PDA

View Full Version : PCT vs AT



Rush13
08-05-2009, 12:59
Howdy all!! :welcome

I was looking for a little advice on which long distance hike I should tackle first. In a perfect world I would like to complete both but who knows when I will have time to do so. I'm graduating college in the spring and I'm hoping to tackle either the PCT or the AT in summer 2010 or 2011. My original plan was to do the AT but after doing some research I stumbled across the PCT and it really began to pique my interest.

I've never done anything more than a day hike (I've done many of these) and I was curious as to which one everyone recommends. From what I've been reading it seems as if most people have done the AT before they do the PCT but the interesting part is that the hikes are vastly different so does anyone foresee any problems of going straight for the PCT? I'm from New Hampshire so I've only done East Coast mountains (part of the reason I had been thinking AT) but the West Coast has really caught my attention.

An important thing to note is that I'm a distance runner that typically runs about 80-100 miles a week. So I'm not kidding myself thinking I can just jump right from the couch to the PCT. I also thought the PCT would be a better fit for me as its more lightweight hiking (I'm a distance runner, I'm skinny :eek:)

Also on the more wishful thinking side...feasability of completing the PCT in 90 days? I realize that would be averaging 30 miles with zero rest days. I think it would be entirely doable (I've done more 20 mile runs then I'd want to count). Is this wishful thinking, am I giving myself too much credit here thinking my distance running will convert well to the PCT? I wont take offense to anybody bringing me down to earth on this one :D

Red Beard
08-05-2009, 14:03
I have not yet thru-hiked the AT, but I have done two-week long hikes at a time. Since I'm such a fat guy, personally I'm taking on the AT first. I hear that the PCT requires a lot more miles/day with less time to do it.

In short, if you're in poor shape like me, I'd opt for the AT first. Just 2-cents from the fat-guy peanut gallery.

Yahtzee
08-05-2009, 14:10
PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

Red Beard
08-05-2009, 14:15
PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

I'd be one of them :D

Mags
08-05-2009, 14:34
This thread may be useful:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52724&highlight=PCT

The short hand description is, in general, the PCT is logistically more difficult and the AT is physically more challenging. I'll add to this nugget that this thought is generally true for people new to long distance hiking.

I think that the AT is perceived as physically more difficult is that because many people new to long distance hiking are carrying heavier gear, are not in the best physical or mental shape for ld hiking and do not have the experience that veterans of long trails may have. So the first long trail is perceived at the most difficult physically.

Parts of the AT are indeed more physically more difficult than the PCT (the Whites and the Mahoosucs come to mind), but overall I think the AT is not that much more difficult than the PCT imo.

If you are the type of hiker who is not mentally geared for doing more than 15 MPD and likes frequent town stops (and likes to get in 'trail shape' on the trail), then the AT is perhaps the better trail. Frequent towns and very conducive to a 12 MPD or so pace.

Based on your posting, you are probably in better shape than most people starting a long trail. I do not know how much experience you have outside of weekend backpacks, so you may want to do a two week backpack somewhere to get used to the mind set of thru-hiking. Resupplying, being out in all conditions, pacing, etc. The Long Trail in Vermont is a good trail to try out ld hiking (if with harder grades over alll than any of the trails I've done). If you want a challenge that is local, try the Cohos Trail. :) (At 160 miles, perhaps fits your schedule more, too)

FWIW, many people say the PCT is, in some ways, a better first trail. Well graded trail, good views, logistics aren't too bad if you are willing to change the "more camping, less hiking" mindset that is common to backpacking.


As for a 90 days pace....difficult, but not unheard of. You may want to read Suge's journal (http://cwillett.imathas.com/pct/index.html) for what a hike of this pace entails. Most, but not all, hikers on this pace have done a long trail of some sort previously.

Finally, light gear is not just for tall, skinny guys. It is also for lazy guys like myself who are built more like a dockworker than a distance runner. :D I can haul ~50 pounds of food, wine and gear to a hut on skis. Doesn't mean I want to do it for 4 mos. ;)

Rush13
08-05-2009, 14:41
PCT. If you do the PCT first and then the AT, all the AT hikers will think you are so cool. Despite the AT being the "original" 2000 miles long distance trail, I found that most AT hikers had an inferiority complex when it came to PCT. Don't know why.

Have you hiked both?

Rush13
08-05-2009, 14:56
This thread may be useful:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52724&highlight=PCT

The short hand description is, in general, the PCT is logistically more difficult and the AT is physically more challenging. I'll add to this nugget that this thought is generally true for people new to long distance hiking.

I think that the AT is perceived as physically more difficult is that because many people new to long distance hiking are carrying heavier gear, are not in the best physical or mental shape for ld hiking and do not have the experience that veterans of long trails may have. So the first long trail is perceived at the most difficult physically.

Parts of the AT are indeed more physically more difficult than the PCT (the Whites and the Mahoosucs come to mind), but overall I think the AT is not that much more difficult than the PCT imo.

If you are the type of hiker who is not mentally geared for doing more than 15 MPD and likes frequent town stops (and likes to get in 'trail shape' on the trail), then the AT is perhaps the better trail. Frequent towns and very conducive to a 12 MPD or so pace.

Based on your posting, you are probably in better shape than most people starting a long trail. I do not know how much experience you have outside of weekend backpacks, so you may want to do a two week backpack somewhere to get used to the mind set of thru-hiking. Resupplying, being out in all conditions, pacing, etc. The Long Trail in Vermont is a good trail to try out ld hiking (if with harder grades over alll than any of the trails I've done). If you want a challenge that is local, try the Cohos Trail. :) (At 160 miles, perhaps fits your schedule more, too)

FWIW, many people say the PCT is, in some ways, a better first trail. Well graded trail, good views, logistics aren't too bad if you are willing to change the "more camping, less hiking" mindset that is common to backpacking.


As for a 90 days pace....difficult, but not unheard of. You may want to read Suge's journal (http://cwillett.imathas.com/pct/index.html) for what a hike of this pace entails. Most, but not all, hikers on this pace have done a long trail of some sort previously.

Finally, light gear is not just for tall, skinny guys. It is also for lazy guys like myself who are built more like a dockworker than a distance runner. :D I can haul ~50 pounds of food, wine and gear to a hut on skis. Doesn't mean I want to do it for 4 mos. ;)

Thanks Mags, I was hoping you would pop in here because I read your PCT handout and it was one of the most helpful things I have come across thus far. As I said I've never even done an overnight hike. I've only hiked mountains over here in New England like Mt Washington, Franconia Ridge Trail, Mt Katahdin (yeah I know I ruined the ending to the AT:eek: but it was before I had plans to do it) etc. I've enjoyed all of them and didn't seem too challenging.

Logistics is the one thing I'm not looking forward to! I'd rather just get out there into the outdoors (as I'm sure everyone would). But I realize it's a necessary evil and I wouldn't have a problem organizing that once I commit myself to it. I'll have to check out Suge's journal when I get a chance. Would you say the views are better during the PCT? If I'm going to be hiking for 3+ months I'd love to see a bit of the world. Seems as if the AT has a lot of just woods, which is nice but can get monotonous. Plus living in NH my whole life I've had my fair dose of woods.

And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back:D

Many Walks
08-05-2009, 15:22
We did the AT on 07 and plan to thru the PCT in 2011. Meanwhile we hike most every weekend and have done several sections of the PCT.

A few things to consider IMO.

AT is shorter, but generally the terrain is more difficult. The PCT trails are graded for horses in many areas and are generally in better shape. A 5 mo. hike on the AT will equate to a 4 mo. hike on the PCT.

