A car or household lubricating oil, such as WD-40 or 3-in-One oil (both are brand names in the UK) will dissolve the label glue.

Put one or two drops on the glue residue and rub with, say, a paper towel for a few seconds, and the glue should start to come off.

I haven't tried using vegetable oils, so I don't know if any of those will work.

I just realized that direct heating with a flame does a pretty good job.

Boiling water wasn't enough, but heating with a flame seems to do the trick.

After heating, wiping with a rag takes the glue off.

There is still the smallest amount of residue left after the flame-and-wipe.

I'll give @Claran's oil suggestion a try and compare the results.

I soak in water and use a steel sponge.

Might be interesting for those who don't want to play with fire.

The best solvent I have ever found for stubborn materials is (surprisingly) "NZ tea tree oil" .

It also does not seem to harm most surfaces - a paradox.

It's not known to be especially poisonous - it is sold as a health product.

The genuineness of the health claims made for it are unknown to me, but it seems close to the ideal solvent to have on hand.

Many sellers here - be sure it is from NZ tea tree (really).

It's never cheap, but as a solvent a tiny amount is enough for most purposes, when all else fails.

And, the result smells good :-).

One seller here as an example - good website name :-} ie http://teatreeoil.co.nz/ .

This is not the same as Australian tea-tree oil, which is derived from a quite different plant and is nowhere near as good as a solvent - sadly so as it is much cheaper. .

Eucalyptus oil is extremely good.

Similar overall to NZ tea-tree oil.

Not as good as a solvent but better than most.

Inhale fumes for blocked chest.

Put a drop on a spoon of sugar for internal use.

May or may not work

BUT those were among my (long ago) childhood remedies.

Ethyl alcohol, or meths (in NZ it no longer contains added Methyl alcohol despite the name).

Not as good as above but often useful.

Safe enough in small quantities (do not drive and label dissolve :-) ).

Acetone often does well.

Likes dissolving some plastics.

Methanol (wood alcohol) is often effective.

Nasty stuff and very poisonous - but the drop or so usually needed as a solvent should be easy to use safely.

Carbon tetrachloride was the mainstay of drycleaners for many years.

A carinogen, absorbed through the skin and a liver poison.

Charming.

Still has its place if used sparingly in small volumes with great care.

Methyl Chloride !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nasty poisonous stuff.

Dissolves some things really well.

Will chew apart set epoxy (with violent cracking).

Has its place.

Use with extreme care.

Toothpaste works reasonably well with a little elbow grease and an mildly abrasive pad.

Mayonaise works on most solvents -- any oil emulsion works.

Put on and let soak.

For the 10% or so of stuborn labels I find that mineral spirits or diesel fuel work.

Question: I up-cycled a glass liquor bottle into a drinking glass (by means of scoring, heat-shocking, and polishing).  What I'm left with is a lovely glass with some very stubborn label glue on it.  How can I get rid of the glue?  Big bonus points for something that doesn't involve nasty chemicals.

Getting rid of label glue

Methanol and acetone can remove glue. Toothpaste, mayonnaise, WD-40 or 3-in-One also work. Heating with a flame or soaking in water and using a steel sponge are also recommended.  Tea tree oil or eucalyptus oils are natural alternatives.

Solutions include methanol, acetone, heat, steel sponges, toothpaste, oil-based emulsions and lubricating oils.

Direct flame heat can work, as can a steel sponge soaked in water.

Toothpaste, mayonnaise, household oils, tree oils and emulsions work well.


I was curious about which trees absorb the most CO2 and Googled for this a while back.

I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. this website and this website .

Both sites list trees like: Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)

Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)

Douglas fir

Bald Cypress Common Horse-chestnut

Black Walnut London Plane American Sweetgum

However, there is one site 1 2 that has an entirely different list: Trembesi a.k.a rain tree (Samanea saman) Bamboo (Bambuseae) Cassia (Cassia sp)

Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum) Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum) Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina) Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens) Matoa (Pometia pinnata)

Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)

Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)

As also mentioned by theUg and Blue_hat in their comments below, the first list probably applies to temperate climates, and the second one to tropical climates.

Note that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.

First of all not all trees grow in all places.

The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate.

If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc.

then it will be less sustainable.

If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.

Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature.

If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2.

But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again.

1 update

Jan 2015: sadly the link has died, but I found the same list in this forum post along with some statistics on how much CO2 the trees take up 2 update Aug 2017: the linked article can be viewed in

this capture dated 27 Jun 2012 on Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Basic chemistry here.

Plants consume carbon dioxide and water to produce glucose.

They then polymerize the glucose to create cellulose.

In general, the amount of biomass that a tree produces is dependent on its net carbon uptake.

If all you are trying to do is ensure that you take some CO2 out of the air, you want to plant fast-growing trees, ideally which are harder than softer.

Edit: one more thing to keep in mind: particulates.

One of the best things that trees are good at is removing particulates from the air, particularly if you have frequent rain.

The particulates stick to the leaves and are washed off by rain.

This is actually a function of the leaves since it means that trees get to catch floating sources of nutrients (for example, animals grinding dung into dust that then ends up in the wind).

So one of your most effective reasons to plant around factories is to reduce particulate pollution.

Trees absorb carbon dioxide to grow and build biomass.

If you want to absorb much CO 2 you need a tree that grows fast at your local conditions - consult with your gardener about that.

Note that this will not solve problems with other pollutants, and will only put a rather symbolic dent into wordwide CO 2 emissions.

The factory will pollute much more than can be undone by planting trees (up to a reasonable number).

Any approach that reduces the pollution of the factory will be more effective than planting trees as counter-measure.

It is true, however, that, say, a forest around the factory would help clean the air and absorb much of the pollution, so that planting trees is always a good idea, of course.

Plant bamboo.

Its also an excellent biofuel.

Pines and evergreens collect pollutants on their leaves/spines/firs but are unable to drop them and assist in decomposition.

this is why the bottom of a pine forest is always devoid of other plants.

Bamboo is an excellent "growth" plant in terms of CO2 absorption as well as allowing pollutants to biodegrade within the lower level detritus.

Well, I know the question is more about outdoor plants (Trees)

but I found a Wiki page on NASA's study about Indoor plants, which help remove toxic agents like benzene, ammonia etc.

from air.

NASA Clean Air Study has the details.

Gingko Biloba has high pollution tolerance!

(speaking from a biology perspective, it's also my favorite)

Short and sweet answer is Bamboo and plants from that family.

You can also reuse them as sustainable fuel.

Avoid the conifer and pines as they kill everything that lives beneath them due to toxified leaf (in their case needle) litter.

I'm a gardener who is always interested in these topics.

I discovered Birch trees absorb a lot more pollution than most other trees but tend to prefer cooler climates.

They will grow in the south of England but with a shorter life expectancy.

If the soil is acidic and the summer is cool enough they should multiply on their own.

To absorb street pollution from roads small trees would be more effective as the leaves do all the work.

For a factory the planting needs to be diverse and well placed.

Question: I want to suggest to a gardener to plant trees for reducing pollution and poisonous gases emitted from a factory. Which species is preferable to plant in the area around the factory?

Which tree consumes most carbon dioxide and poisonous gases?

Fast-growing trees remove the most CO2, preferably harder varieties rather than soft.

You should plant trees that grow quickly for maximum CO2 absorption.


My father's goats love pine, not just the needles but the young and flexible twigs too.

So much so that most of the pinetrees in the feeding area lost the branches under 1,5 meters or so.

They never had a miscarriage, but had a lot of false pregnancies.

I do not know if those have anything to do with pine.

I have been told that pine is a natural de-wormer for goats.

I always give mine a few descent size branches when they show signs of worms.

They usually will try their hardest to get to the branches even when they have plenty to forage on.

Never had any issues and the worm problem is usually eliminated.

There is quite a lot of info on the web in general, from this big list of poisonous and ok plants (repeated in various places with no source or attribution - pine is on the ok side).

A more definitive answer comes from this summary of two research papers containing this excerpt: No abortions occurred, however, toxicity was observed in the 3 treated groups.

The pine tips were most toxic, the bark less toxic and the needles least toxic.

Clinical signs of toxicity included muscular weakness, trembling, unusual stance, rumen stasis, bloating, opisthotunus, depression, loss of appetite, and death.

Necropsy revealed no significant gross lesions.

Pine needles, tips, or bark do not cause abortions in goats but are potentially toxic…"

My experience is that goats will eat pine trees if given the opportunity, so it's probably wise to keep pregnant ones away from the trees.

But they do generally seem to prefer grass and trees with bigger leaves.

My experience of goats eating young trees (including pines) suggests that that should apply to any tree you don't want the goats to eat.

Note that goats are climbers, and will eat much more of the tree than you would expect, if they can get access.

Some pines can act as abortifacients and possibly cause renal damage because they contain isocupressic acid.

Ponderosa pine is the one I know of, because we have some near our goat pasture and have to keep them fenced out of it.

I have heard that juniper and a few other conifers might have this problem too.

On the other hand, our goats love douglas fir needles and young bark, and have eaten it regularly for 9 years with no miscarriages.

Well, it seems a little is ok.

I think we have over done it with out goats, given them too much too quickly.

Seems to be a problem with gut bacteria and not having time to adjust to the new feed.

We had 2 huge pines cut down in the yard and have been chucking branches into the goat pen all week, so they don't have much choice.

Bad move -

our one doe couldn't get up last night and is very week and bloated, all the others look ok, but seem like they have slight signs of bloat and weekness.

There was a study that someone referred to in a post about this very issue, it suggested that the tips are the more toxic part, and if they have too much

it's a problem.

Bottom line: I think if you have decent pasture they will eat a bit of everything.

Don't feed them pine exclusively.

I have a goat that's been sick for years and

the pasture she's in is in the middle of a pine forest (bull pine to be exact).

Whenever she's out and about she always takes a nibble on some pine trees and it's impossible to get her away until she is satisfied.

I found a way to use this to my advantage and even out the harmful with the helpful.

