Bushwalk Australia

I suspect than many ultra-lighweight bushwalkers might not be able to honestly say that they adequately equipped to cope with adverse weather, minor emergencies and significant gear failures?
Will they need to call for help because they are under equipped? Will someone need to loan them gear?

I am not a risk taker so to avoid the risks inherent in walking say the Western Arthurs, Federation Peak, and the Gammons (northern SA) I spend a lot of time planning. In fact, I enjoy the planning almost much as the walk! I look at the weather statistics, read reports on blogs and forums, talk to people in the gear shops and in the two bushwalking clubs to which I belong. I use Google Earth to view the route, study maps, check Flickr and other photo galleries for photos.
Then I pack accordingly based on the expected weather, terrain, isolation, potential for accidents, food requirements.

Many times, my pack is heavier than some others in my group but I know that

* my tent won't blow down or collapse in a snow storm
* my gear will stand up to pushing through thick scrub
* my boots can withstand the rocky outcrops
* if my waist belt breaks I have a spare buckle
* I have sufficient food for at least an extra day, if creeks are swollen or there is heavy rain
* when I lower my pack down a rock face that it won't tear
*my gear is fully waterproofed with a pack cover and inner bag
* my first aid kit will be able to cope with a significant emergency
* I have adequate layers of warm clothing to cope with an unexpected bivy on the side of a mountain
* I have some elementary climbing gear if I need to descend down/up an unexpected steep slope
* I can cope if my GPS fails because I have a map and compass as backup

What is the point of sacrificing safety to save a few hundred grams weight?

There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight. The lighter your pack the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

What is ultra light ?

What is risk ?

What then, is too risky ?

For some people even walking at all in the bush is too risky and should be banned. To them, you should be banned. Have a think about that.

I firmly believe that everyone has the right to go out and push some boundaries, to make mistakes and to fail. With no failure, there is no progress, at a personal or a social level.

bgeary wrote:There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight experience. The lighter your pack less experience you have the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

Got me thinking more of a store policy for the average retail outlet loading up the average newbie. Then I wondered what the average dilly bag would have weighed....
Sorry, just thought it needed a little tweeking

Hi Bush_walker,

You are not the first on buskwalk.com to imply that people who practice lightweight bushwalking are not honest with their reports, in reply I would like to suggest that people who practice traditional bushwalking are not honest with their reports I very rarely read about the extra stress and injuries that they endure.

I am also getting sick of people saying that using LW gear reduces safety, to me this is a myth that goes with you must wear boots to stop ankle sprains, you must treat water to stop getting Guardia, cooking in aluminium pots cause Alzheimer’s, titanium pots are lighter that aluminium pots, etc . I suspect that most who make the claim that lightweight gear is dangerous have never practiced LW bushwalking and most have probably never even seen most of the gear that they claim is not safe. With new materials coming out the old 'if its light it is not safe' is not necessarily true these days, modern materials used in the outdoor industry are often lighter and stronger.

I personally think that practicing LW bushwalking improves safety, sure some of my LW gear does not perform as I expected but when I practiced traditional bushwalking I had the same happen. Since I have been practicing LW bushwalking I have never once felt in danger, sure at times I have not been very comfortable but getting back to basics has actually increased my enjoyment of bushwalking.

The times when I bushwalk with walkers using traditional gear they are the ones that I have to wait for while they are struggling up hills, have much sorer feet, backs sore shoulders and whatever else.

Nuts wrote:

bgeary wrote:There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight experience. The lighter your pack less experience you have the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

Got me thinking more of a store policy for the average retail outlet loading up the average newbie. Then I wondered what the average dilly bag would have weighed....
Sorry, just thought it needed a little tweeking

I think Nuts has hit the nail it on its head.

I know some poeple that go into Yellowstone NP in winter with around 5lb of gear and yes thay are still alive.

This is a warning that I post with my lightweight posts

WARNING: Please be very careful when you start lightweight bushwalking.

The lightweight approach to lightweight equipment described below is intended for a limited scope of environmental conditions and should not necessarily be relied upon in extremes of temperature or weather. Even during the heat of summer, the Australian Alps and South West Tasmania can offer snow and sub-freezing temperatures. You should be confident that you can use your equipment to deal with these conditions.

Therefore: You should not take a lightweight kit into high-mountain areas like the Australian Alps, or South West Tasmania without the knowledge and experience to use it. Not having the appropriate equipment, or unfamiliarity with lightweight backpacking techniques, could result in serious discomfort, injury, or death.

