Editor鈥檚 Note: We first published this story in January 2019 in the wake of the Camp Fire, the deadliest in California history. With the Palisades, Sunset, and Eaton Fires now raging across the Los Angeles area鈥攁nd discussion about the role that U.S. forest policy might have played in creating the conditions for them following in their wake鈥攚e feel it鈥檚 as relevant as ever.

Fire ecologist Chad Hanson is standing knee-deep in downed trees and charred stumps when he spots what he鈥檚 been searching for: a pine sapling. He鈥檚 spent this sunny September day touring the burn scar left from the 2011 Las Conchas Fire, when a conflagration roared through northern New Mexico, torching 43,000 acres in a single night.

After that apocalypse, who would expect a pine forest to come back? Hanson does, and all day, he鈥檚 braved the thorny limbs of locusts and meandered among aspens just tinged with yellow to find it.

Hanson, who holds a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of California and co-authored the book , has built his career around fighting the notion that intense wildfires are wholly devastating. He argues they play a vital ecological role that starts with beetles and woodpeckers and spreads throughout the food web, and that when forest managers try to substitute fires with logging, they do real and lasting harm to the environment.

In the wake of 2018鈥檚 devastating wildfires, the upper echelons of the Trump administration have called for increased timber harvesting as a remedy. In public statements, the president blamed California鈥檚 deadly fire season, in which nearly 100 people lost their lives, on rivers being 鈥渄iverted鈥� to the Pacific Ocean and poor forest management.

In rebuttal, the California Department of Forest and Fire Protection鈥檚 Scott McClean told the Los Angeles Times there鈥檚 no shortage of water, adding, 鈥淭he problem is changing climate leading to more severe and destructive fires.鈥�

Like the president, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blamed environmental activists for wildfires鈥� increased intensity.

鈥淓very year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action,鈥� last August. 鈥淵et, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods.鈥�

But Hanson and other fire ecologists caution that the administration has it backwards: More logging can actually make wildfires burn hotter and faster. Instead, they say, it鈥檚 well-placed, smart management that will reduce the impacts to communities from wildfires鈥攁nd unchecked logging is neither.

To understand scientists鈥� objections, there are a few important facts you need to know about last fall鈥檚 blazes in California.

鈥淢ost of what burned wasn鈥檛 forest,鈥� says Matthew Hurteau, a professor at the University of New Mexico who studies forests, fires and climate adaptation. Instead, the fires burned mostly grass and shrubby chaparral. That鈥檚 been the case in several of the state鈥檚 most damaging fires: the Woolsey and Camp in 2018, Thomas and Tubbs in 2017, and even back to the Cedar Fire in 2003.

Creating varying tree densities and providing anchor points for wildland firefighters could reduce wildfire risks, as could prescribed burns, Hurteau says. But, he adds, 鈥渓ogging operations can actually increase the rate of speed at which fire moves across an area, depending on how the logging operation is conducted.鈥�

Opening the canopy dries out the forest floor and increases wind speeds, both of which accelerate fire. Logging can also leave behind more combustible species like cheatgrass, an opportunistic invasive that thrives in disturbed areas and is near-impossible to eradicate. There鈥檚 also the simple fact that much of the densest forest is on terrain so steep that loggers鈥� machines couldn鈥檛 even access it.

鈥淭he idea that we鈥檙e going to mechanically thin our way out of the high-severity fire risk that we face on the west slope of the High Sierra is uninformed,鈥� Hurteau says. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know any federal land managers鈥攍ike the actual people working on national forests鈥攚ho argue that timber extraction is really the way to modify the way fire interacts with the forest.鈥�

Developing and implementing wildfire mitigation strategies is a challenge in and of itself. Each treatment program is designed for a purpose and with certain conditions in mind, says Chad Hoffman, associate professor of fire science at . Forest managers have to think about everything from funding to topography to social tolerance in surrounding areas.

鈥淎ll treatments have some conditions in which they鈥檙e just not going to work the way we think,鈥� he says. 鈥淲hen I explain this to students, I say it鈥檚 like the seatbelts in my car are not the same ones we use in NASCAR.鈥�

Thinning and burning projects have a top limit on their effectiveness. If the forest is particularly dry or the wind particularly high, a wildfire could still run right over that preventive work. And while logging sometimes gets conflated with fuels treatment projects, Hoffman adds, they have very different goals. If logging efforts are leaving piles of 鈥渟lash鈥濃�攄owned trees, limbs and other brush鈥攐r cutting all the big, market-ready trees and sparing only the little ones that are less likely to survive a conflagration, they鈥檙e not actually reducing the severity of wildfire.

鈥淪ometimes those objectives do align with mitigation, but sometimes they don鈥檛,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his really comes down to being purposeful and understanding the local scenario, and being clear with what those objectives are and what we believe we鈥檙e accomplishing.鈥�

There鈥檚 also a question of basic math: The Forest Service alone manages 193 million acres; In any given year, thinning and burning projects reach less than 2 percent of that. And that doesn鈥檛 include additional lands overseen by the National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management.

Some research has suggested that, given the scale of the area with the potential to burn in a wildfire and our inability to actively manage every square mile, there are ways of assessing highest priority areas.

鈥淚f we could treat 20 percent and it鈥檚 the right 20 percent, that鈥檚 almost as good as treating much more of the landscape,鈥� Hoffman says.

Hanson suggests concentrating thinning projects and prescribed burns around communities.鈥淎ny effort to focus more attention, more resources, more activity, more funding on forests distant from homes is going to divert finite resources away from true home protection,鈥� he says.

Protecting communities also means building homes and businesses with fire-resistance in mind, using materials like metal rooftops and cement composite siding. Often, homes are lost to embers ahead of 鈥渢he flaming front鈥� by up to 10 miles, Hurteau says. Once one house starts鈥攚ith a spark that catches on dry leaves in a rain gutter or drifts into an attic through a vent鈥攖he fire spreads house to house.

There鈥檚 also a need for improved warning systems to give people earlier notice to evacuate and more assistance with getting out of their homes. By most accounts, many residents of Paradise, California, were signaled to leave only by neighbors honking car horns and yelling.

One of the most pernicious factors in last year鈥檚 wildfire season is the one that the federal government has tried the hardest to ignore. In the midst of climate change, some of the worst-hit parts of California had seen barely any rain for months prior to the biggest blazes.

鈥淲hen fire weather is high and extreme, the weather is going to be, overwhelmingly, the factor that drives how fast the fire spreads, not the type of vegetation or how dense it is,鈥� says Hanson. In fact, an analysis of 1,500 wildfires over three decades that he coauthored found the forests with the least environmental protections and the most logging burned most intensely, all other factors being equal.