I take molasses and glaze some over the pine trees, to single out the trees they like, and then I put about half a cup of loose minerals over it.

It encourages them to eat their minerals and to lessen the amount of pine they eat.

Question: I'm finding seemingly contradictory information with a normal search (forums).  Many sources say that their own goats love pine needles and there's nothing wrong with letting them eat them.  Occasionally somebody jumps in to say that pine needles can cause a miscarriage in bred does.  I suppose both can be true.  Any reliable source of info out there?

Are pine needles poisonous to goats?

Some say that pine is a natural de-wormer for goats and pine is generally considered to be not particularly poisonous to goats. However, some pines can act as abortifacients and possibly cause renal damage because they contain isocupressic acid.

Pine can be a natural de-wormer and is generally OK for goats, though some are abortifacients and may cause renal damage.

Pine appears to be OK for goats and is a natural de-wormer.

Some pines are abortifacients and can cause renal damage.


Personally I use a wire rack over a cookie sheet to drain fried or greasy foods.

The oil drips to the pan below and I can pour the oil into a container or dispose of it however I need to.

I like to use wire cooling racks, brown paper bags, and cloth dishtowels dedicated to this endeavor would work for draining.

Paper towels you do use might be compostable.

I have not found much of an alternative to paper towels, but you could at least try the following: Drain food that has been deep fried on a wire rack.

Only after this use paper towel to soak up excess oil.

I keep paper towel that is soaked in cooking oil and use it as a fire-lighter later on.

Of course, that only works if you have a wood-fired stored.

To minimise the use of paper towels in cleaning, I make use of our local food waste scheme, which accepts cooked food.

For greasy pans: used teabags, or vegetable peelings that seem to be sufficiently absorbent, are used to wipe the pans before washing them.

I then compost the oily teabags This saves a large amount of detergent and water.

Not a 100% alternative, but a reduction: Use only one layer of paper towel and used newspapers under it.

Slices of stale bread are a good alternative.

I keep crusts / the ends of loaves in the freezer and place 4 to 6 on a tray to cover the tray.

You then just place your fried food on top to drain.

The bread is fine to go in the compost afterwards.

Use woven/organic undyed cloth piece, and then wash it along with other clothes.

Keep this piece only for draining food.

Example: https://www.amazon.com/Reusable-Organic-Cheesecloth-ColorGrown-Ubleached/dp/B07622VQVM/

Actually the salad spinner is not a bad idea at all.

It will require washing up after - detergent/water/time costs.

Whereas the cloth /tea towel is pretty simple.

On the rare occasion I fry anything that needs draining I just let it drain on a warm or even hot plate.

The heat will keep the oil flowing and the food warm, cold will congeal oil and cool the food.

I degrease pans etc.

with old teabags or newspaper before washing.

It really helps cut down detergent and washing time.

We Brits always have teabags about.

We prefer to use lightly woven undyed cloth.

Question: When frying food, what's a good alternative to paper towels for soaking up/draining excess oil?

Alternative to paper towels for draining fried food?

Wire racks or undyed/organic cloth could be used instead of paper towels. Stale bread  and even a salad spinner are also alternative suggestions. A combination of paper towels and old newspaper could reduce paper towel use.

Wire racks, undyed woven and organic cloths, newspaper, stale bread and salad spinners can help to reduce paper towel use.

An undyed woven or organic cloth can be used.

Newspaper can be used to reduce paper towels. Stale bread and salad spinners can also be used.


The exact guidelines differ from place to place and depend on how the local recycling process is setup.

Where I live for example, it's ok to leave metal caps on glass bottles because all metals are automatically filtered out, whereas in other countries people are asked to remove the caps.

The same goes for plastic, some places recycle only specific plastic types and all plastics should be clean, and others collect all plastics and it isn't a problem if there are stains.

Generally speaking, it's best to separate the different types of material as much as possible (if they belong to different bins).

For plastics it's best to leave as little food leftovers or other materials as possible because the more leftovers there are, the more the plastic quality goes down when it is recycled.

Also biodegradable plastics are better not collected with regular plastics.

Bio-waste is generally everything that is organic and can be composted; food leftovers, grass clippings, egg shells, cardboard, paper handkerchiefs.

These are general guidelines.

Your local recycling facility may have slightly different guidelines

so it's best to check with them.

The most important reason for cleaning your recycles is for your own comfort and safety before they are picked up by the recycler.

If you have a small blue bin in your kitchen, and you toss a sticky jammy jam jar into it and leave it there for a week or more, you may end up with ants or other insects or vermin attracted by the jam.

So you give it a quick rinse before you put it in there.

If you take individual items outside and put them in a communal bin, there is still the matter of wasps, ants, rats and whatnot getting very interested in whatever food scraps you have left in your recycles.

I rinse cans and jars under the tap.

Plastic and foil that are too sticky and messy to clean, I put into the garbage.

I don't take labels off anything (our instructions from the municipality say we don't need to.)

I do take things apart a little: for example a tissue box is cardboard with a little plastic where the actual tissues come out, and I take that plastic off and put it in the bag I use to collect film plastic, then put the cardboard in the box for cardboard.

Basically, if you make it clean enough that you don't mind it hanging around inside your home, or very near the door to your home, for two weeks, then it will likely be clean enough for your recycler.

Further to @THelper's answer, it's also worth considering that (in many recycling plants) most materials put out for recycling are handled at least to a small degree by real people, even if they just go past on a conveyor belt.

As a gesture of respect, it's nice to avoid anything that smells completely rotten.

It's not a job I would want to do, so I like to think I can at least make the job more pleasant for those that do it.

In terms of the impact on the waste stream, don't get in a swivit about it.

Example:

Our dump takes ALL plastic pails, and they go through a shredder.

Then a magnetic separator to remove shredded metal handles, Then they go through a series of washing cycles, with hot soapy water and various solvents.

This removes most food items.

The solvents remove left over oil and grease.

Then they are packed in to 4 foot cube nylon bags and sold as feed stock to other uses.

Its more a question of basic hygiene I think.

Do you want rats / wild animals rummaging in your recycling bins for leftover bits of food?

Would you want, as a recycling operative, to pick up a box of clean glass jars, or jars with bits of Dolmio, brine or Mayo left in.

Its common decency

I think to keep things clean, but here in the UK there is no steadfast law that says things should be cleaned out.

Its simply manners.

Question: Outside my apartment, there are 3 rubbish bins. One for  glass , another for  metals, paper and plastics  and a third without a label, for bio-waste I guess.  So I wonder what are some guidelines for when a package goes to number 2 or 3? If there is still chocolate on the inside of my waffle package, where does it go? What about a plastic box or glass jar of mayonnaise? What about a plastic widget with some rubber on it? What about wet paper, handkerchiefs?

How 'clean' should something be for recycling?

The guidelines differ from place to place and depend on how the local recycling process is set up. Generally speaking, it's best to separate different types of material as much as possible. As a matter of basic hygiene, if you make it clean enough that you don't mind it being inside or near the door to your home for two weeks, then it will likely be clean enough for your recycler.

Whilst guidelines can vary locally, separating materials by type and keeping things reasonably clean can be kept in mind.

Guidelines vary locally, separating materials as much as possible is a good principle.

This is a basic hygiene issue, materials should be clean enough to be kept in your home for two weeks.


Just about anything you would normally do with rags, but these ones are already in tube and bag form:

Use for washing, polishing and cleaning -

just put your hand inside Use to keep stuff in - small items like wingnuts, earrings... Use fancy socks for wrapping presents - tie a ribbon round the top Put stones inside and use to hold down bird nets or apple branches in the garden Add eyes and hair and make into puppets.

Make hundreds and sell for charity Recycle into baby and doll clothing Sew together and stuff as draft excluders

OK

that's just a few ideas for the creative household!

If they are pretty stretchy you can cut off the tops and use them to make cozies for your drinks containers.

Here's how: gather and stitch the cut end to close the tube in a round fashion.

This is more easily done if you place a bottle or glass inside to help even out the material as you sew.

Work the material around so that it sits flat.

Decorate with yarn or sew on beads, etc.

Then use the remaining foot portion to fashion drawer sachets.

Just fill them with lavender and sew them shut.

Or fill with rice, sew closed, and microwave for a minute to soothe a sore neck.

I tried a patchwork of socks, that wasn't very beautiful.

Depends on the socks (and your abilities in patchwork)!

You can cut them in little pieces and use them as stuffer for pillow, footstools...

You can easily find some tutorials.

Make sock puppets, either yourself or others (children!):

You can Google something like how to make sock puppets easy for plenty of descriptions, even instructables.com has a 10 minute sock puppet instruction.

You can do great things with them

Follow Richard Dawkins' suggestions: Be bold Make a fashion statement of odd socks Fight

the tyranny of the matching socks Sock it to conformity

Be an individualist, not a slavish sock puppet.

Shoes and gloves, like proteins and many other molecules, have chirality: there’s a left one and a right one and you can’t rotate either to make the other.

Hands are chiral, so are feet.

But (with rare exceptions) socks are not.

Socks fit feet more approximately than shoes, and any sock will fit the left or right foot equally well.

So, unlike shoes, there’s no obvious reason why you have to buy socks in pairs.

Theoretically you could buy a dozen identical socks and choose any two of them at random each day.

If you lose one, no matter, you now have eleven from which to choose.

But alas, as far as I know, socks are only ever sold in pairs.

And that’s ridiculous.

I live in a college town and have a teen age daughter along with some teen age nieces

and I've notice that the style is to have mixed match socks.

Just pair up colors and tell them they are retro style socks.

They will think it's cool

and you can start the next big trend.

sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/4328/Merrill M. Meyers Jr.

Question: I may be unique here but over the years I have collected perhaps hundreds of mismatched socks of various sizes and colors. Some are good cotton and others are like new. Since I have a large family and many no longer fit the children, I want to either get rid of them, recycle, or put them to use sustainably. I can't think of anything to do with these. I already have a large supply of rags. Any ideas for disposal or use of five full bags of socks?

