What constitutes a "thru-hike?"

[Happydaddy]

Let me first say that I don't intend this question to be provocative. I'm just curious to see whether there is a consensus answer. Nearly all thru hikers take zero days, town days, side trips off the trail (sometimes for days), etc. Some even go home for short periods before returning to the trail. So - my question is this: How many consecutive days off the trail would one consider "allowed" before a thru hike becomes something else? Two? Four? A week? A month? Maybe it doesn't really matter and anyone who walks the whole trail, walks the whole trail. I'm really curious as to whether there is anything like a consensus on this.

BTW - I really enjoy the site and am learning a lot. I don't really have a plan to attack the trail yet - beyond knowing that I am going to do it. Maybe four long sections over four years. Maybe a thru - if I can sort out work and family obligations. I do know that I want to hike the entire trail.

Cheers.

[Don H]

Generally if you hike the entire trail in one season you're a thru-hiker.
But in reality no one cares. HYOH!

[Last Call]

Start in Spring at the Approach Trail, walk North with Spring, finish at Katahdin, whilst passing every white blaze is the generally accepted formula.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Generally if you hike the entire trail in one season you're a thru-hiker.
But in reality no one cares. HYOH!

You'd have to hike really fast to finish in one season, and it would be especially tough if you chose winter. :D

[Sarcasm the elf]

The most often accepted answer i've seen on this site is that any hike that completes the trail in a 1 year period is considered a thru hike. But aside from hiking the whole tra there are no official rules as to what a constitutes a thru hike. I think this was done on purpose to give hikers something to argue about. ;)

Fun fact, the approach trail is not part of the A.T. Regardless of some people's wishful thinking. I'd still recommend hiking it though, the view of the falls alone is worth the walk.

[Lone Wolf]

Nearly all thru hikers take zero days, town days, side trips off the trail (sometimes for days), etc. Some even go home for short periods before returning to the trail. So - my question is this: How many consecutive days off the trail would one consider "allowed" before a thru hike becomes something else? Two? Four? A week? A month? Maybe it doesn't really matter and anyone who walks the whole trail, walks the whole trail. I'm really curious as to whether there is anything like a consensus on this.


a through hike is just that. hiking through with no days off. anything else is a section hike

[Last Call]

Call it what you will, but I would hardly consider bouncing from one section to another at random points a true Thru-Hike....that would be considered a section hike; regardless if you complete the entire trail or not....I gave the most widely accepted version above; I'm still torn on the matter of slack-packing, though. Personally, I wouldn't do it.

[Sarcasm the elf]

....I gave the most widely accepted version above;

No you didn't...

[Coffee]

For me the idea of an uninterrupted set of footprints from one endpoint to the other within a "hiking season" seems to make the most sense and allows things like blue blazing to a shelter (or vista point) and taking the another blue blaze back to the trail when nothing is likely to be missed by not backtracking. I don't personally see anything wrong with zero days or even several days off the trail if time permits. Ultimately I don't think it matters.

[Malto]

Go back and view the 13457 threads that are devoted to trying to answer this question. When your done, draw your own conclusion.

[goin'4ahike]

Go back and view the 13457 threads that are devoted to trying to answer this question. When your done, draw your own conclusion.

Is this issue of defining a thru the source of much conflict on trail as it is on whiteblaze?

[tf bear]

The beauty of our sporting event is that there are no penalties, referees, time outs, instant replay, quarters, half's, periods or innings. No coaches , plays, championships or playoffs. Just throw on your pack and call it what you want to call it. If someone calls you out for taking a day off after walking 20 miles ask them what they have done for the last six months?

[Tuckahoe]

Is it time for the Thursday night "what's a thru-hiker thread" already?

[Last Call]

Is this issue of defining a thru the source of much conflict on trail as it is on whiteblaze?

I can be....but usually not. Deep down, folks know in their heart if they did a true thru or a section hike. That being said, let not your heart be troubled if you are a section hiker.

[Happydaddy]

Go back and view the 13457 threads that are devoted to trying to answer this question. When your done, draw your own conclusion.

Why waste your energy on that? The question is whether there is anything approaching a consensus. My opinion doesn't matter - nor, as it turns out, does yours.

[Coffee]

The question is whether there is anything approaching a consensus.

Clearly not...

[Deacon]

So with the proposed International Appalachian Trail that extends into Canada and beyond, will hiking from Springer to Katahdin in one year become just a section hike?

[myakka_]

I am a newer member, so I will offer an outsider's opinion. (and we can file it with the rest LOL)

If you hike from one end to the other within a year, and starting each time where you stopped before going the same direction, it would seem to be a thru hike. If you build it piece-meal hiking different legs out of order, Or if you do it in pieces over multiple years, then it would be a section hike.

I know there is no consensus, but this is just what makes sense to me.

[Last Call]

*It.

I have heard of some who harbored so much guilt over skipping the Approach Trail that a trip was required back to Georgia just to complete it. Imagine what one would feel over yellow-blazing!

[wnderer]

Coincedently, the AT Journeys Magazine has an article on Alternative Thru Hikes.


About a decade ago the ATC proposed a practical compromise: a thru-hike is a completely hiked <Appalachian> Trail -- done in 12 months -- regardless of direction or starting point.

