Talk:Backpacking (hiking)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Backpacking (hiking). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Editorial Introduction

The introduction sounds more editorial than informational:

The main disadvantages are that the encumbrance of the backpack itself substantially reduces the hiking pace, so that less ground can be covered in a day, that the backpack is something of a nuisance and a distraction to enjoying the scenery, and that camp chores use up several hours every day.

While I admit there are times when a badly designed or loaded pack can be uncomfortable, the packpack is the tool which allows a serious trip to take place. The pack selection (in some cases manufacture), the fitting process, the loading, and the management of the contents are all part and parcel with the backpacking experience. To say the pack is "something of a nuisance" is akin to complaining about the cold weather associated with snow skiing.

Finally, the statement "camp chores can take up several hours a day" is unsubstantiated. There are degrees of dedication to camp chores among backpackers. As your pack gets lighter and your mileage higher, you learn to leave behind the encumbrances that make camp feel more like home, which is the point for some of us.

(Forgot to log-in on this one! - Fireclaims ;)

I originally wrote that bit, in a form similar to the form it has now, as an objective treatment of the disadvantages of backpacking as compared to day hiking. It shouldn't be misunderstood &em; though if it is unclear, it should be changed. I like backpacking (as a matter of fact, I just got back from a short jaunt this weekend). However, it's important, particularly in an encyclopedia, to recognize that it has distinct disadvantages.

I think it's plainly incorrect to dismiss time spent on camp chores. Some backpackers may avoid the work of having to set up a tent by not bringing one (for my part, I think it can be fun). Others may avoid the work of cooking and washing dishes by subsisting on trail mix and energy bars. However, most people don't do that. Also, if by "degrees of dedication to camp chores" you mean that some backpackers aren't terribly keen on cleaning up trash and burying their dishwater, that's a different case entirely. --Smack (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as Fireclaims. The backpack is rather a substantial advantage when backpacking, the only alternative being not backpacking. The cost in pace and distance compared to dayhiking is highly variable, depending on the person, the terrain, the gear, etc. And the notions of nuisance, distraction, and enjoyment are pretty subjective. But mostly I can't imagine spending several hours a day on camp chores. I could cook a Thanksgiving dinner in several hours. How deep are you burying your dishwater? Squib 22:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess my calculation is a bit mistaken. I figured that a very quick backpacker can hit the trail an hour after waking up, and take maybe an hour and a half or two hours to set up camp and get things done in the evening. (Last weekend, it took us over two hours to get out of camp.) However, not all of this time expenditure can rightly be classified as "camp chores." As far as encumbrance goes, we can't simply disregard the backpack's disadvantages. I agree that, on the balance, the backpack is beneficial, but the reader should decide for himself. --Smack (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, any characterization of the time consumed by camp chores as a disadvantage is misplaced when you consider that a day hike is probably going to require as much time or more just to get to and from the trailhead (which would affect the comparative distance that can be covered in a day as well). If anything, the advantage goes to the backpacker, who can take care of business and still "hit the trail an hour after waking up." After all, if you're counting the time it takes to wake up, pee, eat breakfast, wash up, brush your teeth, get dressed, cook dinner, eat it, wash the dishes, etc., then dayhikers gotta do the same things, unless they’re subsisting on McMuffins and Big Macs (cf. "trail mix and energy bars"). Don't get me wrong. I personally like to take my sweet time, but I've seen plenty of folks who roll in after dark and are gone before first light. The intro doesn't really reflect that approach.Squib 23:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

After dark and before first light, at what latitude and time of year?

You're right that it's not correct to list these time expenditures as disadvantages, but some prominent mention needs to be made. --Smack (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never spent more than an hour and a half doing camp chores. Stating it takes several hours to do the chores implies 3+ hours which is simply not accurate. In that time period I could have setup 5 tents, baked a pizza from scratch, and taken a sponge bath. Additionally, camp chores such as cooking can also be enjoyable due to the challenges presented in the backcountry as some people take pride in what they can do with so little. I also agree with Squib that in order for this to be a disadvantage, cooking, eating, etc, it needs to be something additional to the daily routine that wouldn't occur normally. I believe a better way to get your point accross would be to add a LNT section that identifies some of the chores that are unique to backpacking.

'A backpacker packs all of his or her gear into a backpack and hikes to an inspirational location.' Not all backpacking trips are made with an specific location in mind. Thruhikers are an example of this. Quite a few people go backpacking to get away, not necessarily go to some inspirational location.

