I have a very similar problem with wasps nesting in my mailbox.

This has made it rather difficult to get to my mail, and pay my bills on time.

I would suggest staying away from traps as, while they will trap and kill a wasp, they do have a scented bait meant to draw wasps to the area.

So your camera would still probably capture a fair amount of wasps on the lens.

I have just recently implemented the first of these two solutions myself.

I needed not try the second option, however, several other people have vouched for both solutions, both online, and at my local hardware store.

Mothballs: Apparently these are just as effective on wasps as they are on moths.

It seems so effective the wasps have abandon their (small) nest.

However, this may not work outside in a breezy location, but it still might be worth a try.

Perhaps you can hang an old sock full of the mothballs.

Decoy Wasp Nest: Wasps are very territorial creatures.

If the wasps think there is a larger, already established, nest nearby they won't dare try to build their own.

There are several pre-made nest decoys out on the market, but I've heard you can make one yourself out of a paper bag shaped to resemble a wasp nest.

As I said, I can't personally speak to the effectiveness of the second option.

Hope this helps!

Citronella candles set up around a perimeter are what we use when camping.

If we are going somewhere exceptionally bug-ridden, we do sometimes use DEET - it is much more effective, but rather toxic.

As long as you are spraying and then leaving the area, I'd go with DEET.

I hadn't realised it would melt plastic (thanks @Liam)

so be careful where you spray it.

Since the problem seems to be that the wasps enjoy nesting around your camera, I would suggest making it unattractive for them.

For example, cover it with a kind of box or anything similar.

Normally wasps and kind like cracks, corners and similar things to glue their nest to.

If you present them with a smooth box they won´t find it attractive anymore.

You should also try to find out why they are attracted to the camera.

Maybe there is lot less wind directly at the location of the cam, so that would be a reason for them to nest there.

You could also try to make a nesting point for them close to the camera, using the things they like (wind and rain protection with small corners).

I know this sounds like a lot of work, and it might fail as well; Maybe they just like the ultraviolet-color of your camera.

However, there is the chance that it keeps them away in a more reliable and permanent way than just spraying DEET around.

It depends on your setup if its worth the struggle though.

Forget the DEET.

That's for mosquitoes, and it's not a repellent, but rather it interferes with their sense of smell so since they can't smell you (food) they don't bother you.

It's also toxic.

Citronella is not a repellent of any kind.

Smoke from Citronella candles is a repellent (downwind from the candle).

Smoke from ANY candle is the same repellent.

There have been many, many studies on this, but the legends live on.

What I use is Permethrin .

This is an insecticide (meaning it's designed to kill) but works good as a repellent as well.

It's a synthetic copy of a natural compound, Pyrethrin, found in marigold flowers.

It's mostly used to spray orchards.

It's also used a lot in dog flea control medicines.

The stuff binds to materials, so keeps working even when dry.

When sprayed onto clothing, it will continue to work for months, even after washing.

The military even washes their uniforms with it.

Once dry, it is odorless, colorless, and doesn't effect the feel.

Basically, you won't know it's there.

It will leave a residue on glass though.

Safe for clothing & gear.

I spray all my outdoor clothing and gear every spring, then need to reapply it in the fall.

You can find it in cans at REI and other outdoor stores.

I buy the concentrated stuff off of Amazon, then dilute it and apply it with a garden sprayer.

I've been using this for years and am very rarely bothered by bugs.

Btw, if you spray the perimeter of your house, it's pretty good at keeping bugs out.

WARNING:

While it's still liquid, this is very toxic to cats and fish.

Once dry, it's safe.

I'm allergic to wasp/bee stings

so this is a question I've been pondering for a long time

, what works for me is slicing a lemon in half and putting a few cloves in there.

Put it near the camera and the wasps

wont go near it.

It has a fairly penetrating and unpleasant odor.

get some bifenthrin concentrate,mix double the recommended strength in your garden sprayer, and spray all around your camera!

this stuff will prevent wasps for weeks!

It works by attacking their nervous system.

It doesn't kill them instantly, but they will eventually die!

Question: I have a camera setup outside. Wasp seem to enjoy nesting in and around this camera. I know there are all kinds of wasp killers but is there anything I can do to repel wasps from nesting in and around the area of my camera?   Most all of my motion pictures are of wasps climbing on the lens which does me no good.

Wasp repellent for an object/area?

Bifenthrin and Permethrin are suggested repellents. A decoy wasps nest would deter nesting as wasps are very territorial. Moth balls are supposed to work for wasps. Traps are not recommended as they may attract wasps to the area. DEET is effective, but toxic. Citronella, or lemon and cloves are natural suggestions.

Chemical treatments, fake nests and giving wasps an alternative nesting area work well. Mothballs, lemon and cloves work as well. Deet and citronella can be considered.

Bifenthrin and permethrin can make areas unattractive for wasps.

Wasps are territorial, fake nests or giving them another nesting point can work.

Citronella is not a repellent but can be considered. A lemon and cloves can work well.


In more temperate climates (forests, jungles, etc.)

burying feces is preferred as it will be broken up by microbes in the soil while being somewhat protected from the environment.

Plant growth in these areas is also rapid enough that cut roots are generally a non-issue.

(I'm assuming you aren't hacking through larger roots.)

In general the warmer the climate the better the decomposition.

Deserts, canyons, and alpine areas above treeline represent special cases; there is generally a lack of organic soil in which to bury waste and vegetation grows very slowly, if at all.

In such areas, particularly heavily impacted ones, packing out waste via WAG bags is preferred and sometimes legally mandated.

On rarely-visited routes in the high alpine there are two other options which are sometimes used: the first method is to go on a rock then toss it down a moraine or crevasse.

The second is to smear it into a paper-thin layer on a rock facing the sun; the sun and wind will slowly bake and abrade it away.

(It's worth noting that the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics found most people don't spread it thin enough.)

Regarding toilet paper, many advocate packing it out.

I've heard differing opinions on how well it decomposes in the wild, and often that's climate dependent.

Outside of areas with good organic soil I would pack it out.

Another option that many use is to skip toilet paper and use snow, rocks, or leaves instead.

In terms of supporting data, one Tasmanian study looked at decay rates of different products (facial tissue, tampons, as well as bleached and unbleached toilet paper) at different sites and with or without added nutrients (i.e. poo).

The actual paper appears to be paywalled, but the results suggest unbleached paper is slightly better, tampons decay much slower than the other products (and should probably be carried out), and outside of alpine/subalpine areas decay proceeds at a good pace, particularly when combined with waste:

There was a significant site×time×treatment interaction in the generalised linear model for mean decay rates which included 6 m (a/w), 12 and 24 months (Table 2).

At 6 months over autumn and winter mean decay of products was well-advanced at the coastal eucalypt forest and the grassy eucalypt forest, but negligible in the lowland rainforest, the heathy eucalypt forest, the montane moorland and the western alpine sites (Fig. 2).

By 24 m decay was almost complete (at least 75% decayed) at all sites except the montane moorland and the western alpine site (Fig. 2).

At all sites, except lowland rainforest, there was a significant positive impact of nutrient addition on decay (Fig. 2).

The impact of nutrient addition on decay was most marked at six months over autumn–winter (Fig. 2).

The main reason it's buried is to keep it from washing into water supplies.

The ground provides natural filtration, where surface waste is fully exposed to the elements and can flow along the surface until it reaches a stream or pond.

Yes, digging holes might be bad for one plant, but it's a whole lot better than polluting a water supply that animals (or even humans) might consume or people might swim in.

You could bag it and take it out with you if you really want to, but you aren't doing much harm if you dig appropriately sized holes.

Besides, plastic bags are worse for the environment than holes in the long run.

If you were the only visitor to the area, the lowest impact would be to defecate on the surface and leave it.

Few animals bury their waste, so natural disposal has evolved around dealing with surface waste.

However, you aren't the only visitor.

Burial slows decomposition and disrupts the soil, but it reduces the ability of microorganisms to reach water supplies, and it keeps the area looking cleaner.

Packing out eliminates the impact to the local area, but increases the net impact because now you need to deal with whatever you packed the waste in.

Waste-disposal techniques are about reducing the collective impact of many people in an area, rather than the impact of the individual.

In some heavily used areas, especially where there's little chance for natural decomposition to occur (such as at high altitudes where there is poor soil), you're required to pack out all human waste.

For example, climbers on Mt. Rainier in Washington are required to carry specific bags to pack out their waste.

This is not the most desirable configuration for the climber, but is the most effective way to leave no human waste behind.

Other than packing it out, there's not much you can do besides bury it.

Burying the waste is preferable to leaving it exposed because buried waste is less likely to be carried into nearby water sources by rain runoff.

It is not.

The lowest-impact solution is to use a poo-pot.

These are compulsory in alpine areas here in New Zealand.

Pack it out - Poo pots

Question: According to leave-no-trace principles, one should bury human waste (poo).  But burying damages plants and roots.  Is this really always better than not burying it and pooing on the surface?  (Of course, the only way to truly leave no trace is to not go at all.)  Edit:   This assuming a context when I am carrying everything on by back; solutions that require carrying significant additional mass are not preferred.

Is burying human waste always the lowest-impact solution?

Waste-disposal techniques are about reducing the collective impact of many people in an area, rather than the impact of the individual. Burying the waste is preferable to leaving it exposed because buried waste is less likely to be carried into nearby water sources by rain runoff.  Burial slows decomposition and disrupts the soil, but it reduces the ability of microorganisms to reach water supplies, and it keeps the area looking cleaner.  In some heavily used areas, especially where there's little chance for natural decomposition to occur (such as at high altitudes where there is poor soil), you're required to pack out all human waste. The lowest-impact solution is to use a poo-pot.

Burial stops faeces entering water supplies, though waste should be packed in heavily used areas.

In heavily used areas, packing faeces is more appropriate.

Burying waste stops it from going into water supplies.


You can buy specialist markers .

They're designed to not impact the rope strength.

Always use a specially designed rope marker as there is a comprehensive list of things to keep away from your rope and marker pen is one of them .

