Two People

[offpher]

Person-A and Person-B They both hike a trail. The same trail they start at mile 0 both finish at mile 2000.
Person-A has the newest light weight gear--- pack, sleeping bag, stove, cookware, shelter---- everything
right down to a spoon the lightest one man can make. Spent $3500 on this gear. Also wears the best
[hiking clothes] that money can buy. Has $500 dollar shoes.
Person-B Has two 5 gallon buckets inside is cheap camping gear spent $150 for everything. Wears cotton
clothes. has on walmart boots $30 dollars.


They both have fun hiking the trail.

Now is Person-A more of a thru hiker than person-B ???

Is Person-B less of a hiker than Person-A?????

The point is don't think someone else is not a hiker when they don't meet your standards of what a hiker should
look like or wear.
HYOH

Just some food for thought......................................
Have a nice day and as always Have fun and HYOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tuckahoe]

Hmmmm went hiking this week with two others and saw many folks on the trail... there was never a discussion about anyone's gear.

[Lone Wolf]

i'm more apt to hang around person B. plus they tend to finish the trail.

[hayshaker170]

It depends. What are the buckets made of?

[gollwoods]

Does anyone else get trail critiques on gear randomly from other hikers. I have an over sized rain cover from campmor that droops well below the pack. I had a guy just blurt out some gibberish about moneys worth on the pack. Must have been the gear weenie inspector

[Rain Man]

Just don't fret too much about what others think? Simple. Solution.

[Walkintom]

just don't fret too much about what others think? Simple. Solution.

+1. Hyoh.

[MuddyWaters]

Gear is irrelevant, with the exception that lighter lets you hike farther, faster.

Just like in everyday life, where you have materialistic people that brag about what they have, how much it costs, etc. Expect to see some of that on trail too.

Ignore them.

[Slo-go'en]

Sorry, a poorly equipped hiker has a poor chance of finishing the trail. The well equipped hiker will have a much better chance, although it's not enough to guarantee success.

[peakbagger]

Person B is going to have a major challenge when they get to northern new England where there are ledges and boulders to climb up and down. Carrying buckets will definitely slow someone down as they are going to need a rope to drop the buckets down or pull them up.

I find gear discussions are generally just an ice breaker.

[rickb]

Not sure about the buckets, but I think the larger point is a good one.

Issue is not what others think, however.

Its what we think of ourself.

I have bought plenty of stuff because it was the thing to do at the time, and frankly because the "thing" made me feel like more of a backpacker.

I expect there are may on this list with a Terraplane collecting dust in closet that would admit the same.

[illabelle]

Sorry, a poorly equipped hiker has a poor chance of finishing the trail. The well equipped hiker will have a much better chance, although it's not enough to guarantee success.

Exactly. What wasn't mentioned is that the second guy is carrying significantly more weight. Few of us buy better [expensive] gear because we're rich and care little about the price. We buy it because it matters.

[MuddyWaters]

Question was not about chances of finishing trail, it was if they are less of a hiker because they are different. The supposition was that they both did hike the exact same distance.

There is some snobbery by some, that requires you "fit in" to the mold.

People with less money to spend on gear can be ostracized and not fit in. On todays trail scene grandma gatewood would have been an outcast, avoided and ridiculed as a crazy homeless person. Probably would be reported to authorities as being a threat to herself as well.

People were hiking the trail successfully long before todays modern gear appeared.

Heck, on her first hike JPD used a mop handle as a hiking pole, and an old too-small pack from her brothers time in scouts.


While you are making up reasons it cant be done, know that Animal carried his food in a 5 gal bucket in 2012, all the way.:)

Just because you are too much of a wimp to do it, doesnt mean everyone else is.


31072

[shakey_snake]

There are hundreds of person A every year, and person B is hypothetical. And there are thousands of thruhikers that are much more like person A than person B.

What makes person A "more of a thru hiker" is that he exists in actual reality, and not only in your conjecture.

But thank you for your thought-experiment, I guess. Generally, I find that 'shrooms and forum posting don't mix well. :D

[Pedaling Fool]

There are hundreds of person A every year, and person B is hypothetical. And there are thousands of thruhikers that are much more like person A than person B.

