Your small dog is at great risk.

A coyote recently took the small dog of a veterinary technician at my vet's from the front walk of her house; she was outside and saw it.

And if she saw the coyote, the coyote saw her.

The coyote did not get a good grip on the dog, and he got away, with a bite wound.

Animal control trapped the coyote; it was definitely a coyote.

Patrick's point about food and food waste is right!

But, in my opinion, the threat is more serious to your dog and other neighborhood pets than he says.

For the sake of the neighborhood pets, and for the coyotes themselves, you and your neighbors should never leave food or food waste out.

Coyotes tend to be pretty skittish around humans (although long exposure can acclimate them) and will normally be frightened off by loud noises or bright light.

For you personally, they are very unlikely to be a safety concern, though I would worry a little about your dog- a very small breed like that could be at risk.

Based on my knowledge, they ought to stay away from you while you are walking the dog, but I would not be letting it out of the house unsupervised (if ever you do so).

Other than that, try to make sure they can't get into your trash, and avoid leaving any other food or food waste where they can get it (e.g. compost).

If you happen to have a vegetable garden, it will likely do well with the sudden scarcity of rabbits and other small animals.

If you ever do feel concerned or threatened, call your local animal control or equivalent, and they will hopefully be able to capture and relocate them.

Law enforcement would likely attempt to kill the animals, so I'd ask you not to contact them except in extreme circumstances.

In most cases, these coyotes are going to stay away from humans and conduct their business only at night, and will quite possibly move on soon when food starts getting scarce.

Leave them alone and they will return the favor to you.

It's very rare that coyotes ever attack humans, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Small animals are another story.

I always shake my head when someone puts up a "Lost Cat" sign on a lamppost in my neighborhood.

It is definitely wishful thinking.

I have lived among coyotes all my life and have had plenty of encounters with them.

I've never had any issues, but I would not take my small dog outside if there were coyotes plainly visible 100 feet away.

You will definitely catch their interest, and it's asking for trouble.

Watch out for your little dog.

When I was growing up in the high desert of LA County, I recall numerous incidents of coyotes snatching and killing small dogs from backyards in our community.

The coyotes would jump over the wall into the backyard, grab the dog and be gone before the owner would have time to do anything.

We never saw them during the day, but if you went outside in the early morning hours, on trash day, you'd usually see them eating from an overturned trash can.

In our neighborhood two small dogs have been snatched off the leash by coyotes (on the trail that runs along between houses and the preserve).

Be very wary.

In our neighborhood near Santa Fe NM we have coyotes wandering around everywhere.

Small dogs and even large dogs are at risk.

a favorite coyote trick is for one member of the pack to act "lame" or injured and lure an unattended dog into chasing them to where they can be attacked by the entire pack.

We have lots of birds here because most feral cats and pet cats allowed to roam at night are quickly transformed into coyote food.

The Southwest US fits the common idea of where coyotes live and hunt.

BUT, there are both lone coyotes and coyote packs living in urban Chicago and probably every other suburban and urban area in the US.

They range from California to Washington DC and are interbreeding and changing their hunting habits as they migrate.

The northeastern coyotes evidently interbred with wolves and are much larger than both the southwestern and southeastern coyotes and have bigger stronger jaws and can bring down small deer.

You can get the full story here http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-coyote-the-new-top-dog-1.10635 .An

interesting point is that analysis of the food of even urban coyotes (see http://urbancoyoteresearch.com/faq/what-do-urban-coyotes-eat ) hunt their own prey and are not in our midst to feed on our garbage and pets as much as to eat all the mice, rats and other pests that inevitably accompany human settlements.

Coyotes, crows and cockroaches were here long before we were, all do well wherever we live and all will probably be here when we are gone.

Question: Coyotes are coming through the lot next to my house. There are several. One ran across my driveway 2 nights ago. When I take my pomeranian out before bed, I hear them about 100 feet to the left of my house. By the time I take the dog in they are in the wooded area directly across the road from my yard. Is this something I should be concerned about and what can I do?

Pack of coyotes in my neighborhood

Small dogs and even large dogs are at risk. A favorite coyote trick is for one member of the pack to act "lame" or injured and lure an unattended dog into chasing them to where they can be attacked by the entire pack. Coyotes may also snatch dogs from back yards. For the sake of the neighborhood pets, and for the coyotes themselves, you and your neighbors should never leave food or food waste out.   They will quite possibly move on soon when food starts getting scarce.

Small dogs are vulnerable to being attacked by coyotes, it is best not to leave food waste out.

Small dogs are at risk and can be targeted by coyotes.


There are quite a few backpacks made of waterproof materials, especially among cottage manufacturers.

ZPacks, Hyperlight Mountain Gear, Zimmerbuilt, Gossamer Gear, and many others manufacture packs out of Hybrid Cuben Fiber, Dimension Polyant X-Pac fabrics, or other waterproof materials.

Even more mainstream manufacturers use a good deal of waterproof fabrics.

Speaking anecdotally, my REI Flash 45 uses waterproof fabric for most of the pack body.

However, there is more to waterproofing a pack than the fabrics.

Even packs that use waterproof textiles are not sufficiently waterproof unless the seams are sealed.

Moreover, water can enter through zippers or drawcord openings.

There are some packs on the market designed not to need a liner or cover (the ZPacks Arc Blast, for example), but achieving this requires a number of design considerations.

They must simplify construction to minimize the number and complexity of seams to seal, they must eliminate features that create entry points for water (like hydration hose ports and zippers), and they must use a rolltop closure to seal out water.

On a simple ultralight pack, this isn't much of a compromise.

But as complexity increases, rainproofing becomes more and more difficult to achieve, to the point where it is simply easier (and lighter) to add a pack liner or cover.

The complexity of backpacks, as well as the typical use case scenario has a lot to do with why the backpacks themselves aren't waterproofed.

For example, the typical day in the life of a bicycle pannier involves relatively little exposure to water.

You take it out in the rain for an hour or two, and then usually you take it inside with you wherever you go.

This makes waterproofing the pannier itself logical, because the waterproof layer can sustain those two hours.

But waterproof layers typically have an unspoken time limit.

If you've ever exposed a 'waterproof' pannier or 'waterproof' boots to water for more than a few hours, you start to realize the limits of waterproof layers.

They're usually, not truly waterproof.

Add to this the fact that waterproof fabrics are typically heavy and they don't breathe very well, and you've got a recipe for inefficiency.

If you've ever worn a waterproof backpack, you know how heavy they can be and how poorly they breathe.

All this to say, it's more efficient, lighter, and cheaper to place individual items in dry sacks.

The lightweight dry sacks.

They keep your stuff organized, and they keep things dry no matter how soaked your backpack is.

Backpacks are primarily designed to be carried out therefore they need to be light.

They also need to be tough so they can endure the trips the specified weights for a long time.

Although we do get rained out every now and again no one plans a trip around raining days (Oh look, it's raining

let's go hiking).

So it's more "efficient" to keep the packs light using a lighter material and just put a simple rain cover in case of rain than make the packs heavier with waterproof material.

There are waterproof packs in the market.

I own a couple myself.

My petzl portage 30 looks more like a drybag with shoulder straps

but I use that one specific for canyoning.

I also have a my hiking/trekking pack that uses c-canvas that is waterproof

but then my pack weights 3kgs alone.

Cactus Foray

My wife has an Osprey Ariel 50

and it's a whole kg lighter than mine.

Even if we compare a pack the same size as mine (70L), the Osprey one still a good 800gr lighter and that includes the cover that comes with the pack.

So, in summary...

yes, there are packs in the market with waterproof specs.

they varies depending what you are planning to do.

Having waterproof packs might not be the best approach in some cases.

(My wife would hate to carry my pack even to go down to the fish and chips shop.)

Like a lot of decision made by a manufacturer it's a case of profit!

At some level they've made a commercial decision.

Waterproof fabrics are expensive, so if you make a bag using them then you have pass this onto the customer or take a hit on your profits.

I would imagine that they've researched this and decided the demand for this doesn't match the outlay they'd need to invest in such a product.

I've been backpacking for over 40 years now.

Nearly all backpacks start with waterproof fabric.

The problem with "waterproof" backpacks is primarily the seams, then secondarily the strain put on the various fabrics.

The seams are made up of a series of holes poked through the waterproof fabric with thread poked through them.

It invariably makes a waterproof fabric not waterproof any longer.

Seam sealing to re-seal the holes helps, but it isn't always perfect.

Now consider that every time you load, open, unload your pack, you are wearing the waterproof coating down.

Eventually it will wear through and leak.

Another problem is that water is pretty invasive.

it drips and finds its way into the pack itself.

If it's windy, the rain seems to defy gravity.

The best solution is to determine which pieces of your gear absolutely have to be dry, then put them in waterproof bags inside the pack.

Don't count on the backpack even with a pack cover, to keep everything dry.

Bag your sleeping bag and clothes.

The rest can usually survive water...

Question: Many bicycle panniers are made of waterproof material.  Backpacks are not, necessitating built-in or separate raincovers.  Why don't backpacks use the material that waterproof panniers do?  Unlike gear to be worn on the body, there's no need for backpacks to breathe.

Why are backpacks mostly not made of waterproof material?

Nearly all backpacks start with waterproof fabric. The problem with "waterproof" backpacks is primarily the seams, then secondarily the strain put on the various fabrics. Even packs that use waterproof textiles are not sufficiently waterproof unless the seams are sealed. Moreover, water can enter through zippers or drawcord openings. However, there are packs in the market with waterproof specs.

Almost all backpacks contain waterproof fabric, though the complexity of backpacks and cost factors mean that they are generally not fully waterproof.

Almost all backpacks contain waterproof fabric.

The complexity of backpacks and cost factors mean that they are generally not fully waterproof.


Compare a human skull to that of a deer.

The human skull is dominated by the brain, so a shot to the head is likely to penetrate the cranium and brain.

On the other hand, a deer brain is very small compared to the skull and presents a very small target.

