Check out this video of how to ford a river on You Tube. Be safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XbRRD6zewk

Lots of information, but there is no reason that this should be 12 minutes long. EDIT!

I thought the video was very good and pointed out some things I did not know.

For instance, the tripod technique with the pole facing upstream. Moving diagonally downstream.

In my opinion, if there is a need for a second person, they should be in a rescue position with a good rope or something before the person crossing enters the water.

Before attempting a crossing, I would throw a stick in the water to see how fast it's moving. If it's faster than a slow walking pace, I wouldn't attempt it except in very shallow water. (I'm extra cautious on these sorts of things.) There is probably some rule of thumb for the depth of water one can safely cross at different speeds.

In my opinion, a person should work up to 3 feet by fording shallow streams even when it's not necessary. The first time I went in a fast moving stream just a foot deep, I gained a more healthy respect for fast moving water.

Keep the videos coming. I really enjoyed this one.

Fairly good information. I personally would spend more time finding a crossing spot. I also have gone out a ways without my pack to "test the waters". I think the fellow has an unrealistically light pack. It is very different when you have a larger pack. I agree that the waistbelt needs to be undone, but once you do, the pack becomes much less stable so leaning can really get you off balance. A few times I have had to divide my pack into several loads.

He did not elaborate enough on dangers of cold water. It not only makes you cold, it really numbs your feet and legs to the point you feel like you are walking on stumps so that you cannot feel the bottom of the stream. The waders he used definitely keep his feet warmer than crocks or tennis shoes.

He also was carrying a big towel. That is not necessary. You can wipe feet nearly dry with the top parts of your socks and then air dry a few minutes.

If you fall into very cold water it can actually knock the breath out of you and make swimming impossible.

You do NOT need wading shoes (although they are nice to have). I have crossed many times in my hiking shoes. Take off socks, take out the insole and lace up tight and cross. On the other side, dump out the water, squeeze out water, pinch and slide fingers up the shoe laces (they tend to get wetter than the shoes), and set on a rock to dry. Dry feet. Put dry insoles back inside. The shoes will get your socks damp, but not soggy wet.

I have my doubts about having others stand on the banks to rescue you. I for one, am not a strong enough swimmer to rescue anyone who would fall into the water. I would simply endanger my own life.

I couldn't even get past the two minute mark on this video. All he had to do was take his boots off, pull up his pants and walk across. .. Come on; give us something hard. ..

Well, for we who are short, his crotch deep crossing (waist deep on us) would not be what I call easy, particularly if the riverbed were as slippery as he said. And if the water was snowmelt fed, that much of a crossing in that cold water is also not easy. The creek he showed was deceptive in the video. It was a lot deeper than it looked. Perhaps if you had the patience to go past the 2-minute mark you would have seen this. My complaint was his puny little pack - obviously a day pack.

Oooh, Daisy - don't take the bait!

Based on his first post, Lee likes a bigger pack, too.

Thanks for watching my video and I appreciate the comments. I am a former Outward Bound Instructor and I made this video in 2005 but just posted it on You Tube on May 1, 2012

I had a chance to make a demo with a filmmaker. I had this idea to create a public TV show that was kind of like Rick Steves in the backcountry. It was to be the antithesis of all the fake adventure shows on Discovery channel.

We shot this segment without a script or a lot of preparation. He turned on the camera and I just went into OB instructor mode.

I certainly agree that the video needs to be tightened up, nevertheless, it's still better than any other river crossing instructional video I've ever seen on TV or online.

The technique I demonstrate is the standard technique taught by NOLS, Outward Bound, and the Mountaineers.

When I took my NOLS course in 1974 we would just cross in our leather boots and walk until they were dry. The problem with this is twofold. One, this kind of ruins your boots and makes them wear out a lot quicker. Second, let me give you a for instance. You are hiking the AT and it's been raining for seven days straight and you've been hiking in soaking wet boots all week. Now the weather has cleared and last night you finally got your boots dry at the campfire. This morning you have to ford a river. Do you really want to get your boots soaked again? Finally, walking in your boots until they dry is not a viable option for winter trekking.

Back in the seventies I carried a humongous backpack weighing 55-70 pounds on most adventures. Now I carry more like 20-25 pounds. So while my pack is indeed small in the video I would have to say my long-distance backpack is not much larger than the one in the video. No doubt a heavy pack makes everything harder including fording a river. I enjoy "extreme backpacking" these days which I define as a combination of backpacking and class 3 mountaineering. In order to enjoy this sport I have learned I must pack very light. It's hard to self-arrest on a spring snow slope with a large pack.

