PDA

View Full Version : Hiking the Appalachian Trail with an infant...



minnesotasmith
10-06-2004, 17:00
I know of someone who is considering through-hiking the AT with an infant. He and his (currently expecting) wife would set out while the kid was under 3 months old, with the wife breastfeeding it. Are they out of their minds, or could this be done in a safe and practical way?

Lone Wolf
10-06-2004, 18:10
Not a good idea at all.

minnesotasmith
10-06-2004, 18:11
I was just wondering if they could pull it off or not. BTW, they would hike in the normal season.

Lilred
10-06-2004, 18:50
I was just wondering if they could pull it off or not. BTW, they would hike in the normal season.


Sacajawea (sp?) walked all the way to the Pacific coast with Lewis and Clark, with an 18 month old on her hip. And she was only 16 at the time. Sure they can do it.

rumbler
10-06-2004, 18:54
Taking a three month old on the trail - or taking a three month-old any place where they could be days away from health care - would be amazingly stupid.

There is no level I can think of where this is even a remotely sane idea.

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2004, 19:03
The question was whether or not this could be done in a safe and practical way.

I have probably spent more time on the Appalachian Trail in the last nine years than just about anyone.

It is my clear and considered opinion that the answer to your question is
"Absolutely not."

Minnesota asks "Could they pull it off?"

The answer is maybe. With a great deal of luck. And the great deal of luck would be required every single day of their hike.

The problem is that this is a lot of luck to depend on. Probably too much.

In my opinion, the risk to the child is not worth it. This is not a good idea, and Minesota, this is exactly what you should tell them.

Lone Wolf
10-06-2004, 19:33
The infant would have to be carried somehow by one of the adults. If that adult were to fall, the kid could be crushed.

Dances with Mice
10-06-2004, 19:43
Minnesota - It's their first child. Right?

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2004, 20:00
In the interest of historical accuracy:

*Most historians now feel that Sacajawea was older than 16

*She did not walk "all the way" to the Pacific with Lewis and Clark. The
Corps of Discovery began their trip at Camp Wood, in present-day
Illinois, on 14 May 1804. Sacajawea's son, Jean Baptiste, was born 11
February 1805 in present-day North Dakota.

*The infant was not 18 months old at the time he joined the expedition; was
was, in fact, about 54 days old.



All this is moot. No one is disputing that this CAN be done; similar trips certainly HAVE been done. What is being discussed is whether or not this SHOULD be done.

And the answer is definitely not.

SGT Rock
10-06-2004, 20:05
tell them to wait until the kid is old enough to at least walk, understand what is going on, and enjoy it. I can't imagine wanting to walk with a kid only 3 months old, have these people had any kids prior to this? I am a father of three and see the thought of walking every day, rain or shine, with a kid still in diapers as a VERY lame idea to even consider, the earliest any of my children has done an overnight is 4.

Lilred
10-06-2004, 20:11
The infant would have to be carried somehow by one of the adults. If that adult were to fall, the kid could be crushed.


This can be done in a safe and practical way. Babies are extremely resilient. A breastfed baby would have all the immunities from every disease the mother has had, including colds and flu. Yes, there are risks, but living in fear of the 'what if's' is no way to live. Of course, there's always the smelly diapers to contend with...... I'd hate to have to pack those out.

Not to mention the many trail towns they can go to for any need that may arise. They could also hike around any part of the AT that was particularly demanding. It definately wouldn't be an easy task, but it wouldn't be impossible.

I'd say go for it, and if it became too much to handle, then they could always go home. It has always amazed me to hear negative talk on here of people hiking with kids, as if children are some fragile egglike thing that can't handle the rigors of the outdoors.

DebW
10-06-2004, 20:14
Caring for and nursing an infant is a huge energy expenditure. Combine that with trying to hike every day for weeks and you'd likely be compromising the infant and mother's health. Milk production depends on large intake of liquid, good nutrition, and adequate rest. Not to mention dealing with diapers, the usual fussiness, and the possibility of falls.

Lilred
10-06-2004, 20:22
Caring for and nursing an infant is a huge energy expenditure. Combine that with trying to hike every day for weeks and you'd likely be compromising the infant and mother's health. Milk production depends on large intake of liquid, good nutrition, and adequate rest. Not to mention dealing with diapers, the usual fussiness, and the possibility of falls.


Wow it's amazing this country was settled by immigrants at all. You can take in large quantites of liquid on the trail. You can have good nutrition on the trail.... You can get adequate rest on the trail. Just because it would be a daunting task to take an infant on the trail, doesn't mean that these parents can't do it. Sure it would be a hassle, a huge hassle that one does not need to go through. So was immigrating to the new world a hundred years ago, but people did it, with their children. Two hundred years ago, people took their children across the Appalachian mountains and out west, with no doctors at all, no good nutrition or trail towns for support, and the threat of Indian attacks. They sure didn't have the state of the art equipment we have today. I bet not a one of them had a nice backpack to carry their infant in. My My, I wonder how the Native Americans ever survived these mountains.......

Tramper Al
10-06-2004, 20:23
I am an avid section hiker and have completed a good bit of the trail, plus I do a lot of summer and winter peakbagging, day and overnight all over New England.

And my wife and I just had our first baby 9 weeks ago, and she is breastfeeding him.

And I am a board certified pediatrician.

In no way can I believe that this was a serious question. I'm sorry, but there is no way.

Alligator
10-06-2004, 20:27
So when are they planning on leaving, the beginning of April?

A-Train
10-06-2004, 20:36
I don't think any kids belong on the AT for extended periods of time (more than a couple weeks). Especially children under 10. They are simply too young to decide for themselves what is right for them. A person should truly only be thru-hiking if it is the most important thing in their lives. I don't believe any young children can claim that on their own. Thru-hiking takes tons of dedication, drive and resilience, something most kids don't have, and righfully shouldn't. If someone decided to have a child and has a newborn, well then-they made a decision that should hopefullly be more important than hiking a Trail that will always be there. The child's childhood however, won't always be..

Alligator
10-06-2004, 20:36
Wow it's amazing this country was settled by immigrants at all. You can take in large quantites of liquid on the trail. You can have good nutrition on the trail.... You can get adequate rest on the trail. Just because it would be a daunting task to take an infant on the trail, doesn't mean that these parents can't do it. Sure it would be a hassle, a huge hassle that one does not need to go through. So was immigrating to the new world a hundred years ago, but people did it, with their children. Two hundred years ago, people took their children across the Appalachian mountains and out west, with no doctors at all, no good nutrition or trail towns for support, and the threat of Indian attacks. They sure didn't have the state of the art equipment we have today. I bet not a one of them had a nice backpack to carry their infant in. My My, I wonder how the Native Americans ever survived these mountains.......
Lilredmg, you should take a look at historical infant mortality rates. They were very high, much higher than today. Many of those children died early. In fact, many adult immigrants died also, on the ships coming from overseas, and on the migration routes to western territories. But that's all I have to say, I'll wait for the book.

SGT Rock
10-06-2004, 20:44
I was going to say the exact same thing as Alligator. Just because it was done does not mean that was the preferred method. Lots of children were lost to those conditions and my guess was that the people that made those sorts of decisions did it out of some necessity. Thru-Hiking the AT next April ain't a necessity, the trail has been there for close to 80 years, it will still be there in a few years when the child is old enough to participate and hopefully appreciate it if the parents still have the itch.