Mismatched socks? What to do with hundreds of them?

Odd socks can be used for rags and bags. Washing, polishing, storage, gift-wrapping, drinks coozies and garden weights are some examples of what to do with old socks. A sock filled with rice can be microwaved and used to soothe sore muscles. They can also be used to make sock puppets for children.

They can be used as rags or crafted into neck massagers, sock puppets and patchworks.

They can be crafted into small items such as sock puppets, patchworks, neck massagers.


Yes, blister packs are recyclable (for example with machines like this one ) but chances are there's no recycling company in your area that will accept and recycle it unless you are able to separate the different materials yourself.

Blister packs like the one you posted typically consist of plastic (usually PET or PVC) and aluminium.

The problem with composite waste materials is that they are more difficult and costly to recycle compared to homogeneous materials, because you need to separate the different materials.

Additionally plastic-aluminium composites only form a relatively small-volume waste stream, which makes it difficult to make the recycling process economical.

Recycling companies that recycle blister packs do exist, for example this US and UK-based recycler

but I think that's one of the few

and it seems you actually have to pay them to get it recycled

(you have to buy a waste collection box and send it back once it's full).

In general it's always best to ask your local recycling company whether they recycle a particular product, and what the appropriate way of disposal is.

That's because different recycling companies make different choices as to which types of waste they process and how exactly they collect and process it.

If your local recycling company doesn't recycle it you could try and find another company a bit further away, but if you do find a suitable recycler keep in mind that moving trash around may cause more environmental damage than you gain from recycling.

BTW when inquiring about the recyclability of a particular material, always check the recycler's definition of 'recyclable'.

Many recyclers will say they do 'thermal recycling' which means it will be incinerated.

There are blister packs which appear to be made entirely from aluminium

and I put these in the recycle bin in their entirety.

I have also been recycling the blister packs made from plastic and aluminium.

I do this by occasionally separating the aluminium from the plastic in a sort of game of 'patients' by trying to separate as much of the aluminium from the plastic as possible.

With some blister packs, eg asprin, it is possible to achieve 100% and most others around 60 to 90%.

However, with some, especially where the blisters are very small, I give up after a few seconds if I am struggling however I have occasionally achieved 100%.

Needless to say the aluminium gets recycled and the remaining pack has been discarded.

I can while away an hour or so on this when I have things I need to think over quietly or I have little else to do.

Far better than this would be a National/International campaign to have all blister packs made entirely out of aluminium; it is done by some and can surely be done for all medicines.

Only thermo plastics have a recycle value, thermoset plastics do not.

Even the thermo plastics are limited as recyclate - grade 1 recyclate, by grade 2

the polymers strands will no longer bond and the resultant product will develop weaknesses and start to split.

As stated in the first answer, 'Yes... ...need to separate the different materials' it is this which poses one of the biggest problems in recycling plastics, it's best done at source (at home if you like) as the cost of doing it on mass is high.

Hope

this helps and enlightens.

I've experimented with soaking foil-backed blister packs in caustic soda solution, commonly sold as a material to unclog drains.

Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) dissolves the aluminium foil.

The caustic soda solution can burn skin, so it needs care in using it.

The dissolved aluminium produces sodium aluminate solution which can be flushed away with lots of water.

The blister pack plastic is usually PET which can be recycled, and the foil is usually bonded to the blister tray with LDPE film, which also remains after the aluminium is dissolved, and which can be combined with other LDPE for recycling.

When I was 11 or 12 years old, I used to work at a dispensing pharmacy after school.

My tasks consisted of delivering prescriptions to the recipients by bicycle(!) and literally washing the returned glass bottles that the customers brought back, soaking the labels off them, washing, rinsing and air-drying the bottles.

Simpler times fifty years ago in a smallish New Zealand city.

In my household unfortunately we must take a number of tablets daily on permanent repeat prescriptions, mainly from plastic/aluminium bubble packs.

But some are supplied in totally aluminium packs, which are readily re-cyclable.

So there is an alternative - which is for drug manufacturers to be forced by law to use only single-material packaging.

If some can, why not the rest?

Question: Now, in management of recurring everyday waste, this is something totally unavoidable.   Are tablet strips (what they call blister pack strips), after use, recyclable? Can they be dumped with dry waste along with other plastic such as polythene covers?   I have been collecting them for over a month now, with the hope that there must be a responsible way to dispose of them.

Are used "blister packs" recyclable?

Blister packs are recyclable but the component parts,  including PET plastics and LPDE film, may need to be separated for recycling. Some blister packs are aluminium and readily recyclable. It is best to ask your local recycling company how to dispose of blister packs.

PET and aluminium blister packs are recyclable, though you should first check with your local recycling company.

Blister packs are recyclable but you should check with your local recycling company.


With your hand on top of the head of the axe and holding it down by your side, the spike should come down to about your ankle.

This will feel quite short, but when walking on steep ground (which you should be when taking an axe!), holding the axe in your uphill hand it will be a very useful length.

Shorter is also lighter...

Ideally try and borrow one and see how you get on.

Some people prefer to have one long enough to use as a short walking stick.

Others prefer to save weight and go as short as possible.

In any case, it should be long enough so that you can use it properly to self-arrest.

Everything else is optional.

You could rent a couple of ice axes of different sizes, go out to a steep snowy slope, and practice self-arrests to see what you're comfortable with.

The practice will be valuable in itself.

Keep in mind that stopping in powder, ice, and deep slush are all different experiences.

This is sourced from REI's

How To Choose An Ice Axe .

As Chris mentioned, the axe should barely touch the ground when standing upright and with arms at the side.

A rough guide to ice axe length is: <5'8" (<1.72m): 50-60cm 5'8"-6'0" (1.72-1.8m): 60-70cm

>6'0" (>1.8m):

60-70cm Too short is generally better than too long.

As AA Grapsas commented, it also depends on the type of climbing.

Axes less than 60cm are generally for technical ice climbing and are best used for very steep or vertical slopes.

Since they're shorter, they don't offer much leverage and are therefore bad for self arrest.

On the same note, axes over 70cm are generally too long for technical climbing, but better used for flat or lower angle slopes.

They say a picture is worth thousand words: Generally (except activities like drytooling /ice climbing)

when standing upright and holding the axe you should have the end of it in middle of the length of your calf.

Source: Axe buying guide (Polish)

Mountaineering ice axes serve a few simple functions: self-arrest, belay, and T-anchor.

(And occasionally cutting steps, but hopefully by the time you're doing that, you will already know what you like.)

For belay and T-anchors, any length of axe is fine.

For self-arrest, however, there are some factors you could consider:

In self-arrest, you are supposed to "fall" on the axe and use your body weight to dig it into the slope for a good arrest.

If the shaft is too short, much of your weight will go directly on the snow instead of on the axe, reducing the weight on the axe, and therefore its stability against the shear force pulling it tangential to the slope.

When dropping flat on your axe in self-arrest, the length of the shaft can affect how easy or hard it would be for you to self-impale.

There are two common ways to impale yourself on the shaft in self arrest: If the shaft is too short , and in your self-arrest drop the pick didn't go right in and the bottom of the shaft is sticking up, it could go right into your abdomen.

This is fairly uncommon. if the shaft is too long , and in your self-arrest the pick didn't go right in and the bottom of the shaft is sticking up, it could go go through your thigh.

The poking angle required for this to happen can be much lower than that required for the first abdominal impalement...

So in summary, I find that (regardless of walking-stick usefulness) the best shaft length is the one between too long that it can impale my thighs, and too short that it can impale my abdomen.

I generally measure this length as the diagonal from one shoulder to the hip bone on the opposite side, but you might find that this measurement varies for you.

To add a data point to the curve, I'm 6'3", and after much deliberation bought a 65cm DMM Cirque as a general winter hillwalking axe.

While I'm generally very happy with it, I'd definitely switch to a 60cm one next time.

The only place where I find the extra length useful is cutting steps in descent.

Self-arrests with it are fine, but a shorter axe would be more wieldy for them.

Question: I'm going to start mountaineering. Is there a recommended size per height/weight for ice axes for general mountaineering?

How do I know what size ice axe I should get?

An ice axe needs to be long enough to self-arrest. When holding the head of the axe, the end should come down to between the ankle and middle of your calf. Some people prefer a longer ice axe, to help as a walking stick. For belaying, any length is fine. Not too long or short - as long as the diagonal from one shoulder to the opposite hip - in order to prevent injury.

Any length of axe may work for belay and T-anchors, though you need to be able to self-arrest with it. It should neither be too long nor too short and could be the length of a short walking stick.

It should be the length of a short walking stick that allows you to self-arrest.

Any length of axe works for belay and T-anchors, though it should neither be too long or too short.


I've used both kinds of packs.

External frame packs are generally cheaper, can carry more gear, and allow much better ventilation to your back.

In addition to the main compartment and side pockets, most external frame packs also have an area above and below the main compartment where gear can be lashed.

Internal frame packs tend to have larger interior volume, allow more freedom of movement, and (especially in areas prone to thunderstorms) don't have large metallic poles that go above your head.

I've seen a few modern internal frame packs that have air channels for ventilation

, I've never tried one, but it looks like it may help to keep things cooler.

There really isn't much reason to use an external frame backpack, especially if you're looking at modern backpacks.

In almost every case, the internal frame is going to be the better option.

Internal frame backpacks have a lot of advantages over external frames, they have a smaller profile, and when properly packed keep weight closer to your center of gravity where you want it.

They are more form fitting and give you better maneuverability.

The only advantage I can think of for an external frame backpack is that they are often made up of smaller compartments, where as internal frame backpacks tend to have a primary large storage area and you'll have to rely on stuff sacks for organization.

To add to some of the answers already posted: External : The biggest advantage is how forgiving an external frame pack is.

Since the load is hanging on a frame, you can get away with more casual disregard for how you pack the pack, and don't have to worry about the edge of that pot digging in to your shoulder-blades.

It can also take a much heavier load more easily - which is why you will often see trail-crew workers hauling heavy and awkward tools with them.

