Who gets out more, the UL or the BC camper?

"I think you are too focused on high alpine areas."

I have my reasons. As for the rest of your post, see below.

"In many of the forests I camp in, it's REALLY hard to actually hurt anything. These forests get burned out regularly and vegetation grows almost instantly. If you cut a couple of saplings or branches, nobody will know. Campfire remains disappear quickly. Edible plants are plentiful.
Yes, high alpine areas can have very fragile environments and plants/trees grow very slowly. It's not the kind of place to utilize natural materials."

+1 As I said earlier, there are probably many areas where BC will have no lasting impact, and I have no problem with BCer's doing their thing there. I should think it would be a lot easier to make it work in the kind of areas you describe anyway. Where I tend to hang out, it would be pretty tough to make a go of bushcraft, beyond the food part, and even that can be pretty sketchy in a lot of places. We are pretty much on the same page here, as far as I can tell.

@Tom Kirchner,

"I've been doing a combo of both for awhile now"

And if they weren't separate items, you wouldn't have been doing a combo. Thank you for supporting the point with this:

"Get into a remote location, camp, and day hike "

You backpacked to get there,

You camped while there,

and even added hiking… Notice you listed three separate activities.

"only with no need to forage, build shelters, or burn wood."

Tom, let me give you a hearty hand shake and a pat on the back. You did it without using those skills. Great! In my write up they were used. I did not say anywhere that someone is better for foraging, building a shelter, or burning wood. Nor am I trying to convince others that they are in some way worse for doing it…

"As for the rest of your obnoxiousness, yeah, we're done."

Thanks. That helps a lot.

"+1 As I said earlier, there are probably many areas where BC will have no lasting impact, and I have no problem with BCer's doing their thing there. I should think it would be a lot easier to make it work in the kind of areas you describe anyway. Where I tend to hang out, it would be pretty tough to make a go of bushcraft, beyond the food part, and even that can be pretty sketchy in a lot of places."

Now I'm confused. You're arguing minutiae with me, but you say something like this that is exactly correct. I never mention doing Bushcraft above the Alpine Line, so why the name calling?

@Craig W.,

I was wrong and am sorry. I misunderstood.

We are in agreement then on most of this.

I wonder if the labels can be useful to a point? A starting out point. I spent many years backpacking with 60 pounds on my back. Then I discovered "ultralight backpacking." The label intrigued me. I used that label to google techniques, locate forums, and find books (yes, the physical kind ;). The label provided me with a coherent grouping regarding subject matter. I found the information I was after based off of that.

The label helped me to find the information group I needed.

The same thing happened with Bushcraft.

I was expecting my post to communicate to the people at the beginning of their education. The one's in a position that the label matters. The "average" "ULer." I was not expecting to debate someone that had been doing it for years. But look at the posts between Tom and I.

My point is merely this.

Yup I've got ten pounds in my backpack. That's all I can really say about it. That in and of itself does not answer the questions, "how often do you go out," "how long do you stay out," "how much do you enjoy yourself?"

My pack weight, my full skin out weight, my Gransfors Bruks, my Laplander, these are all things that can fall under a label.

They don't communicate the awe that overwhelms me when I'm standing in a saddle looking into a valley that ends at the horizon. Trees all around me. The smell of the forrest filling my nostrils, and the sound of a river singing…

Yeah, that.

Craig, I hope someday to invite you to sit by the fire a while.

>>I wonder if the labels can be useful to a point?

As a claimed personal identity, no.
As a descriptor for a school of thought, yes.
As a descriptor for a cluster of behaviors related to a school of thought, sometimes.

I would like to add my two cents on a few things in this thread. One is the cotton vs. synthetic. Cotton is definitely a natural fiber, but the water, pesticides, dye, transport, and lack of recyclability of cotton doesn't make it any better than synthetics. In fact, it can easily be worse. It is also my understanding that the bulk of impact from any garment is post-consumer care. Impacts here are from chemicals used in cleaning and energy used for washing and drying. The most environmentally sound choice then would be to reduce our consumption as much as possible.