The solvents can break down the nylon rope fibres making your rope potentially unsafe.

No matter what, try not to use the spray-paints at all.

Considering that fact that most of the spraypaint and allied products contain solvents/chemicals like CCl4, Acetone, Methyl ethyl ketone, Ethylbenzene, Butoxyethanol and Xylene, etc.

If I were you, I would not use it on my ropes for that matter.

Dedicated Rope Markers

: Spend some bucks and get a rope marker which is specifically engineered for this purpose.

Worst case you might use the dental floss by simply stitching it into the sheath.

All you have to do is get a sewing needle with dental floss.

Thread/Sew/Work the dental floss around the middle of the rope, making sure that its through the rope's sheath and not through the core.

Repeat the same till you find the mark large enough to spot.

But this is advised only if you know how to do it, else you will end up killing the strength of the rope by tampering it's core.

Guidance highly recommended.

Marking the rope with a tape

: I have seen some climbers, typically beginners that they use a Duct-tape or electrical tape and wrap it around the point where you want mark it.

This works fine for an event/session or so, but as after a few passes through descenders and carabiners and other equipment, the tape goes.

But this works for a day or two.

And, I personally that it should to be removed when you are done for the day as you never know how does the adhesive in the electrical or duct-tape react over longer times.

Having said the above, one should also consider that the tape can come loose over the time and use and obviously shift its position.

I used fishermans thread, the sort used to bind the guide loops to the rod, as a whipping around the approriate point.

BlueWater Ropes says : Marking pens are fine to use on ropes as long as they are water based laundry markers.

Years ago solvent based markers were the norm.

Some of the solvents used in these old pens could reduce the strength of the sheath strands marked.

These days most pens are water based so this is not as much of an issue as in years passed.

We recommend a Sharpie “rub a dub” laundry marking pen .

UIAA says : Tests done by the UIAA Safety Commission and some rope manufacturers have shown that marking ropes with liquids such as those provided by felt-tipped pens can damage them; even with those markers, sold specifically for marking ropes.

The test results have shown a decrease of up to 50% of the rope strength, more correctly: of the energy absorption capacity of the rope (expressed by the number of falls in the standard test method in accordance with the UIAA Standard101).

Therefore the UIAA Safety Commission warns against marking a rope with any substance that has not been specifically approved by the rope manufacturer of that rope.

Black Diamond thinks it's not likely to cause any harm , though they didn't make ropes at the time:

so I had my crack crew of engineers grab a few cords, mark them up with a Sharpie, and pull them in the tensile tester.

As expected, the ropes always broke at the knot—the Sharpie's middle mark seemingly having no effect on the strength of the cord during this test. ...

I don't think Sharpies or any other permanent markers have really been proven to actually damage nylon—short-term or long-term.

However, I can't recommend them for use on rope either because the manufacturers will not and cannot guarantee that the marker will always be free of possibly harmful chemical ingredients.

In other words, they can change the formula on a whim and none of us would be the wiser.

The German Alpine Club (DAV) tested several permanent marker pen inks (Edding 3000, Retract 11 and Staedtler Lumocolor) and found no reduction in rope strength in static tests.

So I would feel pretty safe in using one of them, despite the fact that they are not specifically sold as "rope markers".

Roughly translated from German : It makes sense to mark the middle of the ropes.

Many rappelling and lowering accidents might habe been prevented by this.

Marking the middle with tape makes little sense as the tape is not very durable and might slip.

Additionaly, it might get stuck on the prussik when rappelling.

Using the inks Edding 3000, Retract 11 and Staedtler Lumocolor, no relevant reduction in strength could be found in static testing.

They can be regarded as adequate to mark the middle of ropes.

Another longer Explanation for those who speak german.

The Edding company even promised the DAV that the name of the pen would change if the composition changed, so that the 3000 pen should be safe for the forseeable future.

I use a figure-eight loop.

Fairly easy to remove when you need to.

Also gives the possibility to descend on one or two ends of the rope if the middle is brought to your anchor.

Of course not to permanently damage your core, it is advised to regularly (eg after each trip) take out the knot.

This way the core gets a chance to recover.

: I strongly advise against marking the middle of your rope with a permanent marker.

This for the simple reason that when you have to cut your rope, the "middle"-marking will still be there.

When you have multiple middle-markings it will be hard to know which one really marks the middle when you need it.

Question: I was reading  this question  and the first thing that popped into my head is  what do you use to mark the middle of the rope?  I was taught not to use any kind of marker on the rope (because there's no sure way to know it wont be abrasive).  Are there safe ways to mark a rope?   Related:  Safe Way to Mark a Carabiner .

How to safely mark a rope

A figure-eight loop or fisherman's thread can be used to mark rope. Tape is also used and specialist rope marker pens are also available.

Markers can be used and specialist ones are available. Avoid spray-painting. Tape and figure 8/fisherman's thread can be useful.

Figure 8 loops and fisherman's thread work well.

Marking rope with tape is better than spray-painting.

Markers can be used, specialist ones are available.


Looking at the photo, if the ground is as soft as that, burying the canister by 2-3 cm could help a lot.

If you're camping at a beach and bury it halfway in the sand, then that should even work in high winds.

Apart from that, if you're willing to buy a new stove, there are a number of them that come with built-in legs, such as this one

If it seems unstable as in wobbly then you might get better results by clearing out the ground you place it on

so you have a level surface to work with (or by building a level surface with rocks or what you can find)

Another option is to get legs that attach to the underside of the bottle to make the setup more stable.

Here is an example from ebay , but check your local stores as well, as in Sweden buying at biltema is cheaper than ebay in this case.

Try a different brand of canister.

The MSR, and others, come in a shorter height, but burying it is the best solution.

Plus, gives some wind break.

You can get a hose or pipe which allows you to connect the burner to the hose then the hose to the canister.

This allows you to put the burner closer to the ground, in a small divot, behind a stump or otherwise shielded from the wind.

I tried answering this, but the answer was locked.

So anyway... I posted a picture of a 3" burner that only weighed 96 grams as opposed to your 6" tall burner.

Using said 3" burner would make the the whole unit shorter and less top heavy.

Question: My propane/butane/isobutane canister with stove top attached is about 6" tall. When I put a cookware filled with liquid on top of it, the center of gravity seems very high and the whole system seems not very stable, especially when it's windy.   Any suggestions?  See image:

Backpacking propane canister too tall and unstable

Burying the canister slightly, clearing the ground or attaching legs may help stability. Other brands of canister or hose connectors are also available.

Legs, a differet canister brand, a hose/pipe are possible solutions. You can also bury the canister or clear the ground.

Burying the canister and clearing the ground can improve results.

Getting legs, a different brand of canisters or a hose/pipe can work.


I have driven my F(ront)WD Hyundai Santa Fe on plenty of logging roads in northern New Hampshire.

It is quite possible to get around safely.

I even know someone who owns an off-road Toyota Corolla.

If you are looking at roads that get graded on a somewhat regular basis, you should be able to drive ok.

Stay alert on watch for rocks protruding up and for dips.

There may even be small wash outs.

If you unsure about the spot ahead, slow down, maybe even get out and scout it on foot.

If you aren't confident that your vehicle can handle a section of road, be extra cautious.

Getting a tow truck to your location will take way longer than in town.

Don't ask how I know ;--) Look for gravel.

Think twice (or more) about dirt roads, especially if it has rained or there is rain in the forecast.

Gravel holds up well, mud will suck your tires in.

If you end up on a narrow section, keep an eye out for places to pull over if you need to either turn around or make room for an approaching vehicle.

What kind of activity draws you to unpaved roads?

I am an off trail hiker, so if I can't drive in as far as I planned, I am just starting the hike early.

I love going for off-road drives in my Audi Q5 with quattro (she's no asphalt queen!).

I think that you need to consider tires and ground clearance just as much as the drivetrain of your car.

Good tires intended for off-road will give you significant improvement over street-only tires.

I'm not saying you need to go full knobby on them, but make sure you at least get some crossover tires.

Second is ground clearance.

I find that this is most important for traversing gullys or small canyons (think of things like a dry river bed or something like that).

The ground clearance helps increase the number of angles that will be able to traverse.

In addition, ground clearance also helps with the exposure of the underside of the car to the elements.

A stock Toyota Corolla going off-road might find itself with a snapped oil-pan and that's never good.

Finally, do the research on your roads.

Look at topo maps of your intended route, talks to others that have done it.

And remember to have fun!

I used to have a Subaru Forester Turbo.

I crossed rivers, drove up on mountains covered in snow (no chains), 4x4 tracks where other "passagers" car would be struggle.

Driving up the mountain to the sky field, people where parking down the mountain while a 4wd was picking up people and taking up to the sky field.

I remember the guy saying, "you will struggle to get there" and I reply "that is enough for me" :)

The bottom line is, I knew the car and what I was doing (mostly :) ) and I have experience with Utes off road.

Driving off road, you go as far as you think you can.

You will build up experience and go further next time.

Just don't be silly to go to far and get stuck...

It might be a long walk back.

I regularly drive my 2003 Honda CR-V AWD on forest roads here in New Mexico.

There isn't much gravel anywhere, generally it is graded dirt and rocks.

Some roads haven't seen any work in a year or two, sometimes more, but we don't get nearly as much rain as NH.

If it is dry, the real issue is ground clearance, which is pretty good in my CR-V - you just have to pick your way around the biggest bits.

The most exciting trip I did was with a group to go caving in the Malpais, south of Grants, NM.

This was in the spring, so the snow had melted, but the Malpais doesn't drain well, being a thin skin of dirt over the lava flows.

So, the roads were all mud (several inches).

One car in the group was FWD only, and it had to be towed through the worst because once the rear wheels started sliding sideways it would end up in the ditch.

When we encountered meadows they were covered in standing water, and you had to pick a line across the meadow and go for it, not knowing really what was under it.

On one meadow I was unlucky and managed to bounce down on a rock at some point, which took out my evap filter (which I had to get fixed later).

At one point, one of our 4WD F-350's got bogged down and had to get towed out - it was that messy of a road.

