Is National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) Ready to Go Light?

Posted: 04/12/2007 16:54:26 MDT by Sarah Kirkconnell (sarbar)

>This morning I took a detour to Barnes & Noble, and picked up a copy of the NOLS cookbook (for some reason I don't own it, and I own pretty much every trail cookbook). So I got reading and whatnot.

Here is my question:
What is the reasoning behind the carrying of supplies of food? Is it to keep it as a group? I guess my question is behind carrying bulk items, not premade up meals. My question comes, I guess, from that I have never done much traditional group backpacking. I have always carried my food, and only my food. Even in group trips we all do this. We are responsible for feeding ourselves. That means unless we make arrangements with another person, we are cooking, cleaning and feeding ourselves. Doesn't mean we don't share ;-) But I guess if I had been a boy and did Boy Scouts or such I might have got the group mentality.<

Great question Sarah,
The idea behind cooking as a four person grouop is that each person has to learn to cook and do things for others, rather than just for themselves. This is an excellent educational tool that helps facilitate group dynamics, conflict reolution and teamwork, even communication. I might go so far as to say it can be one of the most powerful tools in teaching those skills.

I think that solo cooking is somewhat unique to lightweight hiking, though I can't say for sure. I actualy think it is a neat piece of self reliance in the wilderness, and the fact that it can be done is really cool. My experience (even outside of NOLS) has always been group cooking. It wasn't until I got into lightweight that I experienced solo cooking. Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks!

>The other question I have about the book is they use traditional items like raw rice, etc. Will that change in an effort to lower weight? If you go to instant items, you use less fuel, hence less weight. Your cleanup is also easier, meaning less things like scrub pads, soap, etc. <

Hmm,
I haven't looked at the cookery in depth in a while. As far as I know, we DO use instant rice and other items, like oatmeal. Do you know which edition of the cookery you got, I know there is a new addition out. I'll have to run down to the issue room and take a look to see what's going on there!

>And cuts camp time down. <

absolutly premade meals will cut down camp time, but there is a big difference between learning to cook and learning to boil water ;)

> It sounds like the small groups cook their meals in one pot? Will this change at all to cut pack weight? What type of pans do they use currently? Will they go to Ti?<

One pot and a "frybake" pan (see earlier posts in this thread). Not sure how you could go less that one pot for four people? If you mean a smaller Ti pot each, that is about what the lightweight courses do. Some courses will be using Ti pots in the near future, or aluminium at the least instead of Stailess steel – EEK!

You are right about fuel consumption for sure! Right now we aren't using soap and scrubbies to clean up, so not a lot to lose there.

>Also, you mentioned that cooking is a big part of the curriculum. That is interesting.<

I hope the info above helps explain it a little bit. On the lightweight courses it is less of a focus than on standard wilderness backpacking courses. Mostly b/c we haven't figured out how to bake a calzone in a 1 liter Ti pot, over an alchohol stove yet!

>Anyways, sorry for the ramblings…..maybe if I hadn't gotten back into backpacking in my late twenties, I might have done something like NOLS.<

No worries on the ramblings these are good questions!
FYI – We offer 23 & over courses which usually have an age spread of 23-48 y/o. That's how the lightweight courses are running for now.

Hmmm…maybe one Ti or aluminum pot per person(holding about a capacity of 3 cups), but no bowl to eat out of. That lowers gear to carry. I note they take insulated mugs? Dump that and carry a Ti cup. That and a spork is all a person really needs. Sure an insulated mug is nice, but it isn't needed, unless you are doing extensive snow camping.

You do make a point though: most people who join our hiking group, if they are not lightweight packers, usually have done group cooking. I am upfront about it though, and most find it easier in the long run. They pick what they like and can eat when they want. I have actually gotten to the point that I bag my kid's food separately from mine, so that he can eat when I don't want to. And I make him carry his food also. This year he is getting his own stove, and learning the art of boiling water..lol!

Though we usually all eat together in the evening. We just cook separately :-) There is definitely a connection between light packers and an independent streak.

