Hiking with (LF and) ULF camera equipment

[Greg]

Since the mid 1970s, have been a practicing advocate of ultra light weight backpacking, mostly here in New England with its rare stretches of level ground, for the most part up and down hills and "mountains". Mt. Katadin in Maine is 5,267 feet high and in the past was only able to top it in between passing thunderstorms because of only carrying an ultra-lite daypack. For years carried only a Olympus XA-4 (35mm) and an Agfa Isolette (120). When I wanted to combine my love for backpacking with my love for LF photography, ran into a big problem... I really did not want to use a minimalistic light weight 4x5 system. Beside that, my favorite formats were whole plate and 8x10, and neither of these formats came anywhere near being close to a lightweight 3 lens 4x5 system.

Had to change my modus-operandi... no more multi-day backpacking adventures. Day hikes to photo destinations became the norm. A f/64 backpack worked out great in holding all my equipment, and a few more essentials. Typically carry the WP or the 8x10 Chamonix camera, 3 lenses, and everything else in the f/64 backpack. Tripod over the shoulder with a walking stick in the other hand. Tried attaching the tripod to the f/64 but just couldn't get it right.

Was wondering how others have dealt with using LF equipment off the beaten path. Pretty much have given up on using ULF equipment (11x14 in my case) any further that a short walk from my car... towing a wheeled cart on most of the rocky trails in New England is not just a doable/viable option.

Comments really welcome on this subject... Would love to know how others have dealt with hauling LF and ULF equipment way, way past the trailhead. Have yet to find a backpack suitable to haul my 11x14 Chamonix with 3 lenses, 2+ film holders, and more. Weight of the 11x14 outfit I'm sure I could handle, but again have yet to find a backpack capable of carrying the 11x14.

thanks

[Two23]

I've gone the easy route and just use a Chamonix 045n and carbon fiber tripod (Feisol 3441). As for packs, I prefer technical packs designed for hikers such as Osprey and Deuter.


Kent in SD

[Vaughn]

I backpack with 4x5 and occasionally 5x7. The only time I have been in the backcountry with the 8x10 was when it was hauled on a mule, the 8x10 is 60 pounds of stuff -- I can hike all day with it (slowly with lots of stops!) but no other equipment.

For my 11x14 Chamonix I have been looking at canoe portage packs. This one looks like it would hold camera and holders.
https://www.rei.com/product/867832/granite-gear-superior-one-portage-canoe-pack.

I spent 5 months on a bicycle with a 4x5 (New Zealand). With a cargo bike and electric pedal assist, I could do 8x10. Just a matter of range and recharging.

Backpacking with the 4x5 or 5x7 -- only short distances in these days, base camp and photograph. Usually 6 holders...to keep it light, I do not reload film...fine for 3 or 4-night trips. I bring a shoulder bag that can hold the holders, light meter and odds and ends --- the camera on the pod and over my shoulder. The camera has the darkcloth over it and a waterproof stuff sack over that. Sometimes hiking in I'll have the camera/pod over my shoulder, then on the way out there is room in the pack for it.

4x5 - Gowland PocketView. Two and a half pounds with the lens (Caltar IIN 105/5.6)
5x7 - Eastman View No.2. Eight and 3/4 pounds with 210/6.3 lens

I'll be doing more with the 4x5 in the future -- just bought 200 sheets of Kodak Copy film to continue a project along Redwood Creek.

[Peter Collins]

+1 Kent. I have the same camera and a very light--almost too light--carbon fiber tripod. Still the whole kit is about 19lb--4 lenses. In the car, it's in a second-hand Pelican-look-alike case, with the film holders in a Coleman 6-pack cooler. On the trail, it's a Granite Gear panel opening pack, rebadged by Photobackpacker. On the trail, the holders go into the pack, the cooler stays home.

[Mark Darragh]

Most of my photography is based in what you call the backcountry in the US (we just call it the bush). Imho the harnesses found on hiking packs are definitely superior to "photo backpacks" when it comes to carrying all the gear. I've carried packs of many different brands over the years but my packs of choice are made by One Planet here in Oz. My 8x10 easily fits into their 70l Ned pack, I think it could probably manage an 11x14. Longer trips with overnight gear require a 90l McMillan. We also have lots of pack-eating vegetation which can quickly tear flimsy materials or a surplus of straps and add-ons to shreds.

