PDA

View Full Version : AT - Toughest of the Triple Crown



SavageLlama
06-09-2004, 13:06
I was surprised when I read this in the new Nat Geo Adventure..


The Stairmaster
While shorter in length and lower in elevation than its peers to the west, the AT nonetheless packs a vertical wallop: Mile for mile, the AT gains (and loses) nearly twice the vertical footage of the others. Triple Crown hikers who have trod all three long trails concur: The AT is the toughest to hike.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0406/images/chart_1.gif

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/

A-Train
06-09-2004, 13:10
Maybe physically, but not overall. The CDT has so many other factors that seem to make it a tougher hike compared to the AT. The most obvious is the social factor. It was also interesting reading Chris (PCT) post about finding motivation with the average AT scenary. Always asumed the PCT was a tougher hike compared to the AT besides elevation gains, but I guess you can't take for granted all the scenary out west.

jersey joe
06-09-2004, 13:16
It's good to know that I've taken care of the hardest part of my triple crown. :) Speaking of the triple crown, does anyone know of any documented numbers or even estimates on how many people have hiked all three trails?

Colter
06-09-2004, 14:43
While shorter in length and lower in elevation than its peers to the west, the AT nonetheless packs a vertical wallop: Mile for mile, the AT gains (and loses) nearly twice the vertical footage of the others. Triple Crown hikers who have trod all three long trails concur: The AT is the toughest to hike.


I found that extremely interesting. That was one of my big questions: How does the AT compare to the PCT and CDT in difficulty?

I'm still going to assume that for most folks the CDT is an even greater challenge than the AT, among the factors being:
It's a longer trail.
It is a tough trail to follow, and in fact isn't even marked for much of it's length.
It's a much higher trail.
It's much farther between resupply points.
There are, relatively, VERY few backpackers along the way.
In case of serious difficulties, help may be many days away, at least.
The CDT is still largely an unknown, and people tend to be afraid of the unknown.

I am sure that many, if not most, folks don't realize how steep the AT is. I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect it's because it's "back east" and many people that have seen the Trail before have seen it in some of it's more mellow stretches.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 15:07
I, too, was surprised when I read that. I have read several times that the AT is the toughest, but the reasons always seemed to be somewhat subjective. This was the first bit of objective data I have seen. Funny that this issue hasn't been mentioned before.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 15:11
Another reason why the PCT and CDT are not seen as tough might be a perception issue. Many folks do the AT first. When they are out of shape with little hiking experience.

Folks that typically do the PCT and definatley the CDT have quite of bit of backcountry experience under their belts. So the resupply issues, length, social issues, snow, ice fields, high altitude, etc. are not a factor when "rating" each trail's difficulty.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 15:14
The CDT has so many other factors that seem to make it a tougher hike compared to the AT. The most obvious is the social factor.Funny. The social aspects of the AT are probably the biggest reason why I'd avoid it.

Alligator
06-09-2004, 15:54
Maybe physically, but not overall. The CDT has so many other factors that seem to make it a tougher hike compared to the AT. The most obvious is the social factor...


Funny. The social aspects of the AT are probably the biggest reason why I'd avoid it.

Or at least give serious consideration to going southbound. This concept that the social factor is important to completing a thru-hike boggles me. As a backpacker, I choose to hit the trails in an attempt to get away from people and civilization. The fewer the number of people I see, the better. If I could hike a week without seeing anybody, that would be awesome. A month, nirvana. It just seems to me that backpacking is an independent endeavor and that needing a social crutch in order to complete a long distance hike breaks with this spirit of individuality.

Was planning on searching for a thread of this nature but tlbj6142 struck the nail on the head.

Lone Wolf
06-09-2004, 16:05
The AT is hardly tough, unless you're coming off the couch at 260 lbs. and a 60lb pack and never hiked before. Otherwise you're in a town every 3-6 days lounging in a motel, hostel, hangin in a bar, eating at a buffet, hanging out with a coupla dozen other hikers doing slacks, crossing roads every day, getting overrun with "magic" and so-called "trail angels" always offering rides etc. Such a wilderness experience! :D

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 16:09
Or at least give serious consideration to going southbound.I understand this does make for a much more solo-like hike. As the number of encounters with others is more limited.

This concept that the social factor is important to completing a thru-hike boggles me.Please don't hate me for this...

I think that many (not all) folks that hike the AT are young (out of HS, college, etc.) and they have nothing else to do in life. They haven't done much if any backpacking.

They start hiking, meet great folks. Enjoy the ride. And find it hard to hike without the people. This is fine. I really don't have a problem with it.

However, those of us that are older. Have busy, stressfull lives now. And, can only dream of hiking the AT have a different "need". Decompression.

I, for one, like to hike as a means to releave stress (sweatin' doing 20 miles per day, etc.) and to shut off my brain. I see great people every day at work, church, the mall, the neighborhood, etc. I certainly don't want to be bothered with lame-o social interactions while on the trail. I get too much of it now. And, I'm supose to be an extrovert.

MizWaterfall
06-09-2004, 16:12
Or at least give serious consideration to going southbound. This concept that the social factor is important to completing a thru-hike boggles me.
Agreed. I went southbound and actually had an entire week in SW Virginia when I did not see or speak to another soul. I hiked through the Smokies with a couple of hikers, and we had the entire park to ourselves. Heaven! When I was in Damascus, I was the ONLY hiker in Damascus. Hard to believe, after going to Trail Days the next year!! You can definitely find solitude on a SOBO hike.

For me, hiking a trail with a lot of other people would make it more difficult. I am reading about how popular the PCT is getting (50 people sitting on the porch, waiting for their maildrops somewhere in SoCal?!) and am wondering if I'll find it too "crowded," at least in the beginning when everyone is starting.

steve hiker
06-09-2004, 16:17
tlbj6142, I couldn't have said it better myself.

That's probably the main reaon I will go SOBO, if and when I can break free to do a thru-hike.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 16:17
I am reading about how popular the PCT is getting (50 people sitting on the porch, waiting for their maildrops somewhere in SoCal?!) and am wondering if I'll find it too "crowded," at least in the beginning when everyone is starting.The 50 folks sitting on the front pourch thing is really an one time thing on the PCT. It just happens to be the last (?) resupply point before entering the sierra mtns. So, folks are sitting around waiting for snow to melt (so hike/route will be eaiser) and/or wait for the courage to start the next "Phase" of the PCT. Obviously, if you choose not to wait, don't need to, or pickup supplies elsewhere, this is a non-issue.

If I remember Chris' journal (http://mypage.iu.edu/~chwillet/travel/PCT/)correctly, he just spent half a day there before heading out.

If you plan to hike the PCT, or are just thinking about it, I strongly recomend you read his journal (http://mypage.iu.edu/~chwillet/travel/PCT/).

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 16:19
That's probably the main reaon I will go SOBO, if and when I can break free to do a thru-hike.Just make sure you are in good shape when you start. As I have read SOBO's have a much more difficult start than NOBOs. In fact there have been several threads on the subject on this very board.

steve hiker
06-09-2004, 16:23
I can understand why those National Geographic editors in NY or Washington would think that elevation gain is the major factor in a thru-hike. After all, stairs have been virtually eliminated from most cities and the toughest hiking they ever do is from their office to the parking garage (*pant pant*).

Come to think of it, I just spend a few minutes trying to recall the last time I had to climb any steps, and ... I haven't. Only when I have the choice to take the stairs (rarer and rarer these days), am I ever subjected to the horror of using my legs to gain elevation in town.

Spirit Walker
06-09-2004, 16:25
The AT has a lot of short steep sections that add up to a lot of vertical climbing (but much less than 20 years ago. They are trying to homogenize the trail.) The PCT and CDT are intended for horses. That means that on constructed trail, the grade is a maximum of 10% - 500' per mile. On the PCT most of the trail is less than 5% grade. (Boring!) We called it wheelchair trail. Although there were some serious climbs (5000' and more) they were done so gradually we didn't feel it. You just wind back and forth and up and up. Washington had some good climbs on some of the older sections of trail that have not been rebuilt to newer and easier standards, but not all that many. There is none of the hand over hand type climbing that you get on the AT, unless you are going over a snowy pass too early in the season. On the CDT there are only a couple of steep rocky bits -- unless you are bushwhacking up to a ridge. The dirt roads that were built for vehicles had some steep climbs, but all in all, following the open ridges wasn't that difficult. Again, on some days we might climb 10,000', but it was over 20 or more miles.

The difficulty on the PCT is in the long distances between water sources and the heat and, if you are early season or have a high snow year, the snow and attendant high stream crossings. Basically, for most thruhikers, by the time you finish the Sierras, about 900 miles up, the only difficulty is mental.

On the CDT you have the push for miles because of the short hiking seasons (NB must finish Montana by mid-September, SB must deal with snow in Colorado in the fall), possible snow issues starting out in Montana or early season in Colorado for the northbound, some long distances to water (generally less than on the PCT) but terrible water when you do get there, long hitches to towns, isolation, navigation challenges, and grizzly issues in Montana. It is the most beautiful, the most remote, has the most wildlife, etc. But s@#^ happens a lot on this trail - fires, blizzards, injury, trail closures, etc. Current hikers are dealing with either creating alternate routes through Colorado because the snow is so deep or jumping over Colorado to WY, where they are finding that the snow is just as deep in the Winds. SB hikers, starting in a week, will have to start their hikes dealing with snow (and NPS bureaucracy - even worse.) It's a trail where you have to be flexible and expect the unexpected.

As to mileage - on the AT I averaged 12 miles a day for a 5 1/2 month hike, on the CDT 16 mpd for a six month hike and on the PCT 19 mpd for a 5 month hike. The AT was my first long hike, so was difficult physically, but not emotionally. The CDT was my second hike, and I had a lot of learning to do. The PCT was the easiest physically, by far, but it was also my fourth long hike. I had learned about doing long miles, water management, snow travel etc. by then. It does make a difference having some experience. Emotionally, in some ways it was my hardest, because it had so little challenge.

As to how many triple crowns - who knows? ALDHA-West recognizes those people who are members of that organization who have hiked all three long trails but there are a lot of people who hike who aren't members of any trail organization. I think the number is less than 100, but it is growing as so many AT hikers head west to do the other trails. As the CDT gets more developed there will be even more. When we hiked the CDT in 1999 there were only 11 thruhikers - and possibly a few others who didn't make it plus several who were sectioning the trail. In 2002 I think there were about 40 who attempted the trail.

A-Train
06-09-2004, 16:26
tlbj42-Just curious-have you thru-hiked the AT or PCT or have you backpacked for extended periods of time without seeing anyone else?

MizWaterfall
06-09-2004, 16:34
If I remember Chris' journal (http://mypage.iu.edu/~chwillet/travel/PCT/)correctly, he just spent half a day there before heading out.

If you plan to hike the PCT, or are just thinking about it, I strongly recomend you read his journal (http://mypage.iu.edu/~chwillet/travel/PCT/).Thanks, I will check it out!

Actually, I just rechecked Nocona's journal, and the 50 folks waiting for maildrops was a lot earlier in her hike. Also, the Saufleys had hosted 52 thru-hikers the weekend before she got there, so it still seems to me like there are a lot of people out there!

A-Train
06-09-2004, 16:36
I understand this does make for a much more solo-like hike. As the number of encounters with others is more limited.
Please don't hate me for this...

I think that many (not all) folks that hike the AT are young (out of HS, college, etc.) and they have nothing else to do in life. They haven't done much if any backpacking.

They start hiking, meet great folks. Enjoy the ride. And find it hard to hike without the people. This is fine. I really don't have a problem with it.

However, those of us that are older. Have busy, stressfull lives now. And, can only dream of hiking the AT have a different "need". Decompression.

I, for one, like to hike as a means to releave stress (sweatin' doing 20 miles per day, etc.) and to shut off my brain. I see great people every day at work, church, the mall, the neighborhood, etc. I certainly don't want to be bothered with lame-o social interactions while on the trail. I get too much of it now. And, I'm supose to be an extrovert.

I know you said not to hate you, but i'm going to anyway :)
I'd agree with your somewhat gross generalization about younger thru-hikers. I would disagree with your comment that they have nothing better to do. Most were in between college and grad school and some of the top universities in this country. Many studied abroad, worked on organic farms, ddi mission work overseas, rasied money for charities and did community service oh and ran marathons. I'd hardly say they had nothing better to do...

Hopefully if I ever run into you on the Trail I won't burden you with a lame-o social interaction.

