Philmont gear selection..

[Mark Verber]

I took Shawn’s suggestion and contacted the NOLS research department. They have never published anything on tents -vs- tarps because their data is “weak”. They have 2-3 million successful user days & nights of camping in bear country with a single bear attack (which Shawn described above). So the data represents a “null” set. It shows “correlation”, but no causation. Another correlation (and I would argue a much better better canidate for causation) would be proper handling of odors which the bear would find attractive.

The folks from NOLS suggested checking out the research of Tom Smith http://www.absc.usgs.gov/staff/MFEB/tsmith.php (see http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/safety/safeconduct.htm) and Stephen Herrero http://www.ucalgary.ca/EV/people/faculty/profiles/herrero/main.htm

There is a nice summary of their findings at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

Their research (at least that is easily accessable on the web) has no data about tents -vs- tarps, or any indication that tarp use is statistically riskier than using a tent.

What was really clear from their research was:

1) Odor / food management is a huge factor.
2) Avoiding surprising grizzly bears
3) Black bears (in Canada and Alaska) are much more likely to hunt humans as food! This is exactly the opposite of what I expected.
4) Groups are safer than solo. Number of attacks -vs- size of group drops significant with each additional person until the group size is 5 (or larger) where the number of attacks becomes flat.

Reportedly, most of Herrero research result are discussed in a practical form in the 2002 book “Bear attacks: Their causes and avoidance”. I haven’t taken a look at this book yet. I will update this thread with whatever I find in the book.

[kevin davidson]

Thanks, Mark, for the research.

[Mark Verber]

The index of “Bear Attacks” by Stephen Herrero has two pages under the words “tent, value of”

The first entry (pg 48) discusses an attack of a couple sleeping under the stars. The grizzly was a habitual feeder due to poor food disposal at a chalet and had learned it is ok to approach people sometimes. The couple has some candy in a pack near the sleeping bags. Stephen belieces the attack was opportunistic feeding. Stephen notes that a tent might have prevent this encourage. He notes that his research identified 4-6 others encounters which might have turned out differently if people had been using tents.

The second section about tents (pg 125) is in a section about avoiding encounters. In this section Stephen says

“My data strongly suggest that people without tents were more likely to be injured, even killed, than were people who slept in tents. He also noted it is best to have a tent which lets you stay 1-2 feet from the walls, so if a curious or garbage adicted bear crawls the tent to see what’s inside that you would get hit.

I would note a number of things:

(1) The sample size is tiny… which isn’t suprising given the small number of attacks.

(2) Most of the incidences seem to be sleeping under the stars rather than under a tarp. It’s not clear to me the relative protection of different shelter types.

(3) Most of the incidents, the issue of the tent providing additional protection seems to be secondary… e.g. being in the wrong locations or poor management of food / odors / etc seem to be a much more significant risk factor.

–Mark

[Anonymous]

How did you velcro the poles together? I tried it this past weekend with velcro straps without much success.

[Tony Burnett]

You need 3 adjustable straps. 1 to loop between the straps of both poles, and two more to lash around the “joint” to keep it stiff.

Here’s a picture…

http://www.owareusa.com/images/poleconnectorweb05.JPG

Obviously, Oware sells the 3 straps.

[Anonymous]

I just saw this string of posts and saw “Philmont” and that immediately caught my eye. Some of the comments in some of the posts did not ring with my own eighties era Philmont experiences, however.

I was a camper at Philmont…I did the old one month long “Trail Crew” program followed within two days by the famous Philmont “Rayado Trek” back in 85′ at age 16. Man that was a great experience. Absolutely the best backpacking experience. I know they still have the Rayado Trek program…that is Philmont’s flagship or NOLS-like program. The Trail Crew program, I have sort of lost touch with what goes on at Philmont and I’m not sure if that program still exists. I never went to Philmont as a “regular” camper, with a council contingent.

The following summer, in 86′ I returned to work in base camp before I had even graduated from high school. I was formally accepted to be a Philmont Ranger for the summer season of 91, but canceled my Phil-contract at the very last moment (I curse myself to this day for cancelling that Ranger contract).

I am no longer in the Boy Scout organisation and havent been to Philmont since 86, so I havent kept up with all the changes that have occurred.