Maybe someday I will do a course. Just cannot imagine leaving my weasel for that long. I'll just have to wait for him to hit 23. ;-)

Sarah,

Yeah, I've never understood the insulated mug thing myself, keeps my drink hot too long! One idea that came up during the seminar, was 1 (lightweight)2L pot/4 people and a Ti mug/bowl/cup. Still lets us do group cooking, but lowers the weight overall, and I think will increase fuel efficiency – I think it would be more efficient to boil 2 2L pots of H2O than 1 4L, just a gut feeling though.

I actually like to use a .5L nalgene or a gatorade bottle for a hot drink container. It allows me to make a hot drink and bring it to a class or group meeting and not have to carry it in my hands or worry about spilling it. Recently there have been some questions about the health issues of using plastic for hot drinks though, so Ti is nice in that respect!

What's the deal with the spork? I see alot of sporks in the lightweight world (I have even aquired a few in my travels) but have always been partial to to a legit spoon. What's the advantages of a spork?

Your "weasel" could be as young as 14, if you didn't mind being on different courses!

Are you questioning the spork!?! Blasphemy!
I like mine because its titanium. It also seems to grab Ramen a hair better than a normal spoon. Mostly because its titanium though :).

Adam

Hahaha,
No blasphemy.
Just making sure I am not missing some bigger secret that the spork holds. All the one's I've found are Ti too, which is nice, but I have a Ti spoon that I prefer. Mostly because it doesn't poke holes in things!

>NOLS is certainly ingrained in certain ways of doing things<
Ryan, that is an understatement. I applaud your efforts to change philosophy at NOLS, but liability, insurance, loss prevention, and lawyers will be impediments to change. When is the last time members of the NOLS board of directors hoisted 60lb. packs to go for a hike?
Maybe change can come through enlightened (no pun intended)instructors, younger directors, and lightweight oriented clients. Don't know. Good luck.

Paul

The stereotypic Boy Scout is a young fellow carrying a pack so large and uncomfortable that he thinks of backpacking as a chore, not as a pleasure. Most Scouts end their backpacking careers in the Scouts. They don't continue with the sport later in life.

This is one reason that the number of backpackers is in decline. Those who otherwise would be expected to continue with backpacking are turned off by its perceived discomforts.

While some Scouts go on to become long-term backpackers, most don't. (If most did, our trails would be full.) As for being a means of producing new backpackers, Scouting, on the whole, seems to have failed.

What about NOLS? Its web site says it has had 75,000 graduates in the last 40 years. How many of them continued to backpack as adults? Has NOLS taken surveys of its long-ago graduates to find out?

It is one thing to learn wilderness skills. But that learning is frustrated if never put to use in later years–like learning ballroom dancing as a kid and then never stepping onto a real dance floor in later life.

Paul,
I can't say for sure when the BOD hoisted sixty pound packs last, but they go on two retreats every year I believe, doing different activities.
So I would bet they have (some at least) been backpacking relatively recently.

Remember though, the 60# packs are for month long trips not weekend excursions. I am not the only person helping to drive these changes (I just seem to be the only one who is trying to explain it in this forum!) Everyone is acting like this is a huge question of how, but I need to reiterate – IT IS ALREADY IN PLAY – We are already running courses that are going out at 25 lbs or less. It is important to understand that the Board of Directors does not look over our shoulder on every little decision. Day to Day operation of the School is done at a very different level.

Do you think that there will be more injuries carrying lighter packs? It seems to me there might be fewer. Even if it means that Instructors need to carry more than students, that would be fine.

Posted: 04/12/2007 20:48:56 MDT by Karl Keating (KarlKeating)

>The stereotypic Boy Scout is a young fellow carrying a pack so large and uncomfortable that he thinks of backpacking as a chore, not as a pleasure. Most Scouts end their backpacking careers in the Scouts. They don't continue with the sport later in life.

This is one reason that the number of backpackers is in decline. Those who otherwise would be expected to continue with backpacking are turned off by its perceived discomforts.

While some Scouts go on to become long-term backpackers, most don't. (If most did, our trails would be full.) As for being a means of producing new backpackers, Scouting, on the whole, seems to have failed.

What about NOLS? Its web site says it has had 75,000 graduates in the last 40 years. How many of them continued to backpack as adults? Has NOLS taken surveys of its long-ago graduates to find out?