As tough as it may be for hikers and homeowners to accept, some forests might simply have to burn. Doing so would naturally reset the density of foliage and improve ecosystems鈥� overall health

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any way that we cut our way out of wildfires,鈥� Hurteau says. 鈥淭hese are flammable landscapes. A lot of the species evolved with fire as a disturbance process, and we鈥檝e been intervening in that with fire suppression for a long time. It鈥檚 critical that we actually begin to restore fire to these ecosystems in an ecologically appropriate manner.鈥�

The Forest Service seems to be taking this science into account. During a conference on wildfire in May, Victoria Christiansen, the Forest Service鈥檚 interim chief and a career forester and firefighter, pointed to fuel buildup, drought, and climate change as drivers behind worsening fires. But the most significant component, she said, is the 120 million people who currently live in the wildland-urban interface鈥攖he area most at risk of wildfire. Protecting those residences and businesses has driven up fire suppression costs to the point that they currently consume more than half the agency鈥檚 budget..

The US fire season is now year-round, and fires are burning at greater frequency, size and severity than they did half a century ago, Christiansen added. Twenty years ago, it was rare to see a wildfire grow to more than 100,000 acres. In 2017, more than 12 fires burned that much acreage.

The agency plans to respond by helping to create fire-adapted communities, Christiansen said. Prescribed fires, and even allowing unplanned wildfire to burn, will simply be part of the future.

For logging companies to be effective partners in the fight against wildfire, some may have to rethink how they do business鈥攁nd pull themselves out of a slump. The last three decades have seen a sharp decline in the number of board-feet coming out of national forests鈥�.

In response, the Forest Service is extending 鈥渟tewardship contracts鈥� from 10 to 20 years in an effort to increase the market for wood products in areas where mills are scarce. Categorical exclusions available for wildfire mitigation projects, allowing them to speed past environmental reviews, have also increased.

Finding new uses for slash piles and other leftovers will be key to creating a more sustainable industry. Products made from the 鈥渨oody biomass鈥� removed in thinning projects could include vineyard posts, animal bedding, firewood, or laminated wood used in flooring and occasionally in construction as a replacement for concrete, says Kim Carr with the National Forest Foundation, the nonprofit partner of the U.S. Forest Service.

鈥淚f we can create a market for that, then we wouldn鈥檛 have to resort to piling it and burning it, and it could start to pay its way out of the woods,鈥� Carr says.

Large thinning projects could create enough of a supply to build small-diameter sawmills, according to Russ Vaagen, of . The Washington-based company produces cross-laminated timber and glue-laminated beams from smaller trees. 鈥淚t has the opportunity to not only offset some of the cost, but make the whole process of forest restoration profitable鈥� he says. 鈥淢ost importantly, it can be done without harming the aesthetic of the overall forest if done appropriately.鈥�

Some outdoor advocates, however, still argue that the current push for wildfire mitigation is first and foremost a smokescreen for logging interests. And the battle shows no signs of letting up: In late December, the president issued an executive order seeking to open 3.5 million acres of national forest to timber harvest.

鈥淭he need for some active management in some places as a way of addressing fire risk is a real thing,鈥� says Louis Geltman, policy director with the , a coalition of outdoor sports groups. 鈥淏ut there鈥檚 also a dynamic of proponents of the timber industry and members of Congress on the right who really want to just use fire as a reason to get the cut out.鈥�

The post Why We Can鈥檛 Log Our Way Out of Wildfires appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Finding a backpack to handle your on-the-go whims isn’t an easy feat. To keep your stuff organized, you need ample space with storage compartments. To ensure it stays secure, comfortable straps and reliable closure technology are a must. That said, your pack can’t be so bulky or heavy you’ll never use it. Here are the best travel backpacks of the year鈥攁ll engineered to get you from point A to point B, worry free.

4 Best Travel Backpacks for 国产吃瓜黑料rs

Best Crossover Potential

REI Co-op Flash 18L ($40)

Our minimalist testers were drawn to this year鈥檚 version of the Flash 18. The pack鈥檚 drawstring closure makes it easy to secure and get out the door in a jiff. Want to cut weight? Leave the chest strap and waist belt behind. Planning a multi-pitch climb? With its streamlined profile, you鈥檝e got an exceptional follow pack. It can also be flipped inside out to serve as a stuffsack in a pinch.

Best for Local 国产吃瓜黑料

Outdoor Research Field Explorer 20L ($99)

Equipped with reflective webbing and 600-denier polyester, this was our favorite for tough commutes. We loved the padded sleeve inside the roll-top main compartment, which kept our laptop secure, and a second, zippered opening allowed us to slip it out with no fuss. External flaps and a zip pocket kept sundries organized, while the weather resistant body and padded shoulder straps played nicely on trails and trains.

Best for Long Days

Mammut Lithium 15L ($100)

The Lithium (and the women鈥檚 Lithia Speed 15) squeezes a stunning array of features into a modestly sized pack. Four small pockets (three with zippers) accommodate all manner of essentials, a rain cover tucks into its own dedicated space, and the padded hipbelt includes a phone-size pocket for quick access. In the main body, dividers keep crumbly snacks separate from your favorite puffy.

Best for Fast-and-Light Missions

CamelBak Cloud Walker 18L ($80)

Following a recent redesign, the classic Cloud Walker now offers a sleeker profile while still boasting 18 liters of storage space. CamelBak tapered the body, added breathability courtesy of a vented mesh back panel, and used recycled materials for that panel and the shoulder straps. To trim ounces for long outings, you can remove the waist strap. Slide the pack under your airplane seat, then throw it on for hours of comfortable trekking.

The post The Best Travel Backpacks for the Restless 国产吃瓜黑料r appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

A reliable day-hiking pack is the gateway to everything from dog walks and after-work sunset summits to 30-mile alpine pursuits. Choosing one from the overwhelming number of options isn’t easy, though. To help you out, we spent three months testing more than 25 of the best day-hiking backpacks on snowcapped fourteeners, in basalt canyons, and along tree-lined rivers, and in the rain, wind, and baking sun. These six came out on top.

Best Value

Kelty Asher 35 ($100)

A 35-liter pack weighing under two pounds for just $100 is almost unheard of, but the Asher nails those specs and provides performance to boot. Its impressive host of features includes a U-shaped zipper that wraps around the top and halfway down both sides, so you can easily flay the pack open to dig out that buried hat. Water bottles fit into twin side pockets, while extra layers tuck into a stretchy dorsal pocket. We鈥檒l note that while the shoulder straps are padded, the waist belt is cushioned only at the hip bones, and the flat nylon back panel lacks the weight redistribution required for loads over 20 pounds. Some testers found it most comfortable carrying less than ten pounds. This pack is best for hikers who consider their pack weight judiciously but still want extra space for stashing a spare puffy. 1.75 lbs

Best for Hydration

Gregory Inertia 24 H20 / Swift 22 H20 ($120)

For years, the Swift/Inertia has been among our favorite basic daypacks. This season was no exception. The pack comes with the brand鈥檚 increasingly popular 3D Hydro reservoir, made from extra-stiff plastic that keeps the sides from sticking together, allowing the inside to dry thoroughly and avoid bacteria buildup. A molded foam back panel (perforated for breathability) and padded shoulder straps and hipbelt sat comfortably under a full day-hike load that included lunch, snacks, layers, and three liters of water. We love the ample storage鈥攈ipbelt pockets that each fit a small smartphone and energy bar, plus angled side pouches, one stretchy mesh and one zippered. And we were grateful for the brightly colored interior, which makes sundries easy to find. 1.7 lbs (men鈥檚) / 1.6 lbs (women鈥檚)