I'm glad that's settled.

[Another Kevin]

Many people consider a leapfrog or a flip-flop a thru. There are always some hikers who, for whatever reason, get delayed, have to leapfrog ahead to do Katahdin before they shut it down for the early winter, and either flip-flop to finish SOBO or simply skip some section in the middle and go back to pick it up.

And in fact, ATC recommends hiking patterns like leapfrogs and flipflops above the traditional thru - to reduce the size of the pack.

The consensus seems to be "do all ~2200 miles in the same calendar year". Starting in July, quitting for the winter, and finishing in June appears not to count, so "in the span of a year" seems inaccurate. Starting in March, being laid up for a month with an injury, getting back on trail and finishing does appear to count. Or so I hear. I'm not about to do any of the above - I find the AT a wonderful place to visit - and I keep going back to it again and again - but don't want to live there.

[Starchild]

Call it what you will, but I would hardly consider bouncing from one section to another at random points a true Thru-Hike....that would be considered a section hike; regardless if you complete the entire trail or not....I gave the most widely accepted version above; I'm still torn on the matter of slack-packing, though. Personally, I wouldn't do it.

In some ways I agree with this, it is to get to one side to another, from Springer via the forest service road to Katahdin (the Greatest mountain) and over the knife edge to Pomola. With the nod to those who dare to do this in reverse and descend from Katahdinm to Springer and exit via the forest service road.

In other words the intent to hike from one end to the other, now that journey may not be exactly linear, but it is one continuous journey that does involve the entire trail.

Now there are some folks who hike the approach trail, all well and good and they can rightly and proudly claim that they have hiked Springer Mountain, but that is all that it is and means nothing in terms of the AT, it is equivalent to a day hiker at Baxter State Park getting to Baxter Peak, yes well great and all, but that has nothing to do with the AT, to hike Katahdin your trailhead starts at Springer.

So in short yes HYOH and define YOH, and if you are lucky get others to pay for YOH and don't let others tell you otherwise.

[rafe]

a through hike is just that. hiking through with no days off. anything else is a section hike

By that definition there are very few or no thru hikers, it seems to me.

As to the Last Call's definition, it's flawed (IMO) in that direction doesn't matter. Flip-flopping is certainly not a disqualifier. If anything the "true" (historical) direction is southbound.

[Damn Yankee]

For me the idea of an uninterrupted set of footprints from one endpoint to the other within a "hiking season" seems to make the most sense and allows things like blue blazing to a shelter (or vista point) and taking the another blue blaze back to the trail when nothing is likely to be missed by not backtracking. I don't personally see anything wrong with zero days or even several days off the trail if time permits. Ultimately I don't think it matters.

I concur with this statement

[rafe]

Now there are some folks who hike the approach trail, all well and good and they can rightly and proudly claim that they have hiked Springer Mountain, but that is all that it is and means nothing in terms of the AT, it is equivalent to a day hiker at Baxter State Park getting to Baxter Peak, yes well great and all, but that has nothing to do with the AT, to hike Katahdin your trailhead starts at Springer.


So it's a "personal virtue," eh?

IMO, that's just like a peakbagger who won't consider the 3999 foot peak because he only gets points for those that are 4000 feet or more. Why walk xx miles of trail if they're not required to claim the prize?

I guess it depends on what you're out there for.

[Lone Wolf]

By that definition there are very few or no thru hikers, it seems to me.

.
correct. they're just end-to-enders

[colorado_rob]

correct. they're just end-to-enders Standard LW post.

Anyway, in the March/April issue of AT Journeys I just got today, on page 28 it says the ATC proposed the following definition about 10 years ago: "A thru hike is a completely hiked trail done in 12 months, regardless of direction or starting point". So just hike the entire AT, however you want, in 12 months or less and you've thru hiked the AT. Pretty simple.

[Malto]

Standard LW post.

Anyway, in the March/April issue of AT Journeys I just got today, on page 28 it says the ATC proposed the following definition about 10 years ago: "A thru hike is a completely hiked trail done in 12 months, regardless of direction or starting point". So just hike the entire AT, however you want, in 12 months or less and you've thru hiked the AT. Pretty simple.

So "completely" hiking the trail knocks off a large number of "thru" hikers.

[lonehiker]

For me the idea of an uninterrupted set of footprints from one endpoint to the other within a "hiking season" seems to make the most sense and allows things like blue blazing to a shelter (or vista point) and taking the another blue blaze back to the trail when nothing is likely to be missed by not backtracking. I don't personally see anything wrong with zero days or even several days off the trail if time permits. Ultimately I don't think it matters.



I concur with this statement

You can concur, but it isn't a thru-hike. By the above definition you have skipped segments of the AT by blue-blazing and not returning to exit point.

[HikerMom58]

Oh my gosh... not again! :o colorado_rob nailed it... pretty simple.

[MuddyWaters]

A thru hike is basically whatever the person doing it wants it to be. Because they are the only one that gives a $%^#, or should be any way.

[Coffee]

You can concur, but it isn't a thru-hike. By the above definition you have skipped segments of the AT by blue-blazing and not returning to exit point.