It is one thing to learn wilderness skills. But that learning is frustrated if never put to use in later years–like learning ballroom dancing as a kid and then never stepping onto a real dance floor in later life.

This post was edited by KarlKeating at 04/12/2007 20:50:17 MDT.<

Excellent points Karl.
I do not have survey info on of how many of our grads continue to hike. I like to believe that even those that do not hike anymore, have some appreciation for the wilderness and fight for it's preservation. I'll make some calls tomorrow to see if that data is available.

We also are not necessarily taking folks backpacking to make them backpackers for life, we are trying to teach them leadership skills through backpacking. Of course we want them to gain the skills to backpack for life too, but Leadership is a huge part of what we do.

I think that this initiative to go lighter will help us to promote wilderness travel even more. by making it more enjoyable we help to increase the # of participants in a lifelong pursuit.

It is interesting that you mention the scouts. I know that Ryan J. is very active in promoting lightweight backpacking within the scouts, he is in many ways helping us to do the same. I think it will benefit both organizations to pursue this trend, and ultimately it will help to create a more engaged population to defend the wilderness.

There is no bigger secret you're missing concerning sporks. The problem when you try to combine two (or more) functions into one item that usually both functions don't work well anymore. Take a look at these PDA-mp3_player-cell_phone-camera items. They can do all these functions, but none of the very well, usually the mp3 player sucks or the phone doesn't work that well. Same with sporks: the teeth of the fork are just too small to actually stick into sth and when eating soup, the soup mostly runs out cause basically a spork is a leaking spoon. All the meals i eat are perfectly eatable with a spoon.

Hope this blasphemy won't end up in a trip to the stake for me.

When I look at Ray Mears he usually cooks in a fire pit, over open fires and never uses a stove. But that of course is the opposite of any LNT ethics, so I guess that's why NOLS cooks on stoves, which I completely endorse.

Eins

"The 40# initiative came from the branch level"

That should help tremendously. I always got good support from program supervisors and the issue room at the RMB.

For those who don't know, in Lander there are two very different incarnations of NOLS. The International HQ is probably the largest building in Lander, and it offers three stories of offices filled with all the folks who run human resources, set policy, handle finance, provide publicity, perform research, handle records, and coordinate visa and whatnot for the (I believe) 9 different branches of the school (plus the assorted "twigs" which are offshoots of the twigs worldwide). Most of the full-time employees for the school work here. This is sort of the Pentagon for the school.

Then you have the branches which are on the ground meeting directly with students and making things happen. This is where folks draw their gear, bag their rations, get checked over for itinerary, and so forth before heading into the backcountry. Most of the people working here are seasonal employees on a contract.

It is MUCH easier to make a change here than in the "big building" up the road. It was at the Rocky Mountain Branch that I was first introduced to Aqua Mira in 2002. And it was here that I actually had the chance to sit down with folks and offer a few thoughts to the program supervisors who were creating the GPS curriculum the school began using in 2003. Folks at the branch are generally intimately concerned with what happens in the field and the program supervisors listen to what instructors and even students have to say.

If the push toward lighter packs is happenning at the RMB (Rocky Mountain Branch – which by the way is by far the biggest of the branches) then the intitiative will likely be successful, so long as funding and liability issues from above don't prevent the branch from making it happen.

Hehheh…
I use a Lexan GSI Foon. Love it! I even have other sporks as well. We have the normal GS spork as well.
The Foon is pretty nifty as it has a huge spoon bowl for liquids.
I like that I can get my pasta with it. Though a normal spoon does work just fine ;-)

Now, for the true lover of utensils, the GSI Rehydration long handled Lexan spoon is too cool!

I am odd in that I don't use Ti utensils. I can't stand metal clanking on my teeth. Gives me the willies!

I found the podcast really necessary to understand the problems faced.

I don’t know about Ray Jardine calling his insightful lightweight paradigm a pyramid: perhaps a “systems approach” would be just as good. And that’s just what NOLS needs to go light.

How do you get bag weight down using zero degree synthetic bags? (my guess is the safety factor when wet with beginners argues for synthetics) Certainly zero degree bags are not always needed, and a systems approach using clothing, liners, would help at the expense of more complex purchases and instruction on NOLS’s part.