As with any serious study, take your time learning and gaining experience: lighten your kit a bit at a time with judicious testing on short outings and in your backyard. Take backup equipment until you have confidence that your ultralight equipment will keep you warm and safe.

Tony

bgeary wrote:There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight. The lighter your pack the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

the heavier your pack, the more likely you are to sustain an injury, the more likely you will be to need the extra safety gear you carried??

Really has a lot to do with balance, taking the right gear for a particular area and forecast.
I watch my pack weight but would not call myself an ultralight walker. Having shed 8kg of body weight was the easiest way for me to lighten up. I do have a few options when setting off with a couple of different weight coats, stuff to take or leave depending on forecast, amount of spare food etc. It's about going with a safe minimum kit and what is adequate for say Tony may not be adequate for someone of limited experience and with inferior gear.
Just my thoughts.
ff

Thanks for the lively and stimulating conversation. I must say I am not surprised as my post was designed to address the issue of safety vs weight which is always relevant to bushwalking and close to most hearts.

Changes in technology have brought important weight savings and improvements in efficiency and no serious bushwalker should ignore them. Who wants to be carrying a canvas tent anymore? During my short time bushwalking , I can think of Thermarest mats vs closed cell foam, LED torches and Li ion batteries vs traditional bulbs and zinc batteries , Goretex vs oiled japara jackets, lightweight tents vs canvas, external frames vs internal, heavy leather vs light weight synthetic boots, canned food vs dehydrated, heavy army drink containers vs plastic etc

Macca81 wrote:the heavier your pack, the more likely you are to sustain an injury, the more likely you will be to need the extra safety gear you carried??

Couldn't agree more. Its always a trade off and one which every bushwalker needs to address. The savings in weight often have an exponential effect; less weight, faster walking; less time, less food, less weight etc

flyfisher wrote:It's about going with a safe minimum kit and what is adequate for say Tony may not be adequate for someone of limited experience and with inferior gear.

Very true. Unfortunately many of the lightweight campers I see don't have Tony's experience and are are serious risk to themselves and others.

Tony wrote:You are not the first on buskwalk.com to imply that people who practice lightweight bushwalking are not honest with their reports

I didn't say this or imply it.

Bush_walker wrote:I suspect than many ultra-lighweight bushwalkers might not be able to honestly say that they adequately equipped to cope with adverse weather, minor emergencies and significant gear failures?

Tony wrote:The times when I bushwalk with walkers using traditional gear they are the ones that I have to wait for while they are struggling up hills, have much sorer feet, backs sore shoulders and whatever else.

I would agree that I sometimes fit this description, but I would rather fit this description than need to ask some to carry out a rescue because I am inadequately equipped and so endanger their life.

Nuts wrote:Then I wondered what the average dilly bag would have weighed....

I suspect that those carrying a dilly bag would have far more commonsense and skill than to be in a harsh environments we attempt .

climberman wrote:I firmly believe that everyone has the right to go out and push some boundaries, to make mistakes and to fail. With no failure, there is no progress, at a personal or a social level.

I agree with you in principle but not when some one has to come and rescue me because of my failures and risk their own life.

bgeary wrote:There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight. The lighter your pack the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

Like most generalisations, this is baloney. (sorry, bgeary)

Its not about pack weight. Its about carrying appropriate gear regardless of its weight. There's plenty of people ill-prepared but with a heavy pack.

photohiker wrote:

bgeary wrote:There is a inverse correlation between the degree of risk you take and pack weight. The lighter your pack the more likely you are to be ill prepared!

Like most generalisations, this is baloney. (sorry, bgeary)
Its not about pack weight. Its about carrying appropriate gear regardless of its weight. There's plenty of people ill-prepared but with a heavy pack.

Have to agree with you. I've seen many people carrying 2 L bottles of Coke and canned food. I guess my generalization was only meant to apply to experienced walkers

Why do people think that lightweighters are ill prepared or taking risks?
My experience is that when people get into trouble it is usually the light weight walkers who have a solution.
(The steripen, the gaffer tape around a drink bottle, the excellent first aid kit, etc etc)
The light weighters are also the people who end up carrying the extra gear when the heavy weighters get into trouble!!!

Light weights allow you to move faster and easier. I really wonder about the people i see trudging under the weight of enormous loads. Are they really safer? What if they don't make the hut or designated camp site because they have been slowed by all that weight? What about the risk of stumbling and or falling with all that pack weight?

k.