Best for the Urban 国产吃瓜黑料r

Mountain Hardwear Huell 25 ($90)

If you want a work bag that鈥檚 durable enough for mellow trail adventures after hours鈥攐r a travel pack that can pull double duty on trips that involve a combination of touristing and low-key adventuring鈥攖he Huell is your answer. Its 1,200-denier, 100 percent recycled polyester fabric stood up to sandstone and cactus spikes with no rips. It also lends a ruggedly fashionable aesthetic. Otherwise, the Huell鈥檚 feature set prioritizes city sleekness over technicality: non-elasticated side pockets with snap-operated expansion pleats, a laptop sleeve, a single wallet-sized interior zippered pocket, lightly padded shoulder straps, and a sternum buckle but no waist belt. That minimal suspension system means this pack is best suited to loads of 15 pounds or less. 1.68 lbs

Best for Doing It All

Big Agnes Impassable 20 ($150)

This is the all-around pack you鈥檒l want to use every day. It has all the comfort and features of other technical packs on this list, plus a padded laptop sleeve that鈥檚 sewn shorter than the pack body to keep your computer off the ground. We hiked in it, climbed with it, brought it to work, and basically just never wanted to leave it at home. Designers used a similar suspension system to the one in Big Agnes鈥檚 60-liter packs: a molded foam back panel that promotes airflow, stretchy mesh straps that don鈥檛 chafe, and a hipbelt made with a laminate-EVA foam similar to many climbing harnesses. The result feels weightless, even under 15-plus pound loads. The Impassable cuts weight via a 100-denier ripstop nylon gridded with 210-denier yarn. We tossed it against cobbly New Mexican rock faces without causing any damage. 1.5 lbs

Most Comfortable

Osprey Stratos 24 / Sirrus 24 ($160)

When big days call for large loads, we want this pack. It鈥檚 been among our favorites for years. For 2022, designers did away with multiple sizes and instead added extra torso-length adjustability, so the back panel can expand from 18 to 22 inches long. A new, lighter mesh material also boosts breathability on the top portion of the shoulder harness鈥攐ne tester came home with a dry shirt even after 8.5 miles and 5,500 feet of climbing on a crisp fall day on Colorado鈥檚 14,070-foot Humboldt Peak. The padded hip belt was the most thickly cushioned of any we tested, and an external trampoline mesh suspension system kept our backs comfy under 20-pound loads. Bonuses: multiple small pockets, a rain cover, quick-stow trekking-pole attachments, and two stretchy side pockets. 2.78 lbs (men鈥檚) / 2.7 lbs (women鈥檚)

Best for Going Fast

Rab Aeon LT 12 ($100)

Rab鈥檚 first backpack looks and acts a lot like a running vest, with wide panels that wrap around the side body for a snug fit, plus roomy pockets on the shoulder straps and waist belt for keeping snacks, phone, and soft flasks easily accessible so you can fuel without having to break stride. But the Aeon LT also preserves the best elements of a daypack: side pockets that each fit up to a 40-ounce water bottle, and a molded foam back panel that adds cushion and support for moderate, 15-pound loads. The resulting bag fit bounce-free on a scrambly hike in New Mexico鈥檚 Sangre de Cristo Mountains, even when we ran for cover from late-afternoon showers. The main pocket accommodates one thick layer or a light shell with room to spare and has a hydration bladder sleeve. It鈥檚 perfect for days when you鈥檙e packing light and don鈥檛 want to stop. 1.1 lbs

The post The Best Day-Hiking Backpacks of 2022 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Packs play an important role in the winter backcountry, helping us get out faster, stay out longer, and do it all more safely. This year鈥檚 crop uses every trick in the book: fabrics that lighten the load without compromising strength, new pockets that add volume without bulk, and designs that blend the space between clothing and equipment storage. In the process, packs have also become more versatile. You might just find a reason to use these bags year-round.

Mountain Hardwear Powabunga 32 ($200)

The Powabunga changed how we pack for ski touring. At first glance, it doesn鈥檛 look revolutionary. It weighs a very average 3.1 pounds, with tough 500-denier Cordura fabric, an 颅avalanche-tool pocket, a fleecy goggles-storage pouch, and zippered back-panel access to the main compartment鈥攅verything we鈥檇 expect from a backcountry ski pack of this size. The surprises are the two side pockets. Without eating up any interior space, they fit all the gear we need on the go and used to store inside our pack, including skins, snacks, a 32-ounce water bottle, a multitool, and sunglasses. They open vertically, so things don鈥檛 fall out if the pack is lying in the snow. As a result, we wound up choosing the Powabunga for days when we鈥檇 normally use a 40-liter. It carries nicely, even when it鈥檚 overloaded, thanks to a steel frame that transfers weight onto the pivoting padded hipbelt. Of the 15 bags we tested last winter, this was the only one that had us hollering its name. Powabunga indeed! 3.1 lbs

Mystery Ranch Gallatin Peak 40L ($249)

Best for Hut Trips

The Gallatin Peak is a full-featured 颅backcountry workhorse. A massive interior easily swallows an overnight kit, while the orange lining makes everything visible. Zippered pockets in the main body and lid keep small items organized. Brightly colored glove-friendly zipper pulls make it easy to find and open the avalanche-tool pocket, which fits even big shovel blades and probes. It also has a third slot for a snow saw. Those aren鈥檛 the only new features: there鈥檚 reinforced nylon to shield the pack body from ski edges, straps for ropes and ice axes, long zippers to open both sides of the main pocket, a torso and hipbelt that are both adjustable, and generous padding. All that in a pack that weighs only three pounds鈥攊mpressive. 3 lbs

Black Diamond Cirque 22 Ski Vest ($159)

Best for Going Fast and Light

Simply put, the Cirque made us faster. Yes, it鈥檚 light鈥�1.5 pounds. But what sets it apart is the design, which marries a running vest and a ski pack. Without stopping, we could grab snacks from the two shoulder-strap pockets, pull skins out of a dedicated basement compartment, rack skis diagonally (plus remove them for the descent), and adjust the fit with a pull-cord side compression system. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think I took the pack off all day,鈥� said a tester. Just don鈥檛 overload it. Pushing the 22-liter capacity caused the pack to bulge, which made for a less comfortable fit. For minimalist missions, ski-mountaineering racing, or anyone interested in doing more skiing and less standing around, this pack delivers. 1.5 lbs

Ortovox Free Rider 28 ($190)

Best for Day Trips

Whether you鈥檙e hiking a ridge or making quick turns through steep chutes, the Free Rider makes heavy loads disappear. That鈥檚 thanks to a host of features usually found only on bigger packs, like a wide, stretchy, 颅hip-hugging waist belt, a well-cushioned back panel, and load-stabilizer straps. Even schlepping heavy alpine boards, we felt stable. A small top zipper makes essentials easy to grab from the main compartment, and a huge back-panel U-zip allows you to get to the bottom of the pack during transitions without an excavation. The 颅avalanche-tool pocket is tight for big shovel blades. But with straps to carry everything from ice axes to snowshoes, the pack is ready for any outsize winter day mission. 2.5 lbs

