Minimalist camping without a fixed blade

[Quiet]

Sure, the way Quiet likes to camp isn't necessary, but neither is employing LNT doctrine.

I agree with LNT principles in a broad sense, and in particular in highly sensitive and/or heavily trafficked areas, where minimal individual impacts compound rapidly into very real larger impacts on the local environment. So if you're talking exclusively about through-hiking a well worn trail, then yes, you can assert that a fixed blade isn't necessary, if for no other reason than that in a worst case scenario, help and resources are guaranteed to arrive soon - in the form of the next hiker down the trail.

But outside of that narrow context, aspects of LNT become less relevant - and the general ethics start to shift too. Leaving the well worn trail and getting into wilder areas, the extent to which one may need to lean on their knife not just for safety but also for comfort (which often affords safety, in the form of better rest, better energy conservation, and a clearer head). All of which favours a stouter, more reliable knife.

Concerning the ethics of LNT in the context of fire and cooking: done right, a moderately sized cooking fire (or solid fuel stove) is pretty much guaranteed to have less of an impact on the overall environment (ie. beyond the immediate environment) as compared to the manufacture and use of fuel cylinders and their contents.

Ding, all of this. When people like Pinnah, who clearly stick to well-run established trails try to bloviate about what people who actually get off the beaten path do or don't need, it's absolute ignorance at best, and trolling idiocy at worst.

 

[Quiet]

Agreed. And I've said that repeatedly.

But that is not the controversy here.

The offensive thing I've said in this thread is that a fixed blade isn't necessary for safe backcountry travel.

That's it.

Chris Townsend's "Backpacker's Handbook" is the best book on rhe subject that I know. I'd recommend it to anybody who spends time in the outdoors regardless of what style of camping they end preferring.

Edited to add: LNT practices are needed on public lands that prohibit fires and shelter building. But that's not the debate in this thread.

No one cares about Chris Townsend's opinion except you, and other folks who think that the best way to go about getting into the outdoors is sitting down to read a book.

It absolutely blows my mind that people would waste time reading about someone else's opinion on camping instead of, you know, actually getting out and doing it.

Blows my mind.

 

[GREENJACKET]

Jens: Oh dear I didn't think there was any offence made. Non of worth, didn't know that you were even married, don't know you from Adam. A very common jest. Heck you might be about to have a President with more humour.
If I've inadvertently broken some rule, then the thought police are way beyond what I fought for, and I'll want no part of it. It wasn't rude.
No skin off my nose, we will see, report away.

Some good information on this thread. Delete what is inappropriate.

Shame its deteriorated into tribal camps. Or is "camp" a derogatory term.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Oh dear I didn't think there was any offence made. Non of worth, didn't know that you were even married, don't know you from Adam. A very common jest. Heck you might be about to have a President with more humour.
If I've inadvertently broken some rule, then the thought police are way beyond what I fought for, and I'll want no part of it. It wasn't rude.
No skin off my nose, we will see, report away.

Some good information on this thread. Delete what is inappropriate.

It's all about context. If you meet me on a trail I can simply ignore what you say and a second later it's gone for good. Here in the Internet however stuff like this stays forever and if you use a real name like me it can be linked to you and your family for at least as long as BF is around which will be thousands of years I hope.

As to your joke being common I never heard anything involving a guys family. Not even in locker rooms or in a military.

If you define humour only by sexual or other references about your wife, daughters mom or sisters you could be right.

 

[Quiet]

Jens: Oh dear I didn't think there was any offence made. Non of worth, didn't know that you were even married, don't know you from Adam. A very common jest. Heck you might be about to have a President with more humour.
If I've inadvertently broken some rule, then the thought police are way beyond what I fought for, and I'll want no part of it. It wasn't rude.
No skin off my nose, we will see, report away.

Some good information on this thread. Delete what is inappropriate.

Shame its deteriorated into tribal camps. Or is "camp" a derogatory term.

You know, I've enjoyed the outdoors for a lot of years in various forms, over 30 years (makes my joints hurt thinking about it). Growing up with my father in the BSA (we're both Eagle Scouts), I camped a lot, at least once a month. I've done a lot. Week-long wilderness camping, weekend hikes, weeklong hikes, car-camping, and even last minute overnights where I just pick up my pack, strap my knife on, and I tell the wife I'll be back on Sunday and I just walk out the back door, across a field and into the woods near my development. I've done it all. I'm good with people enjoying the outdoors as they see fit. What I'm not ok with, is condescending fools attempting to set themselves up as an arbiter of wisdom or outdoors knowledge telling me that the way I enjoy the outdoors isn't "necessary" or attempting to tell people what they do or don't need, all because that person has read a few books (which are absolutely and utterly irrelevant in the big scheme of things) and done some hiking and skiing.