Thank you Melinda and Kanangra

I am not disputing that a lighter pack per se is not an advantage and it is certainly something that I always aim for. Nor am I suggesting that lightweight gear should not be used when available. For example no one in their right mind would take a canvas tent bushwalking nowadays.

What I am concerned about is that some bushwalkers are so keen to save weight that they actually compromise their safety by leaving gear behind that they should really be taking or substituting gear that does not have the durability or capabilities of the heavier gear they are replacing. A simple example is using a light weight Goretex jacket that rips on the first branch hence compromising safety vs a 3 layer Goretex jacket which can withstand severe punishment, but is heavier.

Bush_walker wrote:

Tony wrote:You are not the first on buskwalk.com to imply that people who practice lightweight bushwalking are not honest with their reports

I didn't say this or imply it

Sorry B_W, I have to pull you up on this. In my reading, it is entirely what your posts implies. Very directly in my view.

climberman wrote:I firmly believe that everyone has the right to go out and push some boundaries, to make mistakes and to fail. With no failure, there is no progress, at a personal or a social level.

I agree with you in principle but not when some one has to come and rescue me because of my failures and risk their own life.[/quote]

Then, frankly, we don't agree in principle.

To further extend from your comments, in my view the experienced walker extended too far who calls for help is in the same need as the lost daywalker between the lookout and the carpark. Both require assistance due to their own failures, which may or may not require someone to risk their own life. Daywalkers near urban centres are a large part of the rescue and search task.

In your discussion on gear I think you're a bit dogmatic also. Why carry a three layer GT if there is little scrub bashing ? It could easily be considered excessive and overengineering.

My own view is it's very easy to keep adding in little what ifs' as 'a few hundred grams doesn't matter' which end up being an extra six kilos.

Gotta go cook dinner for the grommets who have just finished school for the year !

Bush_walker wrote:Thank you Melinda and Kanangra

I am not disputing that a lighter pack per se is not an advantage and it is certainly something that I always aim for. Nor am I suggesting that lightweight gear should not be used when available. For example no one in their right mind would take a canvas tent bushwalking nowadays.

So, light is good, but just not lighter than you ? Like, those who say 'I speed occasionally in the car, but anyone who drives faster than me is a dangerous moron' ? That type of argument ?

Convince me if it's otherwise.

climberman wrote:So, light is good, but just not lighter than you ? Like, those who say 'I speed occasionally in the car, but anyone who drives faster than me is a dangerous moron' ? That type of argument ?
Convince me if it's otherwise.

I have tried very hard to keep my pack weight down over many years, replacing heavier gear with lightweight but equally durable gear whenever the opportunity arises. I therefore view with some suspicion those with packs half he weight of mine doing the same walk. I have my fears that many are not bale to say yes to each of the following:

* my tent won't blow down or collapse in a snow storm
* my gear will stand up to pushing through thick scrub
* my boots can withstand the rocky outcrops
* if my waist belt breaks I have a spare buckle
* I have sufficient food for at least an extra day, if creeks are swollen or there is heavy rain
* when I lower my pack down a rock face that it won't tear
*my gear is fully waterproofed with a pack cover and inner bag
* my first aid kit will be able to cope with a significant emergency
* I have adequate layers of warm clothing to cope with an unexpected bivy on the side of a mountain
* I have some elementary climbing gear if I need to descend down/up an unexpected steep slope
* I can cope if my GPS fails because I have a map and compass as backup

If you can achieve each of these with an ultra light pack, I would be the first to swap, but I don't think you can?

Ultimately the weight of your pack will depend on your willingness to take risks eg that the weather won't change from that in the forecast, that you won't need to use a rope etc. As I said earlier, I take few risks hence the increased weight.

climberman wrote:

Bush_walker wrote:

Tony wrote:You are not the first on buskwalk.com to imply that people who practice lightweight bushwalking are not honest with their reports

I didn't say this or imply it

Sorry B_W, I have to pull you up on this. In my reading, it is entirely what your posts implies. Very directly in my view.

You mean, you are inferring; that does not mean he was implying. To imply requires intention. You have no way of knowing what he intended.

I find this debate quite amusing, actually. I always get a giggle reading the ongoing 'Huts or no huts' argument in the Snowies logbooks. One of the main pro-hut argument seems to be that they are an essential life-saving facility, due to the extreme weather conditions. Which is hilarious,when you think of people ski-touring up there, or walking places like the WArthurs, with bivvy bags.

There is no right or wrong to this debate, just what suits the individual walker. As long as you know what your gear can cope with and you're honest in your assessments of the conditions and your own capabilities, then take what you want.
The most important piece of equipment you carry is your brain. Use it wisely.

off the top of my head...