Patagonia, shockingly, has made a good article on the subject.
http://www.patagonia.com/us/patagonia.go?assetid=2066

In terms of UL vs. BC, I too see them as very different, but with a common goal. Both are about having fun and enjoying the great outdoors. UL is a backpacking philosophy that lends itself to travelling relatively long distance. BC, in my mind, is a reaction to modern society and is about shucking modern technology and getting old school. I also think they have a ton of overlap. ULers spare heavier sleeping bags and pads by being knowledgeable about campsite selection and bring less clothing by using metabolic heat and managing core temp and sweat. I'm sure you would see these techniques in any BC forum as well.

Either.

"As a descriptor for a school of thought, yes."

Okay.

"As a claimed personal identity, no."

Huh? So what do you call someone that follows a school of thought? Followers of solipsism are solipsists. Those who practice math are mathematicians. Those who practice physics are physicists. Those that are American citizens are Americans. So why exactly doesn't it work as a personal identity?

Just so I understand…

tom k, you misread what the guy said, he didn't say he could go for 14 days with 10 pounds base weight, he said with a 10 pound pack. See the difference? You most certainly cannot go anywhere with an 11 pound pack for 14 days as an UL backpacker.

It's important to actually read what people say when responding, otherwise the conversation gets too confused, I believe he also missed what you said there, and believes you wrote that your pack weighs 11 pounds, or 10, or whatever, for a 14 day trip, which of course is silly, it weighs roughly 14x 2 pounds (food/fuel/etc consumed a day) plus your baseweight plus water.

I think the way for an UL backpacker to avoid this type of confusion is to get in the habit of weighing your pack as it will be the first step you take onto the trail, and forget all about your baseweight at that point except for purposes of trimming stuff off it in between trips, that way you avoid the sort of convoluted thing ul backpackers sometimes do with pack weights, whatever you are carrying is your pack weight, that avoids all games with what is a consumable and what isn't, etc. My last trip, where I had enough food for 7 days, a camera, and whatever else, was 25 pounds including water at the trailhead.

I was going to comment more on the lnt absurdity, ie, drive up to the location in a vehicle often big enough to be a bus in the third world, ignore your daily lives impact on the overall ecosystem etc, but I think that's something you have to sort of figure out for yourselves, or not. I'll just leave it at this, if you drive some large vehicle to the trailhead, routinely, spare me any talk of lnt, I have to breathe in your traces every day of my life as I ride my bike around, so I'm not really into that lie or pretense, I also see the impact of those behaviors on the ecosystem, and it's not pretty, getting less so by the day. Not to forget that when we got to the new world, huge sections of the 'wilderness' were actually very carefully maintained gardens and park lands, controlled by burns and other human behaviors. What we call 'wilderness' is the state of those gardens returning to a weed filled condition after we killed all the original inhabitants/caretakers, like your yard does before a new stable 'natural' condition can resume in a few hundred years. What we term 'weeds' are actually natures first responders, very tough, hardy, plants whose task it is to start rebuilding the damaged ecosystem, layer by layer, preparing it for the next step in the recovery process. Point Reyes, for example, is filled with weeds in most areas that are not grazed, and is in a highly unnatural condition between the trails, it hasn't burned in a long time, and it shows.

In the future, we'll return to a sort of balance again, by necessity. Big Sur, for example, suffers extreme and highly unnatural fires, and most important, too hot fires, which actually destroy the conditions the plants there had evolved to thrive in, ie, seeding by fire etc, because of the decades of fire prevention, which build up, in an extremely unnatural way, traces of huge masses of dry wood and brush. These fires are prevented primarily to protect the properties of the extremely wealthy who ring that area, at least to the North, or of the fortunate original settlers, and there is little chance that we will return to normal controlled burns there any time soon because it's not really possible with human habitations scattered too widely around that region, so using the term lnt in that context is beyond absurd, every single element you see there is a huge trace of highly unnatural processes we cause directly by our actions, ignorant as they are. High alpine stuff is another story, there if you're concerned about traces, start lobbying to get the heavily subsidized livestock grazing permits, sold far under market rates, revoked once and for all, and pull those ranchers off the teat of government aid and charity. That's how you actually solve the primary trace issues there from what I understand.

