Backcountry Forum
Backpacking & Hiking Gear

Backcountry Forum
Our long-time Sponsor - the leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear
 
 
 
BCG Holiday Sale

Amazon.com
Backpacking Forums
BackcountryGear.com
backcountry gear

---- Our Gear Store ----
The Lightweight Gear Store
 
 WINTER CAMPING 

Shelters
Bivy Bags
Sleeping Bags
Sleeping Pads
Snow Sports
Winter Kitchen

 SNOWSPORTS 

Snowshoes
Avalanche Gear
Skins
Hats, Gloves, & Gaiters
Accessories

 ULTRA-LIGHT 

Ultralight Backpacks
Ultralight Bivy Sacks
Ultralight Shelters
Ultralight Tarps
Ultralight Tents
Ultralight Raingear
Ultralight Stoves & Cookware
Ultralight Down Sleeping Bags
Ultralight Synthetic Sleep Bags
Ultralight Apparel


the Titanium Page
WM Extremelite Sleeping Bags

 CAMPING & HIKING 

Backpacks
Tents
Sleeping Bags
Hydration
Kitchen
Accessories

 CLIMBING 

Ropes & Cordage
Protection & Hardware
Carabiners & Quickdraws
Climbing Packs & Bags
Big Wall
Rescue & Industrial

 MEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 WOMEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 FOOTWEAR 

Men's Footwear
Women's Footwear

 CLEARANCE 

Backpacks
Mens Apparel
Womens Apparel
Climbing
Footwear
Accessories

 BRANDS 

Black Diamond
Granite Gear
La Sportiva
Osprey
Smartwool

 WAYS TO SHOP 

Sale
Clearance
Top Brands
All Brands

 Backpacking Equipment 

Shelters
BackPacks
Sleeping Bags
Water Treatment
Kitchen
Hydration
Climbing


 Backcountry Gear Clearance


Stay Healthy--Eat Well

MARY JANES FARM ORGANIC MEALS

Mary Janes Farm Organic Backcountry Meals

NATURAL HIGH GOURMET MEALS

Natural High

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#157272 - 11/12/11 02:34 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: oldranger]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6400
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Oldranger, my perception is that summits have become higher and steeper in recent years.
lol

More likely an effect of aging than changes in sea level, though!
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#157284 - 11/12/11 08:04 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: ppine]
oldranger Offline
member

Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
Originally Posted By ppine
Just use common sense at high elevations and during times of high fire danger.


If only that would happen. Unfortunately, there are many,many square miles of scorched forest demonstrating that "common sense" was not in operation and a camp fire r signal fire got loose.

The problem is that, even if nearly everyone is careful, it only takes one to create a disaster.

Top
#157296 - 11/12/11 11:15 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: oldranger]
ppine Offline
member

Registered: 01/10/10
Posts: 184
Loc: Minden, Nevada
Oldranger,

As a forester I must point out that our scorched forests are largely a result of strict protection from fire in the past on public lands, and a lack of harvesting. The vast majority of fires in the backcountry are caused by lightning.

Top
#157299 - 11/13/11 01:44 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: ppine]
oldranger Offline
member

Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
That is perfectly true. However, in both Arizona and California, there have been at least two monumental fires that were careless campfires. I can't recall their names - the Heber fire in Arizona, and the big one near San Diego a couple of years ago. I am not certain about the Station fire in the Los Angeles NF. We have way too many clueless people out there with matches, but it only takes one or two. I am pretty sure we all realize that you don't care for the historical management practices in western forest, and we all realize that there is abundant data to support your position. Of course, there are those prescribed burns which managed to get loose...

Remember, only you can prevent forest fires!

Is it OK to discuss those fires? After all, I wasn't on any of those fire lines (those pesky rules which prevent the elderly for having any fun)- I only read about them.


Top
#157332 - 11/13/11 07:58 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: oldranger]
lori Offline
member

Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 2801
Let us not forget the out-of-control "control burn" that closed roads and torched acres of land in Yosemite just a couple of years ago...