Light weight tents may not take rough beginner abuse very well, and with the best cheap substitutes such as floorless tarp tents or plastic/nylon tarps, you may have to deal with biting bugs and very different use methods for staff to learn and teach.

Alcohol stoves are not that easy to do fine cooking with, as opposed to meal in bag water boiling, and disposable canister stoves may not fit into the environmental ethic of NOLS.

Additionally, I can imagine the life of a rainshield suit used in brush by a novice 16-year old. (or average adults, for that matter)

Without lightweight solutions to most of these, you won’t be able to use a light pack, and thus use light shoes or very light boots. And there goes your lightweight backpacking system.

I believe this can be done, but I also suspect the solutions will involve more complex purchases than NOLS is used to, along with teaching some basic field care and repair as well as buying some lower priced gear with more frequent replacements.

I'm not at all convinced that much of this change can be gradual, however, because in a systems approach, everything is connected to everything else. (as John Muir said)

To be blunt, when I hear stories about so-called "students" destroying bomber gear through pure belligerent ham-fistedness, I want to call them spoiled brats.

I was a scout, and from the first time I touched a tent or a stove I knew darned well that I was to learn to handle these items with care. Why? Because it was what we had to keep the rain off of our heads and to put food in our bellies, and most importantly it was *all* we had. It was all we had for that trip, but it was also all we had for that season or longer.

We spent countless hours going from door to door collecting empty bottles and cans to buy that equipment, and a given tent could already have survived a decade or more of 4-season camping before it kept the snow or rain off of our faces. We were taught to respect our gear, to protect it and maintain it.

Imagine a soldier standing in front of his drill instructor, asking for a new rifle because his was full of sand and dented. Would the DI say "this guy's just new; he's never even handled a weapon before"? No way. When your life depends on your kit, the number one lesson is caring for your kit. You'd be embarrassed to be the guy who blew a hole through his shelter or who slammed his pack down and wrecked a seam.

Are these students so spoiled that they're allowed to thrash steel-and-cordura equipment to within an inch of its' life, and the instructors just sigh and pull a 3lb repair kit from a 70lb pack? Is that an instructor, or a servant?

In my opinion, caring for your kit (and not being a hoon with it) is one of the most basic lessons of outdoorsmanship. Whether your kit is made of silnylon or 200-denier smithsonian fabric, if you refuse to be a responsible steward of it then are you really "with the program"? Or are you just acting like a city-dwelling consumer who has repair and replacement at his fingertips 24 hours a day?

Supposing the students had buy-in on protecting their kit? Supposing they were charged for damage, or penalized in some other way? Their grades maybe? I'm just brainstorming; I know nothing of NOLS.

Supposing that students were informed at the outset that one of the great challenges of outdoorsmanship is to have a safe and enjoyable time using only available resources?

I think that the whole you-smash-it-I'll-repair-it philosophy goes along with the previous poster's comment about dominating the outdoors vs. being in harmony with it. If you need bomber combat-grade tackle just to get from point A to point B, have you really learned the lesson that nature is trying to teach you? If you're not capable of returning a siltarp and a ULA pack in the *same* condition in which they were rented to you, *have you really passed the course??*

The idea of buy-in isn't the only consideration when considering the "Bomber" issue.

My program (very similar to OB and NOLS) uses heavier gear just to get enough mileage out of every piece to make it pay for itself. Our students do a good job of taking care of equipment, but they are first time users who do make errors from time to time. Now figure that ALL of our students are first time users of the same reused gear that we are trying to get maximum mileage out of for the money that we spend.

So, really we aren't talking about students that are spoiled, just beginners. They do this one 25 day course and then all the gear gets deissued and prepped for the next course that will be filled with another batch of beginners.

I understand your point about the DI's response to the new soldier. As with our instructors, we do our best to instill good practices, but accidents happen and they are learned from. The DI teaches soldiers to care for, clean and repair weapons. The outdoor instructor teaches students to care for, clean and repair gear. That cycle occurs every course with the exact same gear that the last beginner was taught on.

Our program uses everything until it falls apart because its part of the school ethic to not be consumers of convenience. So we have to find a balance between durability and weight. Ideally, the best option would be durable and light.

