I thought about this for a while, but to be honest I can't see many immediate uses for backpackers that wouldn't be covered by other means and sources more effectively.

For example, if the only source you have about a region is such a geological map it might allow you, to some limited degree, to guesstimate the terrain, and maybe even fauna/flora.

This could help in route planning, pathfinding, etc.

But in the age of Google maps where every square meter of the Earth's surface is mapped and readily available to us a satellite image or a topographical map would be a lot more useful to get to the same info.

Notwithstanding is of course using a map as the one in question simply for its (geological) informational value !

There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors and its wonders - and the geological history of origins can be one of them.

I totally see how inspecting such a map on a hike (maybe accompanied with some reading on the topic) could shed light on how a specific region or valley came to be, when it was formed by which forces of nature, or maybe the origins of its most spectacular sights and attractions.

At least to me personally that would be very interesting, even if not immediately practical ;).

It may not be relevant in too many places, but…

Hot springs!

I'm heading to Iceland again this year

and I will carry a colourful jarðfræðikort (geologic map) with me: Source: ISOR ( available online here ).

The topographic map does not list hot springs.

The tourist map only lists some of them, in particular the ones with tourist infrastructure.

But the ones that are deep in the wilderness, tens of kilometres from the nearest frequented road, may only be indicated on the geological map.

On the map I have, the hot springs are categorised by temperature, so I know that the boiling ones may be fun to watch but not so fun to bathe in.

But imagine being deep in the wilderness, it's 5°C, raining, and windy, and then arriving at a hot spring at 35°C, all for oneself (because no-one else brought a geologic map!).

Hmm.....!

In a geologically infant area such as Iceland, the age of the land may also be relevant.

1000 year old land is quite different from 100.000 year old land.

But that information can be more directly obtained from a vegetation map where available.

Edit: Finally, it was less useful than I hoped.

Firstly, the scale is not nearly good enough for outdoor use, and I was unable to find some of the hotsprings listed.

Secondly, a hotspring is not yet a hotpool.

A bit of hot water coming out of the muddy ground is a nice curiosity.

But only when someone has built a pool around it does it become an extraordinary backcountry luxury.

The map is a good starting point for the latter, but it's not quite enough.

Disclaimer: I have no idea how to read the map above :)

For me it would seem important in the case of longer time camping.

After 10+ years of scout camp experience, I can tell that if you want to dig a, let's say, 2 meter deep hole (for latrines, for food storage, for waste food/water etc.), some information about the amount of rocks or clay would be really useful.

Other aspect in which it would help: if I get struck by 4-5 days of heavy rain, how would the campground behave?

If the under layer is clay then it is different than some calcareous or sandy soil.

For me, in the above cases, the useful information would be about the structure of the upper 2-3 meters.

One practical use is to get an idea of how stable/chossy the rocks in a particular area are.

From experience

the orange (volcanic) rock type is much more unstable and more broken up.

That makes it much harder to scramble up the mountains in the volcanic areas as opposed to the granite mountains in the pink areas.

Knowing that can help plan a route and predict to some degree how difficult a scramble is going to be.

Geological map can help you to estimate in beforehand the ease of travel, potential of springs and type of vegetation.

Highly useful in my book.

Fossil hunting

It depends what you want out of your expedition, and if hunting fossils in far flung places is your thing

then a geological map will take you a long way.

For climbers it may be of use.

Igneous or strongly metamorphic rocks are much preferred for climbing to sedimentary rocks.

Knowing the rock outcroppings may make a difference in new country.

If you combine your back country hobby with rock collecting, prospecting etc it would be quite useful.

Some minerals/gems/ores are associated very strongly with rock types.

Certain plants are associated with certain soil types, which in turn are associated with certain rock types.

Edit: Asked for source of above opinion.

Going only on the talk of my climber friends.

Point still remains: Once you found shattered ryolite on one exposure, you could make a good guess that it would be similar on other exposures.

Similarly if you like climbing limestone then knowing where there are other exposures is a win.

A good geology map will tell not only 'limestone' but often which formation.

Subterranean water flow is very rock dependent.

If you are interested in caving/spelunking/bat research knowing where limestone is would be helpful.

Question: I just found that I can get free  geological map  overlays for Google Earth for all of the  individual states in the United States from here .  For instance, this is what a good deal of Yosemite National Park looks like.   To see what type of rocks a color represents, you simply have to click on it. For instance, the lighter orange is volcanic and the lighter green is glacial deposits.  Would there be any practical uses of a map like this for a non-geologist hiker or backpacker?

Would there be any practical uses of a geological map for a hiker/backpacker?

This information may be useful for long-term campers, climbers, backpackers and fossil hunters. I might help to identify hot springs and assess ease of travel, stability of rocks and type of vegetation in the area.

This may be useful for climbing, the potential for springs and fossils.

You can get a sense of the potential for springs and fossils.


I think there would be many times when crossing barefoot would be fine.

However, a number of potential risks do exist.

Those can include: Getting scraped or cut on either the bottoms or sides of your feet.

Culprits could be various sharp items, including broken shells, broken glass, pieces of fish hooks, bottle caps or other sharp litter.

Stubbing your toes on rocks, pebbles, or unexpected items in the water.

Slipping on rocks, or river bottom areas, that are wet or slimy from something like algae.

Twisting an ankle or two due to lack of support.

Being bitten by something in the water.

Picking up a bacterial infection from something in the water Losing your balance as you go in or out of the water at the crossing point

In areas of very clear water, many obstacles can be avoided, and slipping would be the most likely problem.

If the water is dark or murky, you're more likely to step on something just because you couldn't see it.

Some of the hazards might be more likely if you're carrying a backpack, especially if it's heavy.

For instance, if the load shifts you may lose your footing more easily, whereas the support of a shoe might keep you more steady.

Also, if anyone in the group has a pre-existing condition that makes barefoot walking less than ideal to start with, they might be more susceptible to problems in the water.

That's true for me.

An old leg and foot injury left permanent problems (mostly lack of feeling in one foot)

so I'm not even allowed to walk in the yard barefoot anymore.

Your party has already decided to cross barefoot, so that's probably not an issue in this case!

My husband and I have crossed a lot of rocky streams in the White Mountains area of New Hampshire.

We don't go barefoot, but love the feel of the water rushing on and around our feet.

We wear flip-flop sandals with some texture under the foot and on the bottom of the sole.

They give some support, and are lightweight and easy to carry.

That doesn't technically answer your question, though.

I just thought I'd share it as an alternative.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/5547/Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL

The principal risk is that you will slip and fall.

Depending on the force of the water and what is downstream, this could be serious.

Look at the tread on your hiking boot or running shoe or even tennis shoe, and then look at the sole of your foot.

Unless you can pick out a sandy route with no rocks to cross the stream, it is pretty obvious that there will be more friction between the streambed and the shoe than between the streambed and your bare foot, i.e., you will be less likely to slip and fall.

The better grip of your shoes also allows you to cross the stream faster.

A secondary benefit of crossing with your shoes on is that very cold mountain streams will feel much less cold if your feet are insulated by boots and socks.

Yes, your shoes will get wet.

But you can pour the water out and pat much of the moisture out with a towel or sweatshirt.

You can also change to dry socks.

If you have more streams to cross than you have pairs of dry socks, wear a thin undersock of some very low friction material to protect your feet against chafing.

Barefoot danger possibilities:

Nails, broken glass, discarded can lids, sharp rocks, ripping off toenails, general cuts and scrapes, lots more.

After trying various options, including barefoot, I'm going to buy light sandals for around camp, hiking on wet days, and stream crossings.

I can't hike in wet shoes, even if I cross with shoes but sockless and put my dry socks back on after letting my feet also dry.

Just no good for me.

If you want to experiment carefully, sacrifice a pair of thick socks (i.e., get them wet).

Stockingfoot waders (which I've never personally used) have felt soles.

Fuzzy dense fabric like that grips wet rocks far better than any rubber and will offer some protection, including (maybe) slipping off if you get a foot trapped between or under rocks.

Helminthiasis of various kinds does not even rely on open wounds.

Schistosomiasis is particularly ugly and is on the incline.

You did not specify just where you are backpacking: there may be other parasites around.

Of course, with organized backpacking trails, a certain ratio of the group is expected to use new shoes etc and thus is likely to get blisters or other kinds of potentially open sores at the feet that are great for bacterial infections.

This goes in two directions:

feet softened by exposure to water are more likely to break open when continuing the hike.

Some blisters are a matter of timing: the risk of infection is lower when the blister has had enough time to run its natural course before breaking.

And slipping in a river bed is a real danger and can easily lead to twisted ankles for people used to the support of hiking boots.

So all in all I consider it likely that the statistics for forcing people to wear solid footwear when crossing are favorable for keeping incidents down.

We do it often in the Philippines.

But you can cut your feet.

We find there a pair of flip flops improve traction.

Easy to pack.

Rocks can be slick.

Question: Sometimes while backpacking you have to cross streams, and from a weight point of view, it would be nicer to just cross in your bare feet, instead of bringing an extra pair of shoes along.   These situations wouldn't be raging rivers but rather streams that can't be crossed without getting your feet wet, where crossing in bare feet seems like the simple solution.  However, I have seen outdoor backpacking organizations mandate closed-toed shoes for all stream crossings.  What are the risks of crossing a stream with bare feet?

What are the risks of stream crossing with bare feet?

Crossing barefoot would often be fine. However, risks include getting scraped or cut on either the bottoms or sides of your feet on sharp items, slipping on rocks and twisting ankles. You may be bitten by something in the water and diseases can occur, including helminthiasis and schistosomiasis.

Bacterial infections, being bitten, cuts, slips, falls and twisting your ankle are risks.

Being bitten or getting a bacterial infection are risks.

You could slip on rocks and twist an ankle or fall.


How I've practiced is I hold my left hand palm out, and I create a "V" between my ring and middle fingers with the plane or person between my fingers.

I then hold the mirror by my face and shine the mirror between my fingers.