Black Crows Dorsa 27 ($190)

Best for Slackcountry

You鈥檇 be hard-pressed to find a more minimalist winter pack than the Dorsa, which is exactly what makes it perfect for playing just outside the resort. To keep weight down, designers nixed a dedicated avalanche-tool area. Instead, your skins, shovel, and probe share the main compartment with clothes and water. Valuables and goggles go into the top pocket, which one tester squeezed full of cookies, granola bars, and a breakfast burrito, along with a phone and keys. A roll-top closure means you can even fit a bulky resort jacket inside if you decide to hop into the sidecountry midway through an in-bounds day, while a vertical zipper down the center of the pack body gets you to your gear swiftly when you have skis racked A-frame. 2.5 lbs

Osprey Glade 12L ($110)

Best for In-Bounds

Last winter, COVID safety protocols meant base lodges were either closed or had restricted capacity. This lean, low-profile pack became our mobile locker for a ski season short on indoor breaks. A 2.5-liter hydration bladder tucks into a full-length back pocket with room to spare for a sandwich, skins, and a layer. (The insulated hose resisted icing well below freezing.) If you鈥檙e in a pinch, the second large compartment even fits avalanche tools. A small zippered pouch keeps hand warmers and a spare neck gaiter close at hand. But what impressed us the most about the Glade is how well it carried, even stuffed full. It didn鈥檛 balloon out, so lift rides were a cinch, and it rode smoothly zipping down our favorite bump runs. 2 lbs

The North Face Phantom 50 ($199)

Best for Climbing Ice and Snow

The Phantom doesn鈥檛 just offer a great bang for your buck鈥攊t squeezes maximum performance out of every pound. Its organizational features are few (just two small pockets, one in the lid and one at the left hip), but the 50-liter top loader easily swallows a technical mission鈥檚 worth of gear and has enough straps to carry ice tools, skis, and a rope. The body is nearly waterproof and made of durable 210-denier recycled nylon reinforced with Spectra, with a carbonite coating on the bottom. But our favorite feature is the compression straps, which are partially 颅routed through the shell fabric and encircle the pack. Tightening them squeezes the whole bag, not just the sides. 鈥淥verflowing or half full, it always felt stable,鈥� said a tester. 2.2 lbs

The post The Best Winter Packs of 2022 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Granite Gear Perimeter 50 ($220)

The Perimeter was one of the most versatile packs in our test: equal parts big-load mule and gram-counter鈥檚 dream, and suited to a huge spectrum of body types. With a quick flick of two buckle latches, you can adjust the shoulder width and torso length to your frame. The pivoting waist belt also expands from 26 to 42 inches on the unisex version and 24 to 40 inches on the women鈥檚 version. (You can also opt for a larger belt that goes up to 52 inches.) Granite Gear is one of the few packmakers to deliver such a wide fit range while preserving comfort and capacity. On paper, the Perimeter is a 50-liter pack, but the top-loading, potato-sack-shaped hull simply devours cargo. Partial thanks goes to the frame, which is just curved enough to enhance fit without getting in the way. Compression straps, four stretch-woven pockets, and extendable top and bottom flaps for securing bulky items further broaden its capability. We easily stuffed in 40 pounds of gear, and the lightweight back panel still held its shape. That鈥檚 impressive for a pack that weighs almost half of some others in our test. Don鈥檛 expect luxuries, like extra cushioning or even a key clip. But if you鈥檙e looking for a pack that can fit both Mom and Dad and pivot from through-hiker to family wagon, the Perimeter is hard to beat. 3.1 lbs

Gregory Kalmia 50 ($260)

Best for Hiking in the Heat

The Kalmia 50 (and men鈥檚 Katmai 55) utilizes the same trampoline-style mesh back panel that helped Gregory鈥檚 Deva/Baltoro, nab Gear of the Year honors in 2018. That breezy suspension does push the load a bit farther from your center of gravity, but its form-hugging shape and superior ventilation yield blissful comfort on the trail. This pack combines all of that with a host of niceties, like rugged 210- and 420-denier fabrics, six zippered compartments, a stashable water-bottle hip holster, extendable tongues that pad the waist buckle, and pivoting shoulder straps. Still, the pack somehow weighs in below the magic five-pound mark that so many other feature-rich models exceed. Polygiene anti-odor treatment quells stink on long trips. 4.7 lbs (men鈥檚) / 4.4 lbs (women鈥檚)

REI Traverse 60 ($229)

Best for Backpacking on a Budget

The Traverse proves that fancy technology is never a substitute for smart design. This dual-compartment utilitarian workhorse may not have the high-tech fabrics or cutting-edge suspension of its competitors, but it excels in what matters most: carrying heavy loads comfortably, without fuss. A deep air channel bisects the back panel, which is made of thick mesh-covered foam and contoured to keep loads close to your spine. That and a meaty waist belt lend stability, which was handy on gear-intensive family outings in Colorado鈥檚 Elk Mountains. Still, the Traverse has plenty of extras, like a lid that doubles as a daypack (with padded straps) and forward-leaning water bottle pockets you can actually reach while hiking. 4.4 lbs (men鈥檚) / 4.3 lbs (women鈥檚)

Osprey Aether Plus 60 ($340)

Best for Bringing the Kitchen Sink

Meet the everything bagel of backpacks. The new Plus generation of Osprey鈥檚 Aether (and women鈥檚 Ariel) line is so bedecked with features, pockets, and external storage mechanisms that you need GPS just to navigate them all. With thickly padded straps and a stout suspension system, this multi-day rig easily handled loads over 50 pounds. You can even shorten or lengthen the suspension on the fly, with a drawcord located near your kidneys. At camp, ditch your heavy gear and explore with the breakaway lid, which doubles as a 17-liter summit pack complete with a sternum strap and hydration sleeve. Accordingly, the Plus weighs almost six pounds, but for those who prize comfort under oxen loads, it鈥檚 pure decadence. 5.8 lbs (men鈥檚) / 5.5 lbs (women鈥檚)

Gossamer Gear G4-20 42 ($180)

Best for Ultralight Backpacking

When it launched over two decades ago, Gossamer Gear鈥檚 G4 set a standard for shedding base weight while still fitting a full-size backpacking kit. That tradition continues with the new G4-20, an ultralight bag built with through-hikers in mind. The roll-top closure expands to fit gargantuan loads, then cinches down with side compression straps when you want to minimize your setup for lighter trips. We like the front stretch pouch and asymmetrical side pockets for water bottles and layers; but the left one is deep enough for a rolled tarp or sleeping pad. While the pack is frameless, with a removable closed-cell foam back panel that doubles as a seat pad, we comfortably carried up to 30 pounds. One downside: the unisex design offers little fit adjustability. 1.6 lbs

