"Lightweight" backpack hunting is an exercise in frustration. Total weight?

[mtwarden]

Actually first recorded pioneer of ultralight camping/hunting was George W Sears “Nessmuk”

or possibly Horace Kephart

 

[DoubleDown]

Nessmuk lived decades before Horace. His book Woodcraft and Camping explains how lightweight he was going.

 

[Dos Perros]

I have yet to see it published: what does going lighter get you, in discrete numbers?

For example, one would suspect that elevation could be gained faster, okay, how much faster?

Then, is that extra time worth it? Couldn't one just wake up earlier to get to that glassing spot on time?

 

[Poser]

I have yet to see it published: what does going lighter get you, in discrete numbers?

For example, one would suspect that elevation could be gained faster, okay, how much faster?

Then, is that extra time worth it? Couldn't one just wake up earlier to get to that glassing spot on time?

There is some military data on this. I believe it is each 1% of your Bodyweight that you add to your pack slows you by 6 seconds per mile, though variable terrain (crawling, climbing on all 4, technical obstacles etc) slow you down even more considerably. Not to mention that there is a cumulative fatigue factor I.e. the longer you carry a “heavy” pack, the more cumulative fatigue you will experience. Consider, for example, how much more brutally difficult a climb can be with a packout weight, say 100#, vs a camping weight of, day, 30#.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

I set off years ago trying to set up ultralight systems. I learned three truths:

1. There definitely exists a stupid-light threshold where the function is sacrificed with the weight.

2. Better fitness is best used to carry superior equipment. It's much better to carry a couple extra pounds to enable better decision making, which in the end, saves effort and improves success. Again, this avoids being the stupid-light hunter, able to traverse long distances and/or faster, but wasted uselessly.

3. Ultra-light is best adhered to by wisely discerning unnecessary gear and not taking it, rather than making important gear lighter.

In summary, I will never not take the five pounds of a full-size spotting scope or high power binoculars and tripod. I will always sacrifice somewhere else if really need to shed weight.

 

[Dos Perros]

There is some military data on this. I believe it is each 1% of your Bodyweight that you add to your pack slows you by 6 seconds per mile, though variable terrain (crawling, climbing on all 4, technical obstacles etc) slow you down even more considerably. Not to mention that there is a cumulative fatigue factor I.e. the longer you carry a “heavy” pack, the more cumulative fatigue you will experience. Consider, for example, how much more brutally difficult a climb can be with a packout weight, say 100#, vs a camping weight of, day, 30#.

Do you have any links to studies we can read?

 

[Poser]

Do you have any links to studies we can read?

Quick search revealed this article which references some of those studies:

5 Military Rucking Rules Every Backpacker Should Know

Here are 5 military rucking rules that translate well to hikers.

www.backpacker.com

 

[Block]

All the water where I hunt is LOW so I usually carry 6 liters of water (12 lbs),,, during archery 90-100* That’s only enuf water for a day hunt

 

[tdot]

I'm sure it has been said somewhere before, but I feel "Ultralight" is a relative term to each endeavor.

A thru hiker at 7 pounds, hiking in the summer, with 5 days between towns is simply not comparable to hunting. So why struggle or suffer to try and achieve an unnecessary goal.... Mountain sheep are better climbers then me, I dont get upset about it.

An ultralight Mountaineer can easily have 25+ pounds of rope, biners, ice screws, etc. All before a -30 degree bag and a 4 season tent. Their base weights can easily supercede the potential base weight of a hunter.

I strive for lightweight, but never stupid light. Lightweight to me means that I still have 90% or better functionality from a product yet is as light and durable as feasible. The 2nd thing I do is leave anything unnecessary, this is the cheapest and most effective weight savings. But this only comes from confidence and experience. I strive to never have a trip where I think "I really wish I'd brought X" and I definitely dont want to unpack my bag and think "why did I bring that?"

I think an ultralight hunter for 5 days in that 35-40 range is doing very well, and really shouldnt be frustrated... even 45-50 pounds is decent.

If someone really wants to focus on ultralight, I think these thru hikers are missing the mark. Ultralight National Park car camping is the next craze that I see coming. You can save fuel as they drive to the next park... you can drive a smaller car... you dont wear out your shoes...

 

[Beendare]

IMO....AK Runner nailed it in post 85 above......

 

[Poser]

I'm sure it has been said somewhere before, but I feel "Ultralight" is a relative term to each endeavor.

A thru hiker at 7 pounds, hiking in the summer, with 5 days between towns is simply not comparable to hunting. So why struggle or suffer to try and achieve an unnecessary goal.... Mountain sheep are better climbers then me, I dont get upset about it.

An ultralight Mountaineer can easily have 25+ pounds of rope, biners, ice screws, etc. All before a -30 degree bag and a 4 season tent. Their base weights can easily supercede the potential base weight of a hunter.

