This woman's story is important to me. Back in my day (cue old man voice), we had the
The American Canoe Association's "River Safety Report" and
Seakayaker Magazine's monthly safety analysis plus their publication "
Deep Trouble".
These publications were "safety articles primarily cover kayaking accidents. Their main purpose is education: to enable readers to learn from and avoid the misfortunes of others. Safety articles have two sections: a description of the incident, and an analysis underscoring the significant factors and discussing how to better handle similar situations. We encourage readers to inform us about accidents they’ve heard of or been involved in, and we make every effort to be sensitive to the needs of those involved." (
http://www.seakayakermag.com/contrib...guidelines.htm)
These incident analyses do NOT include stories of the drunk and stupid, where Jim Billy's last words before he died on the river were, "Hold my beer." The incidents in these publications describe the tragedies or near misses of experienced paddlers.
Does the backpacking community have comparable publications?
The reason why I ask, is that I find most UL gear lists ridiculous. That could be because my apprenticeships were designed based on best practices defined in the early 90's by NOLS. I have grown extremely weary of the empty claims of the necessary "expertise and knowledge" needed for safe, comfortable UL travel. Most UL based recommendations on whiteblaze are without reference to specific evidence, example, time of year, trip duration, anticipated weather, actual weather encountered, distance per day, terrain encountered, LOCATION OF THE WORLD, proximity to roads, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Most claims are without citation, appear boastful and nearly religious in demeanor. Most UL techniques seem designed more to reduce Mankind's overall enviromental footprint and the promotion of a dematerialistic society. What on Earth do these concerns have to do with successful and safe backcountry travel? Something else is driving the UL movement besides the joy's of a lighter pack. There are philosophical and sociological drivers in UL design that IMO carry far too much weight.
Is UL philosophy confused as technique?
Have UL techniques been properly and independently analyzed in the same fashion described in the publications above? What should I read that instills some scientific confidence in UL design? Besides the boorish and empty claims saturating this forum.
How many SAR dollars have been invested fine tuning UL techniques?
Sorry for the ****ty attitude, but I followed NOLS techniques first because my instructors told me to, then because I learned first hand that they worked.
Hike My Own Hike. I will, and I will do so safely, comfortably and responsibly. But I find little evidence why I should modify my 'outdated' techniques on this forum.