Personnel markers

[BlueTrain]

This may be unacceptably low-tech but how about just pinning a piece of white fabric or paper to the back of the person ahead of you. A handkerchief is fine, except that you probably don't carry a white handkerchief in the woods. But if it's light enough to walk, something white will show up well enough, except maybe if you're really spaced out (by which I mean not keeping very close together).

I have hiked at night but no more than about two or three miles on a trail I'd been over many times before and since. It wasn't rocky or treacherous but it's more overgrown than it used to be. However, I usually am out by myself if I can get permission from my wife, so it doesn't have any practical relevance for me. But I will also add that white cord or tape makes an excellent guide line around camp for after dark. When camping literally in the woods, under the trees and away from the trail, moving around in the darkness becomes much more problematic. And if you have properly hidden your campsite, a flashlight may be insufficient for finding your way.

If I'm out with another person, one person carries the torch, the other the pitchfork.

 

[Graveworm]

A little over 50 years experience. At least on rabbit and deer. Re the other species, we never spotlighted and shot them as such. Foxes and coons were always chased with dogs (likewise at night) Once treed, somebody would climb the tree to shake them out for the dogs, or a single well placed shot with a 22LR to wound them and cause them to fall out to the dogs.

Sorry to jump in here, I am no stranger to field sports and not quick to jump to animal cruelty but to deliberately shoot to wound seems all kind of wrong to me.

 

[santaman2000]

Sorry to jump in here, I am no stranger to field sports and not quick to jump to animal cruelty but to deliberately shoot to wound seems all kind of wrong to me.

Rarely done TBH. Only when it's impossible to otherwise shake the quarry out of the tree for the dogs to kill. In either case, they'll be quite dead within less than a minute of hitting the ground. At least that's the case with the raccoons; foxes are protected now so while they can still be chased and treed, they can no longer be killed.

 

[Joe tahkahikew]

Sorry to jump in here, I am no stranger to field sports and not quick to jump to animal cruelty but to deliberately shoot to wound seems all kind of wrong to me.

That is spoken kindly by some one from a city. The same people who try to tell us what to do and how to do things maybe

I know you mean well, but some times its not a good idea to kill always. For example its difficult to kill a big moose with one shot. If the moose is in a big river and you kill it with the first shot you have to get the moose from the river. This can be dangerous, especially when the rivers start to freeze. So if you wound the moose he'll try to get out of the river. This is good. We kill him on the bank then. Easy to get and no wasted meat.

 

[Joonsy]

Foxes and coons were always chased with dogs (likewise at night) Once treed, somebody would climb the tree to shake them out for the dogs, or a single well placed shot with a 22LR to wound them and cause them to fall out to the dogs.

Sorry to jump in here, I am no stranger to field sports and not quick to jump to animal cruelty but to deliberately shoot to wound seems all kind of wrong to me.

That is spoken kindly by some one from a city. The same people who try to tell us what to do and how to do things maybe

I know you mean well, but some times its not a good idea to kill always. For example its difficult to kill a big moose with one shot. If the moose is in a big river and you kill it with the first shot you have to get the moose from the river. This can be dangerous, especially when the rivers start to freeze. So if you wound the moose he'll try to get out of the river. This is good. We kill him on the bank then. Easy to get and no wasted meat.

he was referring to racoons not moose

Could you please explain why a single well placed shot could not be used to kill a racoon instead of using a single well placed shot to injure it ? Am I wrong in presuming the only reason a racoon is shaken out of a tree instead of shooting it dead is to let the dogs kill it ?

 

[Joe tahkahikew]

I don't know, we don't have racoons up here. I don't think they are good to eat anyway. We don't hunt for fun, only food.

 

[santaman2000]

he was referring to racoons not moose

Could you please explain why a single well placed shot could not be used to kill a racoon instead of using a single well placed shot to injure it ? Am I wrong in presuming the only reason a racoon is shaken out of a tree instead of shooting it dead is to let the dogs kill it ?

Your not wrong; the whole purpose of the hunt (for the dogs) is for the dogs to kill it; it would be wrong to rob them of their reward. At least that's true hunting them in the woods; in neighborhoods, they're usually poisoned out of peoples' attics.