EFs also tend to be more "idiot-proof" with minimal adjustment options to get wrong (or right for that matter) meaning you can "load-and-go" and ride like a Cadillac down the trail.

Internal : Closer to the body, move more with your body, lower center of gravity, narrower profile.

Often better when you anticipate scrambling or hiking off trail.

They require a bit more attention when packing, and when fitting, but when properly situated can tend to be more a part of you, rather than something on you.

One possible advantage not yet mentioned for external frame pack is that most are adjustable to fit a wide range of people.

This is useful if you know that the pack is going to be used by several people of different sizes, or if the person is likely to be growing rapidly.

For example my son who was 14 and 4'11" when the pack was purchased then 16 and 6'1" when he went to Philmont

As a Boy Scout, I prefer the external frame backpack.

The internal is more comfortable, but on long hikes, the external is not only practical for more gear, but vents your back

so it's not dripping with sweat.

I am not as knowledgeable as some on this page, but my strong preference is the external.

Question: I am starting backpacking and there are both internal and external-frame packs. What is the difference, and is one recommended over the other?

What is the difference between external and internal-frame packs?

External frame backpacks are often made up of smaller compartments, where as internal frame backpacks tend to have a primary large storage area. External backpacks are often cheaper, more adjustable, carry more gear and have better ventilation. Internal packs have a smaller profile and keep weight closer to your center of gravity.

External backpacks can be more practical, whilst internal backpacks can move more with the body and have a larger interior volume.

External backpacks have smaller compartments, are adjustable and practical. They are cheaper and have better ventilation.

Internal backpacks offer greater volume and freedom, have a smaller profile and are closer to the body.


I'm going to say that fit is one of the most important elements.

I highly suggest you find yourself a store and try on a lot of backpacks.

Make sure you properly adjust them.

Usually, someone in a store will be able to help you out.

Additionally, the various features you listed are useful for different activities.

When buying a pack, consider what you'll be using it for and how long.

For instance, my mountaineering pack has loops for my ice axe, a special pouch for my crampons, etc.

If I were planning on a day hike, I would bring my small, 11L pack.

If I'm going for a few days, I might go for a 30L pack that has a storage space for my sleeping bag.

Also, you may wish to load the pack while it's in the store with the weight

you estimate you'll be carrying.

That way, you'll have an idea of how it will feel on your shoulders.

Definitely walk around the store at that point.

One of the issues with most purchases is that you won't really know if the pack does exactly what you want until you've used it a good deal :) Live and learn!

Identify what you do and don't like and eventually apply that to your next purchase.

Pack weight - A heavy pack is also some extra Kg on your back.

Even though a good pack will put them to good use in distributing the content's weight over your back.

Pack frame -

Many ultra-light backpacks come with a minimal frame design, or no frame at all.

You'd need to use your mattress to create a simple frame. Accessibility-

The number of different access points to the equipment you put inside.

Some come with a zipper on the bottom straight to the sleeping bag compartment, some have only top draw-strings.

What really gets to me, is strap placement.

Since I'm a big guy, if the straps on the top half of pack are close, it gets really uncomfortable real fast.

So I'd also like to add strap placement on the watch-out list.

So I definitely agree that you should buy a backpack hands on.

Internet is too much of a gamble for me.

Pack-Buying Priorities: Comfort Comfort Comfort Workmanship quality

Everything else

Best Materials: Dyneema (which is the same thing as Spectra)

Ultra high-end fiber stronger than Kevlar.

Packs made of full Spectra/Dyneema cost $1000-2000.

BEWARE there are lots of cheaper packs that claim Spectra or Dyneema, but which only use these high-end fibers for "rip-stop"/"grid-stop", with cheaper fabric in-between.

Cuben: Ultra-lightweight, durable, and waterproof.

Also very expensive.

Silnylon (Silicone Impregnated Nylon):

Lightweight but can be ripped.

Best Manufacturers: McHale Zpacks Cilogear Zen Master's Advice

: Do yourself a huge favor and go the "ultralight" route and buy a frameless backpack.

As already stressed by others, the backpack has to be comfortable.

If the back system does not fit you, other features won’t make a difference.

But there are plenty of good back systems and therefore good backpacks to choose from, so here are a few more tips:

I like pockets on the hip belt.

Good for a small camera, change or handkerchief to keep at hand.

I like when you can adjust the height of the lid, shift it on straps.

Even if you can’t fit your things into the backpack, you can cram almost anything under a height-adjustable lid :)

If you have some special gear like snowshoes, walking sticks or ice pick, take it with you when choosing a backpack and see how you can attach it to the backpack.

Think about hydration.

If you use a hydration bag, does the backpack support it?

If you are used to PET bottles or a thermos, where can you place these in the bag?

Will they be at hand?

I’ve seen some nice side-pocket designs where the pocket is slightly skewed to the front side and can be accessed even without getting the backpack off your shoulders.

Separate pocket for the raincover is a nice touch, especially when you put the wet or muddy raincover back inside.

If you’re buying a backpack with two separate compartments, does your sleeping bag fit the lower one?

This can be an issue with the synthetic sleeping bags that tend to be quite bulky.

And of course, the backpack will take a lot of beating so it has to stand that.

If the sewing doesn’t look reliable or the zippers look flimsy, I’d think twice about buying.

One thing I don't see on your list is fit.

REI recommends finding your torso length and hip size, and that will help you to find the right fit.

Source: REI

Question: I know one can compare backpacks by the following:   Content (in liters)  Number of external pockets (for quick accessable water bottles for example)  Hip belt available or not  Waterproof / Water resistant / not   But I'm probably missing a lot of other things to which I should pay attention when buying a backpack. Any advise would be helpful.

When buying a backpack, what should I pay attention to?

Fit, comfort and strap placement are the most important elements. Along with workmanship and quality, consider what  you will use it for and for how long.

Comfort, quality of workmanship, fit and strap placement are all important. You should also consider what you'll be using it for.

Comfort, quality of workmanship and intended use are key considerations.


Have you tried Dock Leaves ?

They're well known as a way of soothing Nettle stings and might help.

I use both cortisone and benedryl cream.

One reduces swelling, the other reduces the allergic reaction.

Make sure to only use water soluble creams!

Petroleum based lotions will block the skin from naturally expunging the poison ivy oil.

Benadryl cream works about as good as anything for me.

I realize that an answer has already been chosen, but as a frequent sufferer of poison ivy, I feel obliged to answer.

The best way to treat poison ivy, is to not get it in the first place, with avoidance as the first step, but a blocker works as well.

The best blocker I've found is IvyBlock, which is a lotion.

However, I am more likely to use IvyX which comes as towelettes.

I keep a box in my truck and since they're handy and easy to apply, I'm more likely to use them.

However, once you get poison ivy, the best treatment I've used is a product called Zanfel .

It is a wash, in paste form, that bonds to the urushiol, then is washed away.

This stuff is amazing, but very expensive.

I have seen generic versions, but I have been reluctant to try them since Zanfel works so well.

Some folks have mentioned Benedryl cream/pills, which does help with the itching.

However, it does not treat the root cause of the poison ivy, the urushiol oil.

If I feel that I might have been in contact with poison ivy, I wash with dish soap (Dawn) as it breaks up the oil.

I believe ice can help.

It's a local anesthetic, reduces swelling, and closes the pores, keeping the poison out.

Of course, it can be hard to find ice..

Jewelweed should do the job, if you have it locally.

It usually grows close to the poison ivy.

Plantain weed not to be confused with the bannana like fruit.

Crush the leaves and rub it on.

It is usually growing on the edge of roadways or compacted trails.

I'm not going to repeat any of the good advice given in earlier answers.

However, creams, lotions and salves will not work if you have a massive case of poison ivy.

Then there is nothing to do but go to your doctor or to a walk-in clinic and get a prednisone shot and/or tablets.

I had a horrible case of poison ivy many years ago --

hands, arms, legs, face, and, I don't know how, around my waist -- unendurable.

I got a shot of prednisone plus a course of prednisone tablets.

Within 24 hours, the eruptions and itching were totally gone .

Ever since then, I have been a fanatic about watching out for poison ivy and washing my hands thoroughly with Lava Hand Soap very soon after I even suspect I have touched it while gardening.

This has worked.

Prednisone is a powerful drug, and not one you want to ask for casually or use frequently, but when your body is covered with poison ivy, Over-the-Counter remedies are useless and you need prednisone or a similar steroid prescribed by a doctor.

Know how to identify it and avoid.

that is the only way.

Long pants and socks will help, but if you get it on them and use your hands in contact, surprise .. and then ... Homeopathic remedies sound fun but the only way to over come poison ivy is with the expensive soaps that enzymatically break down urushiol oil, the oil that causes the irritation.

Anything else is going to cause it to spread.

Question: If I'm struck by  poison ivy , what should I do? Is there a way to suppress the itch?

How should I treat poison ivy?

It is best to avoid poison ivy, but a blocker  such as Ivy Block does work. Cortisone and Benadryl cream are recommended. Prednisone is a powerful remedy in severe cases. Jewelweed, plantain weed and dock leaves can help, as can ice.

Prevention is preferable, though blockers, creams, prednisone, certain weeds, leaves and ice can help.

Prevention is better than cure, but blockers, creams and prednisone are effective.

Jewelweed, plantain weed, dock leaves and ice can be effective.


Regular polarized sunglasses are usually meant for drivers of cars, as these glasses, in addition to darkening the sky, also suppress glare/reflections.

If you travel in snow, light will come from all different angles and directions and will therefore be polarized in all kinds of directions, so a mere polarizer will not filter a sufficient amount of light.

I learned this the hard way...

So in addition to a polarizer, any goggles you use in the outdoors should have something that darkens independent of orientation.

How much depends on where you want to go.

Just in the mountains where there is some snow, or onto glaciers and ice fields where you'll see nothing but snow for days.

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I know that the goggles I use for trekking are so dark that I'm not allowed to wear them while driving (some 99% reduction, I believe).