Mags
06-09-2004, 16:39
The AT is physically more difficult than the other two trails but logisitcally far more easy.

The grades and the more variable weather makes the AT a physical challenge to say the least. But, you do not have to cross deserts, snow fields and go a week at a time for re-supply. Not to say that it is "easy", but a well marked trail, a shelter every 8-10 miles and a very large support network makes it an attractive trail for those who have not developed a large base of outdoor skills.

The PCT is far easier on the body. Part of the reason is that many long distance hikers who have hauled a large pack on the AT have downsized on the PCT. After humping a 30+ lb baseweight pack for 2200 miles, they never ever want to do that again! But, the grades really are easier. Many PCTers routinely do 28-32 MPD in Oregon for example.
Again, though, it requires a wilderness skill set that many ATers just do not have (at first, a nearly 2700 mile trail tends to force you to learn the skills!).
Crossing snow fields, needing some basic map skills, trekking through deserts while carry 6+ liters of water, infrequent re-supply (esp. in the Sierra, Oregon and Washington) and other factors.

The CDT (which I have not done yet) is perhaps the grad school of the big three. There is no really defined trail, map and compass skills are absolutely needed, no support network to speak of, in parts of the trail you are not at the top of the food chain (Hi! Mr. Griz!) etc. I think the reason why many choose to do the CDT in groups is that these challenges sound daunting.
Luckily, living in Colorado I have much oppurtunity for off-trail hiking in not only Colorado but in Utah and Wyoming. (Utah is arguablymore remote than the CDT in parts). Having done much cross country travel, hopefully I'll be ready. :)

Now, for the trails being crowded. When I did the AT, I started early. The most thru-hikers I saw at once was in Maine: saw 13 Southbounders all at once!!! I think many SoBos, like many of their NoBo counterparts, like to clump up together at the start. Did not see that many AT NoBos at the same time. But, those who started early tended to be more solo type hikers. The first SoBos I saw were the same way.

HOWEVER, when I did the PCT, I went to the ADZKOP and saw much of the crowds Nina spoke of. Saw more PCTers in one bunch than I saw on the AT total (in terms of thru-hikers). Egads! By the Sierra we thinned out. In Washington, went 3.5 days without seeing ANYONE.
If I had to do it again, would not have gone to the KOP and started a week earlier. I am a fairly strong hiker so would have avoided most of the crowds. Don't get me wrong, the KOP is a great thing. The volunteers put on one heck of a weekend. But, I enjoyed it much more the following year when I was not a thru-hiker. I enjoy hiking solo and seeing so many thru-hikers at once was unnerving. If you want more of AT type experience to ease you into the trail, go to the KOP.

YMMV

A-Train
06-09-2004, 16:51
Mags brought up a good point as far as NOBO/SOBO goes on the AT. SOBO has always tended to be painted as a solitude experience for the loner, but that is not the case at all. It can be if you want it to, but many SOBO's do seem to cluster up and not just at the beginning. Reading a couple journals I saw last yr about 5-6 SOBOs were hiking together thru the mid-atlantic and there are pictures of 10-15 together at Miss Janets. Almost all the SOBO's I passed last july were hiking in groups of 2's. Yes there are a lot less of them than NOBO;s but I wouldn't say the social dynamic is much different, people can still be "clingy" for lack of a better word.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 17:25
tlbj42-Just curious-have you thru-hiked the AT or PCT or have you backpacked for extended periods of time without seeing anyone else?No thru-hikes. Probably never will. The longest I've gone without seeing anyone was 4 days. Hardly a long time. But by no means painful.

Seeing folks isn't really an issue (though I supose crowds of folks would be), it is the necessary-evil we call small talk that bothers me so much. That and the pseudo "deep" conversations folks have from time to time. And the "stories".

Maybe I have just too much apathy toward others. My wife sometimes thinks I act "stuck up", but really I just don't give a $hit about what most people have to say. So, why would I want to start up a conversation? Especially since, for the most part, they could care less what I have to say. Stupid social norms.

That's one of the great things about this media. Talk when you want. Say what you need to say. Ignore those you don't want to listen to. No need to do the "small talk" thing as you don't typically have "awkward moments of silience" while on-line. No eye contact or other body language to confuse the conversation. All without coming across as some sort of social barbarian.

I have to wave at my neighbor every morning as we both drive to work. Why? If I don't, they think "I'm stuck up." or "mad at them".

My wife claims it is "polite". How is making an insinsere hand gesture polite? Especially when there is nothing "behind" it? Seems to me to be more of an insult that someone would waste their time to perfrom some meanless task just to be "polite".

I've never really understood that. Probably never will.

steve hiker
06-09-2004, 18:40
I have to wave at my neighbor every morning as we both drive to work. Why? If I don't, they think "I'm stuck up." or "mad at them".

My wife claims it is "polite". How is making an insinsere hand gesture polite?
Hey tbbj142, I know how you can make a sincere hand gesture. And from what I hear, it's the most accepted gesture in New York.

Rain Man
06-09-2004, 19:54
... I certainly don't want to be bothered with lame-o social interactions while on the trail. I get too much of it now. And, I'm supose to be an extrovert.

Somebody is joshing you. The word is misanthrope!
:jump

Rain Man

.

tlbj6142
06-09-2004, 20:14
Somebody is joshing you. The word is misanthrope!Damn it Rain Man. Now you had to go and make me learn something today.:D

I really am a bit too social (I talk way too much) with folks I know. I just don't like to bother meeting new folks. Especially in social situations in which you are "expected" to talk with others. I hate being socially peer-pressured into talking with someone else.

Spirit Walker
06-09-2004, 20:50
Funny, I'm a total introvert. But on the AT I loved the trail community. Yes, most of the interactions, at least with strangers, were pretty superficial. But it was a community, where all the people I met had a common goal - Katahdin. I met a lot of terrific people that I would not have gotten to know in my ordinary life. On the trails, there were no roles to play, no walls between us. We were comrades. People went out of their way to do acts of kindness. People were really good. It was very different from ordinary life.

Kozmic Zian
06-09-2004, 20:54
Yea......Apples To Oranges. It's all good! AT is physically toughter, more quick up and down. More verticals and steep downs. The other LDH Trails are just as beautiful and challenging in their own ways. Logistics are much more difficult, planning being more difficult. Still, distance is distance. I admire all who have done all three. Plan to myself, after I finish AT 2d time. As far as the social thing goes....it's a choice. AT is nice in that you have the choice. KZ@

Mountain Dew
06-10-2004, 01:30
The Stairmaster
While shorter in length and lower in elevation than its peers to the west, the AT nonetheless packs a vertical wallop: Mile for mile, the AT gains (and loses) nearly twice the vertical footage of the others. Triple Crown hikers who have trod all three long trails concur: The AT is the toughest to hike.

The article in it's entirety simply says that the A.T. is the hardest to hike in terms of elevation changes. Who cares if the others are longer if they are graded for horses and usually take people a shorter time to finish. The simple fact that it does take the typical hiker less time to finish the other two (CDT/PCT) while being longer than the A.T. dictates the simple conclusion that the A.T. is hardest to hike. I'd have to say the navigating on the CDT has to make things difficult though. All three trails have their own challenges I'm sure.

Pencil Pusher
06-10-2004, 01:34
Yeah, if you're looking for solitude, there are plenty of lonely places to hike without seeing a single soul than the AT. Besides, if you're really not that social, what are you doing here telling us about it?:welcome

Mountain Dew
06-10-2004, 01:43
hahahahahaaaaa WELL SAID.... :clap

A-Train
06-10-2004, 02:52
I suppose we could argue which of the 3 trails is "hardest" until were blue in the face. There are many valid points to every argument. I suppose only the few triple crowners are fit to take part in that argument anyway. I have to disagree with your point though Dew. I don't think the AT generally takes the longest becasue it is the hardest. Its cause it has the least serious and most inexperienced hikers on it who generally party and spend a month or more of their hikes in towns at home or on roadtrips. Nothing wrong with hiking that way, but don't go and say that its the difficulty that is keeping people out there for 7 months.

Mountain Dew
06-10-2004, 04:28
A-train... "I don't think the AT generally takes the longest becasue it is the hardest. Its cause it has the least serious and most inexperienced hikers on it who generally party and spend a month or more of their hikes in towns at home or on roadtrips." ---So you think the other two have more challenging terrain ? That's simply false. National Geographic Magazine even gave you a nice simple diagram to explain the climbing that compared all three major trails. One could argue that navigating on the CDT is harder though. You are right when you say the most inexperienced hikers generally tend to be on the A.T. Is there more "party" people on the A.T. or is it just because there is more of an oppurtunity to do so ? Let's say for arguments sake that people didn't party,go on road trips, and go home for visits on the A.T. ....Would adding 30 days for those activity's be fair...I think so. The A.T. takes longer to hike with those things happening so without then you still couldn't conclude that it would take a shorter amount of time to hike the A.T. when looking at the average amount of days spent on each trail. It may mean that it would take the same amount of time with the milage being the difference. In that scenario I'm right again. I've spoken to the only person to hike the triple crown three times as well as three other triple crowners and they all said that the terrain was harder on the A.T. Saying all this.....the A.T. having the hardest terrain doesn't mean that it is the better trail. That's a matter of opinion.

rumbler
06-10-2004, 08:23
I've only done the AT, so I am not in a position to judge. However, I think the difficulties of each trail are characteristically different, and pose challenges unique to each trail. Yes, the AT had some challenging climbs. But the prospect of apparently having to average almost 20 miles a day on the PCT to make the logistics of resupply have my feet wincing at the prospect.

I could not tell someone who had hiked the PCT or the CDT that a hike of the AT was clearly a tougher overall endeavor. Memorable challenges and their commensurate rewards usually are not captured or explained merely through quantifiable data.

tlbj6142
06-10-2004, 08:42
Besides, if you're really not that social, what are you doing here telling us about it?I didn't say I'm not social. I just don't like talking with folks I don't know. About things neither of us really care about. Waste of time.

MedicineMan
06-11-2004, 01:48
If you truly want solitude join us this Feb. Jan. for an AT section.

pvtmorriscsa
06-11-2004, 01:55
Howdy All,
What about the Lewis and Clark trail? Does it not count?

Course now that I have discovered that the AT is the hardest. LOL. I am planning my trip up the CDT.

Guess I am going for the triple crown!
LOL
:jump

Mountain Dew
06-11-2004, 02:25
Rumbler... You ever try hiking on a graded trail for horses ? A 20 mile day isn't that hard at all.

Medicineman.... NO THANKS.....winter hiking is not for this TEXAN ! :sun

rumbler
06-11-2004, 09:03
[QUOTE=Mountain Dew]Rumbler... You ever try hiking on a graded trail for horses ? A 20 mile day isn't that hard at all.

It's when day becomes plural that it gets interesting. I've walked 20 miles/day through Mississippi trails, and they are flat flat flat. Virginia (far less than advertised!), Maryland, parts of PA all had stretches that were moderately flat. But my ancient feet start complaining after about 16 miles regardless of terrain, and would get mighty fiesty if I tried to crank out a few 25-milers in a row.

A few of the folks I hiked with last year had already done the PCT. Psycho Hieko comes to mind, as well as the guy who ran Terrapin Station hostel. Their stories, along with Radar's TrailJournals entries this year, have me jonesing hard for the PCT. Parts of it I am sure will be easier than the AT. Other aspects will be tougher. I have no clue what that will mean to me personally in total, and even less of a clue what it may mean to somebody else.

But I do look forward to finding out, hopefully in the not to distant future.

Bankrobber
06-11-2004, 11:54
Interesting topic. I hiked the AT last year, and found it quite difficult. Than again, I knew next to nothing about backpacking then. The trail through Maine and New Hampshire is brutal, the rocks in PA are a pain, and the ups and downs in the south can brutalize a rookie.
I have hiked a smidgen of the PCT in the SoCal desert and in the San Jacinto's. The trail is much easier on the legs. But then again, it is 20 miles between water sources, there are rattlesnakes on the trail, and it is likely to be above 100 degrees through much of the desert. Walking through the green tunnel affords you water and a respite from the sun.
I am planning to thru-hike the CDT next year. This trail sounds brutal to thru-hike. If you Southbound (as I plan to do), you start in Glacier NP in mid to late June. The grizzlies are just waking up, there can still be enough snow to force you to posthole, the mud is up to your mid-calves the stream crossings are sometimes chest high. There is next to no water in the Red Desert Basin of Wyoming, and much of the water in New Mexico has dead birds and cow **** in it. The average elevation of the trail in Colorado is 11,000 feet!!! In regards to the grade: The extremely flat deserts in New Mexico and Wyoming level probably level it out quite a bit. Also, I have no idea how they measured it. 30% of the trail has not been completed. Of the completed trail (which is alongside roads), hikers often bypass these in favor of more scenic and mountainous routes. An example is hikers who hike through the Florida mountains near the Mexico/New Mexico border at Columbus rather than the flat road walk to the "official" southern terminus at Antelope Wells.
Is the AT hard for experienced backpackers? It offers some serious challenges to all.