I strive for lightweight, but never stupid light. Lightweight to me means that I still have 90% or better functionality from a product yet is as light and durable as feasible. The 2nd thing I do is leave anything unnecessary, this is the cheapest and most effective weight savings. But this only comes from confidence and experience. I strive to never have a trip where I think "I really wish I'd brought X" and I definitely dont want to unpack my bag and think "why did I bring that?"

I think an ultralight hunter for 5 days in that 35-40 range is doing very well, and really shouldnt be frustrated... even 45-50 pounds is decent.

If someone really wants to focus on ultralight, I think these thru hikers are missing the mark. Ultralight National Park car camping is the next craze that I see coming. You can save fuel as they drive to the next park... you can drive a smaller car... you dont wear out your shoes...

Good post. I think most hunters who experiment with “ultralight” end up with or close to this line of thinking. Also, the ideal Backcountry Hunter is going to be a bit or even considerably “bigger” than the ideal UL Thru hiker if you’re looking to effectively handle heavy pack outs, so I would also bare in mind that a 40-50# “ultralight” 5 day hunting load out is going to feel that far out of the “almost proportional” spectrum for a guy in the ~185-225# Bodyweight range as the very lean, 135-155# Thru hiker carrying 17 pounds. The Thru hiker doesn’t need to be adapted to hauling 60-100+ lbs loads, but the “ultralight” Backcountry hunter does.

 

[tdot]

Good post. I think most hunters who experiment with “ultralight” end up with or close to this line of thinking. Also, the ideal Backcountry Hunter is going to be a bit or even considerably “bigger” than the ideal UL Thru hiker if you’re looking to effectively handle heavy pack outs, so I would also bare in mind that a 40-50# “ultralight” 5 day hunting load out is going to feel that far out of the “almost proportional” spectrum for a guy in the ~185-225# Bodyweight range as the very lean, 135-155# Thru hiker carrying 17 pounds. The Thru hiker doesn’t need to be adapted to hauling 60-100+ lbs loads, but the “ultralight” Backcountry hunter does.

Good point about the body mass difference. That does make a significant difference. I've read that ideal maximum carry weight is at 35% -40% of body weight. Following those numbers, I'm maxed out with a lightweight 5 day hunt setup, I technically dont have capacity for packing out meat. Where as a guy pushing 225 to 250 can have a 100lb pack on, and still be under their ideal max.

I've found persistence and ignorance to be the only way over that hurdle.

 

[Mike 338]

I don't get overly worried about weight. I try to keep it manageable but yeah... just carrying " evidence of sex" on the meat and a rack blows all the weight savings you worked so hard to save. I think in terms of trips. "How many trips will it take to get my camp and the meat out". A boned out deer is 100ish lbs so for me, it's two or three trips for everything. I usually plan on 5 days or so, hunting (sometimes more). Trying to carry out everything in one load for me is inviting an injury and that can be a real problem hunting solo. Don't really care to have bad knees for the rest of my live cause I thought He-man could have done it in one trip. This year, it was two trips to get it all out but if it was three, then it was three.

Or... get some goats.

 

[highcountrymuley]

I use a Slumberjack frame pack. No bells or whistles on this one, just a 60 L REI bag stuffed with all my gear. It is great at hauling heavy loads. Food is hardest to pare down, need that fuel. Range finder, spotter and tripod is a must for me hunting early season - lots of ground to glass = less hiking! Last year, Outfitter packing horses at same trailhead weighed my pack with everything loaded = 64 #! This year i pared down a bit but it s hard. Less clothes, no pillow, lighter food, ditched the extra knife, titanium pot for all cooking...

But it's nice to pack out a super heavy load of all deboned meat + ribs, shanks, heart, head and cape... then go back and pick up camp. That last load of about 60# feels really good!

 

[Hoss1984]

"Lightweight" backpack hunting is an exercise in frustration. Total weight?

I've been an ultralight backpacker and alpine climber a lot longer than I've been a hunter. I'm used to really light packs.

However, the longer I hunt, the harder it is for me to keep my carry weight low.

Even spending top dollar on lightweight gear, I can't come close to a carry weight that I'm used to for backpacking (or even climbing.)

Some of the biggest challenges:

Meat hauling. I'm typically solo, so when I'm hauling meat, I'm carrying a TON of weight. This means I've got to carry a pack with a substantial frame and hipbelt. I've tried lightweight packs. They don't cut it with 100 pound loads.
So, I'm stuck with carrying a pack that weighs almost 7 pounds empty.