The highest point on the AT is just over 6K' while many sections of the PCT are over 6K' going up to around 11K' or higher creating issues with reduced oxygen, snow pack, and UV. If you are not used to the elevations your hiking time will be increased.

Some sections in the higher elevations will have snow through July with cold overnight temps, so you'll need some warmer clothes. This will add to your pack weight in some sections.

Both trails share common critters like rattlesnakes, etc, but in a few sections of both the AT and PCT black bears are exceptionally aggressive. The NPS requires an approved food container in a few sections of the PCT. Permits are required in some sections as well, so plan accordingly.

The PCT has an abundance of poison oak, which IMO is worse than poison ivy. Personal experience having had both.

Resupply on the AT is much easier than the PCT with fewer towns that are further from the trail.

Both trails have some sections where water can be scarce, so planning is required.

AT has lots of shelters, generally with water and a privy, while the PCT has none.

You'll most likely meet fewer hikers on the PCT, except in concentrated areas with high day use.

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment. I believe if you have the opportunity to thru hike you should enjoy it and try to set records elsewhere, but HYOH!

There are several books available about both trails. I bought the latest edition of the Pacific Crest Trail Atlas from Erik the Black and love it. It's worth considering if you decide to hike the PCT.

Enjoy your hike!

Mags
08-05-2009, 15:40
As I said I've never even done an overnight hike. I've only hiked mountains over here in New England like Mt Washington, Franconia Ridge Trail, Mt Katahdin (yeah I know I ruined the ending to the AT:eek: but it was before I had plans to do it) etc. I've enjoyed all of them and didn't seem too challenging.


That's the crux. A long day hike is doable by just about anyone. Doing it day after day is another story (with a pack) The year I hiked the PCT, Chuckie V (any triathletes will know this guy) was quite shocked how his professional athlete body was beat up by the day after day grind of hiking every day with a full pack. (He adjusted..it was just A LOT more difficult than he expected).


I did not realize you had done no backpacking.

Seriously, get yourself out there and commit to a longer hike to see how your body handles running vs, hiking.

I've seen marathon runners and triathletes in my own circle fade after just one day of backpacking. Different muscles. Different mindset. This article may be useful. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=184425#post184425)



Would you say the views are better during the PCT?

More wide open for sure. The "long green tunnel" definitely has an intimate, more subtle beauty..but not many wide open views. The PCT has more of those overall.


And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back:D

You haven't been on this site long enough. :) There are some mucho macho hotdogs on this site who believe anyone who does not carry a 50+ pound pack is missing the point of the outdoors. I kid you not.


Many walks said:

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment.

For you perhaps.

Or, to put your philosopy and others more succinctly: Hike My Hike, Damn it! :banana (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/hike-my-hike-damn-it.html)

But some people simply like to , and can, walk all day. Suge walked the PCT in about 90 days and called it "A Beautiful Thing".

As I like to say, just because you like chocolate ice cream, that does not mean vanilla ice cream sucks.

summermike
08-05-2009, 16:29
Thanks Mags, I was hoping you would pop in here because I read your PCT handout and it was one of the most helpful things I have come across thus far.

Is there a link to this PCT handout? I'd like to read it.

A-Train
08-05-2009, 17:28
Rush:

I've hiked both. Both are great trails and you can't really go wrong. The AT has the social aspect, the history and the trail culture. The PCT has the scenary, the ease (in terrain) and still a great trail community, just smaller.

I always tell people picking a favorite would be like picking a favorite child or sibling.

But the truth is that overall I'd recommend the PCT. Maybe it was being 4 years older, a bit more mature and comfortable with myself and my abilities, but I felt more free on the PCT. The AT can be somewhat confining if you let it: shelters, hostels, groups of friends, etc lead me in a very group-oriented, herd mentality. The PCT had great people around, but hiking until dusk and setting up camp wherever felt empowering. I grew to look forward to the solitude more than the social aspect and felt as if there was greater potential for me to truly do my own thing, a less paint-by-numbers adventure.

More or less either trail is what you make of it. You can be solo-minded on both or enjoy friends, or a combination of the two.

If you will do both, I'd start with the AT, but if it was just one, the views in the first 50 miles of the PCT will blow almost anything on the AT away.

Hike on, and enjoy every minute!

Mags
08-05-2009, 17:38
Is there a link to this PCT handout? I'd like to read it.

http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Backpacking-and-Hiking-documents/PCT-Info.html

Sly
08-05-2009, 17:50
Rush, if you're look for thrills, hike the PCT. (pun intended)

Jester2000
08-05-2009, 18:44
Many Walk's post above was a good one, but just two clarifications: Your PCT Permit is the only permit you'll need to get. It covers the whole trail. You can find the info at PCTA.org

Also, while there are very, very few shelters, they do exist.




. . .

And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back:D

You haven't been on this site long enough. :) There are some mucho macho hotdogs on this site who believe anyone who does not carry a 50+ pound pack is missing the point of the outdoors. I kid you not. . .


Anyone who has met me will tell you that I am one of the most macho people they've ever met. Machismo oozes out of my pores. I do enjoy carrying a 50+ pound pack, but I never try to convince other people to do so, 'cause if everyone did it, I wouldn't be so freakin' cool.

Anyway, they're very different trails, both enjoyable for different reasons. You may find in poking around that the PCT fits you better, particularly in regards to views and mileage per day. But you should heed Mags' warnings regarding running not necessarily translating well -- you may have done more 20 mile runs than you can count, but have you done more 20 mile runs in the mountains for more days in a row than you can count?

The current unassisted sopeed record is 71 days, 2 hours, and 41 minutes, unless Scott Williamson has beaten it by now (he was aiming for sub-66 days this year), so 90 days is doable. But as mentioned, Scott and Tattoo Joe (the speed record holders) were experienced thru-hikers before they set the record. Just so you know, they don't run the trail, either. They just walk. I suspect that Tattoo Joe might not actually be able to run.

There's plenty of info out there, particularly in journals. Good luck, and have a great hike, regardless of which trail you choose. I like them both.

Jester

PS -- A-Train had to learn to enjoy solitude 'cause nobody likes him.

Mags
08-05-2009, 19:05
I do enjoy carrying a 50+ pound pack, but I never try to convince other people to do so, 'cause if everyone did it, I wouldn't be so freakin' cool.


:D You obviously do not subscribe to the HIKE MY HIKE, DAMN IT! philosophy and think people can enjoy their hike their own way. Obviously a heretic. ;)



Anyway, they're very different trails, both enjoyable for different reasons.


Ain't that the truth. I loved my times on all the trails.

When I went back to the southeast Appalachians this past February, I was reminded of just how beautiful those mountains can be. Not the grand sweep of the Sierra perhaps, but seeing moss covered trees in a tunnel of fog was eerily beautiful.



Good luck, and have a great hike, regardless of which trail you choose. I like them both.In the end..Jester is correct (as usual..don't tell him I said that). Enjoy the hike above all else..no matter which trail you do and no matter how you decide to travel on the trail.

neighbor dave
08-05-2009, 19:28
:-?the p.c.t.:-?

Rush13
08-05-2009, 19:30
Rush:
But the truth is that overall I'd recommend the PCT. Maybe it was being 4 years older, a bit more mature and comfortable with myself and my abilities, but I felt more free on the PCT. The AT can be somewhat confining if you let it: shelters, hostels, groups of friends, etc lead me in a very group-oriented, herd mentality. The PCT had great people around, but hiking until dusk and setting up camp wherever felt empowering. I grew to look forward to the solitude more than the social aspect and felt as if there was greater potential for me to truly do my own thing, a less paint-by-numbers adventure.