Since the page Backpacking isn't really disambiguating anything, this article needs to be moved there.--Esprit15d 15:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Current contents of Backpacking should move to Backpacking (disambiguation), contents of Backpacking (wilderness) should move to Backpacking, per Wikipedia disambiguation standard. Rationale: Backpacking (wilderness) is the dominant meaning. -- hike395 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This was resolved on Talk:Backpacking (travel); I have removed the tag. -- Scott e^iπ 10:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the W guidelines: "Leave a message on the talk page of the article where you want your link added" :

A perfect external link from this page would be :

Wilderness-backpacking.com Wilderness backpacking tips and advice

But I guess some from Wikipedia has to approve it ? regards Erik

Canned food

User:Alexx127 insists that backpackers use canned food. I've never seen any for myself; maybe she's thinking about some other decade. Any comments? --Smack (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if you've never seen it. Some people do, it depends on the length of the trip and the cost/food quality trade offs people want to make. But in any case verifiability is the key, not your or my opinions. I'll look in some backpacking books to see if I can find something citable. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is merely original research, but I usually bring canned fish on short backpack trips. I've even brought food in glass jars. And I've seen others do the same. -Will Beback 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too - I've quite often taken glass jars or cans whilst trekking, especially when in a foreign country where there is little time to prepare and vastly reduced choice in food at shops. If the trek is short I'd also have no problem taking a can (of ready soup for instance), since the contents don't require cooking to be edible in an emergency, can't go off, won't spill, and can taste better than some other options. --Ozhiker 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

US focus

The article seems to be rather focused on the US. First of all, there is the title. In most parts of the world, 'backpacking' refers to travelling with a backpack. 'Wilderness backpacking' is usually called 'hiking'. Next comes the first sentence, which states that backpacking "combines hiking and camping in a single trip". But New Zealand, one of the most famous hiking countries, is full of wilderness huts, so that a tent is not necessary. During an total of about 40 days of tramping in NZ, I have only once seen someone with a tent - some people prefer their privacy, I suppose. :) This may have to do with something I once heard, that the approach to hiking is very differrent in the US and NZ. In NZ, one is supposed to follow the tracks so that the rest of nature will remain undisturbed. As I understand it, in the US one realy goes into the wild or has the choice between a large number of tracks, so that wherever one goes, the impact will be minimal (which makes a lot of sense to me, especially if one looks at how destructive the overused tracks in NZ are, but that's a differrent issue). Another thing is that the typical lengths of hikes that are mentioned are either a weekend or 'weeks or months'. But in my experience, a hike typically lasts 5 days, so maybe this is also a US thing. I fist had this experience in NZ, where the tracks are usually of that length and there is usually no way to start or stop them halfway. But I've had the same experience in Finland, Guatemala and Borneo (whre there are no facilities at all - not even tracks). This lenght of 5 days has struck me as a standard length wherever you go in the world. And I believe something similargoes for Nepal, but I haven't been there. The use of the word 'trail' in stead of 'track' is also more typically US, but I'm not sure about that. Btw, speaking of Finland, leantos are more common there than huts or campsites.
'Fixing' this bias would require quite a rewrite, so in stead of starting with that straight away, I'd rather wait for some reactions here first. One possibility is to put parts of the present text under a separate header 'Hiking in the US' or something and then to write a separate one for New Zealand (and other parts of the world). Any thoughts? DirkvdM 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I too was surprised by the title. I hadn't heard this use of the term 'backpacking' before. Being a New Zealander, I use the term 'tramping' but am aware of other terms such as walking, hiking, trekking.

I was interested in your comment that tramping doesn't have to include camping because one might sleep in a hut rather than a tent, as I have thought of myself as 'camping' even when I have stayed in huts. A quick look at a few dictionary definitions of 'camp' seems to confirm that a hut can be a type of camp, just as a tent can; therefore I suggest the first sentence remain unchanged. (My experience is different to yours: in 25+ years of tramping in New Zealand, I have rarely not seen a tent while tramping. Some tracks do not have huts, and at certain times, popular huts are crowded, making tents an attractive alternative.)