Lilred
10-06-2004, 20:57
Lilredmg, you should take a look at historical infant mortality rates. They were very high, much higher than today. Many of those children died early. In fact, many adult immigrants died also, on the ships coming from overseas, and on the migration routes to western territories. But that's all I have to say, I'll wait for the book.

Historical infant mortality rates were due to diseases that there were no vaccinations for, births that had no doctors in attendance, bad hygeine, malnutrition..... and on and on and on. Things have changed just a tad since those conditions caused infant mortality rates. Taking an infant on the AT in no way puts that child at the same risks that infants faced hundreds of years ago. You're comparing apples to watermelons. My point was that people took their children on more dangerous expeditions than a mere hike on the AT.

How often does the AT cross roads to get to towns? It's not as if they would be cut off from civilization for months at a time, maybe for a day or two but that's about it. If these parents want to deal with the hassle of taking an infant on the trail, let them. I'm quite sure the baby can survive it.

Desert Lobster
10-06-2004, 22:07
How would the baby's developing brain be affected by the constant bouncing around while the adult walks along?

Israel
10-06-2004, 23:37
Babies CAN be brought safely on the A.T. for extended distances and times; BUT- one must only do it if they bring along a 3 week old puppy to assist with the hike.

:D

Really, anyone who considers this has never had a child and has no idea what caring for little ones really involves. Lots of things can be done in this life, but not all of them are the smart or best thing to do. I can only imagine how hungry mom would be....cranking out miles and breastfeeding. It is crazy to think that the quality of milk would not be adversely impacted. And on the logic that women did this type of thing as immigrants and crossing the plains out west...they may have done it but it would be interesting to ask them if they ENJOYED doing it or really WANTED to do it if they had an options. Any mom focused on their baby and not on themselves would care most about having safety, health, and stability for their baby to thrive in.

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 04:18
Yes, it's a serious question I've posed here. Their reasoning is that they would have to wait years and years (like 9+) for the kid to be able to go with them on a through-hike if they wait til it's weaned. If they went anytime sooner than when the kid could hike with them (but post-weaning), they'd have to leave him behind for the duration of the hike, which would be tough on everyone. The parents-to-be are in decent health now (they are on the old side for this life situation), but that might change a decade from now; ten years could make a big difference in ability to hike (arthritis or some kind of accident are hardly impossible between now and then). Yes, it would be the first child for one parent, not for the other (has college-age kid). They figure the dad would carry more than his share of the weight packweight-wise. They'd have those special carrying "packs" (papoose?) for the infant. They are aware of the challenges, but think that they can both be responsible parents and not give up their dream of hiking the AT before a huge amount of additional time and life goes by. Whether or not they are right, I don't know.

P.S. On the bouncing-the-infant-from-hiking-hurting-it concern: we're just talking a lot of walking, and babies very commonly get carried while someone is walking all the time without problems. That just doesn't seem like a legitimate concern IMO. Now, if they were going to be RUNNING the Trail, not to mention if/when whichever one of them has a fall while carrying the kid, those I could see as real risks.

Lone Wolf
10-07-2004, 06:44
Sounds like an unexpected pregnancy. The kid's safety, health and well being come first. The AT is recreation. It's not something they need to do. Shoulda used contraception. Pretty selfish to go off thru-hiking with a 3 month old.

Bolo
10-07-2004, 09:26
I agree with Lone Wolf...I too am an "older" parent and my first thought upon reading this ludicrous idea was, oops, baby came along and got in the way of our plans to hike the AT. Oh, well, we'll just take baby with us. Selfish, selfish idea. Anyone want to guess how long they'll last w/baby in backpack?

Lone Wolf
10-07-2004, 11:23
3-5 days. And that's with perfect weather.

Tha Wookie
10-07-2004, 11:32
Sacajawea was not the only one.

It's not about what they "need" to do, it's about how they want to raise their child.

Just because you guys couldn't figure out how to raise a child for a portion of it's early life on a trail doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done. People on this continent have been raised in semi-nomadic lifestyles for over 10,000 years!

I was looking the other day at an Ansel Adams photo of a Navajo child-backpack (in the 1960's!) that had been the style since the beginning of time. Their children were wrapped and carried like that for at least a year or two before they were allowed to walk. They are artful, functional structures. Many of these children grew to be great warriors, far more brave and fit than probably any of us here discussing the possibility on the internet.

The question is not whether IT can be done. It can. And it can be done well. It can be the greatest way for a child to be welcomed into this world.

The question is whether the parents are up for the challenge. They are probably not Navajo or any other traditionally practicing tribe, so would have to spend a lot of energy in preparation. They would have to cover all the bases, since as you see in this thread (and these are mostly hikers, although most do more typing than walking), society would be ready to persecute this almost forgotten way.

I know some parents who raise their children in similar situations, and their children are invincible compared to other kids raised to the current trend. I suspect most of these naysayers here don't know such people, or they would be far more willing to consider the possibility.

On the first day of my first thru-hike, I met the Family from the North. They did it. Yes, they recieved quite a bit of help in towns and I'm sure Lone Wolf has plenty of disparaging one-liners to say about them, but THEY DID IT.

Can anyone here say it can't be done when it has since the beginning of time?

Lone Wolf
10-07-2004, 11:35
Sure Wook, whatever. :rolleyes:

Blue Jay
10-07-2004, 13:14
I'd have to agree with Lilredmg. Humans evolved as nomadic hunters for thousands upon thousands of years. Day care is fairly recent, say 50 years. Now all the "expert" males on this forum claim we can no longer do EXACTLY what we evolved to do. This is like saying you cannot hike 2000 mile because the bottoms of your feet will wear off. I met two different couples out this year with very small babies. I didn't question them as to distance or age but they were clearly LD hikers. Both couples were very responsible and the child seemed happy and healthy.

chknfngrs
10-07-2004, 13:22
While sectioning in SW VA outside of Dragon's Tooth 2 summers ago, I witnessed the unthinkable: a younger couple w/ infant about to go hiking.

The male was carrying a large pack with probably most if not all suppliesThe female carried a fanny pack w/ sleeping pad and papoosed the child in front.

Not only that, they had a dog who carried a pack!

Sure it can be done, and it can be done safely. But it's not for me.

Blue Jay
10-07-2004, 13:42
Not only that, they had a dog who carried a pack!


That's another thing, not once did the baby try to bite me or walk on my sleeping bag with muddy paws. The couples did not throw beer cans around, wash in the water source (something a poll on this very forum showed is common behavior), leave garbage around, etc.. In fact they were by far the most joyful, well behaved people I met this year. I'll take baby people over dog people any day.

tlbj6142
10-07-2004, 14:02
Several of you have metioned that its been done before? 2200 miles in 6 months with a 3 week old? 13 miles per day? Along a ridge trail?

I don't think so. None of the "native peoples" mentioned above where that stupid.

CeeJay
10-07-2004, 14:20
Native people living a nomadic lifestyle moved about in groups where others in the tribe or extended family group helped each other with the children.

Bolo
10-07-2004, 14:39
Just think about it...the baby papoose just might make it all the way to Maine...but he/she won't realize the acccomplishment until 20-30 years at which time one of the following will occur:
1. Been there, done that.
2. Now I've got to really walk the dang thing! (What a great challenge!)