You should see the light on your hand to confirm you are shining in the right direction.

A modern (Korean War era and later, at least) signal mirror has a hole in the center, and the hole is surrounded by a grid of retroreflectors.

You aim the mirror spot at something close by, then look through the hole.

The grid makes a very bright spot where the mirror's reflection is going.

You then simply tilt and rotate the mirror to put that spot on your target.

This is a good photo of what it looks like.

As the comment in the image says, that hot spot is not the sun itself.

It's showing you where the reflected light from the mirror is going.

Just put that spot on your target and there you are.

Note that if sun-to-mirror-to-target bounce makes a fairly shallow angle, say more than about 135 degrees, the retroreflecting grid doesn't work and you have to use the methods given in other answers here.

Which are also, of course, useful if you don't have a real signal mirror.

So the other good answers in this thread should not be ignored.

Image ganked from this flickr page .

As it says there, several companies do make "signal mirrors" that appear to have a grid around the hole, but don't actually have retroreflectors and don't make the bright spot.

(I can confirm this

; I bought one and was disappointed.)

If you buy a US signal mirror on eBay and it says "Mark III", it's the right thing.

This answer applies only to signal mirrors which are two-sided and have an aiming hole in the middle, which should be the case with any good signal mirror.

My answer will partially duplicate a prior, but will add some rough pictures and also give a description of the geometry behind how it works.

The process Stand facing roughly half-way between the sun and the object you want to signal.

Hold the mirror up and observe your own reflection in the back of the mirror.

Move the mirror around until you see the shadow of the mirror on your reflection, and in particular note the little dot of light on your cheek due to the aiming hole.

Now, angle the mirror so you can see the target object through the hole, and also align the light dot on your cheek with the hole.

Wiggle

the mirror slightly so that the target sees a flashing.

Why it works With mirrors, the idea is that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection.

For us, we need the angle between the mirror and the sun (θ 1 ) and the angle between the mirror and the target (θ 2 ) to be equal.

We do this by making the corresponding angles on the backside of the mirror equal (θ 2A and θ 1A ), by aligning the reflected dot and the target object via the hole in the mirror.

Your signal mirror is likely polished on both sides, with a hole in the middle to help you aim it.

Although the principle is simple, it's fiddly and takes a little practice.

With the mirror in roughly the right position, arrange for its shadow to fall somewhere suitable (e.g. flat rock)

so you can see the central spot of light.

Now, line up the hole with your target.

Angle the mirror

so you can see the shadow reflected in your (near) side of it and get the spot of light central.

When the mirror is aimed exactly at the target: the target is seen through the hole

the reflection of the light spot is positioned over the hole.

You can make a simple diagram of the transmitted and reflected light to convince yourself that this works (sorry, it's beyond my ASCII-art capabilities right now!). A CD, DVD or similar medium can be used as a makeshift signal mirror, and conveniently has a hole in the right place.

The sun isn't a laser, so you don't actually have to be very accurate.

The further away your target is, the less accurate you have to be as the reflection will spread.

Question: Say you are in the middle of a desert where there is lots of sunshine, and you are trying to signal for help with a signal mirror.  Either in the distance there is a person, or there is an airplane overhead that you are trying to reach.  How should one aim the signal mirror so that the light that is reflecting from it reaches the objective?

How do you aim a signal mirror?

With the mirror in roughly the right position, arrange for its shadow to fall somewhere suitable (e.g. flat rock). You aim the mirror spot at something close by, then look through the hole.. To practice, hold your left hand palm out, and create a "V" between your ring and middle fingers with the plane or person between your fingers. You should see the light on your hand to confirm you are shining in the right direction.  The sun isn't a laser, so you don't actually have to be very accurate. The further away your target is, the less accurate you have to be as the reflection will spread.

Aim the mirror somewhere close and look through the hole, you do not need to be that accurate and should see light shining through.

Aim the mirror somewhere close and look through the hole.

Light should shine through, you do not need to be that accurate.


I have tarped for most of my outdoor experience.

One year on a bet (be careful what you say at the pub...)

I spend a full year under a tarp in the bush near my home.

Right now I have a silicone coated 9x12 ripstop nylon tarp.

Marketed as 'aquatarp' on Amazon.

But for a small weight penalty, the coated woven poly tarps you can get at Big Box Stores work.

They don't last as long, but if you are just starting out it's the way to go.

A long narrow rectangle is less useful.

I prefer a rectangle with proportions of about 1.33 to 1 (12 x 9)

1.2:1 (8x10) is about the shortest I've seen.

Had a 9x14 one once.

That was several feet of wasted space.

Don't go too small.

You need a reasonable overhang of tarp.

8x10 is the smallest I would use for solo.

If my bag is roughly 2x6 feet this gives me 2 foot overhang at each end, and 3 feet on either side.

In actual use, I'm likely to be off center to have ready access to my pack.

10 x 12 is good for 2 people.

When I helped run an outdoor program, we would use the cheap Canadian Tire tarps, and try to buy blue one year, then green or orange one year.

After a backpack trip, they came back with spark holes, tears, and usually a few missing grommets.

For the winter program they would still do.

And accumulated a lot more damage.

The next fall they would be cut in half, and each pair of people would get one new tarp and half an old tarp.

The latter they used as a ground sheet.

The prevented two events: If they had two new tarps, both would have holes in them by the end of the week, as they wouldn't consistently use one for the roof.

Having a small tarp kept the whole tarp under the roof.

More than one pair of kids has come to grief with all the water that landed on the roof, sliding down onto an exposed edge of ground tarp, and soaking them from underneath.

Site selection is different:

For a tent, you need a certain sized spot, fairly flat, generally about half again larger than the actual footprint of the tent to allow for guy lines.

For a tarp you don't have a bathtub floor, so you look for a spot that either has a very absorbent but is currently fairly dry -- big mossy patch, duff under a spruce tree, or you look for a spot that is clearly higher than the surroundings, or you look for material that has good drainage.

Because it has so many ways to pitch, you can fit into camp spots that are impossible for a tent.

Some of my preferred pitches: Clear weather, rain unlikely.

Support all 4 corners 4 feet

or so off the ground, with enough general slope that if you are wrong you don't have an overhead swimming pool.

Having a tarp overhead means less dew on your sleeping bag.

Variation:

Kite form: 2 kitty corners high, two low.

This sheds water better, but isn't as breezy on a hot night.

Typical pitch.

Mid point of a short side is tied to a tree about 5 feet up.

Opposite two corners are staked down.

This provides head room at one end.

Put the bags at the bottom end to hold tarp away from your bags.

Tree wrap.

I've used this one when caught by a snow storm in winter.

Take off the bottom few feet of dead branches off a spruce or fir.

Tie the middle of the long edge to the trunk about 5 feet up, ABOVE the bottom tier of branches.

Tie the opposite edge to either branches, or to shrubs away from the tree.

The branches support your tarp.

Do NOT break twigs off the top of the branches, as these leave sharp bits that poke your tarp.

Going back to WW.2.

A shelter half as used by the US.

Army.

This would form a pup tent with 2 joined or a lean to with one.

Sized right for a rain protector over cloths.

Kind of rectangle with a triangle at both ends.

Buttons & button holes at the top.

A rectangular would offer the most choices.

I have used a 8x6 and 9x7 in a half-mid pitch above treeline in the Rockies.

Whether it is rectangle or square, which is also a rectangle, is insignificant since you could do the same pitches with either one assuming the sides are long enough for the coverage you desire.

You would need longer sides if you want to be fully enclosed unless you don't mind cramped space.

Where you run into issues is with shaped tarps that can only be done in 1 or maybe 2 pitches.

After a lot of thought, I don't think that there are any shape configurations that would be limited to just a square or just a rectangular tarp.

However, when you are sleeping under a tarp, either on the ground or in a hammock your body is in a rectangular shape.

I use a 5ftx7ft tarp

and if it was 7ftx7ft square tarp it would just be extra weight to carry.

When it comes to flat tarp shape, there is no right or wrong answer.

Both shapes can be used to make simple roof, lean-to-type or a fully enclosed tent-like structures.

There is a ton of information about different pitches at: http://equipped.com/tarp-shelters.htm

There is also this question about tarps and wind:

What is a good tarp setup for very high winds above the tree line?

Question: I'd like to try tarp camping.  3m x 3m (9ft x 9ft) and 3m x 4m (9ft x 12ft) tarps of differing material are plentiful and many are even affordable.  Which tarp shape is more versatile in the number of setup configurations?    Configurations should include a simple roof, lean-to-type or a fully enclosed tent-like structures.  All weather conditions should be considered also.  I know there are other shapes but they seem to be intended for specialized configurations.   So Square or Rectangle?

Are square or rectangular tarp shapes more versatile?

Whether it is rectangle or square is insignificant since you could do the same pitches with either one assuming the sides are long enough for the coverage you desire. Both shapes can be used to make simple roof, lean-to-type or a fully enclosed tent-like structures.

Both shapes work well, though rectangular offers more options.


Just because there are grasses ( Poaceae ) with edible and nutritious parts does not mean that this applies to all grasses.

That is pretty common-place.

A quick Google search give you all the info you need: Many grasses are edible, in the sense that you can eat it; you simply won't get any energy/nutrients out of it.

They consist mostly of cellulose, and our digestive tract is simply not made to break that down (as opposed to, e.g. cows, which employ four stomachs for that purpose).

There are however also grasses that are toxic.

So when not discerning between actual species, the effect of eating grasses is somewhere between no effect and harmful.

Eating grass isn't smart because our bodies lack the enzymes to digest it, and because you never know if some animal came along and crapped on it.

Don't eat grass.

To add to the existing answers, depending on where the grass is growing, there can be all sorts of synthetic fertilizers thrown onto it which would be very harmful to humans.

You do not want to eat Scott's Lawn Fertilizer.

Apart from the low nutrients issue, grass stems are covered in tiny silica spikes, which act as an abrasive on your insides.

