Technology And The Modern Woodsman

Last month I wrote a post about a concept I called The Modern Woodsman. You can read it in full here. Before I get into the current topic it might be worth giving a recap of the concept itself.

The Modern Woodsman: an individual who is able to undertake long term, long distance trips, deep into the wilderness, only with supplies one could carry and what could be gathered from the surrounding environment. The equipment and skills used are guided by their actual practicality and are not restricted by any historical period limitations or aesthetic factors. The trips undertaken occur in the present, within the context of our current society, laws, and regulations.

The Modern Woodsman is able to navigate through the bush; he can travel over varied and difficult terrain and during any season and weather; he can properly plan the supplies needed for an excursion of a particular duration, both in camping gear terms of the resources that must be brought and what can realistically be obtained from the environment through which the travel will occur. Most importantly, he is not limited to the technology or skill of any particular time period. He uses technology, skills and equipment based on efficiency and practicality. He applies modern hunting techniques, modern understanding of nutrition, and modern climbing, mountaineering, and packrafting techniques. His equipment includes tools that are best suited for the task without consideration for nostalgia and sentimentality. The gear is centered around portability, so that it can be transported over long distances and difficult terrain. The skills he implements are designed for efficiency, not showmanship, and while his equipment is modern, it is designed to function over extended periods of time. His expeditions are not theoretical in nature, but occur in the present, within the guidelines and laws of our modern society.

With the above summary of The Modern Woodsman in mind, some questions have been asked about what technology is acceptable to use within this concept, and what technology should be excluded. Honestly, your approach is as good as any, since I am making up the concept myself. However, if you are interested in my thoughts on the subject, I'll share them with you.

The simple answer is that the only limitation on technology is the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction within which the trip or expedition is taking place. That would eliminate most of the absurd examples, such as using dynamite to clear out a path through the forest, or fishing with grenades. All other technology is fair game for The Modern Woodsman. Technology of any kind and from any time period can be used to achieve the goal of the expedition.

Of course, the answer is more complex than that. While not limited by the concept itself, a large amount of technology will be excluded from use due to practical considerations. Remember, part of the definition of The Modern Woodsman is that he or she can undertake long term, long distance trips, deep into the wilderness, only with supplies one could carry and what could be gathered from the surrounding environment. The technology used has to function within that framework in a practical manner. The technology utilized has to be justifiable in terms of practicality when it comes to reliability, weight, and the benefit it offers over simpler technology. 

For example, why not use a chainsaw instead of an axe? Well, in most circumstances, the chainsaw would be impractical. It offers a significant advantage in terms of performance, but the combined weight of the chainsaw and fuel drastically limits its portability. On a trip that requires carrying the equipment on one's back for 20 miles into the woods and then 20 miles out, the limitations of the chainsaw become evident. Similarly, on a trip of long duration, the necessity of fuel provides a significant disadvantage when compared to a simpler tool such as a hand saw or an axe. For me, those limitations would make the chainsaw a piece of technology that has limited uses for The Modern Woodsman. 

Another, more relevant example is GPS units. As you guys know, I use one to record my trips, but do not use it to navigate. A GPS unit offers wonderful advantages over more traditional navigation methods with map and compass, but it also has limitations which might render it impractical for certain types of trips. The main limitation is the reliability on a finite power source. A good GPS unit will last for about two days of careful use with a set of batteries. In cold weather that time decreases. So for a trip that will last a week or more, quite a few batteries have to be carried. So, as far as technology for The Modern Woodsman, such units, for me at least, fall in a category where they are useful technology that can be effectively utilized, but should be backed up by simpler methods and technology just because of their limitations.

A third example is modern stoves. I find them to be very beneficial to The Modern Woodsman. Under some circumstances, when traveling through woodland, their use is marginal, and their reliance on fuels that have to be carried, significantly limits their utility. Under different conditions however, when you have to cook food while it is raining, or have to melt snow for water when you are above tree line, a stove is an indispensable item and has a secure place within the gear of The Modern Woodsman.

It should also be noted that the practical utility of each type of technology will change with time, as the technology evolves and is perfected. It is quite possible that within 10 years there will be GPS units that can run for a month on a set of batteries, and portable chainsaws that can be strapped onto a backpack. Such innovations will change how we view the practicality of those pieces of technology and may make them more useful for The Modern Woodsman.