Mags
06-11-2004, 13:07
The highest "official" point on the CDT is actually Gray's Peak, a 14er in Colorado. 14000+ above everything.

I do not know many CDTers who have done this "official route". A route that many do walk is the Jim Wolfe route that the CDTA took off for being too "dangerous". It is does require some care, but it is not dangerous in my opinion for experienced trekkers. It is a spectacualr ridge walk on the physical divide at 13k feet. Did it as a late fall hike, slept on the divide and loved every minute of it. The "official" route is much lower in the valley and is not anything to write home about.

Now, as for 20 mile days on a horse trail being easy. Perhaps. But walking through snow fields, 100+ degrees in the desert and being at 12k+ feet and exposed in the sun does make things a wee bit interesting on the PCT. And, you have to do 20+ mile days for 4-5 mos less you wind up in many feet of snow in the Cascades on these easy horse trails.

I suggest actually walking the western trails before saying they are easy. :)
I say something similar to Westerners who have say they never hiked the "easy hills" out East.

No trail is easy. To say otherwise is pure foolishness. To say which is more difficult is also foolishness too. It is the hiker equivalent of how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

Mags (who still thinks northern Vermont had the most difficult terrain of all his backpackng)

Mountain Dew
06-11-2004, 16:23
Mags... "Now, as for 20 mile days on a horse trail being easy. Perhaps. But walking through snow fields, 100+ degrees in the desert and being at 12k+ feet and exposed in the sun does make things a wee bit interesting on the PCT. And, you have to do 20+ mile days for 4-5 mos less you wind up in many feet of snow in the Cascades on these easy horse trails." ---Perhaps ? Come on admit it. The A.T. has "snow fields" as well you know, Temperatures into the 90's. 12k feet ??? Well if it is graded for horses then fine.

Mags... "I suggest actually walking the western trails before saying they are easy. I say something similar to Westerners who have say they never hiked the "easy hills" out East." ---one doesn't have to experience something to get a general understanding of it as long as he uses facts etc.... Who said the western trails were easy ? I don't remember reading that anywhere on this thread. Reading comprehension skills needed it seems.

Mags.. "No trail is easy. To say otherwise is pure foolishness. To say which is more difficult is also foolishness too. It is the hiker equivalent of how many angels can dance on a pinhead."--- Again NOBODY said they are easy and to say somebody said that when all people have to do is scroll up and look is "pure foolishness". Angels dance on pinheads ? hhmmmm You seem to think this is a competition between eastern and western hiking which it's not.

Mags
06-11-2004, 16:58
Dewey,

Thank you for your thoughts. However, your track record is one of continuing arguements by splittng hairs. I don't do that. Feel free to quote away. :)

Heck, I just noticed it is 3 PM MST and I get to leave for the day. Off to teach a map and compass workshop this weekend. You all have a great weekend yourselves.

Kerosene
06-11-2004, 17:02
Mags, although I've only hiked out east, I would have to concur that northern Vermont is the toughest stretch of terrain I've encountered also! Have a nice weekend.

Mountain Dew
06-11-2004, 17:33
Notice when confronted with facts and logic people often resort to elementary put downs and putting words into peoples mouths...not to mention they steer out of their way to avoid answering questions.

Mags ...Calling me Dewey is amusing as it shows the amount of your frustration with me using logic to refute your weak arguments. You fail to answer this question in my last post: Who said the western trails were easy ? You failed to answer it, I'm assuming, because you can't. You most likely were referring to me as well and that's why i want you to answer the question. Putting words into peoples mouths is "pure foolishness" ...to use your words. Quoting me is fine, but to attribute a statement to me or anybody else when clearly they never said it is asinine when all one has to do is scroll up. Elementary logic there. You even went on and on about how the CDT had the hardest mountains and then ended that post about how northern vermont is the hardest section of hiking. Well, which is it ? You just argued both for and against yourself within a few sentences.

I guess when using that kind of logic and thought process you would think that my use of logic and facts is splitting hairs. Don't be annoyed with my track record Mags, but thanks for being a true fan. Facts and the use of logic are here to stay no matter how many libs would like to forget they exsist. This thread is all I know about your track record. You started with a fairly o.k. entry and when faced with reality quickly resorted to name calling and putting words into peoples mouths. That isn't exactly a quality track record to be proud of.

Have fun with maps and compasses as I'm off to go watch a Texas Rangers game tonight. :clap

A-Train
06-11-2004, 19:51
Dew, although I agree with you that people tend to stop arguments when they've been outdooled in an academic decathalon and to your credit you do make opinions based on stately facts. Though I tend to think many people on this site, myself included back away not because they are scared to challenge but rather that its in nobodies best interest to continue to beat a point to death. Sure i'll contest people if they say something I don't agree with or is just plain ridiculous but it gets a little obnoxious going back and forth in a public forum.

Mountain Dew
06-12-2004, 06:00
A-train.... You use the word argument here and I think the better word is debate. Maybe I should say that we are suppose to be debating issues on certain threads, but often we argue. :-? I see your point A-train with your post and agree with it for the most part.

illininagel
06-12-2004, 10:02
My wife claims it is "polite". How is making an insinsere hand gesture polite? Especially when there is nothing "behind" it?

I think part of the answer might be putting something "behind" the hand gestures.

bunbun
06-13-2004, 11:28
---Perhaps ? Come on admit it. The A.T. has "snow fields" as well you know, Temperatures into the 90's. 12k feet ??? Well if it is graded for horses then fine.

---one doesn't have to experience something to get a general understanding of it as long as he uses facts etc.... Who said the western trails were easy ? I don't remember reading that anywhere on this thread. Reading comprehension skills needed it seems.

--- Again NOBODY said they are easy and to say somebody said that when all people have to do is scroll up and look is "pure foolishness". Angels dance on pinheads ? hhmmmm You seem to think this is a competition between eastern and western hiking which it's not.

Really???

I've been gone for a while (about 5 months) dealing with a neurological problem and then with several deaths in the family - and a severe lack of interest in the nitpickin' arguments that I've seen on Whiteblaze the few times I dropped in to see what was happening, but I got a good laugh out of this one. So let's answer your questions --

For the thruhiker, the AT has no "snow fields" that compare in any way to either of the western trails. Nor does it approach 12K ft elevation. And being graded for horses doesn't necessarily mean the trail is "easy." Tell me how "easy" it is after you experience your first round of HAPE (High Altitude Pumonary Edema) and start coughing up bloody froth.

Uh - what WAS your point here, anyway? Logically, you appear to be saying how easy the western trails were. But then you said "Who said the western trails were easy ?" Are you confused? :-?

Actually - you're definitely confused -- you should go back and read Spiritwalker's post because she actually DID say the PCT was easier. Well, after all, we DO call it the Pacific Not-quite-the-Crest Wheelchair Trail.
So --- if you're gonna quote "facts", you should really have some facts to quote.

Oh - did I mention that Spiritwalker has done all 3 Trails - and IS a Triple Crown? So she knows a whole lot more about it than most of those who are so overly willing to talk about things they don't know anything about?

Now - for some real facts - first, the National Geographics numbers are wrong. I used a recording altimeter to measure elevation gain on both the CDT and the PCT, and wherever they got their numbers from - it for sure wasn't from actual measurement. They should check their facts, too.

Second - during a 2 hour interview with National Geographic, at no tiime did we tell them that the AT was the hardest of the 3 trails. It DOES have some steeper sections, it DOES NOT involve much, if any, more elevation gain, and it certainly does NOT require the same knowledge and skills - or present the same level of challenge as the other trails. By actual experience - from an overall perspective - the CDT is far and away the "hardest" of the 3 trails.

And third - many of the pictures associated with the National Geographic CDT map are nowhere near the CDT - and have nothing whatever to do with the CDT. They're all "nice" places - but they're not anything you'll see if you hike the CDT.

Oh - did I mention that I've also done all 3 trails? Or that I'll be back on the CDT in less than 700 days? And yeah - I'm counting. :jump

MOWGLI
06-13-2004, 12:07
I've been gone for a while (about 5 months) dealing with a neurological problem and then with several deaths in the family

BunBun, I'm sorry to hear about your family losses. I'm glad you seem to be feeling better and are planning another long hike. I'm also glad that you are here to inject some additional experience into this discussion.

I have two questions. How often do hikers slackpack the CDT & PCT? My understanding (I have not hiked those trails - yet) is that the distance between road crossings does not easily lend itself to this ever increasing phenomenon. Also, what can you say to the hiker who insists the AT is the most difficult of these 3 trails after they have taken 7 months to hike it, slackpacking a good bit?

Lastly, when we met in South Carolina at the Ruck, you gave me a bottle of green goo that worked wonders on chafing. What the heck is that stuff? It is incredible!!!

Jeffrey Hunter aka Little Bear
[email protected]

Pencil Pusher
06-13-2004, 18:28
I found the addition of personal problems at the beginning of a longwinded rebuttal to be in poor taste. As well the overly dramatic example of HAPE, though I do agree on the CDT being the toughest of the three trails.

Jack Tarlin
06-13-2004, 19:15
Geez, P. Pusher, lighten up. All the guy was doing was briefly explaining why he's been away for awhile, and you put your nose up in the air and announce you find it distasteful. Gosh, I'm so sorry for your distaste.

Jim's contributions here have been informative and valuable, which quite frankly, is not something I can say about everyone's. He also mentioned that he'd have visited more often, except that the level of discourse here isn't always something that makes him want to jump up in the morning and chime in. (I could add that he probbaly has more miles and trail experience than just about anyone here, and is well worth listening to, but to hell with it).

So P.P., I suggest you drop your pencil and pick up a backpack. You might find it more to your taste.

Oh, and Jim----welcome back, it's good to hear from you.

Lone Wolf
06-13-2004, 19:20
Oh here we go.The "I got more miles so I know more than you" bit. :D This forum is SO entertaining. I'm gonna go to Food City and get a big bottle of Merlot and settle in for the evening. Be right back. :jump

Jack Lincoln
06-13-2004, 19:39
I hope you are feeling well Jim. Glad you are back...

Lone Wolf. Did Sawman finish the trail in 92? Heard he got hurt on White Top. Also, is Tom Horn still around?

Thanks for the info, if you know....


Jack

Lone Wolf
06-13-2004, 19:54
It was 93 and no he didn't finish. He stepped on a bottle at Levi's in Bastian. It was Memorial Day weekend. The bottle went deep in his foot. No more hiking. A few years ago he picked up where he left off, made it to around Rusty's I think. Bad back. Had MAJOR surgery 2 years ago. Can hardly ride a motorcycle let alone hike. And Terry(Tom Horn)? Saw him a year or two ago here in Damascus. He's still trampin around on the trail.

Pencil Pusher
06-13-2004, 20:00
Yeah, I hated having to make a point of it, but it seemed like he was dropping that sympathy card on purpose before starting his arguement. Had it been in a separate post or related to the subject, I wouldn't of said a thing. But that's my opinion and you have yours.

bunbun
06-13-2004, 21:37
For Jack - good to hear from you. I wouldn't say the level of discourse here had dropped to unacceptable levels - but it was less friendly than I was willing to deal with at the time.

For Mowgli - good to hear from you, too. And thank you. Me and thee need to talk sometime later about some of the things your'e doing. I'll also get back to you later about the green goo. Ah hell - it's an Amway product - Sun Pacer Aftersun moisturizer. There are two versions - one with lidocaine and one with aloe. You got the lidocaine version. I discovered this stuff a long time ago - like before my AT hike. For me, it heals chafing overnight.

For Lone Wolf - I don't give a crap how many miles anyone has under their boots - but loudmouthed ignorance pisses me off. As THE one and only original Internet curmudgeon, that's my prerogative and I don't like other horning in on my territory. :D

Also - if you see Tom Horn, tell him we said hello. Haven't seen him in years.