Spare buckle ? On a light pack a buckle is often close to not neccessary ! I can never see myself carrying a spare buckle. Ever. If I travelled down the length of the Great Dividing Range on foot - never.

light pack - can wear it not lower it !

Climbing gear - I save for climbing trips. If I needed to lower something I'd use the cord from my tent. Balance is much better with a light pack.

I use a liner, not a cover.

To me an emergency is an emergency, there is no minor emergency nor significant emergency. In a significant event which is life threateneing, regardless of what's in my first aid kit or distance from base, it's pull out the phone or PLB and pull the pin; something's gone very, very wrong.

Extra food is a given.

I have long since given up boots - too clunky and tiring, hold too much water.

I recently did four days, with flyfishing gear in the Snowys in Autumn for under ten kilos. A long way from ultralight but moving down. My five weight, reel, line, flies, leatherman, tent, food, coffee, extra clothing, waterproofs, map and compass (no GPS), first aid kit, camera, waterproof notepad and pencil etc were all there and worked well. I fished a lot as I never had to take off my pack, fish, go back and get it and then repeat. I've never felt so happy to walk and scramble and hop about boulders and creek scrubbery or bush bash through the post-fire regrowth. I did take too much coffee however and will not take as much per day next similar trip ! There was minimal rain but the old thigh length goretex went OK, even if it is 600grams (!). I only needed a litre of water at a time, being on a river and in cool weather.

I do know what you mean B_W - you are uncomfortable that people take an approach that is different to you - as it's different, you see risks or problems. Many walk for many miles without problems with a lightweight pack, other trip getting milk from the fridge. Life's a contradiction.

n-n-w - it's the responsibility of the poster to give clear direction through their writing. Their words are all the reader has. If people very obviously misinterpret my writing, then the fault lies with my writing. I expect others to try the same approach in a communication medium based on the written word (or is that old fashioned ? Can I be old-fashioned if I'm still (just) under 40 ?). As I noted "In my reading", "In my view". I do try to choose my words reasonably so they may be understood reasonably. B_W writes well and clearly to me in all respects, and I see few opportunities to interpret the words another way given their context within the post.

I do have to make the point that there's no heat or tension at my end - I just disagree, like I might with a mate over his views of the Cronulla Sharks compared with my view of the mighty, mighty Manly Sea Eagles over a few quiet ones in the pub, or the value of a tapered mono leader compared with a furled one over a quiet red in a mountain hut. In the same vein I see no tension at B_W's end either.

Missus has just called to say she's knocked off work, I need to go pick her up !

This is essentially an argument from ignorance. You "suspect" and you "fear" but you have presented precisely zero evidence to support your opinion. Are you aware of a single instance in Tas (or elsewhere in Australia) where a bushwalkwer has got into difficulty because they had lightweight gear? What's your definition of lightweight anyway? Until you actually present some facts your argument has no substance at all and you are just making noise.

Every single case that I am personally aware of where a walker has got into trouble and required assistance from others, including helicopter evacuation, has been a result of bad luck or inexperience/stupidity leading to poor decisions. Problems due to gear failure are, in my experience, rare. I think the only thing I might chalk up to gear failure is somebody suffering hypothermia because their waterproof failed. It was 3 layer Gore-Tex but seriously needed it's DWR renewing - so I consider that a failure on their part, not really a gear failure.

BTW, If you think you can't make an ultralight pack that stands up to serious bushwhacking I suggest you read Roger Caffin's bushwalking faq pages for instructions on how to make one.

Oh, your list of things that you think (or "fear") LW walkers couldn't cope with?
* my shelters will stand up to anything I've ever encountered (Hilleberg Nallo for 2; MLD Trailstar for 1)
* my pack is made from dyneema x and it's amazingly tough stuff
* my shoes have been fine on every type of rock I've encountered
* has anybody ever had a waist belt buckle break? If I did I'd improvise...
* if I'm going somewhere where river or creek crossings would be a problem i carry extra food; what's that got to do with LW walking?
* dyneema x...
* waterproof bags for the vital gear - some are really, really, light
* first aid kit has always proven adequate
* never been cold at night yet; don't intend to be

So your point was?

Cheers,
Alliecat

climberman wrote:n-n-w - it's the responsibility of the poster to give clear direction through their writing. Their words are all the reader has. If people very obviously misinterpret my writing, then the fault lies with my writing. I expect others to try the same approach in a communication medium based on the written word (or is that old fashioned ? Can I be old-fashioned if I'm still (just) under 40 ?). As I noted "In my reading", "In my view". I do try to choose my words reasonably so they may be understood reasonably. B_W writes well and clearly to me in all respects, and I see few opportunities to interpret the words another way given their context within the post.