Anyway, I read here that Philmont doesnt allow tarps anymore? When I was on both Trail crew and Rayado Trek, we took nylon tarps to cut the weight down so we could go “lighter and faster” way back in the mid eighties. On my days off during the summer of 86, I mostly went backpacking for three days at a time and NEVER took a tent…only a tarp. Sometimes I would go to Taos on days off, but mostly went backpacking and logged 20-30 mile days.

I remember once, on one of those three days off in 86, this other base camp guy and myself did that “Ranger marathon.” Fifty miles in one day…from the north end of Philmont all the way to the South end. We went “ultra-lite” for that and basically jogged or walked super fast for the entire 50 miles, constantly eating and drinking water. We could have gone on for another 10 or 20 miles if we had had to, thats how good of shape I was back then at age 16-18.

Now, if I even attempted that, Id probably have a heart attack. LOL

I remember on my Rayado Trek (dont worry I wont divulge any Rayado secrets), I spent one night all by myself in bear country, under an Army poncho I had strung up as a tarp shelter.

For Rayado Trek, I had to sign a waiver releasing Philmont from any responsibility and the program was openly admitted to be “very strenuous and even potentially dangerous.”

We were doing “ultra-light” at Philmont way back in 85!

Maybe regular campers werent allowed to use tarps, but I know on the Rayado Trek and during the ten day backpacking section of the Trail Crew program, we were TOLD we would be carrying nylon tarps, supplemented of course by the now all but defunct simple Army poncho.

As far as bear attacks at Philmont when I was there in 85 and 86, I cant remember if there were any bear attacks in 85. I was in the backcountry almost that entire summer and was out of the Philmont newsloop.

The following summer however, (86), there were several bear attacks at Philmont that were highly publicized in the national media. I know so because my family would call me and tell me “they had heard on TV that some Scouts had been attacked by bears at Philmont!” We were briefed on these bear attacks in base camp and I served one these bear attack survivors in the chow line at the Philmont mess hall.

What we were told was that one of the kids attacked by a bear the summer of 86, had been playing with spray anti-perspirant that night. And of course bears love anything “smellable” and the bear mauled him that night wandering thru camp.

I never wore deodorant of any kind while at Philmont, despite the extremely intense backpacking I did back then. Didnt need anti-perspirant there, due to the extremely low humidity and I have dry skin and hair. I didnt use scented soap, shampoo or any kind of anti-perspirant or deodorant. Neither did any of my Philmont Rayado Trek or Trail Crew buddies.

We never had any major problems with bears.

I do agree with many of the posters in this string about one thing though. The BSA is conservative…and I suspect has become even more liability conscious in the last decade or so. I really dont know what goes on at Philmont anymore…if they have banned tarps for bear reasons or whatever, I think thats a shame.

Enjoyed reading the Philmont posts, even though I hate to hear that Philmont has become so extremely liability paranoid. Insurance companies are screwing up this country.

later,

Eric

[Anonymous]

>Switching gears a bit, I didn’t netting >mentioned. Are bugs not much of an issue >at Philmont?

In my two summers at Philmont back in the mid-eighties (Rayado Trek, Trail Crew and base camp staff), I dont ever remember mosquitos being a problem. I dont think I ever used insect repellant, not once.

Its so dry there, I dont see how mosquitos could thrive and live.

Eric

[Anonymous]

>The other strange thing is to watch >people lining up to leave and they >weigh their packs and they are so proud >when they weigh 50 or 60 or even 70+ >pounds. These things are monsters to >look at. I would never put one on my >back otherwise I would be one of the >”cripples” in my article. Our group >passed about every other group on the >trail because we were so light & could >hike so fast (efficiently as a team). >Some people on the trail with those big >packs looked like they were going to >have a heart attack in any minute.

hehehe…LOL

Oh man, this brings back memories. When I was at Philmont in the mid-eighties, I remember thinking it was “cool” to have my pack (Lowe Alpine system internal frame) as heavy as possible. Yet my Rangers and Trail Crew Foreman were always on us to “keep it light as possible.” The Rayado Trek Rangers and Trail Crew Foreman were experienced backpackers and even back then, they liked to go “light and fast” although they didnt have cool, catchy slogans like that back then.