Do Frogg Toggs come in "newborn" sizes?

Blue Jay....would you clarify just who the "expert males" are on this thread?:rolleyes:

Blue Jay
10-07-2004, 14:45
Several of you have metioned that its been done before? 2200 miles in 6 months with a 3 week old? 13 miles per day? Along a ridge trail?

I don't think so. None of the "native peoples" mentioned above where that stupid.

No one has any idea about their mileage or speed, they may have done more. One thing they didn't have was the list of where Baltimore Jack eats, like we have today. There are hundreds of advantages a couple has today that simply did not exist even a few years ago. Remember, they told Earl he couldn't do it either.

PS - I should'nt have said hundreds, change that to many. No I won't list them.

tacode
10-07-2004, 14:48
also consider the fact that nomadic tribes traveled for survival, not recreation.

On another note, assuming this couple goes ahead with their ambitious plan, who amung you, who sees nothing wrong this, will be first to complain about the crying infant in the shelter?

tlbj6142
10-07-2004, 15:13
will be first to complain about the crying infant in the shelter?I'd take a crying baby over a snoring any day. I know I can sleep through a crying baby (got 3). Snoring is the biggest reason why I avoid sleeping in shelters.

Flash Hand
10-07-2004, 15:31
Everyone needs to rethink about the difference in time tense, past, present and future.

Media in the past, are very poorly coordinated and freshly news, speaking of 1700's and 1800's, and media's today is well advanced and best state of art techonology, i.e. high speed internet, cellphone, et al.

So, if one little "oops" mistake on the AT that involved an infant, and please tell them to brace themselves for hourds of media representative, CNN TV, Associated Press, etc., for countless interview and embarrassments.

For me, not worth the hassle.. don't want my President of the United States to know what happened to us.

More published headlines = more energized and money hungry prosecutors. I won't be surprised if the victims would hire Gregaros as their next defense attorney.

One Leg had been suffered with some media pressure and he even attempted to change his trail name from One Leg to Mulipler (having several kids) and share me the reasoning because of media.

So, also, health issue. The more population is, the more risk in health. There is a question when infant can be away in the wilderness for 6 to 7 months without proper vaccination schedules unless they bring their doctor with them for 6 months.

I can't says for others, because I am not a father yet, but in my own opinion, it is NOT a good idea to bring freshly and fragile little human beings into the wilderness. That all I can share my opinion.

If they indeed stick to the plan, wish them the best and please be careful with the trip.

Flash Hand :jump

Bjorkin
10-07-2004, 15:36
Let 'em hike. It'll be 3 less insane people on the streets for a little while.

I can't believe this is even up for discussion. 90% of thru-hikers don't make it which means they either encountered health problems or they were delusional. I don't see these 2 (ahem :banana) parents escaping either of those situations.

Lilred
10-07-2004, 17:40
Really, anyone who considers this has never had a child and has no idea what caring for little ones really involves.


I've raised two boys and I do know exactly what is involved in caring for little ones. Just because y'all think it 'shouldn't' be done, or that it would be too much of a hassle, doesn't mean it can't be done. I suppose every Native American that lived in a teepee was being 'unresponsible'. Ya, Ya, I know, we don't live like that anymore, but the fact still remains that it can be done without risk to the child.

And to the person that said they would be missing routine vaccinations, those can be gotten at any clinic or small town doctor's office anywhere in the U.S.A.

Boy I just love the way some go about telling others what they should or should not do. What ever happened to hike your own hike?

Bjorkin
10-07-2004, 17:46
I don't think anyone is "telling" anyone what to do. The board was "asked" a question and we we're answering. Just because you don't agree with the majority doesn't suddenly mean we're imposing our opinions.

And for every Native American to haul her child to who knows where there were a dozen that didn't make it but they don't make coins for that.

rumbler
10-07-2004, 18:38
I suppose every Native American that lived in a teepee was being 'unresponsible'. Ya, Ya, I know, we don't live like that anymore, but the fact still remains that it can be done without risk to the child.


No. When children in the 1800's - or any period before the 20th century for that matter - died, as they did frequently, they were buried and life moved on. People's life expectency barely broke thirty, due in large part to the fact that so many children died within the first six years of their young and brief lives.

If you have raised two kids, then you are well aware of the fact that when their health turns, frequently it can turn in a hurry. Let a five-month old baby contract a lung infection and prudence will say that the child receive prompt health care. It is this process along with vaccination programs that has allowed infant mortality rates to drop dramatically from the historical times which you selectively glorify.

There will be frequent periods when your hiker friends - presummably moving at an average or less than average rate due to the attentions required by an infant - will be days away from access to a path to medical attention. Should a child become gravely ill or perish on the trail because it caught a cold and Mom and Dad were 25 miles from a road crossing and it had been raining for three days and everything was wet and the child was hypothermic even though it is forty or thirty or twenty degrees (thru-hikers will experience all of this) and Mom is keeping the young thing pressed to her bossum, that is a far different event that would be completely unrelated or relevant to how people lived (and frequently died) four or forty generations ago. Comparing the situations is not even rational.

Any physician, including the one who has already chimed in on this board, will tell you that a statistically significant increase in the chance for mortaility of an infant would occur if that infant were to live outside on the trail for six months. If you are fine with that, then bully for you. Don't be surprised if many of us are not.

If your friends are physicians and experienced hikers that would help, but the fact that they are considering a thru-hike with an infant implies that their medical and outdoor experience is as thin as their parental experience.

SGT Rock
10-07-2004, 19:11
Nomads travel in a family group. They didn't pick the tops of the mountains, they picked the easier routes to their destination. Because they were nomads didn't mean they aimed north and walked 2,182 miles in one shot, they moved some distances at a time and then set up camp for as long as the resources and weather were favorable to what they are trying to do. And even then they loose kids to dehydration, disease, accidents, etc. Again, they did this out of necessity, not out of sport or adventure. To use the nomads as examples of why thru-hikers can bring infants along and make it is just silly.

And if you want to say HYOH, where is the child's choice to hike or not? I wouldn't force a thru-hike on my dog, let alone my infant child. I want to thru-hike, but I wouldn't make any of my children go. I would encourage any of my kids to thu-hike, but I would be pissed at one them if they tried to force my soon to be born grandchild to go at the age of 3 mo.

AND, to lambaste people for answering NO with all the obvious drawbacks and issues they have pointed out is less than fair. These people are answering a question that was asked because they were asked to. That is the point of the board and the point of someone asking the question in the first place. If we wanted to degrade our suggestion to the "just hike your own hike philosophy" to that degree where we all nod in agreement and encourage this sort of plan, which has a good chance of ending up in a bad way. then there is no need to really have a board in the first place.

Lilred
10-07-2004, 19:36
Nomads travel in a family group. They didn't pick the tops of the mountains, they picked the easier routes to their destination. Because they were nomads didn't mean they aimed north and walked 2,182 miles in one shot, they moved some distances at a time and then set up camp for as long as the resources and weather were favorable to what they are trying to do. And even then they loose kids to dehydration, disease, accidents, etc. Again, they did this out of necessity, not out of sport or adventure. To use the nomads as examples of why thru-hikers can bring infants along and make it is just silly.

