There's alot of money out there

[Deleted member 28227]

@JLS and @OntarioHunter best exchange all day, you guys are cracking me up

 

[Lilhowie83]

Journal of United States Artillery, Coast Artillery Training Centre, 1895
“The Pack Mule and Mountain Artillery” pp. 591-594. For an “average” mule weighing 950 lbs, the recommended maximum dead weight pack load for “hard marching” mountain conditions with an "apadero" style saddle (Decker) was 270 lbs or 29% of the animal’s body weight (p. 591). I submit that under normal circumstances the average outdoorsman would not be demanding anything close to military “hard marching” from his livestock when reaching the objective. In normal conditions over a good trail presumably another three to five percent could be safely added to that “hard marching” weight limit? The authors furthermore acknowledge that weights of up to 472 lbs/average weight mule (950 lbs) were doable in the hands of experienced packers and loaded on the “very best” livestock over short periods (p. 592) In other words, fifty percent of the animal’s weight! No horse can do that, even with live weight. It is interesting to note the authors are of the opinion, and I agree, that in the backcountry there is a point of diminishing returns when considering the size of a mule (or, for that matter, a horse). “Little additional load is conceded to the increase in size or weight of the mule, as it is held that little or nothing is to be gained beyond about 1,000 pounds in the weight of a mule.” (p. 593)

So are we quoting Smoke Elser or the 1895 military manual?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The limit to pack stock has always been if they need to carry their own food. A 175# rider with 60# of gear can be good for 4 -5days. But if the horse needs feed things get complicated fast.

I feel like that's the benefit of llamas... but then llamas are kinda PITA and can't walk that far with a load.

All things considered gives you some appreciation for what humans can do, 50%+ of their body weight, for a crap load of miles.

@BigHornRam if I win the lottery I'm hiring a group of sherpas.

 

[marksjeep]

I feel like that's the benefit of llamas... but then llamas are kinda PITA and can't walk that far with a load.

All things considered gives you some appreciation for what humans can do, 50%+ of their body weight, for a crap load of miles.

@BigHornRam if I win the lottery I'm hiring a group of sherpas.

And the silly things lay down in the dark and tell you to FO. They just won't go.

Sherpas is a solid plan.

 

[BigHornRam]

Journal of United States Artillery, Coast Artillery Training Centre, 1895
“The Pack Mule and Mountain Artillery” pp. 591-594. For an “average” mule weighing 950 lbs, the recommended maximum dead weight pack load for “hard marching” mountain conditions with an "apadero" style saddle (Decker) was 270 lbs or 29% of the animal’s body weight (p. 591). I submit that under normal circumstances the average outdoorsman would not be demanding anything close to military “hard marching” from his livestock when reaching the objective. In normal conditions over a good trail presumably another three to five percent could be safely added to that “hard marching” weight limit? The authors furthermore acknowledge that weights of up to 472 lbs/average weight mule (950 lbs) were doable in the hands of experienced packers and loaded on the “very best” livestock over short periods (p. 592) In other words, fifty percent of the animal’s weight! No horse can do that, even with live weight. It is interesting to note the authors are of the opinion, and I agree, that in the backcountry there is a point of diminishing returns when considering the size of a mule (or, for that matter, a horse). “Little additional load is conceded to the increase in size or weight of the mule, as it is held that little or nothing is to be gained beyond about 1,000 pounds in the weight of a mule.” (p. 593)

Those mules in the 1800's were a lot tougher than the soft mules we breed today.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I feel like that's the benefit of llamas... but then llamas are kinda PITA and can't walk that far with a load.

All things considered gives you some appreciation for what humans can do, 50%+ of their body weight, for a crap load of miles.

@BigHornRam if I win the lottery I'm hiring a group of sherpas.

Although if I were to write a book about packing your humans I probably wouldn't recommend 50% but hey they belong to you do whatever you want!

 

[Lilhowie83]

Those mules in the 1800's were a lot tougher than the soft mules we breed today.

Or they didn't give a shit when they killed over, especially military mules.

 

[OntarioHunter]

View attachment 212361View attachment 212362

The mule used to pack the piano was 1800 pounds. The piano was 400. That’s 22% of body weight, 24% with saddle. Per Smoke’s book, it took them all day to travel 9 miles, indicating this is far outside the norm.

View attachment 212363

Those are certainly not the numbers he was throwing out in his course. I think I can understand why he might choose to be more conservative in the printed form. In class he made sure the students were reasonably educated, including significant hands on experience. Who knows what kind of "horseman" might be picking up the book. Smoke taught us how to pack a horse with mantas and hitches. I wouldn't advise anyone to throw more than 1/5 weight into a pair of slap happy panniers ... which seems to be all the wannabes use these days. And finally, there is that quantification "day in and day out." How many of us would even need to load up livestock in the backcountry "day in and day out?" Even when I packed mules on the fires in 1977 when hard pressed and very short on livestock, I never put them all in the field day after day. At any rate, experienced cavalry officers in the Plains Indian Wars whose lives depended on it would ordinarily pack 1/3 a mule's weight for "hard marching" conditions which presumably was day in and day out. But of course they had good equipment, good livestock, and the best packers, not guys with a coffee table book in their back pocket.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And the silly things lay down in the dark and tell you to FO. They just won't go.