I suggest that before people throw out the term lnt they be extremely sure that they are doing that first… or at least, leave less trace than most do, that's about the best we can hope for in this present culture.

UL Backpacking – years ago, given the state of UL gear, this kind of hiking really did require some special skills. Today with the improvement in materials, construction, options, etc. UL backpacking doesn't require as much skill, the UL equipment holds up and you can now carry a more robust kit in terms of number of items. I am looking at UL in terms of gear weight and what it takes to remain warm, dry, and safe. That is why a lot of people say UL is dead.

Bushcraft – I don't know what this really is. My limited reading would say it is the skill required to live off the land. It seems, from what I have read, bushcrafters bring along a lot of gear ( knives, saws, hatchets, etc.). Maybe this isn't accurate.

Over 40 years ago I went through USAFA SERE Level D training in 1970. My understanding is that Level D is no longer offered in the military. SERE training is Survival, Escape, Resistance, Evasion. At the time this course was the most comprehensive available, aside from special training like arctic survival. I bring this up because it is surprising what you do not need to survive and what you can do to survive without ripping up the wilderness. To give you an idea of what we did…

First, we did not receive land navigation training. We already had done a lot of this in the prior year to include night navigation in snowstorms in the Rockies. This type of navigation required you to get to check points within specific time frames. So we were already good navigators. There was no such thing as a GPS. Our curriculum after classroom training was:

Week 1 — Simulated POW camp. Highlights were the methods used by the Viet Cong to extract important from prisoners to include water board torture, black box confinements, and beatings. During this time we would try to escape, which was next to impossible. Attempted escapes resulted in additional punishments. At all times we had sacks over our heads, so we were disoriented. During this week we got two meals, a bowl of rice with a fish head in it. We ate this with our fingers and a bag over our heads.

Week 2 — starving, we were taken to Saylor Park in the Pike National Forest for survival training. It was assumed that in most instances we would have a parachute, so shelter building was minimal types of shelters, although we were taught how to build more elaborate shelters. Each of us was given one C Ration and we had to procure our own food, which we were taught to do. A few domestic rabbits were planted, but we had to catch them with a snare. A few of us shared the one rabbit we caught. All other food that week was any plants we could gather. Although a couple of us caught some trout.

Week 3 — evasion training. Each night we had to reach a checkpoint (Lat/Lon). The maps we were given had prominent landmarks trimmed from the map and they were probably equivalent to a 15 min quadrangle. During the day legions of aggressors were out hunting for us so they could capture us and take us back to a POW compound, that was scary. By this time we were sleep deprived, exhausted, hungry, battered and bruised. We traveled at night and slept during the day. Most of us scattered and went solo — less chance of capture. Sleeping during the day we had to be in shelters that could not be seen or detected — else you were captured. For this week we again we received one C Ration, so along with navigating and hiding, you had to find food. As I remember we each had a sleeping bag, poncho, knife, map and compass. We might have had a firesteel. We did not have a pack so it was nearly impossible to keep your sleeping bag dry with afternoon thunder showers and a couple of days of snow.

Weight loss of 20 to 30 lbs over 3 weeks was not uncommon.

So… UL backpacking or bushcraft is rather silly in a sense. If you want to learn real skills, join the military :)

And of course the good backpacker never gets into a survival situation; but if you do, you need to know how to survive.

As to who gets out more — silly question too.

Harold, the amount of fuel build up in Big Sur right now is scary.There are some large fallen over trees that are just huge pieces of charcoal, which means that the fires have killed redwoods (that's not supposed to happen). Frequent low intensity fires would be nice, but I don't see that ever happening again.
During the winter when we have had free time, we have built large fires (safely) to try and burn excess wood around the remote redwood groves and larger trees.

The outdoors person gets out he most. They don't worry about silly labels and just experience the outdoors.

"The outdoors person gets out he most. They don't worry about silly labels and just experience the outdoors."

Ah, that's the answer we seek!

