Talk:Wilderness backpacking

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The section about bears seems like a lot of information on a rather specific topic that's tangential to backpacking, and possibly applicable in other contexts. It only applies in certain areas, and there are other animals that are more likely to pose a threat in other places (e.g. moose and cougars, where I've been). Do we need a separate article on bear safety (and one on cougar safety, etc.) or is this best handled in the individual articles where bears/moose/cougars/gryphons/etc are likely to be encountered? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Good point. I appreciate your feedback. Yes, the bear info is somewhat excessive in relation to the article and is also not fully relevant to the topic (though not totally misplaced). Obviously, there is more that can be done in the event of a bear attack than say one by a lion or a moose. So, perhaps other animals do not need such extensive info and a simple warning to avoid their habitat is sufficient. Otherwise, perhaps a specific page dedicated to dangerous wild animals and safety could be established under an umbrella title. As someone who has encountered a bear, I think the info should definitely be in here, but in which format and where, I'm not sure. Personally, I would not favor placing the info on articles for places where these animals exist, because it would seem an unnecessary repetition. Take bears for example, barring Northern Europe, they exist in almost every temperate country, and so many articles would need to lose space to host exactly the same info. A link, as for 'high altitude sickness', would seem more appropriate. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas. By the way, to digress, did you see the movie 'Grizzly Man' about the guy who lived among grizzles in Alaska? He was one hell of a crazy guy, but you had to give him credit for living his passion... (WT-en) WindHorse 09:18, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Coming from norway, this section seems a little excessive, yes. However after having hiked in the Rocky Mountains, I see the relevance. Impossible to camp in the mountains in the US without bear safety being a major issue. I assume it is similar in russia too.-- 18:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

However totally irrelevent in a lot of other countries - it should be separated - North America and places where it is an issue should be a separate article - there are totally different wilderness backpacking issues on other continents... sats (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion about hazards by wildlife in Talk:Travel topics#Shark Attack!. Creating a page for such was postponed, waiting for development about Malaria and other diseases. I think bears, tigers, hippopotamuses, snakes, scorpions and such could be discussed on one or a few separate pages (wildlife in your bed and boots is relevant whether you are hiking or just have simple lodging). When such a page exist, the bears could be moved there. A reference and a more general warning about such hazards would be enough here. --LPfi (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The hazards could be excluded completely and linked if it was a more general article sats (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at this article[edit]

Please could we change this article to Wilderness Backpacking in North America? The more I consider the issues arising from the massive outdoor industry around the world - there are too many parts of the article that read like its for looking over Puget sound, or somewhere just out of Denver Colorado, rather than the Himalayas, or southern Chile, or Tasmania, or New Zealand, or a whole lot of other places that the outdoor industry has its massive range of gear produced for... - no offence to the citizens of USA who need to be aware of the indigenous wildlife and its safety issues - it would be good to get a handle on all the other amazing range of hazards on other continents. Any suggestions gratefull received. sats (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think most of the article is quite general. Most of it is good advice also over here, in the Old world. There are some issues of less importance where I go hiking, like the bears, but mentioning them does not disturb me. The bears could of course be put in another article together with similar threats, or the section expanded to cover more of them (leopards, snakes, what have you).
Issues missing is a more serious problem than irrelevant issues, but not everything needs to be included here. People going to hike in a country much different than their own should research local circumstances. Bureaucracy, attitudes, transport and diseases can mostly be covered in the country articles. Although I think some discussion about possible issues around the world would fit, I don't see the absence of that discussion too problematic. I definitively do not want a separate discussion about the need to drink and the importance of good footwear for every type of terrain and climate in every continent. Region specific articles should expand on what is written here rather than duplicating the basics.
It is possible that I, who have not been in Tasmania or the Himalayas, am missing real differences. Please clarify what the problems are, or better yet, write about backpacking in those regions, so that we can compare.
--LPfi (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - I think there needs to be a separate article for separate locations and you will see how us-centric this article is... sats (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Having this as an overview article, and then having more location-specific travel topics would be helpful. I know just about everything about wilderness backpacking and backcountry camping in the U.S., but simply have no idea whatsoever of how to go about it in other countries (because of potentially differing laws, bureaucracy, and attitudes). --Peter Talk 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC) is a good example how region specific articles can get. I do think parts of this overview article needs to be improved. sats (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd thunderstorm advice[edit]

The thunderstorm advice looks really strange for a wildlife backpacker: sit on your day-pack, get shelter on wide, open spaces. This may be good advice for some very specific situation, but I would seek shelter in the forest and keep going unless finding a good place to camp. --LPfi (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Overlap with hiking?[edit]

The scope of this article overlaps with hiking. Should the articles be merged? Or is there a significant difference? /Yvwv (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It does overlap, but not every hiker will hike in the wilderness. This article was nicely written, and merging in advice for day hikes and countryside hikes without spoiling it would require some skill and quite some work. I see no advantage from having a single article cover all the variants, although I see a need for developing Hiking, which is not very useful at the moment. As that article develops, one could point here for some common issues, such as sleeping bags (and the other way round for lodging, if such a section is written there). --LPfi (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Pine branches as tinder[edit]

Dead branches low on pine trees are now suggested as tinder. Are they really useful for that? Over here we do use dead branches low on spruces, but they are thin and dry rather than rotten. Dead pine branches may be useful as firewood when the fire is already going. Are we talking about different kinds of pine here? --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)