So, when you say "tribal camps", I think what you meant was "Condescending fools versus people who've been there, done that, and not taking any nonsense from an internet blowhard". I'm sure that's what you meant.

 

[GREENJACKET]

Jens:
I understand the internet technicality of storing information. There is so much it brings its own obscurity by pure volume.

My comment doesn't warrant your reaction as its so light hearted in intent. Its not even locker room smutt. Its a long long way from military humour too. I asked you to ask your wife about something you didn't know. It wasn't much more than asking you to ask her for directions, because I didn't want to explain further. I could have easily just said look it up, but didn't.

This is an open forum as you quite rightly say. If you want to escalate then send me a private message. I don't think it warrants further effort and completely perplexed with your stance. Put politely: "get a life".

Quiet: you make your camp clear. All of us are condescending at times in our enthusiasm to get a message across. I know I am. Hope we all have an open mind too; thats all.

 

[robgmn]

Bloviation aside, I've done plenty of camping without a fixed blade.
They were trips in which I brought alternate means of cooking my food (packable stove) and cheated when fire needs arose (a little extra fuel "for the stove"
I've NEVER gone camping without at least one knife on me however (usually two: a SAK, and either a Buck or Schrade lockback).

That said, I'd prefer a fixed blade if I were going to REALLY rough it (i.e. shelter building, day-long fires, etc.).
I know it can all be done with a decent SAK, but the fixed blade just seems "right" for the task.

 

[Thomas Linton]

No hitting!

 

[pinnah]

Ding, all of this. When people like Pinnah, who clearly stick to well-run established trails try to bloviate about what people who actually get off the beaten path do or don't need, it's absolute ignorance at best, and trolling idiocy at worst.

Mods, thanks for moving this to the better sub-forum.

Quiet, please find a way to discuss the topic without insults and personal attacks.

I spend tons of time off trail. Tons.

Regarding clearing brush to move around off trail, just like harvesting wood for shelters or fires, cutting vegetation to move is only legitimate when it's allowed. Every part of the country I've been in has areas with vegetation too thick and thorny to hike through.

I'm glad you have ready access to lands where you can camp the way you like. On public and private lands where cutting paths is forbidden, one needs to find a way around the obstacle, just like we do with rivers or cliffs.

Fixed blades aren't needed in the backcountry. That doesn't mean they suck.

 

[Quiet]

Mods, thanks for moving this to the better sub-forum.

Quiet, please find a way to discuss the topic without insults and personal attacks.

I spend tons of time off trail. Tons.

Regarding clearing brush to move around off trail, just like harvesting wood for shelters or fires, cutting vegetation to move is only legitimate when it's allowed. Every part of the country I've been in has areas with vegetation too thick and thorny to hike through.

I'm glad you have ready access to lands where you can camp the way you like. On public and private lands where cutting paths is forbidden, one needs to find a way around the obstacle, just like we do with rivers or cliffs.

Fixed blades aren't needed in the backcountry. That doesn't mean they suck.

Pinnah, please find a way to state your opinions as opinions, and stop attempting to portray yourself as the end-all of knowledge and experience. You aren't, by a longshot.

It's clear to me now what the situation is. You camp and hike only on places and trails that are maintained and kept up. A trail? That's adorable. Try hiking through woods where there isn't a nicely upkept trail. Try camping somewhere that there aren't amenities all nicely laid out for you, allowing you to get by with just your cute little rocket stove. Try going out into some actual wilderness, not merely some nice outdoors areas that are maintained for the public enjoyment.

Sounds to me like you don't live anywhere where you can just go into the woods, and frankly, that's sad.

Also, fixed blades ARE needed in the back country and your opinion on that score is meaningless to me.

 

[Nixelplix]

Just ask the guy who had to cut hus own arm off with a dull Swiss Army knife.

 

[flipe8]

Quiet, out of curiosity, where do you live?

 

[Quiet]

Quiet, out of curiosity, where do you live?

I see that you live in Maritmes, Canada. I currently live in Florida.

