« The Freewalkers Guide to the Milford Track - Day Two: Beware the Kea, Part 3 | Main | The Freewalkers Guide to the Milford Track - Day Two: Beware the Kea. »

The Freewalkers Guide to the Milford Track - Day Two: Beware the Kea, Part 2

Despite the perfect surroundings, there was one problem in the organic emerald world we were traversing. As we passed milepost five, I could tell that my wife’s shoulders were hurting. The constant shifting, shrugging, arm swinging, and odd pack movements were a dead giveaway. When we stopped, I checked her load, adjusted her straps, and offered to carry her pack for a while. My offer was flatly refused. We continued on, and during the next mile, the trail began to slowly head upward. At the three hour mark of trekking, we stopped, and I had her put the pack on the ground to relieve the discomfort it was causing her shoulders.

I knew what the problem was. While ultra-light gear was easily transportable, and less burdensome, it was not ultra-comfortable, nor ultra-contoured to fit my wife’s back. There was nothing structurally wrong with her daypack. The designers had clearly sacrificed lumbar and shoulder support to make the backpack lighter. As a serious outdoor enthusiast, I had seen my wife’s problem countless times. In order for a backpack to work effectively, it, at a minimum, needed to be fitted somewhat to the carrier’s body. The fitting allows the wearer to bear the majority of weight on their hips and lower back through the backpack’s waist belt. If the bag is fitted properly it does not pull on the shoulders, and does not cause discomfort and extra effort to carry.

Unfortunately, there is no real way to “fit” a daypack. A daypack has more fixed pieces than a multi-day backpack, because it is designed to be the “one-size-fits-all” item of wilderness travel. I again looked at the belt as she tried to massage her bruised muscles, and again realized that the belt was unlikely to bear and transfer weight correctly. The only thing that could have made it look more ineffectual was a sticker plastered on it that stated “Not a load bearing device”.

I had known that the belt was probably ineffectual before we left. It was the main reason I had initially opposed the move to an ultra-light bag because I feared that it might cause her discomfort. But, I also had been open minded about the situation, because I understood that she didn’t want to carry an excessive amount of weight. Therefore, I had viewed the training hikes as a “trial run” to see if her pack caused her any discomfort. Nothing serious had happened in the preparatory hikes to suggest to me that we needed a change. I had thus ignored my misgivings, and gone along with her idea to carry the bag.

On the trail, everything that had happened was useless information. What I had to do was devise a solution for my wife to continue hiking and hopefully lessen her discomfort. The first option was to lessen her load. My bag was packed to the maximum. There was no way for me to carry more inside. Moreover, I had her carrying all of the food and not much more so that her bag would get progressively lighter throughout the trip.

The other options were equally weak. The second option was to re-pack her bag to re-balance the weight; but as I had helped her pack her bag in a balanced manner that morning, that seemed silly. The third option was to switch bags, but while my bag had greater potential for adjustability, and a higher amount of padding, it also had a lot more weight, which would quickly tire her out. I quickly realized that we were left with one option: either I carried her weight, or she continued on in extreme discomfort.

I offered to carry her bag. I knew that to me, it wasn’t that heavy, and I also knew I could take the extra weight and make it to our destination with no problems. She refused. I stared at her, puzzled, and offered again. This time, my offer was decidedly rejected. Surprised, I explained the particulars of my logic to her. Again, she refused and told me that she had come on the trek because she wanted to do the hike, and that no matter how difficult or painful it was, she was going to persevere, and carry her own weight, unless she absolutely needed help.

Faced with such determination, I let the subject drop for half an hour, upon which I asked her again for the third of many times if she wanted help. It wasn’t that I didn’t respect her wishes. I had the utmost respect for someone with that much fire and vigor and motivation. My constant propositions were based solely on the fact that I wanted her to be able to enjoy the hike as much as I was. Again, I was firmly rebuffed as we walked on.
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 09:00PM by Registered CommenterLast Adventurer in | Comments16 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (16)

All I have to say is go LA's wife! You show him who the boss is! Yeah!
November 30, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterbootchic
Going out with gear you know might be manky? That's a bit risky, if you ask me!
December 2, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercrownroyale
True. I'm not sure I would take a daypack on a backpack. After all, ultralight doesn't necessarily mean ultra prepared.
December 2, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterbackpackinrutherford
But it doesnt mean unprepared either. Youll notice that the article talks about discomfort - not unprepardness. Big difference!
December 2, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercavelion
So true. I go ultralight all the time. probably more so than this story, and while things might be a little rought osmetimes, I always get where I'm going without trouble. The article says nothing about actual trouble, just discomfort. As most people say when working out, no pain, no gain.
December 2, 2006 | Unregistered Commentersilverbirch
I see nothing wrong with taking ultralight gear, and I see nothing wrong with knowing there might be a problem. Just because there's a small discomfort problem doesn't mean you're unsafe.
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpackmule220
Ultralight does mean discomfort at times. I rarely wear boots to save weight, but that does mean my feet and ankles get beat up pretty harsh. Does that mean I'm unsafe? I think not.
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterxprtwalker
Ummm. Possibly if you sprain or break an ankle it does!
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercluffy
I think that going out without the proper gear leaves you open to risk, and needing a rescue, placing others in danger just to satisfy your own need to be "special" or "risk taking". I'm not cool with that.
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterstinkyysocks
Again, no one is saying that the author didn't have the right gear to be safe. I don't read that here at all. Discomfort does not mean unsafe. I think that last comment is inappropriate.
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercirqure_special
Improper? I dont know. I think lots of people get themselves into situations where they try to do things without things they need or have. Then its up to people like me to rescue them which I dont always appreciate because it gets frustating and is sometimes dangerous. I think theres a line for safety and one for preparedness. When you start losing weight, where do you draw the lines? SHoes? Food? Water? You see?
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterchpperEMT
Ok, BITTER! Just because some people make bad mistakes, and we've all seen it: one eight ounce bottle of water on a hot day does lead to dehydration, and things of the sort. But that doesn't mean all people are like that or all decisions in a weight saving way are BAD. A few bads apples don't spoil things for everyone else.
Agreed. Let's get some things straight here:
1) People have personal choice in what to carry;
2) Some people make mistakes based on a lack of experience or whatever;
3) The majority of experienced people do not;
4) Discomfort does not mean danger;
5) Choice is what is at issue here,
6) An excessive amount of gear is just as hazardous as too few gear;(too much weight tires people)
7) The article never mentions danger in any way.

Clear?????
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter!cripsy!
More often have I seen too little equipment being the issue. However, in fairness, I have seen on a lot of occasions too much weight also being a problem. In excessive gear situations the person really does suffer as they really can't loose what their carrying (or at least not legally). I think the issue is proper experience here, not choice.
December 4, 2006 | Unregistered Commenter30yrsexp
I think we can all agree that gear is a preference issue; and that the debate here only gets to what people personally think. However, the article doesn't say that anyone was in danger, so there is no reason to get all bothered about it. Besides "what you know" beforehand and "what you think you know" might be two different things, as I think the article might be suggesting.
December 6, 2006 | Unregistered Commenteropticks
Well put.
December 6, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterfrayedstrand

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.