There are several locations along the AT (and along most trails) where it logically makes sense to take an alternate trail to a vista point and then take another alternate trail back without retracing. One example from a recent hike is the area around Hawksbill Mountain in SNP. Last year on a section hike I made a point to take the blue blaze (Salamander?) trail up to the summit and then take it back down to the point I left the AT, then continued on. I could have instead rejoined the AT by continuing on the blue blaze rather than retracing. After I did the retrace, I noticed that the segment of the AT that I would have missed had fewer views than the blue blaze trail that I didn't take (which I had taken on a previous day hike). So I was "pure" on that segment but it made little sense in terms of miles and time OR in terms of scenery!

Similarly, on the JMT last year, I hiked the segment of the trail between the north and south cut off trails to Muir Trail Ranch because I wanted to do the whole trail, but that segment wasn't any more remarkable than the southern or northern cut off trails (no blue blazes there but same concept).

So in the future I've decided to be more rational and pragmatic in my decisions, especially if I can find a more scenic alternative route! I'm going to face the same type of decisions on the Colorado Trail this summer (Elbert side trip has a northern and southern trail where one could logically return further along the CT than one left it). If someone wants to say I didn't thru hike the CT that's ok with me but I'm going to do what makes sense to me (if it doesn't look like I'm missing anything scenic) and I'll still have left a continuous set of footprints from one end to the other!

[kayak karl]

You can concur, but it isn't a thru-hike. By the above definition you have skipped segments of the AT by blue-blazing and not returning to exit point. by your definition ? somebody misses .1 miles of trail, so it isn't a thru hike??

[bfayer]

Start in Spring at the Approach Trail, walk North with Spring, finish at Katahdin, whilst passing every white blaze is the generally accepted formula.

Dang, I was planning to go south bound. Now I'll never be a thru hiker :)

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Malto]

Why waste your energy on that? The question is whether there is anything approaching a consensus. My opinion doesn't matter - nor, as it turns out, does yours.

Is there a consensus yet?


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k

[Happydaddy]

Is there a consensus yet?

Nope - but most people have had something interesting to contribute.

BTW - posts like your first one in this thread are asinine. I'm on enough similar forums (all seemingly using the same architecture) to know that the search feature sucks. What compels people to make douche-y comments, rather than just skip the thread, is beyond me.

[Last Call]

Dance around it all you want, call an apple an orange if that's what you want to do....still doesn't change the classic, traditional definition of a thru-hike, which was precisely defined in post #3.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[Odd Man Out]

Is there a consensus yet?


Quakers make decisions by discussing an issue indefinitely until a consensus is reached. Sounds like WB.

[rafe]

BTW - I really enjoy the site and am learning a lot. I don't really have a plan to attack the trail yet - beyond knowing that I am going to do it. Maybe four long sections over four years. Maybe a thru - if I can sort out work and family obligations. I do know that I want to hike the entire trail.

Cheers.

Amen. Do it any way you can. Section hiking beats thru hiking in a lot of ways. Be a shame to miss any of it because you couldn't do it all in one go. Consider each mile on the trail a gift and a privilege. It's a magical thing, this trail of ours.

[lonehiker]

by your definition ? somebody misses .1 miles of trail, so it isn't a thru hike??

Exactly. Blueblazing can be rationalized any number of ways (views, shortcuts, etc). But, bottom line, you did not thru-hike the AT unless you have walked its entire length.

[Mick3y]

Exactly. Blueblazing can be rationalized any number of ways (views, shortcuts, etc). But, bottom line, you did not thru-hike the AT unless you have walked its entire length.

So.. When you walk off the trail to go to the bathroom you mark the exact spot you left it? If you miss a fraction of an inch because you walked into the woods and returned a few feet up you aren't a thru-hiker. Always mark the trail before you leave to take a dump..

[fiddlehead]

There are no rules.

[squeezebox]

If you are the type that says a person did not thru hike because s/he missed 1 meter of trail when s/he went off trail to pee, or went on a blue blaze for a view, or took a blister zero day.
I wish you luck in finally calming down so you can enjoy your hike.
It's about enjoying your hike,
not some painful endurance contest.

[rickb]

Exactly. Blueblazing can be rationalized any number of ways (views, shortcuts, etc). But, bottom line, you did not thru-hike the AT unless you have walked its entire length.

Somewhere on this web site is a quote I posted from Benton MacKaye, wherein he explicitly states that the AT is best thought of as a corridor, and not a narrow footpath.

Since he defines the AT differently than you, it is logical to think he would define a thru hike differently than you as well.

[rickb]

Here is that quote:

The Appalachian Trail is a wilderness strip; it could be very wide–several miles wide–if possible. It is not a trailway. Actually, the trail itself could be a strip no wider than space for a fat man to get through. And that’s the trouble: ‘Trailway’ is a very unfortunate word; it gives the impression of a Greyhound bus and a great cement, six-lane highway, which is just the opposite of what the trail is supposed to be.


