Posts
I was thinking about walks I would like to do the other day. Ones done, as well. Keeping in mind why I go outdoors - to be in places like the photo above.
The other thing about the outdoors these days is the inside element, thanks to the internet. We connect, share and learn from each other via blogs, websites, Twitter and the odd forum, although the last few weeks I have been busy and unable to write for the blog much; I shall make amends in the next few weeks. But I digress.
I got a email this week from Backpacking Light, the American-based website for those who profess to be Ultra Light backpackers. My membership is up! To be honest, I am so over the UL thing. Who gives a damn about a 4kg pack weight? If it meets the needs of the trip, you're doing great. If not, you're stupid for taking it. Read THIS and mellow.
But as for renewing my membership? No way. The value is not there now. Contributors left who I rated highly. New ones are trying - but there is a flaw. The depth and detail is not there now for me.
Also, am I reading between the lines? Arguments on the Porter Pack review (still unfinished I note) and disgusting comments left in place, with further comments disabled at this time - this tells me all I need to know about this website for me now. The rant about cottage manufacturers 'lacking innovation' (I notice these days a lack of test kit from them). Somehow I wonder if BPL is liked by a lot of people. For me, Backpacking Light is sinking fast.
I don't intend to give any money to the rescue fund.
18 comments:
Where do you see the future backpacking trend going? is there a "backpacking not quite so light but having everything covered" movement?
I'm a life member. Seemed like a good idea at the time. BPL seems to have lost focus. There's still some some good stuff from Roger C and Will R, but the rest of the editorial is weak. The SOTM reviews are often like advertising copy and there's little real testing and review. A bit like candy floss. It's a real shame because it was peerless. I notice that OM is a shadow of its former self as well. Perhaps people are getting fed up with these sites. A passing fad.
Hi Martin,
Sadly, BPL has got the taint of business and bias written all over.
I joined a few years ago and left a few years ago after the comments got very personal and very silly about a well respected figure in the outdoors scene.
I rarely, contribute to Outdoors Magic nowadays, but it is still where I go frequently to keep up to date with the latest trends etc. And it is free to access. But, so too is BPL for a lot of information. BPL is IMO trying too hard.
It trys to make out it's special, when there is so much that eclipses it on other websites and Blogs etc.
There was even a thread a few weeks ago - one of a number over time - that sought to justify the benefits of paying to be a member of BPL. It, too got personal.
A good decision to say bye bye.
I have never been a BPL member so this doesn't really concern me. Though I've occasionally wanted to check an article or two. Are all the old articles available for members? If so, I might join for a year...
But I wanted to commen on alibobbles question about backpacking trends.
I think lightweight and UL have given much of what they had to give for the majority: in general kit has become lighter, many people pack less and lighter and are thus able to pursue their adventures with more comfort or less effort or conquer completely new things. But for most it's enough when they've started to utilize the basic lightweight principles, there is no need to push the envelope for most of us and thus the hype around the trend will likely decrease. Though I hope that a group of people will keep pushing the UL envelope so that the rest can get better and lighter kit.
Love that link to Andrew Skurka! When Geoff and I started doing 6 and 7 day trips over in the States, we were keen to get lighter gear as you inevitably end up carrying so much weight in food and bear canisters, but there was always a limit beyond which we never went. For example for us, it was always a big issue to be warm and comfortable if the weather turned - and let's face it, camping at 10,000ft it can always snow unexpectedly - so we would never have fit into the ultralight category with our stuff, but we did always invest in the lightest possible gear that did what we wanted it to do. It is a very personal thing balancing your own needs with gear choices, but the most important thing at the end of the day is making sure you have trips that you will remember for the right reasons, with gear that just fits seamlessly into your way of backpacking.