With regard to your comment that the tracks in New Zealand are usually five days, in fact there are numerous shorter and longer tramps around the country. All the tramping I've done in the last decade has been with young children who aren't yet capable of tramping for more than two days. There are many possibilities for two day trips including round trips, trips from one road access to another, and return trips. Maybe the sentence you're referring to could be amended to make it more clear that a trip could be two days, several months, or anything in between. Lisialil 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A short note bout the camping; I usually avoid the high season and popular treks. For example, when I went to Abel Tasman (in winter) I did the inland trek. So that probably explains me rarely seeing any tents in NZ. DirkvdM 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I now see there is a separate hiking article. I didn't see that because I typed in 'tramping' (the NZ word for 'hiking'), which redirects here. I don't have the time to read that just now because I'm off to an appointment. DirkvdM 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I've removed http://www.trekking.in.th/ from the External Links section twice now. (The recent re-add was done by User:Trekking in thailand, which implies self-promotion to me, which is why I removed it before asking for discussion.) It seems more about Thailand than backpacking and hence doesn't really belong here, but clearly at least one other person disagrees. What's the consensus? --R27182818 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A few friends who have traveled there indicated that Thailand has little wilderness. Travelers stay in villages or—most often—resorts. That particular site has decent photography, but several broken or non-functional links within, numerous spelling errors and incomplete information. At least it isn't a commercial website, unless the broken links are where the advertising is. I don't think it belongs here. It would be much more appropriate in the Backpacking (travel) article—and wikitravel. — EncMstr 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added http://backpacking-tips.net/ with the edit summary "Not sure on reason link removed, was up for months." This web site is very light on content and has very little which isn't in the article. The biggest article weakness is nutritional information, but the website's contribution can be summarized in a couple sentences (unless snaking means something other than snacking). Another typo which gives pause as to reliability is outer layer should be breatable. So I'm removing it. —EncMstr 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginner's guide to backpacking

This recently-added link is GFDL. Perhaps its information should be integrated into the article rather than leaving it as a link? --R27182818 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yah that was me, sure, have fun. Leif902 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

I don't know how the wikiprojects work at all, but maybe there should be a Wikiproject Backpacking? There is one for cycaling, and one for trails, so maybe it would be benificial to expand backpacking related articles (equipment, packing, trails, books, etc.)? Just a thought. Leif902 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, which includes many mountain travel topics. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking Trails and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geocaching (inactive). -Will Beback · † · 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried the hiking trails one... but it seems to have little activity... and it would be nice if all of these packing related things (trails, equipment, books, this article... etc.) could have one group dedicated to managing them. Might clean things up a bit (if you havn't noticed, the backpacking and trail articles on wikipedia are 80% garbage and stubs...) Leif902 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All the topics, (climbing, backpacking, bicycling) have way too few articles for a wikiproject to be of much benefit. This article suggests that a minimum of about 1000 articles are needed to have sufficient critical mass to overcome the administration of a wikiproject. Have you done anything to remove the garbage? Specific suggestions on the article talk pages would be most welcome. —EncMstr 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yes, I've been activly trying to work on a few trails lately... (note the trying, I'm not very good with wikisyntax, but I have managed to clean up the Bartram Trail article quite alot, and several other smaller trails. Thanks for the info, -Leif902 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

If anyone would like, I have designed the following userbox.

User:Leif902/UserBoxes/Backpacking

Leif902 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

animals

I've reverted the edits about animals because they are unsourced and probably original research. See those links for more information about the policies for citing and publishing.

Also, the changes in the lead are too narrow. For example, when I backpack in Oregon in mid and late summer, skis are useful for crossing lingering snow on the trail and for fun excursions on nearby slopes. They are required most of the spring and, depending on the snow pack, well into the early summer months. —EncMstr (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Brands

Is there really a reason that a couple brand names need to be repeatedly mentioned in this article? (I'm looking at you, freeze-dried food manufacturers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.97.223 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New section

I think there should be a section on minamlists also. We are much diffrent from you ultralight guys!

How so? Where the ultralights might carry a whole titanium cookset, do minimalists just carry the one cast iron skillet? Are the any sources for the minimalist style? -Will Beback 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultralights may carry a titanium cookset, when a minimalist may carry a titanium bowl. Ultralights focus on getting the weight of the gear they have down, minimalists focus on carrying less, less gear, less weight, less space in the pack. I.E. I have modified all of my cooking and eating gear to fit inside of a cup. Some even go as far as to cut the handle off of their toothbrushes.