Furthermore there are bony stuctures which might deflect away a bullet or arrow.

See this picture of a fallow deer skull.

Generally, large muscles need large anchor points, so an animal with strong neck muscles or strong jaw muscles will often have bony lumps and flanges on its skull (e.g. the sagital crest on a gorilla skull).

A sagittal crest is a ridge of bone running lengthwise along the midline of the top of the skull (at the sagittal suture) of many mammalian and reptilian skulls, among others.

In contrast, a deflected shot off a rib is still likely to go on and penetrate heart or lungs.

And a big animal like a deer is going to need a big heart and big lungs to oxygenate such a large body.

The head tends to be a harder target to hit than the vital organs in the center of the body, but a penetrating hit there is more likely to take a human or animal to unconsciousness and inability immediately .

That's more important to do to a human who may have a weapon that can hit you back quickly, than it is to a nearly-defenseless animal you are hunting from a distance.

However, in general police and military also train to target the "center of mass" of humans, too, as the most likely way in general to incapacitate a target, given that in fighting situations (as opposed to shooting an unmoving animal), misses are very common.

Some large animals and even humans also have skulls that may deflect or effectively stop or reduce the impact of an arrow (or bullet).

Combined with the harder target and the chance the animal may suddenly move its head out of the line of fine being greater than them moving their entire body suddenly, the odds of getting a hit that results in an eventual dead animal are greater if you aim for the body.

It does apply, in some cases - it's actually a preference.

For small game such as rabbits a neat little shot to the head with a high powered air rifle will kill the rabbit and save you from having to get the shot out afterwards.

This is also most likely with small game that it's going to be much harder to pick out heart or lungs to aim to, the head is a clearer shot.

For larger game there is the choice, deer, as in your example, stand high in the grass and it's much easier to pick out where the heart or lung shots would be.

The reason people often pick heart or lung shots, especially with deer, is that a single shot kill is much more humane, and responsible, than having to shoot twice.

The pro to shooting for the brain is the death should be instantaneous, the con is the target size... if you miss you'll spook the deer and it'll flee.

The choice of shot will also depend on distance, bullet, your shooting ability, weather conditions...

As for humans, well, a good shot anywhere can cause us to bleed out and die.

It's almost the same preference - a head or chest shot can kill a person, but you're more likely to survive the latter.

This article is quite interesting: outdoor life - where to shoot a deer for one shot kills

A headshot is a high percentage HIT if done perfectly, but it is not a high percentage SHOT to do perfectly.

The brain (which is the actual intended target) is a small target, a miss of the exact target leads to a very ineffective alternate hit, it moves more, and it is more armored (which on glancing shots can increase the chance of ricochet, this is especially true for archery).

By contrast the "boiler room" heart/lung shot

is larger, in significantly less motion at any given moment, and an imperfect shot still has a fairly large buffer of "still decent" hits around it.

For a skilled enough shooter with a fairly close range and a very fortuitous few moments of extremely limited head movement may come across a situation where some of those factors are negated enough where a head shot becomes viable...with a rifle .

Even that is a fairly rare set of circumstances, but for archery this is practically never true .

Even on the much less moving boiler room area the deer still often jumps/moves between the release of the shot and the impact of the arrow, the standard of accuracy is not as high (it's not common to put 1" groups at 100 yards with arrows...

it is with rifles), and the armor of the skull is a significantly bigger problem for arrows

(they'll go through on a straight hit, sure, but they are much more susceptible to glancing if they hit angled to the area they impact, which is easy to have happen on such a non-flat surface as a deer skull).

For deer it is basically rarely a viable shot with a rifle, and never a viable shot with an arrow.

This question arises basically for one reason.

Movies are wrong .

Any cop or soldier (even snipers) are trained to shoot center of mass.

This is because it's far easier to hit, and still highly lethal.

The head is a relatively fast moving, and smaller target.

The skull also provides much more armour than the ribcage.

As well demonstrated by @mikeagg the brain is a very small target on a deer, and all the reasons that apply to humans apply even moreso to deer.

Question: In 3D archery and while hunting we're aiming for the lungs and the heart most of the time. At least this is true for bobcats, lynxes, deer and other similar animals.   See this target for example:   According to films and stuff, the best way to kill a human is to shoot in the head.   Is this true? An if yes, why doesn't this also apply to animals?

Why do you not aim for the head while archery hunting?

The reason people often pick heart or lung shots, especially with deer, is that a single shot kill is much more humane, and responsible, than having to shoot twice. For deer,  ahead shot is rarely a viable shot with a rifle, and never a viable shot with an arrow. The head tends to be a harder target to hit than the vital organs in the center of the body. The pro to shooting for the brain is the death should be instantaneous, the con is the target size... if you miss you'll spook the deer and it'll flee.

Head shots result in instant death when done right, they may be preferable for small game but often it is best to aim for the body.

Head shots are trickier to get right, so it is often better to aim for the body.

Head shots can be better for small game and result in instant death when done properly.


Simply throwing them in the wash should suffice, but if you want to be extra sure the fungus dies, you could soak your socks in a 1 part bleach to 10 parts water mixture for ten minutes.

Keep in mind that it's not your socks you need to worry about so much as your shoes, they're a little more difficult to clean.

Try changing your insoles out, they make special ones which help prevent athletes foot.

Hot Water - needs to be very hot

- 140 F (60C) - reported to kill all, but is not good for wool.

UV Light - hang out to dry in direct sunshine.

Products exist that claim to sterilize shoes using UV light and can be used for socks.

Chemicals

- Anti fungal Laundry rinse (e.g. Canestan) is effective, Borax etc.

Bleach alone does not kill fungus spores.

Your shoes and feet need treatment as much as your socks.

(Late answer here.)

A scholarly report discusses fungus and laundry

Several years ago, a scholarly report was published.

The report's "Appendix A" discusses, among other things, how you should do laundry if someone in the home has a fungal infection.

The advice given

The report advises: Whenever you do laundry, add some activated oxygen bleach (AOB) .

Notes:

You can use standalone AOB, or a detergent with AOB included.

This is available in most supermarkets, but you have to know what to look for.

See this link .

If possible, also do laundry at 140 °F (60 °C) .

Note:

This may shrink and/or destroy certain items.

(Source.)

Read their care labels.

Use the regular cycle .

Don't enable "quick wash", "water saving", or any other environmentally-friendly options.

Make sure each item goes through the rinse and spin cycles at least twice .

Preferably three times.

It's best to wash items belonging to the infected family member in separate loads from everyone else's laundry.

If you can also dry the items in sunlight , this is an extra bonus.

Water temperature

In some countries (including the US and certain others), if you want to wash clothing at 140 °F (60 °C), there's a problem.

An article on the Bottom Line Inc. website states that, in these countries, household water heaters typically are set to 120 °F [50 °C] to minimize the risk of scalding.

The article suggests three possible workarounds.

One

( dangerous ) workaround would be to raise your water heater's temperature to 140 °F (60 °C).

But this is a dangerously-high setting.

(Source.)

It may also be illegal in your jurisdiction.

(Source.)

Water at 120 °F (50 °C) takes 5-10 minutes to cause a third-degree burn; but water at 140 °F (60 °C) takes just 3-5 seconds. (Source.)

Third-degree burns sometimes kill people.

(Source.)

Maybe I should email the Bottom Line Inc. and suggest that they revise their article.

Another workaround might be to pour a kettleful of boiling water into your top-loading washer shortly before it's finished filling.

A third workaround is to use a washing machine with a water-temperature-boosting feature , "such as the Whirlpool Front-Load Washer with Deep-Clean Steam, model #WFW86HEBW, which can get the water up to 150 °F [65 °C]".

Going along the "homebrew supply" route, peracetic acid AKA PAA/peroxyacetic acid is a reasonably safe and very effective sanitizer.

It's used in hospitals and by veterinarians, as well as in the brewing industry.

I've splashed it on myself and my partly wool socks (and shoes)

enough times that I'm confident it won't hurt your socks.

Use suggestions: Dilute 1:200. Don't get the undiluted stuff on your skin or in your eyes!

Don't try to smell it!

(I've been there and done that.)

Diluted, it is still a bit of a skin irritant, so rinse immediately.

Even diluted it will react with metals, except for stainless steel.

Recommended exposure time is usually 10 minutes, but I'd probably use it longer on cloth.

Chlorine Bleach is not good for wool.

Found a solution that worked for me - phenolic disinfectant (Lysol) the web site also suggested Pine Oil (Pine Sol or Lysol Pine Action) http://laundry.about.com/od/handwashing/fl/How-to-Wash-Wool-Socks.htm

Remember to also disinfect towels, shower shoes/sandals, etc as the athlete's foot fungus can spread via laundry basket contact (or gym bag / backpack)

http://laundry.about.com/od/laundrybasics/a/athletesfootlaundry.htm also (same address as prior ending with) /disinfectlaundr.htmBest

of luck

I have dealt with this myself.

I use wool socks almost exclusively and sometimes a tech liner underneath.

Cheap White Vinegar.

Buy by the gallon and keep on hand and foot.

Use undiluted or 50/50 lowest. 10% bleach solution is what I use INSIDE my shoes and fan dry thoroughly at least once a season for any shoes I sweat in.

Good luck.

Foot AIDS sucks.

Rubbing alchohol is also an effective disinfectant.

However, the problem is more general:

Wearing socks inside foot boxes on a day in, day out basis is the root.

Recommendations to prevent a recurrence: Go barefoot more of the time.

When you do get an infection, rub your feet with rubbing alcohol at the end of the day.

Do not sleep in socks.

If the weather is cold enough, keep separate day socks and sleeping socks.

On canoe trips I wear 'reef boots' (footwear with rubber soles and neoprene sides) on several week trips.

During the day my feet were constantly wet.

Once in camp, I changed to dry socks and lightweight runners or sandals.

No problems.

I have found that using a mixture of a cap full of bleach with the detergent and adding a cup of pine sol helps.