Arc鈥檛eryx Aerios 30 ($190)

Best for Going Far Fast

Whether you鈥檙e loading up for a long day out in the mountains or stripping down your gear for a fast-and-light overnighter, the Aerios delivers big on technical details. The body fabric, a ripstop Cordura grid impregnated with liquid-crystal polymer, is supremely durable. In testing, it held up against snagging tree branches and even the occasional squeeze through a sandstone slot canyon. A heat-molded back panel breathes well, even on steep climbs in hot weather. Meanwhile, two zippered shoulder pockets and two padded pouches on the waist belt (one zippered and one stretch) hold on-the-go sundries like energy bars and sunscreen. Stretchy loops on each shoulder keep folded trekking poles at the ready. 2 lbs (men鈥檚) / 1.9 lbs (women鈥檚)

Patagonia Altvia 22 ($119)

Best for Day Hiking

Our ideal go-to daypack is just technical and featured enough to handle a big mission without needing an instruction manual to operate. The Altvia fits the bill. It鈥檚 simple yet covers all the most elemental needs, with a padded waist belt and shoulder straps, included rain cover, and stretch-mesh pockets on either side of the body. Aside from the main compartment, it has just one small zippered pocket that鈥檚 big enough to fit a trail map but not so big that you鈥檒l need to mount a search and rescue mission to find your keys. Stretchy compression cords on the back are perfect for quickly stashing a spare jacket, while the main zippered interior area swallows more layers and a sizable lunch. We also love that the polyester-nylon body fabric is entirely recycled. 1.5 lbs

The post The Best Backpacks of 2021 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Outdoor industry businesses motivated to address the climate crisis now听have a brand-new set of tools to help鈥攎ake that two sets of tools.听In 2020, the Outdoor Industry Association鈥檚 Climate Action Corps and Snow- sports Industry Association鈥檚 ClimateUnited launched within a few months of each other. They aim to guide retailers, brands, and (in OIA鈥檚 case) suppliers in shrinking their carbon footprints through steps like creating emissions-reduction plans, and increasing buying power and influence through collective action. The more the merrier, right?

Well, maybe. Some worry dividing the industry into two groups could weaken our overall influence down the supply chain. That鈥檚 significant because manufacturing is a major source of carbon emissions, but suppliers have been resistant to the outdoor industry鈥檚 attempts to green it up because we represent such a small share of the suppliers鈥� total business.

Having two groups also complicates matters for outdoor industry members that are part of both trade groups, or belong to neither. Joining both climate initiatives would set redundant goals, but with different programs and metrics for progress (though a handful of brands, including Burton, K2, and Rab, have doubled up).

OIA鈥檚 Climate Action Corps was the first to launch in January 2020. It works with members to meet their carbon-reduction goals via a suite of tools and trainings. OIA and SIA had discussed partnering up, says Amy Horton, senior director of sustainable business innovation for OIA, so the Climate Action Corps tools would be available to SIA members for the same rate OIA members pay ($250 to $25,000, depending on annual revenue and business type).

Instead, SIA launched its own platform last November, ClimateUnited. Chris Steinkamp, advocacy director for SIA, says this seemed like a more financially efficient option, and allowed the association to offer its members a program for free. 鈥淲e knew part of the barrier to getting companies to do something on climate was the cost,鈥� he says. OIA sees it differently. Anyone who signs up for OIA鈥檚 program has to put skin in the game, Horton says: Even for OIA members, joining comes with a price tag.

鈥淲e鈥檙e all trying to solve climate change,鈥� says Steinkamp. 鈥淭his was not a competitive thing. This was us figuring out what鈥檚 best for our business and our members, but also hopefully bringing more companies on board.鈥�

OIA, again, sees things differently. 鈥淭he whole vision was, build a big tent, a multi-association effort,鈥� says Horton. 鈥淲e need to all come together on this existential threat to our industry, whether you make camping gear or running shoes or skis or boards.鈥� She adds that OIA hopes for a critical mass of members to drive its CoLabs, a program that allows members to pool their influence on the supply chain or to purchase renewable power sources.

Steinkamp says he still hopes to collaborate with OIA members on projects like renewable energy purchases, and that conversations between the two groups are ongoing so SIA members won鈥檛 miss out on big-ticket projects or on the chance to compel changes in the supply chain. Horton says that without some partnership between the associations, it鈥檚 not clear how that would work. That said, 鈥淚t鈥檚 beneficial to bring the industry together on this,鈥� she says. 鈥淥ur door is definitely still open for that.鈥� At press time, OIA counted 82 members and SIA had 26.

There鈥檚 one big area in which having two industry climate groups could be a great thing: political influence. Impactful work has to focus on policymaking, says Lindsay Bourgoine, Protect Our Winters policy and advocacy director. 鈥淪preading out our efforts, that鈥檚 what really excites me鈥攈aving this constant, steady drum- beat on lawmakers around DC and in state capitols,鈥� she says.

The post Are the Industry鈥檚 Two Biggest Climate Programs in Competition? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Gregory Targhee FastTrack 35L ($220)

Amid a lineup of packs designed for big adventures, the new Targhee FastTrack rose to the top for its superior balance of features, volume, and weight savings. It鈥檚 just as much at home on resort hike-to terrain as it is on ultralight mountaineering missions. And it fits enough for a hut trip.听

Ounce-shaving on this pack comes in subtle yet significant places, like a webbing strap with thin floating pads instead of a full waist belt. Those pads, the internal hard plastic framesheet, and a zippered brain detach to take the weight from three pounds to 1.8.

Even then you get plenty of reliable essentials, like a stowable helmet net and a tool pocket that holds a shovel and probe, spare layer, and skins. A new race-inspired ski carry allows you to transition without taking off the pack: slide your tails through a loop on the lower back and then clip the elastic top strap around your tips. The system requires practice and works best if the pack isn鈥檛 fully loaded, but it added welcome speed when we were rushing for freshies on the Revelstoke summit boot-pack. Side straps also enable A-frame rigging and compress the load on descents, while daisy chains and elastic ice-tool keepers offer functionality for other winter endeavors. 3 lbs

Osprey Soelden Pro 32 ($1,200)

Best Avy Pack

Osprey鈥檚 debut airbag combines the brand鈥檚 proven quality and design expertise with our favorite inflation mechanism鈥攖he Alpride E1鈥攖o create an adaptable and user-friendly avy pack. The Alpride supercapacitor electric-颅airbag system is easier to practice with than compressed air and more 颅travel-friendly than the battery-powered kinds. (Most airilnes prohibit lithium-ion batteries.) Meanwhile, the pack body carries skis A-frame, diagonally, or vertically without excess straps flapping around. A helmet net attaches on top or out back, and the body zips open around the sides, clamshell style, for easy gear sorting. The only caveats: A-frame ski carry made accessing the main compartment slightly more difficult, and, as in many of its peers, the fan system leaves only just enough room for our standard day-tour kit. But at under 6.5 pounds, the Soelden (and women鈥檚 Sopris 30) are light for airbag packs. Credit the fabric, a feathery yet durable blend of nylon and polyethylene that鈥檚 also PFC-free. For its first avy pack, Osprey made a contender for one of the best we鈥檝e tried. 6.4 lbs