It sounds like minimalists are extreme ultralights. -Will Beback 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds like "minimalists" are exactly the same as ultralighters to me. Carrying fewer items and modding what they do carry is pretty much the backbone of the ultralight style - cutting your toothbrush down isn't exactly a bold new take on backpacking.75.60.97.223 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)MojaD

I'd like to hazard a guess that ultralights prefer to reduce the weight of each item, while minimalists would rather reduce the number of items. We could have a lumped section on styles of backpacking, but we don't have enough material yet. --Smack (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. According to Websters.com, Minimalism: a style or technique (as in music, literature, or design) that is characterized by extreme spareness and simplicity. Is it more beneficial to the reader to create a section specifically to address minimalist practices or elaborate on the lengths to which hikers will go to simplify the experience? Fireclaims 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That classic definition of 'minimalism' may hold in general, but in order to understand all the nuances of minimalist backpacking in particular, you have to get someone who practices it. --Smack (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created a Winter Backpacking section since there are several distinctions that need to be made there for safety reasons, and hopefully this can be expanded upon. I've included a link to a checklist for winter gear. --Theetruscan 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Backpacking Wiki

Does anyone know of a good backpacking wiki? (Or even better one that covers related activities such as Canoe camping [Climbing]] etc.) I imagine there's lots of backpacking info that might not fit into wikipedia. Zabdiel 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This exist but needs more people to contribute :) http://www.backpackingwiki.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.63.174.204 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Google is wonderful. I typed in "backpacking wiki." The first two hits were Wikipedia articles. The third was this site at MIT. (MIT is wonderful, too, but that's a different story.) --Smack (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

File:VarsityScoutspreparingtoheadoutbackpacking2004.jpg, File:Stinebackpack.jpg should go, though I couldn't find any decent replacements quickly. Strapping uncovered sleeping bags and other equipment to the outside of packs is terrible practice and we should be showing some pictures of people that actually know what they are doing. The image I added gives the reader some idea as to why someone might choose to go overnight backpacking in the first place. More to the point geodesic dome tents are pretty much the most common type used today by serious hikers (only an empirical observation). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above, here is why everything strapped to the outside is a bad idea:

Getting sleeping bag wet. This can be life threatening in the wrong circumstances, particularly with down bags. Obviously doesn't matter in areas of very low rainfall.
Catching the equipment on plants and rocks. This can cause falls. It will also leave bits of foam mat all over the place and can cause holes in air mattresses. This one doesn't matter so much on an easier/more open walk.

If a mat is left on the outside should be covered appropriately. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

♦ I agree on the two Scout pictures, though I think having a replacement in hand before removing them is important. I assume that by "the image I added", you mean File:Tent_at_High_Shelf_Camp.jpg. I don't appreciate the edit warring, and IMO one should tread particularly carefully when adding one's own images to WP, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion (see WP:PROMOTION). Speaking to why I don't think the image works as-is in that section: The section is titled "Equipment", not "Why People Go Backpacking". So images should focus on equipment, not grand places. Also, I don't believe the objection that the green tube tent and yellow dome are "near the road" is valid, since the roads aren't visible in the actual photo. Now: I agree with you that the tent itself in the image is better than the previous two tents. If you were to crop the image down to just the tent, without the grand vista in the background, I'd support using that instead of the green tube tent. Similarly, a vista like this would be appropriate for the lead picture - do you have something like the current lead photo, i.e. backpacker with vista behind, that doesn't look so dated? --R27182818 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments about self promotion can only be construed as a bad faith (see WP:AGF) argument. There are dozens of cases where images I've placed in articles are removed and I haven't objected. I can only think of one other article where I've ever had an argument of similar about image placement, and I've been here a while. I don't have such a photo, but I might snap one sooner or later. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

♦ WP:AOBF. WP:ADHOM - appeal to authority (your dozens of other cases) is a fallacious argument. I think it's fair to be annoyed by someone who repeatedly re-adds an image they created despite repeated requests to discuss the new image on the talk page first, given my legitimate concerns with the appropriateness of the image for the context in which it was being placed. Regardless, I made the suggested crop and swapped in the image. I think this is ample evidence of good faith. --R27182818 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are the first thing I noticed that is wrong with this entry. I haven't even made it to the actual text yet. These images could have come from a 1970s issue of Boys Life magazine. As a backpacker that has hiked on many continents, I have endless high quality images of hikers and camps and equipment and water filters and stoves and other equipment. Yes, they are my own images, but I would be careful not to add any that actually have ME in them. Is there an issue with this? These pics are awful. So many times on t he trail I see hikers carrying outdated, ineffective equipment purchased form a yard sale or left over from their boy scout years. This is not how backpacking is done anymore.Mccue3g (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Every time I spend more than two days in wilderness, I do see old timers using that kind of equipment as well as older homemade versions. I saw even older equipment in use in Austria a few years ago—it looked late 1800s. Perhaps the photo captions can include the year they were taken to more accurately convey their relevance, but I'll be sure to take a 2013 version with 1950s gear being used to help balance that out. —EncMstr (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

