The “I don’t get it” thread

>"I dont get" Ultra light winter back packing. I have to carry so much extra gear to keep warm I just dont really get trying to lighten that up.

For sure, ultralight winter backpacking means a very different thing than the other 3 seasons. The UL threshold goes up accordingly. That doesn't mean that you can't still strive to watch weight and carry less, without being stupid about it. I can keep my winter base weight to ~15lbs and be good to 0*F.

>What advantages does a backpack have over a sled in deep snow?

I've never pulled a sled or pulk, so take this FWIW. They may just invite you to carry more stuff because it can hold it. Every pulk I see is laden with pounds and pounds and pounds of stuff. Even in winter, I like to keep my kit as minimal as possible.

Do you carry spare clothes, gloves, ect. I also carry a FF volant down jacket and pants to wear to bed and around camp. Not to mention an expend down mat. I guess I look at it this way in the other three seasons the consequences if your gear fails(ie gets wet) is you will be uncomfortable for a little but in the winter you could easily lose toes, fingers, or even die if you dont have the extra stuff and the difference between 30-40 pounds in a sled is really nothing…. thats also why you always see those things packed down with a ton of gear.

I guess I look at it this way in the other three seasons the consequences if your gear fails(ie gets wet) is you will be uncomfortable for a little but in the winter you could easily lose toes, fingers, or even die if you dont have the extra stuff

you can die any season up here in the PNW … theres deaths to prove it …

hypothermia can happen in the rainy shoulder seasons quite easily

This is the gist of my winter kit, minus some of the dinky stuff:

Clothing carried when not hiking:

Down puffy
Katabatic down hood
Black Rock Gear down mitts
Columbia insulated WP/B pants
extra pair of socks
Down booties
Rain jacket in case things get sloppy

Clothing when hiking:

Powerstretch tights
regular ol' Nylon pants
Cap 1 or 2 base layer
Patagonia R1 Zip
softshell or Driclime
wool beanie
fleece gloves if needed
fleece balaclava

Sleeping:
Neoair XTherm
EE Rev X Quilt w/overstuff

Other:
Trailstar
winter canister stove
food
water
backpack and liner
snowshoes(not counted in base weight)
hiking poles (not counted in base weight)

I like this thread I say what I don't get and why and you guys give me a different perspective. Good stuff.

Yeah Eric I know you can die in any season but in California its pretty hard to die of hypothermia summer or spring(you'd really have to be trying)….but yes I imagine that places like Greenland you could still get that way in summer easily.

Travis-I like the list! and mine does not look too different I carry a couple extra pairs of mits- leather insulated gloves(love these) marmot primaloft expedition mitts and wool gloves(these work really well even when wet I know from experience)

I carry a complete extra set of base layers. basically I have atleast one extra of everything except my shells(to expensive to get 2 alpha sv jackets and pants for me any way. oh and the down suit is heavy but the sleeping quilt is like a pound. I love getting up to go pee at night and feeling like I am in a sleeping bag. I also find I don't procrastinate as much in the morning cause I don't really ever have to deal with the cold…..

where me and you really start to differ is Im guessing food and shelter. I usually bring two bottles of wine, tender loin cut into steaks in an olive oil salt pepper and garlic marinade, and last time we did a white wine and cheese fondue. I have to carry my snow shoes because I split board. I sleep in an 8 man kifaru tipi with a with a wood stove(heater). I usually have to bring a backpack for day hiking/snowboarding. I think with all that Im usually about 40 lbs maybe a little over.

You should see the envy in other peoples eyes when me and my dad fly past them in deep snow breaking trail faster than they can hike in snow shoes(which are really slow when compared to skis) and to come to camp only to find us set up with a fire going in our tipi. with the steak cooking in the fry pan and rice, potatoes or fondue bubbling. The best thing is that we can dry all of our stuff at night so we never have wet stuff (unless something goes really wrong). I've even taken a shower in that thing. We have easily gotten the inside of the tipi to over 70 probably closer to 80 when it was below 20 outside. oh and camera gear that stuff weighs but I get great shots in the winter like my avatar. That's my dad sitting on a dock watching the sun come up over echo lake after trekking through the night.

On every trip I have been on since moving to the US the forecast has been about as accurate as peeing blindfolded.