There are lots of places along routes to some of my favorite hikes that are just forest fires in the making - lots of deadfall and zillions of tiny trees just ready to become tinder. You can tell a fire hasn't been through in a long time.

And, I've come upon still-hot coals in a lot of fire rings - even cross country hiking. Poorly built campfires can ignite roots under ground, too. Then there is the pull-the-end-into-the-fire method - light a great big chunk of wood on fire and leave it smoldering. You can't trust people to be Leave No Trace, or even Follow Regulations Or Get A Fine.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki

http://hikeandbackpack.com

Top
#157336 - 11/13/11 08:25 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: lori]
oldranger Offline
member

Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
The year was 1957 and I was taking fire fighting training for my very first NPS job, fighting fires all summer in the Rincons. During the course the question arose about letting fires burn under some circumstances. Our instructors told us that there had been some experimentation with "controlled burns,: which promptly ended when one near Prescott jumped the lines and burned unanticipated acreage. What can you say - even in the best of circumstances, you are playing with fire.

We had a good year. Our first thunderstorms delivered more rain than lightning, so our fires were relatively small and fairly easy to extinguish. The last one I fought was nothing more than a decent campfire by the time we reached it, requiring about fifteen minutes of easy work. The time keeper was amazed that we did not claim any overtime...

Right now is a pretty good time in most of the west to let a fire go. It will usually quietly consume the light fuels and make the forests safer - usually. It is a tricky business.

I have recently had the opportunity to extinguish some campfires in local campgrounds - all situated in highly flammable oak woodland. People are unbelievably obtuse about fire sometimes.

Top
#157382 - 11/14/11 10:40 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: oldranger]
ppine Offline
member

Registered: 01/10/10
Posts: 184
Loc: Minden, Nevada
Oldranger,

When I was in graduate school in 1974, there was a movement at the U of WA to convince the USFS Reg 6 in Seattle to consider the use of prescribed burning as a management tool. It was many years later that the Feds were even willing to have a discussion about it.

What is old is new again. Now the Federal Govt is in love with prescribed burning, and they use it at inappropriate times. The National Park Service is by far the worst offender. They insist on lighting fires in September, like the recent bad one in Yosemite. They insist on lighting fires when the weather changes for the worst and the USFS calls them and says they had better cancel their plans. (Los Alamos fire).
In 1988 during the driest year in a century, the Park Service elects in Yellowstone to adopt the let in burn philosophy.

The Forest Service and the BLM on a lesser scale have a decent track record in the use of prescribed fire. The Park Service is like a bunch of kids with matches, and needs adult supervision.

Top
#157390 - 11/14/11 12:47 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: ppine]
oldranger Offline
member

Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
Very interesting. Are the stats available somewhere? I thought everyone burned when the fire was within the prescription and the procedure was fairly uniform.

Top
#157400 - 11/14/11 03:00 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: oldranger]
billstephenson Offline
Moderator

Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3889
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Back in the late `70s early `80s, when I lived in CA, I heard a rumor that firefighters were starting fires so they could get overtime pay. Shortly after that a firefighter somewhere near Ventura/Oxnard did get arrested with incendiary devices in the trunk of his car that were very much like those used to start a wildfire. A few years later there was that woman firefighter in CO that said she was burning a "love letter", or something to that effect, that also started a wildfire.

I got to witness a single tiny bottle rocket start a raging brush fire in Saugas, CA one evening when I was there to watch a car race. It was put out very quickly by the local fire dept, but it sure demonstrated how fast they can get roaring.

An old timer that grew up in the San Fernando Valley told me that the hills surrounding it were covered with big old oaks when he was young. It must have been really beautiful back then. What a difference people have made there!

I used to work near the Van Nuys airport and watch the C-130s when they were pressed into service fighting fires. They look so big when they're on the ground, and so tiny when they are dumping on the fires.
_________________________
--

"You want to go where?"