These spikes are thought to have evolved as a defense against being eaten ( Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: ) -- which clearly didn't work in the long run.

But anyway, if you don't have a tough lining like a cow has on its lips, esophagus and stomach, you'll risk feeling sandpapered inside or worse.

A look through the veterinary literature can show you some further reasons not to just go out and eat grass.

Specifically, parasites like liver fluke, different species of tapeworm, and some nematodes can infect humans as well as sheep (or cows, or mufflons, or whatever lives on the pastures where you find your grass).

So, in a real outdoors situation, experimenting with grasses is unwise, even if you are very hungry.

Question: A recent comment    Cows eat grass, doesn't mean you can!   got me thinking.  Corn, wheat, rice, etc are all grass that we eat regularly.  I am not sure the human race could survive on the planet without eating grass.    But in all fairness, for the most part humans only eat the grains of the grass.  Can I eat the other parts of the grass also?   If yes, what do I need to know and/or do to prepare the grass for eating?

Can I safely eat grass?

Experimenting with grasses is unwise, even if you are very hungry. Even though there are grasses with edible and nutritious parts you simply won't get any energy/nutrients out of them. Apart from the low nutrients issue, grass stems are covered in tiny silica spikes, which act as an abrasive on your insides. We  don't have a tough lining like a cow has on its lips, esophagus and stomach. Our bodies lack the enzymes to digest it, it may be contaminated with fertilizers or animal waste. Parasites like liver fluke, different species of tapeworm, and  some nematodes can infect humans as well as sheep or cows.

Do not eat grass, it can contain fertiliser, parasites and can be toxic. Humans do not digest grasses well and they have no nutritional value.

Don't eat grass, it can contain fertiliser.

Grasses do not have nutritional content.

Grasses can be toxic, contain parasites and humans do not digest them well.


After looking around the internet, it seems that oils can be used to remove tape residue.

So things like, Olive Oil Coconut Oil would be possibilities for removing the gunk and shouldn't hurt if it gets into cuts.

They should also be good for your hands, especially if they are dry.

Gojo Pumice Hand Cleaner.

If you've worked with grease, grime, or in a coal mine then you know what pumice hand cleaner is, it has silica sand in it to help scour away the gunk.

You use it without water on your dry hands, then after you've loosened all the gunk you wash off the cleaner with soap and water.

I have used this stuff with open cuts on my hands, and it's not bad even when scrubbing the dirt out of your open wounds (small open wounds).

I remember being impressed with how gentle it was as far as stinging is concerned.

Wetnaps and hand sanitizer are the devil on abrasions compared to this stuff.

I highly recommend it.

Swarfega will remove anything from motor oil to tape gunk

I think the key is to avoid the gunk in the first place, or more accurately the second place.

I like the these tape gloves and the advice at the end.

That advice is you can shave the back of your hands.

The tape gunk comes off bare skin much easier than when it is matted into the hair on your hands.

The second, and more important advice, is to reuse your gloves.

The second time you use them the tape it is much less sticky and you end up with less gunk.

Any detergent-based soap will work best to remove things like oils and adhesives.

Gojo and similar brands are a reasonable choice, and the added pumice lets you scrub a bit harder.

Something like Dawn dish soap will also work, but require a bit more scrubbing.

Ultimately you're down to 1)

The adhesives drying out and falling off 2) mechanical removal (rubbing, scrubbing) and 3) the adhesive being stripped away chemically.

(detergent based soaps)

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/14346/Monica Apologists Get Out

Question: After using tape gloves for crack climbing, I always have some tape gunk left over on my skin. While it doesn't hurt and goes away a few days of rigorous scrubbing, it doesn't look super great at the office on Monday morning.  How can I remove this gunk left on my skin?  I'm looking for something that's relatively painless, and won't hurt when it gets in cuts on the hand/fingers.  No, switching to rubber gloves is not on the table.

How to painlessly remove gunk left by tape gloves?

Swarfega, Gojo pumice hand cleanser, and even detergent based soap will remove tape residue. Oils can also be used, including olive oil and coconut oil.

Oils, tape gloves, soap, pumice, Swarfega and Gojo are viable solutions.

Pumice, soap, Swarfega and Gojo can work well.


On the right snow, you can ascend extremely steep (even if it probably isn't the most economical thing to do) -

so from that aspect, I don't see a problem.

Looking at the skiers center of gravity, it doesn't seem to be off by far either.

I estimated the center of gravity at the red dot.

If the weight was mainly on the back leg, the current orientation would make sense (vertical red line).

However the picture is shot in the moment before the left/back leg is pulled to the front

(it is almost stretched, right/front foot rests on "climbing assistance post" (German Steighilfe)), so most of the weight will be on the front leg.

There is an ongoing front motion, so being slightly behind the front leg might be fine, but not that much.

In conclusion I would estimate the angled red line to be vertical.

I agree that the mountains in the background look weird, but the crop is so close that it's hard to tell for certain without additional context.

This image appears to be from an article on skinning up steep slopes, and states that the skier is on a 34 degree slope: http://straightchuter.com/steep-skinning-technique/ Given that Chris Figenshau appears to be a very experienced skier and guide and also that a quick check with the ruler tool in photoshop gets a pretty similar number:

I'd say it's legit.

It cannot be that the image is rotated, and that this rotation is the only alteration to the image.

The reason is simple: look at the straps of the backpack .

They are hanging vertically, and they are aligned with the vertical axis of the image.

Essentially, they give us a "plumb line".

If the image had been rotated, that detail would have to have been doctored also to conceal the ruse.

Ways in which this hypothesis might be wrong:

there had been a headwind (somehow not shielded by the climber's body) which tilted the straps by a few degrees, allowing for the rotation to make them appear vertical.

the photo was snapped just as the climber made a forward lurch.

A momentary forward lurch would not only tilt the hanging backpack straps, but also foil the analysis of the body posture and center of gravity and all that.

In general, what we see as a static situation in a still picture may in fact be an illusion created by taking a snapshot of a momentary dynamic situation.

Other than the straps, another detail we can look at in the image is the pattern of of snow accumulation on the crags in the background.

I've enhanced the contrast over the lower left area:

There is a pattern of cascading trails in the accumulated snow left behind by sliding powder suggesting that the picture is upright.

The inset duplicate of that detail indicates with red lines what I'm referring to.

I just wanted to give my input as an avid backcountry skier and general ski bum during the winters.

As mentioned above, the straps seem like a pretty good indicator that the picture is real.

Even if he was moving, skining up a slope is a pretty smooth movement that wouldn't disturb the straps much.

If there was any wind then there is a low chance that the two straps would be parallel with each other.

Posing for a picture like this would be pretty easy.

Given grippy snow conditions, you could skin up an entire mountain at that angle.

Many people I know (including myself) prefer a steep skin track because it makes the Elevation Gain/Distance Traveled ratio higher.

Although I think it is technically more energy efficient to be at less of an angle.

Seeing as this was posted to an article specificaly about steep skining, and the ease of taking such picture.

I would say there isn't any motivation to fake it.

The picture in the answer to that question you referred to here doesn't have a source listed for attribution.

To me, however, it does look like the same picture as the one in the answer to the question that ShemSeger suggested as a duplicate .

That answer attributes the picture to a site called Straightchuter , which gives the name of the person who made this climb and the technique, called Steep Skinning, needed to do it.

If indeed that is the same picture, then the picture you have would not have been altered.

It's a photo of Chris Figenshau skinning up a 34-degree icy slope in New Zealand with textbook perfect style.

These are the instructions he offers in order to make this climb.

Keep your back straight

– don’t bend/break at the waist

Keep your skis as flat as possible on the snow to maximize the surface area

Keep your skis as flat as possible on the snow to maximize the surface area Press through your heels (important) Plant your poles near to your toepieces – not too far forward or off to the side.

Stay off of your edges.

If you need to move sideways, “crab” to the left or right by moving your entire ski instead of trying to edge.

Look up and forward, not down at your boots.

As the Bloodhound Gang song goes –

“Lift your head up high and blow your brains out.”

Steep skinning may be painful until you get the hang of it, but it also gets you places in a hurry.

He concludes by saying: If you find yourself slipping, try lifting your big toe.

This is hard to do if you are leaning forward, (so lean back) and it will help shift your weight to the aft.

It’s like hitting the brakes.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/5547/Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL

Question: In another  question  someone posted a photo of a skier going up an apparently extremely steep slope on skins.  This slope looks so steep that skinning would be really difficult (especially on an icy slope without ski crampons), and the mountains in the back seem "off".  Is this image rotated or altered in some way?   Image from an article on  straightchuter.com  regarding steep skinning technique.

Is this image of a skier skinning up a very steep slope rotated?

The straps seem like a pretty good indicator that the picture is real.  On the right snow, you can ascend extremely steep slopes. The angled red line can be considered to be vertical.  The mountains in the background look weird, but the crop is so close that it's hard to tell for certain without additional context.

It's hard to tell without more context, but if the image is rotated this cannot be the only distortion.


Yes, you absolutely need to properly protect your food.

Proper food storage in the wilderness isn't just for you, it's also for the bears .

Even if your dogs or you are able to fend off a bear, you may in the process clue the bear in to the fact that where there are humans, there is food.

And if you've inadvertently trained a bear to think that human campers have food, and the only thing between getting that food is to rumble, you've dealt that bear a death sentence, as well as signed up some other unsuspecting person for a heap of trouble.

Even if you make the bear think "maybe next camp has better food?

" , then it clearly is aware that camps are places for food, and so you and everyone else who hasn't properly managed your food has failed to properly protect the wildlife and has failed that bear.

Always store your food well away from camp in a proper bear proof manner.

There is no excuse for laziness.

You know, most black bears are probably going to be deterred by the presence of your dogs, but bears come in all sorts of personalities and degrees of desperation for food.

Your dogs might be able to take a bear in a fight, but that doesn't mean they won't get seriously hurt in the process.

Think about the possible consequences if deterrence fails: A needlessly dead or injured bear

An injured dog, far from medical care

A

dead dog

I can't assign odds to any of these, but hanging your food

seems like such a minimal effort, I can't imagine not doing it.

