they pay money for the content of the articles, but because it would preserve the integrity of the survey. You would know for sure that you are getting the opinions of ultralight enthusiasts.

[Mark Regalia]

They tend to only count the people who really care about a subject. This will skew the results. Then the results are actually deceiving, rather than informative.

[Jim W.]

Ryan,

I just took the survey. Most of the questions are fairly reasonable. I'm sure you put a lot of thought into them.

The last question is a problem. None of the answers matched my position- I have a strong opinion but it isn't that firearms should always or never be permitted in the backcountry.

Perhaps an additional question from a business perspective should have been: Will inclusion of a few lightweight backcountry hunting articles and discussion topics affect your subscription renewal:
I will cancel immediately if hunting topics aren't covered.
I will be more likely to renew if hunting is included
I don't care.
I will be less likely to renew if hunting is included.
I will cancel immediately if hunting is included.

There's a reason the 3G's are banned on many chat boards: It distracts from the groups primary common interest.

[Joe Clement]

Yeah, those right-wing gun nuts will vote multiple times, and skew the survey. Hey Ryan…….are you getting the idea yet that nothing you do will be right? If I was you, I'd give up and do what I wanted. It's your site.

[Jack H.]

Question five is kind of bogus.

"5. Which of the following statements most accurately describe your feelings about guns in the backcountry?

I believe that everyone has a right to carry a gun in the backcountry, for any reason, where permissible by law.

I believe that guns should not be allowed in the backcountry for any reason.

I do not have a strong opinion either way about this issue."

It's a false choice between two extremes. Just polarizes the issue and doesn't allow for nuance.

[Kendall Clement]

Joe, I think you might be right. After all they're just opinions and you know what they say about opinions, right? And, it's not just "right wing gun nuts;" there are extremist nuts on both sides of the aisle.

[Miguel Arboleda]

I took the survey, but didn't submit it because the questions, as Jack pointed out, are too polarized. For instance I believe that there are certain circumstances (culling, for instance, or subsistence hunting) where I think guns are necessary. I also think there is a difference between the issue of hunting and the issue of the danger of guns. They are not necessarily the same thing or related to each other. I think question 3 needs more refinement, because I'm sure there are people who don't hunt, but don't mind others hunting, or people who hunt, but don't backpack, or people who hunt without guns. There are also probably people for whom question 4 is too restricted, in that they might or might not hunt, but might support much more content devoted to hunting. And there are people, like me, who oppose guns not because of hunting, but because of the danger they present to other people and, in the wrong hands, to the stability of a habitat.

Nevertheless, I applaud your efforts to take measure of this. It must have weighed on your mind, and I'm sorry if I caused harm. It would be interesting to see the results.

[Sarah Kirkconnell]

I know that many would call me a right wing nut (which makes about as much sense as calling someone a pansy waist liberal) so I took the interview and golly, I only took it once.

Name calling doesn't make anyone look good, ok?

[Kendall Clement]

For the record, I thought it was a good survey.

[Josh Leavitt]

"It's a false choice between two extremes. Just polarizes the issue and doesn't allow for nuance."

I'll second that.

[Josh Leavitt]

"Yeah, those right-wing gun nuts will vote multiple times, and skew the survey. Hey Ryan…….are you getting the idea yet that nothing you do will be right? If I was you, I'd give up and do what I wanted. It's your site."

Its not quite that simple. My 80 year old grandfather is a gunsmith, he has been for sixty years, he voted for Obama. I manufacture firearms, and have done so on and off for ~12 years(not just the Pak-Rifle). I'm a radical barely left of center, independant. The world is not that black and white.

As to Ryan's site, he has multiple interests, aside from his own opinion, such as what drives business. Its a legitimate concern, that I think he is trying to get a better understanding of.

[Joe Clement]

Whatever the survey says, it's good to see Kendall around again. Hope things are going better for you!

[Kendall Clement]

Thanks Joe. Things are definitely better.

[David Ure]

That was great. I just did the survey 1,468 times.

;)

[Ryan Jordan]

EVERY survey should be taken with a grain of salt, especially ones with questions about politicians or guns.