I was a NOLS instructor from 1969-1975 and can really relate to your experiences! As much as I also have gone to lighter packs, I think for the general backpacking public, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people still carry packs of about 30-40 pounds. Perhaps you need to mention that crossings are a lot easier with a lighter pack. This may entice them to lighten up! I see a lot of external frame packs heavily loaded when I am out so I would not discount them as something that has to be handled when crossing a stream. I now hike in light-hikers and they dry quickly unlike the leather boots of the past. For a few crossings per trip, I just use the shoes. IF I anticipate several crossings per day, then I bring wading shoes.

"Do you really want to get your boots soaked again? Finally, walking in your boots until they dry is not a viable option for winter trekking."

I definitely do not mean the following as yet another first shot in the neverending battle between shoe and boot aficionados, but it's pretty relevant here ---

Quick-drying (non-goretex) shoes solve these problems handily. Starting the CDT going SOBO (southbound) last year in June my hiking partner and I had many, many (many) very high creek (think river) crossings to deal with, often with snow all about.
I can't imagine doing such crossings without solid footwear, nor would I like to carry along some sort of not-as-good but perhaps adequate footwear solely for water crossings. Not just out of a concern for weight, but stopping to change back and forth from boots to whatever so often would be a real PITA. You absolutely can walk your shoes "drier" in snow (especially consolidated spring snow if not a warm afternoon), and a good pair of wool socks do the rest.

Something to keep in mind anyway, and a new idea for me; I'd never considered before that lightweight shoes can perhaps lead to a safer decision at creek/river crossings. Given that water crossings are one of the things that people tend to fear too little (with bears feared a bit too much), that's no small thing. Creek/river crossings really do kill people, and are easy to underestimate.

Of course it has to be another shot in the war

A couple weekends ago we were on an old trail that did S turns across a creek instead of going higher on the drainage. In 2 miles there were about 27 crossings for a total of about 54 round trip. After about 10 we gave up finding stepping stones and just started walking through them.

My son had a pair of Merril shoes on and his shoes, socks and feet were wet the whole time. I was wearing my combat boots and my socks never got wet. Only a few of the crossings were above the top of the boot. Since it's laced tightly around the top, I didn't notice any water coming in.

This past weekend we hiked in sloppy snow for a couple miles before it melted. Again, my son's shoes and socks were wet and mine were dry.

I think the situation should be considered. If I were hiking the AT, I'd have to consider multiple day rains and muddy trails. We seldom get that in Colorado. Creek crossings are usually pretty easy.

This year, I found a new kind of sock. The Fox River Liner Stay Dry

They were recommended to my by a guy who hikes a LOT and has done the AT. They are polyester. He has never gotten a blister in them and they wear real well. They dry very quickly.

The only problem is they are thin, so the shoes can be about a half size smaller. For $4.39, they are worth a try.

Personally, I wouldn't carry an extra pair of shoes for stream crossings, nor would I take them off. I have a fish hook and glass fear.

Perhaps we can agree not all shoes are the same and not all boots are the same.

We both agree stream crossings are more dangerous than people think.

I found the trail pretty dry on the AT overall, with few creek crossings and none of any significance. Certainly the particular time and year could make a difference, but still. Some of the wettest trail was in New England, but so often there were boardwalks when it was swampy.

Foxriver liner socks: I use those too, and most often just those, adding wool outers in colder weather. They last quite well for thin socks.

Keeping feet dry in combat boots through many wet crossings: kind of blows my mind still. I have to believe that if the water body is deep and wide enough you're going to get some water infiltration at least ... but great that you've found a system that works so well for you.

Brian,

Here were some tests done on combat boots in the 90's. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257293.pdf

Page 20 and 52 describe the water immersion testing. The longest time done was 15 minutes. Boots with leather tops had no moisture come through. The boots were immersed to the bony sides of the ankles.

If the water was over the top for a long time, water would most likely fill the boot. But for brief periods of a few steps, I didn't notice any coming in. Keep in mind, the top is pretty snug because the lacing system goes around the ankle and there is padding to make a tighter seal.

Thanks for all the chatter created by my little video project. It's interesting to hear all the comments.

I have no doubt you can walk your shoes dry in spring conditions. I've certainly done that but doing so does seem to cause my lightweight (and even old leather boots) shoes to wear out quicker. Nevertheless, if I was doing ten crossings a day I might choose to just leave my shoes on also.