Patagonia Descensionist 32L ($179)

Best for Slackcountry

Our pick for lift-accessed hot laps may seem a little pudgy for the job, but the Descensionist is a shapeshifter that carries like a much smaller bag. The secret is the roll top, which grows or shrinks to fit your needs. Filled with only water, skins, and avalanche tools (in the dedicated external shovel pocket), the pack compresses nearly flat. That plus tidy straps means it plays nice with chairlifts. But because of its thin profile, it also fits all the accoutrements of a longer adventure without turning into a basketball. Key features keep you comfortable deep in the backcountry, like a wide hipbelt and a breathable back panel, side compression straps to stabilize your load, a side zip to get at the main compartment without unbuckling the top, and vertical and A-frame ski and board carry. You could buy multiple packs for different ski missions. Or you could go with this sleek and simple beauty. 2.6 lbs

Mountain Hardwear Alpine Light 50 ($350)

Best for Ice Climbing and Mountaineering

Minimalism is the Alpine Light鈥檚 calling card. Mountain Hardwear ditched weight at every turn, preserving only the features you need to get through an endurance mission comfortably. What made the cut: a removable hipbelt and brain, a cinch-top main compartment, a single removable internal pocket, and two small zippered side pockets for essentials. Side compression straps pull the load close to prevent jostling during reachy moves, and massive grab handles are easy to clasp with gloves on. A generous gear loop at the belt makes for quick racking. Durability and usability didn鈥檛 fall by the wayside, though. The body is made from bomber lightweight waterproof 150-denier Dyneema, with 375-denier Dyneema fabric along the bottom for maximum shred resistance. A feathery aluminum frame and foam backsheet mean the pack holds its shape and carries well, even under heavy loads. One tester summarized it well: 鈥淎 versatile, well-detailed workhorse of a pack for serious alpine objectives where ounces count.鈥� 2.3 lbs

Deuter Freeride Pro 34+ ($180)

Best for Hut Trips

Where Gregory鈥檚 Targhee is a multi-sport star, Deuter鈥檚 latest is streamlined for one task: long trips with lots of gear. The clean, zip-access top loader has a big main compartment, an avy-tool shed, a fleecy goggles pocket, a zippered back slot that鈥檚 perfect for skins, and a handy hipbelt pouch. One tester described it as a neat freak鈥檚 dream. It was plenty big for a frigid tour with all our glacier gear. When we needed even more space we unfurled the roll top to add ten liters to the main compartment, enough to load a hut-trip鈥檚 worth of gear颅鈥斅璼ix-pack included. Even then we could access all the other pockets, rack skis A-frame (or a board vertically), and dig out lunch through the back-panel zip. It carried the extra weight comfortably, with a hidden U-shaped plastic frame sewn around the back panel that distributes the load onto the nicely padded hipbelt. 2.8 lbs

The post The Best Packs of 2021 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Gregory 颅颅颅Maven 65 ($250)

Built for comfort-minded backpackers who carry heaps of gear, the women鈥檚 Maven 65 (and men鈥檚 Paragon 68) has one of the most effective trampoline-style suspension systems we鈥檝e ever seen. Wings of stretchy nylon at the lumbar produce a snug, wraparound fit for superior weight distribution and allow the sturdy, padded mesh hipbelt to pivot with each stride, keeping the pack blissfully stable under oxen-grade loads. 鈥淚t feels like a bear hug on your back,鈥� a tester said. Gregory goes full bore on the feature set, with side- and bottom-access zippers, a floating lid, phone-size pockets on the hipbelt, an adjustable back panel, and an integrated rain cover. But because it鈥檚 built on a flexible aluminum frame, the pack remains feather颅light. 3.7 lbs (men鈥檚) / 3.5 lbs (women鈥檚)

听

贵箩盲濒濒谤盲惫别苍 Bergtagen 30 ($200)

Best from Trail to Tavern

Short on gear-storage space? Simplify your pack lineup with the Bergtagen, which is equally suited to the mountains and a trip to the pub. The minimalist design fits most essentials in a roomy main compartment that also includes a hydration-bladder sleeve. The zippered 颅pocket on the floating top lid stashes small items like batteries, headphones, and gloves. For big missions, carry your skis A-frame and attach ice tools using the daisy-chain webbing down the front panel. The padded back plate helps you shoulder it all with ease. 2.3 lbs

Osprey Archeon 70 ($340)

Best for Travel

Basics like a rain cover, sleeping-bag divider, and compression straps make the Archeon trail capable. But it鈥檚 equally suited to urban adventure, with stylish metal buckles (they require some fiddling) and a body made of burly 1,880-denier recycled-nylon canvas that can withstand careless baggage handlers. The back panel鈥攏arrow strips of foam behind mesh鈥攌ept us dry on blistering days, and dual zippers on the front open wide for easy access. The price for these features is weight, but a massive waist belt offloads that from your shoulders. 5.5 lbs

Granite Gear Dagger 22 ($100)

Best for Day Hiking

Most ultralight designs necessitate essentials-only packing. Not this featherweight daypack, which sheds ounces via a thin yet durable 颅100-denier nylon shell while still delivering on features. Luxuries we love include a stretchy exterior pocket that keeps snacks or a headlamp within easy reach and zigzag elastic on the front panel to quickly stow layers. A removable framesheet helps the Dagger 22 hold its shape even when not fully loaded, and an 颅arch-like zipper makes it easy to dig out those stray energy bars that inevitably sift to the bottom. 1.5 lbs

Jack Wolfskin Kalari Trail 36 Recco ($130)

Best for Overnight Missions

If your hiking partner has search and rescue on speed dial, this is your pack. A Recco reflector on the Kalari鈥檚 lid makes you easier to locate by helicopter. The 颅dual-compartment cargo hold and trekking-pole attachments give it the functionality of a much larger pack. A 300-颅denier recycled-nylon body and steel frame add brawn. On the downside: the nonfloating top lid and integrated rain cover pilfer room from the lower compartment. But we liked the 颅close-fitting, vented back panel and PFC-free construction. 2.4 lbs

The post The Best Backpacks of 2020 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On a drizzly afternoon in 2013, Duke University undergrads pitched their tents to wait in line for a basketball game, and Heather Stapleton saw an opportunity.

An associate professor of environmental health, Stapleton headed out with some of her students to answer a question. Mounting evidence linked flame retardants鈥攗sed in everything from couches and carpets to televisions and baby clothes鈥攖o a host of health problems, including cancer, impeded childhood development, and reproductive complications. Stapleton had noticed safety tags on camping tents that warned consumers they were also treated with flame retardants, but she wanted to know: Which chemicals were being used? And do those treatments drift off rainflies to be inhaled by campers bundled in听mummy bags, or do they linger on fingers to be swallowed along with handfuls of trail mix?