Finally, for Pencil pusher - I didn't ask for anything, I don't want or need your sympathy, and I don't give a flying crap about what you think is poor taste. That information/explanaton was for those who are friends or who might care. If you don't care, then don't read it. It's your problem.

HAPE - been there done that. And if you think what I said was overly dramatic, then you haven't. And you might need to learn more about it. Again - not my problem.

Pencil Pusher
06-13-2004, 21:47
Thanks bunbun, I thought I was going to have to apologize. But now that you've come out swinging, so why would such an experienced hiker like yourself be such a fool as to allow HAPE to progress to that stage? Frothing blood, right? Tell me, did you or your hiking friends carry you down to a lower altitude?

steve hiker
06-13-2004, 22:02
For anyone going to altitude who is not already acclimated, I suggest taking diamox. Tell your doctor what you've got planned, and ask for a prescription. I live at sea level and went to 12,500 feet in Colorado last fall, and hardly noticed any effects of altitude. Here's an earlier thread on the topic:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2511&highlight=diamox

bunbun
06-13-2004, 22:24
Actually, Steve, altitude effects can start at anything over 5000 ft. And some of the AT is over 5000 ft. Not that you should need Diamox on the AT, but I've known a number of AT hikers who were affected and had no idea what was happening to them.

For Pencil pusher - I don't need your apology either.

HAPE - I walked out. And it took 4 months to clear my lungs. As for the "experienced hiker" stuff - it's the old story - you get good judgment by exercising bad judgment - and surviving - and learning from it. Actually - even those who live at altitude are susceptible to HAPE (or HACE) if they go to lower altitude and then return. Go learn about it before you get too judgmental about places you've never been.

Pencil Pusher
06-13-2004, 22:36
HAPE - I walked out. And it took 4 months to clear my lungs. As for the "experienced hiker" stuff - it's the old story - you get good judgment by exercising bad judgment - and surviving - and learning from it.
This we have in common, my friend. Though I attributed the lingering cough to more just breathing the cold air for so long. Peace.

steve hiker
06-13-2004, 22:46
Actually, Steve, altitude effects can start at anything over 5000 ft. And some of the AT is over 5000 ft. Not that you should need Diamox on the AT, but I've known a number of AT hikers who were affected and had no idea what was happening to them.
You're right about that. I swear I've experienced mild symptoms of altitude sickness at just over 5,000 feet. Both in the Appalachians (headache) and in Denver (mild shortness of breath, slightly increased heartrate, slight dizziness).

I wouldn't take Diamox at such low elevations, but with those types of reactions it's probably very good that I took it in Colorado.

pvtmorriscsa
06-14-2004, 04:02
Howdy all,

Altitude sickness is not something to be triffled with. When I moved to 8000 feet in Colorado from 300 feet in Texas, I was sick for a month. Headaches, nausea and the like. After a month or two I was fine, but early on the altitude really kicked my a**.
Course it is no wonder that my high school track team won state damn near every year. They trained at 8000 feet, and competed at 6000. Don't forget the daunting "Mile High" stadium in Denver. Damn Bronco's have an unfair advantage you ask me.
Now there are some advantages to rapidly going from a lower altitude to a higher one. As I learned when I went to my father's wedding after spending five years in Ohio. I was crocked after two beers. LOL. Course I drank six, and the hangover liked to have killed me.
Not to mention how interesting it is to try to light a match at the top of Trail Ridge Road in RMNP. The highest continuous paved road in the world if memory serves. I recall the summit of Trail Ridge Road is right around 12000 feet.
Needless to say I think the altitudes on the AT will kick my ass, and probably encourage me to quit smoking whilst I tramp to Maine.

Mountain Dew
06-14-2004, 04:19
bunbun.... You might not have intended your first few sentences for sympathy, but it appeared that way to me as well. If you really want to play that lame juvenile card then I'd be happy to start every reply to you with my own family problems. Hopefully your entent wasn't to draw sympathy, but rather inform your friends of where you have been. In either case beginning your entry like that was a bad idea and in poor taste.

bunbun....for somebody that has ..." a severe lack of interest in the nitpickin' arguments that I've seen on Whiteblaze "... you sure have alot to say. Humerous. If you feel up to answering other people questions then go ahead, but don't you comprehend the fact that YOU were not asked ? I'll break down your remarks and show you just how little reading comprehension skills you trully have....

bunbun ... "the AT has no "snow fields" that compare in any way to either of the western trails." ---I NEVER said that the A.T. snow fields were even par with the other two trails. Nice try though.

bunbun ... "Nor does it approach 12K ft elevation. And being graded for horses doesn't necessarily mean the trail is "easy." --I NEVER said it approached the altitude either, but please don't act as if the entire milage on the other two trails stay at that elevation. If being graded for horses DOESN'T necissarily mean that it is easier then what does it mean ? You fail to say obviously because you can't admit that it DOES in fact mean that. I NEVER said that just because the PCT was graded for horses then it was easy. Nice try again at bending the truth or just flat out making it up.

bunbun ... "Uh - what WAS your point here, anyway? Logically, you appear to be saying how easy the western trails were. But then you said "Who said the western trails were easy ?" Are you confused? " --- Quote where I said or implied the "western trails" were easy ? And since when is the CDT a WESTERN trail ? Logically, you appear to be trying , although poorly, to put words into my mouth and obviously fail to realize that all people have to do is scroll up to see if you are lying or not. Taking my words and then spinning then or in this case making up comments and attributing them to me is the same as lying. You would be good in a public office with your spin doctor approach to arguing.

bunbun ... "Actually - you're definitely confused -- you should go back and read Spiritwalker's post because she actually DID say the PCT was easier. " ---I KNOW she said the PCT was easier. She then turned around in her next post and accussed me of making that comment. I simply wanted her to see the obvious error in her statement and admit that it was in fact her that made the comment. Sorry if I was speaking over your head. Next time you get SO disinterested in these sort of posts let me know and I'll dumb down my sarcasm and logic for you.

bunbun.. "Well, after all, we DO call it the Pacific Not-quite-the-Crest Wheelchair Trail. " ...... "And being graded for horses doesn't necessarily mean the trail is "easy." --- I see that I've now talked you dilusional as well. Make up your mind already. :bse


bunbun "Oh - did I mention that Spiritwalker has done all 3 Trails - and IS a Triple Crown? So she knows a whole lot more about it than most of those who are so overly willing to talk about things they don't know anything about?" --- I'll run right out and let the people that I talked to about the triple crown, who themselves have done them, that they are wrong and a hiker that can't use logic, but rather resorts to lying and putting words in my mouth is right. What about the guy I talked to that has done the triple crown three times ? Is he then three times the "expert" she is ? Experience helps alot in knowing what you are talking about, but never underestimate common sense, logic, and having the ability comprehend something.

bunbun "Now - for some real facts - first, the National Geographics numbers are wrong. I used a recording altimeter to measure elevation gain on both the CDT and the PCT, and wherever they got their numbers from - it for sure wasn't from actual measurement." --- IDIOT. If you want to claim that National Geographics stats on elevation of the three major trails is wrong don't then comeback with ..." I used a recording altimeter on JUST two of them". You claim they just poof made those numbers up ? hahaa hilarious. National Geographic has an excellent reputation. What reason would they have for lying exactly ? I'm thinking you are the one that is making things up here. I know for a fact that NO exisiting recording altimeter can record every mile of both the PCT and CDT combined. If you had an interview with National Geographic and you had the altimeter of EVERY MILE on the PCT/CDT then you surely offered it to them right ? oops...I bet not because you are lying once again. :clap

"bunbun"... "Second - during a 2 hour interview with National Geographic, at no tiime did we tell them that the AT was the hardest of the 3 trails. It DOES have some steeper sections, it DOES NOT involve much, if any, more elevation gain, and it certainly does NOT require the same knowledge and skills - or present the same level of challenge as the other trails. By actual experience - from an overall perspective - the CDT is far and away the "hardest" of the 3 trails. " --- So....N.G. listened to "your group" and surely many others and just decided to take what ya'll said and throw it out the window....then lie and say the A.T. is the hardest ? Hilarious to say the least. The A.T. has steeper sections ? From what I have been told that is a gross understatement... made to improve your weak argument. Who cares about elevation gain when like YOU said "Well, after all, we DO call it the Pacific Not-quite-the-Crest Wheelchair Trail. " !!! I will agree AGAIN and admit the CDT requires more navigation skills. That fact can't even be debated.

bunbun... on second though I refuse to dumb down my comments so that you can answer another hikers questions. I suggest you read what I say three or four times if you can't understand my comments or better yet, STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH AND LYING. What is a bunbun anyways ? :-?

Lone Wolf .... "Oh here we go.The "I got more miles so I know more than you" bit. This forum is SO entertaining. I'm gonna go to Food City and get a big bottle of Merlot and settle in for the evening. " ---hahaaa LW...I know I don't always agree with what you have to say , but you are hilarious at times.

Incase the "bunbun group" has blurred my comments and opinions I'll restate them. I BELIVE N.G. when they say that the A.T. has twice the elevation gain as the other two trails. Why would they lie and for what reason. I KNOW the CDT is harder to navigate on from common sense, logistics, and talking to others that have done it. I believe we all can agree on that fact. I , for the most part, think the PCT/CDT have more snow than the A.T., but doesn't that depend on what date you start each trail ? Saying the CDT/PCT elevation is harder than the A.T.'s is like saying running 5 miles isn't as hard as walking 8 because walking eight is more miles. I couldn't care less which trail is harder. I think they all three are unique from one another and each has there own obsticles.

Lone Wolf
06-14-2004, 07:21
Man oh man! Ain't he somethin bunbun? Geez Louise! hahaha :jump

MOWGLI
06-14-2004, 08:10
Mountain Dew. Let me point out a few things that you said that I think are off base.



So you think the other two have more challenging terrain ? That's simply false. National Geographic Magazine even gave you a nice simple diagram to explain the climbing that compared all three major trails.

What exactly do you mean by terrain? Do you mean rivers to ford? Are you talking about areas above treeline where you are susceptible to lightening strikes? Are you talking about sheer altitude? Do you mean snow fields? Are we talking about areas that contain grizzly bears?

Climbing, in & of itself is not particularly difficult. In fact, I would say that the majority of the thru-hikers that I spent time with would rather climb than descend. Particularly by the time you have passed through Virginia. Terrain is so much more than elevation gain or loss. You haven't really factored that in your discussion at all.


one doesn't have to experience something to get a general understanding of it as long as he uses facts etc....

That is a silly statement. Especially when you want to argue with someone about something that you have not done, but he has. I too talked to Skid, but that no more makes me an expert on the CDT & PCT than it does you.



Calling me Dewey is amusing as it shows the amount of your frustration with me using logic to refute your weak arguments.

......Facts and the use of logic are here to stay no matter how many libs would like to forget they exsist.

I quoted this statement, because on one hand, you take exception at being called Dewey, and then in the next paragraph, you resort to categorizing all kinds of folks as "Libs". That is a fairly inconsistent argument.

Lastly, the CDT & PCT are hikes that must be hiked in a much smaller window than the AT. Some years, the snowfields on the PCT & CDT remain impassable, and you have to navigate around these areas.

While I am somewhat envious that you had 7 months to spend out on the AT, you can not think about hiking either of these other Natinal Scenic Trails in that length of time, and you can completely forget about the idea of slackpacking.

I would suggest that everyone tone down the personal attacks a bit. I would also recommend that folks try and argue about things that they have personal, first-hand experience with.

You never know when you might actually be arguing with a rocket scientist from NASA.

Alligator
06-14-2004, 08:35
...3...2...1...BLASTOFF! :jump

(Or not.)

bunbun
06-14-2004, 11:06
Yep - he's a real trip, Wolf. He outta be on one of the reality programs that I won't watch - you know - the "Last Comic Standing" -- or whatever that thing is.

But --- for Dewey - in order --
I don't give a flying crap about your opinion regarding my taste. I do what I do for my own reasons - and it ain't your business.

My interest in the arguments on Whiteblaze is also my own business - and none of yours. As is what I choose to answer or not. It's not your prerogative to ask or not ask whether I should answer your illogical assertions.

To quote your own words - "Come on admit it. The A.T. has "snow fields" as well you know, Temperatures into the 90's. 12k feet ??? Well if it is graded for horses then fine."

The average elevation of the CDT in Colorado is over 11,000 ft. Tell me how easy it is AFTER you've hiked it. Until then you're just blowin' smoke.

