Boy Scout Gear List: Philmont Scout Ranch, New Mexico, Summer

Well, I have to add that light trail running shoes can be an extremely comfortable and effective solution for Philmont even with the sometimes rocky trails and rough scree (like at the Tooth of Time).

My experience it's not just Philmont either. Lightweight shoes are a great solution for hiking on a wide range of terrain. We just finished a UL hike with Montana BSA in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Everyone in our patrol – Scouts and adults – wore light shoes. We crossed streams, walked trails, climbed scree slopes, hiked off trail on rocky surfaces. All worked extremely well with trail runners for all.

Boots might be comfortable for some. But I do encourage you to give lightweight trail running shoes a try with carrying a lightweight pack.

I think the question of boots vs. running shoes is similar to the question of trekking poles vs. no trekking poles. There are rational arguments to be made on each side, and there are specific cases where one is clearly better than the other, but I suspect that for 90% of people it's a choice that's made based on factors that are objectively unjustifiable, e.g., skillful salesmanship for the more expensive option, or a perception that one looks more "pro" than the other.

The claim that you need boots for rocky terrain is pure bunk. Many of us here hike on rocky terrain using running shoes, with no problems.

IMO some of the valid arguments are as follows:

In favor of running shoes:
-They're much lighter than boots, and weight on your feet causes much more exertion than weight anywhere else on your body. The figure I've heard (dunno if it's scientifically supported) is that a pound on your feet is equivalent to 3 lb on your back. If this 3:1 ratio is correct, then replacing a 48-oz pair of boots with a 25-oz pair of running shoes is equivalent to dropping 4 lb of pack weight. What's a huge amount of weight!
-A ton of people get out on the trail in boots and find that they haven't quite broken them in well enough. This is less likely to happen with running shoes, because you can wear running shoes while running, shopping, at work, etc.
-Boots have more surface area in contact with your skin. That's more opportunities for blisters.

In favor of boots:
-Running shoes have a relatively short period of time during which they're sufficiently broken in to be comfortable, but have not yet seriously deteriorated. This window is probably only about 100 mi. The window for boots is much, much longer. On a long through-hike, this is a significant win for boots.
-Let's consider a person who's not doing an UL style in general. He's carrying a 50-lb pack, and he wants to make a long leap from one rock to another. With boots, he probably does significantly reduce the chances of getting a twisted ankle. Of course the solution to this is not to carry a 50-lb pack.
-For a certain type of hike, where you're basically tromping through muck and ankle-deep water all day, I can definitely see the advantages of a waterproof boot. On the other hand, if you're also passing through a significant amount of deeper water every day, then you're just going to have wet feet no matter what, and the boots lose their advantage.

-Ben

Got back from my 2nd trip to philmont in the last four years. This time was an 85 mile trek #21 that we added a few extra miles by sidehiking up to Cyphers mine during our layover day at Cito. Our crew packweights were 33-40lbs. Our sister crew was 50-65lbs, unfortunatly they said that as "Rich Californians" we had the money to spend on expensive light weight gear. We politly diagreed that it was lots of searching for and learning to use less and lighter gear. An easy example was the numerous nalgenes that they all carried while I carried a 2L platapus for water and a 1L plastic gatorade bottle for my water and powdered gatorate solution.

A few items that people may want to know.

The Frog Togs are warn by quite a few people in the backcountry, they work ok but you have to be gentle with them or they rip out (especially the pants in the crotch area). We encounter a full day of rain one of the days from Santa Clause to Deer Lake Mesa that was 11 miles. Everyones rain gear failed at this amount of rain, even the Frog Togs.

I was turned down by our ranger and her-boss'-boss for using Blue Steel rope in the backcountry. We could take it but not use it as "it's small size creates too much damage to the trees that it is tied to". I asked why we couldn't put sticks between the bark and the blue steel as that was an acceptable practice in 2007 and was still told "NO". I was told that Philmont was only allowing their ropes in the backcounty, no ifs, ands or buts.

The backcounty stores carry fuel at 10cents/oz. We took a couple of 22oz MSR fuel bottles and re-filled at our second food pick-up and got $2.00 more. When we got back to base camp we had a few oz extra and gave it to a trail bound crew.

Our goals were pretty simple. Keep your personal gear and pack weight to less than 20lbs. 2L of water is 4.4lbs, crew gear divided up with the 10 of us was 5.0 lbs (tents, cooking, repair kit, spices, first aid…) this leaves you with Philmont food of 6-9.0 lbs and you are on your way to a backpack that is less than 40lbs and a very manageble value.