Top
#157419 - 11/14/11 06:49 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: billstephenson]
oldranger Offline
member

Registered: 02/23/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: California (southern)
Sadly, that is not the first time that has happened. As a matter of fact, there is a current case here in SoCal in which a top arson investigator is accused of being an arsonist. He got away with it for several years. I don't recall the details nor do I wish to. Arson is among the most despicable crimes.

I believe it has been concluded that the Station fire, the largest in LA history, was arson caused.

Top
#157427 - 11/14/11 07:42 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
Paulo Offline
member

Registered: 01/27/11
Posts: 158
Loc: Normally Pacific Northwest
Up in the Okanagan area of BC there was a fireman that did the same to increase his rank. They caught him when they called in a different department for the fire and he showed up anyway.

In any case the old adage is true: Fire is a good servant and a bad master.
_________________________
Without a doubt, the hardest thing of all in a survival situation is to cook without the benefit of seasonings and flavourings. - Ray Mears

http://theoutdooradventure.net

Top
#157532 - 11/16/11 10:18 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Paulo]
ppine Offline
member

Registered: 01/10/10
Posts: 184
Loc: Minden, Nevada
There can be no doubt, that firefighters have their share of arsonists. When fire weather is favorable, some firefighters get really antsy. They have seasonal jobs, and hope for overtime pay. When it doesn't show up, a few of them take matters into their own hands.

For anyone who has worked with people who have studied fire scince, not just the grunts on the field crews, don't you think some of them are unusual people? Some fire people are really into fire, in a scary way.

Top
#157548 - 11/16/11 01:22 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: ppine]
Heather-ak Offline
member

Registered: 07/11/10
Posts: 597
Loc: Fairbanks, AK
I think that can be said for any profession and a couple of hobbies too (not that said people are really into fire, but their specific area.)

I've seen scary:
computer programmers
gun hobbiests
environmentalists

So I think less than a specific area and more of a specific portion of the human population.

Top
#157550 - 11/16/11 02:00 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Heather-ak]
lori Offline
member

Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 2801
Originally Posted By Heather-ak
I think that can be said for any profession and a couple of hobbies too (not that said people are really into fire, but their specific area.)

I've seen scary:
computer programmers
gun hobbiests
environmentalists

So I think less than a specific area and more of a specific portion of the human population.


+1.

Most of the psychopaths I've met are either fresh out of prison, or working as CEOs. I suspect the latter are just the smarter ones.
_________________________
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Shunryu Suzuki

http://hikeandbackpack.com

Top
#158507 - 12/08/11 11:05 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Dryer]
twinmike Offline
member

Registered: 03/25/11
Posts: 43
Loc: Holbrook, AZ.
We take a home made hobo stove that folds up inside the cooking pot, when we leave the camp site area we make a game of leaving no evidence we were ever there. We always plan on two meals a day. In some places because of the possible spread of fire and sparks we use one cooking stove for all four people hiking but only when really needed. Our population is loving our wild-life to death.
_________________________
Many reach for distant shores only to run to the safest harbor.

Top
#163210 - 03/03/12 11:11 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
MarkJones Offline
newbie

Registered: 03/05/08
Posts: 3
It's always a comfort - trade off issue with me. That right balance and what your going to do.

I have seen folks that go for the miles. Leave all the comforts at home for the bare min.

Others could care less about miles and are good to go out a few miles and hang around camp at a favorite spot cooking, eating and fellowshiping.

Others are gear mongers... bring it just in case. They could care less about miles, camp fellowship. They just enjoy using and messing with the gear.

I saw two guys do a 48 hour trail run with just a smal pack with miminial food and water... only time they stopped was for a hour or so to take a small nap. The rest was running the trail.

For me. If there is no fire. I would just as soon stay home. Fire can be built to leave no trace. In Missouri and Arkanas there is no shortage of firewood. It's that part I really enjoy.

It's what your expecting from it that makes it right or wrong for you... everyone is different.