And that is where this whole discussion is hopefully headed…what is the best gear that is both durable and light?

>>>>Posted: 04/15/2007 20:29:12 MDT by Jason Ham (jasonham)

The idea of buy-in isn't the only consideration when considering the "Bomber" issue.

My program (very similar to OB and NOLS) uses heavier gear just to get enough mileage out of every piece to make it pay for itself. Our students do a good job of taking care of equipment, but they are first time users who do make errors from time to time. Now figure that ALL of our students are first time users of the same reused gear that we are trying to get maximum mileage out of for the money that we spend.

So, really we aren't talking about students that are spoiled, just beginners. They do this one 25 day course and then all the gear gets deissued and prepped for the next course that will be filled with another batch of beginners.

I understand your point about the DI's response to the new soldier. As with our instructors, we do our best to instill good practices, but accidents happen and they are learned from. The DI teaches soldiers to care for, clean and repair weapons. The outdoor instructor teaches students to care for, clean and repair gear. That cycle occurs every course with the exact same gear that the last beginner was taught on.

Our program uses everything until it falls apart because its part of the school ethic to not be consumers of convenience. So we have to find a balance between durability and weight. Ideally, the best option would be durable and light.

And that is where this whole discussion is hopefully headed…what is the best gear that is both durable and light?<<<

This is a great summary of what we are dealing with (not sure that's the right phrase).

Imagine sending 8 beginners out with UL gear (the same set of gear) every 30 days. Even with coaching, there will be issues (whoops, ripped that 1.6 oz shelter!) That is why the gradual approach – ie: specific lightweight courses, and a general pack weigh reduction is the way to go. We get to test the light weight gear on multiple courses, and reduce weight in general.

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the support on this board. I would have thought that we would hear more " right on, good on ya, it's about time!" type comments.

>>>>Subject: What about buy-in?
Posted: 04/15/2007 19:52:56 MDT by Brian James (bjamesd)

To be blunt, when I hear stories about so-called "students" destroying bomber gear through pure belligerent ham-fistedness, I want to call them spoiled brats.

I was a scout, and from the first time I touched a tent or a stove I knew darned well that I was to learn to handle these items with care. Why? Because it was what we had to keep the rain off of our heads and to put food in our bellies, and most importantly it was *all* we had. It was all we had for that trip, but it was also all we had for that season or longer.

We spent countless hours going from door to door collecting empty bottles and cans to buy that equipment, and a given tent could already have survived a decade or more of 4-season camping before it kept the snow or rain off of our faces. We were taught to respect our gear, to protect it and maintain it.

Imagine a soldier standing in front of his drill instructor, asking for a new rifle because his was full of sand and dented. Would the DI say "this guy's just new; he's never even handled a weapon before"? No way. When your life depends on your kit, the number one lesson is caring for your kit. You'd be embarrassed to be the guy who blew a hole through his shelter or who slammed his pack down and wrecked a seam.

Are these students so spoiled that they're allowed to thrash steel-and-cordura equipment to within an inch of its' life, and the instructors just sigh and pull a 3lb repair kit from a 70lb pack? Is that an instructor, or a servant?

In my opinion, caring for your kit (and not being a hoon with it) is one of the most basic lessons of outdoorsmanship. Whether your kit is made of silnylon or 200-denier smithsonian fabric, if you refuse to be a responsible steward of it then are you really "with the program"? Or are you just acting like a city-dwelling consumer who has repair and replacement at his fingertips 24 hours a day?

Supposing the students had buy-in on protecting their kit? Supposing they were charged for damage, or penalized in some other way? Their grades maybe? I'm just brainstorming; I know nothing of NOLS.

Supposing that students were informed at the outset that one of the great challenges of outdoorsmanship is to have a safe and enjoyable time using only available resources?

I think that the whole you-smash-it-I'll-repair-it philosophy goes along with the previous poster's comment about dominating the outdoors vs. being in harmony with it. If you need bomber combat-grade tackle just to get from point A to point B, have you really learned the lesson that nature is trying to teach you? If you're not capable of returning a siltarp and a ULA pack in the *same* condition in which they were rented to you, *have you really passed the course??*<<<<

I'm There with you Brian. I wish our students had the experience you did.
Had they spent "countless hours going from door to door collecting empty bottles and cans to buy that equipment, Then maybe they would have a better appriciation of the value of it."