This is something people in an outdoors store should be able to explain to you.

Another very important thing to watch out for is stray light.

What I also learned the hard way is that clip-on sunshades for your regular glasses let too much light in from the sides.

You want to make sure that once you wear your goggles, any light that reaches your eyes must travel through the glasses.

Again, on a glacier or in snow, light comes from all directions.

Serious expedition-style goggles therefore look a bit like old pilot's goggles, with leather at the sides preventing any stray light from sneaking in.

Regular sunglasses should give you protection from snow blindness, so long as they protect against UV radiation.

How well they protect

you is dependent on how well the lenses cover your eyes, and how well the lenses or coatings filter or deflect UV radiation.

One of the classic applications of polarized sunglasses is to skiing.

Light from the sun is unpolarized, but when it is reflected from a surface at a glancing angle, it becomes highly polarized.

When you're on a snow field, a lot of the bright light getting into your eyes is light reflected from the snow, and when the sun is low in the sky, this glare is coming from glancing reflection, so it's highly polarized.

If you wear polarized sunglasses, they will help to cut out this glare disproportionately, making it easier to see other stuff without having your view interfered with by the intense glare.

This is all about comfort and ease of seeing, but doesn't necessarily tell you anything about snow blindness.

Snow blindness is mainly caused by UV, which you can't perceive and which doesn't cause immediate pain or discomfort.

In addition to snow blindness, UVB (and possibly UVA, although the evidence is not as strong) can cause long-terms problems with vision.

So then the question is whether polarizing lenses are or are not effective against UV.

We have a separate question about that, but basically the answer is that they're probably pretty darn effective, but probably not as effective as you'd ideally like.

There are actual standards for this.

If you are going somewhere where snow blindness is a real possibility, you should have sunglasses that meet the standard.

The most common standard used in outdoor sunglasses is the Category standard based on the european CE standards.

There are 5 categories 0-4

This page has a good overview: An Explication of Sunglasses Lens Categories.

Basically, general purpose outdoor sunglasses should be in Category 3, which is appropriate for skiing in the winter when the sun is generally at a low angle.

If you are climbing a glacier in the summer, you want category 4 level glasses.

Polarized lens can certainly help, but ultimately it's the reduction in UV light

levelsthat prevents snow blindness.

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

Any sunglasses or will help protect against snow blindness.

UV protection is highly recommended.

Contrary to what some may feel is a limited use for polarization the sole purpose of this filtering is to minimize glare directly and indirectly caused by but not limited to bright sunlight.

By doing so your visual acuity is increased in any bright light environment.

Keep in mind light itself travels so it will bounce off any reflective surface.

The more reflective your environment is the more intensive the glare will be.

The most effective way to protect your eyes from harsh reflection is polarization.

There are several levels of quality to this filter so dontbe to surprised if cheap (low end) protection doesn't do the job.

In addition to a higher quality filter, choose a color that best suits the environment you are in most often, the amount of allowable light transmission is critical to expected performance.

The frame you select is just as important as color, wrapped coverage for the sportsman will help maximize your vision by blocking the amount of light coming in from the sides as where the casual activity sunglass wearer will be just fine with a fashion style frame.

I wear polarized lenses in snow, even at night; and when I come back indoors I can see everything just fine.

If I spend significant time outdoors in blanketed snow, even at night, without my polarized glasses on, when I come back indoors I am basically blind or searching for focus until a number of minutes have passed.

Question: Will regular polarized sunglasses protect me against  snow blindness ? And if not what type of glasses/goggles will protect me?

Do polarized sunglasses protect against snow blindness?

any regular sunglasses will give you protection from snow blindness, so long as they protect against UV radiation. Polarized lenses are also recommended.

Any sunglasses will protect against snow blindness. Polarised lenses are effective.


It is much better to avoid frostbite than to treat it.

You can easily lose fingers and toes to frostbite.

When you are camping in the winter, you cannot go into the lodge and warm up like you do snow skiing.

You should really pay attention to frostbite.

If it is much below freezing and you have numb fingers or toes, you should take some kind of action.

If you have more clothes, use them.

Chemical foot or hand heating packs work well and can prevent frostbite.

You can warm your fingers or toes on someone else's stomach.

You might be able to move around a lot and warm up your fingers or toes.

When your body starts getting cold, it reduces circulation to your extremities (fingers and toes) and they get cold.

If you can warm up your whole body, it will warm your fingers and toes.

You can also get frostbite on your face if you leave it exposed to the wind.

Your face warms up easier than your fingers and toes, though.

If you have any numb spots on your cheeks, ears, or nose, warm them up.

You can also see fresh frostbite on a face -- it's usually kind of white colored.

As stated above, the best way to treat frostbite is to avoid it all together.

As for proper treatment, you should slowly warm the affected area, typically done through a warm water submersion.

Frostbitten feet should not be thawed until you are ready to no longer walk, as you will more than likely lose the use of your feet.

Additionally, in a situation where you are likely to get frostbite you are also likely to get hypothermia.

Make sure you study up on the early warning signs of hypothermia.

It's a killer.

Make sure you tell people where you are going, when to expect you, etc.

if you plan on doing this.

As said, prevention is better than cure.

But, most importantly, don't attempt to thaw frostbitten areas if there's any chance of them re-freezing .

This typically means don't try to treat it yourself in a back-country setting. ...

And once you're in civilization, get a medical professional to handle it!

How can you protect yourself?

Extra layers on your extremities Chemical warmers Stay dry Stay out of the wind Use 4-season gear meant for freezing temperatures

Very important: Do not exhale air into your gloves/boots or at your hands/feet while still exposed to cold conditions.

It may warm them up for a few seconds but since your exhalation contains moisture, your extremities will get wet(ter) and even colder very quickly.

Just a simple thing to keep in mind.

Question: I'm going to be winter camping, and I'm concerned about getting frostbite. What can I do to protect myself?

What do I do to prevent and treat frostbite?

Prevention is better than cure and steps can be taken to avoid frostbite. Chemical foot or hand heating packs work well and can prevent frostbite. If you have more clothes, use them. Warming the whole body will help to warm fingers and toes. Warming fingers on someone else's stomach can help. If you have any numb spots on your cheeks, ears, or nose, warm them up. Wear extra layers on your extremities and stay dry and out of the wind. Do not exhale into gloves/boots while still exposed to cold. Any affected area should be warmed slowly, typically by submersion in warm water.

Preventing frostbite by using chemical warmers is preferable. Extra clothes, warming your face, fingers, toes and staying out of the wind can also help.

Preventing frostbite is best, this can be done using chemical foot/hand heating packs.

More clothes, warming fingers, toes and your face in addition to staying out of the wind are effective.


Trekking poles can telescope down and pack away.

If you happen to have a shelter that uses trekking poles to hold it up, sometimes you need to be able to set your poles to a different height.

Some people also like to lengthen/shorten their poles depending on whether they are going down or up hill.

If your shelter doesn't require them, I think the answer is "Ski poles are fine".

Then, in the rare case where you want to walk without poles, you can tuck them horizontally in the small of your back (through your pack straps).

If you like to go up or down with different length poles, just grasp the ski pole at a different spot on it's body.

I have used both and it isn't really a difference to me.

I would even prefer the ski poles, because they have baskets at the bottom, so that they can't sink deep into the snow.

Trekking poles usually don't have this feature.

So I would chose ski poles.

But there are also two advantages if you're using trekking poles: Usually these poles you can adjust the length.

This is very comfortable if you're wont to lend the poles, or if you cross a steep flank of a hill.

In this case you can shorten one of the poles and increase the length of the other poles.

Additionally, it is easier to carry them in your backpack because you can make them very short.

Definitively, I wouldn't use cross country ski poles, because they're usually just too long.

Trekking poles are lighter and sometimes easier to break than ski poles.

Some have the advantage of folding up into a short package.

If you use trekking poles, you may want some with changeable baskets so you can put on some larger baskets that won't sink into the powder so easily.

Yes, always use poles with baskets.

Trekking poles allow adjustability which I find useful in changing snow conditions. ...but to snowshoe without poles?

You can do it

but it's so much more work

and I cover much more distance with.

JIMO.

In my experience, you really don't need either trekking poles or ski poles when snowshoeing.

On flat ground or at low angles, I don't find them necessary or useful at all.

On very steep stuff, I find that an ice ax is more helpful (along with those mini-crampon things built into some snowshoes).

The only time when I've felt like poles would have been at all helpful was in certain very rare situations such as struggling up a steep gully into deep powder.

I've heard that you can get attachments to put on an ice ax that lengthen it somewhat and add a basket.

This seems like it would be very handy, but I haven't been able to find anything like that for sale.

Question: Being an avid skier I have ski poles lying around, so I've always used those.  Do proper trekking poles offer any advantages for snowshoeing?

Should I get trekking poles for snowshoeing, or stick with ski poles?

Trekking poles are lighter, telescopic and easier to pack away. Some say that no poles are necessary, but if poles are used then there is no difference between both types. Any poles should have baskets.

It doesn't make much difference, but using poles with baskets is key. Trekking poles are lighter and more compact.

Poles with baskets should always be used.


Absolutely not!

Fire is the obvious risk, but carbon monoxide poisoning should be taken seriously as well.

If the weather is bad, at the very least cook under the vestibule with maximum ventilation.

Others have brought up a great point about bear country.

It's recommended to cook and eat at least 100 yards away from your camp site when there may be bears around.

The answers regarding flammability (and the ensuing death trap) and carbon monoxide poisoning are correct.

Even in foul weather, cook outside your tent.

If you do lots of camping in bad weather

(New Zealand's West Coast?)

get a tent with a vestibule.

There is one additional problem:

In bear country, you never want to cook too close to your tent, because if you and your tent and everything inside it smells of food, guess who'll be coming to visit you at night?

In addition to the fire hazard, cooking food in your tent in bear country is a good recipe for waking up to find a bear trashing your campsite, and/or you.

We quite often cook on a small gas stove in the porch (vestibule) of the tent - as long as you are careful and don't leave it unattended, just be sensible.