Mark Jones

Top
#163213 - 03/03/12 12:24 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: MarkJones]
Barefoot Friar Offline
member

Registered: 01/23/09
Posts: 175
Loc: Houston, Alabama
Originally Posted By MarkJones
<Snip>...cooking, eating and fellowshiping.


You wouldn't happen to be a church-goer, would you? That word is a dead giveaway!

smile Welcome to the forums.
_________________________
"Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls."

Top
#165620 - 05/03/12 11:38 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
Gershon Offline
member

Registered: 07/08/11
Posts: 1109
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By Glenn
This is not intended as a thread to discuss the ethics of fires in the backcountry; that's an issue that involves too many variables including where you are hiking, and has been well-discussed in other threads. For purposes of this thread, let's simply accept that in most times and places, campfires would be at odds with Leave-No-Trace practices. I'm also not trying to re-ignite the "light is relative to what you're planning to do" issue; we can safely assume that as an accurate and well-proven point, too.

Instead, I'd like to get some discussion on whether fire is "cheating" at the ultralight game. This question occurred to me after reading another thread in this post, and seeing a headline at BackpackingLight.com (I think it's an ad for their store, not a serious article; but I'm no longer a member there, so I don't know.)

The other thread I read here made the point that one of the trade-offs true ultralighters (and sub-ultralighters) make in order to carry the extremely light loads they carry is to make compromises in warmth: they might choose to take a 30-degree bag when 20-degree lows are predicted, and only a light down vest or sweater, only liner gloves, and lightweight, not midweight, long underwear. The logic is that they're going to do high-mile days and spend very little time in camp, so they'll tolerate not being toasty warm for a lighter load.

The headline at BPL is: "TO BUILD A FIRE: Stave off the chill ... with a warm, comforting blaze..."

That is a strategy that works, no doubt about it (assuming you have the requisite skill to be able to get a fire going when it's been raining all day, and all the available wood is soaked.) However, it seems to me that somehow a line has been crossed here. I have to wonder if part of the UL philosophy has morphed to say that LNT, once held as a near-sacred principle, can now be compromised or ignored in order to shave a few more ounces off the load.

I'm not trashing the ultralight philsophy; far from it. I have benefited greatly by following it generally, though I haven't gone the full route. (Yet.) It changed the way many of us viewed backpacking, from an "assault on the outdoors," with 60 pound packs and everything we could need, ever, to "fitting in to the outdoors," with correspondingly lighter packs. Lessening one's impact, rather than leaving one's mark, was a natural fit with the minimalist style you adopt as an ultralighter. It sparked a revolution in gear, as cottage makers forced the big companies to drastically redesign their gear or risk losing a growing market segment.

I'm just wondering if we're reaching the point of going too far in the relentless pursuit of weight reduction, and if it has now become an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end. (I hopped off the UL train at 17 pounds, and I'll add the heavier bag and jacket without a second thought; I still don't light fires.)


I guess I cheated last weekend. I suspected we didn't have the gear for as cold as it was going to be. So we went to a place where we knew there are fire rings and planned to get up before sunrise so we could have a fire. So about an hour before sunrise, I lit a fire and we drank coffee for awhile before packing up.

When we left, the campsite was no different than we came. To me, this is the essence of "leave no trace."

In the national forest near here, it is permissable to build a fire ring where there is none. However when you are done, you are supposed to scatter the rocks and cover the ashes. The area is the cleanest I've ever hiked in. This particular area has the oldest trails in the national forest system and has been in use for almost 100 years.

From my observations, it is the car campers who leave the most trash and cause the most damage. The areas a mile away from the trailhead don't seem to change too much.



Edited by Gershon (05/03/12 11:40 AM)
_________________________
http://48statehike.blogspot.com/

Top
#165630 - 05/03/12 05:38 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Gershon]
Glenn Offline
member

Registered: 03/08/06
Posts: 2617
Loc: Ohio
I don't think you cheated at all. You modified your plans to find an area where your particular gear load and the camping conditions could be reconciled. To think you cheated is to slide over into the "is fire ever ethical?" discussion - in the situation you described, it's clearly not a violation of LNT, since the land managers set up an area to "sacrifice" by concentrating the non-LNT use.