I'd say the CR-V performed very well.

All in all, I've been very happy with the CR-V and regularly take it down pretty nasty forest roads.

I'm not sure that I'd take it 'off road', i.e. where there is no road at all.

I have friends who do serious off-roading events, and my CR-V is certainly not suitable for that.

Take a tire pump and repair kit.

A winch isn't a bad idea either.

I have driven my Subaru WRX wagon with M&S tyres on mostly dry logging roads in Northern California.

Ground clearance can be an issue from time to time.

(And one has to resist the urge to go a little faster...)

Question: Could my compact SUV/AWD handle a regular off road track that's suitable for 4x4? Is it a dumb/risky idea?  I understand it would depend on the type and condition of the SUV, the track and the weather. But some general information from someone who have tried an all wheel drive on a unpaved mountain 4wd track would be good.

4x4 vs AWD off road

Drivers of a Honda CR-V AWD, a Hyundai Santa Fe and  Audi Q5 have reported driving on forest roads, off-road and logging roads.  Tires and ground clearance should be considered just as much as the drivetrain of the car.

Whilst various car models can work, ground clearance is an important consideration.

Ground clearance is a key consideration.


I played pickup this way in college for several years.

Like some of the others suggested, an LED disc works well (green works far better than red or blue in my experience).

We also used glow sticks, although we generally only used them on the arms because it was cheaper, an they tended to get in the way for running when on the legs.

The biggest thing I found helped though was using small battery-powered road flares for marking end zones.

Ones with LEDs can be seen all the way down a regulation field.

Biggest caution is watch out for holes in the day before you play, as injuries from twisted ankles were far more common at night.

Why all the lights?

you could solve everything you need and have a REALLY cool event with nothing but a lot of glow sticks :)

Make people wear different colors for different teams, then one each side of the body for arms, hips and legs (so 6 glow sticks per person).

That should be more than enough for a good time out there.

With ultimate specifically, traditional outdoor lighting methods won't work well.

Flashlights are right-out, because you need both hands to play.

Headlamps are a bad idea because you'll blind your teammates.

Lanterns don't cast light far enough to illuminate a whole field.

Glowsticks work well for illuminating players, as pointed out above.

For illuminating field markings, such as goals and boundaries, you can use a variety of stationary lights.

A flashlight inside

a gallon milk jug creates a nice diffuse light that's easily visible but not blinding.

You could use those for markers, as it would be cheaper (and safer probably) than buying full-fledged lanterns.

Having actually tried this on a campsite I would advise you to play in a well lit area.

It turns out throwing spinning plastic discs at people in low light can actually be quite dangerous!

I would suggest: A well lit area Flat ground (checked during the day, you don't want anything to trip over).

Ideally some kind of glowstick/band to indicate teams clearly If you can get a frisbee which has it's own lights that would work best

(I'm not sure how good a frisbee it would be though).

As mentioned in other answers lighting should come from external forces not headlights, because you look at other players to throw the frisbee to them, this results in the intended recipient being dazzled while they're trying to catch!

Glow sticks and an LED disc are great ideas.

Another option could be glowing body paint ; looks like fun :)

That game is also on a beach which means less concerns about twisted ankles

Question: Suppose I want to play a 10-people outdoor ultimate frisbee game at night, with no power outlets available at the field. I expect it to last no more than 2 hours.   What kind of portable power supply should I buy?  What kind of lighting should I be looking for?  How do I know the light and power supply are compatible and how long it will last?

What lighting equipment do I need for playing ultimate frisbee at night?

A variety of stationary lights could be used. Small battery-powered road flares are recommended for marking end zones, as traditional lighting methods are reported to not work well. Glow sticks and an LED disc are popular suggestions.

While it is best to play in a well-lit area, stationary lights, glowsticks, LED discs and bodypaint can help.

Stationary lights help, though it is preferable to play in a well-lit area.

Glowsticks, bodypaint, LED discs can help with lighting.


The usual advice to someone in an emergency situation in the wilderness is to stay put, so that it's easier for rescuers to find you.

In this situation, performance isn't an issue.

There is a folk belief that "thirst is too late," and that people are commonly dehydrated without knowing it.

If you believed that, then you might drink some of your water even if you didn't feel thirsty.

The belief is false, however.

In reality, thirst is an extremely powerful physical sensation, and when you're actually dehydrated (not just thirsty), you will feel so thirsty that you will simply drink because the urge is so strong.

There is a referenced article on the subject at lightandmatter.com/article/hiking_water.html .

The literature is mostly pro-drinking and anti-rationing.

Hopefully these sources will provide some details for you.

The U.S. Army survival manual does not recommend that you drink water only when thirsty , as this leads to under hydrating.

Instead, water should be drunk at regular intervals .

Even in cold weather: Don't take chances with hydration.

Do not ration your water; it is better inside you than in your canteen or thermos.

Push yourself to drink as much water as you can while on a wilderness trip or while stranded in the wilderness in a survival situation.

I have a very simple reasoning about it.

It's only based on personal experience, so don't regard it as absolute truth.

Your body needs a certain amount of water to be comfortable, say, N. Comfort here includes urination (removal of poisons from body) and sweating (removal of heat).

If you drink N or more, the body will function well.

If you drink less than N, the body will adjust to the deficit of water; it will decrease urination (so unwanted stuff will accumulate in the body), and then reduce sweating (body temperature will rise, leading to bad mood and less-than-optimal physical power).

You can often tolerate these effects (e.g. in emergency; also in general, depending on your goal and attitude), so you should drink less than your "normal" need.

In additon, imagine that you decided to conserve your water and drink 80% of N during the day, and you accept the ill effects of doing so.

If you temporarily exceed that plan, drinking e.g. 30% of N in a quarter of a day, the body will "use" the excess water for natural but undesirable functions (urination/sweating).

So you should be careful about how much you drink, and not succumb to thirst easily.

The tradeoff between longevity and performance is not easy to resolve; I feel that if you are carrying your water on your back, the tradeoff is always to drink less than needed for optimal performance.

Some people will surely disagree though.

When I took a wildlands firefighting course in Arizona, the instructor said that if you find yourself lost in the desert, you should not ration your water.

People have died of thirst with water in their canteens.

For what it's worth, I will refer to a single event: the outdoorsman Aron Lee Ralston survived 127 hours rationing his water.

Aron Lee Ralston had access to only 350 ml (12 imp fl oz) of water for a period of 127 hours.

He was 28 years old and he was trapped in a slot canyon in eastern Wayne County, Utah, USA, between April 26, 2003 and May 1, 2003.

According to his book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place , he rationed his water.

Question: In a situation where you don't know when you will find water again, is it better to ration the water you have over time (and ever increasing dehydration) or to drink it to quench thirst as soon as needed?  It seems like there would be a tradeoff between longevity and performance in choosing one or the other course of action.

Ration or consume water?

Do not ration your water; it is  better inside you than in your canteen or thermos. Push yourself to  drink as much water as you can while on a wilderness trip or while  stranded in the wilderness in a survival situation.  The usual advice to someone in an emergency situation in the wilderness is to stay put, so that it's easier for rescuers to find you. In this situation, performance isn't an issue.

Staying put in an emergency is more important than performance. You should not ration water.


You've already mentioned the cons.

The advantage of a hydration pack that doesn't require sucking on the tube becomes apparent after slogging up a long, hard hill.

Your diaphragm is already exhausted and putting all its energy into pumping your lungs.

Putting in the extra effort to create the vacuum necessary to suck water out of a straw suddenly becomes monumental.

It's a wonderful feeling.

Two things that haven't been mentioned in addition to the spray action is that Geigerrig has a filter that snaps into the drink tube allowing water to be filtered on-the-go under the pressure from the system.

This way you can refill from about anywhere---rivers, streams, etc.

Also, the reservoir can be turned inside out and washed in the top shelf of the dishwasher.

There are obvious pros and cons.

When hiking, I've never come across a situation where I want to have water as quick as possible in a quantity.

For me using a hydration pack, on a never-ending ascend, is to make sure that I don't have to stop for long.

I can take an optional pause every 200 steps, to sip some water, take a look around, take a picture and move.

(I don't intend to say that one has to stop to suck water out of the hydration bladder).

I don't really need a spray of water at all.

So, on such a thing using something like a pressurized pack would be a too much trouble with an extra care it demands.

Same goes without saying for Rock-Climbing as well (where you can self-arrest and take a sip and then climb on, no Hurry!), Hiking, Geocaching, etc:

To the activities for which the normal hydration pack serves the necessary purpose.

If I am cycling, be it anywhere, like be it off-roading, be it pure mountain-biking, be it BMX, Its more likely that I am going to pant for breath

and I want to drink water as quick as I can in order to quench the thirst.

Sucking the rubber knob does really annoy me, as compared to having a sip of water from a bottle, or even under a tap, but thats at the cost of a longer halts, which is is again annoying.

So, I'd definitely consider having a pressurized hydration pack when I am cycling at higher speeds, mountain-biking, etc.

1) Can rinse items off.2)

A dog can use it.

Someone gave one (Geigerrig "Rig 500") to me as a gift since he had leftovers from an event.

The reservoir had a traditional water reservoir (clear) and a separate air reservoir (blue), which was inflated with a small shoulder mounted pump.

Image below but picture the one used for taking your blood pressure.

Here's the unit on Amazon .

The use case my friend cited was that users could use the pressurized water to rinse themselves off.

Medical professionals have a sink on demand (cuts, eyes, etc) and athletes could wash off mud, rinse glasses, etc.

The use case I've found most valuable is actually running with my dog.

If we do a longer run I'll bring the pressurized reservoir in a smaller pack.

We can now go for longer runs without planning around water sources.

I'm not a huge fan of the pack

but like the concept

and it doesn't add too much

I have the Gerrig system and for me the primary advantage is the ability to spray water.

In really hot weather sometimes the most effective use of water is to spray it on you, rather than drink it.

This is easy to do with a standard cycling water bottle and next to impossible with most hydration packs.

Doing 8 hr MTB races, I have problems with muscle cramping late in the event.

Spraying water on my legs helps a lot.