As well as turning your water heater up a small amount.

I would also highly recommend using anti fungal powder in between your toes after showering and throughout the day as needed, as a preventative.

Question: I've got athlete's foot after having my feet in the same boots for extended periods of time.   How can I disinfect my wool hiking socks to prevent this from spreading and reinfecting my feet?

How do I disinfect my wool hiking socks?

Some say bleach alone will not kill fungus spores. others say to soak your socks in a 1 part bleach to 10 parts water mixture for ten minutes. Use anti fungal powder in between your toes as a preventative. Peracetic acid  AKA PAA/peroxyacetic acid is a reasonably safe and very effective sanitizer. Anti fungal Laundry rinse (e.g. Canestan) is effective - Borax etc. Another recommendation is phenolic disinfectant (Lysol). The web site also suggested Pine Oil (Pine Sol or Lysol Pine Action), or rubbing alcohol. UV light or a hot wash are also recommended.

Hot water, antifungals, alcohol and disinfectants work well. Bleach can work in combination with other products.

Bleach is not good for wool and doesn't kill spores, but can be used with other products.

Antifungals, peracetic acid, disinfectants and rubbing alcohol work well.


For the sake of your tendons, it is better to use your ring and middle finger in two finger pockets, because of how your muscles in your forearm insert on your fingers, and how they're wired to your nervous system.

You essentially only have one muscle which acts on all of your fingers, called flexor digitorum profundus .

This muscle fans out into four tendons which insert on the distal phalanx (finger-tip bone) of each finger.

Flexor digitorum profundous, shown in blue:

You have many other muscles in your hand as well, which also act on your fingers in multiple different ways, but when you're pulling hard on your finger tips, it's flexor digitorum profundous which is getting pumped.

What's interesting is that this muscle is innervated by more than one nerve; the medial aspect is innervated by your ulnar nerve, but your lateral aspect is innervated by your median nerve.

You can isolate the intervention of these nerves in your middle and pinky fingers, but your ring finger kinda gets caught in between, It's literally impossible to flex either your middle or pinky fingers at the tips without the ring finger at least partially flexing as well, so it's better to pair your ring finger with your middle and flex them together.

Your ring and middle fingers are typically closer to the same length as well, which tends to make it more comfortable to hold in a pocket, you're also more secure in the hold when you can use your forefinger and small finger to stabilize your hand.

Your angle on the pocket while moving past the hold, as well as its size and shape, may make using your forefinger more appropriate, but for the most part, it's better to grab two finger pockets with your middle and ring fingers.

Party trick:

Demonstrate to people that is it impossible to curl any of the fingers on your hand independently other than you forefinger.

First establish that there is a difference between bending a finger and curling a finger.

Bending means you're just bending the finger at the first joint past the knuckle, you aren't engaging the fingertip, curling means you are using both the first and second joints, and engaging the fingertip.

Your ring finger is half innervated by the ulnar nerve, and half innervated by other nerves, so if you curl either finger beside your ring finger, your ring finger will curl at least half-curl,

if you curl your ring finger, the fingers on either side of it will half curl, if you curl both your middle and small fingers, your ring finger will curl with them, and there is nothing you can do to stop it (except cheat and only bend your finger instead of curling it) .

The more force you use, the more your other fingers are going to curl.

While not supported by any hard evidence, in How to Rock Climb by John Long

he says Because it is rate that a pocket will accommodate all of your fingers, the first choice is the strong middle finger, next the ring finger, then the index finger, and so on.

Using the middle and ring fingers in a two-finger pocket better balances the load on your hand.

The initial tendency is to use the index and middle finger for two-finger pockets.

With practice, the middle and ring finger combo is almost always a better option.

I guess there is no definite answer, but will vary from climber to climber, as I saw both methods applied.

I use both depending of the angle of the pocket: I use the two finger so that the middle finger is up top.

So in a pocket "descending" towards the right

I use the middle and ring finger of the right hand or the index and middle finger of the left hand.

Again: This is far from generally true, even as advice I would rather say just try it and go with what feels more solid to you.

One great thing about climbing is that every move is unique, both for different climbers and rock.

A practical answer is "whatever works".

I've done both (and seen other people do either), and both work fine.

Attempting an "arguably correct" answer from an anatomical point of view is hard.

From the point of view of applicable force, it is better to use the index and the middle finger.

The reason for that is that each finger has its own superficial flexor, and if you don't consider the rather useless pinkie, they all are not that much different in strength.

The flexor digitorum profundus, on the other hand, has two bellies and two tendons.

One for the index finger, and one for all other fingers together (which is the reason why ShemSeger's party trick works, has nothing to do with the ulnar nerve).

Thus, not using the index finger means not using half of the available force of the strongest flexor in your hand.

On the other hand side, there is tactile sense which may also be important for climbing.

The median nerve lies below the retinaculum whereas the ulnar nerve lies above it.

That would consequently mean that the ulnar nerve is arguably compressed less when holding with great force (if you climb "properly" you should not usually hang with your entire body weight on two fingers, though).

Less compression means it takes a longer time before you lose the tactile sense.

This would suggest that it may be better to use middle and ring finger together.

So... either way has advantages and disadvantages, use what works best.

Both alternatingly if you like.

I personally think it depends on the move and the hold.

Ring and middle finger is preferable for deep monos which is straightforward and downward loaded.

However, if the hold is somewhat an uneven pocket, tilts to an angle or is a mono-gaston move on incline, sometimes its better to use your index and middle finger instead.

This is especially true if the mono has a side edge which can be used to press your thumb against.

Also note that your are generally much stronger in your index than in your ring finger.

Question: While rock climbing, when crimping a hold, I always use my index finger (and whatever other fingers fit) since I can stack my thumb on top. For two finger pockets is it better to use your index and middle finger or your middle and ring finger (assuming either pair fit).

Which fingers to use in a 2 finger pocket when rock climbing?

Either way has advantages and disadvantages - use what works best. It may depend on the move and the hold. However, the middle and ring finger combo is almost always a better option.

The ring and middle finger are best, but it can depend on the context and what works for you.

This depends on what works best for you and the context.


The question asks for an instance where a bear climbing a tree attacks a human.

I found a news article of a hunter being attacked by a black bear in a tree.

I don't think this is a completely satisfying answer since the question implies the question: Why would a bear expend the effort to climb up a tree to attack a human?

I am not a bear expert

but I read this article which states that bears are known to kill one another by throwing each other off the tree they're fighting on.

So your assumption that the bears are busy using claws for climbing might not be true.

In fact, bears are quite capable climbers as shown in this insanely cute video .

EDIT: I didn't explicitly answer the first part of the OP: Does it matter?

Given the fact that bears are capable climbers, and given that they have inflicted damage while climbing, would lead me to assume that their ability to climb trees does matter when one is trying to avoid being harmed by a bear.

I know that if you cross the Bering Strait to Northern Asia (Siberia, etc.)

you'll find that bears hibernate in huge nests in the tops of trees.

So climbing trees is not a problem for bears.

They must do it in that region because there are tigers about.

The real question has to do with the nature of the bear in question.

I've turned about in the woods to find a brown bear lumbering by me with his shoulder at the level of mine and behaving as if I had the culinary interest of a rock.

To my knowledge only Polar Bears actively hunt humans.

They are faster and can climb better than you, so if they want you they can get you.

They rarely see you as real prey so they might not climb a tree to get at you, still... its a risk

In this video you can see a bear climbing a tree where two hunters are.

At first it looks like it could be the same bear you saw on the ground, but it's not

, it's one bear running away from another, and at the end it climbs another tree to escape, so you can say they do it too.

On the other hand I wouldn’t be able to climb as fast as this bear does

and I'd be caught on the ground while hugging the tree swearing :

(But just look at how fast the whole chasing and climbing is, can you do better?

Chances are any black bear you encounter will be more frightened of you than you are of it, and it is unlikely they will chase you up a tree unless they are provoked.

They definitely can climb trees, but they most likely will not chase a human up a tree nor attack unless provoked or protecting their cubs.

They're primarily interested in your food.

In this video (which is required viewing for anyone going into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness), they discuss how to handle an encounter with a black bear at around minute 8.

This should reassure and also inform you what to do if you encounter a black bear.

Brown bears and grizzlies?

That's a different story.

A few years ago I was walking in the woods in western Washington state (USA)

the forest was Douglas fir, with undergrowth ranging between 2 and 10 feet high (1 - 3 meters).

There was no trail.

I was trying to be quite as I was hunting squirrels with a 22 rifle.

The area I was in had brush about knee high.

Suddenly a short distance in front of me

I heard a lot of noise in tall bushy area.

Three black bears came storming out of the brush, running in different directions.

I was standing about 2 feet from a tree, and I side stepped to get behind it.

All three where different sizes, I don't know

but I think it was a mother and two grown cubs of maybe 2 and 3 years old.

One went well away from me and the other two came in my general direction.

One bolted between me and a nearby tree.

The last was running nearly directly toward the tree I was hiding behind.

At the last moment it choose a tree just to one side.

It went up that tree at the just about the same speed it was running through brush.

The one in the tree only went about 20 feet up and stopped, I could still hear the other two running through the brush.

A few moments, it was quite, my heart was racing and

I was scared.

I moved away from the area, in a direction that bears did not go, slowly until I had some distance between the area of excitement and myself.

At which point, I ran.

The choices I made may or may not have been the right ones, but I gained two sure points of knowledge.

A black bear can climb a tree, faster than I can.

In fact from the time we became aware of each other, I could not have climbed 20 feet up the tree nearest me.

If I had stepped in front of the tree, and that bear had decided to climb my tree

he would have gone right up me

and then the trunk of the tree.

Point 2 is important, because the first two things that went through my mind were; I have a 22, this not a viable weapon for a bear, followed by, I should stand in front of the tree to hide my silhouette, so I can keep a better eye on what is going on.

All of this happened FAST, I didn't actually decide to step behind the tree it just happened.