More or less either trail is what you make of it. You can be solo-minded on both or enjoy friends, or a combination of the two.

Hike on, and enjoy every minute!

I'm def leaning towards the PCT, as I dont know when I'll have another opportunity to take such a tremendous amount of time out of my everyday life. I like the idea of being a bit freer on the PCT, less people, less confinement, basically less structure. I will most likely be hiking with 1 or 2 friends so I wont be going at it totally alone. One of the down sides I noticed with the AT is that certain parts seem to be restrictive of how much you hike each day because you are kind of confined by the distance between shelters.



AT is shorter, but generally the terrain is more difficult. The PCT trails are graded for horses in many areas and are generally in better shape. A 5 mo. hike on the AT will equate to a 4 mo. hike on the PCT.

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment. I believe if you have the opportunity to thru hike you should enjoy it and try to set records elsewhere, but HYOH!

There are several books available about both trails. I bought the latest edition of the Pacific Crest Trail Atlas from Erik the Black and love it. It's worth considering if you decide to hike the PCT.

Enjoy your hike!

Thanks for all the info. I wouldn't say I'm in it for praise but part of my motivation is most certainly personal accomplishment. Another reason for the 90 day time frame is a fellow runner is contemplating joining myself and one of my friends but he is still in college. We would actually have about 100 day time frame but I was giving us a little wiggle room. Thats why I was curious on everybody's thoughts of how doable 90 days were.


That's the crux. A long day hike is doable by just about anyone. Doing it day after day is another story (with a pack) The year I hiked the PCT, Chuckie V (any triathletes will know this guy) was quite shocked how his professional athlete body was beat up by the day after day grind of hiking every day with a full pack. (He adjusted..it was just A LOT more difficult than he expected).


I did not realize you had done no backpacking.

Seriously, get yourself out there and commit to a longer hike to see how your body handles running vs, hiking.

I've seen marathon runners and triathletes in my own circle fade after just one day of backpacking. Different muscles. Different mindset. This article may be useful. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=184425#post184425)



Would you say the views are better during the PCT?

More wide open for sure. The "long green tunnel" definitely has an intimate, more subtle beauty..but not many wide open views. The PCT has more of those overall.


Many walks said:

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment.

For you perhaps.

Or, to put your philosopy and others more succinctly: Hike My Hike, Damn it! :banana (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/hike-my-hike-damn-it.html)

But some people simply like to , and can, walk all day. Suge walked the PCT in about 90 days and called it "A Beautiful Thing".

As I like to say, just because you like chocolate ice cream, that does not mean vanilla ice cream sucks.

Thanks for all the great info once again Mags...you appear to be a wealth of knowledge. And yes I have done no backpacking, just love to hike and I thought why the hell not just go for months at a time haha. I also stumbled across that you did a little hiking through NH recently. I just recently did the Franconia Ridge myself, pretty nice view up there huh? Unfortunately it was really cloudy when I was at the top of Lafayette but it cleared up as I was walking across the top of the ridge (thank goodness)

Dogwood
08-05-2009, 19:53
Being from New Hampshire and hiking the PCT first means you will have to adapt to desert hiking real fast while crossing the Mojave Desert and elvations of 13.000 + ft in the Sierras as well as hiking a trail that is logistically more complicated than the AT. PCT really lends itself well to someone who has experience in resuppling, lightening their load, and being intimately familar with their gear and what gear is needed in different sections. You will also see more people on the AT, which is not ncessarily a bad thing, considering your new to long distance hiking. You will learn alot from those on the AT that will put you in that much better of a place should you consider a thru-hike of the PCT. Both trails are beautiful in their own right. What I can promise you is that no matter what trail you decide to hike after completing a thru-hike you will never be the same person again. Happy hiking!

neighbor dave
08-05-2009, 19:59
Being from New Hampshire and hiking the PCT first means you will have to adapt to desert hiking real fast while crossing the Mojave Desert and elvations of 13.000 + ft in the Sierras as well as hiking a trail that is logistically more complicated than the AT.
hey d'wood!!
i did it! twernt nuffin but adventure

Mags
08-05-2009, 20:05
I And yes I have done no backpacking, just love to hike and I thought why the hell not just go for months at a time haha.


Hey..that's not the worse reason and probably one of the better reasons to do any long trail. :)

Can't hurt to get some backpacking miles under those shoes. A little different than a day hike or a supported run. Plus it is lots of fun!



Good luck..and happy trails!

Dogwood
08-05-2009, 20:15
Limiting the beautifully scenic and diverse PCT to 90 days with your limited or non existent long distance backpacking experience(I don't care what you have done in another sport) is asking for a hurried and ill prepared hike that puts you at a higher risk of not completing the hike or missing out on sections and being more prone to injury.

fiddlehead
08-05-2009, 22:08
I can only wish i was ready for my first hike with little to no experience.

You're gonna have a great time no matter which one you decide on!

Having tons of experience takes a lot away from the adventure.
that's why i like new places.

Nean
08-06-2009, 00:34
Its an impossible question. :eek: It's all walking of course, and the AT has become much easier over the years.:) You can have a social or more solitary experience on either. :cool: Experience can also add to the adventure. ;) The AT introduced me to a lifestyle. I've hiked more in the west - but will always love the AT. Thats why I'm headed to Maine. You really cant make a wrong decision. Flip a coin.:D I like to say its like asking a parent which young child they love the best.....:sunThey are both special for many reasons.:-?

Rush13
08-06-2009, 11:38
Thanks to everyone for the responses, I'll have to mull things over. One of the reason I thought 90 days was doable on the PCT was a former teammate of mine did the AT in 99 days with his brother having very little hiking experience. From what I read the PCT seems to average about a month less so I thought it wouldn't be too tough. However after reading some of the responses it seems that 90 days would kind of limit my experience. Especially knowing my own competitive nature I'd probably be more focused on the goal rather than the actual trip.

fiddlehead
08-06-2009, 13:08
I wouldn't try to think about how many days it's going to take you.
That is what could ruin things in itself.

Sure you need plans but once you take the first step, throw the schedule out.
You'll have a much better trip that way.

Rush13
08-06-2009, 13:27
I wouldn't try to think about how many days it's going to take you.
That is what could ruin things in itself.

Sure you need plans but once you take the first step, throw the schedule out.
You'll have a much better trip that way.

That's the way I've been thinking about it as of late. Thanks for the advice

Dogwood
08-06-2009, 13:27
In response to why the PCT can often be done faster: it's not just a matter of the PCT having an easier grade, newer trail design or construction or maintainence, or the terrain is easier. I find that most who hike the PCT have other long distance hiking experience, typically on the AT or CDT. You know that this long distance hiking stuff is what you want to be doing. That's what I did. I went from the AT to the PCT. Other all significant factors are that with gained experience you learn to hike faster if you want because you: are in a better place to lighten your load(you become more gear savy), know your hiking rhytym and style, are often in better physical and backpacking shape, you know what to better expect mentally and physically, you know how to resupply, you have learned how to walk/hike efficiently, etc. All this, which comes with experience, enables thru-hikers on the PCT to hike faster. Get what I'm saying?

I will also suggest what Fiddlehead has stated - don't think so much about how long it will take.

Dogwood
08-06-2009, 13:33
What you don't yet fully realize Rush is just how much your life will change after you complete a long thru-hike. You are going to grow and create memories in ways you can't fully comprehend right now. Why rush it, Rush?