There are a couple of really good answers here.

But I feel like something is being overlooked.

You and the dogs are going to be asleep, when the bear comes walking through your camp.

If the food is hanging out of reach, the bear is just going to keep walking, in all likelihood you and the dogs might never know you had a visitor in the night.

The same is going to be true for, other forms of wildlife, like raccoons, opossums, etc.

You should always keep food and food prep supplies out of reach of all wildlife; everyone will live longer, happier lives.

Do hang the food (or use a bear can, etc.)

In my experience, wild animals are not deterred by dogs very much.

A bear that lives close to humans might even be attracted to dogs: dogs frequently have dog food with them.

Not exactly on topic,

but I have woken up to deer approaching my camp, while my large dog was barking her head off.

They only stopped advancing when the human stood up.

It doesn't sound like you're thinking of carrying a bear canister either.

A bear will just wait until it's quiet then come into your camp -

you may or may not be there.

If you are there, then you will have real problems.

I wouldn't even prep my meals near my campsite.

On the other hand, bears aren't the only animals that want your food.

Consider whether the dogs will notice the mice getting into your backpack and food.

I've seen a camper hang his food up without even noticing that a mouse had already hidden in it.

He lost a lot of his food before he got it down to have a late snack.

I'd still recommend always hanging your food when you aren't actually eating it.

And, don't forget the long cord to hang it with!

Under the right circumstances, a black bear can kill a man (or a dog) with a single swat of its paw.

While most back bears are timid and afraid of humans, due to 10,000 years of being hunted by Native Americans with bows, a few, a very few, have been know to kill and eat humans.

There is a reason why the writers guide for The Outer Limits

said that each episode needed to have a dangerous creature or other frightening danger and described that as "the bear" instead of the wolf, the mountain lion, the wolverine, the fox, etc.

etc.

You should want to do everything you can to avoid becoming the victim of one of those very rare aggressive black bears, and a good person should want to do everything he possibly could to keep black bears from associating humans with food, possibly leading to some black bears preying on humans.

If I cared for my dogs, I would take all possible bear precautions.

One bear vs one dog is likely to be ten to one odds in favor of the bear, to use an arbitrary number.

Two dogs vs one bear would then be five to one odds in favor of the bear.

That is not good odds.

Avoid bear fights and avoid events that could result in bear fights.

You yourself, without any dogs, might be able to scare way a bear without a fight.

So you and the two dogs might be able to scare way a bear without a fight.

But if it comes to a fight, you and/or one or both of your dogs could be killed or badly wounded.

So if you love yourself, you will take all reasonable precautions to avoid interacting with potentially extremely dangerous wild bears.

And if you also love your dogs, you won't count on them to be your bodyguards against bears, but will take all reasonable precautions to avoid interacting with potentially extremely dangerous wild bears.

Avoid bear confrontations.

Question: I have two large dogs - a German Shepherd and a Presa Canario. I hike alone with my dogs in black (not grizzly) bear country.   Do I still need to hang my food? Or will the three of us be able to convince a bear that um... maybe next camp has better food?

Do I still need to hang my food if I have two large dogs?

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/13312/Censored to protect the guilty

Your food must be protected and it recommended to hang it or use a bear can when not eating. Proper food storage in the wilderness isn't just for you,  it's also for the bears . You may clue the bear in to the fact that where there are humans, there is food, and if you've inadvertently trained a bear to think that human campers have food, and the only thing standing in the way of getting that food is to confront you, then you have given that bear a death sentence. This may also lead to causing a lot of trouble for someone else. Also, wild animals are not deterred by dogs very much.

Hang the food or use a bear can, you need to avoid training bears to think that campers have food.

You should do this to avoid training bears to think campers have food.


Always remember that when you carry a backpack, it's the whole of your upper body that has to take the weight.

If the weight is only on the shoulders, you will eventually end up with with a painful back or shoulders irrespective of how strong you are.

For this, the first thing is to make sure you are carrying your backpack properly.

Few things to consider: Wear a backpack that has a hip belt.

Offloading a bit of the backpack weight on the hip helps to reduce the strain on the upper body.

Pack the backpack such that the heaviest items are closest to you.

The farther the heavier items from your body, the more the strain on you (the center of gravity shifts away from your body and thereby adding more strain on you).

Tighten the straps such that the weight gets distributed properly beween your shoulders/chest and hips.

Do not overload any of these.

The straps should not be loose.

If your shoulder straps are loose, the bag will move away from your body and will pull you backwards.

Adding a lot of strain on your back muscles.

If your hip straps are loose, the bag will keep sliding down and will cause your shoulders to take all the weight.

Posture can be compromised either due to habit (eg sitting for long in front of a computer), or due to a wrongly fitted backpack.

So make sure you consciously monitor your posture while you hike with your backpack.

Having said that, some of the exercises that can help: Planks (engages your abs and glutes).

Crunches (engages your abs).

Leg raises (engages your abs and hamstrings).

Negatives/pull-up holds (helps your shoulders).

The idea is to strengthen your core (mostly your abs) to allow for your body to not offload the whole weight on the back.

2 weeks is not alot of time to prepare.

Try to do squats and rows.

And box-step-ups with a load on your back (gradually increasing).

My scheme looks like this:3 times per week I do 5 sets of 5 reps of squats, and every other training I do rows (5x5) or box-step ups (8x3, per leg).

Core exercises.

Your abs are the bowstring to your back, if you have weak abs, you'll feel it in your back first.

Wearing a heavy bag puts added stress on you back, which engages you abs, but we as homo-sapiens are lazy by nature (which is why we evolved to walk upright), so when we put extra stress on our backs, we tend to compensate by adjusting our posture so our frame takes most of the load, instead of the muscles, this is especially true when we're tired from hiking all day.

When you go on your hike, make sure your bag is adjusted properly for starters, then while you hike, just be conscious of keeping you abs engaged.

Don't over do it, don't flex like crazy, just a little tummy tuck will be enough to spare your low back a lot of grief.

Planks and pushups are good exercises to help build core strength.

Posture.

If you're suffering from upper back pain, then your posture is usually to blame.

Being hunched over watching the ground while the straps of your bag pull on your shoulders is one way to get a serious ache between your shoulder blades.

Again, make sure you bag is properly adjusted and that most of the weight is being carried by your hip belt, and ensure your bag is properly balanced so it isn't pulling you over backwards.

Not going to strengthen much in two weeks.

But you can get your back and shoulders used to weight and fit of the pack.

I would go for as many short to long hikes as you can and would not overload the pack as you don't want to strain your back.

Take a few short hikes with a full weight load at about the 1 week mark to see how things feel.

Backaches are part of life with backpacking until you have a pile of experience.

Causes Compression.

You are carrying more load than you are used too.

This squeezes your vertebrae together.

This usually isn't the cause unless you are older, or you are carrying excessive loads.

Twist combined with compression.

The usual cause.

Back is very strong if you keep it in a straight line (for a somewhat odd value of straight)

You're adding a load to your back.

This tends to pull your shoulders back, and arch your back in the opposite direction you are used too.

Your abdominal muscles compensate -- or try to.

If they succeed, you have sore abs, but no sore back.

If they fail you have really sore abs and a sore back.

Fixing it:

Work on your abs.

Situps, crunches, oblique crunches.

Two weeks is pretty marginal.

Wear your pack with a facsimile of your load for the trip.

Try getting out for an hour a day.

2-3 hours on weekends.

Wear the shoes you will wear on the trip.

Practice walking as if with a stick up your butt.

This will reduce the twisting that happens on your back.

Preventing it:

Google 'making my pack lighter' If you can shave 10 lbs off your pack, you will enjoy your trip a lot more.

Question: I will go hiking in 2 weeks. Are there any exercises for preparing for it, as last time I carried my pack on a hike for the whole day, my back started to hurt.

Are there any exercises that will strengthen my back to prepare for a day hike?

Do core exercises, including ab training, planks and push-ups.  If you have weak abs, you'll feel it in your back first. Squats and rows are also helpful. Get your back and shoulders used to weight and fit of the pack.  Always remember that when you carry a backpack, it's the whole of your upper body that has to take the weight, but you have to make sure you are carrying your backpack properly.

Pushups and planks to build core strength, squats and rows as well as getting used to the backpack are all helpful.

You should build core strength with planks and pushups.

Get used to the backpack to ensure proper carrying, do squats and rows.


Been there, done that, it's far more worrisome when you have to show them how to put the harness on and then have them test that it's tight enough.

And like you said, you really don't want to touch them.

The simple solutions is to show them how you take your harness off, and have them mirror your actions and go through the steps slowly.

I will point to what they need to do, or if they have someone else with them, who they are more comfortable with like a sibling or parent, have them assist the person.

I don't have anything to add for the specific requirement of removing ones harness, the live-demonstration/mirroring recommendations in other answers should do just fine.

I want to address a slightly more general point: [...] without touching them It should become blatantly clear from what follows (and shouldn't be a debatable point anyway), but to be safe: If anyone does not want to get touched, you don't.

However invading the personal space of your climbing partner is not optional .

Before climbing you always do a proper partner check and that involves checking manually that biners are locked, harness sits tight, ...

That's even true for top-roping.

If we are talking about leading (high first bolts) or bouldering, the need for touch becomes even more blatant due to spotting.

If the climbers hip gets above your shoulder height, the point of initial contact in case of a fall is the hip.

Is this potentially awkward?

Sure.

Is it better than falling directly on your tailbone from ~2m?

I think so.

The important point is to explain early and clearly

why and in what situation it is necessary to touch or get into the others personal space.

It needs to be abundantly clear that it is a safety necessity.

Then ask individually when the situation comes up .

The consequence is, that if someone legitimately feels uncomfortable about it, you either need to get someone else to do the partner check, or in case of spotting, you just can't do the climb.