What makes person A "more of a thru hiker" is that he exists in actual reality, and not only in your conjecture.

But thank you for your thought-experiment, I guess. Generally, I find that 'shrooms and forum posting don't mix well. :DI'm not so sure how hypothetical person B is; there was a hiker by the name of Animal (IIRC) that thruhiked carrying buckets.

[Pedaling Fool]

I'm not so sure how hypothetical person B is; there was a hiker by the name of Animal (IIRC) that thruhiked carrying buckets.I just noticed post #13, you can see his pic.

[magic_game03]

Just some food for thought......................................



If this is food for thought I'm sure it came off the Mickey D's dollar menu. It's very divisive rhetoric.

Since most thru-hikers resemble person-B they would be the majority. Likewise, person-A would be in the minority. Your tone toward person-A is condescending, and just shows your animosity toward others.

[shakey_snake]

Yes, I remember Animal. I followed his trail journal a couple years ago.

Still, that's 1 Animal, 1 year, and only 1 bucket. Also, if you want to be technical, he was a LASHer--albeit and interesting and colorful one. He's not really OP's person B.

[WingedMonkey]

Person-C, Talks a lot about what it takes to thru-hike but never successfully finished one.

:sun

[MuddyWaters]

Yes, I remember Animal. I followed his trail journal a couple years ago.

Still, that's 1 Animal, 1 year, and only 1 bucket. Also, if you want to be technical, he was a LASHer--albeit and interesting and colorful one. He's not really OP's person B.

Animal has hiked several years, and 2012 was a thru-hike.

[MuddyWaters]

Yes, I remember Animal. I followed his trail journal a couple years ago.

Still, that's 1 Animal, 1 year, and only 1 bucket. Also, if you want to be technical, he was a LASHer--albeit and interesting and colorful one. He's not really OP's person B.

Animal has hiked several years, including this year, and 2012 was a thru-hike.

Theres a guy on here, triple crowner, many many thousands of miles , carries, if I recall correctly, 2.9 lb basewt.
I guess hes doing it wrong also in some opinions. Not a chance of success. Not enough "gear".

Its not the gear that matters.

75% of the people that start the trail have the "right gear" and still dont finish.

[Grampie]

Gee. I hope too many folks don't stick up for hiker "B" because next year the trail will be filled with hundreds of folks hiking with a bucket. I hope they all use the orange ones that Home Depot sells. Those are the ones that will make you a sucessfull thru-hiker.

[imscotty]

Grampie - you are doing it all wrong. You gotta get the blue Buckets from Lowes, you'll never make it with the orange buckets.

[Tipi Walter]

I read part of Animal's trail journal and I never could figure out where he carried a good sized pack AND his 5 gallon plastic bucket. He wrote that he saved around $2,000 by carrying the bucket and I never could figure out what he was talking about. Why carry a swinging bucket when you have a decent pack??

Back to the original post---

Person B is what most of us did in the beginning and it's called Dirtbagging. When I started out in the 1950's I used a canvas Yucca pack and cotton clothing and cheap tennis shoes. When I returned to backpacking in the 1970's I used my old Air Force duffel bag with one strap over the shoulder and it was loaded with all my gear. As good as a pack? Nope.

We used old army fatigues and tennis shoes and cheap wool sweaters and walmart tarps and carried canned food and cooked over a fire.

In the late 1980's I often bought my hiking boots at Walmart but it was a big mistake as they pronated terribly (ankles turned in and down) and the dang things only lasted a year at most.

Which reminds me of an Andrew Skurka quote about buying smart and saving money in the long run. It's the hard lesson dirtbaggers have to learn---i.e. you buy 5 pair of walmart boots and lose money when one good pair of La Sportivas would've lasted beyond those 5 pairs of crap.

Same goes for sleeping bags Oh and especially tents. Why get an Ozark Trail tent which leaks immediately and so you'll have to upgrade when you can spend 4 times as much for something which doesn't need to be replaced every 6 months?

Here's Skurka's quote---

“Stupid cheap” is a good principal to live by, beyond your backpacking purchases too. In the long term it’s better to buy quality — it’s more cost-effective and you’ll be happier — hence, for example, my saving up to recently buy Wusthof Classic Ikon knives and Cuisinart cookware — I won’t have to buy new knives or new pots until I’m almost dead!"