鈥淚t was basically out of my curiosity,鈥� she said. Offering food as a trade, Stapleton and her students convinced queuing basketball fans to let them wipe cotton swabs over their tents and听hands. Back in the lab, the researchers found a number of chemicals听on the cotton swabs,听including problematic ones like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and tris (1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (TDCPP). Traces of those treatments had indeed been听left on students鈥� skin.

Stapleton鈥檚 initial findings prompted Duke University graduate student Genna Heath (then Gomes) to focus her master鈥檚听research on the issue; she听published听her results in 2016. Heath and her research partner, Peyton Ward, hauled two-person backpacking tents donated by , , and to the university quad, where they offered passing students $20 to set them up. Wipes ran over the students鈥� hands came back with flame-retardant levels 29 times higher after handling a tent than before. Air samples also picked up particles inside the tents. In sum: the flame retardants were leaching from the products during normal use.

Stapleton鈥檚 and Heath鈥檚 research, as well as related studies by others, have prompted tent manufacturers to reassess their approach to treating tents for flame resistance听and to review the related regulations: are these treatments even really necessary? This spring, Mountain Hardwear took it one step further; all of the company鈥檚 tents are now free of flame retardants. The results, the company said, even make听way for stronger and longer-lasting tents. In September, REI also announced plans to transition away from flame-retardant finishes starting in fall 2020.

Cooking on a grill听creates crusty black bits that can increase cancer risk when you ingest them. So can smoking. Still, people do both, Stapleton points out. But the point is that听people get to decide whether to barbecue meat or smoke a cigarette. With tents, she said,听鈥淸People] don鈥檛 have the option to look for an alternative if they wanted to make that choice, and I think that鈥檚 a problem.鈥�

Her 2013 research found flame-retardant additives on ten听of 11 tent fabric samples tested. That data point suggests mosts tents for sale in the United States are coated with some kind of flame retardant, but consumers are hard-pressed to find a more comprehensive review. (No one I spoke to in the course of reporting this story听knew what percentage of tents are treated.)听Laws only require brands to disclose that the tents were treated to meet a rule drafted by the Industrial Fabrics Association International, originally called听Canvas Products Association International.听What exact treatment听and whether it鈥檚 from the list of problematic chemicals听isn鈥檛 publicly available.

No federal laws require these treatments. In the 1970s, the Canvas Products Association International wrote a flammability standard, CPAI-84, that has become the default standard for most tent makers, but it hasn鈥檛 been updated in more than 20 years. It was written for waxed or oiled cotton tents, like those hoisted for big-top circuses, and calls for holding a flame to fabric for 12 seconds without it igniting. Just four states mandate it, including California (Canada does as well), but the Golden State鈥檚听purchasing power means the vast majority of tents sold in the United States听comply. (California鈥檚 听also require that manufacturers label tents as containing materials that can cause cancer.)

Many tent makers have purged the worst known offenders, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of individual formulations of flame retardants, Heath said, and the list of options grows faster than research on their health effects can keep pace. In the past few听years, the National Toxicology Program published studies on a newer type of flame retardant that was also found to be toxic, and Stapleton鈥檚 most recent research argues听that new options are no better than their predecessors.

In March 2018, REI from products sold in their stores. But keeping up with the latest research is an ongoing process. 鈥淭he toxicology side is always playing catch-up to the chemical industry,鈥� said Matthew Thurston, director of sustainability in the Division of Brand Stewardship and Impact for REI.

Fortunately, REI recruited a heavy听hitter. Before听Heath graduated, the retailer hired her; she鈥檚 now manager of REI鈥檚 Sustainable Materials and Innovation Program.

鈥淗onestly, [the data so far shows that] there鈥檚 no flame retardant that is truly benign,鈥� Heath said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 usually a trade-off. If it doesn鈥檛 have carcinogens, it鈥檚 toxic to aquatic life. We tried to figure out how to choose the most benign options available, but it鈥檚 slim pickings. And a lot of the ones that rise to the top in a lot of the assessments of safer alternatives are doing so because there鈥檚 gaps in the data.鈥�

REI recommends 听and sleeping with the rain fly off when possible. But how practical is that?

鈥淚n the absence of better guidance, I do wash my hands,鈥� Heath said.

Joe Vernachio, CEO of Mountain Hardwear, laughed and called these guidelines 鈥渓udicrous.鈥� 鈥淚t鈥檚 completely irrational to think that we should make products that people should have to wash their hands after using,鈥� he said.

Beyond that, he鈥檚 concerned for people who make or handle these tents, like those in his warranty department. When Mountain Hardwear staff was discussing how to make their products more sustainable, they asked themselves:听Did anyone present want to sleep in a tent treated with flame retardants? The answer was unanimously no.

鈥淭hese chemicals are not good for anybody and really don鈥檛 do much for flame retardancy, so we鈥檙e not going to use them,鈥� Vernachio said.

Around the world, the rules on flame retardants vary, but the number of tent fires remains low. Some credit the new synthetic fabrics now ubiquitous in tent construction, which tend to melt away from fire rather than go up in flames like cotton. Today鈥檚 tents come close to meeting flame-resistant standards鈥攚ithin seconds of the time-based rule鈥攅ven without the chemical use. That鈥檚 why the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), as well as some outdoor companies, aren鈥檛 convinced the CPAI-84 standard makes people safer.

In April, the OIA released a review of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission鈥檚 accident report database, analyzing incidents involving tents. The OIA filtered tents made with equivalent materials and technology, with and without flame retardant treatments, and organized the data for similar usage habits among tent owners. That review found that fires were rare鈥攚hether camping tents were treated, potentially treated, or untreated with flame-retardant chemicals. In the United States, out of 16,000 injuries in a five-year period, only 14 included a tent igniting. As the OIA quoted, 鈥淭he most common ways consumers were injured were putting up or taking down a tent, tripping on tent stakes, or tent structural fails.鈥澨齌he report also noted that the European Union, Japan, and Australia don鈥檛 require flame retardants听and yet show little difference in tent-ignition frequency鈥攕ix incidents in Europe between 2008 and 2016, one fire in a decade in Japan, and five in Australia between 2011 and 2017.

鈥淧eople are not getting hurt when you don鈥檛 put flame retardants in a tent,鈥� said Terry Breaux, tent category manager at MSR. 鈥淪o here鈥檚 something we just don鈥檛 need to put out in the environment.鈥�

There鈥檚 another benefit to ditching flame retardants: better tents.

Tents are made of nylon听and treated with silicone on one side and polyurethane mixed with flame retardants on the other. Ditching flame retardants allows manufacturers to apply silicone on both sides, which gives the tents higher tear strength and longer-lasting water repellency, said Devon Lambert, manager of Mountain Hardwear鈥檚 equipment product line. They may even be slightly lighter weight听and听have a silkier feel.