I have to highly disagree on one aspect of your article and that is the drinking of a liter of water in the morning and only carry 500mL is a safety issue. If you want to do this on treks in the Sierra's or California coast go ahead. But this sets a poor and unsafe example to the scouts on the trip. Except for this we enjoyed the article and used (and tried to use)several of its ideas.

This is what you want:

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=254694

CJ's comments feel like a troll and I usually work hard at avoiding the feeding of trolls but since he's claiming to not be a troll … I'll bite.

But first let me start that I also work hard at not telling anyone to make wholesale packing changes on longer outings unless they've actually tested the ideas on shorter trips to see how they work for them.

Also, I'm a former scoutmaster and have been involved with the same troop for 25 years (and till counting) so I hope I have some sense of what boys do and don't do.

One last caveat (promise!), I have done two Philmont treks (itinerary numbers in the low-mid 20's). We did experience icewater rain and hail on each trip and camped above 10,000ft and I've been to the top of Phillips (on a warm day) and Baldy on a beastly cold and windy day. OH, and I regularly backpack where we have cold weather (unlike Philmont) without backup clothing, occasionally I get uncomfortable but not (yet, anyway) hypotheric. I don't go as light as Doug P but that is more due to not spending the $$ needed for the lightest possible options than from carrying more things that he carries.

Point by point response follows …

If you look closely at his list the ONLY clothing that he takes are the clothes he wears on his back and one pair of backup hiking socks.
Hiking Shirt, Hiking pants, hiking socks, extra hiking sock.

He also carries one wool shirt, a vest and a rain suit (top and bottom) and his sleeping outfit which consist of a top, bottom and socks. Keep in mind that sleeping gear is ONLY to be used for sleeping, you should not wear this while eating dinner or during any other activity because you might get smells on it.

I was just fine on both treks with about the same amount of clothing. A micro-fleece pullover instead of wool shirt but no vest. I do use underwear and bring one spare (might not bring the spare if I go again).

I wonder what his explanation is when asked what happens when he gets caught in one of Philmont’s torrential downpours and his clothes get completely soaked before he has a chance to put on his rain suit?
Does he risk hypothermia because he did not bring anything dry?

My raingear is carried in an exterior pack pocket and I don't wander more than a moment's walk from the pack without taking the raingear with me. I have gotten damp but not soaked. If I get chilled I increase my exertion, ordinary synthetic fabrics dry quickly that way.

And what if one of these items became destroyed beyond repair? What then? Does he now need to wear his rain suit the rest of the trip?

While "destroyed beyond repair" is not impossible, I've known some pretty mindless scouts who have yet to accomplish that. I carry a small sewing kit and we've repaired clothing and packs on trail (they were not lightweight packs either).

To me the more important aspect of his lack of clothing is his underwear. … there is NO POSSIBLE way to stay clean enough with one pair of underwear for 12 days without causing chaffing, a terrible rash or worse.
OK, we all know you can wash your clothes (in zip-lock baggies) from time to time but what does he wear when his pants and underwear are drying?

I agree that I (for one) would be miserable (and hurting) with one pair of undies for 12 days. I do laundry every couple days and wear my raingear while washing my pants. I've also tried putting on newly washed shirt/undies/pants while wet when we have downtime in a campsite and there's no hint of rain coming … they dry very very fast.

And what about that pair of sleep socks he is bringing? One of the reasons we bring sleep clothes is so we have a completely dry outfit to sleep in. Mr. Prosser states that his “sleep socks that double as shoulder pads on the G5 pack”. Using a pair of socks as shoulder strap pads equals one pair of sweaty, smelly socks to wear to bed each night. What if he accidently, unknowingly, gets food from lunch on this pair of socks? He now has a bear issue.

I don't use a G5 pack, my pack has it's own padding in the shoulder straps (nowhere else). But the G5's straps are made of waterproof fabric so I don't know that the socks would get sweaty. If they stay inside the straps until bedtime the packstraps fabric will keep food off them.

Once again, my comments are not to provoke an argument but rather to make people that were looking for Philmont Tips to understand that they landed in a website that is known for its extreme methods of packing light and that Philmont Rangers are not going to let you get on trail with this lack of gear.