See---
http://andrewskurka.com/2012/stupid-light-not-always-right-or-better/

http://andrewskurka.com/2012/learning-to-backpack-the-hard-way/

[shakey_snake]

Animal has hiked several years, and 2012 was a thru-hike.

My apologies.

Still, one bucket, though.

[Tuckahoe]

You're hung up on the buckets and Animal, when both examples in the premise are extreme exaggerations?

[bangorme]

I use pretty bargain basement gear (I'm lucky, I live by two LL Bean outlets lol), and have never heard a single comment about my gear or anyone else's gear. If I see someone with something I'd like to have (and who wants a HEAVIER pack?), I'll ask them about it.

To the OP's point, both people are exactly the same. Hopefully both are having fun, and that's all the matters.

[offpher]

If this is food for thought I'm sure it came off the Mickey D's dollar menu. It's very divisive rhetoric.

Since most thru-hikers resemble person-B they would be the majority. Likewise, person-A would be in the minority. Your tone toward person-A is condescending, and just shows your animosity toward others.

WOW that's what you got from this.............................................. .......

[offpher]

I use pretty bargain basement gear (I'm lucky, I live by two LL Bean outlets lol), and have never heard a single comment about my gear or anyone else's gear. If I see someone with something I'd like to have (and who wants a HEAVIER pack?), I'll ask them about it.

To the OP's point, both people are exactly the same. Hopefully both are having fun, and that's all the matters.

Yes you are right both the same thank you

[BrianLe]

I've not read all of the comments in this thread, so apologies if this is a repeat or off track somehow but ...

The scenario seems a little humorous to me in that in my experience among long distance hikers, looking scruffy tends to add to a sense of "trail cred". Such that, for example, when you open up that box from home in a trail town and put on a pair of shiny new shoes, your mates might harass you about how REI-GQ you're looking. Homemade gear, in my experience, gets some respect. Making do with something "nearly as good" that's a lot cheaper --- gets some respect. And that guy (or 'gal') who has a heavy pack full of the best stuff they could afford or got as hand-me-downs --- when they're hanging in with your group and having a good time anyway? Awesome. Great hiker that everyone is impressed with.

Of course these reactions are not universal, but for someone to disparage gear because it looks used, or ragged, or cheap --- that just strikes me as weekender talk, the sort of thing you only encounter relatively close to trailheads. Kind of sad/funny, but nothing to be concerned about. With trying to hitch a ride being an occasional exception.

[Tuckahoe]

I've not read all of the comments in this thread, so apologies if this is a repeat or off track somehow but ...

The scenario seems a little humorous to me in that in my experience among long distance hikers, looking scruffy tends to add to a sense of "trail cred". Such that, for example, when you open up that box from home in a trail town and put on a pair of shiny new shoes, your mates might harass you about how REI-GQ you're looking. Homemade gear, in my experience, gets some respect. Making do with something "nearly as good" that's a lot cheaper --- gets some respect. And that guy (or 'gal') who has a heavy pack full of the best stuff they could afford or got as hand-me-downs --- when they're hanging in with your group and having a good time anyway? Awesome. Great hiker that everyone is impressed with.

Of course these reactions are not universal, but for someone to disparage gear because it looks used, or ragged, or cheap --- that just strikes me as weekender talk, the sort of thing you only encounter relatively close to trailheads. Kind of sad/funny, but nothing to be concerned about. With trying to hitch a ride being an occasional exception.

Why is it just weekender talk? Considering that so called weekenders are just as tuned into their gear as any other hiker, this is more the talk of the experienced vs non-experienced. But then in my experience on the trail, gear just never seems to be the topic of conversation.

[Odd Man Out]

Better yet, how about this comparison

Thru Hiker #1 hikes 2000 miles and goes home bitter and disappointed because he came up 189.2 miles short of his goal of completing the AT, regretting that he isn't a "real" thru hiker.

Thru Hiker #2 hikes 2000 miles and goes home thrilled to have had the experience of a lifetime and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about what other define as a successful hike.

[Namtrag]

I never once have had anyone disparage anyone else's gear within earshot of me. I do talk with others about their gear, and they with me, but it's always a positive conversation.