I do some ski mountaineering in the Pacific Northwest winter and I could not imagine doing a river ford in my leather ski boots on the way into the backcoountry. It would just make for a miserable weekend as I ascend into the snow zone. It's like no matter how many down coats I have on if my feet are cold I'm uncomfortable.

Part of what's missing in this discussion for me is all the other reasons to have water socks along. My nylon water socks only weigh a half pound (size XL) total and they have lots of other uses. I like to bath daily when I hike and water socks are great for bathing. You can walk around in the river without danger of loosing your footwear like Crocs which tend to get pulled off in fast current or muck. When I bath in a lake I often have to walk through a lot of muck which sucks other footwear off my feet. If I decide to swim the water socks stay snuggly on my feet also. I have found them to be very useful regardless of river fording.

Gershon, thanks for the link to the combat boot tests. I found it interesting that this 1992 study found that jungle boots also had no water penetration during the 15 minute test when the eyelets (drain holes) were plugged. I have no experience with modern combat boots, but I definitely do with jungle boots; I still have a pair of those in my closet from the 1970's.

I think the significant factor here is that these were static tests on "unworn" footwear. I've got to believe that the mechanical action of walking in ('worn') boots across an deep and extensive creek or river crossing would result in something quite different, at least with jungle boots (even with eyelets plugged).

It also wasn't clear to me in that test just how the boots were submerged, but I came away with the impression that they were held so that the very top of the boot wasn't under water. I.e., that they weren't testing water infiltration from the very top down when worn on an actual human foot (and ankle).

I don't mean to hijack the thread with this, nor to seem to contradict your personal experience (!). But I remain skeptical that extensive and deep water crossings would allow no water to get in, and particularly I wonder if some sort of regular cleaning and reapplication of waterproofing or the like is part of the magic. With trail runners, I'm sometimes out for weeks or months at a time, and definitely doing no "maintenance" unless something is very overtly failing.

Hi Eppo. I'm always happy to increase the attention paid to someone's project with my chatter ... :-)

Seriously, I'm surprised that you feel that walking shoes dry significantly impacts their durability. I can see that perhaps with leather boots, but not with shoes. Given how many miles even a pair of shoes will last, it would not be an easy thing to test for. Over the last four years I've put something like 8000 miles of backpacking on somewhere in the ballpark of 15 - 20 pairs of trail runners, and my very subjective guess is that walking them dry in wet conditions doesn't significantly impact their lifetime. For me, at least, I'm done with a pair of shoes most typically just due to counting up the mileage, though on occasion the uppers are tearing open or parts of the sole are falling off.

Water socks: I love these on certain kinds of day trips or base camping, easy-going trips. For my normal type of backpacking, however, the advantages you point out aren't applicable. I.e., I don't bathe or swim or "walk around in the river". Another case of no "one size fits all" solution, as various people have different styles of backpacking, and will prioritize and weight the advantages differently as a result.

Brian,

There is a lot we agree on. The boots were submerged about 4 inches or so. Just above the top of the foot. Most of the crossings on the "many crossing" day were that same depth. 2 or 3 were briefly over the top of the boot.

Realistically, I'm not likely to ever have water over the top of my boots for more than a few steps in Colorado. Those types of streams usually have a bridge.

I don't often get the chance to go out more than 3 nights, so time between treatments isn't a factor. I use Lexol to treat which doesn't waterproof. After 300 miles (I keep a log) on the boots, I haven't seen any loss in waterproofing. Some report they do lose it. In one of the test reports, I read the military standard is 180 days in the field with no repairs or treatments of any kind. But it didn't specify conditions.

If I were to do the AT, I'd probably have a bounce box with another choice for shoes. But I would start out with the combat boots. Realistically, the chances of me doing the AT are slim.

To get it back on topic. Often there is a stream with a wide shallow spot where there is smooth sand or gravel. Then it narrows to a spot where there are sketchy stepping stones and deeper water. Given that I know with certainty the boots won't get wet through in a shorter shallow crossing, I'd just walk right across. With shoes, I might be reluctant to make the same choice.

If I get the chance, I'll get some gray socks that will show moisture real well and do some extensive testing. Even if it means walking back and forth through the same stream.

Thanks for following up, Gershon. We were definitely thinking of different types of creeks. I did a lot of knee deep or higher "creek" crossings last year, and pretty much had that in mind. I agree that the dynamics are different if you have relatively shallow water flowing and you take a bit of care.