Sherpas is a solid plan.

BigFin "Llamas are great"

Wllm1313 "Yeah if you like hunting with pack of 13 year old girls"

 

[Elkmagnet]

And the silly things lay down in the dark and tell you to FO. They just won't go.

Sherpas is a solid plan.

They absolutely will.
In my limited experience
A mule can also start to protect itself if it thinks it being pushed to far.
A horse will likely tip over dead from abuse before quitting on you.

 

[BigHornRam]

And the silly things lay down in the dark and tell you to FO. They just won't go.

Sherpas is a solid plan.

I remember a story from some guy that had a bunch porters carrying their shit climbing Mt Kilimangaro, and they got into a knife fight with each other half way up, and he ended up carrying all his shit for the rest of the trip.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Although if I were to write a book about packing your humans I probably wouldn't recommend 50% but hey they belong to you do whatever you want!

I mean I've done 100% before so I thought 50% was reasonable

I guess in the manual "well trained humans can pack 45-65lbs for 20-25miles a day on a reasonable trail"

 

[marksjeep]

They absolutely will.
In my limited experience
A mule can also start to protect itself if it thinks it being pushed to far.
A horse will likely tip over dead from abuse before quitting on you.

A mule will 110% protect itself. That's one of the biggest differences between a mule and a horse is a mule's preservation-of-life instinct. You are absolutely correct. But, we ride them in the dark and they are OK with that. If they didn't like it, well, we'd have to work on that.

The llamas we have used told us to FO once it got dark. They were done. But they were rent-a-llamas so who knows what they may have done with a little work.

 

[Lilhowie83]

Those are certainly not the numbers he was throwing out in his course. I think I can understand why he might choose to be more conservative in the printed form. In class he made sure the students were reasonably educated, including significant hands on experience. Who knows what kind of "horseman" might be picking up the book. Smoke taught us how to pack a horse with mantas and hitches. I wouldn't advise anyone to throw more than 1/5 weight into a pair of slap happy panniers ... which seems to be all the wannabes use these days. And finally, there is that quantification "day in and day out." How many of us would even need to load up livestock in the backcountry "day in and day out?" Even when I packed mules on the fires in 1977 when hard pressed and very short on livestock, I never put them all in the field day after day. At any rate, experienced cavalry officers in the Plains Indian Wars whose lives depended on it would ordinarily pack 1/3 a mule's weight for "hard marching" conditions which presumably was day in and day out. But of course they had good equipment, good livestock, and the best packers, not guys with a coffee table book in their back pocket.

@JLS Is right. I went through Smoke's class 2 years ago and he shared the piano story, with the exact same numbers that are in the book. He also stressed the point that as good rule of thumb you don't load horses or mules more than 20٪ of course there are exceptions to the rule, but why push your limits? And Smoke's book is no "coffee table book" it should be the Bible for anyone doing any packing. He'll, he gives a signed copy to everyone that goes through his class. Where is yours? Maybe you burnt it with your bag of shit because you thought you know more than Smoke.

 

[Elkmagnet]

A mule will 110% protect itself. That's one of the biggest differences between a mule and a horse is a mule's preservation-of-life instinct. You are absolutely correct. But, we ride them in the dark and they are OK with that. If they didn't like it, well, we'd have to work on that.

For better or for worse.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I mean I've done 100% before so I thought 50% was reasonable

I guess in the manual "well trained humans can pack 45-65lbs for 20-25miles a day on a reasonable trail"

Careful with the prices posted above you are likely closer to going on these hunts being someone's sherpa than the tag holder.

 

[BigHornRam]

A mule will 110% protect itself. That's one of the biggest differences between a mule and a horse is a mule's preservation-of-life instinct. You are absolutely correct. But, we ride them in the dark and they are OK with that. If they didn't like it, well, we'd have to work on that.

The llamas we have used told us to FO once it got dark. They were done. But they were rent-a-llamas so who knows what they may have done with a little work.

There is probably a reason no one has come up with the phrase "beaten like a rented llama".

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Careful with the prices posted above you are likely closer to going on these hunts being someone's sherpa than the tag holder.

I mean I'm never going to draw so sounds fun.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Those are certainly not the numbers he was throwing out in his course. I think I can understand why he might choose to be more conservative in the printed form. In class he made sure the students were reasonably educated, including significant hands on experience. Who knows what kind of "horseman" might be picking up the book. Smoke taught us how to pack a horse with mantas and hitches. I wouldn't advise anyone to throw more than 1/5 weight into a pair of slap happy panniers ... which seems to be all the wannabes use these days. And finally, there is that quantification "day in and day out." How many of us would even need to load up livestock in the backcountry "day in and day out?" Even when I packed mules on the fires in 1977 when hard pressed and very short on livestock, I never put them all in the field day after day. At any rate, experienced cavalry officers in the Plains Indian Wars whose lives depended on it would ordinarily pack 1/3 a mule's weight for "hard marching" conditions which presumably was day in and day out. But of course they had good equipment, good livestock, and the best packers, not guys with a coffee table book in their back pocket.

Shifting narratives with condescending remarks. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[noharleyyet]