Kerosene
08-06-2009, 13:41
That's the way I've been thinking about it as of late. Thanks for the adviceRegardless of which trail you decide to take on, I strongly suggest that you don't start out with 20 mile days, even if you are young, strong, in sports-shape, and immortal. Your ligaments, knees and feet need to get used to the constant daily pounding, or else you increase the risk of overuse injuries (Achilles tendonitis, serious blisters) and a variety of leg injuries. If you slowly ramp up the miles each week and don't let your machismo tempt you to try to put in the big miles early on, then you'll have a much better chance of finishing in your 90-day goal.

handlebar
08-14-2009, 10:02
Rush,

Having done both the PCT and AT, I'd go for the PCT! Easier trail overall like Mags says and the resupply thing wasn't that bad compared to AT, though I found I had a lot more 5-day food carries --- a day's food for me weighs about 2.5 lbs, so that's 12.5 lbs coming out of town which is always a climb (on both trails). Fantastic views over the whole length of the trail, and a nice blend of solitary hiking and hiking with other thru's. Generally, better weather.

However, CAUTION! I think it was Mags who wrote on his home page that "Hiking the AT ruined him" meaning that long distance hiking will get into your blood and you may not be able to resist a 2nd, 3rd or Nth trek. You say you don't think you'll have time to do both. My bet is that once you've done either, you'll be back out doing the other.

I second Mags' advice to get out and do a little backpacking and have some experience dealing with foul weather. Unlike a day hike, you can't just hike out thru the rain to the car and head home to a hot shower and dry bed. You need to get some experience dealing with different degrees of damp and different degrees of grunge!

As to the 90 day time limit, I'll bet you could stretch that and still keep that job offer open or skip a year before starting grad school or whatever is putting that limit on you. Take your time and enjoy the trail---whichever you choose.

Two Speed
08-14-2009, 10:43
. . . However, CAUTION! I think it was Mags who wrote on his home page that "Hiking the AT ruined him" meaning that long distance hiking will get into your blood and you may not be able to resist a 2nd, 3rd or Nth trek. You say you don't think you'll have time to do both. My bet is that once you've done either, you'll be back out doing the other. . . My take on that is if you ever go out on a longer trip, something at least 3 or 4 weeks long and really get into it you never really come home again. You're just hanging around until the next time you can get out.

Mags
08-14-2009, 11:17
My take on that is if you ever go out on a longer trip, something at least 3 or 4 weeks long and really get into it you never really come home again. You're just hanging around until the next time you can get out.

I call it PRE-trail adjustment.

http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/post-trail.html

Two Speed
08-14-2009, 11:21
So did I swipe that idea from you or did you swipe it from me?

Back in the day Freebird had a post about that, something about not fitting into society real well, being sentenced to hard time on the AT, going back to the "real world" and being sentenced to a longer hike on the PCT . . . long story short is he's admitted he's a repeat offender and unlikely to be rehabilitated.

I envy the hell outta that guy.

Mags
08-14-2009, 11:32
So did I swipe that idea from you or did you swipe it from me?



The first part of that writing was done back in 1999 after the AT . In 2002 I fleshed it out more shortly after finishing the PCT and then added/edited the document over the years to its current l form.

I think I'm the one who coined the term "repeat offender" for thru-hikers back around the same time period on PCT-L as well.

Who really knows though. :) Many times similar ideas come out from different people at roughly the same time. (cf. The whole Jardine discussion!!!)

ps. Off to Canada in a few hours...just to emphasize more of this wanderlust bug! :D

Two Speed
08-14-2009, 11:48
The first part of that writing was done back in 1999 after the AT . In 2002 I fleshed it out more shortly after finishing the PCT and then added/edited the document over the years to its current l form.'Kay, I probably swiped it from you, then.
I think I'm the one who coined the term "repeat offender" for thru-hikers back around the same time period on PCT-L as well.

Who really knows though. :) Many times similar ideas come out from different people at roughly the same time. (cf. The whole Jardine discussion!!!)Um, no that doesn't conform to the "Hike my hike, dammit" philosophy, so you're just gonna have to readjust your attitude, bucko.
ps. Off to Canada in a few hours...just to emphasize more of this wanderlust bug! :DOh yeah, rub it in, why don't you?

All kidding around aside, have a good time and enjoy your skinless chicken, etc.

Dogwood
08-14-2009, 14:36
Repeat offender - guilty as charged. More charges pending.

Rehabilitation, reassimilation, renitroduction to "society" not possible - don't want it, don't need it.

Home is where the heart is. Society is now defined by my terms.

Funny how unhealthy civilization is, isn't it? Steve Howe(Editor - Backpacker Magazine)

The Weasel
08-14-2009, 15:46
That's the crux. A long day hike is doable by just about anyone. Doing it day after day is another story (with a pack) The year I hiked the PCT, Chuckie V (any triathletes will know this guy) was quite shocked how his professional athlete body was beat up by the day after day grind of hiking every day with a full pack. (He adjusted..it was just A LOT more difficult than he expected).


I did not realize you had done no backpacking.

Seriously, get yourself out there and commit to a longer hike to see how your body handles running vs, hiking.

I've seen marathon runners and triathletes in my own circle fade after just one day of backpacking. Different muscles. Different mindset. This article may be useful. (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=184425#post184425)



Would you say the views are better during the PCT?

More wide open for sure. The "long green tunnel" definitely has an intimate, more subtle beauty..but not many wide open views. The PCT has more of those overall.


And yes I don't think anybody enjoys carrying 50+ lbs on their back:D

You haven't been on this site long enough. :) There are some mucho macho hotdogs on this site who believe anyone who does not carry a 50+ pound pack is missing the point of the outdoors. I kid you not.


Many walks said:

IMO attempting to do either trail in 90 days (especially the PCT) without resupply help would be not only difficult, but would negate the entire purpose of thru hiking such beautiful country, unless you're strictly into it for the praise and accomplishment.

For you perhaps.

Or, to put your philosopy and others more succinctly: Hike My Hike, Damn it! :banana (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php/Outdoor-Writings/hike-my-hike-damn-it.html)

But some people simply like to , and can, walk all day. Suge walked the PCT in about 90 days and called it "A Beautiful Thing".

As I like to say, just because you like chocolate ice cream, that does not mean vanilla ice cream sucks.

One of the best posts ever on WB.

TW

Jim Adams
08-15-2009, 14:14
Flip a coin and just start walking.
Don't set a destination date...just walk. If you don't enjoy it then at the 90th day (or before) you will go home.
If you do like it, you will stop when it is done........and then go to the next trail!
Heed the advice given in this thread. If you do end up liking thru hiking ALL of your priorities in life will probably change and the 90 day deadline will never matter again!
Just walk.

geek

ShelterLeopard
08-15-2009, 23:29
Howdy all!! :welcome

I was looking for a little advice on which long distance hike I should tackle first. In a perfect world I would like to complete both but who knows when I will have time to do so. I'm graduating college in the spring and I'm hoping to tackle either the PCT or the AT in summer 2010 or 2011. My original plan was to do the AT but after doing some research I stumbled across the PCT and it really began to pique my interest.

I've never done anything more than a day hike (I've done many of these) and I was curious as to which one everyone recommends. From what I've been reading it seems as if most people have done the AT before they do the PCT but the interesting part is that the hikes are vastly different so does anyone foresee any problems of going straight for the PCT? I'm from New Hampshire so I've only done East Coast mountains (part of the reason I had been thinking AT) but the West Coast has really caught my attention.