In general if you can't bear your belayer to touch your harness and hold your behind/

back/

in case of a fall while spotting, you might want to rethink whether you want those persons to belay you - they do hold your live in their hands when doing that.

It is not really about instructing people how to take the harness off, but rather about respecting the personal space of clients.

I suggest having an instructor demonstrate the steps to take off the harness when the harness is put on and again when the client is about to remove the harness.

This requires having a spare harness, but just like on the airplane, the instructor probably does not need to be wearing the harness and instead only needs to show the steps.

After demonstrating how to remove the harness, the instructor can then tell clients that if they are having problems, they can ask for help from either a friend or the instructor.

If the instructor is asked to help, he should explain the steps again and where he is going to touch the individual and then confirm that the client is okay with that.

For sit harnesses, the touching should be limited to the waist as most harnesses allow people to step out of the leg loops without loosening them.

For chest harnesses, there may be a buckle at the sternum strap, but most I have seen have either a carabiner or a rope, neither of which should involve physical contact.

It would take more time

but when they are dry at the top have them remove the harness on their own for practice.

Tell them when they get to the bottom they should remove the harness when given the signal to do so.

If they need help an instructor is also at the bottom.

When you see them struggling ask for permission to help before touching.

While helping try and maintain a professional distance away.

There is a big difference between getting up close and personal to fiddle with the buckles and doing it at 3/4 armlengths away.

When handling the buckles around the waist and legs you can squat down which is less invading than bending over.

When you need to check the harnesses limit the actual touching to the tie off points on it.

Emphasize in advance why it is important that the harness is checked properly, maybe with a bit of a horror story of what could happen if it's not properly fitted.

Question: After rappelling near waterfalls, or during the rain,the harness often becomes wet and hard to remove -- particularly for inexperienced people.  How can I instruct someone in how to remove the harness,without touching them?  I have heard people, in particular women participants,(reasonably) complain about their personal space and about bodily contact,when someone else has removed their harness for them.

How to instruct someone how to take off a climbing harness?

The simple solutions is to  show them how you take your harness off, and have them mirror your actions and go through the steps slowly.  When you see them struggling ask for permission to help before touching.  Emphasize in advance why it is important that the harness is checked properly and try to maintain a professional distance when helping. A sibling or parent may be able to assist.

Show the person how to do each step, you must respect personal space.

This is important, but you must respect personal space.

Show the person how to do this step by step.


Strip off.

Your skin is waterproof.

Assuming it's warm (because if it wasn't, you'd have proper gear, right?)

then you're not going to freeze, especially if you're walking.

So take off everything you can afford to be seen without (because getting arrested for flashing is a downer) and stash it in your pack.

When the sun comes out again, you can air dry as you go, or you can sacrifice some item of clothing as an impromptu towel.

I've done substantial amounts of summer walking in the UK wearing only a pair of shorts, most notably on the West Highland Way in Scotland where it rained sideways 4 days out of 6.

If your work rate is high enough, you stay warm from the inside in spite of the water running off your skin.

So, if you're caught off-guard, you won't have anything with you that offers direct protection, such as: raincoat, poncho, garbage bag, tarp, or any other portable shelter.

It also means that you won't have any tools along that might help you build a shelter, such as a pocket knife.

Some might have one, some not, but let's assume you don't.

Some of these options will reduce your wetness, but not eliminate it.

Some of these are not quick solutions and wouldn't be fast enough to help for a quick downpour.

Therefore, you'll need to quickly consider your environment, and look for what is available.

The possibilities will differ greatly: City/Suburbs: alcove of a building, or hopefully you can go inside

(you're probably not thinking of this environment, but for completeness) if there is a building, find the wall which is most out of the wind.

Stand against the wall, as flat against the wall as possible, and you will be out of the worst of the rain.

It will work with big trees as well, but trees mostly have branches which will either help or hinder (drops.)

Forest: under an evergreen of some kind.

If there's lightning, be careful here.

Definitely avoid the taller trees in that case, but that may not be enough.

a cave would be great a cliff might help, either because it's overhanging, or because the wind is blowing the right direction gather dead branches to build a quick wickiup, and cover it with leaves if it's a genuine survival situation, use your hands to break boughs from evergreens and make a shelter There will be environments where there's no good solution if you're caught off guard.

These might include open plains, desert, etc.

My experience as a cyclist is that getting wet doesn't matter (because skin is waterproof): what matters is getting cold.

So the goal is to stay warm enough.

Your warmth is affected by your exercise (producing heat) and insulation/clothing (retaining heat).

To keep warm, keep exercising: if you stop and take shelter (when already soaking) then you'll get cold[er].

It may be better to keep on keeping on (even in the wet) until you reach an indoor shelter.

In dry weather you might keep your jacket unzipped (to stay cool and avoid sweating); if you're drenched in rain, staying cool and sweat-free is less important, instead you might zip up to keep warm.

Get out.

You can quickly cool down when it's raining out, in particular when the rain is horizontal and it's 4°C outside.

You say there's no shelter anywhere near.

Then walk as fast as you can to somewhere not near.

I infer yours must be a day trip, for

surely you're not out on a multi-night backpacking trip in a cold & wet climate without any raingear or night shelter.

Locate the closest shelter,

be it a bus stop, a pub, your car, or even a house if you trust strangers and they trust you.

Even if they don't invite you in, you might hide under a ledge.

Walk to such shelter as fast as you reasonably can, be it one, two, or three hours march.

The wet-cold spiral is real and bad for you.

P.S.

It amazes me how often I see people in England out in the rain without proper rain protection.

This is England, it rains.

I don't recall seeing the same in Netherlands, Sweden, or Norway.

In the USA too, right on the peak of Mt. Marcy, I remember seeing hikers without any rain gear caught out in heavy rain.

A sure way to catch a cold or worse.

A waterproof map made of a rubber-like paper.

I keep one in my backpack for going to the library.

It is very small and light-weight when folded and very big when opened up.

This is much more durable than a garbage bag.

Trails Illustrated have them.

They can also serve as something to sit on if really need to do so, and the area is wet.

They dry fast, as well.

Question: If you are caught out in the rain without any rainwear, raingear and nowhere to hide out, how can you minimalize the damage?  I've seen things like:   holding a bag over the head  wearing a plastic bag on the head  keeping the head down   Obviously planning ahead would be ideal, but...:  What methods are there to avoid general wetness when you're caught off guard.

Caught in the rain without rainwear or raingear

Getting wet doesn't matter (because skin is waterproof). What matters is getting cold - so the goal is to stay warm. Strip offf if necessary. Alternatively, you could use a waterproof map made of a rubber-like paper.

Waterproof maps can be handy. Skin is waterproof and you should focus on staying warm.

Skin is waterproof, focus on staying warm.


Bees are pretty sensitive to movements, so if you see some moseying around, then try to move slowly and smoothly and they should ignore you.

Swatting at them or waving them away will likely send them into Alarm mode.

Bees won't usually sting you out of pure spite.

The chances are that you accidentally hurt it or gave it cause for concern without even knowing.

This could have been stepping on it, or squishing it in a fold in your clothing, or just batting it away.

Once bees release the "Alarm" pheromone , all you can really do is vacate the immediate area.

Alarm

The complexity of pheromones in bees is illustrated well by the two types of alarm pheromone, which can be distinguished by which glands release the pheromone.

From the Koschevnikov gland: This gland is near the sting shaft and is released when a bee stings.

The release of the alarm pheromone is a defensive reaction to alert nearby bees.

This alarm pheromone smells like bananas.

If you are unfortunate enough to be stung, you may wish to leave the area as you tend to the sting, because alarm pheromones are being received by other bees.

From the Mandibular glands

: This consists of 2-heptanone and is used as an anaesthetic and to paralyze intruders, after which bees remove the intruder from the hive.

Note here the pheromone that's most likely to relate to you smells like bananas, so if you're eating one, it might be a good idea to drop/dispose it.

It sounds like you got near a wasp nest.

These can be hard to spot, especially the ones that are in the ground.

The best way to avoid getting stung more is to move away, than can mean up to 10 meters, especially if you have already been stung.

Some wasps and bees release pheromones when they sting, which alert others to the intruder and cause more of them to sting you.

Again, there must have been a nest nearby.

You can try to go back to the area you were stung and look for the nest.

Don't stand where you were stung.

Hang back a safe distance and look for the bees/wasps buzzing around.

After a few minutes, you should be able to visually follow the activity to a concentration point.

That could be a small hole in the ground, or a cavity in a tree.

It doesn't need to be a large obvious nest hanging from a tree branch.

The type of nest and location depend on the species.

I have seen plenty of science nature shows where bees are pacified with smoke.

However, Usually bees die after 1 sting.

They don't sound like bees, and I don't know if that works on anything else

I don't know how you would produce

said smoke without carrying around one of the smokers that the professionals use.

(sounds inconvenient)

Don't wear blue.

I have watched many science shows that demonstrate that they sting blue greater than 2x other colors.

A blue and white cloth on a stick was stuck into a hive and the blue one had many stings and white just a couple.

Wearing a bee keepers outfit must prevent stings since they use it, but for normal people its probably impractical.

It's difficult to know, without a picture of the offender, whether you were stung by a bee or a wasp.

While wasps typically look different, some (see Yellowjacket) are quite similar in coloring and shape, the main difference being that bees typically have fuzz, while yellowjacket wasps are smooth; not exactly an easy distinction to make in the moment.

Contrary to many of the other answers, most bees do not die after stinging.

In fact only Honey Bees, the most common species of bee, die.

This is due to their stinger becoming detached, ripping out part of their digestive tract and muscles with it.

Other bee species however can sting multiple times without issue.

It's possible the bee you found were Sweat Bees ( Halictidae ).

This species of bee is attracted to perspiration (hence the name) and the bees could have been attracted by sweat if it was a hot day.

As others have said, the best course of action is to leave.

It's possible you accidentally irritated the bee without noticing, e.g. by stepping on it, accidentally swatting it, or trapping it in your clothing.

As a side note: If you know for a fact it was a bee, treat the sting with some baking soda.