While at first glance this lack of limitation on the use of technology might appear strange, especially when compared to the more stylized outdoor pursuits such as bushcraft, traditional camping, etc, the practical limitations result in a very familiar outdoor experience. We can see it today in modern hunters, climbers, and backpackers, who utilize practical available survival kits technology to achiever their goals. The applicability of technology to The Modern Woodsman will always be measured on a scale, where planning and realistic evaluation of the conditions which will be encountered and the goals which must be achieved will guide the selection process.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/07/technology-and-modern-woodsman.html

Extreme Super Ultra Light Backpacking Gear List

A number of years ago the ultralight backpacking movement gained significant momentum. More and more backpackers started reducing the weight of their gear in order to facilitate their travel through the wilderness. In recent times, the super-ultralight movement has begun. While ultralight backpackers generally aim for a base weight of less than 10 lb, super-ultralight backpackers try to achieve a base weight of under 5 lb. Well, this line of thinking has lead to me to make a contribution of my own to the struggle to reduce weight, the extreme-super-ultralight form of backpacking. The goal with extreme-super-ultralight is to reduce your base weight to under 5 oz. Yes, you heard it right, 5 oz. Impossible you say? Have a look at the gear list:

Of course, because of the minimal gear used, you survival kits have to rely heavily on your skills and plan accordingly. While a regular backpacker might simply set up camp wherever he wants in the woods, an extreme-super-ultralight backpacker has to use his skills and resourcefulness to find appropriate shelter locations. Often times that requires calling ahead of time, and making what we extreme-super-ultralighters call "reservations" in what is commonly referred to as hotels. Similarly, while a regular backpacker might be able to just throw some food together in a heavy pot, the extreme-super-ultralighter has to do extensive research and locate food resources known as restaurants, or at times use his highly developed skills to locate food stashes known as supermarkets.

Why bother you ask? Why extreme-super-ultralight? Once you have experienced it, there is no going back. When you master the necessary skills and gear, you will seamlessly and quickly move through the wilderness, utilizing the available shelter and food depots, to provide yourself with comfortable and exciting backpacking experience.

…

Clearly the above is a joke. There is no such thing as extreme-super-ultralight backpacking. Yet. However, in this post I hope to speak to a very real issue that I have encountered in the pursuit to cut weight.

I am a big proponent of weight reduction, and I think more specialized forms of backpacking like ultralight and super-ultralight have lead to the development of great technology and techniques which help us towards that end. The problem that I keep encountering however, in doing research about such forms of backpacking, is that I keep running more and more into what I see as "disingenuous weight reduction".

What I mean by that is that way too often I encounter people who speak of how light their gear is, only to discover that they have only managed to achieve the weight savings by sacrificing the ability to actually go into the woods. Here are a few examples of typical conversations I have with ultralight backpackers (ULB):

• Me: That's a very interesting set up. It looks light. How much is your base weight?
• ULB: Base weight is 6 lb (followed by an explanation about how not everyone can go that light because it requires a lot of skill)
• Me: That's amazing. What type of shelter do you use?
• ULB: I use my poncho. It's a multi-use item-rain protection and shelter. Weights 8 oz.
• Me: How does it perform in more serious storms, or rain? Does it offer sufficient protection?
• ULB: Well, I usually stay in shelters along the trail. This is just for emergencies. I also don't go out when it is going to rain.
• Me: :/

Here is another example:

• ULB: I used to use a large pot like you, but now I have this SUL set up that weight only 4 oz. I never need more than two cups of water anyway.
• Me: That looks great. How much fuel does the alcohol stove consume during winter? How much time do you spend each day melting snow for water?
• ULB: Oh, I usually don't go backpacking in winter. When I do, I bring a white gas stove.
• Me: :/

Weight reduction is great. Ultralight backpacking is great. However, I thought the whole point was to have the same capability as a "regular" backpacker, only do it in a better and smarter way, utilizing different gear and a wider set of skills. But let me be clear, being able to look at the weather channel and decide to stay home because it might rain, is not the type of skills I am talking about here.

What has happened in many respects is that we now compare apples to oranges. Instead of seeing how we can reduce the weight of different components while maintaining their functionality, we have simply removed the need for the function itself.

If you told me that you developed a shelter that weighs 1 lb instead of my 2 lb shelter, and that you could weather the exact same conditions with your shelter as I could with mine, then that would be a great achievement, and we should all take notice. However, telling me that survival kits your shelter weighs 0.25 lb because you actually never use it, while using cabins along the trail each night, then we are really comparing apples to oranges. You haven't made the shelter lighter, you have simply "cheated" by staying in someone else's shelter instead of carrying an adequate shelter. This is "disingenuous weight savings". Similarly, telling me that you have this great super-duper-ultralight kit that you get to use this one perfect weekend in June, but then can't use the rest of the year, really doesn't show us much, nor does it translate into actual weight savings.

None of that is any different from carrying an extreme-super-ultralight kit comprised of a credit card. Sleep at a hotel each night, eat at restaurants, and then take a cab back to the trail. You hardly have to carry anything. It kind of misses the point though. Can we get back to the days when going ultralight meant reducing the weight of your pack, but still having all of the functional components necessary for traveling through the wilderness? How did we get from that, to cutting weight by sleeping in cabins and not going out when the conditions are less than perfect? Seems like we took a left turn somewhere and missed the point entirely.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/08/extreme-super-ultra-light-backpacking.html