And if you want to say HYOH, where is the child's choice to hike or not? I wouldn't force a thru-hike on my dog, let alone my infant child. I want to thru-hike, but I wouldn't make any of my children go. I would encourage any of my kids to thu-hike, but I would be pissed at one them if they tried to force my soon to be born grandchild to go at the age of 3 mo.

AND, to lambaste people for answering NO with all the obvious drawbacks and issues they have pointed out is less than fair. These people are answering a question that was asked because they were asked to. That is the point of the board and the point of someone asking the question in the first place. If we wanted to degrade our suggestion to the "just hike your own hike philosophy" to that degree where we all nod in agreement and encourage this sort of plan, which has a good chance of ending up in a bad way. then there is no need to really have a board in the first place.


Sgt. Rock,
You and Rumbler make some valid points, however, the original question was, could this be done safely and I still maintain that it can. You can set up all kinds of scenario's as to why it shouldn't be done, but that can be done for hiking alone, hiking with a dog, hiking blind, or hiking with one leg. I wonder, if before Bill Irwin hiked his hike, would this board have advised against it. I'm quite sure it would have. Just think of all the dangers that could happen to a blind person hiking the trail. Seems it would be foolhardy, but it was done. Hiking with an infant would seem foolhardy, but I maintain that it can be done, and done safely.

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 19:50
Whether they are pro or con, diplomatic or "Lone Wolf" style.;)

I agree that any kid who is told (with pictures, etc. as supporting background) that he was taken on the AT from Springer to Katahdin before he could talk is going to have an unusual attitude about the subject as an adult. Bet there'd be at least an even chance he'd try a through-hike himself, just to satisfy the curiosity. Plus, imagine how he'd be able to tell everyone it was his second through-hike; I can just see a 20-YO telling everyone he did his first one 19 years ago, and getting cheap chuckles out of watching their reactions... ;)

As far as the added difficulties of actually trying to through-hike with an infant along, I wonder what the main ones would end up being. Carrying diapers along would be one. Taking extra precautions that the kid didn't get hypothermic would be another (whatever those would be). What about how the new mother would be physically, with nursing a baby on top of hiking? Any female forum member who nursed and remembers pretty well how their stamina was different during that time would be most welcome to comment here.

Another issue would be dealing with people's reactions on the Trail, both hikers and nonhikers. My guess is that older, female, and males that are fathers themselves are more likely to insist on trying to be helpful in some way, or at least being courteous. People who are "only" children with no children of their own would be the most likely to be unprovokedly rude to this couple for having their child with them, I predict, due to not wanting to hear infant sounds on the Trail, especially in or near shelters. Surely nonhiking parents would be more likely to be horrified at the very idea than hiking parents would be? I'm not at all certain, though.

Flash Hand
10-07-2004, 19:51
Sgt. Rock,
You and Rumbler make some valid points, however, the original question was, could this be done safely and I still maintain that it can. You can set up all kinds of scenario's as to why it shouldn't be done, but that can be done for hiking alone, hiking with a dog, hiking blind, or hiking with one leg. I wonder, if before Bill Irwin hiked his hike, would this board have advised against it. I'm quite sure it would have. Just think of all the dangers that could happen to a blind person hiking the trail. Seems it would be foolhardy, but it was done. Hiking with an infant would seem foolhardy, but I maintain that it can be done, and done safely.


Bill Irwin still can communicate with others while infant itself cannot voice his/her own decision. Infants at that young age, are prone to more illness than the middle or old aged Bill Irwin. That is BIG difference. I wouldn't dare to go out if I am sick. Nobody will tell me to go out if i am sick. A sick infant outside in the rain.. ekkkk

Flash Hand :jump

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 20:05
Sgt. Rock indicated that he wouldn't force a through-hike on his dog. How, exactly, sir, would you go about asking your dog in advance for his explicit agreement to go on a through-hike with you? Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

Lion King
10-07-2004, 20:17
I like cheese.:banana

Flash Hand
10-07-2004, 20:23
Sgt. Rock indicated that he wouldn't force a through-hike on his dog. How, exactly, sir, would you go about asking your dog in advance for his explicit agreement to go on a through-hike with you? Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

Dog was trained to go anywhere blind man goes. Infant is too young to be trained to go out. Gotcha.. nice trick you got me :D

If you are asking about non-working dogs.... you can just try count how many tails being wagged at home and on thru hike the 2,174 miles. I think dogs are especially happy to go on trails than staying in prison (home).

Also, I am glad you said DOGS, not puppy.

Flash Hand :jump

Dances with Mice
10-07-2004, 20:33
Sgt. Rock,
....the original question was, could this be done safely and I still maintain that it can. You can set up all kinds of scenario's as to why it shouldn't be done, but that can be done for hiking alone, hiking with a dog, hiking blind, or hiking with one leg. I wonder, if before Bill Irwin hiked his hike, would this board have advised against it. I'm quite sure it would have. Just think of all the dangers that could happen to a blind person hiking the trail. Seems it would be foolhardy, but it was done. Hiking with an infant would seem foolhardy, but I maintain that it can be done, and done safely.

No, you are wrong. It CAN NOT be done safely. None of the situations you described were safe, there was significant risk involved in all of them. Bill Irwin risked not only his own safety but that of his dog. All dog owners are risking the health of their pets on the trail. A hiker with one leg risked his life on the trail this year, still is, and has already required one emergency rescue.

All hikers have a right to risk their own health and welfare, there's no question about that. Pet owners have a legal right to risk the health of their pets within reason. But if I saw someone attempting to thru-hike with a 12 week old infant, I would report them at the first opportunity to the nearest appropriate legal authority to investigate whether or not the parents were abusing that child, and I doubt I could rest until I did.

Dances with Mice
10-07-2004, 20:37
Sgt. Rock indicated that he wouldn't force a through-hike on his dog. How, exactly, sir, would you go about asking your dog in advance for his explicit agreement to go on a through-hike with you? Inquiring minds want to know! ;)


You can't ask the dog. If you bring a dog, it's your choice. The hike is being forced upon the dog.

Bandana Man
10-07-2004, 20:39
As far as the added difficulties of actually trying to through-hike with an infant along, I wonder what the main ones would end up being. Carrying diapers along would be one. Taking extra precautions that the kid didn't get hypothermic would be another (whatever those would be). What about how the new mother would be physically, with nursing a baby on top of hiking? Any female forum member who nursed and remembers pretty well how their stamina was different during that time would be most welcome to comment here.


My wife breastfed both our daughters so I asked her opinion (Blue Jay -- IMHO she qualifies as an expert :D ). Breastfeeding was in her words "physically exhausting" and she was home, not out hiking. Our children nursed about every 2 to 4 hours, which made getting a good night's sleep very problematic. Also, nursing was usually done sitting down, not while on the move. Might make it tough to average 12-14 miles per day for 6 months.

Tha Wookie
10-07-2004, 20:55
Who says you have to take 6 months to hike the AT? Why not 10?

I don't understand why people here insist on saying it can't be done when IT HAS BEEN DONE!

BUT, almost everyone here would DRIVE A CAR down a freeway or suburb with a baby in it! Talk about a health risk.

Bolo
10-07-2004, 21:01
Wook,
You got any statistics on this??? infants, or say kids under 12 hiking the trail?
anyone got an idea for a trail name for the baby? Heh, heh?:clap

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 21:13
No question someone would come up with a trail name for the kid, even if the parents didn't.