I remember when I was in the Trail Crew program, we had to go on these food runs from our campsite near the trail we were working on to Cypher’s mine…about two miles away. Every other day we made a “food run” where we would hike with unloaded packs to Cypher’s mine, hike back into the cool, dark mineshaft where our fresh food was deposited (safe from bears BTW), load the food into our packs and haul back to camp. The trip back was carrying monstrous loads of up to 70-80 lbs, on a rocky trail. At an altitude of around 8,000 feet. It was tough. I definitely wouldnt have wanted to backpack all over Philmont with a load like that.

But doing that for shorter distances every couple days…2-3 miles…it made a man out of ya. <grin> I KNOW that was actually good for me…at that age of course.

Philmont cuts the age off at 21 for the Rayado Trek program for a good reason. Philmont doesnt want “old” Scouters in their thirties and forties having heart attacks while attempting to keep up with young guys doing 25-40 miles a day at altitude for two straight weeks.

I remember getting off the airplane near sea level after having been through six weeks of strenous backpacking at altitude at Philmont. Felt like a physical superman for a few days, all that extra oxygen back on the east coast at a lower altitude.

hehehe…

Eric

[Anonymous]

>After 4 Treks our unit recommends boots >with a substantial sole. We have had >numerous trekkers with rock bruises from >some of the trails. Makes for a very >uncomfortable trip. The usual OTC pain >relievers don’t do much for this >condition.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Philmont is rough terrain. Even if you keep your pack weight truly light, such as 25-30 lbs, boots are IMO still necessary. I definitely do not believe that old fashioned, heavy Vasque -style “wafflestompers” are necessary for Philmont, but for most people I believe it is poor advice to tell them they can go with just trail sneakers or shoes.

I am sure there are a few people who could get by with trail sneakers for backpacking, but generally its poor advice even for ultra-light backpacking. There are plenty of lightweight boots on the market…you dont have to choose a heavy boot that weighs four pounds, but you should wear boots.

I remember years and years ago when I first started out in Scouts as a boy, we had some Scoutmaster tell us “we could go backpacking in running shoes.” I tried this and my feet were wiped out. Trail shoes…running shoes…whatever they provide absolutely no real support of any type and are for primarily trail running, “knocking around” camp and non hardcore backpacking usage such as day hiking.

Philmont is hardcore backpacking. Boots are necessary.

Eric

[Anonymous]

>Boots are necessary.< I really don’t agree with this statement. It depends on the person. Some people need them and some don’t. Conditioning has alot to do with it. I spent four years as a Marine Infantryman. We regularly did hikes ranging anywhere from 3 to 25 miles. Pack and gear usually added up to 60-80 lbs depending on your weapon (and sometimes well over 100 when carring the gear of someone who had fallen behind. My footwear of choice was the infamous “jungle boot” which offers no support of any kind, but are light and more breathable than combat boots. The only problem I ever had was a stress fracture from carring too much weight. Never rolled an ankle, got blisters etc. Now I fractured my foot early on in my enlistment because I was not properly conditioned. Once I got used to it there were no problems whatsoever. I don’t see the boots a nescessary, I see the need for proper planning and preparations as nescessary. Strengthening the body is good for you. Roy p.s. Sorry if this comes off kinda rude, its not meant to be :-)

[Vick Hines]

I led wilderness backpacking trips with young people for nearly 10 years. These were hikes considerably more difficult than the norm at Philmont. During that time, we went from recommending boots to advocating light trail shoes or athletic shoes. We found that boots caused more injuries than lighter footwear. The kids did better in shoes that were more like what they wore every day. In the Big Bend National Park, we recommended ankle-high orange work boots since they were the closest thing to tennis shoes and the cactus and lechuguilla out there made the protection provided by leather necessary.

[Stephen Randolph]

Background: Philmont as a youth (69/71) with cnavas open bottom tents with plastic sheet ground cloths; Philmont ’04 and going back in ’07.

Philmont currently states the reason for tents vice tarps are due to Hantavirus from rodents; I didn’t realize open bottom tents such as the ones noted by Dave were approved; will have to rethink for ’07!

As far as crew tarp for cooking; we used a Campmor ultralight silnylon 10×12 tarp… four hiking poles (two front corners and side middle points), then dropped the back half to gground (lean-to) towards the prevailing direction of the everpresent afternoon/evening thunderstorm. Worked great… was able to get entire crew (8 boys/4 adults) under when needed. Usually youth were in their own tents. Only had one dinner cooking/eating during rain.