I've camped and hiked in several different states, as well as in multiple European countries. I can't speak for others, but I personally like to get into the outdoors away from other people, and tend not to go to maintained/upkept areas which are for hikers/campers/skiiers to congregate. I love getting out into places where there's literally no one around for miles, and you can hear the coyotes baying not too far off down in the next hollow. Fire crackling, looking up at the sky through the trees, eating dutch oven stew that's been under the coals for three hours, just can't beat it.

I'm all for folks enjoying the outdoors how they wish. I am not all for folks attempting to state their personal opinions as facts that apply to me.

Edit: sorry for my tone, I have no issue with your question.

 

[Morrow]

Jokes about family members and other assorted insults are going to stop. Two people have been booted off the site today and I don't mind adding to the count.

 

[Quiet]

Morrow, yessir. I earned it fairly. I'll watch it.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

Sounds to me like you don't live anywhere where you can just go into the woods, and frankly, that's sad.

Also, fixed blades ARE needed in the back country and your opinion on that score is meaningless to me.

Depends on the forest.
I spent a big part of my childhood playing in needle tree forests in a flat part of a country. There where no bushes or other smaller plants able grow in the shade of those trees and acidic pine needles messing up the soil also didn't help. You could walk for miles hunting mushrooms and never needed a knife to clear a path. For shelter you could easily push over a bunch of 10 feet small pine trees because of the sandy soil. I've also seen other landscapes which would require a knife to make a path. Maybe Pinnah has only experienced the easier kind of vegetations or sees no need to go off a trail?

 

[GREENJACKET]

Trouble is those unspoilt and empty places are harder to find, and the further we must go to find them. Got to the point when you think you are in the middle of no where and someone is still there. Funnily often someone who lives quite close to where you have been trying to get away from. The world is a pretty crowded place.

If you really want solitude and emptiness then I'm afraid its an Ocean. Even then there is flotsam to remind you that the humane race is ever present.

 

[Quiet]

Trouble is those unspoilt and empty places are harder to find, and the further we must go to find them. Got to the point when you think you are in the middle of no where and someone is still there. Funnily often someone who lives quite close to where you have been trying to get away from. The world is a pretty crowded place.

If you really want solitude and emptiness then I'm afraid its an Ocean. Even then there is flotsam to remind you that the humane race is ever present.

I don't know if I would agree with that. I have been in a few places where there literally is no one for miles, no houses, no nicely upkept trails, nothing. Just you, and lots of woods. Sure, there was effort getting there, but the payoff is always worth it. Sitting there at night after the fire has burned low and watching a large family of deer pass by your camp about 30 yards away is just amazing. Waking up to woodpeckers knock-knock-knocking away at a huge hardwood near your tent is always good.

 

[GREENJACKET]

I have deer and woodpeckers in my garden.

I was stalking in the Highlands of Scotland the other year. No one for miles, until two cross country bicyclists went down the valley and cleared the Red Deer off that part of the mountain. No one for miles isn't often enough.
True wilderness is harder to find, for most a pocket is about as good as it gets.
I don't live in Canada, nor Australia, nor anywhere that its that easy. Takes a boat, plane or helicopter to get far enough away.

 

[flipe8]

I see that you live in Maritmes, Canada. I currently live in Florida.

I've camped and hiked in several different states, as well as in multiple European countries. I can't speak for others, but I personally like to get into the outdoors away from other people, and tend not to go to maintained/upkept areas which are for hikers/campers/skiiers to congregate. I love getting out into places where there's literally no one around for miles, and you can hear the coyotes baying not too far off down in the next hollow. Fire crackling, looking up at the sky through the trees, eating dutch oven stew that's been under the coals for three hours, just can't beat it.

I'm all for folks enjoying the outdoors how they wish. I am not all for folks attempting to state their personal opinions as facts that apply to me.

Edit: sorry for my tone, I have no issue with your question.

I assumed that was the case, but didn't want to assume(haha!). I get what you're stating about being out there away from others. I spent a couple days solo paddling around a patch of islands near the Maine/New Brunswick border just last week. Most the islands within the chain are either privately owned or under protection through provincial or federal conservancy organizations. Either way, while still being for the most part, uninhabited , it is common practice to reduce impact while using the islands. I've also found this to be the case with many provincial/state/national parks. Being that you stated you've spent much time in the wild, do you simply stay off land where these rules apply?