Our students do not have that experience. They show up the night before, often on a smaller plane than they have ever imagined, the next day they are are issued gear, they ration food, have a little time to meet each other, the next day they are in the field. Maybe more in town time would be beneficial to going lighter? I am not sure.

Please do not think that we are not teaching students to respect and care for their gear. They are, in fact evaluated and graded on this.

>>>"Supposing the students had buy-in on protecting their kit? Supposing they were charged for damage, or penalized in some other way? Their grades maybe? I'm just brainstorming; I know nothing of NOLS."<<<

As I stated above, students are graded on care of the equipment. Maybe it would be easier to gauge w/ lighter weight gear?
Students are charged for damage, and it is reflected in their grade, at least on the courses I run.

There is a big difference between an organization that runs weekend trips, and one that runs 30 day trips back to back. And I'm not trying to discount your experience, but a week or a weekend is a different thing than a 30 day course, particularly when the gear is turned around in 24 hrs.

—"I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the support on this board. I would have thought that we would hear more " right on, good on ya, it's about time!" type comments."—

I'm really sorry to have sounded critical. I wrote that post in a hurry. Having read the article and all the posts here and having listened to the podcast, I just had the impression that the gear had to be bomber to tolerate abuse. I didn't realize that simple *use* (with the occasional oopsie) could degrade and destroy gear that quickly. My apologies for my naiveté on the subject. I'm definitely impressed that your organization has this goal and I think your journey towards lightweight will be very positive for you and for your students — as it has been for all of us! I only meant to convey some of my thoughts on the subject; I didn't mean to come across as unsupportive.

I note that the discussion of lightweight gear has been based on the general assumption that it's all very fragile. And a lot of *ultralightweight* gear really is — for instance some of what you guys were probably shown on this seminar (sailcloth shelters and such) probably seemed more delicate than a butterfly wing to backpackers who are accustomed to 8lb packs.

There is, however, a lot of lightweight gear that is very robust. No, Dyneema will never be as wear-resistant as cordura. But then again with a lightweight pack the forces involved are quite different too. A 40 or 50 or 60lb pack hits the ground with *way* more force than a 25 pounder: both because it weighs more but also because it's more likely to be out of control as it falls! I think that 25lbs is a weight that many or most people can have good physical control over, whereas 40lbs+ is a weight that will overwhelm a significant portion of students and lead to "letting it drop" rather than "setting it down" a lot more often.

The same goes for shelters: wouldn't a big, seemingly over-designed, urethane-coated bomber tent with zipper pulls the size of a volkswagen just *seem* tougher, and therefore engender less conscious and unconscious respect from users? And conversely, wouldn't a papery-feeling pyramid tarp that rolls up into nothing actually elicit gentler handling? And of course if it only costs 1/4 as much, it only has to last 1/4 as long. If you put these two factors together, I feel that the total value of equation of lightweight gear isn't as cut-and-dried as "it isn't built as tough so it won't last as long." But once again, I'm just brainstorming.

A company whose packs get high marks for load-carrying and durability on these forums is ULA Equipment. (www.ula-equipment.com) Brian Frankle's goal is to make lightweight gear that is specifically *not* disposable, but is well-built with durable fabrics and achieves weight reduction and longevity through smart design. He's also a relatively small shop, which might make him more amenable to "tweaks" for a big customer like NOLS. I don't think I've ever seen a negative review of his products here on BPL. He also constructed a very innovative (and load-worthy) pack system for Ryan Jordan's recent Arctic trek:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/ula_arctic_dry_pack.html
http://www.ryanjordan.com/2006_arctic/2006/05/backpacks_for_a.html

This is a pack system that's durable enough and supportive enough for long days with 40+lb loads, and is modular so the packbag can be replaced if worn or damaged. Seems like a tailor-fit for your goals, no? Again, just brainstorming.

Cheers!
Brian

Thanks Brian. My support comment wasn't directed at anyone specifically.