–BENTON MACKAYE, AIA Journal interview where he bluntly repudiated the Trailway concept as adopted by the Appalachian Trail Conference, 1971

[Coffee]

So.. When you walk off the trail to go to the bathroom you mark the exact spot you left it? If you miss a fraction of an inch because you walked into the woods and returned a few feet up you aren't a thru-hiker. Always mark the trail before you leave to take a dump..
Also, by his definition virtually no one thru hikes the PCT because portions of the trail are usually under snow at times and the corridor approach is used. And no doubt a glissade is an altogether different form of transport than walking, so that's a disqualifier as well!

[Pedaling Fool]

Why waste your energy on that? The question is whether there is anything approaching a consensus. My opinion doesn't matter - nor, as it turns out, does yours.
The fact that there are tons of threads on this is proof there is no consensus; there is not even an official definition provided by the ATC. No one's opinion matters on the definition.

[Don H]

You'd have to hike really fast to finish in one season, and it would be especially tough if you chose winter. :D

One HIKING season! SOBOs who start in late June might not finish until January.

[Don H]

Standard LW post.

Anyway, in the March/April issue of AT Journeys I just got today, on page 28 it says the ATC proposed the following definition about 10 years ago: "A thru hike is a completely hiked trail done in 12 months, regardless of direction or starting point". So just hike the entire AT, however you want, in 12 months or less and you've thru hiked the AT. Pretty simple.

From the ATC website "
A thru-hiker is a hiker or backpacker who has completed or is attempting to walk the entire Appalachian Trail in one uninterrupted journey. Completing the entire estimated 2,180 miles of the Appalachian Trail in one trip is a mammoth undertaking. Each year, thousands of hikers attempt a thru-hike; only about one in four make it all the way." http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/thru-section-hiking

The key here is "one uninterrupted journey". Clearly if the ATC considers one in four completing a thru they are counting those who got off the trail for a short time, changed directions or did a flip-flop. If one was to take the statement "one uninterrupted journey" literally then there would be virtually no thru-hikers including Earl Shaffer.

[Oak88]

To thine own self be true, you know if you did a thru. You know and you alone know whether or not you did a thru hike. You do this hike for you not for all of us out here. The ATC website explains what a "thru hike" is. Its very easy to justify in your own mind what a "thru hike " is. Skipping hard states, yellow blazing, blue blazing, skipping 185.9 miles were common by Pennsylvania. I left Harpers Ferry for three days and went home, when I returned to Harpers Ferry to continue north I was asked how I got there and did I "yellow blaze". Canoeing, rafting, hitching to the next "party trail town", claiming the trail was originally only 2000 miles, skipping Pennsylvania because of the rocks, leaving the trail for an injury in NJ and re-appearing in Massachusetts.

The bottom line is no one should care if you claim you hiked the trail. You do it for you and you will always know if you did the trail.

[Lone Wolf]

Standard LW post.

Anyway, in the March/April issue of AT Journeys I just got today, on page 28 it says the ATC proposed the following definition about 10 years ago: "A thru hike is a completely hiked trail done in 12 months, regardless of direction or starting point". So just hike the entire AT, however you want, in 12 months or less and you've thru hiked the AT. Pretty simple.
just the truth

[Happydaddy]

The fact that there are tons of threads on this is proof there is no consensus; there is not even an official definition provided by the ATC. No one's opinion matters on the definition.

I have stumbled upon other threads (here and elsewhere) that get into the general question of what constitutes a thru hike. It seems that, regardless of the specific question, the discussion ends up being a general one. As I said above, I find the search feature here (and on similarly configured sites) to be maddeningly difficult to use for finding threads on specific questions. Having not stumbled on a thread on this specific question, I asked it.

I was particularly interested in how the "community" viewed breaks (zero days, town days, injury/illness interruptions, extended side trips, trips home, etc.) when ascribing the term "thru" to an AT hike. I expected opinions to vary (from lone wolf's absolute to others' more "tolerant." I don't pretend that there is a right answer. I just thought it would be interesting see the range of opinions and to see whether a consensus developed.

[Starchild]

With time to think more of it, and noticing the thread again, a thru hike is a journey one takes. The AT is just not white blazes, but also include official AT communities that the trail doesn't even go through or even near. Likewise shelters and water sources for AT hikers are also located off the white blazes path.

So the AT is more then the narrow strip of land, and there is more to experience, staying on the path you will miss so much and that is not the complete AT experience. I would expand the AT even further into the good will of others, so it also includes what the trail angels add, opening up rides, slack pack opportunities, flip flop sections, and places to sleep, and even further to adventures that happen while you are thru hiking that take you far off trail - these are all parts of life when your home is the AT.


And that is what separates a thru hiker from a section hiker, the thru hiker is living with the AT as home, and what separates a thru hiker from a 'lasher' (Long-as$ section hiker) is that the thru hiker within the span of their journey knows in their heart that they started and completed the trail as they were meant to do so.

But people like hard rules so the ATC has come up with the calendar year guideline, allowances for blue and yellow blazing (maybe aqua I don't know).

[Pedaling Fool]

The fact that there are tons of threads on this is proof there is no consensus; there is not even an official definition provided by the ATC. No one's opinion matters on the definition.
I stand corrected, sort of... The ATC does now define the term thru-hiker; they use to not do that and said so on their website.

However, their definition is not very detailed and in no way settles the question that is the title of this thread, nor the countless debates on this topic in the past.