Alibobbles a good question. UL for me needs to die. It has a legacy in that it got people to lighten up, to see they needed less, and kit does not need to get in the way. But the movement has become elitist, big headed and to honest many of those who promote it seem to do very little in terms of big walks. Those who have lightened up, the as you say "not quite so light" I doubt (I don't) care anyway. They got Trailstars not because they are light. No, they got them as they are superb in bad weather. They add a Oooknest and are happy. I doubt they lust over cuben fibre stuff sacks and the like. They took the basics,got a happy balance in pack weight and ignore the UL fans raving about this and that going for a walk in the local woods at most. There just backpackers. Simple as that.
Gordon I recall the abuse Bob got. Not needed and Ryan Jordan stated he allowed that for free speech, or some crap reason. Once he gets it back over the Porter Pack the post gets edited, and comments disabled. Says it all. It's a failed business. Many blogs, websites offer more. Great points. Agree 100% You applied for the TGOC 2013 yet BTW ?
Robin. Once a good site. I rated Will highly, and Roger is so detailed. Their science and engineering training showed on the posts they wrote. But not now. There is little compared to what has gone before. Sites need to keep with the times. OM just needed to moderate the forum for me. I kinda rate it in some ways. Other times its lacking.
Jaakko good debate. Yes, we learnt a lot from the UL craze. But Mr Skurka has for me nailed the reality of stupid light for no reason. Its all an ego trip. When in truth the needs of the trip lead us to select kit we need. Not a set weight limit. Light kit is here to stay as people (me included) will buy it. But sense needs to be the message and skills for the hills. Light kit is great. But kit that mets the trip aims and delivers for that is the key.
Chrissie glad you liked the link. It is for me a milestone post. What a message! It slapped the UL movement in the face with reality time. great points and thanks.
I let my BPL membership lapse too this year. The content is commonplace now, why pay for it? Seems like it's mostly guest posters now.
I must admit I was shocked the other day to learn that Ryan Jordan is an HMG ambassador now. Throws publisher bias under the train, no?
We're light enough. Let's go backpacking.
Philip I asked Ryan on Twitter about his Ambassador involvement. He said he will put a disclaimer on the Porter update and allow comments again.
More like apologise to everyone first and delete the Porter post. I cant get it.
BPL is sinking. We just got on with backpacking. BPL just failed to realise it.
I will probably continue to check out the forums regularly, as they are a good way to keep up with what's new on the gear front. Things can get a bit mean spirited, but compared to many forums I still think it is pretty good.
When it comes to content I think they set the bar incredibly high to start with and it just wasn't sustainable. Financially or otherwise.
There is also only so much you can say about any hobby before you just start repeating yourself.
From the point of view of membership I decided this year that I am very unlikely to renew. I am just not comfortable with some of the things said by and the general attitude of BPLs owner in relation to how BPL is run. This isn't meant to reflect on Ryan personally as I do not know him at all. It is purely based on how the business is run and the type of businesses I chose to support.
I am pretty confident that if BPL no longer existed an alternative forum would start up fairly quickly and many of the current BPL family would migrate over.
BPL did give reason to think about the type and weight of gear that was carried. They were not alone, but BPL did a good thing in getting over the fact that it was possible to go lighter. This was also easier in the USA where on the whole, weather conditions were perhaps more predictable.
But, after that, people needed to balance their choices of gear by what they thought would keep them safe and comfortable in the conditions they expected to meet - and what they could afford. As we know, for example, the weather in Scotland can go through four seasons in a couple of weeks.
To slavishly reduce weight for the sake of it will eventually backfire - leading to stupid light - and, could potentially be dangerous, especially if practiced by someone inexperienced.
Application for 2013 TGO is in - how about you?
Jason a balanced view and one I warm to. Being honest I take a more dim view of the way BPL has been run.
Forum when held in comparison to others is not bad. Yet it has its bad moments. I also think your right - in that it offers the none paying person some access to information of use.