>>>"There is, however, a lot of lightweight gear that is very robust. No, Dyneema will never be as wear-resistant as cordura. But then again with a lightweight pack the forces involved are quite different too. A 40 or 50 or 60lb pack hits the ground with *way* more force than a 25 pounder: both because it weighs more but also because it's more likely to be out of control as it falls! I think that 25lbs is a weight that many or most people can have good physical control over, whereas 40lbs+ is a weight that will overwhelm a significant portion of students and lead to "letting it drop" rather than "setting it down" a lot more often.

The same goes for shelters: wouldn't a big, seemingly over-designed, urethane-coated bomber tent with zipper pulls the size of a volkswagen just *seem* tougher, and therefore engender less conscious and unconscious respect from users? And conversely, wouldn't a papery-feeling pyramid tarp that rolls up into nothing actually elicit gentler handling? And of course if it only costs 1/4 as much, it only has to last 1/4 as long. If you put these two factors together, I feel that the total value of equation of lightweight gear isn't as cut-and-dried as "it isn't built as tough so it won't last as long." But once again, I'm just brainstorming."<<<

This is exactly were we are coming from. The SUL stuff would likely not make it, but UL or lightweight should for the reasons you point out above. To me this is one of the exciting aspects of the transition. It can be hard to get some of the 'old school' folks to wrap thier heads around that concept though.

One thing that impacts our gear significantly is the UV degradation. I should search for research about that in ragards to lightweight materials. It is amazing to see a brand new dark green pyrimid shelter go out on the first course in may and by the end of the summer come back faded and pale!

We should definately check out ULA. I got to check out the Arctic Dry Pack when Ryan was down here for the seminar and it is cool. Very robust.

Thanks for the ideas and links!

My name is Mike Clelland, and I have been a NOLS instructor for 12 years. I've been closely involved with the new Light & Fast Course at NOLS right from it's inception, and I was an instructor on the inaugural course.

Last summer eight students, myself and a co-instructor, walked into the mountains with packs all under 25 pounds, and that's with 6-days of food, and full water bottles. Our team spent two weeks in the Big Horn Mountains of Central Wyoming, and we accomplished a lot of miles, curriculum, hard skills and we had tons of fun too. Most of our group were beginner campers, and they all came away with a solid foundation of skills and insights into lightweight camping. Every single one of them is now capable of LEADING trips with their peers. And, I can say with confidence that the next backpacking outing they organize (weather a weekend or a month) will be done with high style and a focus on risk management and group dynamics. I'm super proud of that course on a lot of levels.

Reading through the comments that are listed above, my one reply would be this: NOLS does 30-day expeditions in some challenging and very remote Wilderness environments.

Some of our courses are longer and some are shorter, but the 30-day experience (the core of our courses) requires some extra stuff compared to a weekend. The goal of our expeditions is to teach a wide range of skills – and then let the students USE those skills to lead themselves. Our emphasis is on leadership, technical skills, care of the environment and team building.

The school isn't just made of instructors, there's a very dedicated crew of folks behind the scene that work hard to support the student experience in the field. I've sat with this team and we've all tried to creatively solve some of the issues that are articulated in this forum. Everybody is working with a tight budget and a small staff, but we're all on-board with the evolution of the program.

If you ask any instructor (or ANY employee at the school) what the focus of the NOLS experience is, you’ll get a different answer from everyone. But, I can say with confidence that the replies would give you an insight into something ambitious and a dedication to very high standards.

I work at a job I love, and at the end of these courses, I'll often hear: "That was the most important and rewarding experience of my life, from this point on, I can accomplish anything!"

That's something I feel really good about.

peace from idaho,
Mike Clelland!

Like Mike, Ryan, and others from the BPL crew that have actually been on the NOLS instructor training seminars, I'm pretty excited about where NOLS is going.

Mike and his crew left NOLS basecamp last year with base weights of less than eight pounds. EIGHT pounds. For a two week trek in the Bighorn Mountains of Montana. Pretty cool.

Is 40 lbs achievable or a big deal for NOLS? Heck yes, that would be a huge accomplishment. A 40 lb kit – with a 10-day ration of food @ 1.75 lb/day = 22.5 lbs of gear, which would include the heavier gear that is such a core part of the NOLS curriculum: instructional books, fry/bake kit, the additional weights of gear that must have "institutional" durability (longevity), etc.