My answer to your question "Will Black Bears actually follow you up a tree?"

is 100%

yes, they will climb right over the top of you to get as far up a tree

as they can so you can't get them.

When you and a black bear become aware of each other, do your very best to stay out of his escape route.

Question: I always see it pointed out, when discussing how to handle/avoid bear encounters, that black bears can climb trees.  Granted, but does that matter?  Has there ever been a case of a black bear pursuing someone up a tree in order to attack them?    It seems logical to me that bears wouldn't fight in a tree like that unless forced to as they are busy using claws for climbing, but I'm not exactly an expert.

Will Black Bears actually follow you up a tree

A black bear can climb a tree, faster than you, so  if they want you they can get you. There was a news article of a hunter being attacked by a black bear in a tree. They are unlikely to chase a human up a tree nor attack unless provoked or protecting their cubs.

Bears are unlikely to attack unless frightened or provoked. When they do, they climb trees faster than people.

Bears can climb faster than humans and attack hunters.


That's essentially how 4 season tents work, the tent is full nylon (no mesh) and the fly is full and basically acts as a second tent, creating that air gap.

some 4 season tents even have little foamies on them that help keep the gap, preventing snow from squishing the fly against the tent and eliminating that insulating volume: Putting a tent inside another tent would work, but it would work better if the tents were closer in size, then you wouldn't have a large of a volume of air to try and warm.

If you really want to insulate your tent, try putting a blanket or old sleeping bag in between the tent and the fly.

In a pinch you can use dry grass or leaves, that's what Siberians do, they make a shelter inside of a shelter and fill the gap in-between with grass.

I don't know what your situation is exactly, but my advice would be to instead invest in a good down sleeping-bag .

Or bring someone to cuddle with.

A good sleeping bag will provide that pocket of still air you are looking for and is going to be much more compact and lightweight.

For about a year and a half

while at college I lived in a three-season two-person tent which was inside a cloth-teepee.

I only had a 20 degree (Fahrenheit) sleeping bag

and it got pretty cold

(I slept in my boots some winter nights).

I perceived the main benefit to be peace of mind that my stuff was protected a little more in case the elements misbehaved while I was gone.

It worked for me in my situation, and, without having collected any data to quantify, felt more comfortable than just the two-person tent, but I am not sure you would want to do this where you have to carry both tents.

Tent in a tent will not really work.

Firstly the chance of getting two tents that are designed to work this way is essentially nil.

You will end up having to find two tents that are compatible - one larger than the other.

The smaller tent must still be usable, and the larger one so large that it will not touch the smaller one anywhere.

Secondly you're going to have issues with condensation.

If you are looking to create an air-pocket, you will have to zip or close up all the ventilation holes.

This will create an environment in which you will have a lot of condensation on the inside tent.

Like others suggested: Use a decent sleeping bag (and liner) to get the warmth you need, and a good-enough tent to keep you dry and out of the wind and free of bugs.

A tents job is not insulation.

Your tents job is to provide shelter from wind, etc.

Heat will (and should) pass though tent membranes very eaily.

Therefore adding a tent inside a tent will add practically no extra insulation and therfore no benefit.

The outer tent will protect you from wind/rain and provide shelter.

The inner tent is doing nothing.

Among the problems with this idea is that pole ends from the inner tent can damage the floor of the outer tent.

If you need to be warmer, augment your sleeping gear with an inexpensive blanket or two.

Check around at used clothing stores or buy new.

Makes a huge difference.

I did it this weekend.

The inner tent was very comfortable wearing long underwear, even outside the sleeping bag.

The outer tent was cold and drafty.

Outside was 30 degrees.

Yes.

I recently spent over a year living off-grid and used a smaller tent inside a larger one to conserve heat in the smaller one.

The inner tent was my sleeping area while the extra space inside the outer tent was used for storing non-essential gear and items which needed to be protected from exposure to the elements.

For short camping trips, using 2 tents is not very practical, and you'd probably do better to just put a blanket or other insulating cover over a single tent.

You will need to use some sort of barrier between the tent poles and the floor of the larger tent, such as bits of cloth or even styrofoam pressed over the pole tips.

I used a tarp with an emergency blanket laid over it and set up on top of the blanket.

The outer tent does not provide a great deal of insulation, but it does reduce air-flow between the outside world and the smaller tent.

This can greatly reduce heat loss, especially on a wet or windy day.

Since your body puts off heat naturally and the inner tent retains heat more efficiently, it can become toasty inside the inner tent.

If you have a camp heater, it can be used in the outer tent to keep temperatures up without making the inner tent stuffy or over-warm.

Another trick for conserving heat is to put a blanket on the floor of the tent (even if you are only using a single tent) to act as a barrier between the ground and your sleeping space.

Question: I know that a pocket of still air is an excellent insulator.   Would placing a tent inside of another tent provide any substantive benefits to warmth? For a concrete example, consider placing a small two person dome tent inside of a much larger 6 or 8 person family tent.  I'm interested in comparing tent alone / tent with fly / tent in tent.

Tent inside of a tent - any improvement in warmth?

A tent in a tent will not really work as a tent's job is  not  insulation, but to provide shelter from wind, bugs, etc. If you need to be warmer, augment your sleeping gear with an inexpensive blanket or two,  invest in a good sleeping-bag and liner and consider putting a blanket on the floor of the tent to act as a barrier between the ground and your sleeping space.

The benefit and practicality of using two tents is disputed. Blankets, decent sleeping bags and liners help with keeping warm.

Some people report that this works well, others disagree.


My answer is "don't ask".

It's not so much that it's "impolite", but it's an imposition to them and potentially dangerous for you:

Belaying can take quite some time, so you're asking the person to give up a chunk of their recreation time to a total stranger.

It's not like you're asking someone to help for 30 seconds

You're putting your life in their hands, literally.

That's a big decision.

What if they're also a complete novice but feel embarrassed to admit it.

I wouldn't let anyone belay me unless I was confident they knew what they were doing and trusted them to do

it Don't go to a two-person sport venue by yourself.

What if you get to the cliff and no one else is there?

Find a climbing partner(s).

Learn together.

It can be rewarding and build a great relationship as you both improve.

You'll have someone to share your climbing highs and lows with.

From my experience, the simple act of asking won't be perceived as impolite.

There is a good chance that people will let you join them, but be prepared to accept "no" as an answer just in case.

It would be impolite to press on and try to get them to change their minds, but if you politely accept the "no", you should be fine.

(I assume that you actually want to join the group and belay them, too.

If you just ask for a belay and don't offer anything in return, that might probably be seen as rude.)

But this highly depends on the people and on the circumstances; for example, on routes that are well equipped with bolts, I would be more willing to accept new partners than on challenging multi-pitch trad climbs.

The same goes for the perceived experience of the potential partner: People that seen experienced and want to try a hard route that I'm also interested in will more likely get a positive response than obviously inexperienced people that beg me to put up a top rope on a UIAA 5 for them.

Of course, this also applies the other way: Make sure that you are comfortable with the people in the group belaying you.

See Vetting belayers at the gym? ; most things also apply outdoors.

In short: Asking won't hurt, and trying to make sure that you would fit into the group will maximize your chances of joining them.

Where I climb (New Mexico, USA), I think it would be impolite to walk up to a stranger outside and ask them out of the blue to belay you.

I have been awkward position of being asked to belay someone I don't know / don't want to, and it is certainly uncomfortable.

However, it's certainly not impolite to go to a cliff looking to find new climbing partners or join a group of climbers.

Approach them, start a friendly conversation, and explain that you're looking for climbing partners but having trouble finding them, or whatever the case is.

You might say you enjoy the area and like to come out even when you don't have someone to go with.

This gives them the opportunity to offer to belay you without putting them in the awkward position of having to refuse.

Also, you might offer to belay before requesting a belay.

Find an odd-numbered group that seems to be about at your skill level and offer to belay whoever is waiting around.

They may be very happy for that

and then they'll belay you after that, and you may have made a new friend.

I think even asking sometimes can be impolite.

Some people just have a hard time saying 'no', even if they don't want you there.

If there's a good chance they wouldn't want you in the group, don't put them in a difficult situation.

Probably Don't Ask: A group of 2 climbers obviously on a climbing date

An even-number group of climbers who look experienced and setup quickly.

They don't need a third/odd person to slow them down

Any group of climbers that are having a great time catching up, haven't seen each other in awhile, or sharing inside jokes.

You'd be disrupting the social experience for them as they try to accommodate you.

If you are inexperienced enough, such that you would need them to coach you through different tasks.

If you are missing equipment that you would need to borrow from them.

If you sense a great skill imbalance (you are much less experienced than they are), you probably aren't welcome.

If you are much more experienced, you might be welcome if they need a lot of help.

But you could also be unwelcome if your presence makes them feel intimidated or feel rushed.

If you wouldn't feel safe on their anchors or being belayed by them.

Okay

To Ask (assuming situation doesn't fall into previous list): An odd-number group of climbers that seem impatient about waiting around.

They would probably benefit from your belaying presence.

A group of climbers that are around your same skill level (so you guys can climb the same routes)

You have a necessary piece of equipment that they are missing, so no one can climb unless you all do it together.

For all the reasons in the other answers, one probably should not ask to be belayed by another group of climbers.

There's just a lot of awkwardness involved, and a lot of strange risk in trusting someone with your life.

However, if you do want to try to get belayed by others, don't be afraid to use a social approach.

Go up to groups and chat with them a bit, show your interest both in the climb and in them.

There's a reasonable chance they will offer to let you join, if you play it right.

And if they don't, you still spent your time networking with the climbing community.

Who knows what you might learn!

Question: I'm a beginner climber.  There are many climbers all over my area (doing cliffs).  Would it be polite, impolite, or neutral, to approach groups and ask them if I could join them?  Maybe this is 'obviously' impolite, but I've had a group offer before, so I wonder if this is just part of climbing etiquette.  FYI - the climbers are from all different countries (lots of Germans, Australians, and others.)