Now - your words again - "I NEVER said that just because the PCT was graded for horses then it was easy. Nice try again at bending the truth or just flat out making it up."

See your above comment about horses - your implication was - if the trail is graded for horses then it's easier. Once more - what was it you didn't say?

Your words again - "Quote where I said or implied the "western trails" were easy ? And since when is the CDT a WESTERN trail ?"

That was two questions - for the first answer see the above quote. For the second one - the CDT is certainly considered a "western" trail - whether you recognize it or not.

Uh while we're here - calling me a liar ten thousand times won't make it true. There are others here who know better.

And your words again - " I KNOW she said the PCT was easier. She then turned around in her next post and accussed me of making that comment. I simply wanted her to see the obvious error in her statement and admit that it was in fact her that made the comment. Sorry if I was speaking over your head. Next time you get SO disinterested in these sort of posts let me know and I'll dumb down my sarcasm and logic for you."

If you felt "accused" of anything by Spiritwalker - it really is your problem. You should do something about that personal problem. As for "dumbing down" anything - I don't think you could do that anymore than you already have. :)

And again - bunbun.. "Well, after all, we DO call it the Pacific Not-quite-the-Crest Wheelchair Trail. " ...... "And being graded for horses doesn't necessarily mean the trail is "easy." --- I see that I've now talked you dilusional as well. Make up your mind already. :bse "

Really? First - you fail to understand that I'm crazier than you are. Second - you fail to understand that those two statements are not mutually exculsive. Your failure - not mine. :jump

Again - your words - "What about the guy I talked to that has done the triple crown three times ? Is he then three times the "expert" she is ? Experience helps alot in knowing what you are talking about, but never underestimate common sense, logic, and having the ability comprehend something."

So - you maybe know Namie? Cool. And maybe he is three times the expert. So what - that's meaningless with respect to YOUR lack of knowledge. Common sense, logic and comprehension are wonderful. You should try to acquire some of them cause you sure don 't have any of the three at this point in time.

And once again - your words - "IDIOT. If you want to claim that National Geographics stats on elevation of the three major trails is wrong don't then comeback with ..." I used a recording altimeter on JUST two of them". You claim they just poof made those numbers up ? hahaa hilarious. National Geographic has an excellent reputation. What reason would they have for lying exactly ? I'm thinking you are the one that is making things up here. I know for a fact that NO exisiting recording altimeter can record every mile of both the PCT and CDT combined. If you had an interview with National Geographic and you had the altimeter of EVERY MILE on the PCT/CDT then you surely offered it to them right ? oops...I bet not because you are lying once again. :clap "

I don't know or care where they got their numbers but some of my numbers were published on pct-l about three years ago. Nor do I give a crap about their rep - they screwed up. Nor do I give a crap about your opinion on the subject. Particularly in view of your apparent total ignorance of the hardware involved.

Uh - BTW - why should I offer them something they weren't looking for? :)

Your words - " So....N.G. listened to "your group" and surely many others and just decided to take what ya'll said and throw it out the window....then lie and say the A.T. is the hardest ? Hilarious to say the least. The A.T. has steeper sections ? From what I have been told that is a gross understatement... made to improve your weak argument. Who cares about elevation gain when like YOU said "Well, after all, we DO call it the Pacific Not-quite-the-Crest Wheelchair Trail. " !!! I will agree AGAIN and admit the CDT requires more navigation skills. That fact can't even be debated."

A couple one-liners should be sufficient for this ----
What "group"? "We" means two of us - and that doesn't include you. :)

N.G. is no less prone to error and erroneous opinion than you are.

Well - it's nice that we agree about something.

And you again (you do run on, don't you?) - "on second though I refuse to dumb down my comments so that you can answer another hikers questions. I suggest you read what I say three or four times if you can't understand my comments or better yet, STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH AND LYING. What is a bunbun anyways ? :-? "

See the above comment re" "dumbing down".

bunbun - an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude
http://www.sluggy.com/d/970901.html

Again - " Incase the "bunbun group" has blurred my comments and opinions I'll restate them. I BELIVE N.G. when they say that the A.T. has twice the elevation gain as the other two trails. Why would they lie and for what reason."

Because they don't know any better - just as they didn't know that their CDT pictures were not on or near the CDT.

Your words again - "I KNOW the CDT is harder to navigate on from common sense, logistics, and talking to others that have done it. I believe we all can agree on that fact. I , for the most part, think the PCT/CDT have more snow than the A.T., but doesn't that depend on what date you start each trail ?"

Actually that's the first intelligent thing in your whole post. And its intelligence lies in the fact that it asked a question rather than make unfounded assertions.

You again - "Saying the CDT/PCT elevation is harder than the A.T.'s is like saying running 5 miles isn't as hard as walking 8 because walking eight is more miles."

You're tryin' to blow sunshine in my ear, Dewey. Walk the walk before you try to talk the talk. Otherwise you're just playing the fool.

"I couldn't care less which trail is harder. I think they all three are unique from one another and each has there own obsticles. "

Yes.

Lone Wolf
06-14-2004, 11:17
BIG APPLAUSE for bunbun!! :clap :clap :clap :clap :banana :banana :banana :banana

bunbun
06-14-2004, 11:26
You're right about that. I swear I've experienced mild symptoms of altitude sickness at just over 5,000 feet. Both in the Appalachians (headache) and in Denver (mild shortness of breath, slightly increased heartrate, slight dizziness).

I wouldn't take Diamox at such low elevations, but with those types of reactions it's probably very good that I took it in Colorado.

Steve - Those are typical symptoms that you might experience. Keep in mind that because it happens once (or even twice) doesn't mean it'll happen again - or that it won't. I had my problems in the Weminuche in 1997. In 1999, I thruhiked the CDT and my body just loved the altitude. It was really hard for me to come into towns cause the air was too thick at 7000 ft.

So - what did I do wrong in 1997? Everything. I had a case of food poisoning the day before we left for CO. Thought I was gonna die - and decided if it was gonna happen, I wanted it to happen on the trail. I was also overweight and under-conditioned. Working 12 hour rotating shifts doesn't do much for physical conditioning. My pack was also overweight - we packed as if we were AT thruhikers in Maine - LOTS AND LOTS of food. Too much food. We also packed as if we were gonna hike in Alaska in September. Too much gear. When we got to Durango, we had a beer with dinner. Bad, bad, bad. Our acclimatization (from basic sea level to 9,000 ft where we started) was 36 hours. Short, short, short. Much too short. Our trail mileage was designed to be the same as we were used to on the AT and other Eastern trails. Long - much too long.

All of the above were direct contributing factors to a wonderful case of HAPE (High Altitude Pumonary Edema) that took another four months to recover from. The other version of problem is HACE (High Altitude Cerbral Edema). HAPE can kill you - but it generally takes a couple days. HACE can kill you overnight. If you've read some of the mountaineering journals from the last 50 years or more, there's a long list of highly experienced mountaineers who've died of one or the other. Some of them still reside in places like K2.

BTW - we actually used Diamox. It worked for my wife - it didn't work for me. At least not well enough to "drive the devils out." :)

As pvtmorriscsa said - don't trifle with altitude sickness. Before you go to places it can be a problem - learn about it. And what to do about it. And what NOT to do about it.

Mags
06-14-2004, 11:54
Dewey.

Thank you for your input . You are absoultely correct. Nothing to do with the fact that I'd rather not continue discussing this topic with you for various reasons including that your "facts" and "logic" are based on a National Geograhpic article.

Please send all replies privatley as other people may not want to read any futher discourse.

Thank you.

gravityman
06-14-2004, 13:05
I believe we all can agree on that fact. I , for the most part, think the PCT/CDT have more snow than the A.T., but doesn't that depend on what date you start each trail ?

I'm curious how other people view this. If you ask me, the snow out here in Colorado in the mountains is much more difficult to deal with than the snow in the east because a) it can stick around all year in certain places and b) it is hella deep. I started the AT in March 2001. No snow that we got was anything like hiking in the Rockies even in June on a regular snow year. The only thing close to the Rockies were a few winter trips that I have take to Mount Washington, and even then, it has the be the DEAD of winter. December does not have the kind of snow that we have out here.

And it's not the snow that makes it really bad (i.e. possibilties of death) it's the slope and the snow and the loose rock that makes it so scary. There's nothing like that on the AT with the exception of the Presidentials (and Katahdin(?), although I've never been there).

Anyway, just asking how other people view snow on the AT verses on the CDT/PCT. I've hike the AT from Springer to WV and never felt scared of falling rocks or a slip to my death as I have on 14ers out here. Granted, you don't have to hike the 14ers to do the CDT, but what fun is that?

Gravity Man

PS Mountain Dew, have you every hiked out west? Over 12,000 ft? It certainly gets the heart and lungs going...

Fallingwater
06-14-2004, 13:11
"bunbun", damn Jim where did you pick up that handle from?

Anyway, for what it's worth, arguing over which of the long trails is hardest is like arguing over thru-hiker purity. We maybe using the same terms but we apply different definitions to them resulting in an argument that winds up pissing everyone off and going nowhere.

A couple of quick points on the National Geographic’s elevation numbers. As with Jim, I expect the number for the PCT and CDT are grossly under estimated.

Most of the PCT elevation numbers stem from the data book that was derived from the Guidebook. All of the elevations are taken from key points along the trail, water sources; trail junctions; passes; etc. This means that there are lots of significant gains and losses of elevation that are not reported.

Reporting elevation on the CDT would depend upon which route taken. Considering the number of possible routes determining an accurate elevation would be an impossible task. If you read both published quidebooks for the CDT (CDTS and CDTA), they generally can’t agree on the same mileage between two points even when they’re describing the exact same trail. So it’s not hard to believe the elevation numbers a shot in the dark.

Nor do I believe National Geographic lied. They simply reported the commonly available numbers, which are incorrect.

As I said it’s impossible to come to any consensus as to which trail is the most difficult simply because difficultly is a state of mind and not fact. What may appear to us quite difficult one day may be quite easy the next.

What is fair when comparing the differences between the different trails is exploring the different skill sets needed to successfully complete the hike. It is our application of these skills that have greatest effect on our perception of difficulty.

For example, if you’re quite handy with map and compass then the CDT poses little challenge. If not, you may find yourself walking in circles.

The other factor that effects our perception of difficulty is how wide the delta is between our expectations of the trail and the reality on the ground. The smaller the gap between the two, the more likely we’re able to understand conditions we’re likely to encounter and have already adapted our minds, skills, gear and hiking style to solve expected problems.

I do believe that each the three long trails often require quite different skill sets and hiking styles in order to complete with little difficulty. Too often we have little time to prepare in advance of a thru-hike for the problems we’re likely to encounter. As a result we’re left with the need to acquire the skill or adapt our hiking style to current conditions while the hike is underway.

Fortunately the natural buzz in the hiker community tends to steer hikers away from trails that are beyond their skills level. I expect that if the CDT received the same number of starting hikers as the AT with the same skill set of the typical starting AT thru-hiker, the percentages of successful CDT thru-hikes would be a small fraction of the successful thru-hikes of the AT.

Does that make the CDT a harder trail? For the experienced skilled hiker, no. However for someone who’s extent of backpacking is a few laps around a track with a loaded pack, the answer is yes.

Fallingwater

MOWGLI
06-14-2004, 13:36
The other factor that effects our perception of difficulty is how wide the delta is between our expectations of the trail and the reality on the ground. The smaller the gap between the two, the more likely we’re able to understand conditions we’re likely to encounter and have already adapted our minds, skills, gear and hiking style to solve expected problems.



I think this is an excellent point. That's why I don't like to look at map profiles. It often sets up false expectations, which can lead to a very frustrating experience. I recently hiked a 30-mile section of the Pine Mountain Trail in Kentucky. My pre-hike perception was that this was a ridge walk with little elevation gain. Not! The chasm between my expectations and the experience created some moments of real frustration.

The point that each trail has its own unique set of challenges is a good one too. For me, the desert portions of the PCT will probably be a real challenge when, the good lord (and the wife) willing, I hike that trail in another 5-8 years. Psychologically, I get a little crazy when water sources are sketchy.
The bugs in the High Sierra will probably pose a big challenge for me too - mentally. If they are anything like the skeeters in Great Barrington, MA, it'll take some real resolve for me to deal with 'em.