With the Gerrig system I don't need to carry both a water bottle and a hydration pack.

It's also quite useful in muddy conditions to alleviate the gunk in the drive train.

While the pressurization is a nice benefit for actually drinking water, I don't think it's enough of a benefit on it's own to balance the trade off in extra weight and complexity.

Having said that the system I have works really well and outside of the extra weight has no other drawbacks in over 3 years of use.

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/5348/Fred the Magic Wonder Dog

Question: I saw an ad today for a pressurized hydration pack.  My first thought was "why?".  I can't imagine a scenario where this would not lead to (a) more weight, or (b) greater risk of failure... neither of which I'd care for.  What are the pros and cons of a pressurized hydration pack?

Why would I want a pressurized hydration pack?

With the Gerrig system I don't need to carry both a water bottle and a hydration pack.  The primary advantage of the Gerrig system is the ability to spray water. The advantage of a hydration pack that doesn't require sucking on the tube becomes apparent after slogging up a long, hard hill. The system works really well and outside of the extra weight has no other drawbacks.

The system is simple, it is good for long ascents despite the extra weight.

The system is simple and the only drawback is extra weight.

Spraying water is an advantage, the system is great for long ascents.


Gloves or Mittens?

All things being equal (fabrics, thickness, and insulation), mittens are warmer than gloves.

Mitts trap body heat by keeping your fingers together and reducing evaporative heat loss.

In frigid temperatures, a layered mitt system is the best choice for warmth.

Layers dry faster than one heavily insulated piece, and let you swap out wet layers.

However, gloves offer better grip and dexterity for fiddling with ice screws and ski bindings.

Wearing a shell outer glove and a thin polypro or Windstopper

® liner is a good compromise.

Your hands will retain some warmth even when you have to remove your outer gloves or mitts.

Tip: In wet, cold conditions, carry a spare pair of gloves or mittens in the inside pocket of your jacket.

This ensures you always have warm, dry handwear to put on when your fingers get really cold.

The British Antarctic Survey clothing list includes this kit - many layers!:

This is simply a question of the increased surface area of gloves which will therefore increase temperature (heat flux) exchange.

Same reason why foxes have smaller ears as further away they are located from the equator.

This reduces the heat flux of polar foxes and in this case keeps the body temperature higher.

Compared to gloves mittens are therefore preferable, they lower the loss of body heat to the environment.

It is also easier to achieve a certain amount/thickness of insulation in mitts than it is for gloves because fingers are so filigree and don't offer much room between each other.

Of course the bulky appearance of mittens also have disadvantages but you just asked about warmth.

As other people have mentioned mittens are warmer in almost all circumstances,

a large part of this is that your entire hand is keeping the inside warm rather than each finger trying to warm itself individually.

Where they fall down is when you need to take your hand out of the mitts, everything from taking photos to having something to eat becomes a chore and can leave you with very cold hands.

One option is to wear very thin gloves inside your mitts, you need to experiment with the combinations here.

Too bulky and inner and too small a mitt

and you end up restricting bloodflow and actually cooling your hands.

Big is often better!

Consider wearing a pair of "thinnies" with your mitts close by which you can swap and change for tasks which need some dexterity - robbed of your big gloves even a cheap pair of thin ones will keep your hands warmer longer than your bare skin.

In short take lots of different pairs of gloves and keep them handy.

When I walk in winter I often have four or five pairs of gloves with varying thickness.

Mittens are normally warmer than gloves.

On most expeditions (high mountains or very cold temperatures) most people wear thick down/synthetic mittens, because they're warmer than gloves.

The blood flow in one finger is not that much

and so it helps if all the fingers are in one big mitten.

It's also not possible and practical in use to produce very thick fingers on gloves.

Are mittens warmer than gloves?

Let's answer this question.

To start off, we need to think about heat.

Mittens have all your fingers but your thumb pretty much touching.

All of these fingers produce their own body heat, and having all the fingers together, that heat can be shared amongst all the fingers, and some heat gets to your thumb as well

which is also generating heat.

Now in gloves, each finger only has its own body heat because each finger is isolated from another.

This means that they can't share the body heat, making each finger less warm.

This is just for warmth, but gloves underneath a pair of mittens could be good things when you need independent fingers for things like tying a shoelace or dealing with ice screws.

That way you could take the mitten off temporarily.

Question: Given a mitten and a glove (made of the same materials, thickness, etc), is the mitten warmer than the glove?  It seems to me that having all four fingers together in one area (vs separate fingers for gloves) would make it so.

Are mittens warmer than gloves?

All things being equal (fabrics, thickness, and insulation), mittens are warmer than gloves. Mitts trap body heat by keeping your fingers together and reducing evaporative heat loss.

Mittens are warmer than gloves, though the latter offer better grip.

Mittens are warmer than gloves.
Gloves offer better grip.


If you think about it, lighting a kerosene lamp with a flint and steel is essentially the same as lighting a Zippo Lighter .

The classic of classic lighters has a flammable-fluid soaked wick that is ignited by a small flint and steel.

The only significant difference is that Kerosene has a slightly higher flashpoint than Lighter Fluid (Naphtha).

Lighter Fluid's flashpoint is at about 5°C, which means at ~5°C Lighter fluid will let off enough vapour for it to react to a nearby flame and ignite.

Kerosene's flashpoint is higher, at ~38°C (just about body temperature)

so it'll only put off enough vapours to ignite when it's warm.

So you could do it, you

could light a Kerosene lamp with a flint and steel, but

ONLY if it was a really hot day (~40°C) or if your lamp had been left in the sun long enough for your canister to heat up.

Considering that Kerosene's flash point is pretty much at par with body temperature, theoretically, in a desperate situation, you could conceivably warm the Kerosene

canister up enough with your body for it to reach it's minimum flashpoint.

But lighting a small fire and using that flame to light your lamp would be a much easier solution.

The only time you could light anything with a magnifying glass is during the day when there is enough intense sunlight to focus a beam.

So even if you could get it started with this method, it wouldn't be practical unless you plan on burning your lamp until it gets dark, or taking it from the light into somewhere dark like a cave.

A magnifying glass will not light it, and I don't think a flint and steel will directly - you need a flame rather than a spark - but that is easily solved through using a piece of newspaper with kindling, or taper.

Just use your magnifying glass or flint to light the paper, then use that to light the lamp.

Slightly messy, and you need to be careful where you put your taper, but pretty simple.

I wasn't able to light an Aladdin kerosene lamp with the sparks of a zippo.

(Kerosene needs much more energy to ignite than lighter fluid)

As an ironic side question - do you really need a lamp when there is enough sunlight to ignite it with a magnifying glass? ;-)

It's a good idea to carry along some snacks, Fritos, potato chips, doritoes.

You can light these with a magnifying glass, if the sun is out.

I've had to resort to this to get the wood stove lit when my lighter was out of fluid while snowed in.

There is a high fat/grease content in those snacks.

They burn like a candle.

Try it!

fire steel can be used but you would be wise to find a tinder i.e. birch bark, Vaseline soaked cotton in a pill bottle..

I would not recommend a kerosine lamp where a candle in a safe enclosure would work just as nice.

also practice a bit before your trip as it does take some skill.

If you are desperate, a flint and steel or other sparker can be used to light a kerosene lamp but, and it is a pretty big

but, you must first warm the wick (and the kerosene in it) to body temp or slightly above.

Holding it in your hands and blowing on it will get you close, but it is almost always easier to ignite some kindling and use that to light your lamp.

And as someone mentioned above, a generous supply of disposable lighters is by far the easiest approach.

Cigarette lighters are very cheap and very small.

Leave the magnifying glass with grandma, leave the flint with wilma, take some spare lighters, its the 21st Century after all.

Question: I am planning a canoe trip, and will be bringing a kerosene lamp for light.  As a backup fire lighting option I am planning on bringing flint & steel and possible a magnifying glass.   Can either of these be used to light the wick on a kerosene lamp?

Can I light a kerosene lamp with flint & steel or a magnifying glass?

A magnifying glass will not light it, and I don't think a flint and steel will directly - you need a flame rather than a spark - but that is easily solved through using a piece of newspaper with kindling, or taper. If you are desperate, a flint and steel or other sparker can be used to light a kerosene lamp - this is essentially the same as using a Zippo lighter. However, cigarette lighters are very cheap and very small.

You need a flame, lighters and other sparkers can be used.


Don't fill the container You can't win in a battle against the laws of physics.

Water expands when it freezes, so you need to leave some room in your bottle for it to expand into.

What I find works best is to fill your bottle just over half , then freeze it on its side .

This will give the ice more room to expand than if you freeze it upright.

When you grab your bottle from the freezer, top it up with cold water; the ice being frozen along the length of your bottle will rapidly cool the water, and you'll have a easier time getting water out when you want a drink.

Example (with grape water flavour drops):

I have found that soda pop bottles are designed for higher pressure and don't deform as badly.

Plus they are cheap to replace.

In general a soda pop bottle filled to just the start of the shoulder won't break.

Water freezes from the top down.

In a tall bottle, water freezing at the top gets a grip on the sides, and so as the water freezes down, the expansion pushes out the bottom.

Laying it on its side, and not quite filling it to the half way mark, the slab of surface ice is a wedge that can easily be lifted.

In addition: If you freeze the water, then add ice water from the fridge to fill up the bottle, the resulting mix won't melt very fast.

Finally, put the bottle in a thick sock and it will insulate it, keeping it cold longer.

If you are freezing larger containers, such as barrels, the following technique works well: Put the barrel on a pallet.

This allows the bottom to freeze as fast as the sides.

Float 3-4 inches of styrofoam peanuts, or broken up styrofoam on top.

This slows the ice formation on the top, and also weakens it.

The core then breaks through the top when the pressure gets high, instead of pushing out the bottom.

Don't freeze the bottle - fill it with ice cubes.

Better still, don't use ice cubes, use ice sticks that fit in the neck of bottles.

I would take one of the flexible bottles like the platypus brand and make sure to fill it only about 70%.You can not beat the physics: Water expands if you freeze it.