Is it polite to ask other climbers to belay for you?

outdoors.stackexchange.com/users/9206/HH- Apologize to Carole Baskin

It might be awkward and a strange risk to trusting someone with your life. In some areas, it may be considered impolite to walk up to a stranger outside and ask them out of the blue to belay you.  It's an imposition to them and potentially dangerous for you. Belaying can take quite some time, so you're asking the person to give up a chunk of their recreation time to a total stranger. There is a  chance that people will let you join them, but be prepared to accept "no" as an answer. However, it's certainly not impolite to go to a cliff looking to find new climbing partners or join a group of climbers.

It is acceptable to look for new climbing partners, though it is best not to ask people to belay you for safety reasons.

Whether or not it is impolite, it is best not to ask because of safety reasons.

It is acceptable to look for new climbing partners.


Would it make sense to carry soda instead of water in respect to save weight

(you can carry less food because you have energy in your "water")?

No, for a variety of reasons (leaving out, as you say "other health related topics"): Sugar, powdered Gatorade, and many other water additives all weigh less than soda.

Soda comes in cans/bottles which you'll have to pack out.

You'll generally filter/purify at least some of your water anyways, so you're rarely carrying all the water you'll use.

In this case to replace soda with water you'd have to carry more.

In warmer weather, soda cans and bottles will start to smell pretty quickly unless washed out.

For a day hike, yes, it could make sense, if it's the type of day hike where you need to carry water rather than drinking from sources along the way.

It's really just a matter of what you enjoy.

If you enjoy drinking soda, bring soda.

Let's say we have a liter of coke and liter of water.

Both of them weight nearly the same.

However, the coke contains a lot of calories whereas the water contains none.

This is not quite right.

The coke contains some carbs, which are part of its weight and volume.

If you aren't a person who enjoys drinking coke, then you'd be better off carrying those carbs in some other form that you'd enjoy more.

It doesn't give you an advantage in terms of weight carried.

Let's say we have a liter of coke and liter of water.

Both of them weight nearly the same.

However, the coke contains a lot of calories whereas the water contains none.

The law of conservation of mass , tells us that the total mass/weight of a solution is equal to the sum of the masses of the solute and solvent.

So if you add 100 g of sugar (the solute) to 1000 g of water (the solvent), which is roughly the ratio of sugar to water in soda , the sugar water solution would weight 1100 g.

There is no such law for conservation of volume.

Sugar has a density of about 1.59 g/ml and water has a density of 1 g/ml.

When you add 62.90 ml of sugar (which will weigh 100 g) to 1000 ml of water (which will weigh 1000 g) the sugar will dissolve into the water and the total volume will change.

I am not sure how to calculate the exact volume (or density) of the solution but it will be more than 100 ml and less than 162.9 ml.

What this means is that there is no weight benefit of premixing the sugar and the water, but there is a volume benefit and possibly a taste benefit.

Since sugar has a relatively low caloric density (2.4 cal/g) compared to fat (9 cal/g)

you would be better off carrying fatty foods to eat with pure water.

From a fluid perspective - The energy density of most soda (non-diet types) is high enough to kick off a digestive system response for processing food, which requires fluids and oxygen.

In the case of dehydration or high levels of exertion, where fluid replacement is the aim this is undesirable.

Coke and energy drinks that contain Caffeine add a diuretic, meaning they are even less effective for hydration.

In these situations Soda is a bad choice (although infinity better than nothing) for fluid replacement.

As long as you are on a gentle hike with moderate temperatures, you will be able to maintain hydration with Soda.

If there is any chance of becoming dehydrated or needing to maintain high fluid intake to maintain hydration, Water is by far the most preferable option.

A better option than Soda is isotonic sports drinks, however, be aware that most items sold as sports drinks are not much better than soda.

Most of the modern ones contain way too much sugar and not enough salts and minerals, because true isotonic sports drinks taste a lot like watered down sweat and don't sell well at the convince stores.

All that said - (nearly) anything you drink is infinity better than something you don't like the taste of and won't drink.

If you would drink 2 litres of Coke over a days hiking vs sip only 200ml or water, take the Coke.

From a food/energy source perspective: Sugar is bad for hiking.

It gives you a short high then a massive crash.

Without careful management, this cycle can make an otherwise pleasant day one from hell, especially if you are not used to doing it.

Solid food is a better way to get energy

has you have a more accurate idea of what is going into your system, and you tend to take foods that provide better slow release, longer lasting energy.

Each person is different, so what does not work me may be perfect for you.

All I suggest is try it on a shorter easy trip and see if it works for you.

For me, first and last time I tried energy drinks on a trail, I spend the next miserable hour with stomach cramps and no energy - I'm sticking to water and isotonic drinks for my fluids.

I'll be brief.

100 grams of sugar and 900g of water when mixed still 100g of sugar plus 900g of water, not a miracle of 100g sugar and 1000g water concoction.

Mass preserving law, considering almost no nuclear or chemical reaction inside your Cola

(I'm not so sure about this hell mixture).

So, if you want fast calories at hike, take carbohydrates as the maltodextrins.

If you want the most light-weight calories, grab a pure fat.

Question: Let's say we have a liter of coke and liter of water. Both of them weight nearly the same. However, the coke contains a lot of calories whereas the water contains none.   Despite other health-related topics (teeth etc.) and personal taste, would it make sense to carry soda instead of water in respect to save weight (you can carry less food because you have energy in your "water")?

Carrying soda instead of water due to nutritional energy?

From a fluid perspective - The energy density of most soda (non-diet types) is high enough to kick off a digestive system response for processing food, which requires fluids and oxygen. n the case of dehydration or high levels of exertion, where fluid replacement is the aim this is undesirable. In these situations Soda is a bad choice (although infinity better than nothing) for fluid replacement.  From a food/energy source perspective: Sugar is bad for hiking. you would be better off carrying fatty foods to eat with pure water. Solid food is a better way to get energy

Solid, fatty foods and pure water are preferable. You would need to carry more soda than water.

Soda stimulates digestion and may dehydrate you. The sugar is bad for hiking and you'd need to carry more soda than water.


Here are a couple of tips.

Make it harder for them to steal anything, roll up your vehicle's windows and lock its doors.

Make your stuff less attractive to thieves, cover valuables with a blanket and don't flash expensive gear or jewelry.

Exude confidence, look people in the eye, walk with a confident stride, and make it clear that you are not someone to be messed with.

Being able to back up that confidence with pepper spray (if legal for you to possess) will also help your confidence.

Maintain situational awareness, are the other people families with children, fellow outdoors people, or do they give you a bad vibe?

Listen to your gut, if your hair is standing on end and your muscles are tense, leave the area immediately.

Finally, remember that your life is more valuable than your stuff

Caravan parks often have safes for people to use (rent).

That's likely your best bet.

They're often a bit like the lockers you get in swiming baths.

Baring that it's either hide things (Bottom of a sleeping bag works ok but obviously your taking a risk) or take anything valuable with you.

Camping is an outdoor sport, with many opportunities for unexpected events.

Don't bring anything that can't be exposed to the weather, and don't bring anything that will cause you emotional hardship if it does not return home with you.

I have been camping for years, and have never lost anything to theft, nor has anyone I know lost anything to theft.

I have had things destroyed by getting to close to the fire, ruined by water, worn out from over use, lost through misadventure, left behind accidentally, or otherwise made unavailable for future use by something stupid I have done. Apply some common sense and don't leave your wallet laying in the middle of the road.

But you need not be overly concerned about theft.

In the US there are two very general types of camping area, Private and Public.

the private places are run for profit and almost always have people who rent (or lease) the same spot for years.

The public ones are government operated and usually have a two week stay limit.

In both cases, there are people who spend their whole time in camp.

At any one time it would be unusual for there to be more then 2 out of 3 campsites having their occupants gone.

Everyone tends to keep an eye on what is going on around them.

Only a few bring a television and satellite dish.

Everyone knows who belongs to what campground, all of this makes for an environment that is not good for thieves to operate in.

On the other hand, a common occurrence is for someone to be away from their site and have a wind come up

that is greater then the wind resistance of their tent, canopy or other item.

The neighbors don't just watch your tent blow down the road, they go get it and take it back to your camp.

They may or may not put it back up and secure it better, but they will at least make sure it stays in your site.

I just was told this last weekend: Lock your tent!

Of course thiefes can cut the tent and still steal your stuff but at least your insurance is going to pay if the tent was locked (check the conditions of your insurance and in doubt ask your insurer).

Besides that you should not leave your valuable stuff in the tent alone, also if it's just valuable for you like the knife your grandfather gave you years ago.

What I've learned in half-a-century of camping...

First, don't get too stressed out - in most developed countries theft is rare.

Don't let your concerns spoil your holiday!

(But be sensible - there are a few countries were camping would be risky, so do your research.)

Second, as far as you sensibly can, leave your valuables at home.

In particular don't take anything irreplaceable and of great sentimental value.

Third, carry critical documents (passport, insurance, tickets etc) in some kind of hidden under-clothes security wallet and keep them on you at all times Fourth, if you are car-camping, keep anything of value locked and unseen in the boot/trunk of your vehicle when you're away from your tent.

Alternatively, in an organised site there may be lockers available.

When I don't have a car, I prefer to carry my most expensive lightweight gear with me in my backpack when I'm off the site - my high-end sleeping quilt and mat, my camera and electronics, my down clothing etc.

It doesn't really weigh much, and it gives me some piece of mind.

Before you go off-site, tidy up your pitch, tuck everything out of sight and zip up your tent.

Make your site as anonymous and uninviting as possible.

If you get to know your neighbours and they seem trustworthy, ask them to keep an eye on your stuff.

It's really just a question of common-sense.

But above all - relax and have fun!

Question: This summer. I will be camping on my own at a coastal caravan park located between 2 towns. In terms of safety (theft) and other things, what do you advise?

Any tips to prevent theft while tent camping alone in a caravan park?