I always carry a puffy parka, trousers and a decent sleeping bag in winter, when I was young and handsome I used to carry crap gear and suffered big time

Stephen– yeah, its an issue here. What you have to do is align yourself with the magnetic declination. It's about 3 degrees northeast of true north. Give me a compass and a good wind, and I'll pee on a nickel from 10 feet away.

Josh, sounds like you live like kings while out in the wilds!

Travis, How ya gonna find that nickle while blindfolded?

Maybe you cheat Travis and peak ;-)

"Maybe you cheat Travis and peak"

Some people think Travis peaked a long time ago…..

:-)

Alas, 'tis true. Last week was the pinnacle. It's all downhill from here.

Old age pension next mate :-)

The RIGHT sort of cotton makes good parkas for certain conditions. Check out the Ventile brand. Unlike ordinary highly processed cotton, Ventile does not wet out nearly as much. It has a long and noble history – but it is a bit heavy.

Cheers

When cotton is waxed or oiled, the wax absorbs into the cotton and takes up most of the physical space. For that reason, waxed cotton absorbs far less water weight when fully submerged in water.
Just something I've noticed.

"I like this thread I say what I don't get and why and you guys give me a different perspective. Good stuff."

This made me a bit happy, glad you get the get it thread ;)

Hard to keep up now with all the feedback, I'd just want to thank all for their contributions and playing nice.

Mary's point about windbreakers I thought was a good one.

I still don't get mitts, however. Maybe in the winter, but pretty low on my gear wish list.

I get getting very happy that my new Zpacks sleeping bag is in the mail! My final piece of my 1+season puzzle! Super excited!

The cotton debate has valid points on each side, I think. In the summer I wear often cotton t-shirts and will usually change into a my syth base layer at night/sleep. For late spring and early fall warm-ish type weather (around 15-20C) I often wear a 50% cotton 50% poly blend army t-shirt. Spring, fall, and winter is synth and wool all the way for me. The only exception, and this is only because I am both lazy and cheap, is underwear. I always wear a pair of cotton boxer briefs that also double as my swim trunks (and this is only when I can't or don't want to skinny dip). The plus side is that they soak up sweat down there and keep me, err, fresher and not as stinky. Down side is weight and takes a while to dry–never had issues with warmth, but then again, this is just underwear I am talking about, and I have syth or wool base layers with me most of the time anyhow. If I saw a nice pair of wool boxer briefs and the price was right, I would buy them.

But moving on, I don't get having to get permits to go backpacking/camping in certain trails in the USA. What's the point? Why not just have all major trails and national parks open to the public all the time? I know I have mentioned this many times before, but I find Sweden's laws to be much better. Not only are there no permits, you can backpack and camp on private land, so long as it is "wild" and not like someone's backyard. It's great buying a map of an area I want to explore here–pretty much all the woods are potential adventures.

"But moving on, I don't get having to get permits to go backpacking/camping in certain trails in the USA. What's the point? Why not just have all major trails and national parks open to the public all the time?"

Consider the fact the the population of the city of Los Angeles alone is 1/3 that of your entire country. Los Angeles County alone has a population as big as Sweden…and that is only a portion of Southern California. And all of these people are within 4 hours driving from many very popular national and state parks.

Not that I'm a big fan of having to get permits from the government to do things, but I have to question what sort of impact a population of this size would create if it were not for quota and permit systems in popular hiking and camping areas. Many of the more popular areas in the Sierra Nevada are a genuine crowding fiasco even with strict permit programs in place.

For those that know the area, dare to imagine what a place like Cottonwood Lakes would look like on the 4th of July weekend if there were not permit system in place….

If we would quit maintaining trails and let them go back to their natural state the visitor count would go way down, maybe to the point we could get rid of the permit system.

I rarely go places that require a permit — permits tell me the places are probably over-crowded. Can't see any enjoyment hanging out in a crowd. Might as well go to Wal Mart instead.

:)

Craig, if one location has too many people for your liking, why not go to another location?

Also, we would have to operate under the assumption that if they took the permits away that there would be a flood of people into national parks. I am willing to entertain the idea as plausible, but I also think it would be possible that after a certain amount of time if this flood of people happened, that it the novelty would be gone and things would go back to "normal" or maybe even less people afterwards because people moved on to other locations.