Cameras and lenses go into Gnass gear or Photobackpacker cases (pity neither are in production). 8x10 only comes on shorter basecamp trips, 4x5s on longer trips.

[Corran]

My favorite backpack has a little "cup" attachment for one of the tripod feet, and then adjustable, solid straps to snug in the tripod. It works perfectly. If you can figure out the tripod mounting, it'll probably be fine. On my other backpacks, it doesn't attach that well and it can be a drag. Carrying it is just no good for long distances.

Smaller lenses, or less of them (how many do you really need?), less film holders, lighten up as much as you can. Everyone is different but I remember reading a thread here months ago that was something about "what do you bring" and I was kind of surprised at all the (IMO) superfluous stuff people bring. Notebooks, screwdrivers/tools for field repairs, and all this other stuff, to me, is not really needed unless you are on a mission-critical, once-in-a-lifetime shoot. A couple months ago my ballhead broke while out shooting with a friend. So...I stopped shooting. Packed it in and let it go. Tomorrow is another day. Anyway, point is, lighten up if you can. I'm guilty of bringing more lenses/cameras than I need so have been getting better about that.

Other than that, just finding the backpack system that works for you is the ticket.

[Alan9940]

My 4x5 Arca-Swiss with 4 lenses and darkcloth all go into an F-Stop ICU which then goes into a Kelty P2 backpack from photobackpacker. My 8x10 with 3-4 lenses are all in PB cases which all go into that same P2 pack. Now that I'm in my mid-60's, I can't pack the Deardorff nearly as far as I used to so, now I have an 8x10 Intrepid with 2 small Fuji A series lenses. Film holders are carried in PB cascading cases. Tripods are all carbon fiber.

[andrewch59]

I use a road/dirt bike to go on shooting trips around the backroads in QLD. To minimize my load I bought a Sony photo backpack, it really limits what you can throw in. I am one of those types that throws things in a bigger (bergen) packpack, just in case I need it, now I have limited myself to what the little backpack will hold. 4x5 with half a dozen film holders and four lenses, plus the usual accessories.
My CF Sirui tripod has its own bag that is strapped around the backpack. The 8x10 and 10x12 only go in the van with the heavy duty manfrotto tripod, old age and bad lungs are prohibitive. Changing to a ballhead has saved a bit of weight, and folds up with the tripod.

[Pere Casals]

182984
https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2017/Dec-Jan/PhotoZone/Conservation-Photography-Timeline

William Henry Jackson

hmmm, ULF shooters of the XIX were very lucky

[kenj8246]

If you've managed to successfully attach a tripod to a f.64 bpx pack, can you tell/show how you've done it? I haven't actually started yet--still waiting on the Intrepid 8X10--other than practice loading accoutrements and such. If I could get the tripod foot of one of my LowePros secured securely, I THINK that'd be a start. At this point, I'm thinking I'll have to hump the Gitzo over a shoulder. I'm presently using a Zone VI shoulder bag for my Chamonix 45 and 3 or 4 lenses and other stuff, tripod over the shoulder.

[CreationBear]

A f/64 backpack worked out great in holding all my equipment, and a few more essentials. Typically carry the WP or the 8x10 Chamonix camera, 3 lenses, and everything else in the f/64 backpack

That's certainly a landscape that deserves a big negative!:)

I just checked the dimensions of the f64 pack, and to be honest I think my approach would be to cut off the straps/hipbelt off of it until it resembled a slick ICU, then stick it in an expedition sized toploader. Fill the remaining space with a couple of drysacks containing your UL camp and you ought to be set. You might have to shop around for a host pack that has a wide enough packbag--Mystery Ranch might be a good place to start. (FWIW, I have a Bozeman-era Dana AstralPlane that would swallow the f64 with no problem.)