There IS variability in Philmont rangers and I know scouters who have had hardnosed rangers, but Doug P has been allowed on trail with the gear described in each of his Philmont light articles. I've been allowed on trail twice and I've had many many more positive ranger reactions to my kit than negative.

One more comment. There are very few scouts I'd allow to take a silnylon pack on a long trek (much less a spinnaker G5!) Just too fragile. But I'll use a carefully and smartly made silnylon pack if I return to Philmont again and save a pound compared to my dearly beloved GraniteGear Virga (but that's beyond the scope of CJ's comments).

Someone on this forum wrote that you pack your insecurities.

That someone would be Roman Dial and that saying is a guiding light for me. Challenging my insecurities and testing them has done more to lighten my pack than any other single factor.

It is my understanding that most people come off the trail at Philmont because they are in poor shape and carrying too much, rather than get into trouble because they carried too little.

You are right. People with no training or abilities need idiot-proof gear. They need a tent that will keep them dry that they can pitch easily, not one that they must get up twice in the night and re-tension. They need bags that keep them warm even if damp, not one that becomes useless. They need a pack that can carry all the heavy, idiot-proof gear they need, not an uberlight rucksack.

However, the smarter and more prepared you are, the lighter you can go. It doesnt take experience (which is only learned thru failure), it takes knowledge. But at the same time, there is A LOT of crap most people can leave behind.

I think Mr. Prosser did a pretty good job of getting that point across. What he espoused was normal ultralight backpacking philosophy. Take only what you need, nothing you dont, and you will move faster, and be more comfortable, and have a more enjoyable time.

THe point was impart knowledge to people to change their way of thinking about what they needed to take with them. Not to say "take only this".

A 24 lb pack with 3L water =6.6 lbs, and 4 days food = 8 lbs , means you have a 10 lb baseweight. Admirable, but definitely hard to achieve if you bring a bunch of xs gear. Unless your 24 lbs did not include any food?

We just returned from Philmont Trek 24 on August 5, 2011. Five peaks including Mt. Baldy. We reviewed this thread quite a bit during the planning stages. We had a lot of discussion on going light weight. There was some compromise because of cost so let me make some suggestions based upon our experience. We relied a bunch on the opinions of those who went before us. Read all you want but the experience of others is invaluable. First, if you want to go ultralight you need the commitment of everyone in the crew to the effort. When you decide to go ultralight there are sacrifices to pay when you shed the weight. The primary sacrifice is weight to volume. Backpacks will give you a volume figure but remember that there are things that will not get lighter on your trek: primarily food and water. Then there is personal gear and crew gear. They only thing you have any degree of control over is personal gear and crew gear. We did not get a commitment from the entire crew but we did have tent mates that went ultralight. They carried ULA backs and a Tarptent Rainbow II. Both performed well. Two years ago when a single Scout showed up with a ULA it was not a good experience. The pack could not handle the weight of a load equal to the other boys. Halfway through the trek they were sewing it together with dental floss. My son and his tent mate carried Lowe Alpine TFX Appalachian 65:85 backpacks (http://www.lowealpine-usa.com/index.php?nav=24&search=cat&Category=Backpacking&docp=16_1455). Check for fall sales. They are slightly over 4 pounds. These packs are the middle of the road for cost and performed flawlessly. They shared a Big Agnes Slide Mountain SL 2. This was a close out tent that we got for less than half price. It was very light weight and performed flawlessly. Where everybody saved weight was crew gear and personal gear. On the crew gear side we took a Fly from Cooke Custom Sewing. This company was great to work with and they are on the internet (http://www.cookecustomsewing.com). The fly was never used for anything except a garage to cover packs and gear at night. We used their bear ropes but had plans to use lighter ropes. We used Rubbermaid food storage tubs for each hiker to re-hydrate food. We had to demonstrate this to our Ranger before they let us use it but it works really well. No bags, No pots to clean. Each hike sumps their own tub and they get stored until the following day as crew gear. Before they are used again they get dipped into boiling water to sanitize. All of the boys had rain pants. They were the heaviest and most expensive piece of clothing in the pack. No one ever used them. They took two pair of Northface zip off pants but only one set of legs. Everyone used their gaiters. Finally boots. Several boys purchased Lowa Renegade Boots. Not a single problem. One boy wore a borrowed pair of Renegades that had done Philmont twice before. One other thing. All of the boys got a Frog Tog Chillypad for the trail. Take bandanas instead. After three days the Chillypad smelled so bad that they were by far the grossest thing to come out of the pack.