Lock your tent. Leave valuables at home and don’t take anything of great sentimental value. Carry important documents (passport, etc) in a secure wallet. Keep any valuables covered with blankets to make them less attractive to thieves. Carry valuable items (cameras etc) with you  in a backpack. Ask your neighbors to keep an eye on your stuff. Lockers may be available. Be aware of your surroundings.

Keep your tent secure, keep critical items with you and leave valuables at home. Make your site and vehicle inconspicuous, use lockers/safes where possible. Exude confidence, follow your instincts.

Lock your tent, leave valuables at home, keep critical items with you.

Get to know your neighbours, make your campsite and vehicle inconspicuous.

Lockers and safes are available at some sites.

Exude confidence, follow your instincts and remember that your life is more valuable than stuff.


This answer is based on the meaning of "Petri Heil", I have hardly any first hand knowledge of the use of this phrase.

For starters it is certainly restricted to countries where the majority religion is christianity, as "Petri" is a reference to the biblical fisherman Petrus (Luke 5.1-11 and John 21.1-14).[1]

Then "Heil" is a somewhat outdated German noun used as a greeting.

In general it is positive expression, meaning a broad range of things like good fortune, health, success, ...

It is derived from "heilig" which is "holy".[2]

So the German origin makes it likely that this is only used in German speaking parts of the world.

However there are German expressions in English and probably other languages.

Generally in technical language you can often find terms from foreign languages.

So this is not conclusive.

Combining the two "Petri Heil" means something like

"I wish you just as much success as fishing as the biblical Petrus had".

At least technically, I guess hardly any fisherman will actually know this.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petri_Heil [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil

I grew up in Italy, in a fishermen's village on the Adriatic Sea.

I never heard this expression, and I am pretty sure I've never heard it anywhere in the Mediterranean.

Furthermore, I think that a "HEIL" in the southern European seas is one of the most non-local and foreign-sounding expressions that I can imagine.

So please don't even try it :-)

In case you do not mind a regional-based mutation, among Czech fishermen a very similar greeting can be heard: "Petru zdar!"

or "Petrův zdar", which has the same meaning as "Petri Heil".

However, I suppose the Czech analogue actually comes from German as the Czech language used to be influenced by German in the past.

I grew up in a fishing community on islands north of Scotland, and never once heard this.

The folks up there used English and Norse greetings, but not a German one, so I would imagine it is German-specific.

So Universal?

No.

In English, a common greeting used would be "Tight Lines", more on exiting the area than entering, to wish others luck.

Although not a literal translation, it is considered equivalent.

I moved to Germany in 2018 and had a chance to talk to a few fishermen.

I asked them what should I say to a fisherman when greeting him

and they told me “Petri Heil”,

so I suppose they still use it, but may be not all of them.

I live near Luxembourg border, so may be this is a regional thing.

I'm a Canuck.

My father in law is German and lives there.

Whenever he speaks to my wife, he has her tell me Petri Heil, knowing we both fish.

Neither of us speak the other's language though I have picked-up on a few, ahem, choice words here and there.

The common greeting here is "Tight Lines", the meaning should obvious.

Tight lines meaning "fish on" or

, I wish you much luck :)

And I do believe the answer to Petri Heil is Petri Danke.

Question: In Germany fishermen greet each other with "Petri Heil". I asked myself if this is only a German thing or is it kind of universal (at least in developed countries like EU countries, US etc.) for fishermen?

Is the fishermen's greeting "Petri Heil" accepted all around the world?

In general it is positive expression, meaning a broad range of things like good fortune, health, success. However, this is not familiar in Scotland or in the Mediterranean.

This is a positive expression but is not universal.

This is not universal and is not known in many parts of the world.


Well, it seems that everyone goes with either walk on the wet sand or protect your feet...

However, I've done this in the past since I was a kid

(overtime you get used to the hot sand): the really hot sand is just the thin top layer, just underneath is warm, so one way is to dig your foot, a little like kicking the sand at each step, this is generally not appreciated if there is other people on the beach.

The other way, that wont get you yelled at but its slower, is to quickly move aside that thin hot superficial layer with your foot and take your step.

Next time you are at the beach give a look at the way the old lifeguards or the guys that set umbrellas and chairs walk on the hot sand.

These are ok for walking, you cant really do that for running.

Over the years I just got used to the heat, now its not a big deal anymore.

I would prefer that than running with sand and sweat in my fivefingers (whenever I have wet sand they rub too much on the back and around the ankle) or sandals, its like sandpaper... and sand in socks just drives me nuts... take it as a push to run a bit faster ;)

Sandals with straps like a Chaco Or run barefoot first thing in the morning Or run down in the surf

Unless you're at high tide, walk just below the high tide line.

The damp sand is firmer and easier to walk on as well as cooler.

To get there, in sandals you can step vertically onto the sand and reduce contact with your toes.

With bars feet, move quickly.

Even if you don't have both feet off the ground by running, minimising the time they're both on the ground reduces the heat.

With shoes /boots walk normally.

Depends on what you're doing.

My insights: Running/jogging?

Barefoot or running shoes near the waterline.

Try to avoid sandals that expose your toes completely, since you could hurt you toes & toe joints if you stumble.

Walking idly?

Walk in the seawater if possible or near the waterline so your feet get soaked occasionally.

Not only does it provide cooling but also health benefits (arguably).

Walking through the dry sand?

Barefoot.

Walk deep in the sand as described in other answers, avoiding the hot top layer.

Beach volley or such sports?

Barefoot or some light covers ("swimming shoes", special socks etc).

Stay hydrated!

Barefoot Shoes Also known as minimalist shoes, the theory behind them is to give you as close to a barefoot feel without actually putting the soft, soft flesh of your terribly urbanized and unadapted soles of your feet at risk of damage.

My favourite barefoot shoes are Vibram Five-Fingers , I wear either my Mouri's or my KSO's at the beach.

Vibram Five-Fingers '

Signa' watersport shoes:

The thin sole will be enough to protect your feet from the lava sand, and it will still feel like running on the beach barefoot, with the exception of your feet getting exfoliated by the sand.

They also have running specific five fingers if you're interested.

One approach I learned when playing beach volleyball in Egypt are a pair of thicker socks.

With these you still get the barefoot feeling but have a layer of insulation under your soles.

For me my old socks from my military service do the trick, but a pair of old tennis socks should also work fine.

Question: Last time I was on vacation in Italy, I decided to go barefooted for a run on the beach in the evening. Lovely idea, wasn't it? It was not! The beach felt like a volcano!   Which gear or techniques are recommended to walk/run on hot sand?

How to walk on the hot beach or rather hot sand?

Walk on the wet sand or protect your feet using socks or sandals.

Walking on damp sand below the tide line works well. Sandals and socks also work well.


I'd treat a new acrophobic hiker the same way I would any other new hiker

I was out with.

I start out by asking them what they are comfortable with before we even start, as well as what their fitness level is.

For instance, I have a friend in poor shape with terrible balance who occasionally comes with me hiking.

I choose routes with her that are much easier than I would do alone, and that mostly don't involve rock scrambling or unbridged stream crossings.

But we've done a little scrambling anyway sometimes, and she's always been happy to learn she can.

Along the way, I check in with a new hiker, especially when we get to a situation that's likely to be a bit tricky.

In this case, it might mean a rocky climb or a trail with a drop-off.

With a hiker who has no specific problems, it might mean asking how they are doing on a tough, steep section, or just checking on their energy and hydration levels after an hour and taking more frequent breaks than I usually would.

With an acrophobic friend, I'd ask them about what sort of situation makes them most uncomfortable, then mostly avoid it.

This would probably include scrambling, steep switchbacks, and cliffside trails, but it's their call.

No need to avoid all heights, since they already know there will be some.

The point is to give them an enjoyable experience so that they want to come back, and maybe push their limits further next time.

I have never liked heights, but I have still done a lot of things because I wanted to get to the top more than I was afraid of heights.

I think that the best thing to do is to let this friend decide on where he would like to go, and let his motivation decide how much risk (real or perceived)

you take.

It also helps with the fear of heights to get used to it, for me that has always been hanging belays where you hang around at the top of the cliff for a while and eventually you get used to it.

The other answers have covered the important ground, and are all things that have helped me, so I'll just add a few things from my own experience.

I have acrophobia, a balance disorder, and a number of physical injuries and illnesses that make it hard for me to go places and see things.

My husband, and the only other friend I trust, have found ways to help me do things I only dreamed of enjoying, so I'll suggest a few. Hold on to your friend when they get scared.

That may mean taking their hand, hooking arms, or wrapping your hand around their waist.

Sometimes my husband just holds my coat or sleeve, and I feel better.

Also, depending on the terrain, stand behind them so they know they can step or tip backwards and not fall over.

A hand on my back really increases my confidence.

Some people with phobias just need to know they're not stuck, so remind your friend frequently that you'd be happy to take them back at any time.

That can mean returning to a place they were comfortable and resting a bit, as others have said, or even going all the way back to the car or place you began.

For me, that reassurance has often given me the strength I needed to keep going.

There have been times when I've had to force people to cut the journey short, and been afraid I disappointed them.

I know you don't want your friends to feel that way, but just in case, let them know you've had a great time being together and watching them enjoy themselves, and that you'd love to take them again.

Recently, I went to Schoodic Point , which is a rocky section of the Acadia National Park in Maine.

We stayed where it was fairly flat, without much climbing and no scrambling, but the terrain was rough and scary.

It was something I thought I could never do, and planned to stay in the car.

With my husband and friend using these methods, and what's in all the other answers here, I went much farther than I thought I would, loved almost every minute, and am looking forward to going back!

I look at the pictures from that vacation and still can't believe that was me up there!

Caring for your friend in this way can make this kind of huge impact on their life!

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

As an acrophobic myself, you need to be very calm, helpful and be prepared to turn back and/or abort the hiking.

Hiking could be very helpful to help your friend deal with his fears.