While the remoteness of the CDT might make some people a little nervous, that's the kind of experience I crave. The more remote the location, the more alive I feel. I imagine that the difficulty that trail might pose for me would be physically carrying enough food between road crossings. It would help if I lost a few pounds. I have also never hiked in Griz Country. While I yearn to do it, I'm sure there will be some nervous energy associated with that experience. Check that, I hiked in British Columbia in Griz Country in '95. The signs at the trailhead definitely had me looking over my shoulder from time to time.

Thanks for the great post Ron. It was a pleasure meeting you at Trail Days in Damascus.

Jeffrey Hunter

bunbun
06-14-2004, 14:11
"bunbun", damn Jim where did you pick up that handle from?

LOL - It's an abbreviation of what I used on TA, Ron. On TA, it was bunbun007 - and that was entirely appropriate for the time, place, personalities and activities.


Anyway, for what it's worth, arguing over which of the long trails is hardest is like arguing over thru-hiker purity. We maybe using the same terms but we apply different definitions to them resulting in an argument that winds up pissing everyone off and going nowhere.

Yup - but while we're here - do you want the names of those who told NG taht the AT was the hardest? Yeah - I know who it was - and so do you if you think about it for a while.


A couple of quick points on the National Geographic’s elevation numbers. As with Jim, I expect the number for the PCT and CDT are grossly under estimated.

Yeah - we went through this exercise on pct-l a couple years ago. And the actual measured numbers that I published blew away the "official" numbers - which are most likely what NG used in the article.


Reporting elevation on the CDT would depend upon which route taken. Considering the number of possible routes determining an accurate elevation would be an impossible task. If you read both published quidebooks for the CDT (CDTS and CDTA), they generally can’t agree on the same mileage between two points even when they’re describing the exact same trail. So it’s not hard to believe the elevation numbers a shot in the dark.

Yep - that mileage difference is a point that we're dealing with right now. As I recall, just for southern Colorado, the two guidebooks differ by somewhere around 150 miles (although I'd have to check those numbers to be sure).


Nor do I believe National Geographic lied. They simply reported the commonly available numbers, which are incorrect.

Exactly - and where they screwed up was in failing to understand the nature of the numbers they were using.


For example, if you’re quite handy with map and compass then the CDT poses little challenge. If not, you may find yourself walking in circles.

Hmm - not sure I'd agree with that, but I won't argue the point much either. I found the CDT challenging - and I was a qualified deep sea navigator before I graduated from high school. But most of the challenge was due to other factors. YMMV

Fallingwater
06-14-2004, 14:58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallingwater
For example, if you’re quite handy with map and compass then the CDT poses little challenge. If not, you may find yourself walking in circles.





Hmm - not sure I'd agree with that, but I won't argue the point much either. I found the CDT challenging - and I was a qualified deep sea navigator before I graduated from high school. But most of the challenge was due to other factors. YMMV

Perhaps I should elucidate my meaning on skill. In general I break skills down into two categories. First is the technical skill, which is the understanding of solving a problem. Depending upon the nature of the problem, acquisition of this kind of skill can be either simple or complex to acquire.

The second component of a skill, and one in which I find by far the most significance, is in developing confidence to overcome our natural doubts as to our ability to successfully implement the skill, sort of a long-winded definition of confidence.

Also confidence of applying a technical skill in one area will vary considerably depending upon how much the circumstances vary. So it is quite possible to be highly skilled and confident in one area while maintaining doubts under different circumstances. While I have good confidence of my skills on land, I would have significant doubts should I find myself far out on the water.

Fallingwater

Spirit Walker
06-14-2004, 17:16
It's like the attitude about getting lost, as happens frequently on the CDT. At first you may get upset about it, worry about how long it will take to find your way back to the trail, get mad at yourself or the guidebook or the trail maintainers for whatever lack of attention caused you to lose the trail. After a while, you stop getting upset, you stop getting worried, you just sit down with your map and try to figure out how to get back to something recognizable as trail. After a while, losing the trail becomes something to laugh about instead of something to fret about. I've known CDT hikers who never did learn to navigate, but they did learn the attitude that made being lost part of the experience instead of an obstacle to it.

Kerosene
06-15-2004, 10:37
It's like the attitude about getting lost ... At first you may get upset about it, worry about how long it will take to find your way back to the trail, get mad at yourself or the guidebook or the trail maintainers for whatever lack of attention caused you to lose the trail.This is my problem! I'm much more frustrated and upset than I am concerned about finding my way back!

warren doyle
06-15-2004, 11:14
This is a great thread to read. It has it all.
I especially enjoyed Spirit Walker's post #16. Well-written and thought-out.
I don't know of any trails that are more physically demanding (without snow) than the 226 miles of the AT from Glencliff, NH to East Flagstaff Rd. in Maine; the northern half of the Long Trail; and, the Adirondack trails. Those folks who do their early backpacking in these three areas before attempting the three biggies are definitely at a pychological advantage related to the footway (except for dealing with snowy passes and desert heat/water). supply).

Tater
06-18-2004, 19:20
One thing you have on the AT that you don't have on the CDT or PCT is all the RAIN. That can really get some folks down, when they've gone four or five days in wet clothes and a damp sleeping bag. And wiht all the humidity on the AT you really can't get away from it.

smokymtnsteve
06-18-2004, 19:23
that's right tater..sometimes inthe smokies it can rain for days and days ..and be real humid so even if you are under cover somewhere you are still damp..everything is damp.

Mountain Dew
06-20-2004, 02:07
MOWGLI16 .."What exactly do you mean by terrain? Do you mean rivers to ford? Are you talking about areas above treeline where you are susceptible to lightening strikes? Are you talking about sheer altitude? Do you mean snow fields? Are we talking about areas that contain grizzly bears?" --- Terrain encompasses all of those things you listed and many more and that is exactly how I used the word. I never referred to terrain as simple elevation gain and loss. If you go back and read what I said again you will hopefully see exactly how I used more than elevation +/-. How you fail to see that is beyond me. .... You claim that my arguing with a person about the CDT/PCT when they have hiked it and I haven't is silly ? To argue that the one with the most experience is always right isn't silly, rather the conclusion of a person who can't think beyond basic concepts. I played college baseball and if I said that college baseball was harder than pro baseball would you agree ? .... MOWGLI16 .... "I too talked to Skid, but that no more makes me an expert on the CDT & PCT than it does you. " ---ummm who is SKID ? and umm.... I'm no expert on the CDT/PCT. I know very well I may be wrong about my opinions, but facts are facts. I also respect the fact that everybody has their own opinions. .... if you don't understand the difference between using a slang name for somebody (Dewey) and using the term liberals then I can't help you with that topic. MOWGLI16... "Lastly, the CDT & PCT are hikes that must be hiked in a much smaller window than the AT. Some years, the snowfields on the PCT & CDT remain impassable, and you have to navigate around these areas." --- So some years the PCT "can't" be thru-hiked because snow fields prevent this from happening ? I'm not saying you are wrong, but to prove that you actually know what you say is true and aren't just making up those "facts" to try to win the argument please inform all of us what years you refer to and where exactly were those impassable spots ? If you care to share your information about this issue on the CDT I'd also be interested in hearing it. :-?
MOWGLI16... "While I am somewhat envious that you had 7 months to spend out on the AT, you can not think about hiking either of these other Natinal Scenic Trails in that length of time, and you can completely forget about the idea of slackpacking." ----o.k. and your point is what exactly ? I never mention slackpacking on the PCT/CDT and KNOW that it is vitually impossible.

Mountain Dew
06-20-2004, 02:41
bunbun .. I hope after your opening remarks you didn't go kick the dog or anything. You seemed really upset and angry. How much would it cost me to get you to let me watch via webcam your reactions to my posts ? Lone Wolf has a great idea with his using this website as entertainment ! I bet mrs. bunbun had to rub your back and calm you down after that little tantrum. On with this...

bunbun ... "Uh while we're here - calling me a liar ten thousand times won't make it true. There are others here who know better" ..--- Incase you think putting words in peoples mouths isn't the same as lying or the fact that you make up things that you know can't be proven I will now provide you with "catching a liar 101"....

bunbun ..."The average elevation of the CDT in Colorado is over 11,000 ft. Tell me how easy it is AFTER you've hiked it. Until then you're just blowin' smoke." --- I just looked on the Colorado Trails website (the CDT portion of Colorado) and they say that the average elevation is just over 10,000 ft. :clap Congrats on me catching you in a lie. You may apologize now if you wish. Please comeback with "over 11,000 ft." is the same thing as "just above 10,000". Please oh please try that liberal retort. And you want people to believe you when you make comments ? What a joke. ...oh and to further show who it is here that blows smoke.... ---> I grew up going to Colorado to fish, hike, bike. I've set foot on the CDT so I guess all the smoke you'll be seeing blown will be exiting your ass. You bend the truth with such ease that you have to be a bleeding heart liberal. :welcome

bunbun ... "For the second one - the CDT is certainly considered a "western" trail - whether you recognize it or not. " ---If people want to consider the CDT as a western trail then so be it. I happen to have common sense and observe Colorado being several states away from the West coast as well as NOT being in the western time zone. I guess using your logic Nebraska is east coast. This is, as Lone Wolf would put it... "a non-issue" though. These rest of your post was comical , but not worth responding to. Now if you haven't been made a fool of enough please stay on topic and try commenting on my opinions of the trail or refuting my facts. Somehow I think you won't. Lone Wolf.... I admit....you found out just how fun it can be to read this website and I have thus learned something from you. Amazing....

WHOA just when I thought I had read all of his liberal slanted comments there is much more that I missed...I'll continue...

You were talking about National Geographic magazine when you made these genius comments... bunbun ... "I don't know or care where they got their numbers but some of my numbers were published on pct-l about three years ago. Nor do I give a crap about their rep - they screwed up. Nor do I give a crap about your opinion on the subject. Particularly in view of your apparent total ignorance of the hardware involved." ---You obviously don't care about the reputation of the source because to admit their great reputation wouldn't benefit you at all. If you don't "give a crap about my opinion" then why have you made the two longest posts in whiteblaze history in response to my comments ? :banana o.k. so give me the name of the hardware that I don't know about ? You won't. or should I say can't because you now know that I'll look that BS up and prove you a liar once again. Classic liberal silencing technique !

bunbun ..."Uh - BTW - why should I offer them something they weren't looking for? " ---you made this comment referring to N.G. and your supoosed vast altitude knowledge. The same altitude info that you so bragged about in several post. You claimed it was published in what again ? You mean that they interviewed "your group" personally for "FOUR hours" and didn't ask you anything about altitude...then basically used altitude as the foundation of their argument ? hhmmm I'm starting to suspect you are compulsive. You're funny at it too. So obvious ! :bse

bunbun - an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude ---sounds pretty feminine and homo to me or quit possible a character is a strange nerd fantasy movie. My first thoughts of what a bunbun could be turned to doughnuts or little debbies. Didn't Bryson eat bunbun's ?

o.k. furry mini lop eared crazy evil rabbit ......please refrain from misquoting me. If you feel the need to quote me then use my name infront of each quote and make clear what I actually say. Something tells me your liberal ways won't allow you to do this though.

Mountain Dew
06-20-2004, 03:10
Mags......I once had a female dog named that come to think of it, but anyways...

Mags... "Dewey.Thank you for your input . You are absoultely correct. Nothing to do with the fact that I'd rather not continue discussing this topic with you for various reasons including that your "facts" and "logic" are based on a National Geograhpic article. Please send all replies privatley as other people may not want to read any futher discourse." ---infering that both my facts and logic are incorrect because I dare to use information from a highly respectable magazine is very typical of a quality liberal such as yourself. I wont send all other post to you privately, but instead do just as you have. Such hypocrisy is to be expected I suppose.

Mountain Dew
06-20-2004, 03:29
Gravityman... thanks for your reply without personal slams. You make logical comments with facts to back them up. You got me to really thinking about a few of your statements. To answer your question... I have hiked, skied above 10,000 ft. quit alot actually. Although my time spent hiking above such elevation is limited.

Gravityman... "And it's not the snow that makes it really bad (i.e. possibilties of death) it's the slope and the snow and the loose rock that makes it so scary. There's nothing like that on the AT with the exception of the Presidentials (and Katahdin(?), although I've never been there)." How do you just brush aside the Presidentials and mount K with the term "except" ? I do ,however, agree that snow is much more of a concern on the CDT like you say.