An important thing to note is that I'm a distance runner that typically runs about 80-100 miles a week. So I'm not kidding myself thinking I can just jump right from the couch to the PCT. I also thought the PCT would be a better fit for me as its more lightweight hiking (I'm a distance runner, I'm skinny :eek:)

Also on the more wishful thinking side...feasability of completing the PCT in 90 days? I realize that would be averaging 30 miles with zero rest days. I think it would be entirely doable (I've done more 20 mile runs then I'd want to count). Is this wishful thinking, am I giving myself too much credit here thinking my distance running will convert well to the PCT? I wont take offense to anybody bringing me down to earth on this one :D

Before you decide on doing ANY thru hike, you need to get out and do a nice week long hike somewhere nearby. It is best not shell out the money on gear, time and effort on getting to the trail only to find that you hate hiking. And don't say that you know from your day hikes that you won't hate it- carrying all the gear and going it day in and day out is an entirely different matter. And don't count on your running muscles to see you doing fifteen miles days from the start- I know marathon and long distance runners who were really in shape and they were crippled by the trail (more emotionally than physically, it is possible).

A twenty mile run is not like a week of thirty (or even twenty) mile days. As I said, go choose a nice section of trail (not easy but not too hard either) and hike it for at least a week. And do the kind of miles that you're planning to do on your thru- it will be much harder than your think.

On the other hand, some people adapt to the trail really well- maybe it will be easier for you. Good luck.

(And I have heard that it is easier to crank out big miles on the PCT than the AT, so if you go for that, it may be easier- just don't get dehydrated and die);)

tlbj6142
08-16-2009, 17:07
I didn't read the above posts so this might be a dupe...

I have not hiked either trail, but one thing to consider pre-trip conditioning. For the PCT you just need to get into "flat" cardio shape. Sure a few stairs/hills wouldn't hurt, but it isn't as necessary as the trail is fairly flat for 300+ miles and you sort of ease into the hills. Whereas the AT starts with hills on day one and doesn't really give you a break until VA. So, if you want of finish a trail in 90 days, I think it would be far easier to physically prepare for the PCT than the AT.

One other thing I about finishing the PCT vs the AT (Nobo). I really think AT is at an advantage due to social support and the "big rewards" are at the end of the trail. Whereas the PCT has social support thru CA at which point many drop out. And to make maters worst, most of "the best" parts (Sierras) of the PCT are completed by the time the social support wanes, which can make it difficult to finish.

Have fun whatever you do....

Jester2000
08-17-2009, 11:47
I didn't read the above posts so this might be a dupe...

I have not hiked either trail, but one thing to consider pre-trip conditioning. For the PCT you just need to get into "flat" cardio shape. Sure a few stairs/hills wouldn't hurt, but it isn't as necessary as the trail is fairly flat for 300+ miles and you sort of ease into the hills. Whereas the AT starts with hills on day one and doesn't really give you a break until VA. So, if you want of finish a trail in 90 days, I think it would be far easier to physically prepare for the PCT than the AT.

One other thing I about finishing the PCT vs the AT (Nobo). I really think AT is at an advantage due to social support and the "big rewards" are at the end of the trail. Whereas the PCT has social support thru CA at which point many drop out. And to make maters worst, most of "the best" parts (Sierras) of the PCT are completed by the time the social support wanes, which can make it difficult to finish.

Have fun whatever you do....

I don't know that I agree with much of this, tho' I suppose it's a matter of opinion. There were plenty of hard climbs at the beginning of the PCT -- the desert isn't flat, and it's not what a lot of people picture as desert (it's a high desert environment, and you are in the mountains or working your way up canyons much of the time). And I found that hiking when the footbed is sand is difficult and time-consuming.

The PCT has fewer people attempting thru-hikes, but they start in a more compressed time-frame and they have a higher completion rate. Only two people I knew dropped out after CA, and one of them wasn't thru-hiking.

And for those few who did quit, they missed some of the most spectacular parts of the trail. While the Sierra is a remarkable area, there are plenty of "big rewards" (as you call them) farther north -- the Three Sisters Wilderness, Crater Lake, Mount Jefferson, Mt. Hood, the AYCE breakfast buffet on the side of Mt. Hood, Goat Rocks Wilderness, and Glacier Peak -- and that's just off the top of my head.

neighbor dave
08-17-2009, 11:58
I don't know that I agree with much of this, tho' I suppose it's a matter of opinion. There were plenty of hard climbs at the beginning of the PCT -- the desert isn't flat, and it's not what a lot of people picture as desert (it's a high desert environment, and you are in the mountains or working your way up canyons much of the time). And I found that hiking when the footbed is sand is difficult and time-consuming.

The PCT has fewer people attempting thru-hikes, but they start in a more compressed time-frame and they have a higher completion rate. Only two people I knew dropped out after CA, and one of them wasn't thru-hiking.

And for those few who did quit, they missed some of the most spectacular parts of the trail. While the Sierra is a remarkable area, there are plenty of "big rewards" (as you call them) farther north -- the Three Sisters Wilderness, Crater Lake, Mount Jefferson, Mt. Hood, the AYCE breakfast buffet on the side of Mt. Hood, Goat Rocks Wilderness, and Glacier Peak -- and that's just off the top of my head.

i agree with jester

yappy
08-17-2009, 21:00
I agree with Neighbor..

Nean
08-17-2009, 21:05
I agree with Yappy,:)

A-Train
08-17-2009, 21:07
I agree with Neighbor..

I agree with Yappy. I was gonna write basically what Jester did the other day and then erased it for some reason.

While PCT miles are easier to come by than the AT, the whole package with the heat, lack of water, elevation, and the simple fact that one will make themselv es hike more miles a day than on the AT make one just as tired at the end of each day, if not more. Just because I hiked between 25-30 miles/day in Oregon doesn't mean it wasn't difficult and tiring, even when we have a tendency to say it's "easy" afterwards.

And definately, Washington is phenomenal, as are parts of OR. Not the Sierras, but pretty darn awesome.

tlbj6142
08-17-2009, 22:18
Let me word my post a bit differently as a question...

If you wanted to hike either trail in 90 days, which trail would be easier to prepare for, and hike, the first 400+ miles? PCT @ 29.4 MPD or AT @ 24.2 MPD?

And regarding the "good stuff" in the middle issue, I've read in several journals and in a few videos in which it appears as though it is fairly common for PCT hikers to drop some time after the Sierras before entering OR. And I got the idea this was due to a loss of will to continue and/or loneliness (the "pack" is thin so it doesn't take but a loss or two to become alone). I contributed this to the fact that a few have mentioned that they have been to the buffet and are full, so what's the point of going again?

But, then, I have to assume the many folks drop off the AT in VA/MD, and it is not like folks are visually spent after seeing the VA ponies and feel there is nothing else to hike for. So, maybe my inference is wrong.

ShelterLeopard
08-18-2009, 00:00
The thing about dropping out is that a lot more people start the AT than the PCT (and I don't know the PCT figures exactly, but I am relying on other people's info), so if (for example, don't take these figures for anything) 3000 people try to hike the AT, 300 people might finish. If 300 people set out to do the PCT, probably more like 50 finish. Let me check these figures...

ShelterLeopard
08-18-2009, 00:03
Wow- I was wrong, out of the 300 people that try the PCT a year, 60% finish. So about 180. Still less than the AT. And it could be me, but AT hikers seem to be more social- or social in a different way. PCTers are more.....

Jim Adams
08-18-2009, 10:43
Let me word my post a bit differently as a question...

If you wanted to hike either trail in 90 days, which trail would be easier to prepare for, and hike, the first 400+ miles? PCT @ 29.4 MPD or AT @ 24.2 MPD?