I do have to make the point that there's no heat or tension at my end - I just disagree, like I might with a mate over his views of the Cronulla Sharks compared with my view of the mighty, mighty Manly Sea Eagles over a few quiet ones in the pub, or the value of a tapered mono leader compared with a furled one over a quiet red in a mountain hut. In the same vein I see no tension at B_W's end either.

Missus has just called to say she's knocked off work, I need to go pick her up !

Well, I disagree with some of that, but as you're a Manly fan I'll let the argument lie. We Sea Eagles have to stick together; the rest of the world hates us.

United in our enemies !

climberman wrote:United in our enemies !

Expand!

alliecat wrote:This is essentially an argument from ignorance. You "suspect" and you "fear" but you have presented precisely zero evidence to support your opinion. Are you aware of a single instance in Tas (or elsewhere in Australia) where a bushwalkwer has got into difficulty because they had lightweight gear? What's your definition of lightweight anyway? Until you actually present some facts your argument has no substance at all and you are just making noise.
Alliecat

You are making lots of assumptions here and generalisations. You have miissd the point of a forum as being a place where issues can be raised without fear of being ridiculed!

north-north-west wrote:There is no right or wrong to this debate, just what suits the individual walker. As long as you know what your gear can cope with and you're honest in your assessments of the conditions and your own capabilities, then take what you want.
The most important piece of equipment you carry is your brain. Use it wisely.

I would agree strongly.

climberman wrote:I firmly believe that everyone has the right to go out and push some boundaries, to make mistakes and to fail. With no failure, there is no progress, at a personal or a social level.

I agree with you in principle but not when some one has to come and rescue me because of my failures and risk their own life.[/quote]

Then, frankly, we don't agree in principle. [/quote]

What do you disagree with? Do you believe it is OK for someone to have to risk their life for you because you have pushed the boundaries and made mistake and failed??????

flyfisher wrote:Really has a lot to do with balance, taking the right gear for a particular area and forecast.
I watch my pack weight but would not call myself an ultralight walker. Having shed 8kg of body weight was the easiest way for me to lighten up. I do have a few options when setting off with a couple of different weight coats, stuff to take or leave depending on forecast, amount of spare food etc. It's about going with a safe minimum kit and what is adequate for say Tony may not be adequate for someone of limited experience and with inferior gear.
Just my thoughts.
ff

I'm in total agreement with your thoughts flyfisher

Bush_walker wrote:

climberman wrote:United in our enemies !

Expand!

South Australians, hey - no understanding of the nuances of the Rugby League supporters' feelings! Manly is the best, yet most disliked club, in the Rugby League, stemming mainly from the faux class wars of Manly vs Parra in the glory days of League in the 70's and 80's. north-north-west has noted that they are also a Manly supporter, thereby rising even further in my humble estimation !

climberman wrote: the Rugby League

For god's sake when are the mods going to step in and remove this filth?! Consider this flagged!!!

Bush_walker wrote:

climberman wrote:I firmly believe that everyone has the right to go out and push some boundaries, to make mistakes and to fail. With no failure, there is no progress, at a personal or a social level.

I agree with you in principle but not when some one has to come and rescue me because of my failures and risk their own life.

Then, frankly, we don't agree in principle. [/quote]

What do you disagree with? Do you believe it is OK for someone to have to risk their life for you because you have pushed the boundaries and made mistake and failed??????[/quote]

What's pushing boundaries ?

Yes, I feel we all have the right to go off into the wild and make a mistake and live with the consequences. I think we should be free to do this without regulations, or rules on what we should carry, or signoffs on equipment by some committee somewhere. I believe this very strongly. I don't want an Australia where I need to ask permission or prove a competency or sign a waiver. Think about the extension of this. Think about if the government agency you consider to be the worst beauracracy (pick your favourite !) got together a committe and working party and advisory board to describe what you *should* have to do before you go walking. Do you think it might come down on the more regulated side of what you do ? Would you have started walking if it was like getting a driving licence in 2010 in NSW with a test and 120 hours of logbooks and wotnot ?

Rules are for golf. Walking is for those who can, and that's all the prerequisite you should need. Go walking. Worry less about others' packs.

If there is a direct risk to life for an organised rescue team, then the rescue will not be performed - no-one wants two casualties. Plenty of S+R events get held over for poor weather or access.