If you have a flexible bottle and make sure it is not full, the water will be allowed to take its form without damaging the bottle.

To be clearly on point: You can not freeze a water container without deforming it.

You can actually blast rocks wiht freezing water.

This is what happens in the Alps all the time and gives us those talus slopes of all kinds.

If you are okay with taking a more "hands on" approach, then it works to put the water in and then when the top layer is frozen over, then you poke a hole in the layer so that the rest of the expanding ice is not stuck.

Some container with the shape of conical (upside down) bucket is perfect for this.

When it freezes, the ice should move upwards.

Question: I like to take a frozen Nalgene bottle of water to my Bikram Yoga class. The problem is, every bottle I have used so far becomes deformed and, as can be seen in the picture below, the bottom bulges out making it difficult or impossible for it to stand upright until some of the ice melts and it pops back in.   Eventually, the exposure to expanding substance over time causes the bottle to break. What can I do to freeze my water without deforming the container?

How to freeze a water container without deforming it?

Don't fill the container  You can't win in a battle against the laws of physics. Water expands when it freezes, so you need to leave some room in your bottle for it to expand into.  Fill your bottle just over half , then  freeze it  on its side .  An alternative is to use ice cubes or sticks, a flexible bottle or a soda bottle.

Soda bottles and flexible bottles work well. Do not fill the container. Ice cubes/sticks work better than freezing bottles.

Water expands when freezing, do not fill the container.

Ice sticks and cubes can work better than freezing bottles.

Flexible bottles and soda bottles work well.


The leaves of the Striped Maple ("Moose Maple") are a no-contest winner, at least in the forests of the northeastern US.

The leaves are large, and softer than some forms of toilet paper.

As for availability: Anecdotally, I tend to see this plant in most deciduous forests of New Hampshire.

It tends to grow bush-like near the ground, at least while it's young.

At higher elevations you may need to resort to another alternative.

As for durability: It's a leaf of the same thickness as a standard maple leaf - don't expect it to survive days in your pack.

It's got the durability of a leaf; nothing special.

Shouldn't break while you're using it, if you're reasonably careful. via Wikipedia

Thimbleberry leaves are my favourite ( Rubus spectabilis ), They're all over the place in the Kootenays in British Columbia (Southern Canadian Rockies).

They're soft and they're about the size of your hand or bigger.

The berries are very tasty too, so you you can have a peachy-fuzz-tart-raspberry snack while you do your business.

Hand for reference, this leaf was about 30cm wide.

Dock leaves are good:

They're big, durable, plentiful, and (most importantly) non-stinging.

A little rough, maybe, but what do you expect from a leaf... ?

Remember, try to leave no trace .

I'll start with a local favorite: great mullein or common mullein ( Verbascum thapsus ) Introduced to the North America.

I've found it from New York to North Carolina.

Apparently originated in Europe and Asia, I think.

The leaves are large, moderately durable, thick, but soft and fuzzy.

Their usefulness is somewhat limited by the fact that they tend to be found on disturbed sites in full sun - and not likely to be found in deep shaded forest areas.

But the leaves remain usable for some time, so you can collect some for later use.

Leaves are only an option while they're in season.

In winter, snowballs work great.

Plantago major is not only a rough plant with strong leaves which grows technically everywhere, but also a useful herb.

Try to find bigger leaves, perhaps not from the strict proximity of the road.

Question: This partially answered in  this question about toilet paper alternatives  but it only says be careful what plants you use.   I'd like to know specifically what plants are the best in your part of the world and why? Also, where is that part of the world? If you could comment on availability, durability, potential for collection and carrying, and other relevant info that would be a big help.

What are safe/effective leaves from around the world for use in tidying up your backside after answering the call of nature?

Dock leaves, great or common mullein, striped maple leaves, thimbleberry leaves, and plantago major are all suggestions. In winter, snowballs work great.

Snowballs work well in the absence of leaves. Otherwise, varieties such as dock leaves, mullein, striped maple, thimbleberry and plantago major work well.

Dock leaves, common mullein, striped maple, thimbleberry and plantago major are good options.

Leaves are only present seasonally, snowballs are good in winter.


I think your going to struggle.

Let me explain why: Scotland has a very different climate to the US.

Scotland is a northern region warmed by the Gulf Stream.

At the same latitude in the Americas

the temperature is much much colder, think polar bears and ice flows.

Those green hills are the product of lot's and lot's of rain, shortish daylight hours, thin peaty upland soil and lot's a lot's of sheep farming.

None of which I would argue is likely to be replicated in the US continental land mass.

The UK is a small island and the US, well isn't...

Most people think of the UK uplands as wild untamed spaces, in fact most of it is intensively farmed and has been for thousands of years.

If it wasn't for the sheep farms most of those hills would be covered in trees.

The US, again, doesn't have this to the same extent because it has a lot more space.

If you do find somewhere it's likely going to have the following aspects: Hilly (not mountainous) High average rain fall

Farmed (upland sheep farms)

Low amount of sunshine Thin soils unsuitable for intensive agriculture

You're looking for balds .

They are quite common in the southern Appalachians.

The Roan Highlands along the border of Tennessee and North Carolina are particularly beautiful.

In northern California, after a rainy winter, much of the coast ranges are green and grassy, especially as you get further from the Pacific.

But timing is very important.

In the same region, Pt.

Reyes Nat.

Seashore looks similar and stays greener, although it's not a very big area.

You can find grassy mountains in Colorado in the Guanella Pass , but you may find that the air is a bit thinner up there than it is in Scotland:

Guanella Pass

Another place you'll find mountains very similar to the the Scottish mountains is in Newfoundland Canada: Grand Codroy Valley

What you are specifically asking for is quite rare.

That is because any place wet enough to have the kind of grass you want will have trees.

There are vast grassy areas in the center of North America, but they are grassy because they are too dry for trees.

They don't look so lush and green except perhaps a few weeks of the year.

If they were so lush all year around, trees would be there instead.

There are places sortof like that in the US, but you have to go far enough north so that trees don't grow due to cold.

The North Slope of Alaska is one such place.

In this case, "North Slope" refers to the north slope of the Brooks Range, which runs east-west in northern Alaska north of the arctic circle.

Check out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Here is a picture by GabrielGersch that I found by looking around Google Earth:

It's not as lush green as Dalveen Pass, but if it was it would have to be warmer and there would be trees there.

However, the vast open expanse is certainly there, even more so than Scotland seeing as ANWR is the size of all of Scotland, and that's just one part of the North Slope.

If you're willing to give up on some of the lushness, then there are more options.

Again, in North America lack of trees requires either that it be too dry or too cold for trees.

For example, here is the Laramie Valley in northern Colorado: If you're OK with something like that, then there are many more options.

Check out some of the National Grasslands in the Great Prarie.

That won't be grassy as you are used to in Scotland.

This is real prarie, so the grasses are tall, and not so lush due to everything being drier.

Question: I really enjoyed hiking in green, grass covered mountains in Scotland, especially Dalveen Pass.  Are there any mountains like that to hike in the US, especially in parks?  The Dalveen Pass

Where in the US can I find green mountains to hike like in Scotland, such as Dalveen Pass?

Grand Codroy Valley in Newfoundland, Canada; the southern Appalachians; the Roan highlands on the border of Tennessee and North Carolina; the coastal ranges of northern California; and the Guanella Pass in Colorado are all grassy mountain hiking  suggestions.

This is difficult due to climate. Newfoundland, the southern Appalachians, Roan Highlands, northern California and Guanella pass are options.

Scotland has a different climate, so this is quite rare.


Skiiers have many words for snow.

Powder Packed Powder Hard pack Ice Glare Ice

(If you dig in, you can catch an edge on ice, but not on glare ice.)

Crud (Used to be powder, but

then it got warm and partially melted, then it re-froze.

You sink through it almost like powder, but it's heavy and hard to ski through.)

Corduroy (That's the fresh tracks left by a grooming machine. See some pictures here. )

Slush Mashed potatoes (This is typical of late spring skiing: it's not so much snow as bits of ice, maybe 2-3 mm in diameter.

It's hard to turn, you end up sinking in with each turn, so you often have to muscle around large quantities of snow with each turn.)

(Reading the other answers, it sounds like this is the same thing as "Firn/névé".

That definition mentioned repeated melting/freezing, which is definitely what happens in the late spring.)

Sugar snow (Powder that isn't sticking together at all.)

I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting.

Firn/névé:

Snow consisting of several millimeters sized grains that develop by repeated melting in the sun and freezing over again during the night.

Typically occurring in late winter and spring when the temperatures rise again or – in higher altitudes where snow exists all year – during summer.

Powder:

As the name says, very fine-grained snow that fell at rather cold temperatures (I would guess something like -5 to -10 degrees Celsius).

sticky snow: Snow that fell at temperatures around zero degrees Celsius.

Heavier than powder and sticks together when compressed – good for building snow men and snowball fights.

harsh (Does this word exist as a noun in English?)/snow crust:

A hard and thin, ice-like surface on softer snow underneath.

Forming mostly on powder that whose surface was slightly molten during the day and froze over again in the night.

Especially annoying if it is not thick enough to hold the weight of a person as moving (skiing, snowshoeing, walking) under such conditions is quite exhaustive.

hardpack/wind slab (Don't know

if necessarily the same?): snow that was carried away from its initial place and deposited somewhere else.

Through the wind it is mostly quite compact.

There's an excellent ski term glossary here from the Tetonsandwasatch blog, which includes words for snow, some of which I find hilarious.

Some of my favorites: Chunder – Generally, chopped up, bad – even heinous – snow.

Corn – Granular snow formed by repeatedly melting during the day and freezing at night.

It’s generally icy at night; the ‘corn’ appears as the snow warms with daytime heating.

Facets – Snow which has undergone metamorphosis, such that the crystals are poorly bonded together.

Often compared to sugar.

Glom – 1)

A nasty condition in which accumulated material, usually a combination of semi-frozen, frozen, and melting snow, sticks to everything, particularly one’s skins as they attempt to ascend, thus resulting in ‘glomming.’