In my opinion, given those two choices, the PCT hike would be easier however you are just starting and both would be very hard at those paces.:-?

geek

neighbor dave
08-18-2009, 11:15
aint it a great world!!
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880452&postcount=42
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880638&postcount=43
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880641&postcount=44
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880642&postcount=45

:welcome

tlbj6142
08-18-2009, 12:34
In my opinion, given those two choices, the PCT hike would be easier however you are just starting and both would be very hard at those paces.Those aren't my parameters, they are those of the OP.

tlbj6142
08-18-2009, 12:34
aint it a great world!!
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880452&postcount=42
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880638&postcount=43
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880641&postcount=44
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=880642&postcount=45

:welcomeYou think I didn't read them the first time?

garlic08
08-18-2009, 12:52
Let me word my post a bit differently as a question...

If you wanted to hike either trail in 90 days, which trail would be easier to prepare for, and hike, the first 400+ miles? PCT @ 29.4 MPD or AT @ 24.2 MPD?

In terms of preparation, my opinion would be the AT. It's probably a good idea to have some desert and snow hiking experience before tackling the PCT, especially at that pace. You really need to fine-tune your water requirements, for instance. With only a little desert experience before my PCT hike (one 100-mile desert crossing in the Chihuahua), I carried way too much water on the PCT. By the time I got to the dry stretches in OR, I was able to carry about half the water I was in CA. The extra weight hurt and slowed me down in So CA. And at a 90-day pace, you'd be leaving MEX later (assuming NOBO), so it'll be even hotter and drier. And snow--again at that pace, you'll be doing two passes per day in the Sierra, so you'd be on the frozen snow in the morning and postholing badly in the pm--not good for a beginner.

In contrast, I don't think you need much experience at all to have a good AT hike. It's so easy to bail out in bad weather or when you get hot/cold/hungry/thirsty/tired/lonely.

I hiked the PCT first and made just under 19 mpd. I hiked the AT later and made just over 20 mpd. I don't understand all those who say the AT is harder. Resupply and water on the AT were, for me, nearly a non-issue, but I hiked in a wet year.

Good luck in your plans and your hike.

tlbj6142
08-18-2009, 14:24
I don't understand all those who say the AT is harder. Mags addressed this above.

Though, I think, "they" equate "harder" just with the physical aspects of hiking. "They" ignore logistics climate, etc. IOW, the PCT has X average elevation gain per mile, where has the AT has nearly 1.3X. Therefore the AT is "harder". I'm too lazy to look-up X. Maybe 1.3X is 204ft/mile??

garlic08
08-18-2009, 15:14
Mags addressed this above.

Though, I think, "they" equate "harder" just with the physical aspects of hiking. "They" ignore logistics climate, etc. IOW, the PCT has X average elevation gain per mile, where has the AT has nearly 1.3X. Therefore the AT is "harder". I'm too lazy to look-up X. Maybe 1.3X is 204ft/mile??

That's absolutely right.

I'm too lazy to look it up, too, but I remember these numbers: AT--220 vertical feet per mile (could be 204), PCT--more like 120 or 130. So as I remember, it's nearly double the average rate. (The CDT is around 160, I think.)

The bottom line for me as how I felt at the end of my average 20 mile AT day--it was a lot better than I felt at the end of my average 19 mile PCT day. As you said, elevation change isn't nearly the whole story. And it all depends on the hiker--some are better in hills, some are better at fast speeds across desert terrain, some make great time across snowfields, some like towns, some like wilderness....

yappy
08-18-2009, 23:30
I agree with Nean and A train..haha.. hey Nean, are you on the AT sobo ?

Dogwood
08-19-2009, 00:08
Jester got that right. I agree with his assessment.

Jester2000
08-20-2009, 14:30
Wow- I was wrong, out of the 300 people that try the PCT a year, 60% finish. So about 180. Still less than the AT. And it could be me, but AT hikers seem to be more social- or social in a different way. PCTers are more.....

The other important aspect to think about when considering numbers on the two trails is the compressed time frame and weather-window importance on the PCT. If you say that 300 people will complete the AT, you need to consider that they will finish in June, July, August, September, and the first couple of weeks in October (for NOBOs). Meanwhile, almost all of those PCT hikers will finish within 6 weeks of one another. It's probably safe to say that if you want to be alone, it's easier to do so on the PCT, but that doesn't mean there's no one around. And the people I was around were pretty darn social, mainly because I am a magnet for crazy people.

On the other hand, if you're doing either trail in 90 days, it's not like you're going to be seeing anyone for too long.


If you wanted to hike either trail in 90 days, which trail would be easier to prepare for, and hike, the first 400+ miles? PCT @ 29.4 MPD or AT @ 24.2 MPD?

I think it would be equally difficult to prepare for either, but that's probably because I'm just not a strong enough hiker to do that sort of thing. I will say that in the first 400 miles or so of the PCT my decisions regarding when to stop for the day were influenced by the trail and logistical details far more often than when I was on the AT. I think that at that pace I would be exhausted on either trail (and I do think my body would be more beaten up on the AT), but on the AT at the end of my 24.2 miles I would probably be relatively close to water and close to a good camping spot. On the PCT at the end of my 29.4 mile day I might be on the side of a steeply sloping mountain with no water for 15 miles in either direction (this very thing was the cause of my first -- and accidental -- 30 mile day).

Garlic08's comments about multiple Sierra passes in a day point to the same idea -- that how far you go in a day on the PCT is often influenced by things other than how your body feels.

Because I don't hike at that pace, I honestly can't say for sure which would be easier to do. For me either would be so tremendously difficult that determining degrees of difficulty becomes almost impossible. But that's because I'm both a wuss and easily confused.

puddingboy
08-20-2009, 23:34
correct me if im wrong but dosent the AT goe to the tops of mountains, while the PCT goes around them or on the slopes.

Jester2000
08-21-2009, 12:48
correct me if im wrong but dosent the AT goe to the tops of mountains, while the PCT goes around them or on the slopes.

Generally speaking, this is true. I often noted that if you were on the AT looking north, you could often tell where you were going to go by looking for the highest thing around, and that the opposite was true on the PCT. Often this is because many of the mountains near the PCT would be technical climbs.

But even that kind of distorts the true nature of things -- the highest point on the PCT is a pass that, while it is the lowest thing around, also happens to be over 13,000 feet and takes a fair amount of climbing to get to.

Montana AT05
08-31-2009, 13:20
Rush, you'll be challenged, have great experiences, have horrible experiences and things in between on both trails. But you might consider....and I apologize for this overused phrase...thinking "outside of the box".

It's easy for us to fixate on the established "big three". AT, PCT and CDT. But people like Andrew Skurka (www.andrewskurka.com) are blazing new paths (which, well are actually old original path in hiking concepts). They remind us that hiking is about defining your own path and goals--I see an increasing trend amongst the hiking community to have a route and goal defined by others. For example, the AT is a wonderful trail. I actually love the green tunnel effect (I get vistas everyday where I live so the change is nice) but the fixation amongst AT hikers on licking every White Blaze is, to me, the opposite of what hiking used to be about.

Consider combining trails. Don't want to do the desert section of the PCT? Start further north and later in the year...then, at the Canadian Border, head east or west on the ill-defined PNT (Pacific Northwest Trail).

Hikers get locked into the mindset of "you must start at point X, follow the guidebook to point finish at point Y". It's understandable and offers a well-defined challenge. They even get a non-existant triple crown! Royalty in America!

But think about it, when you do your 20 mile runs, is it the start and finish that matter? Or the 20 miles and the effort it took to run them?

I am re-planning a hybrid hike/cycle trip for 2010. I attempted such a thing last year but bailed on the hiking part because I was ill-prepared for the mental/trail culture experience.

This time, I am facing that head on in one way, and doing everything possible to avoid it on the other. A precarious balance.

So, consider mapping your own way. Consider patching together trails or methods of travel.