If I'm reading correctly, though, are we to assume that the f64 doesn't hold your 11x14? I can certainly see where that would be a challenge for even the biggest packs--it might be worth talking to Dan McHale, the custom pack builder, to see if one of his models could be modded to your specs...a 7000 cu in panel-loader would be a sight to behold.:)

Otherwise, given your slick and rocky AO, I'd argue pretty strongly that you should be able to stow your tripod, if only to leave your hands free for trekking poles. Here in the Smokies, there are streamside trails I don't mind carrying my Ries as Vaughn does, but throw in a little elevation gain and slick Anakeesta slate a little extra security is welcome.

[MAubrey]

For my 11x14 Chamonix I have been looking at canoe portage packs. This one looks like it would hold camera and holders.
https://www.rei.com/product/867832/granite-gear-superior-one-portage-canoe-pack.

This is precisely what I've been looking for!

[scheinfluger_77]

182984
https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2017/Dec-Jan/PhotoZone/Conservation-Photography-Timeline

William Henry Jackson

hmmm, ULF shooters of the XIX were very lucky

My hero

[David Lobato]

Seriously consider a generous friend to carry part of your load of non-photo gear. I had the good fortune to have a friend carry some of my gear on a trip into the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in Colorado and I got several great 4x5 shots on the trip. Or use a pack animal, great if traveling in wilderness areas. Some forum members have used pack animals and it changes logistics, typically for the better. I have seen non-photgraphers in the wilderness with pack horses and was impressed (and jealous) with the extras they had, some were frivolous, most weren't. Using a pack animal has been in the back of my mind for years.

[Louis Pacilla]

182984
https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2017/Dec-Jan/PhotoZone/Conservation-Photography-Timeline

William Henry Jackson

hmmm, ULF shooters of the XIX were very lucky

I'm about 99.9% sure the man in this photo is not Henry's but Henry's helper w/ the camera & pack mule. Of course, Henry made the photo of his 18x22 E & H.T. Anthony Klauber on a pack mule camera & lead by his assistant.

[mmerig]

Over the last few years, I have been working on a repeat photography project for the US Forest Service, in NW Wyoming. It involves a lot of remote places, most of which I hike to. If the trip has more than 50 miles of trail, I have used pack stock to get into a base camp, and go from there on foot. Elevations vary from about 6500 feet to about 11000.

My usual set up for a day-hike is to use a medium-sized day pack (Deuter 30 Cruise) to carry my camera stuff (4 by 5 field camera, 2 or 3 lenses, Gossen Pilot meter, 55 mm Takumar lens for a loupe, film holders, dark cloth, notebook, photos to be re-taken, map) and lunch etc. Normally, 2 to 4 film holders are enough to do a batch of photos on a given trip. The tripod straps onto the outside of the pack. This setup weighs about 25 to 35 pounds. If I need to camp, I still use the Deuter set-up, and clip the waist strap forward and put it in a Lowe Expedition pack. The tripod straps to the outside of the Low pack. I sleep in a bivy sack to save weight and space in my pack. The total weight depends on how much food I need, obviously, but for a few days out it is about 55 pounds. To save weight, I rarely carry water, and drink as I encounter streams; I do not carry a filter.

For anything but a short trip, I also carry an FM radio (walkie-talkie to check in with USFS for safety reasons) and always a GPS unit to mark the camera stations. There is usually some off-trail hiking to get to camera stations, and I just carry the day pack for that. I weigh about 140 pounds and am 60 years old.

I could probably shave off a few pounds or so from the basic kit if I used a lighter camera and maybe a lighter tripod, and even more if I used a lighter pack than the Lowe. I usually lose a few pounds on a multi-day trip.

[John Kasaian]

I kept a small mule for packing in.
A friend kept her on his ranch for a modest monthly fee.
I learned to trim and shoe so I was my own farrier.
I did need a truck and small stock trailer, but used trailers can be found cheap(I put a new floor in mine---one more trade learned---and what was left of the old planks became a raised garden bed) and having a pick up is always useful (mine from a USFS surplus vehicle auction)

I gave her all her shots and worming, too (yet another ancillary skill set acquired)
A gentleman who was a famous local saddle maker supplied me with a pack saddle (Tehama tree for mules) and Utah style panniers. The lash rope, cinch, and manty were mail ordered. I built my own boxes.
Learning to throw a diamond (or better yet, double diamond) hitch isn't as hard as it looks. Apprentice as a wrangler for a few pack trips and it gets real easy real fast.