2) Amalgamation of various food items which end up in the cooking pot on a camp stove.

Best served with hot sauce!

To learn to protect against glom, look here Graupel – Precipitation that is created by the interaction of droplets of water condensing on a snowflake, creating a ball of rime.

Best represented by images of ball bearings or tiny styrofoam ball filling material.

Pow , powder – Snow of a low density.

Has many names, types, and varieties: gunsmoke, cream, fluff, air, bottomless, gnar gnar (often used by powder technicians), champagne, and many more.

Rime – A type of snow that has typically been wind blasted into place with such other factors present that it can hold on to vertical objects. Sastrugi – Snow that has been shaped and affected by the wind.

Snain – A barely frozen snow which is a lot like rain.

Or vice versa – a frozen rain that’s a lot like snow.

Snice – Snow that’s got plenty of ice content.

Snirt

– You guessed it –

snow that’s got plenty of dirt in it.

Or dirt that has a little snow upon it.

Sleet

As snow descends through the atmosphere and the air warms it melts and turns back to liquid (rain).

If rain or partially-melted snow falls through a layer of sub-freezing air, sleet forms as small pellets of ice.

So while not all sleet is still snow, some it may only be partially melted to the point that you may still consider it as such.

Sleet is the American terminology.

This phenomenon is referred to as ice pellets in the rest of the Angloshpere.

The French term is neige fondue .

Depending on how strict your definition is...

Windrow :

The pile of snow along the edge of the road left behind by a snowplough.

You could also look at this list or this one .

Not every word on these lists might apply to your question, but I'm sure you'll find a lot of good ones.

Question: The old saying goes that  Innuit have a 1000 names for snow  (as @venture2099 says this isn't actually true but you get my point). This kind of makes sense to describe the various states and types of snow you get.  I can name a few:   Neve  Grappel  Wind slab  Rime  Hoar   What other names for snow exist?  English only please, don't just say "snow" in as many languages as google translate will let you...

1000 names for snow

Pow, powder, rime, snain, snice, snirt, sleet, chunder, corn, facets, hard pack, glare ice, slush, mashed potato, and sugar snow are all words to describe types of snow.

Many words exist: pow, rime, snain, snice, snirt, sleet, chunder, corn, facets, slush, mashed potatoes, sugar snow.


Most importantly: be prepared.

Always bring sufficient warm and waterproof clothing to make the worst possible weather for the area and time of year survivable.

An emergency bivouac sack, a warm hat and gloves weigh very little, and can save your life.

Also, something to start a fire (a lighter is not ideal as it could fail in very cold conditions), which can keep you warm and increase your chances of getting found by a search party.

Here's a report written by a guy who lost a friend and barely survived himself when they were caught in a storm while climbing in Yosemite valley, with insufficent clothing.

If the cold conditions are relative temporary, say being caught in a blizzard or being benighted, as well as having extra clothing, food, bivouac sack, etc.

there is also the question of whether it is better to conserve energy and find somewhere sheltered to wait until it is safer to continue or try and push on to reach safety and risk becoming exhausted and then not be able to find shelter and suffer from exposure out in the open.

When caught unprepared in really bad weather you should try to at least not sweat, stay dry, stay well hydrated and well fed, hide from the wind, insulate yourself from the ground (if sitting) with anything you find (wood, dead tree leaves, ... etc) and don't sleep.

If you should absolutely sleep, aim for very short naps and get up and move whenever you feel hypothermia is coming.

I would say that its vital to let someone know your route & radio in at a set time of day to let them know where you are & how you are coping.

One point besides being warm (which is a really tough task by itself), is having something to drink - it's not easy in below-freezing temperatures.

You'd want to have a reliable stove or you'll be forced to share your body heat with this show

filled bottle.

Another option is using sun light to melt snow during the daytime: use a lens or try to heat your black sleeping mat - but this will probably work in the summer only.

Having a stove and a gas cartridge is really a big deal in winter survival.

Just as a good map and a compass are.

I hope you are asking just to be prepared for some highly improbable emergency.

If chances of this surviving-without-sleeping-bag situation are high, I would just cancel the trip - or get enough camping gear to make this not an emergency but a routine.

And please don't go alone.

And if you get such an emergency, it's essential to think of it as an emergency, i.e. don't try to finish he planned route, don't hesitate to call a helicopter if you have the option, don't hesitate to leave some expensive but heavy/unnecessarry gear behind, etc.

Keep 3 things in mind: 1.

Hydration 2: Shelter/ Fire 3: Food.

Oh yes

the most important item: being rescued.

For hydration you have to be careful what you do.

It is easy just to reach down and grab a bunch of snow and suck on it.

Yes it will give you water, but it will also take your body temperature down.

Keeping your body temp up is very important to avoid hypothermia.

Make sure cloths do not get to wet.

Layer your cloths

so you can take some off during the day while you are hiking to your survival.

Shelter is also going to be very important.

Finding resources for shelter is difficult so keep on the lookout for good places to sleep or stay out of the wind.

Find some pine needles if needed to sleep on.

Use anything dry to keep you directly off the ground.

Get a fire started as soon as possible.

Pine cones are good to burn and stay pretty dry.

You may want to grab some real green stuff to throw on the fire to create smoke for a rescue.

Finally food.

That is always going to be difficult in a cold weather environment.

You may have to eat things you have never desired to eat before.

Meat will be tough to find but you can still find food.

Pine needles have good vitamin c in them.

Just don't eat to many.

Question: What can I do to survive multiple (2-4) days in a cold environment (like in mountains in winter)? As resources I've normal Skitouring gear with me for a single day, no sleeping bag or bivy bag.   What are the points and priorities to keep in mind to look for, when you're stuck in the mountains.  One point is to stay warm like  the linked answer . What are others?

How can I survive multiple days in cold environment?

Shelter is very important.  Something to start a fire. Staying warm and having something to drink. When caught unprepared in really bad weather you should try to at least not sweat, stay dry, stay well hydrated and well fed, hide from the wind, insulate yourself from the ground (if sitting) with anything you find (wood, dead tree leaves, etc) and don't sleep. If you have to sleep, take short naps. Let people know where you are going before leaving and don't go alone. Take enough warm and waterproof clothing to keep your body temperature up, avoid getting wet and layer clothes.

Shelter and the means to start a fire are important. Stay hydrated, sleep in small naps if you must. Safety in numbers, keep your body temperature up with warm, dry clothes and layering.

Shelter and the means to start a fire are key.

Safety in numbers, take short naps if you must sleep.

Keep your body temperature up with warm, dry clothing and layering.


If you don't know what your boys are capable of then it's unfair to have expectations.

I'm a Venturer Scout adviser for Scouts Canada; I take boys in that age group on trips regularly.

I don't know what your group is like, but if it's anything like mine, then the boys probably all have different levels of ability, strength, and skill.

For trips like this one, you can only go as far or as fast as the slowest boy.

My experience has taught me that you can't realistically set goals for distance unless you already know what your boys are capable of.

Before you even plan your trip, I would recommend that you plan a day or two of kayaking just to see what your boys in fact can do.

Don't plan on covering a certain distance, just plan on being on the water for a certain amount of time.

You can then use this time to answer your own question by keeping track of their progress over a certain amount of time or distance.

It's important make sure that your boys also have a firm grasp of basic skills, and how to respond in case of an emergency.

I always take my boys to a local lake just to have them paddle around together before I'll consider taking them on trips.

I give them all a quick instruction, then let them play for a bit while I observe so I can get a sense of what their natural ability levels are.

I'll get them to play games too; races are a good way to separate the fastest from the slowest.

If you're using two-person kayaks, this can help you balance the group by pairing the stronger paddlers with the weaker ones.

If you know you won't have an opportunity to assess your boys before you take them on a trip, then you need to either plan a trip that anyone of any skill level could accomplish, have more than one plan in

case Plan A doesn't pan out, or supplement the trip with other activities.

South California is obviously different than up here, so you probably can't just tell the more adventurous boys to paddle off and explore a nearby island while the exhausted boys hang out by the fire and rest their aching arms, but you could perhaps have them paddle to the horizon and back, or have them create an obstacle course where they paddle to a point and back, then sprint-portage the kayak down the beach, and paddle to another point, etc...

I gave up having expectations without experience a long time ago.

Get to know your boys, have them set goals, then let them have the expectations.

Most grown people are good for an hour or two of constant paddling.

Children get bored more quickly then they tire.

People who go farther are either more athletic or more disciplined.

I go fishing in my kayak, and my fishing grounds are about an hour's paddle each way (depending on currents and wind), and I spend an hour or two trading between drift fishing and paddling back up current again.

At the end of that, I am pretty worn out, my butt hurts and I don't feel like doing anything at all physical after that.

Sometimes catching a fish is a curse when you get back and have to bend over and clean your fish.

In addition to what Shen wrote, first drill then in self rescue, spend a whole afternoon on it until the boys can slip back into their kayaks like otters.

This is perhaps the most important excersize/drill you will do before bringing anyone out on the water deeper than they are tall.

I drill with my kids the beginning of EVERY summer before we go paddling anywhere.

Self rescue, swamping kayak or canoe, any of the rescue type scenarios including pretending you got knocked out so they can rescue you.

Thankfully my kids think it's fun.

On a sea kayak you might get significantly better results but my 9yr old could maybe do a mile on our rec boats.

I paddled from Zürich to Amsterdam with no experience in kayakhiking, the following rule was pretty accurate for me.

But before i get into that rule you have to do a testrun to see how far you can go in one day (preferably on the same type of water you plan to paddle on like a river or a lake).

Here's my rule of thumb.

If it is a river: hoursYouPlanToPaddle

(velocityOfRiver / 2 + distanceYouCanCoverPerHour) =

distanceYouWillCover If it is a lake: hoursYouPlanToPaddle

* (distanceYouCanCoverPerHour / 2) =

distanceYouWillCover

Now this is certainly not a scientific Formula, but it gives you a good idea of how many kilometer you can cover, and you're still prepared for unexpected timekillers like kids having to pee, breaks and other hurdles you have to overcome when travelling in a group.