Having said that, there is a deserved and rewarded feeling at having completed the well-defined trails. So, either way, have fun.

Jester2000
08-31-2009, 14:02
. . . Hikers get locked into the mindset of "you must start at point X, follow the guidebook to point finish at point Y". It's understandable and offers a well-defined challenge. They even get a non-existant triple crown! Royalty in America! . . .

Well, thru-hikers get locked into that mindset, at least while they are attempting or planning a thru-hike. 'Cause, you know, they're attempting or planning a thru-hike.

That doesn't mean that they aren't going to enjoy the journey, and it doesn't mean that they're doing it for the attention it garners, nor does it mean they're not clever enough to piece together their own route. Although for some people that may be the case -- I, for one, am a big dumb glory-hound who hates walking -- for many thru-hiking defined trails is just what they enjoy doing, at least some of the time. Other times they do sections, day hikes, mountain climbing, or things like the High Sierra Route.

I think we should leave it up to the completely clueless to come up with a hierarchy of cool regarding what are essentially vacations.

Montana AT05
08-31-2009, 15:46
Well, thru-hikers get locked into that mindset, at least while they are attempting or planning a thru-hike. 'Cause, you know, they're attempting or planning a thru-hike.

That doesn't mean that they aren't going to enjoy the journey, and it doesn't mean that they're doing it for the attention it garners, nor does it mean they're not clever enough to piece together their own route. Although for some people that may be the case -- I, for one, am a big dumb glory-hound who hates walking -- for many thru-hiking defined trails is just what they enjoy doing, at least some of the time. Other times they do sections, day hikes, mountain climbing, or things like the High Sierra Route.

I think we should leave it up to the completely clueless to come up with a hierarchy of cool regarding what are essentially vacations.

I think you missed my point and so made my point.

A thru-hike doesn't have to be on an established trail or route. Someone had to create the AT, PCT and CDT? Right? And now they are creating the PNT.

Outside the box can be a scary place. Your reply creates a number of straw man arguments, which is why I made my initial post--to counter a trail culture of prejudice and lockstep mentality.

Jester2000
08-31-2009, 16:39
I think you missed my point and so made my point.

A thru-hike doesn't have to be on an established trail or route. Someone had to create the AT, PCT and CDT? Right? And now they are creating the PNT.

Outside the box can be a scary place. Your reply creates a number of straw man arguments, which is why I made my initial post--to counter a trail culture of prejudice and lockstep mentality.

My love of being inside boxes is well documented.


But think about it, when you do your 20 mile runs, is it the start and finish that matter? Or the 20 miles and the effort it took to run them? . .


That doesn't mean that they aren't going to enjoy the journey . . .


They even get a non-existant triple crown! Royalty in America!.


and it doesn't mean that they're doing it for the attention it garners. . .


. . . They remind us that hiking is about defining your own path and goals--I see an increasing trend amongst the hiking community to have a route and goal defined by others. . .


nor does it mean they're not clever enough to piece together their own route.

My responses are not strawman arguments. They're responses to statements in your post. A thru-hike does, in fact, have to be on a defined path, even if it's an ill-defined path (and the CDT would qualify in that respect). That the AT, PCT, and CDT had to be created has nothing to do with it. That's a strawman argument. It was only after these trails were defined that anyone could be said to have thru-hiked them. One can thru-hike dozens of trails other than the AT, PCT, and CDT, but if you don't begin at one end and walk it to the other, then no, you have not, in fact, thru-hiked.

On the other hand, perhaps I'll go complete outside the box, into the "scary place" where I've done thousands and thousands of thru-hikes. From my house to work, from my seat on the plane to the bathroom, from the bar to the convenience store. And hey! Most of them are Yo-yos! Excuse me a moment while I thru-hike to the fridge!

I'm back.

I understood your point. I just think your wrong.

There's plenty of merit and enjoyment in mixing and matching trails, switching to bikes or kayaks, bushwacking, doing whatever you want and enjoying it. Thru-hiking is, however, a defined activity, and so is tragically relegated to being inside the box you evidently need to spend time outside of.

Jester2000
08-31-2009, 17:50
Proof of my love of being inside the box:

Jim Adams
08-31-2009, 18:12
My love of being inside boxes is well documented.













My responses are not strawman arguments. They're responses to statements in your post. A thru-hike does, in fact, have to be on a defined path, even if it's an ill-defined path (and the CDT would qualify in that respect). That the AT, PCT, and CDT had to be created has nothing to do with it. That's a strawman argument. It was only after these trails were defined that anyone could be said to have thru-hiked them. One can thru-hike dozens of trails other than the AT, PCT, and CDT, but if you don't begin at one end and walk it to the other, then no, you have not, in fact, thru-hiked.

On the other hand, perhaps I'll go complete outside the box, into the "scary place" where I've done thousands and thousands of thru-hikes. From my house to work, from my seat on the plane to the bathroom, from the bar to the convenience store. And hey! Most of them are Yo-yos! Excuse me a moment while I thru-hike to the fridge!

I'm back.

I understood your point. I just think your wrong.

There's plenty of merit and enjoyment in mixing and matching trails, switching to bikes or kayaks, bushwacking, doing whatever you want and enjoying it. Thru-hiking is, however, a defined activity, and so is tragically relegated to being inside the box you evidently need to spend time outside of.
Nice answer Jester. I can take or leave backpacking but I love thru hiking!:cool:

geek

kyhipo
08-31-2009, 18:18
well Your from the east and the west is very much a change of pace and well I would hike the pct.ky

Montana AT05
08-31-2009, 23:00
"A thru-hike does, in fact, have to be on a defined path" -- Jester2000

No. It doesn't. And again, you prove my point. Too many hikers are now locked into a narrow box...as narrow as a trail is wide.

I simply offered the OP an alternative to what you demand of him. I understand the pull of the well defined route--the pull of the collective while masquerading as an adventurous individual. But while I understand it, I no longer partake in it. Cliques never were my thing. Maybe they are yours. Ok.

Jester2000
09-01-2009, 10:36
"A thru-hike does, in fact, have to be on a defined path" -- Jester2000

No. It doesn't. And again, you prove my point. Too many hikers are now locked into a narrow box...as narrow as a trail is wide.

I simply offered the OP an alternative to what you demand of him. I understand the pull of the well defined route--the pull of the collective while masquerading as an adventurous individual. But while I understand it, I no longer partake in it. Cliques never were my thing. Maybe they are yours. Ok.

I personally thru-hike the width of the Appalachian Trail every day.

The price you pay for deciding to be "outside the box" is that the way you personally choose to define things doesn't affect the way things are actually defined. That you are planning to "do everything possible to avoid" the trail culture experience is, therefore, probably a good idea. And since you don't see any value in being part of the trail community and don't plan on it, I don't suppose it much matters how your adventurous individual self defines anything at all.

But for the record, I don't demand anything at all of the original poster.

I'd like to apologize to everyone (including Montana) for getting this thread completely off-topic. Montana and I have a disagreement that will likely not be resolved, and the place for it was in another thread if it was anywhere at all. I'll resisit any urges to fire back, comment on, or rebut anything further he chooses to add.

Mags
09-07-2009, 18:00
Outside the box can be a scary place. Your reply creates a number of straw man arguments, which is why I made my initial post--to counter a trail culture of prejudice and lockstep mentality.

How was the AT in 2005? :sun

sbhikes
09-08-2009, 17:33
The PCT is the only long trail I have ever hiked and the only one I've ever wanted to hike. You can start there. The logistics are not that hard. Just do a little research and be flexible.