My original discussion was oriented toward "what do you do when two competing philosophies are apparently at odds?" Using fire, instead of carrying a stove, would be in line with going light at all costs. However, assume that you're not in a dedicated camping area with a fire ring, and that LNT would indicate that it would be best practice not to use a fire. What do you do: go for the lightest load and use a fire, or give precedence to LNT and take a stove? Which philosophy wins?

Top
#165635 - 05/03/12 07:14 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
DTape Offline
member

Registered: 11/23/07
Posts: 656
Loc: Upstate NY
First, I do not believe in UL as a philosophy or a game which competes against any ethics, which is what LNT is, outdoor ethics. In fact, I do not consider UL a philosophy at all, I look at it as techniques which allow one to carry less weight. Without knowledge and skill going without certain gear or using minimalist gear is uncomfortable at best and potentially dangerous. If one want to "win the UL game", strip naked and run into the woods with nothing. There, the skin out weight is zero, you win.

That said, it is the techniques, knowledge and skill which allow one to be safe, have fun and still hold true to outdoor ethics. For example, I know few who carry a trowel to dig cat holes. How do they practice LNT principles? Knowledge and skill. Same with fires. LNT does not dictate to never crap in the woods or never make a fire, Just that there are ways to do it in a manner consistent with outdoor ethics. If one knows what they are doing they can build a fire and still be practicing LNT. Just as they can take a dump in the woods and still be practicing LNT. LNT is not a set of rules, but a guiding set of principles which constitute outdoor ethics.

To me, a more significant question/discussion would be when a situation requires one to choose between two (or more) LNT principles. These discussions would be similar the Talmudic scholars who debated ethical scenarios which required one to violate Rabbinic Law in order to obey another.
_________________________
http://ducttapeadk.blogspot.com

Top
#165636 - 05/03/12 08:43 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: DTape]
Gershon Offline
member

Registered: 07/08/11
Posts: 1109
Loc: Colorado
As one who has studied Talmudic discussions, perhaps I can shed some light on this as it's a perfect analogy.

Talmudic discussions generally take place over many years. Each side is discussed in great detail. Many of the discussions are just for fun and a way to delve into different concepts in the Torah. Others expound on civil law in a way that rivals a legal encyclopedia in fairness. Often a writer will choose an opposite position just so it is discussed.

To focus on the physical aspects of the Talmud would be making a great mistake. Much of it is allegorical or what if types of questions. The key is the value concepts behind the discussions. In the end, they make a ruling to follow "for now." In a future time and place, one of the other opinions might be more appropriate. In most cases, the most lenient way is chosen.

I think it's the same with this discussion. For a trail where there are lots of campsites with fire rings, I see no problem using a lighter weight sleeping bag and using a fire on the nights you need it to stay warm. If a situation arises where I need a fire and there is no fire ring, then I'll choose a place for a fire that will leave as little trace as possible. Or I will choose a place where nobody is likely to stumble across it.

_________________________
http://48statehike.blogspot.com/

Top
#165680 - 05/06/12 04:45 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: DTape]
Glenn Offline
member

Registered: 03/08/06
Posts: 2617
Loc: Ohio
That could be a very interesting discussion - what would be some examples of two LNT principles that conflict?

Top
#165683 - 05/06/12 08:13 PM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
DTape Offline
member

Registered: 11/23/07
Posts: 656
Loc: Upstate NY
It isn't that two principles would conflict. It would be a situation which requires one to have to make the choice between violating two principles.
_________________________
http://ducttapeadk.blogspot.com

Top
#165690 - 05/07/12 06:08 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Glenn]
Gershon Offline
member

Registered: 07/08/11
Posts: 1109
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By Glenn
That could be a very interesting discussion - what would be some examples of two LNT principles that conflict?