Bee stings are acidic, and wasp stings are basic (alkaline), so baking soda will help with bee stings, while vinegar will help with wasp stings.

Bees feed on the sweet nectar of some flowers.

So this bee could be attracted to fragrances that smell sweet.

Watch out for your perfume or deodorant smell.

The shampoo or even air freshener for house/car that stuck to your hair or your clothes perfume might be irresistible for your new little friend.

I grew up in a park.

Bees are attracted to flowers and bright colors.

Yellow jackets tend to be attracted to plastic cups,soda cans and the scent of sugars.

Bee keepers generally use smokers and Bee keeping suits but you seem to be asking for more practical tips.

Neutral none bright cloths, Maybe a leather jacket to cover your arms and upper body.

Spray scent neutralizers like what you would find in a hunting store to neutralize your body smell from sweet stuff like soda pops.

Neutralizing or None scented detergents to removes smells from your cloths.

Most things we use on a daily basis for our enjoyment are scented with fragrances that bees also enjoy.

Vinegar mixed with water as a spray may also help.

PS vinegar mix with rubbing alcohol can also help with poison ivy contact.

If all else fail try a bottle of OFF insect repellent.

I hope this helps you discourage them from visiting you.

If you don't like the scent odds are they won't either.

Question: I've been feeding the local birds at the exact same spot at the local park for quite some time now. Unfortunately for me, today as I was minding my business as usual, a bee decided to sting me. It stung me and flew away, but not for long. It brought back another bugger with it, and they kept trying to sting me. What can I do to evade them? Or is there any way I can pacify them without injuring myself and getting myself stung again?

How do I evade or pacify a bee?

Hang back a safe distance and look for the bees/wasps buzzing around. Bees are attracted to bright colors and flowers. They can be pacified with smoke, and a spray of vinegar mixed with water may help to repel them. Another alternative is OFF insect repellent.

Bees are attracted to bright colours, hang back and observe. You can use vinegar spray, smoke and repellent.

Smoke, vinegar spray and repellent can work.


As you said yourself: mud.

Or cotton as Gabriel answered, or wood, or leaves, or bark, or anything that stops light from reaching your skin.

Is there any natural material that without any processing can be applied as a cream, is nearly invisible in the visible spectrum yet stops much of the UV-rays?

Not to my knowledge.

Which is why we have to make it.

But most natural materials will block most of the UV-rays.

This is also one of the main reasons why there is no natural sunblock.

A tree is protected from UV light by its bark, it doesn't need to produce a near invisible cream that blocks UV-rays.

And since most natural materials block much of the UV light they will protect you from sunburn and skin cancer.

Often better than commercial sun cream, as you probably already know from wearing clothes.

They just don't do it while letting most of the visible light hit your skin and while letting you look like you're not covered by anything.

The mucous from the marine animal mushroom coral , is a natural sunscreen, which is designed to keep the coral itself from burning in the sun.

The mushroom coral is only found in coral reefs in certain parts of the world, so it might be hard to find in the wild.

According to a historian, Bear Grylls is said to have used it to rub some mucous on himself and then put the coral back in the water.

There might be some validity to this, as outlined here: http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/microsites/biodiscovery/05human-impact/sunscreen-for-corals.html .

It also describes the coral's ability to produce a substance to try to protect itself from the sun, although it doesn't specifically mention a way for people to use it.

Wood ash

As @Monster said: anything that stops light from reaching your skin.

The OP her/himself suggested mud.

All you need to get wood ash is a campfire, which you probably want anyway, in the OP's scenario.

Survivopedia in 9 Survival Uses of Wood Ash says: Natural Camouflage

This is kind of a no-brainer but there may come a time when you just don’t want to be seen.

You may be hunting or you may be waiting for human predators to invade your space.

Whatever the reason, wood ash is a quick, natural camouflage.

On a similar note, sunburn can be lethal and if you don’t have any sunscreen, rub wood ash on your skin to block the sun’s rays.

(emphasis added) Of course, this isn't a silky cream, but wood ash is portable.

You can easily carry several days worth, or more, unless you are hiking in short shorts and a sleeveless shirt.

Obviously wood ash will be harder to obtain above timberline or in a desert, exactly the places where you need sunscreen the most.

But even above timberline there are often scattered trees and scattered downed wood, and deserts may have some woody scrub.

Wood ash is stickier than mud, particularly if it is deposited over a layer of campfire grime from a smoky campfire.

Caveats: (1) Make sure the wood ash is cold before applying it to your skin.

An anonymous editor made the point (which I have in turn edited) that fresh wood ash mixed with water is caustic, and should not be applied near your eyes, and may irritate your skin.

Old wood ash will weather to a carbonate.

It depends on what level of processing makes you feel something is no longer natural.

Typical Sunscreens use Zinc Oxide as a UV blocking agent, as it is photo-stable and creates a nearly invisible layer (when using the highly-processed nanostructure form of the mineral).

Zinc Oxide is naturally formed as both the mineral Wurtzite, and the mineral Zincblende.

One or both of these 2 minerals could be powdered and rubbed onto the skin for a somewhat ineffective sunscreen.

Alternatively, you could look up one of the hundreds of recipes for homemade lotion, and add the powdered mineral to it to make your own sunscreen.

You won't get the same level of protection as commercial sunscreen, but you will avoid the under-researched effects of the aforementioned nanostructures.

To clarify, the reasons Zinc Oxide nanostructures are so common in commercial sunscreens

are the FDA GRAS status (you can eat Zinc Oxide safely per FDA rating), and the lack of pigmentation that non-nanostructured Zinc Oxide would leave on the skin after rubbing in the sunscreen (goes on white, rubs in clear type of thing).

Red Ochre Red Ochre is a natural earth pigment found in clays that are rich in iron.

It's been used for thousands of years by cultures around the world as a natural sunblock .

It's also the same pigment used in ancient cave paintings.

Native American Indians "war paint" was often worn as a sunblock, and was made out of ochres.

Being a clay makes it easier to prepare it into an applicable paste, but it's essentially mud on your face.

Most white substances are usually good.

As a bush assumption you can assume that reflectance in visible range means reflectance in UV range.

You can grind rock against rock and mix with spit or water.

The active components of sunblock are usually pretty common minerals.

Rutile, Zinc oxides etc.

The organic ones have a tendency to be banned for toxicity after a few years after introduction...

A quick Google search reveals that carrot seed oil has an SPF of 40 and raspberry seed oil has an SPF of 30.

The reliability of the site is not established.

Just FYI here's a formal study of herbal sunscreens.

One of the products tested claimed to be carrot seed based but another person evaluated the ingredients and discovered zinc oxide which probably contributed largely to the SPF.

The white dust, technically "bloom", found on the trunks of aspen (Populus tremuloides) trees has been used as a sun block.

Some trees have more than others.

Rubbing a hand on the bark and transferring the dust to your skin does noticeably leave a whitened area

so I'm inclined to believe it is some help.

There are numerous species of Populus, so it might be possible to find other trees with similar benefit.

Question: There are animals such as pigs and elephants that  wallow  in mud which possibly serves as protection from sunburn.  There are also some plants such as  Aloe vera  ( Aloe vera )  and  Jewelweed  ( Impatiens capensis ) which are believed to help soothe burns which may help after a sunburn has already occurred.   Are there any natural materials that one could find and use in the wild to naturally protect against sunburn?

Are there any natural materials found in the wild that can be used as an effective sunscreen?

Most white substances are good sunscreens, including wood ash and the white dust on aspen tree trunks. Red ochre is another suggestion, as is mud.  Carrot seed oil has an SPF of 40 and raspberry seed oil has an SPF of 30.  The mucous from the marine animal  mushroom coral is a natural sunscreen, which is designed to keep the coral itself from burning in the sun.

You can use mud, wood ash, white substances, carrot seed oil and mushroom coral.

Wood ash and most white substances, red ochre work well.

Carrot seed oil and mushroom coral mucous are effective.


Getting out is not the hard part.

It is getting in and going again without getting wet.

To get out: If the beach is large enough come in sideways, lean away from shore to as you beach.

when the canoe touches bottom on the shore.

sit upright and you should be well grounded and close enough to step from canoe to shore while staying dry.

If the landing is narrow, move people as far back as practical, beach the front (bow) and then walk to the front to get out.

If two people, the one in the back stabilizes while the one in front gets out.

then the when out the front person drags the front of the canoe farther on shore.

To get in reverse above, but as you are moving from stable shore to rocking boat, it takes a bit more practice.

You might want to go to a local lake and practice before your trip.

Bring a change of clothes, just in case.

This skill is best learned where getting wet and cold is not going to have a huge impact on the rest of your day or trip.

Additionally, roll up your pant legs before getting in or out, to keep them dry.

Your bare leg dries faster then your pants.

I usually wear water shoes that dry quickly if they do get wet rather then trying to wear heavy boots that will stay dry.

Remember you may be swimming in whatever clothes and shoes you are wearing, so plan for both events.

I keep a change of shoes and socks ( & clothes & towel ) in my dry storage, in the canoe.

In the event that I need to walk out (and/or for camp)

I have dry shoes and socks appropriate for land, that will be dry even if the canoe is capsized.

Aside from waders, there's not much you can do to guarantee your feet will stay dry.

No matter how high your waterproofing goes it won't help when you fall on your side from a rock shifting under foot (it's a rare exception that it doesn't happen to somebody each trip, and you need to be prepared for that somebody to be you).

A method a lot of people employ is the wet shoe / dry shoe strategy, where you bring a pair of shoes that you plan on walking through water in and another pair that you only wear in the campsite.

I prefer quick draining athletic shoes for my wet shoes and warmer waterproof hiking boots for my camp shoes, but preferences vary.

One important consideration is the material your canoe is made from.

If it's a sturdier material like aluminum or fiberglass it might be acceptable to ram it onto the shore far enough that you can step out directly onto dry land, and launch similarly with a push start.