Car camping, trailer camping, skiing, snowshoeing, backpacking, day hikes, hunting, fishing, rafting, etc. Do a lot of let's say 4 or 5 of these.

I can't believe I'm replying to this thread.
Bushcrafting is a lot of work and is limited in the areas where practicing it is appropriate.
Therefore, people that get out a lot, will do proportionately less BC & more UL.

"tom k, you misread what the guy said, he didn't say he could go for 14 days with 10 pounds base weight, he said with a 10 pound pack." See the difference?"

Nor did I say that is what he said, Harald. Actually, what he said is: "Our adventurer sets out. He (being a man I will NOT speak for women) has a ten pound backpack. His full skin out weight is twenty pounds." So, his pack ends up being 20 pounds, including somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 pounds of consumables, assuming clothing worn weighing in the neighborhood of 4 pounds, more if his clothing worn is less. Do you see the difference? He mentioned no number of days, but followed up with: "To the UL'ers: You have ten pounds on your back, how many days can you stay out with it?" It was that comment to which I originally responded with MY 14 DAY answer based on my 11 pound base weight, an insignificant difference of one pound to which he objected. For a strict apples to apples comparison, based on a 20 pound total weight for both of us, I should have responded 5 plus/6 days, because my clothing worn is 3.5 pounds, my food per day weighs 19 ounces, and I do not cook if I want to travel really light or am going to be in bear country, therefore I need no fuel. Where the 14 day number came from is what I have figured to be the maximum I can comfortably carry in my OHM, extrapolated with complete confidence from field experience on 11 day trips with an OHM plus non UL field experience on trips ranging up to 17 days unsupported. The 14 day full skin out weight would be: clothing worn = 3.5#; base weight stripped down to 9# for a trip of this length, because we're no longer talking hypothetically(i.e. no camera, stove, fuel, etc); food = 16.5# @ 20 oz/day(add 1 oz of coconut oil for extra calories due to trip length) for 13 days plus 4 oz for lunch on final day. The grand total is 29#. I do not count water because it varies all over the place. Suffice it to say for a long trip like this I would choose a route that offered easy access to water for the first few days, and would carry a max of 1# for a max total of 30#. So, for 9-10 pounds more than our apples to apples 20 pount total weight, I can stay out 14 days. It would be interesting to know how long a BCer could stay out by foraging and remaining at a 20 pound total weight; I suspect the answer would vary all over the map, depending on skill level and availability of forage. However, I doubt it would be 14 days, simply because it is very hard to obtain sufficient calories by foraging alone, unless one is hunting, and even then it is a challenge. Fish do not supply a lot of calories, as I learned the hard way on a 16 day trip long ago, nor do berries, roots, salad greens, etc.

"You most certainly cannot go anywhere with an 11 pound pack for 14 days as an UL backpacker."

True enough. That figured referred to base weight, as did his hypothetical scenario with a 10 pound base weight and 20 pound total weight. Hopefully I clarified that above, although I would have thought it was pretty obvious. At any rate, I guess I should have spelled it out.

"It's important to actually read what people say when responding"

I think I read what he said pretty carefully. However, I should have made the original response an apples to apples response.

"for a 14 day trip,…… it weighs roughly 14x 2 pounds (food/fuel/etc consumed a day) plus your baseweight plus water."

You are way off the mark here, Harald, based on your faulty assumption of 2 pounds per day for my consumables, as I explained above. You would do well in future not to make such assumptions about other hiker's food requirements and cook/no cook styles.

In closing, I would like to indulge in a little thread drift regarding posting etiquette. My original post, whatever you want to say about the contents, was civil in tone. The response it received from Mr Vinzant was not, to say the least, and your response, Harald, was, as so often seems to be the case with you, downright condescending, as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child. In the event, you were a bit off the mark yourself. Neither attitude is conducive to a productive discussion. The actual content of your posts get lost when the recipient either responds in kind of simply walks away, leaving the discussion either unfinished or spiraling downward into a flame war. When I post, I am totally willing to listen to any and all criticisms of what I post, in fact I welcome them, and feel it is my right to reciprocate. Civilly. I am all in favor of discussion, debate, even vigorous argument, but when the posts turn ad hominum or condecending I object. That happens all too often, IMO, and has ended many a good discussion prematurely, to the detriment of the community.