DancesWithMice, would you report a couple that took a 3-month-old out for a weekend hike in good weather that were obviously fully prepared for the outing? If not, then you have IMO just identified how this couple could deflect a considerable amount of uninvited interference. All they would have to do is tell people they are weekend hikers, and most people might well drop it right there. After all, people take infants on weekend trips to grandma's, picnicing at the lake, walking around at the park, etc., all the time, and noone normally would think to give such parents Hades on those occasions.

Dances with Mice
10-07-2004, 21:16
.....deleted, see below...

Dances with Mice
10-07-2004, 21:18
BUT, almost everyone here would DRIVE A CAR down a freeway or suburb with a baby in it! Talk about a health risk.

There are legal restrictions to how you may transport a baby in a vehicle.


DancesWithMice, would you report a couple that took a 3-month-old out for a weekend hike in good weather that were obviously fully prepared for the outing? If not, then you have IMO just identified how this couple could deflect a considerable amount of uninvited interference. All they would have to do is Lie. Oh, that's a good plan.

Bloodroot
10-07-2004, 21:19
Wook,
You got any statistics on this??? infants, or say kids under 12 hiking the trail
I believe a 6 year old hiked the entire length once back in the early 80's named Michael something?

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 21:27
All they would be is preserving their privacy, and diplomatically deflecting would-be busybodies. If the kid is not in apparent distress, or otherwise anything short of A-OK, is it anyone else's business besides its parents' where they take it?

Dances with Mice
10-07-2004, 21:44
All they would be is preserving their privacy, and diplomatically deflecting would-be busybodies. If the kid is not in apparent distress, or otherwise anything short of A-OK, is it anyone else's business besides its parents' where they take it?

You've already assumed way too much.

But that's enough talk, all positions have been defined. Without even knowing these people I have $100 to donate to a charity of choice, or WB, that says this couple won't complete a thru-hike with their child. I'll take the first three proponents to match my wager. I nominate, without asking him first, Sgt Rock to hold the bets.

Any takers?

Bandana Man
10-07-2004, 21:46
I don't understand why people here insist on saying it can't be done when IT HAS BEEN DONE!

Wookie -- Never said it can't be done, but that it would be tough. You do agree, don't you? And, yes, they could thru-hike for 10 months instead of 6. Would that mean leaving in early Spring in colder weather? Would that be good for their child? I'm not passing judgment -- just offering information the parents might want to consider.

Since you said it has been done, I would be interested in knowing of any others who have begun a thru-hike with a nursing 3-month-old infant and finished.

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 21:58
His chow would be a whole lot simpler than if he were on formula or eating baby food. Less for the parents to carry, and I don't just mean formula or baby food, but all the stuff involved in dealing with it.

Bloodroot
10-07-2004, 22:01
Wookie -- Never said it can't be done, but that it would be tough. You do agree, don't you? And, yes, they could thru-hike for 10 months instead of 6. Would that mean leaving in early Spring in colder weather? Would that be good for their child? I'm not passing judgment -- just offering information the parents might want to consider.

Since you said it has been done, I would be interested in knowing of any others who have begun a thru-hike with a nursing 3-month-old infant and finished.
Taking a 3 month old baby on a thru-hike or even an extended hike would be quite ridiculous. This whole subject has to be based on the age of the child and the discression of the parent. For a parent to even think of taking a practically "new-born" baby on an extended trip, making them susceptible to all sorts of illnesses (which at that time having little immunity to viral/bacterial infections) and injuries that could occur is IMHO "poor-parenting".

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 22:02
A 6-YO boy and an 8-YO girl completed the AT as a continuous through-hike in 2002, accompanied by their parents, according to an article from the Atlanta newspaper I donated to the Ranger station at Amicalola Falls Park this past Saturday. The article was from the 1st week of May 2004. Other forum members have spoken of these child hikers as well.

Also, as long as a baby is nursing, doesn't it get a lot of maternal antibodies against infection via the milk? That would make the (nonviral) infection issue rather less. Plus, while actually on the Trail, the baby would likely be exposed to a far smaller number of people than it would be in, say, a shopping mall, Wal-Mart, or crowded grocery store, so maybe the kid would be less at risk of catching colds or flu on the Trail than back in its home town (presuming the mother takes it with her places, as most do)?

Lone Wolf
10-07-2004, 22:09
I'm with ya Dances. $100 says they ain't gonna make it far.

CeeJay
10-07-2004, 22:16
While I think it might be "possible" to breast feed an infant and hike the AT, I don't think it would be very enjoyable for either the mother or the child to do it as a thru-hike. If this couple wants to hike the AT, why not do it in sections over a period of years? Why put the child at risk? Having raised two children and breast fed them, I can't imagine doing this. I had a hard time just getting enough sleep with all the modern conveniences and staying in one place.

Lone Wolf
10-07-2004, 22:22
Cuz they're selfish. Typical American way. Gotta succeed at everything at all costs.

Lilred
10-07-2004, 22:24
[QUOTE=minnesotasmith]

Also, as long as a baby is nursing, doesn't it get a lot of maternal antibodies against infection via the milk? That would make the (nonviral) infection issue rather less. [QUOTE]

The child would also be immune from viral infections the mother has had in the past. measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc.

Bandana Man
10-07-2004, 22:26
Taking a 3 month old baby on a thru-hike or even an extended hike would be quite ridiculous. This whole subject has to be based on the age of the child and the discression of the parent. For a parent to even think of taking a practically "new-born" baby on an extended trip, making them susceptible to all sorts of illnesses (which at that time having little immunity to viral/bacterial infections) and injuries that could occur is IMHO "poor-parenting".

Sometimes telling a person that they can't do something, or that they are being ridiculous, or they are poor parents, is the surest way to get them to ignore you. Better to give the person facts to consider and then let them make up their own mind.

I am REALLY interested in knowing if there are any others who have thru-hiked with a nursing 3-month-old infant.

Bolo
10-07-2004, 22:28
:jump ...............................ya gotta LOVE this thread!!! Better ask ATTroll if any restrictions on "betting" here. My money's on the kid. With all that the parents have to do...breastfeed, tote the child, change diapers/pack the c**p out, stop at every town to see the doctor, etc, etc, etc, they'll be soooooooooooooo tired. They might set a Guiness record, though. Now, if we could just get those parents to view all these comments, we'd have a real discussion.

minnesotasmith
10-07-2004, 22:34
Noone has yet touched on any part of how the couple's interactions with other hikers would likely go. I'll bet the most of the female hikers (and many of the guy hikers who have young kids) would ooh and ahh over the kid, and most of the single guy hikers would groan to see it show up at the shelter they were in.

smokymtnsteve
10-07-2004, 22:34
For a parent to even think of taking a practically "new-born" baby on an extended trip, making them susceptible to all sorts of illnesses (which at that time having little immunity to viral/bacterial infections) and injuries that could occur is IMHO "poor-parenting".

the child on the trail would probably be exposed to LESS viral/bacterial disease causing pathogens than a child in a day care center. Day care centers and play schools are some of the most NASTY places there are, I have a "weak" immune system I'll go hiking on the trail...I wouldn't even consider going in to a pre-school/day care enviroment.