And i think this fits a Family which have no intentions to be stressed out the whole day because you're not quite there where you should be.

Nonetheless be sure to make a oneDay journey first, and in reality you could encouter strong winds or currents which make you slower and cost alot of power, which is why you should be generous with shortening the distance per Day, it's not half as being able to skip a destination then not arriving there

In a 3 meter racing narrow beam double outrigger.

Most kids can hold there walking speed on long tips.

In the bay.

That is not pushing it.

Kayaking is a wider boat but no outriggers.

So figure 2 mpr.

or a 15 mile trip.

For the day.

2 in a boat add 1mph to that or 20 miles.

That leaves time to shore lunch.

Most kids here can do that easy.

Question: I'm thinking about taking my Scout troop (boys aged 11-17) on a sea kayaking trip.  What expectations should I have for the distance that we can travel in one day?  Assume good weather (clear skies, very light winds, and calm seas).

What's a realistic distance to expect boys aged 11-17 to sea kayak in a single day?

If you don't know what your boys are capable of then it's unfair to have expectations.  For trips like this one, you can only go as far or as fast as the slowest boy.

You can only go as far or quickly as the slowest boy. It's unfair to have expectations if you do not know their capabilities.


This really depends on what part of the world you are in.

There are leeches in Australia that live in wet undergrowth (fronds, plants, etc) next to trails.

When anything edible walks past they grab hold and start feeding.

You don't even notice them until they drop off and the bleeding starts (since they inject anti-coagulant and numbing agent).

I've experienced this myself, it was common when we went hiking in the rainforest to have multiple leeches on us by the time we finished the hike and you would have no idea they were there until you rolled up your trousers.

In my experience they don't drop down onto you though, they wait in bushes beside the trail and grab on as you walk past.

This is why you generally get them on your legs, and not anywhere else.

Yes, leeches can live above ground, on trees, and drop on their prey.

I have seen this happen while hiking in Nepal.

The leeches of which @ShemSeger speaks of are water leeches, but leeches also include the haemadipsidae family, which are ground leeches.

They will do amazing things to reach you, including (but not limited to) dropping on you from above.

Leeches swim in still water, they don't live in trees, and they don't dwell on the ground.

They attach themselves to bare skin, you won't even notice them do it.

Last time I had a leech latch onto me

I didn't find it until that night when I went to bed and found it mostly dried up attached to my toe when I took my socks of to get into my sleeping bag.

(it was just a small one, somehow I didn't notice it when I put my socks on after getting out of the water).

I think what you're thinking about is perhaps not leeches, but ticks .

Ticks will climb up onto tall grass or shrubs and hang out with their long arms up in the air just waiting for something to walk by that they can grab onto.

They then crawl up your body and will either go under your shirt and attach to your back (the only place I've ever had them attach to me) or they'll climb right up to your neck or get into your hair and latch on to your scalp.

You might notice them crawling on you, but you usually find them after they're already attached.

To get them off all you have to do is get a good hold on their bodies, give them a gentle tug–just enough to raise your skin to where you can really feel it pulling on you–and then hold it there, they will eventually lose their grip and come off.

Don't try to rip them off, just hold on and and wait for them to let go,

if you rip them off you could rip their bodies from the head that's lodged inside you, which will likely get infected, and I don't know about you but the idea of having a severed head stuck under my skin kinda grosses me out.

Leech:

Tick:

From my personal experience in the Western Ghats of India: I have found them in still water.

They dwell on the ground hunting for prey.

They can climb up trees barks and search for the heat signature of animals.

They are found only in regions with considerable wetness.

ADDITIONAL INFO:I do not think this is specific to any region of the world.

As long as they have a wet patch of land to dwell on, they'll be around.

They wont harm much.

They use two chemicals: An anticoagulant(hirudin.

Proven and well documented) to prevent blood from clogging and a local anaesthesia(not proven yet) to prevent you from feeling their bite (Some even suggest morphine).

So basically, they attach on to you, bite with the chemicals in place, and sit there opening their mouth while your blood drips into them :P.

They are more of a nuisance.

And yes, they are kinda squishy and feel weird to touch.

Number of leech bites I've had: At least a thousand till date :D

Yes, it can happen.

I took a trip to the Amazon during and after the time when the river rises and turns the rain forest into a lake.

After the water reseeds, sea animals get stuck in pools in trees.

When you walk through the jungle they sense/feel your body heat and drop out of the trees on unsuspecting prey.

Question: Do leeches fall from trees onto unsuspecting hikers?    Or do they only dwell on the ground and attach to passing feet/boots?

Do leeches fall onto prey from trees?

Some say that leeches  can live above ground, on trees, and drop on their prey. This really depends on what part of the world you are in.  Others say that they swim in still water, they don't live in trees, and they don't dwell on the ground.

There are conflicting views on the ground, but leeches can drop onto prey from trees.

There are conflicting views on leeches staying on the ground.


You covered it already—layers.

This is actually a very common technique among ultralight backpackers.

They will often intentionally bring a sleeping bag with 5-10ºF less insulation than needed and compensate by wearing all their clothing to bed.

If you need to get warm fast, you can do some sit-ups to get your blood moving.

You only need to worry about sweating if you overinsulate.

The form of insulation (sleeping bag or clothing) won't make a difference.

In fact, having more layers gives you more flexibility so you can adjust your insulation level depending on the actual conditions.

If you bring your -40 sleeping bag, you will overheat and sweat.

Source:

Common knowledge, but available in Mike Clelland's Ultralight Backpackin' Tips among other places.

Aside from layering your clothes inside your bag, or layering your bag using a bag liner, it's also important to make sure you have a good ground sheet or sleeping pad that will insulate you against the ground and reflect your body heat back up.

You lose a lot of body heat into the ground while sleeping, so at the very least, using a survival blanket as a ground sheet (shiny side up) will reflect some of that heat back up.

You also lose a lot of heat through your head, so bring a toque or warm hat to wear while you sleep, this adds a surprising amount of warmth and comfort.

Eating will keep you warmer too.

Deer spend a lot of time feeding in the middle of the night when it's cold out, not because they're hungry, but because it's fuel on the fire and keeps them warmer.

Eating a good hot meal before bed will help your body generate more heat during the night.

Emptying your bladder will also help, your body wastes a lot of energy keeping a full bladder of water warm.

Tricks for warming up in the middle of the night include preparing a thermos of hot soup or hot drink just before bed, and drinking it when you wake up cold.

In the himalayas everyone carries a pee-bottle for when they have to pee in the middle of the night.

Instead of getting out of their warm bag, they'll pee inside the bottle, then keep the warm pee-bottle in their bag until morning.

Personally, I pack a warmer bag, I sleep with a -10ºC bag in the summer time, if it's warm enough out

I'll use it as a down comforter when I lay down at the end of the day, but I always end up zipped up inside it sometime during the night.

Even in the middle of summer it still dips down close to freezing at night here in the rockies.

Several good tips have already been posted; another to consider is a hot water bottle.

I was on a trip for a mountaineering class recently and was surprised by how many people had never slept with a hot water bottle before!

Use a solid bottle which won't leak and is designed to handle high temperatures, like a Nalgene bottle.

If you're already carrying fuel and heating water to cook with, it's easy to heat a bit more and throw it in your bag before you go to sleep.

Then it'll already be nice and toasty before you get in.

I would like to also recommend a sleeping pad.

They make a big difference for comfort on bumpy ground in addition to adding insulation.

I think the closed cell pads work better than the inflatable ones.

But, that's a personal choice.

If you are car camping,you can take both.

If not, a good down jacket that is really lightweight down.

Wear a hat to add warmth.maybe socks too.down booties are another option to stay warm.

Question: I've got a winter sleeping bag rated down to -40c but its heavy and it won't get that cold where I am going. The coldest it will be is +5 to -5.   I've another lightweight sleeping bag rated 5 degrees comfort and it weighs very little. I would rather take this bag and know how to get warmer if needs be by putting on more clothes for example, but this might make me sweat..   So any best practice recommendations for how to get warmer if the temperature does drop further?

Staying warm in a lightweight sleeping bag

Aside from layering your clothes inside your bag, or layering your bag using a bag liner, it's also important to make sure you have a good ground sheet or sleeping pad that will insulate you against the ground and reflect your body heat back up. Another thing to consider is a hot water bottle. Emptying your bladder will also help, your body wastes a lot of energy keeping a full bladder of water warm.   If you need to get warm fast, you can do some sit-ups to get your blood moving and eating will keep you warmer too.

Emptying your bladder, sit-ups, eating, sleeping pads, layering and hot water bottles work well.

Sleeping pads, layering and hot water bottles work well.

Emptying your bladder, sit-ups and eating all warm you up.


First of all don't scratch.

blood sucking insects inject anti-coagulant under your skin to prevent your blood from clotting and forming a scab so they don't get their mouthes stuck inside you while sucking.

If you scratch, you only manage to spread the anti-coagulant around under your skin, which intensifies the itch and makes things worse.

Train your brain not to unconsciously scratch every itch, and they won't persist as long.

The go-to medicinal plant for pretty much everything is yarrow ( Achillea millefolium ).

It's as common as plants come in North America, but I checked and it's apparently also native to the UK.

We were taught to use it as kids to remedy stinging nettles, but it also works for other types of stings and bites by drawing the toxins out of your skin.

Simply pick the fern-like leaves, chew on them a bit to partially mash them into a paste, then apply to the affected area.

Relief is almost instant.

It also works well as a tea for relief of cold symptoms and fever, which doesn't surprise you after you've tasted it, since it tastes like a kinda minty but mostly sappy-bitter cough syrup.

Whenever I use it on people suffering from a rash out the woods, I always get them to chew it up for me.

Over the counter antihistamine products - especially tablets (due to light weight and effectiveness), but also topical creams such as stop itch and antihistamines are the most effective solution.

These should be carried in your first aid kit if you have a history of allergy problems.

Even for those that normally don't have problems, the size and weight of antihistamine tablets is so small, and its importance a potential life saving treatment make it an item I always have in my first aid kit

(Wasps are a real problem for us in summer).