>>Huh? So what do you call someone that follows a school of thought? Followers of solipsism are solipsists. Those who practice math are mathematicians. Those who practice physics are physicists. Those that are American citizens are Americans. So why exactly doesn't it work as a personal identity?

There are quantifiable criteria for getting to call yourself a physicist or an American. When you start drawing those lines around something as varied as outdoor recreation, you get a bunch of false distinctions that result in people getting heated in defense of "their" identity. In reality, context matters and an arbitrary line between "ULer" and "BCer" is meaningless. If a person uses any sort of survival skills or natural materials they are effectively practicing bushcraft. If a person deliberately seeks to minimize their carried weight through assessing their needs and eliminating redundant items, they are effectively following UL principles. Everyone here does the latter and almost everyone has probably done the former at one time or another. Claiming BC/UL as a personal identity is just picking a tribe to join, and the only practical effect of it is determining what side of the argument you're on in threads like these. :)

@Tom K.,

I was not looking for a fight. The condescension you mentioned started with your response to something I said:

"Why chop up a bunch of trees and dig up a bunch of soil, thereby disrupting root systems and associated mycorhizomes, not to mention all sorts of insects, worms, etc? Hardly LNT, IMO. Just wondering…"

That is what came across. You used a ridiculous definition of "LNT" making your entire post come off as insulting my intelligence. I had no problem with you, or your opinion until as you put it:

"as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child"

I was trying to keep it simple, not insulting, but simple.

If you were not trying to come across as "downright condescending," now you know you did…

In my communication with someone earlier (in THIS thread) they pointed out I misunderstood them. I apologized and corrected it. You however have gone holier than thou thinking that you can apply rules to everyone but yourself.

"My original post, whatever you want to say about the contents, was civil in tone."

Now that you know that is NOT the case, what are you planning to do from here? I do not need more enemies in life. I have shown I can admit when I am wrong.

FWIW, I agree with what you said about base pack weight. I was not confused by what you meant, and appreciate you following the same convention I used.

"I was not looking for a fight. The condescension you mentioned started with your response to something I said:

"Why chop up a bunch of trees and dig up a bunch of soil, thereby disrupting root systems and associated mycorhizomes, not to mention all sorts of insects, worms, etc? Hardly LNT, IMO. Just wondering…"

Everett – First off, I admire your effort to achieve a positive resolution to our exchange. That takes both courage and good intent. I shall endeavor to respond in kind. Please bear with me while I try to reconstruct the chain of events as I see it. My first post was in response to the following segment of a post you made earlier, as follows: "Once there he no longer relies on the Gatewood cape and net tent he brought. He collects branches to put around a FELLED(my caps for emphasis) log creating a rather nice improvised shelter. He lays the branches on thick, processing them with his Grunsfors Bruks when necessary. He whips out his Cold Steel shovel and starts the process of placing a layer of dirt over the outside branches. Once a layer of dirt is down another layer of branches covers that, followed by another layer of dirt. The shelter's built."

The dictionary definition of "felled" is to cut, chop, knock down a tree, according to a dictionary link, below. So, I hope you can see why, given your mention of a Grunsfors Bruk hatchet, I might have concluded that your hypothetical BC/ULer might have done the cutting. This was followed by using a shovel to add two layers of dirt to a surface large enough to provide shelter for a grown man. Then, at the end of your post you wrote the following:

"He tears down camp spreading the foliage that covered his lean-to. He breaks up the fire pit, buries ashes, and collects any trash. By the time he is done an Army sniper would not know that this was a camp site."