I know,I know I make a choice, (thank goddess I can :D ) and the baby doesn't.

but a child who is put into the day care center who is put at much greater risk of aquiring a contagion doesn't have a choice eithier,

Lilred
10-07-2004, 22:46
the child on the trail would probably be esposed to LESS viral/bacterial disease causing pathogens than a child in a day care center. Day care centers and play schools are some of the most NASTY places there are, I have a "weak" immune system I'll go hiking on the trail...I wouldn't even consider going in to a pre-school/day care enviroment.

I know,I know I make a choice, (thank goddess I can :D ) and the baby doesn't.

but a child who is put into the day care center who is put at much greater risk of aquiring a contagion doesn't have a choice eithier,


Excellent Point!

Tha Wookie
10-07-2004, 23:14
BanMan, here ya go

10,000 - 40,000: estimated number, by archeologists, of years people have survived and prospered in North America , migrating supposedly from the Northwest all the down to little ole' GA. Many say they in fact went MUCH farther, building complex societies and techologies, some far more advanced than today.I figure some of them carried their children with them regardless of age. Oh yeah... they didn't have horses or cars or HMO's. Stats on life span worked on an average severely skewed by infant mortality during childbirth. Many lived over 100 years in West Coast tribes (which I have recently been studying in depth), but it was rare.

40: Number of years people of Isreal wandered through the wilderness in the desert until reaching the promiseland, reproducing quite well I must say.

14: Number of states the AT crosses, today each packed with modern medical services, many of which are within a day's striking distance from the AT. My ancestors did not have this luxury, and neither do most other people in the world today, including in some other parts of the US.

10: Months to hike the trail at a measly 7 miles per day. That's about 3 hours of walking a day.

3: Members of a family together for a child's start in life for 10 months, which is an unprecedented figure by today's parenting standards.

7: Number of family members that I met on March 11th, 2001, about 4 miles north of Springer Mountain. They had all just walked or were carried by their parents from Katahdin. I'm not sure how young the youngest was, but he was still being carried at the end. They were all estatic.

I agree with someone above. The issue isn't if it's possible. Cleary it is. In fact, this might be the best time in the history of the world to do such a thing.

The real issue is what special challenges would they face, and how could they deal with them?

I wouldn't bet on anybody finishing a trail, including myself. The real success is getting past the naysayers to that first sweet step. The rest is a tasty bowl of pureed carrots.

Bloodroot
10-07-2004, 23:18
Sometimes telling a person that they can't do something, or that they are being ridiculous, or they are poor parents, is the surest way to get them to ignore you. Better to give the person facts to consider and then let them make up their own mind.

I am REALLY interested in knowing if there are any others who have thru-hiked with a nursing 3-month-old infant.
I you decide to ignore my opinion then that's your choice! I am entitled to it as well as yourself. First I never stated a that it CANT do it. And yes I have taken in consideration everyones point about illness/infections etc...But come on! What are these brave parents going to think when she trips over a tree root, falls face first and mashes the frail child being carried?

Bloodroot
10-07-2004, 23:39
Let me clear up my point of view. To me, it is a risk...a risk that I surely would not take with a 3 month old infant. Sure it can be done! But why even try? "Cuz they're selfish. Typical American way. Gotta succeed at everything at all costs." (Lone Wolf)....

And yes wookie, it has been accomplished since the beginning of man. But do we still live in nomadic times when this was needed for survival? Yeh it would be interesting to see how this couple will face challenges. Perfect time in history for a hiking family reality show.

Israel
10-08-2004, 00:25
Going 10 months on the A.T. @ 3 months old would really be a health and life risk, in my opinion. I have spent too many days and nights in the winter hiking and camping to not know how bone chilling cold it can be up there. You can't be serious about bringing a newborn to the higher elevations of the mountains in winter conditions? What are you going to do when you are on top of Standing Indian, 20 degrees, sleeting and snowing, water bottle is frozen up, wind is blowing, you just slipped and twisted your ankle, and the baby has been screaming for 2 hours straight??

Can it physically be done? probably if weather cooperates. Is it the wisest thing to do or in the childs best interest? In my opinion, no way. There are other ways to spend family time that are much safer. I work from home and see my family ALL the time and we eat 3 meals a day together just about every day. We've been blessed that they have never, and hopefully never will, see the inside of a daycare (SMS, we are in agreement, they are gross). As has already been noted, previous tribes in the americas intentionally sought out the easiest, gentlest routes. That is why the A.T. had to be built- no indian paths to follow! I do not think a native american at that time would have gone alone with a small newborn and climb the high ridges and walk for 10 months in the high country. It is true that we have amazing medical technology available to us, but a baby is still a baby; mountain weather is still mountain weather.

There is a big difference between going on a weekend hike and going out for 6 months. BIG difference. I have not hiked as much as some but I have walked over 4,500 miles on the A.T. and I can you right now, I will be waiting for my little ones to get big enough to join me before I go on another thru-hike. To me it is the loving thing to do- I sacrifice what i want to do to give them the best I can provide.

Maybe mom-to-be will change her mind after baby is born. Some things that sound great in theory do not work out so well in practice, even though it may sound great. Nursing a baby is an amazingly exhausting thing I have come to see and I think most moms that have breastfed would agree that doing that and hiking even 7-10 or 15 miles a day would be quite an ordeal. And the lack of sleep....I don't see how I could personally hike all day and be up for those many, many all nighters with crying baby. Most babies will not sleep through the night for the first 5-6 months of their lives. Sometimes you are lucky and only up once a night. Other times you are up every 1-2 hours.

By the way Wookie, congrats on the recent hike. Sounds like fun stuff. See if you can't find a baby to bring along next time to prove us all wrong! :D

Bandana Man
10-08-2004, 01:22
BanMan, here ya go
Thanks! Actually, more than I was expecting... :)

7: Number of family members that I met on March 11th, 2001, about 4 miles north of Springer Mountain. They had all just walked or were carried by their parents from Katahdin. I'm not sure how young the youngest was, but he was still being carried at the end. They were all estatic.
Yes, I think they were discussed on this website. Is this The Family From The North? If so, wasn't their youngest child a 2-year-old? That is quite a feat, for sure, but a 2 YO is a world of difference from a 3-month-old infant. The time and effort needed to properly care for an infant is much greater, wouldn't you agree? I'm not convinced this is evidence that someone has thru-hiked the AT while nursing an infant.

The real issue is what special challenges would they face, and how could they deal with them?
You're right. And the biggest challenge might be maintaining the energy level of the mom. A breastfed infant nurses every 2-4 hours, which means Mom won't get to sleep straight thru at night, but will have to wake up to nurse at least once, probably more often on most nights. Add the extra nutrional requirements for a nursing mom. Add the extra nutrional requirements to hike 7 miles per day for 10 months. BTW, does that estimate of 7 miles per day to hike the AT in 10 months include any zero days? I would think they would need more zero days than most.

Let me clear up my point of view. To me, it is a risk...a risk that I surely would not take with a 3 month old infant. Sure it can be done! But why even try? "Cuz they're selfish. Typical American way. Gotta succeed at everything at all costs." (Lone Wolf)....
Good time to clear up my point of view, too. I'm probably closer to your opinion, but not for the same reasons. I would not thru-hike with an infant. Setting out to do a complete thru-hike with an infant sounds risky. But if they are extremely capable, high-energy people and they plan very seriously, they could do it. I don't know these people. Who am I to say they can't? What I don't wish to do is make personal attacks just because they choose to do something that I would not. I do not automatically assume these people are poor parents or selfish.