NOLS teaches classes in the field. It's a school. That means, you really are sitting out, sedentary, in the pouring down rain, freezing snow, and wind, taking notes, asking questions, and having a class. The "ultralight" four-piece clothing system isn't going to cut it.

There are other institutional barriers as well, including managing cost and cash flow to replace gear, the permeation of lightweight experience so NOLS instructors can effectively manage crisis scenarios with lightweight gear, and educating NOLS administrative leadership, including LNT , medical, and risk management personnel, about the changes required to travel in the wilderness safely and effectively with lighter gear.

NOLS' students are known for carrying packs that are too heavy. They really do take too much stuff, they really do take stuff that has lighter alternatives yet still institutionally relevant, and they really can improve on their adoption of wilderness techniques that can capitalize on the synergies found in lightweight gear "systems" — BUT —

They are committed to lightening their loads across the board and have to be commended for taking this risk – it's a big one for an organization like NOLS and it will take time.

I'm really happy that Ryan Hutchins was willing to respond to all of our criticism. Thank-you Ryan for all of your time. I would like to ask our membership to consider our goal. Is it to convert people to a lightweight wilderness experience we think they will enjoy more? Is it to criticize and feel superior? Would we rather have people defending the wilderness we love carrying heavy packs or not have them out there at all?

Getting people out there is our most important goal. The wilderness experience is a life changing one that places a high value on self-sufficiency, independence, and away from a dehumanizing way of life that our complex society leads us to. Lightweight technique may allow people to enjoy the outdoors that otherwise couldn't, it may make people more committed, and able to spend more and longer periods of time in wilderness areas. It is a tool and not the ultimate goal.

How then can we convert people to our point of view? I submit that acceptance of where they are, gentle encouragement, pointing out the benefits of lightweight travel (and acknowledging its' limitations (less durable gear, need for more experience, less "safety margin") and not criticism are the best techniques to convert people closer to our point of view.

Well said, Kevin!

I'm also happy Ryan jumped into this site with both feet! It is too bad some of us are lighting tinder between his toes. I've been silently following this thread because I feel I have far more to learn from Ryan that I have to give. Please pardon me while I generalize. Most of us here have little concept of the group experience that is a big part of NOLS, combined with spending a month out in the field. Some of us (not me) have been out for a month or more but it's appears more often than not to be a solo endeavor. As an ASM in Scouting I can appreciate institutional inertia, and I get in a small way the group thing, but NOLS takes group outings to another level. It's apparent to me the NOLS has hit the tipping point and will eventually achieve their goals without sacrificing what it is that makes NOLS, NOLS. Despite explaining what makes NOLS unique numerous times, it is interesting how hard it has been for some to get beyond their UL frame of mind.

Ryan, I have a few questions about the ownership of the gear. If I were to sign up with no gear, would my fee include the cost of the gear issued to me and would that gear then be mine, or would I be renting gear? If I showed up with my current gear (in the SUL, Ultralight range) would that gear be dismissed out of hand or would each piece be evaluated on it merits and my skill level?

I think ownership of the gear has a big impact on how the gear is treated. Even a loaner is often treated better than something rented, particularly if it's loaned from an individual and not an institution. A couple of responses above make this issue unclear to me. I really liked Brian James's last post about gear issues. If the ownership or responsibility issues are worked out and the right UL gear is used, I think replacement costs for gear should be at least no worse than what you deal with now.

Congratulations on heading down a lighter and more efficient path. It makes your courses more appealing to me and I think it will others as well.

Hello Eric.

You asked some specific questions about the NOLS Light & Fast Backpacking Course, specifically about gear.

Visit:
http://www.nols.edu/courses/locations/rockymtn/lightandfastbackpacking.shtml

This is the web-page with two links, one its the course description, and the other is the equipment list.

I think you can even access the FLIKR site, and find photos from the LFB course last august. It was a fun course in a cool part of wyoming.

If you have any questions, feel free to get ahold of me directly. (mikec@pdt.net)

thanks!
Mike Clelland!