Here is their definition: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/thru-section-hiking/faqs

How does the ATC define thru-hiking?

We define a thru-hike as a hike of the entire Appalachian Trail in 12 months or less.


However, they still do not issue a certificate of completion of a thru-hike, because it's too difficult to narrow that definition down, they don't want to deal with it.

What is a 2,000-miler?

A "2,000-miler" is a hiker who has walked the entire length of the Appalachian Trail and reported his or her hike completion to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The ATC has been keeping records of trail completions since the A.T. was first completed in 1937. ATC uses the term "2,000-miler" as a matter of tradition and convenience. When the term was coined, the A.T. was only slightly more than 2,000 miles. Its length changes every year due to relocations. In recognizing 2,000-milers, we don't consider issues such as the sequence, direction, speed or whether one carries a pack. We do expect that persons applying for inclusion in our 2,000-miler records have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail. A 2,000-miler application form can be found here (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/ATcompletion).










So, looking at their definition, it in no way answers the question of how much time you can take off. Actually, if you take it literally, you can not take any time off what so ever. So, if anything, this "definition" only adds fuel to the debate; it in NO way settles the debate.

Personally, I don't have strict definition of the term thru-hiker, I simply use it in a loose manner to describe a non-interrupted hike of the AT; I don't care if someone missed a couple feet here or there or if they took some time off.... but there are some that have some very strict definitions and they are very vocal and that is why there is so many threads on this issue and why there is no consensus.

[Sarcasm the elf]

I have stumbled upon other threads (here and elsewhere) that get into the general question of what constitutes a thru hike. It seems that, regardless of the specific question, the discussion ends up being a general one. As I said above, I find the search feature here (and on similarly configured sites) to be maddeningly difficult to use for finding threads on specific questions. Having not stumbled on a thread on this specific question, I asked it.



On a side note about searching threads on this site, the best way I've found to is to use google. In the google search window type the words you want to search for and the at the end type "site:whiteblaze.net" (without the quotation marks) the results listed will only be for this site.

[Happydaddy]

On a side note about searching threads on this site, the best way I've found to is to use google. In the google search window type the words you want to search for and the at the end type "site:whiteblaze.net" (without the quotation marks) the results listed will only be for this site.

Thanks - I'll try that. I know it annoys [some] people to see repetitive threads.

[Tuckahoe]

Well, I have no intent of doing a thru-hike, so in the big picture my opinion does not matter on this much debated topic. But yall are going to have to suffer through reading it anyway.

I grew up with the understanding that the AT was a system of trails, as much as it was a single trail, and that all those blue (or other) blazes were as much part of the trail. They were after all the entry points to the trail, the way to the awesome views or at one time the original route of the white blazed AT.

My take is that if one has walked from GA to ME, or ME to GA or even flip flopped, than they did a thru-hike. I dont care whether they missed a half mile of white blazes, cause they took a blue blaze to a view, or hiked a 5 mile blue blaze because that was the trail in the 1970s when their mom thru-hiked. About the only objection I would have would be "yellow blazing."

But then again, since reading Three Hundred Zeros, I have always considered Dennis Blanchard's two section hikes to be a thru.

[Pedaling Fool]

Here's just one example, but it wasn't as lengthy as others on here, but gives you an idea of various people's definition. Things like slackpacking will cause one to be disqualified from being a thru-hiker under some definitions. http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?37068-Definition-of-a-Thru-Hiker

[Sarcasm the elf]

Thanks - I'll try that. I know it annoys [some] people to see repetitive threads.
I wouldn't worry too much about repetitive threads. Most of us are reluctant to admit it, but this place would get kind of boring if people didn't open new threads to give us something to discuss (argue) about.

[lonehiker]

Also, by his definition virtually no one thru hikes the PCT because portions of the trail are usually under snow at times and the corridor approach is used. And no doubt a glissade is an altogether different form of transport than walking, so that's a disqualifier as well!

This is an AT thread not a PCT thread. Pay attention.

[colorado_rob]

Amazing, actually unbelievable, to see such a diversity of opinions, like some actually claiming that if someone walks from ME to GA without pause and doesn't skip an inch of the trail, or if someone goes GA to ME and takes a zero in Damascus, for example, that they are not "thru hiking" the AT.

Anyway, my standard response to "civilians" (non hikers) who asked me along the AT last year: "Are you through hiking?" I would answer: "No, not yet, but if these feet don't stop hurting, I might be soon!"

[Coffee]

This is an AT thread not a PCT thread. Pay attention.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who thinks that missing a single white blaze on the AT disqualifies a thru hike would also want to impose narrow thinking when it comes to discussions in general. Well, your thinking on the AT is ridiculous since your Post #3 even excludes SOBO AT hikers from the narrow thru hiking definition you propose. And your thinking isn't going to be accepted by hardly anyone on other trails either.

[lonehiker]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who thinks that missing a single white blaze on the AT disqualifies a thru hike would also want to impose narrow thinking when it comes to discussions in general. Well, your thinking on the AT is ridiculous since your Post #3 even excludes SOBO AT hikers from the narrow thru hiking definition you propose. And your thinking isn't going to be accepted by hardly anyone on other trails either.