MOWGLI
06-20-2004, 09:45
MOWGLI16 - So some years the PCT "can't" be thru-hiked because snow fields prevent this from happening ? I'm not saying you are wrong, but to prove that you actually know what you say is true and aren't just making up those "facts" to try to win the argument please inform all of us what years you refer to and where exactly were those impassable spots ? If you care to share your information about this issue on the CDT I'd also be interested in hearing it. :-?
MOWGLI16... "While I am somewhat envious that you had 7 months to spend out on the AT, you can not think about hiking either of these other Natinal Scenic Trails in that length of time, and you can completely forget about the idea of slackpacking." ----o.k. and your point is what exactly ? I never mention slackpacking on the PCT/CDT and KNOW that it is vitually impossible.

Hey Mountain Dew. Welcome back. A couple of things. First off, I don't view this as an "argument" and I am not trying to "win" anything. Trying to "win" a discussion on this discussion board is like trying to "win" an AT hike. It ain't gonna happen.

Concerning my point about the snowfields on the PCT & CDT, I am speaking third-hand. I have not hiked either of those trails. I have talked exhaustively with my co-worker Ed about those trails, because he has hiked both of them. In fact, he is one of only a handful of folks (or perhaps the only person) who has walked all 8 National Scenic trails, and most of them more than once. (that brings up another thread - Trail Legends - because I'm sure most of you don't know who I'm talking about, yet he's hiked more miles on more trails than Lone Wolf & BJ combined) He still needs to buy a fare card to get on the Metro however.

I have talked to him about the PCT because I plan on hiking it. He has talked about many of the challenges that the trail poses. He has walked it twice himself. I never said that the PCT "can't be thru-hiked". What I said (or suggested - I thought) was that the window in which you can hike the PCT is smaller than the window that permits a 7 month AT hike. That's why people wait at Campo to start a PCT hike sometime in April(??). You don't see people starting a PCT hike in Feb & March. They would be stuck in the High Sierra by the snow. Similarly, you have to finish in September or early October (??) because once the snow flies in Washington State, it makes finishing very difficult.

Concerning the CDT, my co-worker has told me that some years the window to walk sme areas of the divide is only 1-2 weeks, if that. Of course, this is a very different trail than the AT. You can pick & choose your route along the way, skipping the snowfields. I believe that Brian Robinson road walked most (if not all) of New Mexico during his hike of the AT, PCT & CDT in one year. (That again comes from a conversation with my co-worker who saw Brian's slideshow and spoke to him). FYI, I am not criticizing or attempting to cheapen Brian's hike in any way. I'm just trying to illustrate a point about the difference between some of these trails.

What was my point about the 7 month remark? You have mentioned that you hiked the AT in 7 months. You also have written here and in your journal that you slackpacked a good bit. You have also written here that the AT is the most difficult trail of the three (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you have not hiked the PCT or CDT (like me).

My point is, your 7 month journey along the AT was unlike anything that you would experience along the CDT or PCT. Add in more miles in less time with no slackpacking, higher elevation and fewer water supplies, less hostels, and greater distances between road & resupply.... I think you get my point.

I hiked the AT in 5.5 months (24 or 25 zero days). I slackpacked perhaps 150 miles. It was the most physically demanding thing I have ever done. When I eventually hike the PCT (gee I hope I can someday), I will let you know if I think it was more difficult. My advancing age (and wisdom??) tells me that it probably will be. I ain't getting any younger. Waterskiing and jumping off a 30' cliff into Watts Bar Lake here in Tennessee (yesterday) has me feeling a bit creaky this morning.

I guess the difference between me and some of the other folks on this thread is that you will find me making very few (if any) definitive statements about whether this trail or that trail is harder. None of them are easy, and until I have a personal basis for comparison, talking in absolutes is just plain silly - IMO.

Happy Day! I'm gonna spend mine with my daughter. I think we're going fishing.

Little Bear

MOWGLI
06-20-2004, 10:08
To argue that the one with the most experience is always right isn't silly, rather the conclusion of a person who can't think beyond basic concepts. I played college baseball and if I said that college baseball was harder than pro baseball would you agree ?

Hey, sorry I didn't address this in my prior post. What I would argue (almost every time) is that the person who has experienced a particular experience is going to be right 99% of the time when compared to someone who is arguing a point, but has not walked the walk. In other words, if you and Fallingwater or Jim (BunBun) are discussing the relative difficulty of the PCT versus the AT, I will defer to Fallingwater & Jim, as they have hiked both trails.

Concerning your baseball analogy, I think it is flawed. In order for an analogy to be germane, it needs to be analogous to the situation at hand. Are you saying that the AT is a "professional" trail and the PCT & CDT are "amateur" trails? You get my point, don't you?

Little Bear

bunbun
06-21-2004, 16:02
bunbun .. I hope after your opening remarks you didn't go kick the dog or anything. You seemed really upset and angry.

Dewey, your'e not bright enough to say anything that could raise my blood pressure. The world is full of incompetent amateurs - and you certainly qualify.



bunbun ... "Uh while we're here - calling me a liar ten thousand times won't make it true. There are others here who know better" ..--- Incase you think putting words in peoples mouths isn't the same as lying or the fact that you make up things that you know can't be proven I will now provide you with "catching a liar 101".....

Go for it, Dewey. I don't have to put words in your mouth - you seem to have a talent for saying dumb things without my help. :)



bunbun ..."The average elevation of the CDT in Colorado is over 11,000 ft. Tell me how easy it is AFTER you've hiked it. Until then you're just blowin' smoke." --- I just looked on the Colorado Trails website (the CDT portion of Colorado) and they say that the average elevation is just over 10,000 ft. Congrats on me catching you in a lie.

Yup - you really do say dumb things. The Colorado Trail isn't the CDT, Dewey. The CT is the "lower route". It's the route CDT hikers take when they get blown off the Divide by snow. You should get your facts straight.



You may apologize now if you wish. Please comeback with "over 11,000 ft." is the same thing as "just above 10,000". Please oh please try that liberal retort.

Dumber and dumber you are. On another forum I've been called an "archconservative". But frankly, I wouldn't want to be classed with you cause you give "conservatives" a bad name. :D



---If people want to consider the CDT as a western trail then so be it. I happen to have common sense and observe Colorado being several states away from the West coast as well as NOT being in the western time zone.

It's west of the Mississippi - just like Texas. And much of it is west of the Continental Divide. It's a "western trail."



---You obviously don't care about the reputation of the source because to admit their great reputation wouldn't benefit you at all.

If they've made a mistake, then they've made a mistake - no matter who they are. And you're obviously not knowledgable enough to know the difference. By your own words, the LA Times and the Washington Post should be trusted to be fair and honest in their reporting. Really? Let's not get stupid here. :-?



If you don't "give a crap about my opinion" then why have you made the two longest posts in whiteblaze history in response to my comments ?

Really?? The longest?? Cool. Prove that. Never mind - it doesn't matter. I couldn't spew as much ignorance as you do if my posts were ten times as long.



o.k. so give me the name of the hardware that I don't know about ? You won't. or should I say can't because you now know that I'll look that BS up and prove you a liar once again. Classic liberal silencing technique !

You don't know much of ANYTHING, do you? Do you know the name Suunto? Do you understand the words "ignorant yahoo"? :-?



bunbun ..."Uh - BTW - why should I offer them something they weren't looking for? " ---you made this comment referring to N.G. and your supoosed vast altitude knowledge. The same altitude info that you so bragged about in several post. You claimed it was published in what again ? You mean that they interviewed "your group" personally for "FOUR hours" and didn't ask you anything about altitude...then basically used altitude as the foundation of their argument ? hhmmm I'm starting to suspect you are compulsive. You're funny at it too. So obvious !

Well, gee, Dewey - I didn't claim it was a 4 hour interview - why are you misquoting me? And I DID say that they didn't ask - so why do you think I should tell them about things they didn't ask about? And your jealosy about not being one of the "group" is flattering, but you just don't qualify, bubba. Deal with it.



bunbun - an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude ---sounds pretty feminine and homo to me or quit possible a character is a strange nerd fantasy movie. My first thoughts of what a bunbun could be turned to doughnuts or little debbies. Didn't Bryson eat bunbun's ?

Interesting - you claim to use "fact" to support your arguments, but when your facts don't work, you use personal attack and insult. And you're just another bloody incompetent amateur at it.



o.k. furry mini lop eared crazy evil rabbit ......please refrain from misquoting me. If you feel the need to quote me then use my name infront of each quote and make clear what I actually say. Something tells me your liberal ways won't allow you to do this though.

Any time I've quoted you, it's been your own words - as you wrote them - and I've made it clear who said them, Dewey.

BTW - you forgot the switchblade and the attitude. And nobody's claimed I'm "furry" for a lot longer than you've been alive. :jump

Enuff - it's been fun, but your ignorant blatherings aren't really worth answering unless I'm lookin' for entertainment value.

gravityman
06-21-2004, 18:11
Gravityman... thanks for your reply without personal slams. You make logical comments with facts to back them up. You got me to really thinking about a few of your statements. To answer your question... I have hiked, skied above 10,000 ft. quit alot actually. Although my time spent hiking above such elevation is limited.

Gravityman... "And it's not the snow that makes it really bad (i.e. possibilties of death) it's the slope and the snow and the loose rock that makes it so scary. There's nothing like that on the AT with the exception of the Presidentials (and Katahdin(?), although I've never been there)." How do you just brush aside the Presidentials and mount K with the term "except" ? I do ,however, agree that snow is much more of a concern on the CDT like you say.

No problem. The personal back and forth is getting pretty old (hint hint Bun Bun) but there is a good agruement going on about what people that have hiked the AT feel about the other trails...

Personally, I have hiked quite a bit (although not nearly as much as Mags and Bun Bun over tree line. I have also downhill skied at that elevation. Skiing is just so much easier and I have never felt in danger skiiing (probably an overestimate in my abilities, but I am still walking...)

As for brushing aside the Presidentials and Mount Katahdin, yes, I did that didn't I? Well, for one, the winter season on them is MUCH shorter than the mountains that the CDT go over. As far as Washington, I have never felt the danger there that I have felt in the summer time out here climbing 14ers. Loose rock and large snow fields that end over a cliff are quite scary, and you have to cross them to get to the top. I have done Mt Washington from Tuckermans (lion's head route, both summer and winter routes) and aside from the cold and wind, I never felt like I could lose my life by slipping. Sure on the winter lions head route I could wrap myself around a tree if I slipped, but that doesn't frighten me the way plunging off a cliff does... Of course large rocks scary me too, especially when there are people up above you kicking them lose (almost got nailed going up Long's Peak).

My point is dieing from an accident on the AT is pretty tough (Watch out for those road crossings!). Dieing out here above tree line is a lot easier, especially when you are trying to make miles and thus do stupid things. HAPE and HACE aren't a serious concern unless you just came from sea level or you don't listen to your body. Slipping, getting hit by lightening, having a rock hit you are all a weekly if not daily chance out here above tree line. Of course you can blaze around all that stuff, but then did you really hike the CDT? That's another question :)

Not that it should scare anyone! It just needs to be treated with respect and knowledge must be earned. There are plenty of people who come out here, do 14ers for the 1st time and never get hurt. But there are people that do that, kick out a rock and kill someone else. Personally, that's a terrifying thing, and what I worry most about. I would have a hard time living with that... (I dropped a water bottle off a cliff while climbing a few years ago. Took me many months before I felt good about climbing again. It's just too easy to make a mistake and someone else pay for it.)

Gravity Man

Deerleg
06-22-2004, 08:07
Accomplished distance hiker Ray Jordine and his wife walked the AT and PCT in successive summers. They averaged 25.3 miles a day on the AT and 29.3 on the PCT. That’s about 16% more miles per day on the PCT. In addition to less elevation gain per mile Jordine attributes the longer PCT miles to “its humidity is much lower and doesn’t interfere with the body’s evaporative cooling, meaning that its hikers can travel it more efficiently”.

Mountain Dew
06-23-2004, 04:41
First I will admit that I was wrong about the elevation on the CDT in Colorado. I thought the C.T. followed the CDT for the length of Colorado. Conservatives can admit things like this unlike hardcore wacked out liberals seem to not be able to do. And unless you forget or ASSume again...I have hiked at that altitude.