Tone is something that is difficult to get across via forum posts, so I assure you that I don't mean to come off as confrontational and just want to explore this issue in more detail :)

As I often find when reading your posts, I generally agree with your sentiments.

You raise and interesting point about letting things just go back to their natural state. I wish there was a real example to point to in order to confirm this theory of yours, but I am drawing blanks. It seems to follow, but don't want to jump the gun here. I like the idea, though.

"I rarely go places that require a permit — permits tell me the places are probably over-crowded."

There are wilderness permits, and then there are wilderness quotas.

Wilderness permits, if unlimited in quantity, allow the authorities to keep track of how many total visitor days or nights have happened within their jurisdiction. That might help that agency receive better funding, or at least it allows the agency to show where the visitor use was highest. Having a permit requirement also allows the agency to restrict visitor use during special conditions, like during a forest fire upwind, or during floods. It also forces visitors to sign a form stating that they agree to abide by the wilderness regulations, campfire restrictions, and things like that.

Where the visitor use gets high, the agency sometimes has daily trail quotas. This has little to do with agency funding, but it simply allows the agency to spread out the visitor use away from the most popular trails. Some agencies know that their most popular trail would be terribly overused were it not for daily trail quotas. Then once they start "selling" wilderness permits, they get used to that revenue stream. Some of the money is spent on trail maintenance.

If one particular trail can handle 50 people per day without detracting from the wilderness experience, you wouldn't want to be vistor number 900 for that day, would you?

It seems like each agency operates a little differently. U.S. Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture since it originally had more to do with lumber harvesting. National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior, and it is much more about pure preservation.

–B.G.–

There probably aren't any good examples where this has been done.

However, there are places in the desert I hike that used to have 4WD tracks, but no trails. They had a lot of use when 4WD vehicles were allowed. After they were designated wilderness areas, pretty much no one ever goes there… it is too difficult for most people since there are no trails. I like these places and hike them a lot. Solitude is guaranteed.

I think we should start by blowing up HWY 120 from Mono Lake to well past Yosemite. Eliminate all roads within 20 miles of a wilderness boundary. Turn most federal lands into designated wilderness areas. Eliminate all leases and franchises on federal land.

All of the outdoor activities seem to attract two different crowds. When I go fishing or kayaking, I'll pass a drift boat and zone out watching the graceful casts then I'll pass an island of six-pack-Charlie’s on their inner tubes who impose themselves on everyone else on the river. Nothing against beer or bikinis as they have a right to enjoy the river in their own way but I get tired of constantly grabbing beer cans as they float down the river.

I have too many memories of idiots feeding bears PBJs at Yellowstone and weekend warriors stomping past "Stay on Trail" signs into the meadows surrounding Mt. Rainier. I find it difficult to believe that we as a species are capable of policing ourselves in these popular areas and permits should be required.

FWIW I'm faxing off my permit for the Wonderland Trail tonight and I've never encountered so much red tape but such is life.

For the record, not being confrontational; just a difference of opinion.

"After they were designated wilderness areas, pretty much no one ever goes there… it is too difficult for most people since there are no trails. I like these places and hike them a lot. Solitude is guaranteed."

Nick, can I offer a quote by Yogi Berra?

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

–B.G.–

Ian – I commiserate with your stories, and I am sure most of us have had similar if not identical experiences.

What I think would be a more effective, long term solution would be:

1. Punish jerks who litter and feed bears harshly! As in stiff fines–like thousands of dollars, which could go back into national park funds–and community service.

2. Education, education, education. I can't recall being taught very much in public schools in the US about respecting nature, but that could just have been my bad luck with the schools I went to. Schools ought to teach kids more about nature in general, and respecting it.

3. Encourage people not to ignore abuses of nature. I have called the police in the US on people that were getting drunk, littering, and letting their pit bulls run around without a leash. One of the dogs even charged at me, but I kept my cool because my family always had dogs and I know how to be around them, and it just growled and sniffed me before the owner reluctantly came and got it. This was on the AT in PA. Imagine if a small child would have been there and the dog attacked it. Point is, make it easy to report jerks, encourage it, and see #1 about punishment.

And thanks for the disclaimer, things can get tricky with online communication. Yet the most interesting conversations are usually the most controversial ;)

Edit: typos