Quote: This is an AT thread not a PCT thread. Pay attention

The above quote was my third post. Post # 3 wasn't me. I've never said that SOBO hikers are excluded. I've simply used the ATC definition of what a thru-hike is. Hike the entire distance of the AT. If you blue-blaze to a point, then use another blue-blaze to return to the AT, by definition you have not hiked the entire distance of the AT.

[Mags]

"Are you through hiking?" I would answer: "No, not yet, but if these feet don't stop hurting, I might be soon!"

Best answer! :)

Seems like every group has their own "rules", squabbles and factions that make no-sense to the outside world.

I am sure Rob can speak more of this, but people will start BELOW a trailhead to make sure they get the requisite 3000' of elevation gain to be sure they "really" hiked a 14er here in Colorado. The idea was so they you just didn't drive up to the summit and claim your peak.

Most people take the logical viewpoint if you start at a trailhead it "counts" for a 14er. Others disagree vehemently and say to really hike it you absolutely must gain your 3000' gain. So people road walk to the trailhead. I've seen it myself when I accompanied a buddy on his last 14er. (I packed the scotch! :D)

Since I am not trying to do all the 14ers, I don't question it too much when people say they did all the 14ers. I just ask about their experience. Someone active on the 14er boards may or may not grill a person to see if "really" did the 14ers.

Substitute white blaze and blue blaze debates or similar and it sounds awfully familiar doesn't it??????

EDIT: Boy does it ever!!! :O http://14ers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3520&sid=3381425ec33380a6419990a2022f12c7

BTW and FWIW, the Triple Crown award from ALDHA-West does recognize alt routes for all the trails, the AT included. Take that for what you will! :) I also have a feeling (heck I know from others!) if you wrote the ATC for your wall tchotke, and told them you took some blue blazes directly, you'd get your 2000 miler tchotke.

So no offense to our friend from Cheyennne, but I am more likely to side with ALDHA-W and the ATC then him. ;)

[HikerMom58]

I wouldn't worry too much about repetitive threads. Most of us are reluctant to admit it, but this place would get kind of boring if people didn't open new threads to give us something to discuss (argue) about.

+1 to Elf's post.

Elf, you beat me to the responding to Happydaddy's searching question. I always google search anything I want to find on WB.

Happydaddy... no worries and welcome to WB!!

Enjoy the trail the way you want too!!

[Rolls Kanardly]

Does the term Thru-Hike only apply to the AT?
The North Country Trail is 4,600 miles long from North Dakota to New York. EABO - WEBO
Pretty hard to do this trail in 12 months because of the weather. Rolls

[Pedaling Fool]

Does the term Thru-Hike only apply to the AT?
The North Country Trail is 4,600 miles long from North Dakota to New York. EABO - WEBO
Pretty hard to do this trail in 12 months because of the weather. Rolls
There's actually a wiki page on the term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thru-hiking

[FlyPaper]

Let me first say that I don't intend this question to be provocative. I'm just curious to see whether there is a consensus answer. Nearly all thru hikers take zero days, town days, side trips off the trail (sometimes for days), etc. Some even go home for short periods before returning to the trail. So - my question is this: How many consecutive days off the trail would one consider "allowed" before a thru hike becomes something else? Two? Four? A week? A month? Maybe it doesn't really matter and anyone who walks the whole trail, walks the whole trail. I'm really curious as to whether there is anything like a consensus on this.

BTW - I really enjoy the site and am learning a lot. I don't really have a plan to attack the trail yet - beyond knowing that I am going to do it. Maybe four long sections over four years. Maybe a thru - if I can sort out work and family obligations. I do know that I want to hike the entire trail.

Cheers.

While there is no consensus, and good points in each camp, I think the answer matters in one important sense.

If you're on the trail long enough to do anything that might be considered a thru-hike, you're going to be asked scores of time the question: "Are you thru-hiking?".

Personally, if I'm the one asking the question, I don't really care to hear every caveat of your hike plan (e.g. you're taking a week off to attend your sister's wedding). And you're probably not going to want to answer: "No. Technically I'm section hiking, but only because I'm leaving the trail for a few days. I'll still finish the whole trail in 6 months." Try saying that 150 times in 6 months. And if you answer with simple "no", that's borderline dishonest and kind of anti-social. You're part of the thru-hiking community. You're eating 5000 calories per day. You're walking 20 miles per day and not even breaking a sweat. You can set up a tent in the dark. Don't tell me you're not thru-hiking just because you're taking a week off. Particularly when you're giving the "short answer".

Regardless of your technical definition, if you're in a brief conversation and someone asks you if you're thru-hiking, your short answer needs to be "yes" if you're finishing the trail in a year.

[Sly]

With time to think more of it, and noticing the thread again, a thru hike is a journey one takes. The AT is just not white blazes, but also include official AT communities that the trail doesn't even go through or even near. Likewise shelters and water sources for AT hikers are also located off the white blazes path.

So the AT is more then the narrow strip of land, and there is more to experience, staying on the path you will miss so much and that is not the complete AT experience. I would expand the AT even further into the good will of others, so it also includes what the trail angels add, opening up rides, slack pack opportunities, flip flop sections, and places to sleep, and even further to adventures that happen while you are thru hiking that take you far off trail - these are all parts of life when your home is the AT.