And I have to agree with Tipi Walter, but I have heard it said a different way, "buy the best and cry once."

My wife and I did the typical thing, and it cost us in the long run ie:

"hey, backpacking looks like fun...let's go buy some gear and go and try it out. But we can't spend a lot because we might not like it." So, we bought field and stream packs, a low end tent, and sleeping bag.

"hey, backpacking is fun....let's go replace the cheap gear so we can hike with less weight." So, we bought middle of the road stuff.

"hey, we really like this a lot...let's go buy even nicer and lighter stuff." This is when we finally bought our TarpTent, our quilts, nice pads, and fairly light backpacks.

We would have save a lot of money by going straight to step 3!

[Another Kevin]

Why is it just weekender talk? Considering that so called weekenders are just as tuned into their gear as any other hiker, this is more the talk of the experienced vs non-experienced. But then in my experience on the trail, gear just never seems to be the topic of conversation.

If the conversation turns to gear, it's at the level of, "Oh, you've got a Foomatic Outdoor XYZ, what do you think about it? I'm thinking of replacing my old one, and trying to decide between that and the Mountain Barfucious ABC."

Otherwise, the gear mention is something like, "Oh crap, I just burnt a hole in my Dri-Ducks." Which is accompanied by a shrug, as opposed to "Oh crap, I just burnt a hole in my MHW rain shell," which may be accompanied by tears.

I don't think I've ever heard one hiker put down another for cheap gear. It's not the guy who looks scruffy and is going around with obsolete gear who gets shunned. It's the guy who goes around mumbling to himself but won't talk to other hikers, starts screaming at shelters in the middle of the night, and sharpens a machete every evening. That guy gets a bit of the hairy eyeball.

Says a clueless weekender whose gear is a hodgepodge ranging from high-end to Salvation Army to homebrew. I'm sure the Real Hikers are putting me down whenever I'm not around.

[Namtrag]

Kevin, that's pretty close to the conversations I have with people. All good-natured. It's more like gathering intel for your next possible iteration of a sleeping bag, tent, etc, than it is about putting down someone's gear.

[bangorme]

Funny, the first time I remember climbing Katahdin (I'm thinking around 11-12 years old), my father, brother and I spent the first night at Roaring Brook Campsite, then the next day hiked to Chimney Pond Campsite. Back then you could actually build fires there. Anyway, I think we had one canvas pack and two suitcases. The only reaction I remember was one of amazement, not belittlement.

[rickb]

Glad to hear I can go back to cotton without bring shame down on my family, and suffering the disapprobation of fellow hikers.

[Namtrag]

Cotton Kills

[Lone Wolf]

Glad to hear I can go back to cotton without bring shame down on my family, and suffering the disapprobation of fellow hikers.

i still hike in cotton

[Wülfgang]

I read part of Animal's trail journal and I never could figure out where he carried a good sized pack AND his 5 gallon plastic bucket. He wrote that he saved around $2,000 by carrying the bucket and I never could figure out what he was talking about. Why carry a swinging bucket when you have a decent pack??

Back to the original post---

Person B is what most of us did in the beginning and it's called Dirtbagging. When I started out in the 1950's I used a canvas Yucca pack and cotton clothing and cheap tennis shoes. When I returned to backpacking in the 1970's I used my old Air Force duffel bag with one strap over the shoulder and it was loaded with all my gear. As good as a pack? Nope.

We used old army fatigues and tennis shoes and cheap wool sweaters and walmart tarps and carried canned food and cooked over a fire.

In the late 1980's I often bought my hiking boots at Walmart but it was a big mistake as they pronated terribly (ankles turned in and down) and the dang things only lasted a year at most.

Which reminds me of an Andrew Skurka quote about buying smart and saving money in the long run. It's the hard lesson dirtbaggers have to learn---i.e. you buy 5 pair of walmart boots and lose money when one good pair of La Sportivas would've lasted beyond those 5 pairs of crap.

Same goes for sleeping bags Oh and especially tents. Why get an Ozark Trail tent which leaks immediately and so you'll have to upgrade when you can spend 4 times as much for something which doesn't need to be replaced every 6 months?