You are correct many would go if there were an alternative. For me inclusiveness would be key. If people decide to carry more so what! I say to people. I met people who did the 100 Mile Wilderness with lots more kit than me. The views the same, the joy the same. Somehow BPL for me lost touch with the masses and future people who would, and do lighten up.
Gordon agree. Why we take kit is more than weight. Yes light kit helps. But a shelter that wont blow away in a gale is essential. Somehow those who evangelise UL at all costs miss. For me UL is dead. SUL too. "Lets backpack" has been said and that is it for me.
TGOC application going in this week. Just a question I need to ask Dawg and then off it goes. Hope we meet on it. Maybe a training walk some time hey?
Hi Martin,
In he past I used BPL as an information source, like many people, but I never saw the sense in paying their subscription fee. My usage of BPL has been virtually nil however since the post regarding BPLUK went out of control.
At one time BPL was a primary source of information, especially for the speciality products from US based companies. Nowadays, it seems that almost every walker/hiker/backpacker has their own blog and there is so much information available on the internet that this key role of BPL has become redundant.
I think that we as users also learn from our own experiences and adapt our kit choices in the light of those experiences. My sort of normal weight today for a 4 or 5 day trip is more or less the same as when I bumped into Gordon for a few days in 2009, but there has been quite a shift in where the weight lies in the various items. I am using the same rucksack, but some items have been replaced by heavier ones and others by lighter ones. All based on what worked and what didn't and why am I taking this again, when I still haven't used it? etc, etc, etc.
But I know full well that on all trips, there will be one or two items (or more) that will not be used, but they go in the sack regardless. This is where personal preferences come into it and there is nothing wrong with that.
Eddie
Eddie BPL has become redundant. Agree 100%. Blogs and forums killed it in some ways. But the biggest blow came from within its leadership for me.
Our choices are personal in kit selection for a trip, and nothing wrong with that at all.
Hi Martin,
I am curious about something that you posted on another blog, "As you know Captain I am on the TGOC 2013. On account of loop holes that like you that must be exploited". That sounds pretty definite to me. Pray tell!
I could never understand how lucky some people were, when I read their TGO journals for umpteen consecutive years. Then my pal puts in an application as a first timer, with me as the partner and we come out second last in the draw!
I remember that the selection process has endured some critique since oversubscription became the norm, but I suspect that the "select others" criteria or loop holes as you put it, have never been fully disclosed.
2013? Maybe. Is 13 a lucky number?
Eddie
Eddie it's no fix. Alan is with Phil who is on his 10th so he is on.
I have an over sea first time visiter with me - so as part of that group I am on straight away.
I have failed to get on and been on the reserve list in the past.
If you failed last time your on this time. Read the application rules in the TGO and it states so. Hope that clears it up.
See you there.
Hi Martin,
I had not factored in that someone from overseas other than Philip would be in your group. It was your use of "loop holes" that threw me. Lets hope you get better weather than the Class of 2012!
For the unsuccessful applicants in 2012, TGOC high command will "do our very best to get you on to the 2013 walk". So it is no done deal.
My biggest problem lies in selecting a route. Lots of interesting hills but too many boring road stretches linking them up! Anyway, I can dither away for another couple of weeks before deciding one way or tother.
Eddie
I never gleaned much from BPL mainly because of a) the bias towards the USA climate and b) the lunatic fringe that often seemed to be dominating the UL paradigm (I admit every hobby benefits from a lunatic fringe, if only to highlight the boundaries of what's currently possible and encourage improving trends generally, also to make us sensible folks realize how... well... sensible we are).
I never subscribed to it and I'm less and less interested in kit anyway nowadays.
The lunatics were in abundance Geoff. I note more comments on Twitter about the founder and concerns people have.
USA focus, UL biased and the rest of us just kept it sensible. We like to carry less, but on the sensible side.
I am slowly getting better from gear addiction. I only get the odd new bit of kit Geoff now. But on kit how little do BPL talk about trips, and skills. It's all gear focus.
Post a Comment