Hmm... I think the C5 is a little chunky. Mostly because you have to pack the mount. Looking at what everyone has said I think a refractor is the best choice. Lots of aperture isn't needed when I'm in no mans land right? So something like an 80mm would be sufficient right?
to my eye this whole conversation is really about magnification, not aperture. dark skies are absolutely the best place for the largest feasible aperture, because as jim demonstrated dark skies are a huge aperture multiplier. by why prefer an 80mm monocular view when you can have a 100mm binocular view? the only answer can be: magnification.
magnification (steady image of a very small field) is really the only reason you need a portable mount. you want to look at the *detail* in globular clusters, planets, individual craters on the moon, double stars like castor, some of the brighter deep sky objects.
a mount won't be regretted if you are using the scope for wide field viewing. a mount? for pete's sake, you're in the woods, you can certainly find a branch or rock overhang or a tent pole or clothes line to prop it on. strap it in the bear pulley, raise the scope to eye height, and enjoy.
a 20-25x 100 mm binocular will work with a camera tripod, it can be used for wildlife and landscape viewing, it is lighter than most of the kits being sold you in the comments above.
of course, you can still use that 150mm APO to view wildlife. you just set down your pack, take out the scope, take out the mount, set up the mount, put the scope on the mount, fish around for an eyepiece, put the eyepiece in the scope, point the scope, then wander it around until you find what you want to see.
then, when you're ready to move on, you just need to put everything away.