I have seen a tent go up in flames, and they burn extremely quickly

so I'm aware of the danger, but I've never felt at risk.

Thankfully in the UK

we don't have to worry about Bears...

It really depends on the type of tent.

You should not cook in a standard outdoor tent.

However there are tents like the "Kohte" and the "Yurt" of (mainly German) scouts that are designed to have a fire burning inside.

These tents are made of cotton and have no floor.

Also they are heavier than typical expedition tents.

As always you have to weigh the pros and cons yourself.

If you are in bear country, I agree 100% with everyone - cook somewhere else.

100m away minimum.

In winter, not in bear country, getting out of your tent to cook sucks.

Fortunately, many mountaineers have discovered that some stoves do not produce excessive carbon monoxide.

And there's a handy table in this article at Backpacking Light that describes some canister stoves that produce a reasonably low amount of carbon monoxide.

Read the whole article series for the details.

Edit :

That being said, cook in your vestibule (with the vestibule open if possible)

, it's much, much safer.

Most tents these days claim to have a "fireproof" coating -

but I'd never really want to put this to the test!

I have heard one horror story in particular (admittedly with a much older tent) that's made me wary enough to recommend never cooking inside.

The likelihood may be low (and that's not to say it is) but if it does go up in flames and you're inside it

then you've lost all escape routes and you're surrounded by smoke and burning material - IMHO

it's just not a risk worth taking.

And yes, other dangers like carbon monoxide poisoning are definitely possible, even likely if it's in an enclosed space.

Question: When camping in bad weather I'm always asking myself if it is a good idea to cook in my tent with a gas cooker. Obviously there is the danger of fire. But how dangerous is this really? Can you easily burn down the tent? And are there any other dangers? Maybe carbon monoxide poising?

Can/Should I cook in my tent?

You should not cook in your tent. However, you may consider cooking in the open vestibule area. Fire is the obvious risk, but carbon monoxide poisoning should be taken seriously as well. It is also recommended to cook and eat at least 100 yards away from your camp site when there may be bears around.

In bear country you should cook at least 100 yards away from your campsite. You should not cook in an outdoor tent because of fire and carbon monoxide poisoning risks. You may cook in your open vestibule.

You should not cook inside an outdoor tent due to the risk of fire and carbon monoxide poisoning. You may be able to cook in an open vestibule.

You should cook at least 100 yards away from your camp site in bear country.


Here is my magic blister treatment method.

You need to have this stuff in your kit: Lanolin :

Yes, otherwise known as sheep grease.

Sold in pharmacies as an aid for breastfeeding mothers.

It is essentially a lubricant wax that will keep a blister happy and not stuck to what you put over it.

You put a daub of this directly on the blistered area.

Polysporin or that type of thing does not last as well as this stuff.

Lambs wool :

Take a bit of this and cover over the lanolin.

Regular cotton balls do not cut it.

Athletic Tape

: Use large strips of tape to cover over the blistered area and enough on each side to keep the tape attached.

Make quite a few layers.

You'll know it's enough when you put your boot back on and walking no longer hurts.

You can do this and leave it on until the end of your trip.

Ideally, you don't want to get the setup wet for the first day.

If it's pouring out, cover the whole mess with one layer of duct tape.

I'm honestly not sure why it works, but I have fixed some horribly nasty blisters with this method and walked for 100s of kilometers afterwards.

One particular happened on the Pacific Crest Trail, walking across a desert section, I wore a large circular area off my heel.

When I eventually limped to a halt in the first bit of shade I found, this stuff together got me moving again with zero pain.

Without fiddling with it, I was able to walk for days afterwards, 30+km per day.

Getting a pair of boots that correctly fit is very important.

Go to a reputable hiking shop and having a knowledgeable assistant give you multiple types of boots with different fits and see which feels best.

Changing inner sole thickness can be a big help to get the correct fit.

Properly breaking in your boots can be a huge help.

Wear them for an hour round the house, then a couple of hours the next day, then 20min short walk and gradually extend the length of the walk.

It helps your feet get used to the boots, and mould the boots to the shape of your foot.

Blister patches are a good treatment when you already have blisters - some people don't get on with them

but it's worth giving them a go.

Edit.

I forgot to mention socks.

Get proper walking socks, have a play with different thicknesses.

Sometimes wearing liner socks (really thin socks that you wear under your normal socks) can prevent blisters.

I've always used Compeed blister plasters to treat a blister.

It's like covering the blister with a second, more durable skin.

You are supposed to leave the plaster on until it falls off naturally which, for me, is usually three or four days.

They are a little expensive but your feet will thank you for them.

By the way, I am not affiliated with Compeed in any way.

The other answers are good, but here's my personal experience, as well as some of the common advice I didn't see.

Cause -

The two causes of blisters while hiking are moisture and friction.

This means you want to keep your feet dry and not sliding around, which is where proper boots comes in, as mentioned above.

Proactive

- You should treat blisters early.

As you are hiking you may notice a "hot spot" forming, which as it sounds, is simply a spot on your foot that feels slightly warm or hot.

They don't hurt, and you will be tempted to just ignore it.

But a hot spot will always form a blister, usually quickly.

In addition, the cause is often something simple to fix, like some bunched up sock or a bit of sand.

The moment you feel a hot spot forming stop and take off your boot, look at the spot and try to figure out what is the cause.

Wipe your foot off, with alcohol if possible. Put your boot back on and try to pull your socks so they are smooth and not bunched up.

If the hot spot is still there after this, you can try protecting it with some moleskin or some of the other suggestions to prevent it from becoming a full blister.

Reactive -

At the end of the day, after blisters have formed, I have found that rubbing alcohol works pretty well.

It dries them out and makes the skin harder for the next day.

I usually carry a small bottle of 91% (which is also an antiseptic and fire starter).

Alcohol displaces water and then dries very fast.

If your feet are sweating a lot during a hike you can even try wiping them down with alcohol mid-hike.

Popping -

The general rule of thumb is you should not pop blisters.

However, if you have to hike more, I have found the blister will almost always pop on its own anyway.

In that case, it's better to pop it in a clean environment rather than inside your dirty sweaty boot.

Take a needle, and heat it in a flame to sterilize.

Make a few holes near the base, just enough to let the fluid drain.

Clean the area with alcohol before and after.

You mention that they're newer boots in your post.

You could also wear them enough to make sure you've broken them in BEFORE your big hiking trip.

Wear them to work (if you can get away with it).

Wear them on the stairmaster in the gym

(if you're doing 20 minute sessions, blistering may not be as bad, and you can make sure to duct-tape / moleskip up your feet anywhere you might get a blister).

The most successful method for me is using a lot of shea butter.

Before and after a physical activity.

Before it reduces friction and acts as moisturizing.

After it can be used as a treatment cream because it hydrates your skin.

Question: When hiking with a new pair of boots or if I haven't been hiking in a while, my feet might get blisters.    How can I treat a blister and keep hiking?   Are there things I can do to  prevent getting blisters?

How do I treat a blister? How can I prevent getting them in the first place?

The general rule of thumb is you should not pop blisters.  They should be treated early, and shea butter, blister patches and Compeed are recommended to treat blisters. Proper walking socks of suitable thickness as well as correctly fitting boots are very important.

Treating blisters early, not popping them, using blister patches and shea butter are helpful, as are walking socks and boots that fit well.

You should treat blisters early without popping them. Blister patches and shea butter can help.

Boots that fit well and proper walking socks help.


This article (*) gives a good summary of the efficiency of boiling as a method for making water safe for consumption.

In particular, Table 2 provides a summary of the temperature and time required to kill various micro-organisms.

Sterilisation of water (killing all living containments) is not necessary to make water safe to drink.

For example, boiling may not be effective against bacterial spores such as Clostridium which can survive at 100°C (212°F), however, as Clostridium is not a waterborne enteric (intestinal) pathogen, ingestion will not cause infection.

All waterborne enteric pathogens are quickly killed above 60°C (140°F), therefore, although boiling is not necessary to make the water safe to drink, the time taken to heat the water to boiling is usually sufficient to reduce pathogens to safe levels.

Allowing the boiled water to cool slowly will also extend the exposure of waterborne enteric pathogens to lethal temperatures.

Boiling also gives a simple visual indicator that a high enough temperature has been reached when a thermometer is not available.

(*) Backer, H. Water Disinfection for International and Wilderness Traveler.

Clinical Infectious Diseases.

(2002) 34 (3): 355-364.

Available from: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/3/355.full

Boiling kills everything -- giardia, cryptosporidium, other bacteria, and viruses.

185°F (85°C) for a few minutes will do it, and boiling for one minute will do it.

(Boiling is lots of big bubbles, not just a few small bubbles on the side of the pot.)

Some people recommend longer boiling times at higher altitudes because water boils at cooler temperatures there.

(Source: Wilderness Medical Society, The Backpacker's Field Manual by Curtis)

Botulinum toxin is particularly tough, as is Bacillus cereus.

B. cereus is more likely found while camping.

But your goal is not so much to kill everything as reduce the level to the point where it does no harm.

The dust you breathe, the things you touch, and (yick!)

the people you are with all bring various pathogens, as does your tap water and (often especially) bottled water.

Do your best, and your body takes care of the rest.

Some types of spores can survive boiling.

But they're either not disease-causing or they're not in any condition to make you sick as far as I know.

Wikipedia has some interesting points on this : The elimination of micro-organisms by boiling follows first-order kinetics—at high temperatures it is achieved in less time and at lower temperatures, in more time.

The heat sensitivity of micro-organisms varies, at 70 °C (158 °F), Giardia species (causes Giardiasis) can take ten minutes for complete inactivation , most intestine affecting microbes and E. coli (gastroenteritis) take less than a minute ; at boiling point, Vibrio cholerae (cholera) takes ten seconds and hepatitis A virus (causes the symptom of jaundice), one minute.

Boiling does not ensure the elimination of all micro-organisms; the bacterial spores Clostridium can survive at 100 °C (212 °F) but are not water-borne or intestine affecting.