With light weight canoes such as Kevlar you more or less have to step out into the water, as grinding the bottom of the canoe over any material risks leaving gouges in the hull.

Of course this is highly dependent on the type of shoreline you expect to disembark from, steep drop-offs make it easier to pull the canoe right up to the shore without any scraping.

The guys in New Zealand make thermal underwear made from polypropylene - different material to the stuff that the fancy brands use.

It's cheap, and it stays warm even when - not if - you get wet.

Spent a couple of hours in a freezing NZ stream in a leaky wetsuit and two layers of that stuff: not a problem.

James Jenkins is right about bare legs = good, and heavy boots = bad , as I found out walking in Wales (UK).

Boots are great until the water gets in - and it will - because then it can't get out

and they take ages to dry.

Adding to previous answers: If shore slope is shallow then beach head-on, otherwise come in sideways.

For head-on approach, keep weight back to lift the bow, then shift weight forward after beaching.

Use your paddle to give an extra leg of support, and use it as a push pole so that your walking forward doesn't un-beach the boat.

Walk forward staying in the middle (along the keel line).

You should be able to step onto dry land, then pull the canoe in a bit more and steady it so your mates can get out.

What kind of environment is the trip in?

If you can find straight shores designed for mooring boats getting in and out dry should not be a problem.

If the shores are all shallow and beach like the simplest solution would be to bring some rubber boots that can get wet.

It you can give any more details about what you're worried about, what your skill levels are, how many of you there are in what kind of canoe etc I can expand this answer.

When a canoe has one end on shore,it's unstable.

It helps if one person squats with knees on either side of the bow while the first person steps in.

At the end, the bowsman steps into the canoe and pushes off at the same time.

Approaching shore, try for a spot with few rocks, and hit the shore moving at about 1/2 speed.

Bowsman steps out onto the shore.

Other trick I've used on very shallow shorelines: Put a sizable log in the water perpendicular to shore as a makeshift dock. Put one or more rocks as stepping stones into the water.

These two techniques don't help landing, but when you are landing for camp, you will have a fire soon.

A third option is to get a pair of divers boots.

These are neoprene -- wet suit material, with a reasonable sole.

Buy one size larger than your normal size and wear a pair of thick wool socks inside them.

They will not keep your feet dry, but warm wet feet are quite tolerable.

In Canada Mountain Equipment sells their own brand for these.

Start here: https://www.mec.ca/en/product/5021-652/Moque-Boots-Low .

Neoprene socks inside oversize runners also work.

Question: At the end of November we are going an a 3 day canoeing trip with multiple obstacles where we have to get the canoe out of the water. As it is really cold at this time, we don't want to get wet boots/gear.   Are there any techniques or gear that can help us get out of the canoe without getting wet?

How to avoid getting wet when exiting a canoe onto shore?

On very shallow shorelines:   Put a sizable log in the water perpendicular to shore as a makeshift dock.  Put one or more rocks as stepping stones into the water. It helps if one person squats with knees on either side of the bow while the first person steps in.  A lot of people use the wet shoe / dry shoe strategy, where you bring a pair of shoes that you plan on walking through water in and another pair that you only wear in the campsite.  Another option is to get a pair of divers boots, but aside from waders, there's not much you can do to guarantee your feet will stay dry.

Diver boots, waders, spare shoes, thermal underwear, squatting and logs can all be useful.

Squatting with knees on either side, using logs can work.

Spare shoes and thermal underwear are useful.


Try to slice a piece of paper.

A good sharp knife makes a clean cut.

A dull knife makes either a ragged cut, or worse, just pushes the paper to the side.

I like this article: https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2014/08/paper-cut-testing-blade-sharpness#page-4 and YouTube

is full of videos of people showing off their knives via this test.

The back of a fingernail can be a good rough indicator while you're sharpening - see if it "catches" when you apply very gentle pressure at ~45 degree angle.

This can also be a good way to check if the edge still has any dull spots.

The best method in my opinion is one that must be learned, and involves moving your thumb across the blade, perpendicular to the blade not down it !

It's very difficult to describe the feeling

but if you do it on enough dull blades and sharp blades you will begin to be able to tell the difference.

One other thing I will do if im sharpening a knife for a friend or coworker to display how sharp it is is shave a couple hairs off the back of my hand.

Lick your thumb, moisten the patch on the back of your hand and shave as you would with a straight razor.

(You may want to wipe the knife clean after this.)

Sounds weird

but i do it because your average joe will know its extrememly sharp if you can shave with it and be careful with it.

One other test could be to attempt to very thinly slice a tomato, with and exceptionally sharp knife you should be able to get nearly paper thin slices with a light sawing motion.

Slice a tomato with very little pressure.

This is almost always when I notice a knife needs sharpening, and the difference is profound.

Edit: I should have added ripe tomato; a sharp knife will slice it, whereas a dull one will smash it or rumple and tear its skin.

Generally I categorize sharpness into 3 levels: The tomato test - being able to slice through a tomato skin.

Not use the pointy end to break the skin and then slice but directly slice the skin all the way through.

This is sharp enough for cooking.

The paper test - being able to slice thin phonebook paper or magazine paper or newsprint.

For general carving knives I find some tearing after the knife has started a cut to be acceptable.

If I really want sharp then it should be able to cut paper with zero tearing.

The shaving test - you should be able to shave with it.

This is literally razor sharp (otherwise known as "scary sharp").

I've only been able to do this on some knives and I wouldn't want all my knives to be razors anyway.

Cheap, disposable sponges.

Unlike paper, they can be tested on while wet, which is a big advantage when sharpening with waterstones.

Don't use the scrubby side (some people like using it as a deburring aid, though) Something dull will not be able to cut into a sponge.

Something sharp will easily slice into it.

Something d...

sharp can push-cut into the corner of a sponge.

Something b...

y

damn sharp can be laid on a sponge and pushed in (a razorblade easily will!).

If you're sharping the knife outdoors (where a tomato is not available), a good test is to wield it perpendicularly to a grass stalk and see if the knife cuts it off.

You could just cut of some hair.

No need to cut other resources and its safe because yeah its hair.

And for any type of baldness you can adapt the amount of hair you would like to test on.

Question: In order for knives to be useful, they need to be sharp. If I am sharpening one myself, how do I know when I am done?  What would be a simple easy test of whether a knife is sharp enough?

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

The tomato test is very common. Other tests include trying to cut grass or a cheap kitchen sponge, shaving, cutting hair, scraping the back of a fingernail or slicing a piece of paper.

Try to slice a piece of paper, shave, cut some hair. You can use your fingernail or thumb. Slicing a tomato, using sponges and grass also work.

Shave, cut some hair or use your fingernail or thumb.


As you are aware waterproof breathable fabrics can "wet out" reducing them to simply waterproof fabrics.

That does not make wetted out waterproof breathable the same as waterproof non-breathable fabric.

Non-breathable fabrics tend to be cheaper, stronger, lighter, and in some cases more water resistant (i.e., a higher mm H2O rating) than corresponding breathable fabrics.

Compare the differences between the high end fabrics used in Z-packs non-breathable kilt (1.0 oz/yd2, 20,000 mm H2O, and 15.5 N puncture strength) and breathable rain pants (1.92 oz/yd2, 20,000 mm H2O, and don't look at it funny strength).

If weight or durability matters and either sweat is not a factor or wetting out is a given (e.g., sailing or prolonged wet weather), a non-breathable fabric might be desirable.

Sweat is heavily activity dependent and good ventilation can often mitigate the need for breath-ability.

For really cold weather activities the effect of sweat can be eliminated through the use of a vapor barrier, but you will still want a waterproof shell to keep snow melt from soaking your insulation.

You seem to have a specific outdoor activity in mind, like trekking or climbing.

But what about water sports?

A sailing ship deck would be the most obvious place.

Sometimes you won't move much, but you wish to stay 100% dry.

In my experience waterproof breathable fabrics are only water resistant.

Also notice that fabrics like GoreTex deteriorate with time and lose their water repellent qualities.

A simple plastic trousers won't have this problem.

There are several uses, but regular strenuous outdoor leisure activities aren't really among them.

Breathable gear only goes so far - there comes a point when the best gear you can afford will result in getting very sweaty.

This point is a function of temperature, humidity, price and activity level.

If you're consistently going to pass that point, non breathable gear is cheaper (much cheaper in the long term as membranes degrade) and still keeps the wind off.

They're often used by those working outdoors doing fairly light duties, such as directing traffic or otherwise mainly standing.

These are often high visibility.

More strenuous outdoor workers may well use heavy duty poorly breathable versions.

They can be kept in a vehicle as emergency wear to keep in case of breaking down or worse.

These may never be worn so it's not worth investing in something expensive.

They also seem more waterproof than at least cheap breathables if you're actually sitting or kneeling in water fixing something.

A similar use is car camping, when you may need to go out in the rain to tighten ropes or pegs, but would avoid going out in the rain otherwise.

In the UK climate, and many other places, it's often worth carrying rain gear for even fairly gentle walks that take you more than a few minutes from shelter.

You'll be a lot drier and warmer in cheap waterproofs than none at all, which is why compact ones are widely sold in national park shops etc.

(I keep a pair in the van that were an emergency purchase in such a shop)

The non-breathable pants are usually considerably cheaper than the breathable ones.

That can make them a better choice for activities that stand a good chance of ripping holes in the material, glissading down icy slopes for example.

Far better to rip your $25 non-breathable pants than your $125 Gore-tex pants.

The non-breathable cheaper wet-weather protection is useful for when you must sometimes go outdoors in heavy rain to do essential jobs, but not for very long.

Long enough that you would otherwise get soaked, but not long enough for the lack of ventilation to be a problem.

Non-breathable waterproof garments are basically polyurethane plastic at the surface.

This has one very big benefit in that dirt doesn't stick to it much, and what sticks will usually come off with just water.

So they're good for uses such as: Trekking in muddy conditions.

Just hang them overnight to dry and yesterday's muck falls off.

Children's use.

A high-tech fabric will not stand up to daily washes for very long.