Here's Skurka's quote---

“Stupid cheap” is a good principal to live by, beyond your backpacking purchases too. In the long term it’s better to buy quality — it’s more cost-effective and you’ll be happier — hence, for example, my saving up to recently buy Wusthof Classic Ikon knives and Cuisinart cookware — I won’t have to buy new knives or new pots until I’m almost dead!"

See---
http://andrewskurka.com/2012/stupid-light-not-always-right-or-better/

http://andrewskurka.com/2012/learning-to-backpack-the-hard-way/

+1 on this advice.

It's like any other endeavor in life that requires skill and gear. Do it right from the beginning, spend the necessary money, and you wont waste additional time and resources coming to the same eventual conclusion. Of course trial and error is part of the experience, but you can learn a lot from those who have put on the miles before you.

The reason why UL gear was invented is to enable hikers to carry less weight, combine the functionality of items and ultimately have more fun hiking.

A lot of us here have been hiking for years or decades and can attest that while we did have fun with our old monster packs and primitive heavy gear, we have a lot more fun with newer, more efficient gear because we just aren't overburdened.

[Wyoming]

There is stupid cheap.

There is stupid expensive.

There is stupid heavy.

There is stupid light.

And quite a few more that slip my mind right at the moment.

Fortunately most of us survive our drifting too far into one or more categories. For those who don't....

[rickb]

I never once have had anyone disparage anyone else's gear within earshot of me. I do talk with others about their gear, and they with me, but it's always a positive conversation.

I will be the first to come clean. Not proud of it, but there is something about a combination of a Patagonia jacket, Arcteryx pack, Tilly hat and Swarovski binoculars at a self-service hut that begs something more than the all knowing glance to the wife.

I feel terrible. Especially since that's all good stuff-- except for the hat, of course. Beat up ball cap is the only manly option. I think it's Ok to make fun of Tilley hats.

[Namtrag]

I will be the first to come clean. Not proud of it, but there is something about a combination of a Patagonia jacket, Arcteryx pack, Tilly hat and Swarovski binoculars at a self-service hut that begs something more than the all knowing glance to the wife.

I feel terrible. Especially since that's all good stuff-- except for the hat, of course. Beat up ball cap is the only manly option. I think it's Ok to make fun of Tilley hats.

That combination is a little over the top, but I have seen it too!

One guy who goes with us asks the day hikers in North Face jackets "how many nights have you slept in that jacket?" Most of them don't catch on that he's making fun of them

Yeah, I have a Pine Bluff Outfitters trucker hat that I got in early May, and it's really starting to get a good funk about it, along with a nice patina. That's the only way to go...Tilley hats, I don't think I am quite old enough to wear one yet. j/k lol

[MuddyWaters]

When you meet someone on the trail , at a shelter, thats poor, indigent, possibly homeless, or just a backwoods local, with small amount of cheap crap gear, do you treat them equally, the same as everyone else? Or do you avoid them?

Their gear, or lack of, creates immediate prejudices against them.

How would someone with a laundry sack, shower curtain, and wool blanket wearing sneakers be accepted today?.

[Lone Wolf]

When you meet someone on the trail , at a shelter, thats poor, indigent, possibly homeless, or just a backwoods local, with small amount of cheap crap gear, do you treat them equally, the same as everyone else? Or do you avoid them?

Their gear, or lack of, creates immediate prejudices against them.

the ATC put ridgerunners on the trail the year after the double murder in PA. they were instructed to ask hikers their names and where they comin' from/goin' to. especially if they didn't "look right". of course i politely told the kid he had no business questioning anyone

[August W.]

I can't determine if person-B is less of a hiker than person-A without spending a long evening around a campfire with them and seeing the journals and/or photos they took along the way.
Just don't tell me I'm less of a driver because i reached the trailhead in a '67 microbus while the rest of the lot was full of subarus and suv-type vehicles.

[Tipi Walter]

When you meet someone on the trail , at a shelter, thats poor, indigent, possibly homeless, or just a backwoods local, with small amount of cheap crap gear, do you treat them equally, the same as everyone else? Or do you avoid them?

Their gear, or lack of, creates immediate prejudices against them.

How would someone with a laundry sack, shower curtain, and wool blanket wearing sneakers be accepted today?.