Philmont is very risk adverse; crews are required to camp in specific spots; usually 2-4 crews in common area (except for 2-3 “trail” camps where you were probably alone). Almost all the bear incidents were from not following the rules established by Philmont (food in tents). In 2004, they dropped the requirement to have sleeping clothes; though was still recommended.

Outstanding review; works well with Cooper Wright’s Philmont Leaders Guide.

…now if Philmont would let me take my Hennessy Hammock and Jack-R-Better quilts… ::grin::

[paul johnson]

Hantavirus and tarps??? Airborne infection is possible – rodents are the vector; their droppings (saliva, also???) are a problem.

So, i’m guessing that they must be thinking that either the increased airflow of a tarp vs. a tent can be a contributing factor, or the relative easy accessiblilty of a tarp vs. a tent might encourage any nocturnal rodents to have a “look-see” for food. The second seems more likely, but neither is a very compelling argument. A tent isn’t much of a barrier to a rodent. A small LED flood-light inside of a tent or tarp would be more of a deterrant to nocturnal rodents – generally they don’t like to be exposed by light – too easy for nocturnal predators (e.g. owls) to see them.

So, food odor management and proper food storage seems to be in order. Stealth camping away from normal camp sites would be advisable (though not always permitted), and wise (if one really wants to hold down chances of contracting Hantavirus). These steps, IMHO, would be much better than tent vs. tarp. Sealing oneself in a large odor-proof, air-tight poly-bag would work too – to keep both Hantavirus and contaminated air out – by morning you’d never have to worry about contracting Hanta, or any other illness for that matter, again – though in a couple of days the air in the bag would be pretty foul .

I’ve had friends/co-workers who have had rodents eat through through their tent, pack, food storage bag (NOT O.P.) to get to a food scent – from spilled food.

Rodents 3 (score 1 for biting through a tent, 1 for pack, 1 for food storage bag)

Tents 0

[at least with a tarp, my co-worker’s score would only be 2 to zip]

Even an Ursack might not stop a rodent if odor is present, but then y’all already know that.

My two shekels.

[Vick Hines]

I’m wit you, Paul, No tent will stop a determined chipmunk as soon as he realizes that hurling himself against it is less effective than knawing through. I’ve seen them go through tents and into packs as well.

Philmont is a nice place, but experienced troop leaders might do better to consider the Pecos Wilderness, a few miles farther west. It has real mountains – although they are still walk-ups. You hike all the time at higher altitudes than Philmont achieves. You can get above timberline and out of the green tunnel. You can plan a hike of just about any challenge or duration. The country is spectacular. Kids never fail to be impressed. I know you don’t get a Philmont shirt, so I guess patch baggers would be disappointed.

[Bob Brown]

Doug,

Thanks for a great article. I have a concern regarding footwear however. The scout master of my troup went to Philmont last year, and I’m going in 2007 for the first time. My SM wore boots that at a minimum were medium duty, and complained that the rocky trails killed his feet. You advocate trail shoes. No problem with rock bruising etc at the end of your trek?

[diane shulman]

my son arrived in Philmont Monday w/his boy scout troop; trek beginning wed am. I wish I”d read your article prior to his leaving, as he should have,too. He only brought a poncho–will they make him buy a rainsuit at the camp store?

[drew hogg]

I got off the trail a week from yesterday and I don’t understand why you are so concerned with these tiny little things like the weight of bear bags, tarps and tents, and all of these other little things. My Ranger was very knowledgeable, probably more than you, and the bear concerns are real. My crew became extremely lazy and refused to set up camp the proper way. On the last day our bear bags were down and we were eating dinner right beside our tents when a bear came through our camp. And for the guy that said that he didn’t see what the big deal was and that only grizzlies and black bears want to have anything to do with you: Philmont only has black bears, and I heard a few grizzlies. With a daily average of 6-7 miles a day what is the big deal with a couple of pounds, my whole crew was fine, even with carrying 4 days of food.