It was all a heck of a lot of fun!
That mule was a better companion than many people I've been camping with.
I miss the mule!

Hiking with the 8x10 is far more limiting ---1 small lenses, three film holders and tripod (no head) is about all I can manage these days. For carrying the tripod I got a shotgun sling 183051 for carrying and a small dog collar for holding the legs together.

Hiking with the 5x7 Speeder is more forgiving.

[Sergio]

Ciao
http://www.monowalker.com/index.php/en/

[Pere Casals]

Ciao
http://www.monowalker.com/index.php/en/

this is an smart solution... it would save making several trips from the car to the location

a digital iphone shooter would grasp his head if he saw one of us transporting the camera with a cart :) he would even post a tube with that... but it's always a pleasure explaning other people what we do !

[Drew Bedo]

Of course the pioneers of wilderness photography such as Jackson and Curtis, took ULF gear into the field . . .and did wet-plate photography. They used pack anamals.

I cannot imagine bringing a ULF kit into the field without hoofs or wheels.

Now that I am infirm (back, legs etc) I try to carry less and less and rarely take a footpath that is less than wheel-chair accusable (flat, wide and hard).

A couple of years ago, I bought a TravelWide plastic camera (4x5). With the little 90mm Schneider 6.8 it is just a pound or so. Film holders , meter and what-not went into a lap-top shoulder bag, all of it together under 10 pounds (never weighed it). I set up the camera for infinity and backed off just a tad. Shot vistas without movements eirther hand-held or resrting on any convenient support.
It was a little boreing to do and the images were generally not that exciting. The kit worked well enough though.. .till I broke the lens mount. That is a design weakness in the camera. Maybe AI'll get it fixed.

[kenj8246]

Ciao
http://www.monowalker.com/index.php/en/

Now, THAT is quite something!

[Michael Roberts]

Comments really welcome on this subject... Would love to know how others have dealt with hauling LF and ULF equipment way, way past the trailhead. Have yet to find a backpack suitable to haul my 11x14 Chamonix with 3 lenses, 2+ film holders, and more. Weight of the 11x14 outfit I'm sure I could handle, but again have yet to find a backpack capable of carrying the 11x14.

thanks

I found an 8x10 camera that weighs only 5lbs, and an 11x14 that weighs only 10lbs. I fabricated a 7x11 back to fit the 8x10 camera for ULF. When backpacking extended distances (and elevations), I try to anticipate the fl I will need and take only the lens(es) I will need to make the photograph I want. Sometimes this involves scouting trips w/o the gear, then returning later to photograph. Everything is a trade-off...

I've got an Amvona pack (off eBay) that's perfect for the 11x14, though I'm not sure they still make this size.

[scheinfluger_77]

Ciao
http://www.monowalker.com/index.php/en/

This has to be the slickest application for a camera tote I’ve seen on this forum or anywhere else. There is a little sticker shock to be sure, but I think the Monowalker would be great for ULF.

[Vaughn]

Just do not take it into the wilderness!

[mmerig]

Just do not take it into the wilderness!

+1

[Two23]

Just do not take it into the wilderness!


Why?


Kent in SD

[Greg]

If you've managed to successfully attach a tripod to a f.64 bpx pack, can you tell/show how you've done it? I haven't actually started yet--still waiting on the Intrepid 8X10--other than practice loading accoutrements and such. If I could get the tripod foot of one of my LowePros secured securely, I THINK that'd be a start. At this point, I'm thinking I'll have to hump the Gitzo over a shoulder. I'm presently using a Zone VI shoulder bag for my Chamonix 45 and 3 or 4 lenses and other stuff, tripod over the shoulder.

