Meat packing

[woodmoose]

A pair of trekking poles is also a great asset to have when hauling ANY poundage of meat

truth right there,,,,,,

 

[dman35]

i hope this link works
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fwww.centraltexasbowhunter.net%2Fvideos%2F393090167552152%2F&show_text=0&width=224" width="224" height="400" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

[Poser]

Who cares it doesn't matter who or what's better. What matters is these boys experiences. Taking a killer thread and trashing it because who's or what's better at packing out.

I'm not trashing anything. I'm just saying, when we get into the realm of "extreme" packing weight (and 100+ lbs certainly qualifies) its a different game than packing <50#. The military has basically hit the wall with modern load outs of 80 pounds. The Army is reportedly planning on outfitting soldiers with some kind of exoskeleton in the coming years that will help support the frame under load. The marine corps is reportedly rethinking years of cardio focused PT in favor of focusing on making soldiers big and strong. The modern solider usually doesn't march for days on end, they, much like firefighters (who tend to be big strong men) need to be able to shoulder tremendous weight for extended periods of time.

When you get into these types of loads, you're talking about realm of needing to be "big and strong" in order to safely and reasonably support them. It's no longer the cardio specialists realm. If you're going to pack 100+ pound loads out of off trail elk country, which is the discussion at hand, you're going to need to be physically stronger and bigger than the typical backpacker. In this area, being big (bodyweight to packing weight relationship) and strong becomes more important than the light and lean build that endless cardio promotes. That works fine for average to moderate loads, but "heavy", if that's where the meat packing trend is going, will require strength emphasis.

 

[P Carter]

This is a very helpful post. (Of course, calling an accomplished mountain athlete that summited everest twice in a week, solo, without oxygen, without using fixed ropes and then ran 100 miles w/33,000 feet of elevation gain an "Auschwitz looking victim" is not.)

Here's a question in hope of moving the discussion forward. I'm about 5 11, 170. Have bulked up to 180ish and gone down to 163ish for a variety of sports. Done boxing and ultra marathons. For mountain elk hunting, which direction should a fellow slide? I've gone in the cardio-heavy direction, with hill and mountain running forming the basis of training with supplemental strength workouts. I see the goal as being able to move fast, light, and quiet 90% of the time. I've also tailored my gear that way. All this recognizing that I'm not going to be packing 100+ pound loads for any appreciable distance.

Someone with my frame could go the other direction, though. Interested in your perspective on that.

Of course, this is largely a thought experiment. I might change some on the margins, but I've come to the conclusion that a lower body mass and cardio-heavy regime, with supplemental strength workout, is better for long-term health for a variety of reasons.

This could easily go in the "workouts" thread, but I think it's appropriate here because the fundamental question could be: do we train for 100+ pound packouts or structure our packouts to fit a lighter, faster training regime. In other words, do we take 100+ pound loads as the given and prepare for them (with gear and workouts) or find a way to avoid 100+ pound loads.

 

[Poser]

I've gone both directions as well. I've been as low as 160 (lots of conditioning) and as high as 215 (lots of strength training) in recent years at 5.11. Body feels and operates much better right around 200#. I can do enough conditioning to be prepared for what I need to do and maintain reasonable strength at that body weight. Enough bodyfat to have some reserves, few aches and pains etc. At 160#, great conditioning (probably overkill) on the weak side, some aches and pains.

I think the thing with conditioning to be careful of is junk volume. How much and exactly what type of conditioning do you need in order to get the job done? That's a difficult question to answer, but something to consider. I've done the excessive junk conditioning thing before and look back it and see myself unnecessarily having wasted a lot of hard earned muscle away for minimal if any return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

The absolute worst pack frame I used was an old Camp Trails
What a POS

I have to disagree- grin

THE WORST is those old Army pack boards. A Bowhunting buddy Ricky on the big island had one of those POS. Skinny shoulder straps- no padding, hard back....and no belt. We had meat from 2 rams + heads and a boned out hog on that thing coming out once- easily 90# but it felt like double that. It just hangs on you like a sack of potatoes. I refused to let him carry it as I was his guest....dang did I regret that comment.

I think there are a couple guys here that know Ricky B...and can attest to that torture chamber he calls a pack.

 

[hobbes]

I cant touch the number of elk packed out that most of these guys have but I've done enough in my ten years living in elk country to know that it isnt rocket science. Its just brute strength and mental ability to endure the beating. I don't recall weighing packs loaded with meat, but it's fairly simple math if you look at the numbers shown early in the post.

I've a friend that has weighed most of his Colorado bulls (the bags of quarters and scraps) for balancing weight in paniers and his numbers are fairly close to those numbers listed above. If packing a medium/raghorn bull assume 60lbs for bone in rear hams, 40 lbs for fronts, and 50 plus for loins, neck, and ribs. If you load a a rear and front with bone you are easily pushing 100 lbs. Of meat. I don't do that, but instead at the most go with either two fronts or one rear and a bag of either loins or scraps, typically with bone out so I'm probably never over 80. Thats just a first load and if I'm alone. I've typically had help and plan on two trips so I dont carry more than a rear, so 60 lbs plus whatever gear and water I'm carrying.

I can adjust the pack back and forth between shoulders and hips to give my hips a little break, but there is no relief for the ankles. It beats the heck out of my ankles in steep country and I take multiple breaks. Although, putting a pack back on sucks so I try to just find a log to sit/lean back against.

I dont work out much other than some elliptical, some stairs, and a little mountain hiking.....and Im not terribly strong. I'm 47, between 6' even and 6'1", and am running 198 right now (Ive just dropped 9 lbs and hoping to drop 15 more). Some of these hard core guys that train a lot have to be able to put me to shame.

 

[idahohikker]

I think the ideal specimen if we're going there is a decathlete. Ashton Eaton would destroy an elk pack out. Plenty strong and crazy endurance.

 

[Ross]

If I was to pick a body type it would wirey, with lean muscle over bulk and a go for it attitude My brother is 5'10" 150 and is a packing beast thankfully for me Thankfully his boy is built just the same and a little taller that is even betterAnd don't tell him those old military packboards are not comfortable as that is all he continues to use....crazy he is

 

[Bar]

I won't talk about how much meat i've hauled when I was younger. It was way more than I pack now, but that isn't important. Use your own method that won't hurt you. The only goal should be to get the meat out in time to stay fresh. Everything else is meaningless if you can't do that. It takes no more than that.