Jimbo wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 8:02pm:

KF & I tangled with these bad-boy portages during our June/July trip last year.  Actually, that's not quite accurate.  KF sort of floated over them; I don't think he even got muddy.  Me?  I'm a slop hog.  I don't "float" over anything!Jimbo   8-)

This observation has been the source of a great deal of mental musing for me the past few years. What is the best body size and shape for efficient canoe country portaging and and more specifically, bushwhacking. The short squat muscular build of the voyageurs is legendary. Supposedly they were able to carry incredible amounts of weight and bulk over established portages. However, when you get into a situation where portages are poorly maintained or non-existent I think a different type of physique is ideal. On good portages, like most in the BWCA, I think the bigger and stroger the better. I've been with big strong guys that can easily carry double what I do on a portage. They don't move nearly as fast as I do but they can carry impressive amounts of weight. However, get off the beaten path and those same guys can become a liability. They aren't as nimble on rough terrain, they require more food and more importantly more liquid, and they tire more quickly. I know I am too small to qualify for the ideal body for portaging or bushwhacking (5'9" 155lbs). I avoid carrying more than 70-80 lbs under any circumstances. I have taken loads well over 100lbs but I now consider it foolish and unsafe. Rather, I would prefer to split a large load and literally jog back for a second load. Usually, though I am not in that much of a hurry but I have done it when motivated or when I thought it necessary. Unfortunately this pretty much rules out single portage bushwhacking which I would dearly love to be able to do, especially solo.
I'm interested in other peoples' thoughts on this subject. I'm beginning to think being big and strong is not necessarily an asset especially when the going gets really really rough. What do you think?