A couple of years ago I went to Itatiaia National Park

and it was very hard to deal with the height.

My friends where more experienced and helped me a lot with the hardest parts.

Before the finish, I decided that was enough for me, and I waited for the group to finish and come back.

I write about this experience here (many photos), but it's in portuguese.

Over here we refer to height as "exposure" and we encounter a lot of it in the form of cliff traverses.

In order to take care of a person with some fear, one important thing is to recognise that different people have different limits and comfort zones.

For one person walking on an edge with a 2 meter drop is too much, for another 20 meter is the limit, for another walking on a 200 meter drop is not a problem.

So take it slow and be aware of the other person and when they seem to become uncomfortable.

Sometimes they may want to push their own comfort zone boundaries and "try again" after a minute, sometimes you may choose to find a way around the obstacle.

Ask them what they want to do!

Question: There is some trouble. One of my close friends has acrophobia (fear of heights). But he wants to go for a trek for what it offers than just the mesmerizing view from the top. How can I take care of one such person?  Obvious assumptions: Hike doesn't include any climbing activity, not even scrambling.

How to take care of an acrophobic person while hiking?

Stay very calm, helpful and be prepared to turn back and/or abort the hiking.  Ask them about what sort of situation makes them most uncomfortable, then mostly avoid it. Depending on the terrain, stand behind them so they know they can step or tip backwards and not fall over. An important thing is to recognise that different people have different limits and comfort zones. Some people with phobias just need to know they're not stuck, so remind your friend frequently that you'd be happy to take them back at any time.

Allow them to decide what they want to do, give them some physical contact for reassurance. You can stand behind them and stay calm.

Being calm, standing behind an acrophobic and reminding them they’re not stuck are good points.


The short answer is yes.

You can't harm a cast iron Dutch oven with the temperatures generated by a normal campfire.

Ideally you have the type of Dutch oven with three legs and a lid designed to hold coals.

Those were specifically designed to be right in the fire.

The more common type with a flat bottom and domed lid are probably better used by suspending with their bail instead, simply because they're more prone to burning the food when in direct contact with the coals.

However, you can cook perfectly good meals with them by learning how to let the fire die down into nice cooking coals, and how to bank the coals for effective cooking (more like your second diagram).

I have both types and prefer cooking on my three legged oven.

My brother prefers the flat bottomed kind, but he's got the tripod for suspending the oven, and I don't.

Yes, you can with no trouble.

I have one that I use a lot direct in the fire.

I built a little fire pit outside at home using regular cinder blocks.

I used a tripod and hang my cast iron pot just above the fire.

I use camping as well all the time in fireplaces like this.

You could place it on the fire but you would likely burn the contents.

Putting it directly on the fire is also not stable, as the wood shifts as it burns.

A tripod over a fire is useful for stability and to reduce the temperature.

Coals at the edge should work.

Why not just pull some coals to the side?

Yes, but that would be to use it as a pot rather than an oven even if you used it with the lid.

To use it as an oven, you should put two-thirds of the heat source on the top of the lid (with one-third on the bottom).

Typically, you should use charcoals briquettes as follows to achieve a 350 degree backing temperature:

Bottom has charcoals equal to two-thirds of the diameter of the top in inches.

Top has charcoals equal to four-thirds of the diameter of the top in inches.

For example, a 12 inch Dutch oven would get eight briquettes on the bottom and sixteen on top.

If you left the briquettes there for sixty minutes you would have the equivalent of about one hour in a standard home oven at 350 degrees.

For each decrease/increase of the temperature by 25 degrees, remove/add three total briquettes (one from bottom and two from top).

Of course, outside temperature and wind will affect the Dutch Oven.

Also, to ensure even heating, rotate the entire pot (including top) counter clockwise by 90 degrees every 15 minutes and the top only clockwise by 90 degrees every fifteen minutes.

Cast iron dutch oven's can even be burnt in a fire to clean them out.

Aluminum dutch oven's, however, can melt when placed in a campfire.

Question: Most of the guides I have found relating to  Dutch ovens  recommend placing hot coal on and underneath the oven, or hanging the oven from a tripod.  I was wondering if my cast iron Dutch oven could be placed either on the fire directly or on the wood coals at the edge of the fire. I have included an illustration to help.

Can I place a Dutch oven directly into/next to a camp fire?

Yes, you can with no trouble.  You can't harm a cast iron Dutch oven with the temperatures generated by a normal campfire.  Make sure it is stable, as the wood shifts as it burns. Also, be careful not to burn the contents.

There is a risk of burning your cooking, otherwise there is no reason not to do this.

Doing this may cause you to burn what you're cooking.


As a beginning skier you will probably be falling down a lot.

This means that you are likely to end up covered in snow even if the weather is nice.

If you are wearing a soft shell, the snow melting from your body heat is more likely to penetrate the shell and make you cold and uncomfortable.

Depending on the local climate, you may also have to worry about sitting in icy puddles on the ski lifts.

I'd definitely recommend wearing a hard shell as your outer layer.

tl;dr

I don't think you need spent big money on a new jacket just to go skiing if you have a serviceable soft shell.

You can wear anything you want.

I know when the ski season is coming to a close some people go skiing in little more than bathing suits on warmer days, and there are competitions where people try to cross/jump over pools of ice water.

I skied nearly every day in Jackson Hole, Wyoming one season and my go to jacket was a soft shell with a wind proof membrane.

I chose that jacket because I would use the lifts and then hike out in the side country (out of bounds areas to the side of the patrolled areas).

When I hike I tend to heat up significantly so my soft shell allowed me to dump the excess heat.

I only used a regular hard shell ski jacket during the coldest of days.

In general for beginning skiers/snowboarders I'd recommend they wear something that is warm, has really good water resistance, and will keep the snow out.

Hard-shell skiing jackets generally accomplish all of these things.

Soft-shell jackets that I've used tend to be a bit shorter in the torso

so it is easier for snow to get up underneath your jacket.

Depending on how you fall and what type of snow you fall into the snow will be driven underneath your jacket.

This is why some ski jackets have a "powder skirt" built into them.

If you're wearing pants this is a bigger deal than if you're wearing overalls aka bibs because the snow has a better chance with pants to directly contact your skin.

Keep in mind you're probably going to be falling a lot as a first timer so bigger, bulkier clothing is going to keep you warmer and cushion your falls a tad too.

The long and the short of it is I'd recommend a big hard-shell jacket, and bibs.

If you're learning to snowboard and happen to have a set of hockey breezers I'd recommend you wear those too.

However, anything you have, like a soft shell, that will keep you warm and dry is probably okay even if it isn't optimal.

This is especially true if you are going skiing at a ski area since the lodge is close and will allow you to warm up.

As an aside don't discount the psychological benefits of a warm drink.

I almost always bring a small thermos full of hot tea with me while skiing.

The tea is always nice, but it is a real lifesaver when you're wet, tired, and feeling miserable.

If I go skiing during sunny weather conditions, is it still recommended to use hard shells or could I get away with an insulated/soft shell jacket and pants?

Yes you get away without hardshells in those conditions.

Your main enemy will be relative wind speed (also because of your speed while skiing) and the cold.

It can be could in sunny (dry) conditions of course.

So you need good insulation which you should be careful of.

The main reason for hardshells are wet conditions.

Softshells ( regarding a typical definition ) are resistant to some degree of humidity like decent rain over limited time or e.g. sitting in snow for limited time.

Still for intense rain/snowfall you won't stay dry in softshells.

So I recommend that you have at least a windproof softshell (e.g. Windstopper) and decent insulation.

All above is valid for upper and lower body.

The question is really what you mean by sunny weather conditions ?

Does it means the weather is hot or does it means the sun is shinning ?

Because in winter, you can have a beautiful sunny sky and extremely low temperatures altogether.

For instance in winter you can have 40°F in the resort and 0°F at high altitude.

In my opinion the relevant question is wether it will be hot or cold !

If the weather is cold then you definitely need warm clothes, and as other members have already said, hardshell is really useful against the cold wind.

Don't forget that a significant part of your time will be spent doing nothing on the skilift, exposed to wind and cold seats.

If the weather is hot then this is becoming problematic, because you'll be very hot doing a sport with a hardshell in these conditions.

I have ever skied in April under hot conditions, and clearly shorts and T-shirt were sufficient.

But there are 2 issues when it is hot: snow is wet, if not small ponds everywhere falling onto bare skin hurts a lot

So as a beginner, I assume you'll fall quite a few times, and get very wet

, so water-resistant clothes are definitely a plus (if you wear jeans for instance, they will be wet quickly and will keep this way all day long).

Also to avoid being burnt or tear your clothes apart when falling it is better to have clothes made with solid tissue.

The ideal would be to have some hardshell clothes without warm padding.

Since you get a lot of wind skiing you need to break the wind.

And you don't need as much breath-ability.

But in sunny conditions you can get away with a bit.

You are not going to have a lot of speed

your first time skiing.

I just saw you live in Houston.

If you just have a soft shell for local weather then get a hard shell.

At like Academy or an army surplus you can decent shell / rain jacket for $80.

A pair heavy wool pants will work fine.

Question: I'm going skiing for the first time. From what I've read, most everyone uses hard shell jackets and pants for skiing. However, they usually mention something about skiing in bad weather, frigid cold temperatures, long hours in the back country, etc.  If I go skiing during sunny weather conditions, is it still recommended to use hard shells or could I get away with an insulated/soft shell jacket and pants?

Do I need a hard shell to ski in sunny weather conditions?

The ideal would be to have some hardshell clothes. However, you don't need spent big money on a new jacket just to go skiing if you have a serviceable soft shell and decent insulation.

You can wear whatever you want, though hardshell is best followed by windproof softshell.

Hardshell is best, though windproof softshell can also work.


Most importantly, the living are more important than the dead.

Check your scene safety, something killed that person and you want to make sure that it won't kill you as well.

I can't imagine that you will be alright, your partner just died.