SalParadise
10-08-2004, 01:46
So maybe the parents are older, maybe it's been their dream to hike the AT, but isn't that what parents have to do, sacrifice or put off some of their personal goals and ambitions for the sake of their children? Earl Schaffer (sp?)was what, 78 years old when he hiked again? I can't imagine another 7 years is too long to wait.

Considering the tender age of the child, I think the question shouldn't be 'Is it BAD for the child', but rather 'Is it GOOD for the child'. Clearly that answer is no, so the decision whether or not to hike with the infant is obvious.

bearbait2k4
10-08-2004, 01:55
LilRedMG - -

When "Native Americans" traveled this continent, the disease that exists today did not exist in even a remote quantity.

Life expectancy was, maybe, 35-40.

Infant and child mortality were at much higher figures than what we have today, and those who survived did so because they were the fittest and strongest. Our medical advancement does not guarantee survival of the fittest and strongest now. It provides survival for almost all; the fit among the weak.

I don't think it is appropriate to compare hiking with a 3 month old today with survival of a native culture 200+ years ago. You seem to agree yourself, with the reasoning behind historical mortality rates, so why even post something this absurd?

A lot of a child's vaccinations are done around 6 months of age...while this child will be on the trail. That's not intellegent, and it unnecessarily puts a child's life at risk, which, in my opinion, can be considered child abuse.

The trail is a breeding ground for less-than-perfect, even bad, hygiene. Not a place for a 3 month old.

Let's look at actually hiking the trail now. What happens if the person holding the baby falls? What if it starts to snow, or torrential rains come through for days? What if they hike during a heat wave? What about hitch-hiking to and from town? They'll obviously have to tent all the time, since the shelters are filthy and their baby would likely perform as any other baby in the world and wake up crying at all hours of the night. How will the baby get adequate sleep with constant movement and jostling around all the time? Is it healthy for the child to get his or her sleep simply from sheer exhaustion? How can these people even think about preparing for something like this when they don't even know if their child will be born with complications, allergies, etc?

This has got to be one of the most irresponsible and neglectful things a person could possibly do to a 3 month old baby. There is a REASON why only a small percentage of people who hike the trail make it all the way. It's not easy. It's, in fact, tough.

When I read this, I first thought it was a joke. I still hope it is. Of course, if it is not, and I hear about a couple hiking with their 3 month old child next year, then I may personally take the appropriate actions and contact someone to look into the welfare of this baby.

Bandana Man
10-08-2004, 02:14
An assumption I am making about this couple is that no way would they make it the wholeway. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would not actually push themselves as hard as it would require to actually finish. Maybe others are making the opposite assumption -- that is, this couple will hike in the rain, hike when they are exhausted, hike until they kill their newborn. I think that's an important distinction. What is their motive? To hike the whole 2,000+ miles come hell or high water? Or just leisurely hike only what they are safely able to do on good weather days and take a lot of zero days? If the former, then it's a bad idea. If the latter, then I don't see it as such a bad idea.

What about an overnight campout with a 3-month-old? Is that a bad idea, too?

Tha Wookie
10-08-2004, 02:26
By the way Wookie, congrats on the recent hike. Sounds like fun stuff. See if you can't find a baby to bring along next time to prove us all wrong! :D[/QUOTE]
LOL!! Good God.

I was taken backpacking in my first several months.

baseballswthrt
10-08-2004, 06:27
I am an experienced breastfeeder. All four of my children were breastfed.

Breastfeeding requires an extraordinary amount of calories. Hking also requires extra calories. I don't see how anyone could consume and CARRY enough calories to support both! Breast milk amounts are regulated by you and your baby. It is a total supply and demand function. The more the baby needs, the more milk you have. My son would only nurse (no food, no bottles) for 14 months. It required a ton of milk to keep up with him and a ton of calories to feed him. When a mom gets stressed, tired or sick her milk supply diminishes. Your body will take care of YOU first and your baby's milk second.

A lot of immunities are supplied by breastmilk, but not all. Babies can and do get sick while breastfed. Immunizations are given at 2,4 and 6 months. These should be given on schedule. It would be hard to do on the trail, not to mention it is a good idea to have the same pediatrician who knows you and your child so any problems can be picked up. Unless your pediatrician is hiking along side you this would be difficult.

My babies nursed every 2 hours. During the day when I had to be out and about, I carried them in a baby sling. You can nurse (but not as well) and walk around like this. At night they slept in bed with me so they could nurse when they wanted. I worked in an ICU as a RN 12 hour shirfts on Saturdays and Sundays. Their daddy would bring them up once during that time to nurse for an hour during my lunch break. The girls would take a bottle in the mean time. My son would not! He would wait until I got home and nurse not stop all night long!

When I was working I walked many miles a day but that was on a linoleum floor (flat) or up and down steps. I was in very good shape at that time, but not thru hiking shape!

I can't imagine trying to thru hike with a nursing baby. It was hard enough just being at home! I would think you would have to start your hike already in hiking shape so your milk supply wouldn't suffer. I doubt anyone is in the best shape of their life 3 months after delivery!

Keeping the child warm and dry would be another big challenge. Do they make pack covers for babies? I've never seen one. Frogg Toggs? I think the risk of hypothermia in a baby would be immense!

Diapers?? Disposables are not biodegradable. Cloth would be a huge sanitary and weight challenge!

When you have an infant, your first priority needs to be the child. Everything you want to do or have comes second to the child that you brought into this world. As the child gets older, you can do more things that you want to do, but you must act in the best interest of the child. You are responsible for the child first and your leisure and recreation second. A thru hike is not a job to survive or provide for your family. It is a recreational activity and a challenge.

My husband and I are both in our forties. We want to thru hike as much as the next person, but because we have 4 children ages 12-19, we have to wait! By time we set out in 2011, we will be in our 50's. I expect we will have just as much fun as the younger folks who do it. We may have more aches and pains than some of the younger folks, but it will be just as rewarding!

I honestly think that this couple should wait until they can leave the child at home or college!

Can it be done? Probably... there are some selfish people out there that will prove me wrong!

Anita

Blue Jay
10-08-2004, 08:29
BUT, almost everyone here would DRIVE A CAR down a freeway or suburb with a baby in it! Talk about a health risk.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. Driving with a baby is thousands of times more dangerous, but that is OK. Everything has a risk. Parents taking a baby into the woods should be reported to the authorities??? I cannot believe this subject is even being talked about. Soon, everyone will be afraid to leave their houses.

tlbj6142
10-08-2004, 09:53
10,000 - 40,000: estimated number, by archeologists, of years people have survived and prospered in North America , migrating supposedly from the Northwest all the down to little ole' GA.They didn't hike 2200 miles in 6 months, or even 10 months, along an unfriendly route. They followed warm coast lines and setup camps along the way. Probably took them several years to go 2200 miles.

smokymtnsteve
10-08-2004, 10:07
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Driving with a baby is thousands of times more dangerous, but that is OK. Everything has a risk. Parents taking a baby into the woods should be reported to the authorities??? I cannot believe this subject is even being talked about. Soon, everyone will be afraid to leave their houses.

and these same folks think nothing of taking thier kids to a shopping mall and let them play in the play area, talk a bout a nasty disease and germ-ridden environment.

back in 83-84 when my is wife was preg with smokymtnred we used to camp and hike around Blood Mtn, Dorothy Hansen of Mtn xing at Neels gap was perg with her and jeff's child at that time too, after smokyred was born in May we spent the summer and fall "living" up in the hills, we'd go out for a day or two then back to the wagon for more supplies, we wuz poor hippies.

smokyred turned out purty good I jist kan't seem to keep the boy outa of the backcountry of Alaska now-a-days. Kan't keep the boy in a city , he says the water taste bad and the air is hard to breath, guess i ruint that boy early.