Industry pros agree that the rules requiring the chemical treatments probably curb innovation.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a few fabrics that companies have been developing that are extremely lightweight鈥ut they can鈥檛 pass the flammability standard,鈥� said Jessie Curry, manager of sustainable business innovation for the OIA. 鈥淚t makes me curious what tents will look like if we get the standard updated.鈥�

For now, manufacturers interested in abandoning the chemicals balance the short-term risk of fire-related liability (though Mountain Hardwear鈥檚 legal staff estimates the exposure is minimal)听with the long-term, less-traceable risk of consumer exposure to toxins. Nonetheless, when made the move, it joined 听in dropping flame-retardant treatments from its entire tent line. 听has some treatment-free options available听but听doesn鈥檛 ship them to states that require compliance听with CPAI-84.

Brands like 听and 听have found a different workaround.听Their ultralight backpacking tents use Dyneema fabrics, and because that material shrivels away from flame rather than catching fire or even dripping melting plastic, it allows them to skip chemical treatments while still passing CPAI-84.

REI worked in partnership with the OIA and officials in Canada to draft a new flammability testing method that is听more relevant to modern tent materials. The new听test criteria have yet to be finalized, but the latest version suggests听it may focus more on how much material burns or sheds 鈥渇laming debris,鈥� rather than how quickly tent fabric extinguishes after exposure to flame.听The approach听will allow REI to phase out flame retardants from its products beginning next year. According to , when this new testing protocol is听finalized, the company hopes to use it in place of compliance with CPAI-84.听Heath has suggested the new testing method could be adopted throughout the United States听as an update to the old standard.

REI has indicated the phase-out will be just that鈥攁 slow transition. Company PR staff insist products will continue to meet all state regulations, but couldn’t say how exactly they鈥檒l achieve those competing goals. According to the same September blog post, brands sold in听REI stores will need to 鈥渕ake their own decisions鈥澨齩n this front, provided they steer clear of flame retardants on the company鈥檚 restricted substances list. Mountain Hardwear, which sells tents in California, said it will stand behind its products if a concern arises. Local fire marshals, the parties responsible for enforcing CPAI-84, aren鈥檛 expected to make it a priority.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a trade-off that a brand has to weigh,鈥� Curry said. 鈥淏ut if we do know that there鈥檚 very little risk in a tent igniting, why would we have any customers exposed to flame retardants?鈥�

5 Flame Retardant鈥揊ree Tent Options

1. All 听tents, including the 听and 听series, are made without flame retardants, as well as other known problematic materials, including PVC plastic and fluorocarbons.
2. 听and ultralight, long-distance tents use Dyneema Composite Fabrics听and are free of flame retardants.
3. All tents released in 2019 onward鈥攊ncluding the spring 2020 debut of the roomy two- and three-person Mineral King tent鈥攈as ditched these chemicals.
4. 狈别尘辞鈥檚 听two-听and three-听mountaineering tents and 听ultralight听one-person tent are made with silicone-treated fabrics that are free from flame retardants. (They will not ship to California, Louisiana, Minnesota, or New Jersey.)

The post Your Flame-Resistant Tent Could Give You Cancer appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The North Face Forecaster 35 ($189)

Like you, we have a hard time locating gear that was designed just right. With packs that skew ultralight, we find ourselves wanting more space or a pocket to stash gloves or snacks. Then there are the overbuilt behemoths, but who鈥檚 looking to add weight on a ski tour? The Forecaster nails the middle ground. It鈥檚 a 35-liter hauler with a floating lid, hip pockets, and an avalanche-tool compartment, yet it weighs a mere 2.7 pounds. The North Face built it with feathery but tough ripstop fabric, a lightly padded suspension system, and a simple top-loading design. 颅Consider that avy pocket: often these are too narrow or too squat for sturdier shovels or longer probes. TNF made the Forecaster鈥檚 wide enough for the fattest blades and added length by extending the pocket above the zipper. On a ski-mountaineering trip, we had enough room in the main compartment for layers, a camera, food, and water; with the pack fully loaded, the back-panel sheet distributed the load perfectly. Skinnier folks might prefer tighter hip-belt adjustment, but all told the Forecaster offers skiers everything they need without bogging them down. 2.7 lbs

Backcountry Access Stash 20 ($145)

Best for Slackcountry

Twenty percent matters. It鈥檚 the difference between four inches of new snow and five, flat and skiable slopes, and a mediocre winter and a memorable one. And it鈥檚 how much weight the Stash 20 lost since last season. The 20-liter pack dropped from 2.9 pounds to 2.3, a cut we noticed while skinning out of Whistler and boot-packing up to Revelstoke鈥檚 Mackenzie Peak. Backcountry Access jettisoned the torso-length adjustment and the back-panel zipper for accessing the main compartment鈥攈andy features for sure, but nothing testers missed in a pack this small. Lots of organizational hits (including tiny zip stashes in the main area and sleeves in the tool pocket) help there. As with the old Stash, this generation has a helmet net and multiple ways of carrying skis and boards. 2.3 lbs

Black Diamond JetForce Pro 25 ($1,400)

Best AirBag Pack

Black Diamond revamped the JetForce Pro for this year鈥檚 edition. Its lighter, for one, curbing the weight penalty always incurred with an avalanche pack. The airbag system performs a self-check when you switch it on and signals with a green light that you鈥檙e good to go. (A red light indicates that the battery is dead or the airbag needs repacking.) Another perk: you can fly with it, since the airbag is fan controlled. You can also practice deploying the JetForce Pro without burning through expensive canisters. The bag remains inflated for three minutes before the air is expelled, leaving a 200-liter pocket beneath the snow. (Research suggests that鈥檚 large enough to survive for an hour.) 6.3 lbs

Osprey Kresta 14 ($100)

Best for the Resort

The Kresta 14 (and men鈥檚 Kamber 16) looks minimalist, but it鈥檚 sure to appeal to the compulsively organized. Its many pockets include dedicated spots to store sunglasses or goggles in scratch-resistant fabric, to clip in keys, to stash snacks, and to run a hydration hose through an insulated sleeve. Not to mention the pack鈥檚 slim profile allows it to slide onto the chairlift without demanding a seat of its own. We used the diagonal ski-颅carry system on short ridge hikes. (Snowboarders have vertical and horizontal options.) The pack will accommodate your shovel and probe in a pinch but not much else, so prepare to pack light. 1.9 lbs

听

Mammut Niva 35 ($220)

Best for the Backcountry

Mammut poured time and attention into making sure that ladies who rip can do so with a pack tailored specifically to them. The designers started with one of the brand鈥檚 more popular ski packs颅颅鈥攖he men鈥檚 Nirvana 35鈥攁nd spent two years testing at least four prototypes. Key tweaks were made to the shoulder straps, which in the Niva are curved to stay clear of the chest, and the tapered hip belt keeps the padding in position and squarely supports the load. Trimming pack length for a woman鈥檚 torso often results in a design that stretches away from the spine in an effort to preserve volume, but the Niva has a wide profile from hip to hip. That keeps the weight closer to the center, and we were pleased with how little it jostled when skinning up and riding down. Is your kit dialed and lean? The Niva might even work as an overnight pack. 3.4 lbs (men鈥檚) / 3.3 lbs (women鈥檚, pictured)

听

The post The Best Backpacks of 2020 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.