Tripod is a BENRO TAD28C Adventure carbon fiber with a Ries head. Combo is a tad bit top heavy, but works out great for me in the field. Attached the tripod to the side of the f/64 using compression straps which went through the plastic loupes attached to the short lengths of 1" webbing. Problem was that the tripod rode too low below the bottom of the pack. Also really didn't trust the plastic loupes. Solution was to have the owner/tailor of our local cleaning store replace the plastic loupes with metal ones and to have her fabricate and attach a pouch on the side of the pack to support the bottom of the folded up tripod. Wanted to keep the bottom of the tripod even with the bottom of the pack. In the past she has constructed and modified many cases and interior foam inserts for me. Problem is that she retired, and the new owner has no interest in fabricating and modifying photo related things for me. Franchised cleaners in our area do not do custom modifications or fabrications was told for many reasons.

[Michael Kadillak]

I found an 8x10 camera that weighs only 5lbs, and an 11x14 that weighs only 10lbs. I fabricated a 7x11 back to fit the 8x10 camera for ULF. When backpacking extended distances (and elevations), I try to anticipate the fl I will need and take only the lens(es) I will need to make the photograph I want. Sometimes this involves scouting trips w/o the gear, then returning later to photograph. Everything is a trade-off...

I've got an Amvona pack (off eBay) that's perfect for the 11x14, though I'm not sure they still make this size.

The willingness to scout a potential photographic area and define the objective in securing an image objectively as a part of your "image" game plan is easily discounted as "compulsive excessive" yet whats the point if the result is not obtained? If you do not overcome the challenges of weight, distance, capability and commitment guess what? The image is not obtained.

[Jim Graves]

Why?


Kent in SD

I believe they are referring to Federal Regulation - Title 36, Chapt II, Part 261, Sec. 261.57 (h) which prohibits
"possessing or using a wagon, cart or other vehicle" in Federal Wilderness Areas.

Greg Hindy ... the cross-country Large Format trekker from back in 2016 got scolded for this at one point in his trek ... he was using a three-wheeled cart for his gear.

It is intended to keep the wild in wilderness ... even the wilderness maintenance crews use only hand tools (axes, saws, shovels) no chain saws allowed even for the trail builders/maintainers ... and Vaughn would know given the number of trees and logs he hand-cut in his years as a wilderness ranger.

[MAubrey]

For my 11x14 Chamonix I have been looking at canoe portage packs. This one looks like it would hold camera and holders.
https://www.rei.com/product/867832/granite-gear-superior-one-portage-canoe-pack.
I picked up an old vintage Granite Gear portage pack recently for my 11x14.

It's the perfect pack for walking longer distances.

[Vaughn]

I picked up an old vintage Granite Gear portage pack recently for my 11x14.

It's the perfect pack for walking longer distances.

My only concern is that I have long torso and that the pack with be too short (I was 6'4" before I shrunk an inch somehow.)

[Greg]

I picked up an old vintage Granite Gear portage pack recently for my 11x14.

It's the perfect pack for walking longer distances.

Agree with a Granite Gear portage pack. After a lot of reading and research this seems to be the way to go. Intend on getting on come springtime.

[Laminarman]

I'll be carrying a 4x5, but something like this might work for an 8x10, maybe an 11x14??? I've used these with a rifle, they run small or very large. You need to find one with a rifle butt holder, it folds up out of the way when not in use. I used a small one and the rifle "holder" is a boot basically and I tuck my tripod legs (2 of them) into it and the tripod stays along the center of the pack tightly, well balanced. If you look for a large pack that is the type used for packing in to hunt elk, they have a LOT of pockets and good support and a good waist belt. Usually those guys are going in for a week and carry a kitchen sink along for good measure. Just a thought.

186842

[Laminarman]

http://www.alpsoutdoorz.com/

[Drew Wiley]

I've posted on my choice of packs numerous times - true external frame vintage ones made in the US. They're common on the used listing. Some people bought em and never used em, and just want to clean out their closets. A pack that originally cost $250 in the 70's might go for $30 today, and it will be better made that what you can get new at the outdoor stores. I stopped keeping track of how many thousands of miles I've backpacked with large format gear long ago. That included all the necessary camping and mountain gear too. I'm turning 70 this year and am still at it, just a little slower than before. I shoot only up to 8x10, but see no reason why for dayhikes at least, racks n packs could not be easily improvised for considerably larger cameras.