I remember taking out a guy into the Pisgah NF (NC---him and others) back in the 1990's who went barefoot and wore only a full wool army-style blanket like a poncho. He was in his Jesus disciple phase and slept wherever he could, with whoever had a tent or a tarp, or under a rock overhang or in towns behind churches and in cemeteries. No sweat.

When I meet backpackers at a shelter like on the AT I rarely look at their gear and instead study their attitudes. Are they aloof and arrogant? Do they proclaim themselves to be thruhikers and therefore feel entitled to shelter space? After 3 months on the trail, have they become self-appointed experts and trail gurus? Do they sit at a shelter and Hold Court---that terrible scene whereby a newbie thruhiker with 3 months of backpacking under his belt proclaims himself to be a Hiking Guru?

You always know this mindset when they encourage questions from their "audience" but they themselves never ask A SINGLE QUESTION.

They've been on the trail for 3 months by god and have all the answers and will now take your questions.

Give me a guy with flip flops and a walmart tarp and a bowsaw instead of these types any day.

[kayak karl]

I don't think hiker B really cares what anyone thinks of them :rolleyes:

[Mountain Wildman]

I always thought a hiker was someone who "hikes" through the woods, on or off trail, does not matter what you wear or carry.

[Harrison Bergeron]

On a beautiful spring day, cotton clothes, $30 shoes, and cheap walmart gear doesn't matter a whit. On a rainy sub-freezing day in February it can get you killed -- but maybe not. I don't care either way -- unless you expect me to pay for your rescue.

Personally, I feel a responsibly to properly outfit myself as best I can to avoid even the slightest chance that the taxpayers might have to someday pay to rescue me from my hobby.

[August W.]

That's very thoughtful, responsible, and considerate of you. Spoken like someone who routinely pays taxes

[rickb]

On a beautiful spring day, cotton clothes, $30 shoes, and cheap walmart gear doesn't matter a whit. On a rainy sub-freezing day in February it can get you killed -- but maybe not. I don't care either way -- unless you expect me to pay for your rescue.

Personally, I feel a responsibly to properly outfit myself as best I can to avoid even the slightest chance that the taxpayers might have to someday pay to rescue me from my hobby.

On the AT no thru hiker has ever died of exposure. Yet 5 or 6 thru hikers have been killed by the hand of a stranger.

The cost to apprehend the killers and see them through the criminal justice system was substantial.

Does that suggest any gear to avoid even the slightest chance of taxpayer money spent on your behalf?

[Fredt4]

I think the real thru hiker is D. They have some very nice UL gear and some gear that's been around for some time they haven't yet replaced because it works and it's relatively light. The one with all new gear is probably a new hiker and is unlikely to finish the trail. (Not saying they can't, just saying that most that finish probably have some prior experience and therefore have some older gear.) The guy with the bucket is a rarity that doesn't exist for all practical purposes.

Most thru hikers were section hikers and will be section hikers after their thru hike.

[Captain Bluebird]

Unfortunately, for me, my wife read the book released last year, Grandma Gatewood! Up until then, she had little idea of what gear was / is necessary to hike the AT. Now she feels that she knows what items are necessary and as a result every time I come home from our local REI or UPS delivers hiking gear to our house I get the usual and customary remark, "Grandma Gatewood did not need that!." I now keep all of my gear locked up in a storage cabinet in the garage. She has no idea of all the latest gear I have purchased...

[Deadeye]

They both finished at mile 2000... nothing else matters.

[Wolf - 23000]

I don't think hiker B really cares what anyone thinks of them :rolleyes:

Sometimes. It can also get really old when other hikers want to tell you how you should be doing the trail. There are many, many, hikers out there who have a model on how much someone should carry, how they should be doing the trail, what is the right gear to carry.

I think that is the reason behind the start of this thread.

Wolf

[Another Kevin]

Sometimes. It can also get really old when other hikers want to tell you how you should be doing the trail. There are many, many, hikers out there who have a model on how much someone should carry, how they should be doing the trail, what is the right gear to carry.

I read that nonsense in here. I don't hear it Out There. And if anyone would hear it, a clueless weekender like me would!