Thus for human health, complete sterilization of water is not required.[3]

The traditional advice of boiling water for ten minutes is mainly for additional safety, since microbes start getting eliminated at temperatures greater than 60 °C (140 °F) and bringing it to its boiling point is also a useful indication that can be seen without the help of a thermometer, and by this time, the water is disinfected.

Though the boiling point decreases with increasing altitude, it is not enough to affect the disinfecting process.

Question: I know that boiling does little to break down chemical contaminants or heavy metals. But I'm unsure if it kills all microbial life. Are there any waterborne illness-causing viruses/bacteria/protozoa/cysts that can survive boiling? And if so, how serious is the illness they cause?

Can any waterborne pathogens survive boiling?

Sterilisation of water (killing all living containments) is not  necessary to make water safe to drink. However, boiling kills everything -- giardia, cryptosporidium, other bacteria, and viruses.

Sterilisation is not necessary for drinking, though boiling does kill everything.


It takes more than 4-5 days to have problems from a limited diet, as long as you get enough of short-term things like salt (which is not normally a problem).

Even so, I usually take some Flintstone chewables and dehydrated meals along to be healthy.

I would split your nutritional needs into long, medium, and short term.

Things like Vitamin C and Vitamin A are long term.

A week or two of being short on them will not cause you problems during the trip, nor afterwards when you return to your normal eating patterns.

You can essentially ignore them, which is kind of a bummer because this would be the easiest shortcoming to fix, by taking a multivitamin or other supplements.

Medium term would be fat and protein.

Most people eat lots of protein - beef jerky, nuts in the trail mix, peanut butter - and get enough fat too.

If for some reason you were eating meals like "pasta with butter but not cheese" and "white rice with vegetables" then perhaps you would run short of protein.

(I say perhaps because grains do have some protein, and we typically need less than we think.)

This would manifest itself mostly as feeling hungry too soon given the amount of work you're doing, and maybe not sleeping well.

If it kept up long enough you might also be plagued with digestive problems.

From reading books about long expeditions it seems to be a month of no fat and very little protein before dysentery sets in.

Short term your big worry is fibre.

If you're not eating any fruits or veggies, and you've taken white flour bread and pasta, white rice etc, and no legumes, then you might not be getting any fibre.

Depending on your age this can make you feel very uncomnfortable in just a few days.

Throw in a little dehydration because you're sweating and drinking water isn't always to hand, and you could be feeling very jammed up.

The solution to fibre may be as close as your trail mix, if it's full of dried fruit.

If you ignore the dried fruit, or if your trail mix is full of M&Ms, then you need to make sure you eat some vegetables.

A dried soup mix might lead to nice lunches and take care of that for you, or you might try to cook more often.

Or you could pay attention to those ads aimed at the 50+ crowd and bring along a fibre supplement - the kind you stir into water would probably be best.

If your concern is "I feel healthy and strong, my body works fine during the trip, but am I setting myself up for a long term health problem with the occasional week of deprivation

" I would unequivocally say you are not.

A bags-of-chips-on-the-couch habit that lasts for years can do that; a week without enough fibre or Vitamin A will not.

I don't think that a limited diet will cause you health issues.

(caveat, I'm not a doctor...)

But, keep in mind that hiking is typically a strenuous activity.

You need energy, and lots of it.

You need short-term energy, medium-term, and long-term.

A meal of whole-wheat pasta with some tuna or salmon from a pouch and some added olive oil and salt will give you short-term energy from the carbs, medium-term from the protein, and long-term from the fats, plus some salt to replenish what you've lost as you're staying hydrated.

I can last a lot longer and the hills are less imposing when my diet is on-target.

So, you probably won't get sick, but you may be short-changing yourself.

This would also depend on what your limited diet includes.

You can live quite well on nothing but beans and rice for many months if needed.

Trail mix and jerky, probably not so much.

One of the worst things you can eat on a trail is trail mix.

Nuts take a very long time to digest and much needed calories are burned to digest them.

Meat of any kind is also more difficult to digest and jerky is even worse.

At least the meat or jerky provide you with much needed protein.

Trail mix will fill your belly but it's not particularly nutritious or caloric for it's density. Find some good beans and rice recipes.

These are much more caloric per density and provide the carbs, sugars, fats, and protein you need.

Some people have great resistance for limited diet.

I've heard a lot of stories from the people I've met during mountaineering about their high mountain trips, where their diet was based mostly on semolina powder mixed with milk powder (something uneatable for me because of lactose intolerance).

One of them said he had lost after about 1.5 weeks 10 kg weight...

but he still was feeling good...

However, the caloric usage for middle-difficulty backpacking for a male is about 5000-6000 per day, so quite high (I've participated in measurements).

Question: Often when planning food for a backpacking trip, I rely heavily on a very large amount of extremely varied trail-mix, and only throw in some jerky and a scant few "cookable" meals for variety. I haven't had (to my knowledge) any illness from this, but a friend expressed concern that the lack of variety would cause problems given the stress of the hike. Am I doing myself a disservice?

Is a varied diet necessary while backpacking?

A limited diet is not considered to cause health issues in this context. It takes more than 4-5 days to have problems from a limited diet, as long as you get enough of short-term things like salt (which is not normally a problem). Short term, your big worry is fibre. However, you can live quite well on nothing but beans and rice. Consider splitting your nutritional needs into short, medium and long-term.

In the short term a limited diet should not cause issues and you can live well on beans and rice which provide fibre.

Short-term, a limited diet shouldn't cause too many issues.

Fibre is the big concern short-term. You can live well on beans and rice.


As far as I know, there is no way to stop the bleeding with out constant pressure.

On the bright side, you only give up 1-3 CCs of blood due to leech bites.

The problem with leech bites and hiking is your heart is pumping harder while you hike, pushing more blood around.

Its not uncommon for the bite to last several hours.

However short of constant pressure or some type of sealant, I've not heard of anything you can do.

I have heard that if you do not remove the leech until it gets full and naturally drops off that you will not bleed much, and that it is safer because you reduce the risk of infection.

At the moment I can't find good sources for this, only: How to Remove a Leech (Go Borneo Travel.

Com):

In case the leech has already got you, do not pull it out.

The commonly used techniques of burning, salting and squeezing result in the leech vomiting harmful bacteria back into your system.

Leeches fall out on their own once full.

If you can continue hiking with the thought of a small Dracula hanging off your body do so.

It will not take longer than 20 minutes for the leech to give up and remove itself safely.

How to remove a leech (Wild Madagascar.

Org):

NOTE:

Is it generally not advised to attempt removing a leech by burning with a cigarette; applying mosquito repellent, shampoo, or salt; or pulling at the leech.

This can result the leech regurgitating into the wound and causing infection much worse than the leech bite itself.

Not what I would consider reliable and no comment on bleeding specifically, so unless someone can corroborate this theory I shall eventually delete this answer.

Unlikely to help unless a tea bag is handy but the tannins in black tea bags contain tranexamic acid which helps clot blood.

Just had 5 hours of bleeding from a leech which didn't stop with heavy bandaging and elevation of my leg.

I applied a tea bag I had wet in tap water for 5 mins

and it hasn't bled since.

Old medical trick.

Its like an antidote to the chemical in the leech's saliva which actually stops you from clotting.

Septic pencil, bandage. Treatment: Leeches must be removed from the skin carefully.

If a leech is ripped from the skin, its fangs may break off and remain embedded, which induces ulcer formation.

Leech removal is facilitated by application of a few drops of alcohol, vinegar, or brine.

An alternative removal method involves the application of a lit match to the leech at the attachment site.

After leech removal, the site should be inspected carefully to insure that the fangs are absent.

Hemostasis (bleeding control) can be achieved by applying direct pressure and using a styptic pencil ( a short medicated stick, often made of alum that can be applied to a cut to stop bleeding), oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable hemostat, or topical thrombin.

The wound should be cleansed thoroughly with an antiseptic several times daily and a multi-purpose topical antibiotic applied to prevent infection.

( source )

I faced the same and a waiter at a restaurant suggested me this.

Just apply a pinch of turmeric at the spot a couple of times.

I worked wonders for me instantly.

Another report of this: http://gwens-nest.com/turmeric-a-spice-worth-knowing/ Cuts

/Bleeding: Turmeric has styptic properties.

This is a common kitchen remedy in India for minor cuts.

We have also stopped bleeding from minor cuts and wounds quickly by dusting them with turmeric powder.

I was SO happy to learn this tip, because the only other styptic herb I had heard of was cayenne, and I am a big scardy-cat about hot things in my mouth or on my bleeding wounds.

Turmeric doesn’t hurt or sting, but it leaves a yellow tinge to your skin.

Plantago major (broadleaf plantain, white man's foot, or greater plantain) .

Image source Plantain is found all over the world, and is one of the most abundant and accessible medicinal herbs.

It contains many bioactive compounds, including allantoin, aucubin, ursolic acid, flavonoids, and asperuloside.

Scientific studies have shown that plantain extract has a wide range of biological effects, including wound healing activity, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antioxidant, weak antibiotic, immuno modulating and antiulcerogenic activity.

So, tie some up on the wound with a gauze.

Put some paper ash (just burn a small piece of paper and collect the ash) in the area where you were bit.

Bleeding will stop.

Question: Although leeches are relatively harmless, and you are not likely to bleed out from a bite, the blood stain on your clothes can be off-putting to your hiking buddies.  Is there any effective way to counteract the anti-coagulant leeches inject into the bite, and thus stop the blood-flow in a timely manner?

How do you stop blood-flow from a leech bite?

Constant pressure is recommended to stop the bleeding, as well as application of septic pencil, paper ash or tea bag, and bandages. Alcohol, vinegar or brine help to remove the leech. However, it is said that waiting for the leech to naturally become full and drop off is a better way to reduce any risk of infection.

Waiting for the leech to get full or using alcohol, a septic pencil and bandage can help with removal. You can also let the leech get full. Constant pressure, a black tea bag and paper ash can stop bleeding.