And that is what separates a thru hiker from a section hiker, the thru hiker is living with the AT as home, and what separates a thru hiker from a 'lasher' (Long-as$ section hiker) is that the thru hiker within the span of their journey knows in their heart that they started and completed the trail as they were meant to do so.

But people like hard rules so the ATC has come up with the calendar year guideline, allowances for blue and yellow blazing (maybe aqua I don't know).

One of the better responses for a controversial topic I've read in a long time.

I started the AT when the intentions of finishing and that was my goal. That it took me 18 months is inconsequential.




This is an AT thread not a PCT thread. Pay attention.

While this is mainly an AT forum the question was asked in the general category and didn't specifically mention the AT.

[Prime Time]

It's up to each hiker to fit their hike into the ATC definition of hiking the entire length in one year. Zeros, flip flopping, and time off clearly do not conflict with this definition. Yellow and aqua blazing, for example clearly do. After that, it becomes what is true in your heart. Slack packing? I wouldn't because I think paying someone to carry your pack on the trail would not be anyone's original intention and that's exactly what slack packing is. Also, being dropped off ahead and walking in the opposite direction of your hike SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID ELEVATION GAIN, is in my mind, kidding one's self and no one else. Hey, it's whatever you want it to be but you should consider what you yourself will think about your own actions in the future.

[Coffee]

Slack packing? I wouldn't because I think paying someone to carry your pack on the trail would not be anyone's original intention and that's exactly what slack packing is.

I go back and forth on this issue and I have to make a decision for the Colorado Trail this year since Segment 7 (Breck-Copper Mtn) allows for a slack pack and it doesn't require paying anyone to carry my pack since I could use free public transit to return to Breckenridge for another night, then use public transit again the next day to resume at Copper Mountain. Basically it boils down to whether not carrying a full backpacking load on a segment means it isn't a fully self supported thru hike. I go back and forth on that, but I feel that I would likely enjoy Segment 7 more if I slack pack and maybe that matters more than the definition. I doubt that slack packing violates the CT foundation's definition of a thru.

[bfayer]

Are we talking about hiking or backpacking? Is there a minimum weight you have to carry to be a hiker or even a backpacker? Is someone that decides not to carry a tent and always stays in shelters the same as a slackpacker? What if they don't carry a stove or use anything to treat their water? Are super ultralight hikers less worthy of being a thru hiker?

Last I heard the only rule was you had to walk it yourself.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[kayak karl]

everybody in happy with the rules, up until they done gone to meddling. ;)

[ChinMusic]

Are we talking about hiking or backpacking? Is there a minimum weight you have to carry to be a hiker or even a backpacker? Is someone that decides not to carry a tent and always stays in shelters the same as a slackpacker? What if they don't carry a stove or use anything to treat their water? Are super ultralight hikers less worthy of being a thru hiker?

Last I heard the only rule was you had to walk it yourself.



Beyond the part in bold it is just navel-gazing.

[Malto]

Beyond the part in bold it is just navel-gazing.

Almost Lone Wolf worthy! Just think Chin, by all of these definition you are either a purist or an evil slack packer. I give you the nod, for what it's worth, for going back and hiking the 100 yards in Pearisburg. Also, when I was navel gazing I found belly button lint. Dual use as a fire starter.:)

[Prime Time]

Are we talking about hiking or backpacking? Is there a minimum weight you have to carry to be a hiker or even a backpacker? Is someone that decides not to carry a tent and always stays in shelters the same as a slackpacker? What if they don't carry a stove or use anything to treat their water? Are super ultralight hikers less worthy of being a thru hiker?

Last I heard the only rule was you had to walk it yourself.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
For me. I repeat for me, whatever it is you are carrying, you should carry. It's not about being worthy, it's about being true to completing the journey as you intended and set out to do. One may regret decisions to the contrary at a later time. I met many a thru hiker who went back later to correct indescretions that didn't seem to be so at the time they committed them.

[Bagge Pants]

I'm not entirely sure what a thru hiker is and I don't really care, but all I know is I'm hiking two or three thousand miles in the Appalachian Mountains this year and not coming back home until I had enough fun to tell my friends and family that I thru hiked the Appalachian Trail. The ATC can reroute the blazes before or after you pass them at any time so what difference does it make? How close do you have to walk next to one to consider passing it? Do you have to look up from the ground and make a definitive eye contact with the blaze? Seems very limiting. My mind and legs don't like limits.

[Mags]

I doubt that slack packing violates the CT foundation's definition of a thru.

western trail orgs tend not to worry about things like this. :)

When I did the CT, I took the Missouri Gulch alternate that is pretty popular and Hope Pass as well. When I sent the CTF a thank you letter, a CD of photos (the dark ages ;) ) and a description of my route and photos, they sent me a completion certificate.

I was surprised about the completion certificate (did not know they had one!) and thought it was cool that my alternate route was just another way of of doing the CT to them.