Emotionally, your thinking will probably be off, take extra care because of that.

I would document what had happened in writing and take pictures, but not disturb the body as there may be an investigation.

Then I would very carefully hike out, realizing that you are going to be upset and your decision making skills

will probably not be at their best.

Take extra time, go around obstacles, don't let your grief get you into stupid situations.

If possible it might be better to ask someone not from your group to carry the message and your location out to the authorities, as they will be less emotionally affected by the death and would probably make better decisions because of that.

Then when the authorities come in, you can walk out with them.

The other answers seem good, however there's an extremely important step they have missed.

Make sure the person is dead!

(And no I don't mean by stabbing them).

Some injuries are clearly fatal but it's entirely possible that someone who is ill/ poisoned/ injured/ hypothermic/ suffering from blood loss/etc may seem dead but actually be alive.

You need to get medical professionals on the case as fast as possible and doing so may save their life.

Even hospitals and doctors make this mistake from time to time, for example see this article .

This sounds like a macabre version of one of those teambuilding exercises.

As noted above, your emotions will be going haywire and you won't think clearly.

You'll probably stay with your fallen friend for some time before you get your thoughts in order.

First priority is your safety Second priority is immediate first aid Third priority is communication (if you have a communication method), seek and follow further advice from the authorities) Fourth priority is to continue to administer first aid until you're absolutely sure of the situation If your friend is undoubtedly dead, then your own safety becomes paramount.

If you can't safely get to the body, then you can only leave it in situ until you get the authorities there (by whatever means).

In the unlikely event the body is in the open and readily to hand, then practically speaking, protecting the dignity of your friend (and family) is most important.

If you have no means of contacting the authorities from where you are and have to travel some distance to gain help/communication: I'd empty his/her back-pack and insert the body's head/shoulders as far as they'll go.

Secure the opening as tight as possible with his/her belt (if predators get to the body, they'll start with the more accessible parts).

You can then cover the remains with branches/foliage/rocks/whatever in an effort to protect from predation.

Protecting the head/upper chest also preserves any evidence for any subsequent medical investigation.

Mark

the location of the cairn as clearly as possible (use a nearby tree or rock that won't be dislodged by predators).

Use the remaining contents of the back-pack to help mark your route back to the closest, easiest, route to a communications point (where you get a cell signal or people).

Don't forget to mark your exact location on a map before you set off.

If you have communication equipment: Obviously, use the equipment and stick with the body - direct the authorities to you unless instructed otherwise.

Note:

I have no experience or training to back this up.

It just seems appropriate.

Stay with the body until authorities arrive.

If there are no other people around: call the police using your mobile phone (near civilisation) or satellite phone (far from civilisation).

If you don't have a satellite phone, you might consider activating your Personal Locator Beacon (PLB).

I would not want to hike out leaving the body of a hiking partner behind.

Firstly, I would be severely distressed.

Secondly, I would want to guard the body against animals.

If you are in a frequented area, ask somebody to carry the message for you, as Charlie says in his answer .

One problem is going to be predators, scavengers, and insects eating the body.

In the extreme they might drag the body off and you cannot find it.

They are dead - there is no a big hurry.

Preserve the body for the funeral is an important task.

You are not likely to have a full size shovel to bury them.

I would wrap them in sleeping bags, clothes, tent, tent poles, ... ropes.

Once they're all wrapped up, you could put them in the shade.

If you had climbing gear could hang them from a tree by harness, feet, or under arms.

Unless they weigh less than or you had a pulley system then could not do it.

If on a glacier then bury them in the snow.

Alone you can not move a body very far.

A live body you might try to extract if you had

but a dead body the common advice is to leave and go for a rescue party.

Question: I am hiking in the wilderness, a round trip to civilization and back is at least 24 hours.   I know where I am and I can return to the same spot.  If my hiking partner dies, how can/should I protect the body while I go to get the authorities?  I want to protect my partner's body while I am gone, what can/should I do?

How to protect a body in the wilderness?

Firstly, make sure the person is dead!  If your friend is undoubtedly dead, then your own safety becomes paramount. One problem is going to be predators, scavengers, and insects eating the body, so in the unlikely event the body is in the open and readily to hand, then practically speaking, protecting the dignity of your friend (and family) is most important.  Wrap them in sleeping bags, clothes, tent, tent poles, ropes, etc. You can then cover the remains with branches/foliage/rocks/whatever in an effort to protect from predation.  Protecting the head/upper chest also preserves any evidence for any subsequent medical investigation.  Document what had happened in writing and take pictures, but not disturb the body as there may be an investigation. For a dead body the common advice is to leave and go for a rescue party.

Ensure the person is dead, if not seek medical assistance. You should cover the body and call the authorities, hiking out if you are unable to reach them from where you are.

Ensure the person is dead, call for medical professionals if they are alive.

Call the authorities, if you have no way of reaching them then hike out.


I enjoy going out every year and picking wild fruits out here in Beautiful British Columbia.

Many times a year, I will go out picking berries, early in the morning with a friend if possible.

My favorite place to go berry picking is down near the Fraser River.

I tend to make it a multitask day, by picking other berries at the same time and have even done fishing or gold panning where I go on the same day.

It is not worth your while to go out wild strawberry picking as James Jenkins' answer points out.

When I do it, I take along several small containers in order to pick several different types of berries at the same time: salmonberries , blackberries , dewberries , wild raspberries and so on.

I usually will do this several weekends in a row and put the berries in separate containers in my freezer until I have enough to make something out of them.

If not I can make a mixed wild berry pie or wine.

Where to find wild strawberries?

Wild Strawberries grow in many habitats.

When they are found in old orchards or under Wild Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) trees, Grape Ferns (Botrychium spp.) often grow with them.

Wild Strawberries tend to be semi-evergreen.

Sometimes they still possess last year’s leaves when the plants flower in the spring.

Get out and look for strawberries along the edges of abandoned farm fields.

- Michigan’s Wild Strawberries This source gives a little more information: Beach strawberries (Fragaria chiloensis) can be found along the upper edges of beaches on Washington and Oregon coasts.

The leaves are thick and leathery compared to those of other wild strawberries of the Pacific Northwest.

The other two strawberries in the region are usually found from the interior valleys west of the Cascades to alpine areas throughout the region.

Wild, or Blue-leaved strawberry

(Fragaria virginiana) and Wood strawberry (Fragaria vesca) are very similar in their leaves, flowers and fruit.

They are found growing along the edges of clearing in woods, and often on rocky, warm south-facing slopes.

The bright red fruit of our wild strawberries is quite delicious and very similar in appearance to domestic strawberries except for size, but the flavors of the native strawberries are quite different and special.

The berries are found in greatest quantities May-June, depending on location.

- Three Wild Strawberries of the Pacific Northwest

The location I go to has salmonberries and blackberries in abundance at shoulder height and wild strawberries at ground level and in front of the berry thickets.

It is a gold mine for berries.

The only downfall is that there are sometimes bears around.

They like berries too.

I have picked wild strawberries in Colorado often while I am out hunting.

My go-to place for wild strawberries is on old logging roads that have been overgrown.

It takes some clear area with shade, but a little sun during the day.

By hiking up old logging roads that twist and turn, you can often find them either in the road or on the side of a cut where the shade/sun mixture is just right.

If the logging road is starting to have little sprouts of trees coming up, but isn't completely overgrown, you are probably on a good candidate road.

Moisture is another factor, but it is easier to look for strawberries than moisture.

Another place to look is in rock slides where there are marmots.

I think the marmots are out eating the berries and the seeds end up in the rock slides when the marmots return to home.

I have often found them with the marmots or near the marmot homes.

Wild raspberries seem to do a little better where the marmots are, so don't pass those up while you are searching for the berries.

Sometimes the rock slides the marmots

prefer just have too much sun for the berries, I think.

Seeing wild strawberries isn't easy.

You have to really be looking for the plant shape

as often the berries are hiding under leaves, so make sure you have that picture in your head as you hike.

Since geographical area was not mentioned, Smultron are very common in Sweden.

I am not sure about the botanical definition of wild strawberries, but usually Smultron is translated as wild strawberries and Jordgubber

are strawberries They are common all over Sweden, personally I have found them in a lot of the less populated areas in and around Stockholm, which due to Stockholm's lower population density is something very common, and especially in the Roslagen area to the north of the city.

It's common for young adults and kids to string Smultrons on a piece of grass.

In the bellies of critters... Seriously, anything living in the area is going to know where the wild strawberries grow and will have made a habit of eating them when they get ripe.

They grow close to the ground, so unlike black berries and other high bush berries, every critter can easily get to them birds, mice, etc.

I used to frequent a grassy area with wild strawberries, and I probably saw 200+ green ones for every red one.

It will only be by luck that you will get to them before the local wildlife.

Disclaimer:

I have no expertise in botany; what follows is just my own anecdotal evidence.

But I usually manage pretty well to find them.

They seem to be most common in half-shaded areas - not in deep shade (almost impossible), not in bright sunlight (possible but less likely), but somewhere in between.

Look for areas that are relatively sheltered from the sun, but still have lush, thick, green vegetation at the knee-to-waist-high level.

I have the vague impression that wild strawberries tend to more common next to conifers than next to deciduous trees, but I am not quite sure about this

(maybe this is just my own stereotypes).

Question: Wild strawberries are very tasty, but I have only ever found them by accident.     What  locations  would be good starting points to look for them?

What are good locations to find wild strawberries?

Wild strawberries can be found in half-shaded areas and not in bright sunlight. Look for areas that are relatively sheltered from the sun, but still have lush, thick, green vegetation at the knee-to-waist-high level. Wild black cherry and grape ferns are often found nearby. Look along the edges of abandoned farm fields and in rock slides where there are marmots.  . Wild strawberries have ben reported in Colorado, British Columbia and the Fraser River.

Strawberries can be found in shaded areas, overgrown logging roads, orchards and rock slides. Colorado, British Columbia and near the Fraser river are areas for strawberry picking.