Leeches must be removed carefully with alcohol, a septic pencil and bandaged. Alternatively you can safely wait until the leech gets full.


The best advice is not to unless you are very, very sure.

Having said that, and just for fun, assuming you are in a chronic survival situation with no choice, this article describes how to test if a plant is edible.

Eating berries and mushrooms is not recommended since there is no general pattern to identify poisonous ones (unless you're an expert on that topic).

Even having a book with pictures of edible berries can be tricky as some poisonous ones are disguised as their edible counterparts.

Plants, on the other hand, should not be edible if the sap is milky.

Milky sap often means poison.

Take, for instance, Euphorbia which can look like cacti and trick you.

So check the sap.

With insects it's easier.

Not eating the flashy coloured, smelly or slow unwary moving ones is the rule of thumb here.

Get a good book, with full color illustrations.

I can't find a link for one, but you want quality equivalent to the Audubon full color field guides.

Do a few field runs in the area you plan on being in with someone experienced before you try to eat the foliage.

Of course, everything depends on risk.

If you've been lost for four or five days and you're starving, assuming non-bitter, non-burning =

okay may seem more reasonable.

However, if I'm found on the brink of starvation, I generally don't want the response personnel to also have to deal with whatever I may have poisoned myself with.

Seems a lot like doubling down on death.

In general, worldwide this is very hard to predict unless you're an expert in the subject (and therefore likely wouldn't be looking for advice on this page!)

There are some clues, like plants with milky sap tend to be poisonous - but applying these in a general context is almost always a bad idea since your life can depend on it.

The best you can do is to read up, get a good book etc.

that focuses around the area you're hiking to - get one as specific as you can, with good, clear descriptions and pictures.

This will enable you to have at least some degree of confidence -

though obviously unless you're 100% sure I wouldn't risk it.

It is plant specific AFAIK.

But i heard somwhere, that if you taste poisoned berries or fruit it will taste strange - because of evolution - whoever can detect poisonous berry by taste will not eat it and will live longer :-)

As other answers say, don't just try it.

A good negative indicator is skin irritation.

I've read that particularly with berries, if you crush some berries and rub some of the juice on a patch of skin and let it sit for a while, some berries will cause irritation, which is a good indicator not to eat them!

But berries that don't irritate your skin aren't necessarily safe...

Do NOT try this at home.

But if your life depends on it and you can't find anything you know is edible, you can follow these instructions.

Again, you may die by doing this but if the odds are you'll die anyway

, you can play roulette with your life as safely as you can.

Rub the plant on an area of your skin where the skin is thin and soft.

Any itching or unpleasant feeling within an hour or two should lead to leaving the plant out of question.

If the plant won't irritate your skin, follow the next steps only following to the next one if previous step won't lead to unpleasant feelings within 5 minutes of exposure Rub it a little to your lips Rub it a little to the side of your mouth

Rub it a little to the tip of your tongue

Rub it a little underneath your tongue Chew

a small portion of it Swallow a small portion and wait for 5 hours If no unpleasant symptoms arise (pain, tickling, burps, nausea, stomach pain, cramps in abdomen or anythin else), consider the plant relatively safe to eat There are 2 most common poisons in the plant world.

Learn to detect them and ditch any plant you suspect containing them.

Hydrogen cyanide Smells and tastes like sweet and bitter almonds or peach.

Oxalic acid Tastes like rhubarb or wood sorrel.

Avoid Plants that have milk-like sap Plants that have red in them Fruits that are divided to 5 sections Grasses and other plants that have small spikes in them.

With a magnifying glass you'll notice the spikes have a hook in them which can really mess up with your intestines Old and withered plants.

Many plants generate hydrogen cyanide when in stress Full-grown ferns as they destroy vitamin B and can cause death.

However, all ferns are edible as young although some species may taste awful Typha Learn to recognize them.

The genus is largely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere, where it is found in a variety of wetland habitats.

The rhizomes are edible.

Evidence of preserved starch grains on grinding stones suggests they were already eaten in Europe 30,000 years ago.

A small area of typha will produce you large amounts of rhizomes, food equivalent to potato.

You can eat them raw but preferably boiled.

In the bush.

You set very still at about 50 meter.

Watch.

Do the monkeys eat them?

If so safe to eat.

You can also walk up look & see if the monkeys have been into them.

A good sign.

Question: How can I identify edible berries/fruit in the wide and avoid the poisonous varieties? Is there a general guideline that can be followed or is specific to each plant?

How can I identify edible berries/fruit from poisonous?

The best advice is not to unless you are very, very sure.  Eating berries and mushrooms is not recommended since there is no general pattern to identify poisonous ones (unless you're an expert on that topic). A good book with colour illustrations is recommended, and a good negative indicator is skin irritation.

You can read up about this and get a good indication by testing skin irritation, but it's best not to try this unless you are an expert.

You should not try this unless you are an expert.

You can read up and get a good book. Skin irritation is a helpful indicator.


I like the native american fish trap ( fishing weir ).

It's relatively easy to build if you have the right access to a stream.

The basic idea behind this trap is to create a funnel that the fish follow into a trap that they cannot easily get out of.

To build it, you simple stake off an area with small branches pushed down into the mud.

The water must be able to get through, but make sure the sticks are close enough to prevent the fish from coming through.

Notice in the picture that the bottom set of sticks creates a funnel that fish easily follow into the trap.

Once in there, it's very difficult for fish to find the one point where they can escape the trap.

You can actually reach in to the water and grab the fish.

No running or chasing.

You just quietly get in position, and then when it's time, you quickly grab the fish.

Thomas Elpel describes the process in his wonderful book, Participating in Nature: Wilderness Survival and Primitive Living Skills.

The nice thing is that it requires no equipment.

He says the technique is illegal in many places, because it is so effective that if widely used it would harm the fish population.

In a survival situation, I would accept the legal consequences.

Spearing is both viable and varies in legality within the U.S.

Spearing during salmon runs has been done for centuries in the pacific northwest.

Darkhouse" spear fishing is popular on frozen lakes in the upper midwest and during the summer natives still spear for pike and walleye on many upper midwest lakes.

Indian Fishing and Hunting Rights

One time in the Bihor mountains I watched a group of locals catch quite a remarkable number of fish by hand.

They would walk upstream fairly fast running creek, two of them actually in the water, and several of them on the sides.

The ones in the water would every once a while throw themselves down, scoop a fish with their hands and throw it to the bank, where the rest of the guys would immediately fall upon it and kill it with a hatchet.

You can use a net to catch fish like you would do in an aquarium.

Fastening a net at a strategic place in a rapid can, in theory, act as a fish trap, but I've never tried it.

Trotlining is popular in the southern U.S. for catfish.

It’s reminiscent of more commercial techniques and is a passive means of catching fish, where one sets out temporary rigs of rope along a several hundred foot area and then baits hooks every few meters, so that there are ~25-50 hooks in the water.

Then it’s left for some number of hours and checked to see

if it’s caught any fish.

After fishing, the trot line is hauled up to avoid boats, swimmers or divers from getting caught in it inadvertently.

Question: If I'm out in the wilderness and want to catch fish to survive, what are some ways I can do this  without  a conventional fishing pole/line?

What are some alternative ways of fishing - i.e. catching fish?

Alternatives to a pole include the native American fish trap (fishing weir), trot lining, spearing and netting. Otherwise, reaching into the water and catching fish by hand is a possibility.

Fish can be caught by hand, using fishing weirs, nets, spearing and trotlining.

Fishing weirs, trotlining, spearing and nets are effective.


One of the most "packable" ways to fish for trout is using a tenkara rod.

Tenkara the traditional Japanese method of fly-fishing where only a rod, line and fly are used.

Tenkara may have originated in Japan but its becoming very popular amongst anglers looking for fly-fishing simplicity and mountain-stream effectiveness.

Eleven to fourteen foot long rods allow anglers to fish mountain streams in a way that is nearly impossible with western fly gear.

Telescopic rods collapse down to a mere 20 inches, and few things are needed making tenkara ideal for backpacking.

I like to fish trout with sweet corn.

They seem to like it and it comes in small cans.

Bringing a roll of fishing line and some small hooks should be enough.

You can roll up the fishing line on a stick and make your own swimmer out of some light wood.

At least this worked for me.

It doesn't give you a bountiful yield of trout but should suffice if you want to keep your fishing gear light weight.

I really hate to mention Walmart

but I saw a collapsible rod for gear fishing there that collapses down to about 16" and extends to around 5'.

It was really light

and I think it cost about $20.

I had one of these a while back

and it worked great on hikes.

At $20 I felt comfortable taking it out hiking without the fear of breaking it.

You'll also need a lightweight reel, a couple small rooster tails, and a hook.

Use what ever bait and weight you can find in the environment.

Trout love grasshoppers and beetles.

Usually mountain lakes are small and have smaller trout in them

so you don't need anything heavy duty.

Tenkara is great for streams but I wouldn't want to fish from the shore of a lake with one.

In addition to ssduplantis's mention to Tenkara, I would like to write that some fly rods are very portable.

Some manufacturers make rods consisting of up to 7 pieces, which fit into a 40cm canister that is very portable.

One example is the Orvis frequent flyer series .

That, a fly reel, a box of flies, and a leader would not take much more space than a Tenkara rod.

I personally own a 8 wt 9ft of these rods and am very satisfied with it's quality.

Matthew Perry on Quora writes: There are many four piece rods that will work.

I even have a five piece by TFO that works good too.

I usually use it as a backup rod.

You want to have two rods in case you break one.

Nothing worse than hiking in a good distance only to break a rod.

Been there done that.

Question: Several of the places we hike every year have trout.  I'd like to have some fresh fish on a couple of those hikes but I'm pretty new to trout fishing and I don't want to carry the weight of full fishing gear.  What type of pole would be best for a portable trout fishing setup?

What type of pole can be used for trout while backpacking?

S0: One of the most "packable" ways to fish for trout is using a  tenkara  rod.