[Laminarman]

Doug are the external frames the old fashioned looking aluminum frames you attach a pack of choice to? I'm not sure the concept, is it more versatile because it sure doesn't look more comfortable.

[Drew Wiley]

External frame packs are MORE comfortable when carrying large bulky loads. They're sized (important when shopping), but adjustable within a certain range. The good ones like the old classic Glendale CA Keltys had welded aluminum frames. Neo-Kelty is more of an cheapified import thing. But nothing is going to really be comfortable until your shoulder and back muscles have gotten used to it. I always get a laugh at those deer hunter types who get out of their TV or computer chair once a year and try to stumble 50 yards from the road out of shape and inebriated, lugging a brand new expensive rifle they've never shot before. The deer have nothing to fear; other hunters do. But big packs are a great way to keep in shape without running on a treadmill like a rat in some stinky gym.

[Vaughn]

After many years with Kelty external frame packs in the late 60s and early 70s, I got sold on their first internal frame back and used one for many more years -- much better on ones lap in the back of a VW bug than an external frame digging into you! I did as much hitch-hiking as back-packing in those days. Ended up with an early Gregory internal framed, large volume Cassin (1980 or '81) that I could load up with 90 pounds -- back when I could carry such loads. I have a lighter, smaller volume Gregory now.

For the 8x10, I find the zippered front of the internal framed MEI Trekker II to be most convienent to getting to everything and for packing up. I like being able to toss the 8x10 pack in the van, move it around, and all that without worrying about catching the frame on something, me, or damaging the van. The hipbelt and shoulder straps can be hidden away even.

I used a top-loading large daypack for 4x5 and 5x7 for years and one finds the most efficient way to use the equipment one has. I think my 8x10 pack loaded up might be around 45 pounds max and then add 15 or so pounds for the tripod/head. But this past month in Chile, hauling around the 5x7 and old Gitzo tripod was enough weight to carry on the steep trails we found! I borrowed an old Tamrac extreme series pack...it use to belong to Charlie Crammer...good vibes!

The Eastman No.2 5x7 (with the 180mm/5.6 lens on the camera) fit in nicely on the bottom half of the Tamrac -- the 210mm/6.3 lens, meter and darkcloth fit above the camera. The front pocket held four 5x7 holders along with my filter wallet, and the inner side of the front flap had pockets that held all the small stuff. Not any extra room, but I could sneak a small snack in.

For the plane, the light meter and 210mm lens went into the checked bag (my Gregory backpack) wrapped in sweater -- and all film holders (eight) and two boxes of Ilford FP4+ went into the carry-on pack in their place in the Tamrac. The large wood and brass camera did have the Santiago, Chile (or was it Lima?) airport security folks scratching their heads for a little while.

[Laminarman]

External frame packs are MORE comfortable when carrying large bulky loads. They're sized (important when shopping), but adjustable within a certain range. The good ones like the old classic Glendale CA Keltys had welded aluminum frames. Neo-Kelty is more of an cheapified import thing. But nothing is going to really be comfortable until your shoulder and back muscles have gotten used to it. I always get a laugh at those deer hunter types who get out of their TV or computer chair once a year and try to stumble 50 yards from the road out of shape and inebriated, lugging a brand new expensive rifle they've never shot before. The deer have nothing to fear; other hunters do. But big packs are a great way to keep in shape without running on a treadmill like a rat in some stinky gym.

Good to know, I've never used one but then again my packing experience is modest at best. More of a runner/biker/soccer guy. Well true on some of that but don't stereotype all of those guys. I know more than a handful that can carry you into the mountains and back and not break a sweat.

[Drew Wiley]

Depends what you mean by mountains. Most body builder types don't get very far. I know someone whose Sherpa companion passed out on the summit of Everest, and he carried him all the way back down on his back, without
supplementary oxygen, and he's just a little slender guy himself.