I'm far from being a master of the art of traveling light. I'm unlikely ever to go stoveless - I do like having my coffee! I'm unlikely ever to dispense with my electronic gadgets, heavy as they are, because photography and mapmaking are part of what I do when I'm hiking. And I tote my silnylon bucket and piece of Sham-Wow because I like having a bath once in a while.

And I don't really care what Grandma Gatewood carried. I carry what I carry, and I'm not asking you to tote it.

[rickb]

Sometimes. It can also get really old when other hikers want to tell you how you should be doing the trail. There are many, many, hikers out there who have a model on how much someone should carry, how they should be doing the trail, what is the right gear to carry.

I think that is the reason behind the start of this thread.

Wolf

What we tell ourselves is equally important.

I purchased a Dana Designs Terraplane because it made me feel like more of a real hiker than the perfectly good Camp Trails pack (BSA edition!) that got me from Maine to Georgia.

The Dana was comfortable, but after a few years I no longer felt like a real hiker since everyone else seemed to agree that only chumps lug an 8 lb pack, so I moved on to a ULA Catalyst.

That made me feel like a real hiker for a while, then I learned it was too big for my 3-day weekends. Oh, well.

My wife and hiking partner still has her Camp Trails pack from before we were married. She has refused my efforts to get an upgrade for years. I tried it on before our last hike and guess what? I thought it more comfortable than the Catylyst.

No way I Am going to pull mine out, though. It would really suck if I ended up liking it more.

[Wolf - 23000]

Another Kevin, rickb,

You also fit in the "general model" of what an average thru-hiker should look like. rickb if you were to hike the PCT back in the 1990 with your Dana Designs Terraplane, you would have Jardine fans telling you that it is too big. Another Kevin, same thing as I mention to about rickb. The new norm seems to carry a lot of electron gear but it you leave out the cell phone and the extra then see what hiker say. I agree with you about Grandma Gatewood and what she carried. I don't carry what anyone else carries except myself. I do use her as an example when some hikers try making others to believe it not possible to travel UL until the last couple of years.

Now try on the other side of the stick when you don't fit in the average mole. When I thru-hiking the PCT or AT several times back in the 1990s with a K-mart Bookbag (something your kids might use) you should hear some of the comments. I even had one guy tell I should get off the PCT because I didn't know what I was doing - purely off of my pack size. I just met the guy.

Even in this thread, what is consider "stupid cheap" or "stupid expensive" or "stupid light"? rickb, the Dana Designs Terraplane you were using cost some $$$ but I'm sure you were happy with it along with your other "toys". There nothing bad about it but still people make judgments calls.

Wolf

[Harrison Bergeron]

On the AT no thru hiker has ever died of exposure. Yet 5 or 6 thru hikers have been killed by the hand of a stranger.

The cost to apprehend the killers and see them through the criminal justice system was substantial.
Does that suggest any gear to avoid even the slightest chance of taxpayer money spent on your behalf?
By definition, no "thruhiker" has ever died of anything, it's a physical impossibility, since by definition they would have died before completing the thruhike.

What you meant to say is that you aren't AWARE of anyone who has died of exposure on the AT -- as if the sum total of your awareness represents all of the facts. But the facts are, I found several instances of exposure deaths on the AT in the first page of a google search just now.

The notion that nobody has ever died of exposure on the AT is beyond ridiculous. People have died of exposure literally everywhere that people have ever gone, and the AT can be a very extreme environment. There was a whole family of unprepared hikers rescued from exposure (one by helicopter), just this year -- at taxpayer expense, of course.

The point is, some people go through life expecting to be taken care of. Others do their best to take care of themselves. There's your hypothetical "Two People" in a nutshell.

[rickb]

Fair enough.

Five or six individuals are known to have been murdered in the middle of their attempted thru hikes. A simple Google search of this site will list their names and the AT shelters where these crimes took place.

No individual in the middle of of an attempted thru hike has been known to have died of exposure, absent a major medical emergency (MI).

As a quibble, I would suggest that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to one attempting an end to end of the AT as a thru hiker. In fact, I think that is the best use of the term-- with the those who are sitting on the couch after such a trip being "former thru hikers".

My point in that post was to suggest that one cannot equip themselves to negate all risk. Cotton doesn't kill thru hikers-- or at least hasn't yet.