Optics. Good glass is heavy. I started out carrying only light weight binos. However, the more I hunt (in the mountain West) the more I realize that I need to see long distances, and I can't get around the need for good glass. I went from small binos, to large binos, then back down to small binos combined with a spotting scope. A spotting scope means I've also got to carry a tripod. My 8x32 binos, while light, still weigh over a pound. My lightweight spotting scope weighs 2 pounds, my tripod and ball head weigh 2 pounds, and my rangefinder weighs half a pound.

Between the weight of empty pack and my optics, tripod and rangefinder, I'm already at the fully loaded weight of my typical ultralight backpacking pack.

Add the rifle, game bags, etc., and I'm no longer "lightweight."

So, I guess I will just have to adjust my definitions of what lightweight means, spend more time in the gym and less in the kitchen, and just get used to carrying a heavy "lightweight" load.

This season's deer hunt, my weight (from skin out, including everything I wore and carried) was 45 pounds.

I wonder what other folks who are doing lightweight backpack hunting are carrying and wearing. What's your from skin out weight?

 

[Hoss1984]

I don't get overly worried about weight. I try to keep it manageable but yeah... just carrying " evidence of sex" on the meat and a rack blows all the weight savings you worked so hard to save. I think in terms of trips. "How many trips will it take to get my camp and the meat out". A boned out deer is 100ish lbs so for me, it's two or three trips for everything. I usually plan on 5 days or so, hunting (sometimes more). Trying to carry out everything in one load for me is inviting an injury and that can be a real problem hunting solo. Don't really care to have bad knees for the rest of my live cause I thought He-man could have done it in one trip. This year, it was two trips to get it all out but if it was three, then it was three.

Or... get some goats.

The past few years I have been around the 45 pounds, but each year I find a way to cut weight,It has become a goal of mine. You can weight in many departments from clothes to shelters, sleeping grear. Good luck

 

[Moserkr]

Been backpack hunting for almost a decade now, and got really serious a few seasons back by weighing gear. My early season setup including weapon, packed gear, and everything except water, for 2 days, is at 35 lbs. My winter setup includes a hot tent, more layers/gaiters, and comes in at 45 lbs for 2 days, good down to 0*F. Food adds 1.5 lbs a day for me as I like to eat and I cook off my wood burning ti tent stove so no gas fuel. I carry a liter of water at a time unless I dont know the area and availability.

I could still shave weight and add some. I dont have a tripod/spotting scope. My sleeping bag is cheap and basic, and is high on the upgrade list. I could shave 10+oz replacing that. Id love the SO cimarron in DCF as that would shave my shelter weight by 13 oz from 34 to 21, and double my solo space. Also would allow two people when needed. Debating selling both my tipis and going that route once SO gets their supply chain in order.

Ive learned that replacing cheap gear is expensive. On the low end $10/oz is good and worth spending to shave weight. Big ticket items usually go $50/oz+ to save weight. But the old mantra holds true...

The gear triangle - Inexpensive, lightweight and durable. You can only have 2.

 

[208backcountry]

l struggle from a volume perspective. Online, I can’t believe how small some people’s packs look as they head out on a trip.. maybe it’s just the pictures... because my pack looks HUGE to me volume-wise.

I know weight-wise I am landing roughly on par with many people on here, but I dont understand the volume thing. I am the more experienced out of all my buddies, so I have nothing reliable that I’ve seen in-person to compare to. I really need to see an expert’s kit all put together for a trip in-person at some point. I run a Stone Glacier 5900 and it gets stuffed FULL for 3 days, I have no clue how guys would do 7 days out of a pack that size.

If you’re looking for a lightweight pack that can handle hauling meat. I have had great luck with my Stone Glacier!

 

[ChrisAU]

l struggle from a volume perspective. Online, I can’t believe how small some people’s packs look as they head out on a trip.. maybe it’s just the pictures... because my pack looks HUGE to me volume-wise.

I know weight-wise I am landing roughly on par with many people on here, but I dont understand the volume thing. I am the more experienced out of all my buddies, so I have nothing reliable that I’ve seen in-person to compare to. I really need to see an expert’s kit all put together for a trip in-person at some point. I run a Stone Glacier 5900 and it gets stuffed FULL for 3 days, I have no clue how guys would do 7 days out of a pack that size.

If you’re looking for a lightweight pack that can handle hauling meat. I have had great luck with my Stone Glacier!

I think sleep systems vary wildly on the volume. Me and my hunting partner both did 7 days with Kuiu Ultra 4000's with Seek Talon's for a little extra room and did not feel pressed for volume.

 

[mtwarden]

My kit is about the same on a 2 day hunt vs a 7 day hunt. Probably add an additional pair of socks and a base top on a 7 day hunt. What changes is the volume of the food. An additional 5 days of food does take up a chunk of real estate. I have a 5900 too and a week is at the very upper limit for the pack. I might be doing a 7-10 hunt this September and if it’s a go I’m springing for a 7000-ish bag.