As far as plants, the best I can think of is Aloe vera - although you are unlikely to find it when you need it most.

Others I have read about, but have not tried are Peppermint, Basil and apparently banana peel.

The only thing I can recommend from experience is mud: Cover the itching area with plenty of it and the itching will go away.

After the mud dried out and has fallen off, sometimes the bites start to itch again, just reapply.

But in most cases I never had to do that again.

Generally cold helps by dulling the itching.

The opposite, heat, will temporarily help as all histamines (proteins by the immune system which cause the itching) are released by heat.

But the itching will come back.

Just don't burn yourself.

There are also a variety of plants that have antihistamine properties.

What will be available obviously depends on where you are.

In Europe the ones you might find most likely are jewelweed, chamomile and echinacea.

I

don;t think (though I am not sure) that simply crushing and applying will do the job, I guess extracting by cooking to make a poultice will be needed.

So the difficulty to find such plants and the preparation needed will make it quite unpractical as a solution on the go.

Plantago works excellent againt nettle because of its anti-histamin properties and, in my experience, also against musquito bites.

It grows usually in the neighbourhoud of nettle and might be the only plants that survices on a pathway.

You need to crush the leaves and apply it on the 'wound'.

(it's like pressing water out of a stone, but it can be done).

I remember buying in pharmacies a liquid prepared on the spot, from mint powder and saline solution (unfortunately this mix is sort of local-specific to our Romanian pharmacies, so I cannot provide a link).

This was applied on mosquito bites and allergy rash - it stopped the itching for an hour or two.

Based on this experience: try some sort of minty cream (or even toothpaste) to cool down the itchy feeling.

Might sound a bit extreme, but worth a try.

If you expect itchy insect bites, I can recommend a dedicated heat stick for treating the bites.

Something like this: Therapik Mosquito Bite Reliever

It does work, at least temporarily.

The mechanism is often said to be the denaturing of the proteins due to heat.

However the heat is not sufficient for that.

What apparently really happens is that the local pain receptors are overloaded by the heat and shut down.

For a study to show this actually works: Locally administrated concentrated heat leads to fast amelioration of symptoms.

- PMC

Question: On a recent walk I got bitten to death by midgies. I was itching all day until I got home and put some antihistamine cream on them. Is there anything available (plants, etc.) that I could of applied to stop (or help with) the itching?

Back country solution to itchy insect bites

Train your brain not to unconsciously scratch every itch. A variety of plants have antihistamine properties. The go-to medicinal plant for pretty much everything is  yarrow.  Plantago  works excellent against nettle because of its anti-histamine properties and also against mosquito bites. Cover the itching area with plenty of mud and the itching will go away.

Avoid scratching, plants and mud are effective. You can also use antihistamines, heat sticks and solutions from pharmacies.

Antihistamines, mint powder and saline solution, and heat sticks can help with bites.

Plants such as yarrow, plantago work well, as does mud.


This may seem kind of obvious, but I use a scanning technique.

I like to look at the next 10-20 feet, look up on all sides, look down, and then look up.

It's a lot like driving, scan your mirrors, then your environment, then your dash or whatever you need to, and then repeat.

It does take mental purpose, so you will have to train yourself.

I like to scan ahead, look up at one area, say my right, scan, and then look to the left.

Mostly it is second nature.

I find this is something I do when I can't see much of the scene in front of me at once.

This is normally because I'm not far from the person in front of me.

Therefore, my advice is: walk in front.

Or, leave a big gap between you and the person in front of you.

This is perhaps somewhat antisocial, but personally I quite like to walk alone about half the time.

It lets me focus on my surroundings a bit more.

The trick to be able memorize the immediate trail ahead of you and pick your footfalls several steps before you get to them.

It's the same as offroad driving.

You can't see over your hood, and hanging out your window

only lets you see one side of your vehicle.

You have to memorize the features on the ground ahead and know where your wheels are so you can avoid those features when they disappear from view.

The same can be done while hiking.

While you have your head up enjoying the scenery, make mental notes of the trail ahead, if you know where you're feet are, then you can learn to step over obstacles and avoid trip hazards without having to look down and watch your feet the whole time.

I hike with my feet slightly turned upwards against the direction they are moving.

This prevents stubbing or anything abrupt and lets me get a firm grip on the firmament whether I see it or not.

Also, after some thought, I tend to place my foot from the back-outside to front-inside and let it settle a bit until I feel it catch and then apply weight; for places with loose or jagged terrain, or simply where I want to move with the ground that is really helpful for me.

Personally rather than scan, I sort of observe, which lets me see beneath and above, then too I listen since a lot of snakes I can hear or catch their motion visually.

To me the ground really isn't overly concerning, if I can see the challenges in general, and don't have to be concerned with the nitty-gritty of minor debris than I am golden.

seems to me if you're hiking for distance, then watching where you're going is really important; but if you're there to see, listen, smell, etc., just slow down.

Animals don't move quickly, they pause, look around, smell, listen, then move on.

Birds are always looking around for threats & food.

Slowing down is good- you may not cover a lot of ground, but it will be a richer experience.

Ha ha.

You can't.

At least not off a leveled surface.

I've struggled with this too.

If I look down

I miss the views; if I look up I trip.

So I look ahead for a place to stop and enjoy.

Then I march on, eyes on the rocks and detritus in the trail, until I reach my looky place.

How can I go walking and hiking without constantly looking down?

When I am walking in a city such as NYC or Las Vegas, I do not look down.

I am looking right and left for cars, people and dark alleys.

But I think you are correct when in the wild to look down more than other places.

As Cody Lundin says foot placement is very important.

When stepping on rocks, up and over logs, in and out of mudholes and through high grass, you just have to know where you are placing your feet.

There is only one way to know, you travel slowly and deliberately and do not place your feet in any spot that you have not looked at first.

Sure, that means cutting your speed down

but I do not see any other way.

We hike in pairs so that the front guy checks the ground out and generally only looks 15 to 20 ft ahead.

He is clearing the way for the guy behind him who scans the trees and listens, getting an overview.

Depending on where you are of course we do not relax and smell the coffee until we reach the destination.

If you want to look around and enjoy nature, stop!

We never do that moving.

Question: Every time I go walking or hiking, I generally spend most of my time looking down to make sure I don't step on a snake or hole or dog poop. I don't do it consciously, it just happens. Obviously, I miss out on a lot of birds and small animals up in the trees and I'd like to see how other people cope with the urge to avoid obstacles and just enjoy their surroundings.  How can I go walking and hiking without constantly looking down?

How to hike without constantly looking down

There is only one way to know, you travel slowly and deliberately and do not place your feet in any spot that you have not looked at first.   The trick to be able memorize the immediate trail ahead of you and pick your footfalls several steps before you get to them.   if you're hiking for distance, then watching where you're going is really important; but if you're there to see, listen, smell, etc., just slow down.  use a scanning technique to assess the area ahead.

Foot positioning can help with this, you need to know where your feet are going so scan ahead and give yourself space.

You need to know where your feet are going, so scan ahead and give yourself space.


That is a "punch/reamer".

It allows your to repair leather (for example).

You thread a thread of something though the hole and then use the sharp end to punch/push the thread though leather.

In this way you can repair boots, etc.

It is a "reamer with sewing eye", according to Victorinox (PDF) .

It is used for punching holes in leather or canvas and can also used to get a thread through the hole, according to SAKWiki

The tool has two purposes.

As a punch, it acts as a large needle.

You can use it to sew leather or canvas, as mentioned in the other answers.

Punch the tool through your fabric, put thread through the hole, retract the tool, repeat.

As a reamer, the non-uniform blade shape allows you to make quite good circular holes in plastic or wood.

Punch the tool through, then rotate it to carve off a small circular sliver.

Rotate again and again and again, adjusting position, to carve a fairly even circle.

As a reamer, it is for drilling small holes in wood.

As an awl, it is for sewing thick material, such as leather, together.

Here are YouTube videos on how to sew with the awl-with-thread-hole tool: How to Sew with a Swiss Army Knife Awl / Reamer by Phil Crockett

How to sew with a swiss army knife? by JJR Survival victorinox hack - how to sew with a swiss army knife by Nikos Doulas NikGyver Swiss Army knife sewing by Mad Dog Survival

In brief, these are my written instructions:

First, insert the thread through the awl, push the awl through the start of the hem, pull enough thread for the entire back side of the hem's stitching through to the back side of the hem, and then pull the awl back to the front side.

Now repeat the following for each successive lock stitch:

Move the awl ahead, push it through to the back side as far as it will go and pull it back slightly -- just enough to create a loop with the front-side's thread -- and pause.

Poke the back-side thread through the temporary loop then finish pulling the awl back to the front side.

Tug both sides of the thread to keep them tidy.

Tip: tie the back-end thread to the toothpick tool and use that to help thread it through the little loop.

To finish, tie both threads together (maybe singe them if they're nylon):

Either make the knot over the edge of the hem, or use the awl to bring them to the same side of the hem and then tie together.

Better still -- watch the videos!

I use the punch while hunting to dispatch wounded birds.

Simply hold the bird by the neck/head and push the punch into the back of the bird's head.

It's quick and humane.

I have never used it to sew since I have a better tool for that.

As a reamer, I used it to make wooden woggles for scout scarves.

Also, if a can is too hard to open with the opener, I punch a few holes with this tool just to start the cutting with the can opener knife later.

Question: I have this tool on a few Swiss Army knives (though I think I've seen it on other multi-tools as well). What is it and what is it for?   On one edge, it has a sharp edge. It also only opens halfway (as seen in the photo).

What is this tool on a Swiss Army knife for?

It is a punch/reamer with sewing eye, for making circular holes in plastic or wood. I can be used as a large needle, to sew or punch thick material, such as leather or canvas.

The punch/reamer is used for making circular holes and as a large needle for sewing. It can be used to dispatch wounded birds.

This is a punch/reamer. The reamer makes circular holes in wood and plastic.

The punch acts as a large needle for sewing, it can also be used to dispatch wounded birds.