All of this, taken together, was what caused me to respond as I did. At this point, I would like to separate the discussion of my post into 2 parts, the wording, and the content, because I am potentially willing to change the wording, even apologize for it, but the content in response to your original post, as expressed, I am not. It is beyond credibility, at least to me, to consider the scenario you provided as LNT. We will just have to disagree on that, I'm afraid. My intent in my response was to express incredulity, not condescension, and I am still having trouble seeing how you would interpret it as condescending. I would be inclined to paper it over by apologizing even though I do not believe what I wrote was condescending, however I fear that would take us down the slippery slope to allowing you to determine the definition of what is condescending, holier than thou, etc. Instead, I propose that we throw it open to the other posters to this thread for comment, if they are willing to do so. If the verdict is that I was being condescending, I will sincerely apologize to you forthwith, and engage in some serious self reflection before posting in future to any controversial topic. If the verdict is that you are being overly sensitive, I hope you will adjust your approach accordingly.

Definition of felled.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/felled

"You used a ridiculous definition of "LNT" making your entire post come off as insulting my intelligence. I had no problem with you, or your opinion until as you put it:

"as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child""

I submit that my definition of LNT or, more accurately, Leave Less Trace was anything but ridiculous, given what you posted. I'm sorry, I just don't see it your way here.

"If you were not trying to come across as "downright condescending," now you know you did…"

Again, I suggest we submit it to the community for resolution. Just because you say so does not make it so.

"In my communication with someone earlier (in THIS thread) they pointed out I misunderstood them. I apologized and corrected it. You however have gone holier than thou thinking that you can apply rules to everyone but yourself."

I think it is you who are attempting to apply your own rules. I prefer to abide by community standards. Are you willing to do so as well?

"Now that you know that is NOT the case, what are you planning to do from here?"

Abide by the community's decision, if it is rendered. If not, you and I will have to figure it out ourselves, or try to stay out of each other's way.

"I do not need more enemies in life. I have shown I can admit when I am wrong."

If I am shown to be wrong, as I said, I will apologize to you, sincerely. As for enemies, this is not important enough for that word to even enter the conversation. We had a disagreement, no more. Hopefully we are now on the way to sorting it out.
You are clearly an intelligent fellow with a lot to contribute to BPL, and it would be good if we could dialogue without it degenerating into a flame war. With a little good will and perseverance, I'm sure we can put this to rest.

Edited for content, grammar, syntax, etc.

Tom K.,

Apparently we have no problem here then.

I was using the term felled in the past tense. The person in the story wasn't the cause. They were using material already down.

With that being the case, as far as I can tell, we actually agree. Most of the misunderstanding seems to have grown from the use of a word I thought I put in the past tense.

I see how this situation developed on your side.

If I have offended you, I apologize. I don't need another person to avoid in life.

"If I have offended you, I apologize. I don't need another person to avoid in life."

Let's make it a reciprocal apology, Everett, and proceed henceforth in an atmosphere of cordial dialogue when our interests intersect in the same thread. I have pretty much chalked up the acrimony to a combination of our different posting styles and this being our first encounter; the one dimensional nature of the Internet, which does not convey the various non linguistic cues so important to effective communication, didn't help either, IMO. It has been resolved amicably, as far as I'm concerned. As you said, "we have no problem here".

Welcome to BPL!

I'm a lightweight backpacker (not UL) but, being an elder of the tribe I DO have "bushcraft" skills taught to me when I was in the Boy Scouts in the 1950s.

Yes, I know how to use an axe quite well (and sharpen it). I know many lashings and knots. I know how to (and have made) lean-tos. Back in the day we called these skills "Pioneering" and all Scouts had to learn them at risk of losing their manliness if they didn't. There was even a Pioneering merit badge. I kid you not.

Bushcrafting is just Pioneering under a different name. It's 50's era Scouting skills.

But unless I'm totally f_____d I'll never need those skills.

I don't see the two groups, backpackers and bushcrafters, as different groups. I have some bushcraft skills, and some lightweight backpacking skills. And some mountaineering skills, and some orienteering skills, and some cooking and survival skills. I have been on backpacks where I had to make tent stakes and poles from sticks, where I improvised water filters, cooked fish, and I could rig a shelter if I have to. It would be incorrect to assume bushcrafter folks don't backpack or vice versa. I just finished making a knife for my son's Eagle rank, kind of a bushcraft project.

Its good for backpackers to have a wide range of skills, and to put ultra light backpackers up as some kind of elite club is not useful or accurate.