[Prime Time]

I was guilty of a few significant blue blazes but in my mind it's because the AT went the wrong way just to make it easier and missed some special things. One was the Hagis Gulf trail in Maine. This actually added a few miles to my hike but the scenery along this trail was outstanding. The other was, in no way was I not going to summit Mts. Eisenhower, Monroe, Clay, Jefferson and Adams in the White Mountains. What the hell where the trail blazers thinking about! For some unknown reason the AT skirts these summits on a lower elevation trail. Heresy! This again resulted in a couple of extra mikes and lots of additional elevation in exchange for magnificent views on picture perfect days. Guilty as charged. I'm keeping my certificate!

[Praha4]

Definition: hike the entire AT during a one-year period, following all the white blazes, is the usual definition of a thru hike, however, within that group, there falls several sub-groups:

a. Fast thru hike: complete the entire AT in less than 4 months, averaging more than or equal to 18 miles/day
b. Great thru hike: complete the entire AT in 5 months, averaging 15 miles per day
c. Average thru hike: complete the entire AT in 6 months, averaging 12 miles per day
d. Cyber thru hike: watch youtube videos of AT hikers from GA to ME, tell all your friends you thru hiked the AT
e. Yellow blaze thru hike: hitch rides from town to town, stay in hostels, tell trail stories, take pictures of other hikers, occasionally walk from road crossings to shelters and B.S. with other hikers. Go home and tell everybody you're a thru hiker, send in the ATC 2000 miler application, get your name in the ATC magazine.
f. Purist thru hike: hike the entire AT within a one year period, with NO zeroes at all, never miss one single white blaze on the entire trail

I'm sure I've overlooked something here, feel free to jump in with commentary. Happy trails

[rafe]

Do you have to look up from the ground and make a definitive eye contact with the blaze?

No, the blazes are watching you. A vast network of sensors is aimed inward from the blazes, and monitored by ATC operatives out of a hi-rise in Langley, VA with a smoke-glass exterior. They know when you've been good. You might wave and say hello, just to amuse the watchers. Or kiss a blaze and really embarrass them.

[FarmerChef]

Oh what the heck. I'll throw my opinion in just for grins and giggles since I think most reasonably sane views have already been expressed. Ahem.

A thru hike of any trail is the completion of the trail from end to end without significant breaks such that it renders it a combination of section hikes (whatever that part means). :) Then again, a thru hike, by itself, is a journey.

When I'm done section hiking the AT this year, hopefully, I'll next look at thruing with my wife. But I can assure you we'll take tons of blue blazes, slackpack, ultralight, go heavy, maybe aqua blaze just to do something I haven't done before and live completely serendipitously on the trail. When we're done, we'll gleefully add our names to the rolls of thrus for that year but won't care a whit about accolades, patches, or pieces of paper or if we're even accepted. For me it won't be about any of that, it will be about the shared experiences of the journey.

[Starchild]

It's up to each hiker to fit their hike into the ATC definition of hiking the entire length in one year. Zeros, flip flopping, and time off clearly do not conflict with this definition. Yellow and aqua blazing, for example clearly do.


Bold mine

Actually looking into it Yellow blazing could be permitted as well as a case for aqua blazing under very specific and unusual circumstances according to ATC. From their cite: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail/2000-milers/2000-miler-application

Section-hikers and thru-hikers who complete the entire A.T. can report their journeys to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy by filling out the Appalachian Trail 2,000-Miler Application.
...
Recognition Policy



We give equal recognition to thru-hikers and section-hikers
In the event of a trail closure or a safety hazard (such as a swollen stream, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed ridge) hikers may take alternate routes (including by vehicle) and still receive official 2,000-miler recognition.





From this the '2000 mile recognition' is recognition of completing the 'entire AT' it is the only official recognition that ATC does offer of a entire AT journey. Note that though it can be done as a section hiker or a thru hiker, any section can be bypasses even by vehicle for a hazard or closure (thus blue, yellow, and even aqua blazing (as aqua = vehicle) are allowed under those circumstances).

[Starchild]

Also a word on slackpacking, it does not necessarily mean someone else is carrying your pack for you, it could mean staying 2 nights in a AT community, and slackpacking back to your start. 3 that come to mind is Gorham to Gorham (via a access trail) and Andover to Andover, And Chet's place to Chet's place in Lincoln via shuttling and hitching.

Oh yes, almost forgot, the ultimate slackpack built into the AT - Katahdin, so yes by that alone slackpacking is part of the AT thru (and for that matter Springer).

[HikerMom58]

Oh what the heck. I'll throw my opinion in just for grins and giggles since I think most reasonably sane views have already been expressed. Ahem.

A thru hike of any trail is the completion of the trail from end to end without significant breaks such that it renders it a combination of section hikes (whatever that part means). :) Then again, a thru hike, by itself, is a journey.

When I'm done section hiking the AT this year, hopefully, I'll next look at thruing with my wife. But I can assure you we'll take tons of blue blazes, slackpack, ultralight, go heavy, maybe aqua blaze just to do something I haven't done before and live completely serendipitously on the trail. When we're done, we'll gleefully add our names to the rolls of thrus for that year but won't care a whit about accolades, patches, or pieces of paper or if we're even accepted. For me it won't be about any of that, it will be about the shared experiences of the journey.

Awesome!! :banana

[Hiker8261]

When your heart stops beating, your thru hiking....

chris