[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] follow-up on Seattle Times article on "Ultralight" hiking



On this list ultra-light is a base weight around 10 pounds or less. On THIS
list I am considered a heavyweight because my base weight is 15-20 pounds
and I wear boots instead of running shoes. One can drop from a 35 pound base
weight to a 15-20 pound baseweight simply by choosing good gear. The drop
between 15 and 10 pounds affects comfort more than safety. Below 10 one is
making choices that some would say affect safety. Personally, I doubt this.
The extended range of an ultralight thruhiker negates many common problems.
Only a dibilitating injury poses a risk and that is a risk to anyone and is
more affected by where and when one hikes than the pack contents.

Your opinion may vary,

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: TOKTAADN@aol.com [mailto:TOKTAADN@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:00 PM
To: PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] follow-up on Seattle Times article on "Ultralight"
hiking


In a message dated 9/26/2001 3:46:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
echristopherjensen@yahoo.com writes:

> I say quite the contrary. I believed then, and still
>  do, that the writer was rash in his estimation of the
>  risks he felt he was taking and the sacrifices he was
>  making while hiking with what he thought was a
>  lightweight pack.

I can't disagree, but I doubt that the general audience of a newspaper is 
prepared to understand the message.  I think most of us who have shaved many

pounds from our pack weight can look back to a time when we too would 
dismissed ultralight backpacking as "extreme."  It takes a certain amount of

experience and core competency before one gets comfortable with the idea of 
ultralight.  This probably explains why most of us have bought many
different 
tents, packs, bags, etc.  It's all part of the learning curve.

BTW, lightweight backpacking is by no means a recent phenomenon.  Here's a 
quote from a 1960 AT thruhiker:  "It is surprising how many things you can
do 
without on the trail.  Our pack weight rarely exceeded 25 pounds each, even 
with a full week's supply of food."  Not bad when you consider all the
weight 
saving fabrics and gear they didn't have available.

I do think the article could be refuted in one area.  A person carrying all 
that extra weight is probably more likely to find him or herself injured 
needing rescue than an ultralight hiker.  Not only is all that extra weight
a 
risk factor for strains and fractures, carrying all that extra weight is
hard 
work.  Again a quote from the 1960 thruhiker:  "Each time we met someone . .

. struggling with a pack weighing upwards of 40 pounds we wondered how many 
people had been turned away from the joy of hiking because their
introduction 
to it was unnecessarily laborious."

It's a subtle message we understand now, but only after we've walked
hundreds 
of miles, discovering what we can do without.  Ultralight comes from the 
wisdom of the trail and isn't easily communicated in a newspaper or to one 
who is only a casual hiker.

Happy trails,

Solar Bear
_______________________________________________
PCT-L mailing list
PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l