 

[santaman2000]

I don't know, we don't have racoons up here. I don't think they are good to eat anyway. We don't hunt for fun, only food.

I don't eat them, but many people do (they're in the bear family) and the pelts are worth up to $75 each, unskinned (or they were the last time I looked at the market) We always hunted for the pleasure of it, but the meat was eaten buy the same buyer who skinned them; same man who bought the ones we brought him during trapping season.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

All sounds very romantic.
Not sure how romantic it would be if you tripped, broke and ankle and was laid up in bed for 6 weeks though.

To simplify things I do try to hike with SAR no more than 10-20m behind me...

I have lots and lots of great memories hiking at night with a torch, i think you are dramatising the effect a torch has, i've spotted everything from foxes and hares to beers with a torch it really is no less romantic than you are describing without a torch.

Ditto myself, only without the torch. For years I have walked the woods at night, I feel at home there. I have never tripped when out on such a walk.

Interestingly I carry a scar on my arm where I walked into a branch when out in twilight. The sort of light where the only light that would make a difference is the most powerful, the sort you don't carry.

It's not a white/black choice either, on a bright cloudless night on a mountainside it's pretty amazing how well you can see.
On a dark cloudy night in the woods it's a completely different matter though.
As Julia said the trips are woods based i think it's important to make that distinction.

It's also important to consider that this is the woods in Kent. Sticking to well trod trails. We're not bushwacking through underbrush. This reduces a lot of the dangers. We do carry lights. I take my petzl set to red for when I need a little bit more light, but I try to avoid it where possible. I also carry a LED Lenser P7.2 on my belt, but have yet to find a reason to take it out and use it.

It's also telling that personnel markers are needed, if the vision is good enough to walk without extra illumination then in my experience it's bright enough to spot the guy/gal in front of you even 50m+ away.

Disagree. Given the earthy palette that we mostly dress from, blending in in the dark is surprisingly easy. You can see the branch laying across the path 3 ft ahead, but maybe lose the silhouette of the person in dark clothes 15m ahead of you.

I often find that I don't need to be able to see masses of detail, I don't need to make out the exact colour of the branch on the path, but the two shades of black are enough to give it away. You see the world in shades of grey. You can see the shine of a puddle, the darker patch of muddy soil, the change in colour of the branch.

I also carry walking poles for where I have any doubt.

Why do we need personnel markers? we don't Need them. They would be a nice to have,

End of the day we are all adults here and do our own risk assessments based upon our experiences and knowledge.
For me personally given the parameters in the first post i think it's dangerous to walk without illumination, this is based upon my own personal experiences of trying it.

So i thought i would voice those opinions and experiences so Julia could take them on-board, or completely ignore them as she wishes.

Our old friend the dynamic risk assessment. If I have any doubt, out comes the red petzl. But I don't do that if I don't need to. You would be amazed what you can walk on in the darkest conditions.

But a light is handy when setting up camp. Things like looking for small objects in packs or seeing what you are trying to cook are often too difficult on darker nights to not use lights, especially before you get a fire going.

Aye, it's different visual uses.

I once got asked as I got off my bike if I cycle with the headphones I had on on. I said yes, the woman said, can you hear ok? I replied that I could. "But you didn't understand what I was saying until you took them off" "No, but I knew you were talking" I don't need to be able to differentiate between a boxter engine and a v8, I just need to know there is a vehicle coming and the speed they are doing, I can do that with the headphones on.

It's the same in the woods. I can see where the path is, I can spot the puddles and the odd branches. I can't read the packet on the cereal bars to tell which one is oats and honey, and which is oats and chocolate. It's all different uses. Also when making camp, it's handy to run a torch, even a red one, over your campsite, just to make sure you're not going to make camp say on a dog turd...

J

 

[santaman2000]

......Given the earthy palette that we mostly dress from, blending in in the dark is surprisingly easy. You can see the branch laying across the path 3 ft ahead, but maybe lose the silhouette of the person in dark clothes 15m ahead of you......

I was wondering about the dark clothing aspect. Might be the solution is as simple as wearing a reflector belt?