This weekend, we backpacked along a trail that had the oldest campgrounds in the United States. Back in the 20's, about 2,500 people used to camp along the trail during the weekends. They weren't exactly LNT. Then in the 40's, the area got cleaned out by a big flood. There are signs around not to remove any evidence of camping as it has historical value. It might even be illegal to clean out an old fire pit with a steel grate because of the old cans in it.

As I looked around, I realized the forest benefited from removal of a lot of the dead wood. This allowed for a lot of diversity in plant life. Maybe people are part of the ecology. Maybe we are meant to camp in areas, clear the wood in fires and then move on. Perhaps strict adherance to LNT damages the forest.



Edited by Gershon (05/07/12 06:10 AM)
_________________________
http://48statehike.blogspot.com/

Top
#165691 - 05/07/12 07:04 AM Re: Does fire take ultralight too far? [Re: Gershon]
Glenn Offline
member

Registered: 03/08/06
Posts: 2617
Loc: Ohio
Great example! Do we perhaps need to introduce "situational ethics" into LNT? It may already be there - I thought I rememebered reading something about taking where you're hiking into account as you apply LNT principles.

I'm ashamed to admit I haven't stayed current on the ins and outs of LNT over the years. (I re-read them from time to time, but never spend a huge amount of time deliberating over it.) When I first learned the concept, it was expressed as "Take nothing but pictures; leave nothing but footprints, kill nothing but time." And, backpacking only in the lush vegetation of the eastern US with its relatively quick recovery times, that works. It isn't as critical if you made a small mistake (I'm talking about one night of camping on vegetation, not about indiscriminate scattering of food or hacking on growing trees.) Since I haven't lit a fire in 25 years myself (resembles a chore too much), since I splash through the muddy trail instead of going around (and have the wet socks to prove it), and since I don't cut switchbacks (easy - they don't believe in them in Ohio), it's just never been much of a problem to comply substantially. If I ever go somewhere less resilient, I'll definitely need to put in some study time. (My last thorough reading was about 5 years ago, before a trip to Isle Royale.)

It would only seem logical, though, that you adapt the principles to fit your area - more strictly applied where damage occurs more easily and takes longer to heal, routinely applied elsewhere. It would also seem that, in your case, you have justification (in the form of regulation) that trumps some LNT principles for a circumscribed case.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Shout Box

Highest Quality Lightweight Down Sleeping Bags
 
Western Mountaineering Sleeping Bags
 
Lite Gear Talk - Featured Topics
container house
by fangyunyun
Today at 06:02 AM
China Electric Dry Steam Iron manufacturers
by fangyunyun
Today at 06:01 AM
Standalone Anti-Static Cyclone Separator suppliers
by fangyunyun
Today at 06:01 AM
Backcountry Discussion - Featured Topics
Greetings - and a question
by valongi
12/11/17 11:35 AM
Just found out about UCO candles
by toddfw2003
11/30/17 08:41 AM
Hitting the eagle rock loop, Ark in 3 days
by toddfw2003
11/19/17 11:31 AM
Make Your Own Gear - Featured Topics
Plant based insulation...
by billstephenson
11/18/17 02:58 PM
lightest grommets to use
by toddfw2003
10/22/17 06:13 PM
avalibility of thin ti rod
by the-gr8t-waldo
01/26/17 04:45 PM
Featured Photos
Breakneck Ridge, New York
May 2012 Eclipse, Lassen Park
New Years Eve 2011
Trip Report with Photos
Seven Devils, Idaho
Oat Hill Mine Trail 2012
Dark Canyon - Utah
Who's Online
1 registered (), 32 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
valongi, Atkinson J, Dcarpenter, Woodland, ultralight
12469 Registered Users
Forum Links
Disclaimer
Policies
Site Links
HOME
Backpacking.net
Family Hiking
Lightweight Gear Store
Backpacking Book Store
Lightweight Zone
Hiking Essentials

Outdoor Gear Daily Deals
Outlets, Sales, Bargains

Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:

Backcountry Forum
 
 

Since 1996 - the Original Backcountry Forum
Copyright © The Lightweight Backpacker & BackcountryForum.com