Agricultural and other jobs where you'd get excrement on your clothes.

After all, getting sweaty is a discomfort but it can be tolerated.

As a cyclist, I expect to get wet if I'm riding hard in the rain.

But if I'm wearing something waterproof -- breathable or not -- the (cold) rainwater will be kept separate from the (warm) sweat, and I'll be warmer.

And if I'm not riding hard, I'll be dry longer in the non-breathable stuff, because water vapor can pass through the breathable layers in either direction.

To ride a motorcycle, for example, you will never chose breathable fabric.

If you have to wear rain pants, temperature is such that sweat is almost never an issue

and you want your garment to be as waterproof as possible.

Also, you want to be sure

not only water but also mud, grease, dust, etc. is kept off your under-layers, hence the use of a fabric as less porous as possible.

Question: For rain pants, there are both breathable pants that let sweat out and non-breathable ones that do not. The problem with the non-breathable pants is that your sweat can build up inside and then you will get wet underneath the pants anyways.  As non-breathable pants are still sold, what is the case when they would be prefferable, or is it simply a matter of cost?

What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?

Non-breathable fabrics tend to be cheaper, stronger, lighter, and in some cases more water resistant (i.e., a higher mm H2O rating) than corresponding breathable fabrics. The non-breathable cheaper wet-weather protection is useful for when you must sometimes go outdoors in heavy rain to do essential jobs, but not for very long. There are several uses, but regular strenuous outdoor leisure activities aren't really among them.  They are good for trekking in muddy conditions,or riding motorcycles, for example.

They are cheaper, good for trekking in mud, riding bikes and motorcycles.

They are good for trekking in mud, they tend to be stronger and lighter.

They are good for riding bikes and motorcycles.


Special devices: @imsodin is right in suggesting a GriGri.

For the method: The common trick is to have two "belayers."

One attaches the GriGri on their harness as usual.

The second person stands facing the primary belayer and pulls hand over hand on the rope (essentially pulling away from the primary belayer, through the GriGri).

The primary belayer can help by pulling slack down towards the GriGri from above.

This should let you belay most climbers quite quickly.

But, as always, if at some point there is a lot of slack between the belay device and the climber, the climber must slow down to allow the belayer to catch up.

Taking big falls on static rope with slack is dangerous for everyone.

Some background:

The two-belayer-one-GriGri method was pretty common at local and regional speed climbing competitions in the US until 2018.

It was even used at IFSC comps until 2016.

In fact, USA Climbing Rule 7.2.1 stated that all routes must be belayed from below and this was the accepted practice.

However:

Following an incident in 2018 in which a speed climber took a bad fall that was attributed to this belaying style, USA Climbing removed this rule , allowing auto-belays to be used.

Similarly, the IFSC and USA Climbing both use special speed auto-belays for speed climbing competition.

I can't definitively speak to which is safer, and I'm not sure anyone can.

Hopefully this doesn't need saying, but this should only be done indoors with express permission of the gym staff.

Note that some gyms double-wrap their ropes at the top of the climb--

don't speed climb with this setup as the friction is both annoying and creates more heat, which is bad for the ropes.

I'd very much recommend using a GriGri or one of the newer device with the same mechanism.

Reason being, the braking mechanism is not dependent on the position of the braking hand.

Thus you can pull in rope in whatever way you want, as long as you have the braking strand in any of your hands at any point it's safe.

This removes a lot of the stress as compared to e.g. belaying devices of the "tuber style" (ATC, Reverso, ...), where you need to make sure that your braking hand stays below the height of the device at all time.

With a fitting rope you can pull in rope really fast with a GriGri.

Ask them to slow down since their speed is affecting your ability to provide a belay.

Don't deviate from your standard belay method

If they're top-roping (or when you need to pull in a LOT of slack lead belaying)

you can take your hand off the load side and put both on the brake side.

Then you can pull hard and straight away from your hips while thrusting your hips backwards, which pulls in a solid 4+ ft of rope at once.

Then, you reset your hips and slide your top hand back up to the belay device, then follow with the other.

A cycle takes about half a second, and is very intuitive once you've done it a couple times.

This technique allows you to take in a lot of slack without bringing your brake hand over the belay device.

It does look kinda goofy, but it's better to look foolish than drop your partner.

I should also add, this is a little awkward to do at first, especially on lead.

Without your top hand, the belay device will want to drop down and hang at groin level unless the load side is already taut.

This makes it kinda weird to pull slack, especially during the reset section.

It's not super difficult to do

but it's worth yarding out some rope with both climbers on the ground to practice.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/14346/Monica Apologists Get Out

If someone is going quickly I prefer to alternate my brake hand.

This way I don't need as much time to "reset".

It also allows me to grab large amounts of slack at once.

You just need to be comfortable enough with your non-dominant hand on the brake side, which isn't an issue for most.

Steps: Pull slack with left hand and brake with right hand; right hand islow on the brake side.

(standard motion) Put left hand over right hand on the brake side, high up, just below belay device Put right hand on climber's end of rope high above belay device Repeat but opposite.

So pull slack with right hand a brake with left hand.

I am going to reiterate and expand on a previous deleted answer from a different user.

A hip belay can be incredibly fast and is a common technique in situations where falls are unlikely.

Many/most gyms do not allow you to hip belay, but many of those gyms also do not allow you to speed climb.

Outdoors you can obviously do whatever you want.

Another alternative is to progressively walk/run further away from the wall/cliff.

For lead climbing this is dangerous because the fall will pull you back towards the cliff face and there is a high likelihood of you losing control of the rope.

For top roping the angle of pull is different and the forces are reduced.

For climbs where there is no risk of hitting an obstacle/ledge on the way down (i.e., a climb that is well suited for speed climbing) this can be a reasonably option.

Again, most gyms will frown upon this (but not necessarily more so than speed climbing).

Question: Some of my climber friends are pretty fast climbers with a speed of about 20s for a 10m long route. The really fast ones use auto-belaying-systems seen on speed climbing competitions.   Those auto-belaying-systems are not available everywhere, so sometimes it can be done manually with a conventional belay device.   The belaying procedure can become pretty hectic and exhaustive to pull in this much rope in such a short time. Are there special techniques or portable belay devices that relieve the belaying person?

How to belay top-rope climbers who are ascending quickly?

Don't deviate from your standard belay method. You could ask them to slow down, if necesary. A common approach is to have two "belayers." If someone is going quickly, you could alternate your brake hand or use a hip belay.  Using a GriGri or one of the newer devices with the same mechanism is recommended, allowing the rope to be pulled in very fast.

Using your standard method with two belayers, alternating your brake hand and using hip belays can help. GriGri and similar devices can be useful as well.

Using your standard method and having two belayers helps.

Alternating your brake hand and a hip belay can help.

GriGri and similar devices can be helpful.


I use a truckers hitch

it is easy to make and create and pull tight.

It is not difficult to untie but does stay in place well.

It is a great knot when you need to cinch something down.

Image source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TruckersHitchUsingAlpineButterfly2.jpg

I agree that the trucker's hitch will certainly do the job.

That said, if your special situation requires retightening if things start to sag, you might consider the tautline hitch .

It's a great knot for situations where you might need to take up slack due to stuff like rope stretch in the dark and rain (like, say, if you're using your line to make an A-frame shelter with a tarp), so you can get back under cover quick.

I wouldn't recommend this knot for situations where a knot slip might cause injury.

As always, right knot for the right job.

As others have commented, Trucker's Hitch (with an Alpine butterfly) would be the best.

Note that it would be enough to do it on one side only; I usually tie an Anchor Hitch at the other side.

Another option, when you won't be loading the rope too much, would be to use an Adjustable Midshipman's Hitch .

As a bonus, you could easily re-tighten the rope by pulling the adjustable knot.

I tried this last time to dry the clothes between the trees (just like in your picture) and it worked very nicely:

the rope was taut but when the wet clothes were put on it it sagged a little.

Then I just pulled the knot - et voilà !

You don't need a knot, just add a few rounds of rope around the tree and the friction will make it more or less impossible to "pull" the rope and create sag (besides, a few extra rounds prevents the rope from sliding downwards).

Basically any knot will work after this although two half-hitches is a good option.

An alternative to the extra rounds is to simply make a clove hitch around the tree.

That can be done even under stress.

If you're after getting tension into the line, I'd normally use a Truckers Hitch .

This uses a loop to create a pulley - and there are various ways to make the loop.

I tend to prefer either an Alpine Butterfly (as it doesn't get hard to undo after tensioning) or the loop of a slippery overhand knot (as it can be undone easily).

If you have issues losing tension when tying off the truckers hitch, you can opt to use a "wrap and re-wrap" method.

Not sure that's the right name.

Basically you pull the rope round the tree, round the taut line and back round the tree (back the way it came).

You can repeat this, going back and forth round the tree, any number of times.

Then you tie off the loose end to the taut line.

This wrap and re-wrap method can be seen demonstrated about 90 seconds into this video: https://youtu.be/zdn1MlOUFuA?t=90 - albeit without doing a truckers hitch first.

Question: Say, I want to tie a rope between two trees, and I want it to have as little sag as possible. I have attached the rope to one tree and I'm trying to tie it to the other tree  while pulling it to create tension and remove sag .  All the hitch knots that I know are difficult to do while applying tension and, when tightened, create some sag.  Which ones are easy to do under tension and avoid sag?  Thank you.

Most practical knots for hitching a line to an object while keeping the bitter end as tight as possible, without sag?

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/18485/Andrey Mikhaylov - lolmaus

A trucker's hitch is widely recommended, although a clove hitch, an alpine butterfly, a slippery overhand knot or an adjustable midshipman's hitch could be used. Another approach would be to add a few rounds of rope to hold by friction followed by almost any knot.

Alpine butterfly,  Adjustable Midshipman's Hitch or clove hitch around a tree work well. Any knot or a few rounds of rope around a tree can work. A trucker's hitch works best.

Any knot will work, or putting a few rounds of rope around a tree.