[Vaughn]

Some of us are (were) more the mule-type. Load us up and we'll plod along. Like mules, once the pack lightens and we're heading home, we'll speed up some.

I only used the large Cassin pack for my own backpack trips. Doing trail work in the wilderness, my crew and I hand-lead mules with all our gear, food and some tools for 10-day tours. Sweet.

[Laminarman]

Depends what you mean by mountains. Most body builder types don't get very far. I know someone whose Sherpa companion passed out on the summit of Everest, and he carried him all the way back down on his back, without
supplementary oxygen, and he's just a little slender guy himself.

None of these guys are large, just wiry and strong as an ox. Elk hunters in Wyoming, Nevada etc and sheep in the mountains. It's that kind of strong you are when you don't look strong that comes from hard labor. Unfortunately I don't look like that, I'm a bit softer : ( I suppose I could use my camera and pack to get into better shape in the two feet of snow we have on the ground. Found out hard yesterday with my small pack and 4x5 I now need bigger snowshoes. Carrying a view camera is new to me but it's lighter than all the SLR crap I usually lug, just packing is much different.

[Drew Wiley]

A couple of the toughest high-altitude mountaineers that ever lived were a bit pot-bellied. Others like Eric Shipton were tall n thin with a very long stride. Some I've personally known were built like monkeys - short little guys with long arms. Most were ordinary build. My sidekicks were all the above. And every one em could carry a hundred pound pack for days on end. Snowshoeing, like horseback riding, uses a set of thigh muscles that are normally dormant. I haven't done either for quite awhile. Carrying a heavy pack is something I try to do every week. The older you get, the more important it is to keep in shape regularly. But my goal is to get down to a 60 lb pack in my 70's. That's kinda hard to do with two weeks of supplies plus a view camera; but my younger protege is now comfortable with a hundred, but that's for a month out. He uses a tiny digital camera. So if he drops that down to 70 for a two-weeker, he can carry my bag of freeze-dried food too. Or maybe I'll have to start fishing again; but the best time of day for trout tends to also be the best time for certain kinds of lighting, so I haven't been fishing for awhile either. ... Vaughn, mules are smarter than me; so I keep being my own pack mule.

[John Kasaian]

I sure miss my mule!
I kept my pack saddle, bags, lash cinch and stock trailer, but alas, no mule and no truck to pull that stock trailer up the hill!
Someday though....

[Drew Wiley]

Well, John, I already told about our first donkey, Annabelle. It belonged to Wilbur P. and was named after sister, Ann. It was part of his rodeo clown stunt. He'd pull that little donkey out of his baggy clown pants. Maybe you remember that act. It was famous on the rodeo circuit back then. Then when it got too big, he gave it to us. A pet, no good for work.

[Laminarman]

A couple of the toughest high-altitude mountaineers that ever lived were a bit pot-bellied. Others like Eric Shipton were tall n thin with a very long stride. Some I've personally known were built like monkeys - short little guys with long arms. Most were ordinary build. My sidekicks were all the above. And every one em could carry a hundred pound pack for days on end. Snowshoeing, like horseback riding, uses a set of thigh muscles that are normally dormant. I haven't done either for quite awhile. Carrying a heavy pack is something I try to do every week. The older you get, the more important it is to keep in shape regularly. But my goal is to get down to a 60 lb pack in my 70's. That's kinda hard to do with two weeks of supplies plus a view camera; but my younger protege is now comfortable with a hundred, but that's for a month out. He uses a tiny digital camera. So if he drops that down to 70 for a two-weeker, he can carry my bag of freeze-dried food too. Or maybe I'll have to start fishing again; but the best time of day for trout tends to also be the best time for certain kinds of lighting, so I haven't been fishing for awhile either. ... Vaughn, mules are smarter than me; so I keep being my own pack mule.

I am always torn when the light is fading and I'm on the Firehole, Madison, Gibbon, Beaverkill, Miramichi, Delaware, or the clouds are perfect and the turquoise like jewels while bonefishing in the Bahamas....is it right to have the rod or the camera in hand? It is always too much choice with light that seems to last only minutes.