References

The article's name (again)

I was reading through some of the earlier entries and noticed someone had queried the name. Until I had read the article I had never heard of backpacking in this context. In Australia it is know as bushwalking or hiking. I'd heard of the New Zealand term tramping (I always feel I'm tramping around the bush). Which countries call it backpacking? Thanks Ozdaren (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called backpacking in the USA. Bushwalking and tramping aren't used here, while hiking generally means walking in a natural area without carrying enough gear to stay overnight. --R27182818 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I thought it may have been a US article from the words and terms used. Ozdaren (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The heading of this article is confusing with its USA bias, as has already been commented on. I'd describe myself as a backpacker, even though I don't really travel in the wilderness, and don't camp but stay in mountain huts, in villages, and very occasionally bivouac. My pack is just lighter than someone who is camping.

I also wonder if the use of the term wilderness is correct here? The Appalachian and other American trails, for example, are maintained, with sometimes simple, man-made shelters, are way marked, and presumably often passes through managed forests, etc. Is backpacking in North America only done in the wilderness? Any comments? Rwood128 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A simple shelter does not invalidate the general concept of wilderness. If there were food service, electricity, or beds ready for use, then that would violate the concept of wilderness as generally intended. The U.S. federal definition of designated wilderness is more rigorous proscribing man made structures. I take this article to mean the more general concept. —EncMstr (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A further thought -- wouldn't 'Backpacking (hiking)' be a better, more inclusive, and accurate title for this article? Rwood128 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to changing the opening preamble to the following?

Backpacking (mainly an American term; also tramping, trekking, bushwalking and walking tour in other parts of the world) is defined, as "travel or hike carrying one's belongings in a backpack: [e.g.] a week's backpacking in the Pyrenees, [or] he has backpacked around the world" (New Oxford American Dictionary). This definition refers to two different kinds of backpacking. The first involves hiking and the second mostly uses public transport (see backpacking (travel).

Here the focus is mainly on multi-day hikes, that either involve camping equipment, or make use of simple shelters, or mountain huts, and which takes place in backcountry inaccessible to motorized forms of transportation. A backpack allows a hiker to carry supplies and equipment to accommodate a trip of several days. In Europe backpacking hikers often have the opportunity to stay in villages, in addition to mountain huts, and different kinds of hostel, though they may camp.

Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you expended to improve the title and lead. But doesn't the Kiwi term tramping refer to any kind of hike, even a day hike: like start at 10:00, return at 15:00, and sleep at home? I suspect the same is true of all those other terms. Wilderness backpacking while U.S., definitely has the meaning of continuously staying in undeveloped (uncivilized) territory for at least one night. —EncMstr (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I was just using in my suggestion part of the current lead, plus the British walking tour, which for me means several days walking. Tramping apparently usually means at least two days walking, and trekking involves multi-days. It seems that backpacking in Europe is different from that in the USA and Canada, because Europe is more developed, and there are extensive networks of mountain huts and other accommodation in villages, so that camping is often just an option rather than a necessity. I also believe that in New Zealand many trails have huts.

It seems that backpacking, as used here, has a specific North American meaning, and that the current wording doesn't make this sufficiently clear. Also the similarities and differences with similar types of hiking in Europe and elsewhere, such as tramping, need to be better explained. The fact that huts and shelters can be found on some North American trails should also be mentioned in the lead. I find the term undeveloped territory better than wilderness, though what is the correct term for multi-day hikes on trails in developed country in North America? -- such trails do exist. Rwood128 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that it is possible to backpack in North America in more developed areas, and was thinking of some trails in Canada. One example was the Bruce Trail in Ontario, Canada, but I now see that outside of some private camp sites, that camping on the trail is regarded as "trespassing", and that many parts are too urbanized for serious backpackers. I'm still interested to sees if are any trails in more developed areas of North America that are backpacked. I'm particularly wondering about Ontario and New England. The East Coast Trail in Newfoundland, which can be backpacked, is described as a wilderness trail, but this is hyperbole as much of it regularly passes close to roads and communities, some with restaurants and bed and breakfast places.

Part of my problem with the use of the word wilderness is probably the growing awareness that much of the natural world was already being modified by man thousands of years ago, including the North American "wilderness", ignoring the activities of modern forestry. Remote from human activity, might be a better description of what most hikers mean, when using the word colloquially.