That goes for gear, too. I researched the appropriate gear and made adjustments to that gear along the way as some of my choices were not so great. For instance, water is very heavy and an internal frame pack worked better for me to carry it. Got a ride to REI in Agua Dulce and bought one. Also, an umbrella doesn't work for rain in Washington all that well. Bought a rain poncho at a gas station.

You know, you do not have to hike the entire trail in one year. If you have 90 days to hike, then hike for 90 days. See how far you can get.

I hiked the PCT over two summers. I started last year and completed this year. I got to have the experience twice and my mind can put the whole trail together. I was able to make changes to my gear and carry even lighter stuff the second year. I repeated some of the trail and can proudly say I've hiked 3000 miles of the PCT. I also added a 100 mile section of my own just to prove I'm crazy. Both times I had as much pain and pleasure as any thru-hiker and was welcomed as one. And the second year I also got to enjoy what it felt like to be a member of the section hiker community as I spent most of my time hanging out at town stops with section hikers since I was a month ahead or more of most people.

I learned from the section hikers all kinds of great ways to enjoy hiking these trails. Some of them had even been thru-hikers in the 70s. I met some awesome people with amazing stories from the trail. Straight thru isn't the only way to hike a long trail and have an amazing adventure that will ruin...er, I mean change your life.

Jester2000
09-08-2009, 18:05
sbhikes --
great post!

SunnyWalker
09-12-2009, 23:15
Hiking the PCT-No long green tunnel. Plenty of inspiring vistas of beauty and wonder.

capto
01-18-2012, 19:11
I was planning to do the AT and then found the PCT. I read through these posts and am still undecided. I like the solitary aspect of the PCT and the freedom it sounds like it provides. I am curious what the scenery is for both area, thats my major concern. Does anyone know of a good place for me to get a load of pictures of both trails to compare the environment I want to see?

Also as a quicker answer, is the AT mostly forest/mountain scenery while the PCT is mostly dry flat scenery? Thats just what I have in mind. Thanks!

Mountain Mike
01-18-2012, 19:45
I was planning to do the AT and then found the PCT. I read through these posts and am still undecided. I like the solitary aspect of the PCT and the freedom it sounds like it provides. I am curious what the scenery is for both area, thats my major concern. Does anyone know of a good place for me to get a load of pictures of both trails to compare the environment I want to see?

Also as a quicker answer, is the AT mostly forest/mountain scenery while the PCT is mostly dry flat scenery? Thats just what I have in mind. Thanks!At does have it's vista points. Lots of green shaded but you do have lots of sections above treeline in NH & some in ME.

PCT far from being flat & dry! On a thru you can expect glacier fed fords & snow covered high passes. Elevations over 13.000' & most do a side trip to highest point in the 48 (Mt Whitney). I loved my thru of AT & still hike on it due to location, yet my walls are covered with more pics of the PCT. People are in awe looking at them. Many ask if I took them.

Each trail has it's own great points. You shoudn't consider which one to hike. Just which one to hike first.

Miner
01-18-2012, 20:54
PCT is one of the worlds most diverse trails that passes through almost all the eco zones of North America except Tundra. You spend most of time hiking along the crests of the major mountain ranges of the west (hence the word Crest in PCT). Even in the "deserts" of SoCal you will hike over several large mountains (trail climbs to 9000ft in more then one place in SoCAL) and then spends alot of the time above treeline in the Sierra Neveda with several snow covered passes at 10,000ft and higher. You will hike from vista to vista every day. If you like scenery the PCT has it in spades over the AT. You don't have to hike alone on the PCT as the majority starts in a very small window creating a small herd. But it is easy to find yourself alone for a few days if you fall inbetween groups as they may be a few hours ahead or behind and there isn't any shelters to artificially cause hikers to group together to camp. The trail is nicely graded with numerous switchbacks all over the place as it is a hiker and horse trail.

This isn't to say that the AT doesn't have its own views and attractions. The trails are just different so you really can't fairly compare the two by the same standards. The AT certainly has more social interaction and more access to towns and supplies which makes it much easier logistically. However, the trail can often be very steep as some of the AT clubs haven't discovered more advanced trail building techniques such as switchbacks used to great effect in other places. More then one hiker has said that on average the AT is physically harder but the PCT is mentally more challenging. Though most who thru-hike the PCT have done the AT, for plenty of people it is their first long trail. Decide what things attract you the most in your normal day hikes and backpacking trips and it should be easier to decide which one to hike first.

fiddlehead
01-18-2012, 20:59
PCT has more variety, much better scenery, less people.
AT is more social, tougher physically, and shelters ( whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you)

I usually recommend PCT over AT but, it depends what you are looking for.

handlebar
01-18-2012, 21:08
If I were going to do either the AT or PCT again, it would be the PCT hands down. The weather is usually much better, the scenery is terrific, and it's an easier trail to hike in my opinion.

BrianLe
01-19-2012, 16:04
I seem to be going round here today saying "+1 to Handlebar", but nevertheless ... +1 to Handlebar.

I don't think it's a west coast boy bias when I say that IMO the AT is only popular because the east coast is so populated. The PCT wins hands down IMO. I'd hike much of the PCT again, I'd be disinclined to hike much of the AT again. It was fun to experience the AT in general, from trail towns and hostels, certainly some views and experiences. I enjoyed running into moose in the north, getting some cultural and historical experiences in general, sorting out stereotypes about the south (okay, they're all true, but in a good way!), etc etc. So I don't regret doing the AT.

But the PCT is just flat a much better trail and a more varied experience. If you're not sure you'll ever do more than one long distance hike (and who can be?), go for the PCT first.
Just do your homework and prep well. The reason that the success rate for thru-hikers on the PCT is so much higher is that a much higher percentage of those attempting it have some decent backpacking experience, certainly to include a lot of AT veterans.

SassyWindsor
01-19-2012, 21:24
I've hiked both. The AT is much more fun.

cboyer1212
01-19-2012, 23:09
AT first, if you plan on hiking both... PCT if you decide once and done

Mountain Mike
01-19-2012, 23:27
If I had to make a chice to do just one now that I have hiked both...PCT. Less crowded, more of wilderness feeling, High country, fords,Vistas that just keep getting better. Social aspect not as large as AT but shorter window of hiking time kinda groups people together. I ended up in WA with same people I met first few weeks into hike in So Ca. PCT requres a bit more planning for resupply but well worth it. Odds are after one thru you will want to do another though!

Sly
01-20-2012, 05:32
This thread is over to years old. Wonder if the OP did either trail?

Miner
01-20-2012, 14:27
This thread is over to years old. Wonder if the OP did either trail? I didn't even notice it was an older thread, though I was responding to capto's question who revived this thread. I apparently missed this thread back when it was started in 2009, because... well... I was out hiking the PCT.

But, yeah, I wonder the OP guy ever went backpackng anywhere? His post count suggests he lost interest pretty quick, but that isn't necessarily true as the hiking world doesn't revolve around Whiteblaze, particulary if you are hiking the PCT instead of the AT.

Mikey Appleseed
03-11-2012, 20:32
I hike the PCT on a regular basis, but have never hiked the AT. What does someone mean when they say,"Dont AT the PCT?":-?

Mags
03-11-2012, 21:49
What does someone mean when they say,"Dont AT the PCT?":-?

It means they have too much time on their hands....and not enough of it spent outdoors.

Mikey Appleseed
03-11-2012, 22:43
Thanks for clearing that up and pretty much any topic on any website. Ill inform Al Gore to just shut her down now!

Slo-go'en
03-12-2012, 00:18
Thanks for clearing that up and pretty much any topic on any website. Ill inform Al Gore to just shut her down now!

Yea, pretty much everything that can be said about anything has been said a billion times over, so time to pull the big switch!