The purpose of this is only to see if we can ID anything that is particularly remarkable. I'm more interested in whether or not you all felt that a tiny bit of attention paid to ultralight hunting techniques and/or gear was consistent, or inconsistent, with our mission.

We'll have subscriber attrition, and I'll receive criticism, regardless of what we do: that's why we have a broad mission, to keep us on track. Heck, I even have staff here that are vehemently opposed to guns. Does that mean we don't respect each other, and are able to enjoy other's company, or that we shove our opinions down each other's throats? Of course not.

Appending to the mission statement "…Oh, except for ultralight hunting and anything having to do with guns" would be an immature approach to dealing responsibly with the topic. Same with eliminating the discussion of guns in the context of backcountry use on the forums: stupid!

[Brad Groves]

agreed question 5, totally polarized. many more nuances in such matters… of course, limitations w/in a 3 "answer" survey, but I had to "vote" "no strong opinion," just because it was the only non "nut-case" answer…

however, I think that getting public input was a thoughtful move, a pro-active decision.

[BlackHatGuy]

"It would be interesting to see the results."

Agreed. More interesting if more people would submit their survey (more is better, in this instance, IMO). The survey is far from perfect, yes. But it's a start. Perhaps the results can lead to a more comprehensive survey, or a better worded survey, etc.

Ryan's a smart guy, of course. Doesn't mean he knows how to design good surveys. As a businessman, he's reaching out to his core audience, seeking input. That's very good. But if we just slap him down because the initial attempt wasn't to our liking, then we're not being part of the solution, or very helpful.

[BlackHatGuy]

"That was great. I just did the survey 1,468 times."

I just KNEW there was a reason I pushed that submit button for the 1,469th time!

[BlackHatGuy]

"They tend to only count the people who really care about a subject. This will skew the results. Then the results are actually deceiving, rather than informative."

I would agree for an at-large online survey, but this is a much smaller audience. I think the results will be informative, at least for initial impressions. I don't think it would be hard to discern if the survey's been skewed by one side or the other.

[David Ure]

"I just KNEW there was a reason I pushed that submit button for the 1,469th time!"

Ah Nuts!

[Diplomatic Mike]

I think it's great that you are doing this Ryan.
The issue is more complicated than pro or anti hunting though. Folk might tick the no hunting box for many different reasons, and being anti-hunting is only one of them.

From my point of view, i would prefer the whole forum to be 100% UL backpacking orientated. That will not appeal to everyone, i know. There are loads of forums discussing the outdoors. Some cover a broad range of subjects, and others are more specialised, covering a particular niche market.
There is only one UL backpacking forum, and i am worried that it's specialised viewpoint becomes diluted. There are already forums for hunting, photography, gun collecting, fishing,canoeing, bushcraft, survivalism, and every form of outdoor activity you can think of.

I think it's very important that BPL maintains its specialisation, and doesn't drift into becoming just another outdoors forum.

[Luke Schmidt]

I love gear reviews and trip reports but I think BPL would be much more boring if all it did was review the latest packs and tell stories about hiking from point A to point B. Its fun to see how people apply lighweight principals to other wilderness activities that are slightly more vaired than simply hiking. Its seems to me that discussing a peice of gear thats not specifically backpacking gear (like a rifle or camera) is appropriate if its related to backpacking activities.

[David Olsen]

"There is only one UL backpacking forum, and i am worried that it's specialised viewpoint becomes diluted. There are already forums for hunting, photography, gun collecting, fishing,canoeing, bushcraft, survivalism, and every form of outdoor activity you can think of."

I have yet to see any of those kinds forums with the emphasis
on keeping things lightweight that you see here however.

When i want to do a bit of climbing, I know if I post a
question about gear here, the thought everyone puts into it will include a primary goal of keeping everything light.
I won't end up with suggestions of 11mm ropes and
2 lb harnesses.

As long as the forums are wisely indexed and used, then
the more the better I say. Of course if every time a
hunting link comes up and it is filled purposefully
with off topic junk, then it won't work without heavy
moderation.

[Author]

Posts