Rwood128 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Water

I added the following: According to health and medical experts, untreated water found in backcountry settings in the U.S. and Canada is generally quite safe to drink. [1]

There is a link to source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The water section is terribly subjective and narrowly focused. This article in general only truly fits for trips lasting less than three days and this section is no different.

Example 1. It is unacceptable to suggest a person packing out for more than two days should carry the water necessary with them. Proper hydration during physical exertion suggests the need for 1+ gallons of water per day personal drinking, and depending on the recipes for meals through the day somewhere between one and two quarts per person per day for cooking as well. At a minimum, a three day trip would then require 3.75 gallons, or 30 pounds of water, which is a generally followed weight ceiling already for a person even up to 14. As 1 gallon is equal to 231 cubic inches, four gallons would require that the backpacker use nearly 1000 cu.in. of pack space to carry said water. Average weekender packs being in the 3,000 to 3,500 cu.in., this suggestion would send the backpacker out into the woods with a third of their backpack dedicated to carrying water.

Even more scary is the implication that it is unnecessary to carry filtration or purification safeguards when backpacking. Consider the analogy of the fresh egg or the blue-cooked beef. A person may spend years drinking a raw egg in the morning, or eating cold ground chuck on rye at parties and be fine. But we cook eggs and we cook beef for that .01 percent chance there'll be a problem. In the same mind backpackers filter, purify or boil our water for that chance that this source may contain crypto or any number of serious bacteria or fungus. To suggest doing otherwise, especially to novices that may not know the difference between a slow creek and a beaver pond, is irresponsible in the best of cases. Wolfraem (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph: Recent research on the topic of consuming untreated water found in backcountry settings in the United States and Canada is beginning to suggest treatment is unnecessary. Cited in this report is a study of a collection of wilderness areas in the Western United States which found infiltrate levels to be well within safe drinking tolerances. State health departments in the U.S. do not find giardia in backcountry settings. "Outbreaks have been linked to contaminated drinking water in small towns, food handlers, and child-care workers who are infected when they change diapers — the researchers didn't find any evidence that wilderness water is a cause."^[1] Further research in this topic may eventually shift common opinion away from requiring treatment for most water sources.

Here are some errors that that paragraph contained:

Almost no experts are flatly suggesting that "treatment is unnecessary."

The citation is a newspaper article(!) largely discussing research by one researcher in a specific area of the U.S. The opinions of the author, even IF accurate, cannot dependably by extrapolated to the rest of the world. As a matter of fact that author has said, for example, that he would treat all water along the Appalachian Trail.

Giardia is COMMONLY found in backcountry water sources. The EPA says "(Giardia) Cysts have been found all months of the year in surface waters from the Arctic to the tropics in even the most pristine of surface waters.” http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/2009_02_03_criteria_humanhealth_microbial_giardiaha.pdf

There have been verified outbreaks from backcountry drinking water in the U.S., and outbreaks represent less than 1% of giardiasis cases (both facts from the CDC.)

Virtually all public health agencies in the U.S. who have made a statement on the issue recommend treatment of surface water, even in the backcountry. PragmaticRealist (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re the discussion about water, in Britain I've always understood that it was normally safe to drink water from springs and fast flowing streams in mountainous country above habitation and grazing land. I've also followed this advice in Greece, and probably also in Switzerland, but generally in that country there are public sources at alpine farms, though this water presumably comes from a higher stream/spring. One of the delights of some European countries is the presence of potable drinking fountains in villages, and this can be spring water (but tested). However, the health authorities have to issue their advice, to be on the safe side. Rwood128 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed un-necessary information (vandalism?)

I believe that the recent edit, which deleted a fair amount was not vandalism but a genuine attempt at improving the article, which is certainly overly wordy in places. However, it might be better to first discuss this here, and to start pruning more slowly. But I'm inclined to agree that the sections "Professional Backpacking" and "Motivation" might well be deleted, or, at least, reduced to sentences elsewhere in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea of professional backpackers is very dubious. Soldiers are soldiers, geologists are ... and so forth. The two named, long distance/challenge walkers presumably earn their living from writing and lecturing. The section "Motivation" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia article, though the odd sentence might used in another section. Rwood128 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

merge with trekking?

please see: Talk:Trekking#Article merge with redirect? - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Article merged: See old talk-pagehere

^ Marsa, Linda. “Going Below the Surface.” LA Times. July 26, 2005. Retrieved on 2010-09-24<Going below the surface

[LA_Times-1] Marsa, Linda. “Going Below the Surface.” LA Times. July 26, 2005. Retrieved on 2010-09-24<Going below the surface

[1]