[Mike Barney]

I started in my Montrail GTX’s on 622 this year at Philmont, until one split in the middle. I tossed them, and did the remainder (about 65 out of a total of 75 miles) in low top Merrell Light Hikers, w/ Dr. Scholls inserts.(Backup / extra dry pair of boots paid off) These worked out well for me carring a 24 – 30 lb pack, and I believe the reduction of 2 lbs on my feet made a big difference. Your feet may get a little more abuse, but practice hikes help that. Other than a couple of blisters started by the Montrails, I’d have no problem doing the whole Trek again in the Merrell light hiking boots, and will do so in the future. YMMV

MikeB

[Eric Noble]

Congratulations on finishing Philmont. I would love to do it some day. I don’t want this to sound flip but do you realize where you are posting? Check the quote from the LA Times at the top of the page :) I like to think we are focused on being efficient. A great athlete has an efficiency of motion that makes the difficult look easy. I hope to develop an efficient style of backpacking.

I am sure your Ranger was very knowledgeable. I would be careful making comparisons to others whom you may not know. My guide for Tahosa was also knowledgeable, but was young and strong and unconcerned about weight. I was once that way, but can’t afford to be now. As an Assistant Scout Master, I can say that there are scouts that might shy away from Philmont because they feel they can’t carry that much weight, or they may go and be miserable. We need to do what we can to make the experience available and a good one.

The bear concerns are definitely real. Bears are not to be taken lightly. Search the forums here and you will find a lot of information about bears. Like other topics on this site we are trying to deal with bears as efficiently as possible. It depends upon your wisdom to determine what you are comfortable with.

I encourage you to stick with scouting. You will learn a lot about yourself. I encourage to to continue backpacking or something similar that connects you to nature. In all you do, do it the best way you can.

I’m sorry, I’m sounding more and more like an Assistant Scout Master all the time :)

[Phil Barton]

Eric, well said.
Thanks,
Phil

[Michael Danielson]

I appreciate the article. A lot of good information. It is really easy to get caught up with the whole gear list, weights, bears, etc. As a veteran backpacker (started back in 1972), the lower the weight of the backpack, the more enjoyable it will be. Safety is the main concern when it comes to you and your troop or crew. As long as everyone is having a good time and is safe, thats all that matters. Yes you can go else where to hike, but the experience at Philmont is like no other. Please remember that everything is personnal preference and teaching the boys the right way to do things will give them years of joy of backpacking.
Mike
40+ years of scouting
Philmont 72, 74, 03

[George Taylor]

Over a period of years I have come to believe that athletic shoes are in most circumstances far superior to any kind of hiking boots and am especially fond of Asiics trail runners. Someone told me that Philmont requires conventional hiking boots and that trail runners or other athletic shoes are not permitted. If you want to hike in trail runners you still have to lug a pair of hiking boots around with you. The author of this article seems to use trail runners rather than hiking boots. Does anyone know whether carrying a pair of hiking boots is mandatory at Philmont?

[Douglas Prosser]

Hiking boots are not required. I agree with you that I feel that trail runners are better than boots for most of the hiking scouts will do. The scouts and leaders need to get out and walk a lot on trails, rocks, and roads with something on their backs and you will seldom have any problems with foot bruising from a trail that is “too hard”. I currently have plans to repeat another Philmont trek in july 2007 so I really get to reevaluate my gear from what I took in the article. Some of the new Tarp/tents reviewed here recently sound like an interesting start if I can get it past the wife.

One question I received lately was how I taught the scouts about lightweight backpacking. I have tried videos and lectures without great results. (Adults got more out of the lectures) The best way is to take them out for a number of weekend backpacks and review their gear choices with them and teach them to use lighter options. The first time new scouts try to set up a tarp may take up to 2 hours. But after a few weekends they can have it up in minutes. Our last meeting mostly consisted of patrols setting up various tarps and tents. It takes constant work and nudging to get them to change. The best thing is to go out with the lightweight gear and live the life. So often I hear from scouts and other leaders that my pack is a lot lighter than theirs AND I have a lot more “stuff”.

Enjoy it.

[George Taylor]

I am gradually committing myself to lightweight backpacking and the first item to go will be my MountainSmith backpack (5 pounds, 4500 cu inches). Do any of you have an opinion about how many cubic inches a pack should have to do Philmont? My top choice is the North Face Scarab 55, which weighs in at 3 pounds but has only 3800 cubic inches.

[Peter McDonough]

Philmont requires a pack with 3000 cubic inches.

[Author]

Posts