Let's take a look at who I've been going back and forth with...

bunbun - defintion of a bunbun: "an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude " :bse
other comments he's made...
- "First - you fail to understand that I'm crazier than you are" :bse
- "And nobody's claimed I'm "furry" for a lot longer than you've been alive." :bse
- "As THE one and only original Internet curmudgeon, that's my prerogative and I don't like other horning in on my territory." :bse
curmudgeon's defintion: An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions. :bse
- "I've been gone for a while (about 5 months) dealing with a neurological problem" Naturally we know you refer to yours right ? :bse

YOU HAVE ISSUES....

bunbun arguing that the CDT is a western trail... -"It's west of the Mississippi - just like Texas. "And much of it is west of the Continental Divide. It's a western trail." ---So Texas is in the West ? :bse

bunbun claiming that he's right and the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC people are wrong: -"I don't know or care where they got their numbers but some of my numbers were published on pct-l about three years ago. Nor do I give a crap about their rep - they screwed up." :bse - I know it's obvious to most, BUT... The National Geographic Magazine has an excellent reputation. I believe N.G. over somebody that claims they are "crazy" and named themselves bunbun :"an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude". What is pct-l ? or better yet why do you think your numbers are correct since "some" of them were "published" on pct-l ? Pretty funny.

Bottom line is... I think the A.T. is harder than the other two big trails. My opinion that's all. If somebody gives me the facts or their experience I consider that into my opinions as well. I try very hard to base my opinions on facts that I've heard or experienced.

What is the name of the guy that interviewed you that was from National Geographic again ? Did this guy call you or did you two run into him/her and start a conversation about this article. You make it seem like the author of the article sought you two out for your expert opinions. Earlier you hint at knowing EXACTLY who told N. G. that the A.T. was harder. Care to share your thoughts or will you hide behind comments about people with no names ? I bet little to none of these questions get answered.... hahaaa

waiting to hear from you dumbdumb... :bse

Mountain Dew
06-23-2004, 04:58
MOWGLl16 - "he's hiked more miles on more trails than Lone Wolf & BJ combined"--- And ? it matters how ? You know the exact miles of Lone Wolf and Baltimore Jack ? Share with us this magic number or a close enough number to be relevant. I don't think Lone Wolf even cares enough to know exactly how many miles he has.

MOWGLl16 ---"What was my point about the 7 month remark? You have mentioned that you hiked the AT in 7 months. You also have written here and in your journal that you slackpacked a good bit." --- I didn't mention that I slackpacked a good bit of it either. In fact I "chose" to carry a 55 lb pack and slacked just a few more miles than you claim to have.

-"My point is, your 7 month journey along the AT was unlike anything that you would experience along the CDT or PCT." RIDICULOUS. I could name many many similarities if I wanted. That's like saying playing ball on that field isn't the same as another field.

I guess we just disagree with our opinions of which is the hardest of the three major trails. I respect your opinion.

bunbun
06-23-2004, 10:26
First I will admit that I was wrong about the elevation on the CDT in Colorado. I thought the C.T. followed the CDT for the length of Colorado.

No - you ASSumed it.



Conservatives can admit things like this unlike hardcore wacked out liberals seem to not be able to do.

With friends like you, who needs enemies? :)



And unless you forget or ASSume again...I have hiked at that altitude.

Not much - and not a thruhike. Walk the walk - THEN talk the talk.



Let's take a look at who I've been going back and forth with...

bunbun - defintion of a bunbun: "an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude "
other comments he's made...
- "First - you fail to understand that I'm crazier than you are"
- "And nobody's claimed I'm "furry" for a lot longer than you've been alive."
- "As THE one and only original Internet curmudgeon, that's my prerogative and I don't like other horning in on my territory."
curmudgeon's defintion: An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions.
- "I've been gone for a while (about 5 months) dealing with a neurological problem" Naturally we know you refer to yours right ?

Yup, those are even "mostly" my words - so what?



YOU HAVE ISSUES....

No - I've dealt with my "issues" - you're the one who seems to have issues with who/what I am. Deal with it.



bunbun arguing that the CDT is a western trail... -"It's west of the Mississippi - just like Texas. "And much of it is west of the Continental Divide. It's a western trail." ---So Texas is in the West ?

Every Texan I've ever met claims it's either in the South or the West - so where do you think it is?



I know it's obvious to most, BUT... The National Geographic Magazine has an excellent reputation. I believe N.G. over somebody that claims they are "crazy" and named themselves bunbun :"an evil homicidal minilop rabbit with a switchblade and an attitude". What is pct-l ? or better yet why do you think your numbers are correct since "some" of them were "published" on pct-l ? Pretty funny.

What you believe is your problem - but dragging your problems around in public will get you talked about. :jump



Bottom line is... I think the A.T. is harder than the other two big trails. My opinion that's all. If somebody gives me the facts or their experience I consider that into my opinions as well. I try very hard to base my opinions on facts that I've heard or experienced.

What you believe is your problem, but don't tell me you take facts or other people's experience into consideration - I gave you my experience - and a lot of facts. And the only thing you've done is quibble about it.

So - try some other peoples experience ----
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=68153
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?id=65868
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/cdt-l/2004-June/001741.html

So - you ran into this kinda stuff on the AT right??

Really?? :)



What is the name of the guy that interviewed you that was from National Geographic again ? Did this guy call you or did you two run into him/her and start a conversation about this article.

He's on this forum, Dewey - he can introduce himself if he likes. Otherwise it's none of your business.



You make it seem like the author of the article sought you two out for your expert opinions.

Yes.



Earlier you hint at knowing EXACTLY who told N. G. that the A.T. was harder. Care to share your thoughts or will you hide behind comments about people with no names ?

Those who ARE Triple Crown (or about to be so) generally know who's said things like that - but who said what is none of your business. That comment was for one specific person - and it wasn't you. I don't need to scratch your itch. Walk the walk - then maybe you'll know. Or maybe not.



I bet little to none of these questions get answered.... hahaaa

They all got answered - although likely not the way you'd like. You lose.



waiting to hear from you dumbdumb...

ROTFLMAO!!!

gravityman
06-23-2004, 10:39
bunbun arguing that the CDT is a western trail... -"It's west of the Mississippi - just like Texas. "And much of it is west of the Continental Divide. It's a western trail." ---So Texas is in the West ? :bse


I shouldn't get between the two, but I have to point it out...

The arch in St. Louis is considered the "Gate Way to the West." Anything to the west of that is largely considered to be "in the west."

Gravity Man

bunbun
06-23-2004, 11:09
I shouldn't get between the two, but I have to point it out...

The arch in St. Louis is considered the "Gate Way to the West." Anything to the west of that is largely considered to be "in the west."

Well - only since Rogers and Clark went through there. :)

Not to worry - I generally have better tactical sense than to allow bystanders (innocent or not) to get in the line of fire. Friendly fire isn't. :D

BTW - reportedly, those who live at altitude, descend and then return to altitude are MUCH more likely to be subject to HACE and HAPE than those who come from sea level. The study on my desk says only 1 of the 32 cases in the study came from sea level - the others all lived at altitude, descended and returned. IMO - better solution - go to 12k ft and don't come down. :D

Fallingwater
06-23-2004, 17:44
Bottom line is... I think the A.T. is harder than the other two big trails. My opinion that's all. If somebody gives me the facts or their experience I consider that into my opinions as well. I try very hard to base my opinions on facts that I've heard or experienced.


Mountain Dew,

All I can say is you should hike the other trails before making such a statement. Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that you wish to be taken seriously on this or any other forum.

You have an opinion based upon your discussions with others, that's fine. However, it's just an opinion and is worth the weight of any other uninformed opinion. Even those who’ve hiked all or most of the Triple Crown have our own opinions on trail difficulty. Nor do we always agree with each other. At least we have a better understanding of how and why our views differ. None of us hikes the same trail, under the same conditions so our feelings of difficulty can vary widely.

As to the article in National Geographic, on the whole it was pretty good. Though, as others and I pointed out, it did have some inaccurate information. I don’t blame the author; I believe he did a good job representing the three trails. I also enjoyed spending some time with him discussing the three trails and long distance hiking in general.

I do know the author talked to a lot of people and not surprisingly I’m sure he frequently got conflicting information. His job was to sort through it and come up with a workable and readable story.

Fallingwater

steve hiker
06-24-2004, 10:25
Every Texan I've ever met claims it's either in the South or the West - so where do you think it is?
Southwest

.......... no my message is not too short ............

Mountain Dew
06-28-2004, 23:27
"Horse with no name"--- Gotta love that trail name !

Fallingwater... Well said although we still don't exactly agree. I've always said that it was my opinion and hopefully you respect peoples rights to have those. Never have I said that I was 100% right about my "assumptions" either. Nobody is right 100% of the time and I could very well be wrong about many different aspects of my argument. Afterall...what is wrong with doing 1/3 of what you are talking about, listening to those that had done 3/3 of the mentioned trails and then making your own opinions know. This is America isn't it. Where on this thread can I find the post where you state that the author shouldn't be giving his opinion in his article after talking to many who have the full experience. Just curious....

bunbun... "Yup, those are even "mostly" my words - so what?" --- Those are EXACT quotes. Backup your statement... First you claim that i have NEVER hiked at that altitude and when I shoot that comment down you backpeddle to.." well, not much and not a thru-hike"... hahaaa don't trip on while backing up. You thinking Texas is in the west says it all, but maybe you could live in this century and not the last where Texas was considered WEST. Simple logic in the hands of idiots simply confusses them ! You keep mentioning the word facts, but all you do is say FACTS then ramble with opinions. Learn the difference in the two dumbdumb.
You not mentioning the name of the guy from National Geographic is a typical liberal move. I'm starting to think you are lying about that with the way you "slick willy'd" the question. I didn't ask for his whiteblaze screen name. I asked for his name. Are you scared that i'll ask him what all you two talked about thus exposing you ? Most likely. You are likewise chicken**** to name the person you referred to in an earlier post. All these vague elementary comments and your only reply is..."it's my business not yours". That reminds me of some crybaby from grade school that has issues in life as an adult. Liberals like you most likely have your President Clinton posters on the ceiling of your room for obvious reason.

Pencil Pusher
06-29-2004, 01:16
Texas is so darned big it's both in the southwest and the south. Though I suppose you'd tell someone from the east coast, you're from out west. So maybe you both are right, in certain contexts.

I-10 from the NM border to the LA border is around 840 miles. That's more than some folks drive in a day, so you could drive all damn day long and still be stuck in Texas! Watch out for Texas DPS though. The last coupon I got from them was $130 for 31 over. Probably pretty cheap by today's standard.

bunbun
06-29-2004, 11:05
Texas is so darned big it's both in the southwest and the south. Though I suppose you'd tell someone from the east coast, you're from out west. So maybe you both are right, in certain contexts.

The point was never worth arguing - but do you know the old story about the Texan and the Alaskan in a bar? The Texan is braggin' about how big Texas is. The Alaskan gets a bellyful of the Texan's bragging and tells him if he doesn't shut up, they'll just split Alaska in half and Texas will be the "third" largest state. :)

For Dewey - why don't you actully READ the NG article? You might get some answers. Or not. You CAN read, can't you?

Incidentally, the elevation gain in that article was only one of a number of glaring errors about the CDT. But then, the author isn't really to blame - he was was only quoting the people who are "supposed to know the answers." But they don't. Uh - you DO know who I'm talking about, don't you Dewey? Since you seem to want to be THE self-appointed expert on the CDT, you should know these things. :rolleyes:

OK - playtime's over - back to work. Y'all have a good day anyway. :jump

Mountain Dew
07-27-2004, 02:38
Bun Bun ...I wasn't bragging about Texas you idiot. Why do you quote someone else then address me ? Because you're wack job. Talking to you is alot like cleaning up dog ****. You don't really want to do it, but somebody's got to before somebody steps in it. Did I mention that you are full of it ? hahahahahaaaaaaaa

A-Train
07-27-2004, 11:32
I've never hiked the PCT or CDT. Hoping to hike the PCT in the next 2 yrs. Dew I'm sure through statistics you could prove the AT is more difficult, but since neither of us has hiked all 3 it would be tough to say. Read some of the CDT 04 journals on trailjournals. It seems a wee bit more difficult than the average AT thru-hiked but maybe thats just me. Check em out.

Mountain Dew
07-28-2004, 03:56
A-train... It wasn't only statistics that I used but thats not the point of your entry I suppose. You are right.... It is tough to say and like I've said several times I may very well be wrong here. I've never claimed to be the expert on this matter. Reading journals bores me to no end. Journals aren't a good standard by which to compare the two trails anyways. I think I'm tired of this thread anyways.....blah blah.....