Israel
10-08-2004, 10:12
I was taken backpacking in my first several months.


Wookie,
I have two little ones now and I take them hiking all the time. We carry the oldest in a backpack and the youngest in a sling/pack that sits in front of my wife. We started taking them when they were just a few months old as well. It is a great way to spend time together...an afternoon climbing a mountain, etc. I don't see a problem with overnight hikes and short trips but you run into serious potential health and hygene risks with an extended hike.

I am curious how the family of the north handled diapers for their 2 year old.

Blue Jay
10-08-2004, 10:13
They didn't hike 2200 miles in 6 months, or even 10 months, along an unfriendly route. They followed warm coast lines and setup camps along the way. Probably took them several years to go 2200 miles.

No one has any idea how far or how fast they walked. The old theory that held that they never went to mountain tops was blown away by archeologists. As for unfriendly route they did not have convenience stores every few miles, hitch hiking really sucked back then and their microporous polypropylene really really sucked.

Blue Jay
10-08-2004, 10:21
Wookie,
I have two little ones now and I take them hiking all the time. We carry the oldest in a backpack and the youngest in a sling/pack that sits in front of my wife. We started taking them when they were just a few months old as well. It is a great way to spend time together...an afternoon climbing a mountain, etc.

Oh, the horror. I'm sorry we are going to have to report you to Child Services.

Alligator
10-08-2004, 10:33
Blazing response to Bloodroot in post #63 Minnesota! You type real fast;) , 159 words in less than 2 minutes, 80-160 words/minute.

Israel
10-08-2004, 11:33
Oh, the horror. I'm sorry we are going to have to report you to Child Services.


Hahaha...thanks blue jay. Shall I send you my address and phone number?

This thread is reminding me yet again why I so rarely post here. I am really glad these types of forums did not exsist when i first starting thru hiking.

Anyway, this thread is going no where fast.

Bjorkin
10-08-2004, 14:53
Hahaha...thanks blue jay. Shall I send you my address and phone number?

This thread is reminding me yet again why I so rarely post here. I am really glad these types of forums did not exsist when i first starting thru hiking.

Anyway, this thread is going no where fast.


I think only 1 or 2 people have said they would call the authorities. So, are you saying because the board cannot come to a unanimous position that is why you rarely post here? Forgive the pun but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater aren't you?

Plus, this entire discussion is about a THRU-HIKE!!!!!!! Nobody has said anything about day hikes or a few days in the woods. Some of you seem to conveniently forget that part. I don't think anybody here has said they are against taking an infant into the woods for a short term hike. The original post was about thru-hiking and taking a 3 month old with them. There have been many good reasons for not doing this. If none of these reasons seems enough to keep your 3 month old off the mountains for 6 months then go for it! I'll be sure and not tell the authorities or rescue party where you are. Do whatever you want. Isn't that what you want to hear?

smokymtnsteve
10-08-2004, 14:58
so WHAT is a thru-hike? just a series of day-hikes, 2-4 day section hikes,
there are NO time limits on a thru hike, so what if these folks took 3 years to do the thru-hike with thier child?

Bjorkin
10-08-2004, 15:08
so WHAT is a thru-hike? just a series of day-hikes, 2-4 day section hikes,
there are NO time limits on a thru hike, so what if these folks took 3 years to do the thru-hike with thier child?

We can swing this discussion in that direction if you want but that is a completely different topic IMO. When one mentions a thru-hike most all consider this to be done in one calendar year during the normal NOBO/SOBO times. This original post wasn't a rhetorical question either. It's about a real couple with a real baby. We can argue semantics in another thread about thru-hiking and what it really is, but I think we are all discussing the possibility of a regular thru-hike here.

Just ask the original poster to answer it. Is this couple you know thinking of completing the hike in a normal 6 months or so? If they want to take years to do it stopping and renting housing along the way, I wouldn't even consider that to be nearly the same thing.

bearbait2k4
10-08-2004, 15:41
There is so much black and white on this thread, it's ridiculous.

I really don't see a huge resemblance in camping out with an infant for a couple of days and setting out to thru-hike the AT.

First of all, I can barely see how it is possible to do so, if this couple would be properly caring for their infant. If breastfeeding is the method of nutrition, then the mother has to take her own health and nutrition into serious consideration. Is it healthy to push your body to the limit while feeding an infant? Most women experience the shut down of their menstrual cycle, due to the rigorous changes to their body. The repetitive conditioning of the body to the trail will, in essence, start shutting down non-vital functions of your body, and a mother's survival does not depend on developing breast milk. Will this function shut down as well?

What about having to stop and feed your infant every 2-3 hours, while on the trail? How much hiking will they actually be able to get done? Theoretically speaking, if you had 12 hours of daylight to hike in, you would have to stop 6 times to feed this infant. Now, it seems like this would be pretty demanding to have the child up and moving about for 12 full hours, without a period of simply stopping and letting the child rest, because will be bustled around while it's parents are hiking. It's not like walking around a house and carrying your child with you. You're hiking, and the movement could very well be enough to keep the infant awake. It's my opinion that these people will not get in a huge amount of mileage, maybe 8-10 a day.

Now, let's discuss the weather. What are these people planning to do if it gets bitterly cold, or if it snows, or if, I don't know, you have a monsoon season where it rains 20-25 days out of a month for a couple of months, or, let's say, 3 or 4 hurricanes go up the coast, or it hails, or...well, I think you get the point. The AT has had weather patterns, in the past 2 years alone, that are simply dangerous to hike in, and extremely dangerous to bring an infant out in. Would these people consider sitting out all the bad weather days? Sitting out all the bad weather days either this year or last year would almost negate your chances of thru-hiking the trail, and that's on a normal hiker's pace.

Another question. What are these people going to do when they hit Albert Mountain? Dragon's Tooth? Lehigh Gap? Mt. Moosilauke? Wildcat? Mahoosic Notch? The Maine border? Katahdin? Seriously. To those who have hiked these sections, can you imagine having to maneuver them with an infant? Safely? What about the river fords? It's very easy to have yourself slip and fall, and be swept down stream a bit. Are we just going on the blind assumption that these people will just find the right footing in all of these places and will never slip and fall?

I could keep going all day, but I won't. I believe that this is not a good decision for this couple to make. In the very least, if they are really considering it, they should talk to their physician, and even talk to CPS and other child welfare programs, especially if this is their first child. Having and raising your first child is a huge struggle and learning experience alone, much less putting the challenge of hiking a 2000 mile trail in the picture.

Poke fun of the thought of people calling CPS or other authorities over this if you will, but I would have no problem doing so. If it were investigated and found to be safe for the child, then I would be satisfied with that. However, it is currently my opinion that it is NOT safe, and I would definitely put the child's safety over the parents' pride.

DebW
10-08-2004, 15:50
I am an experienced breastfeeder. All four of my children were breastfed.

Breastfeeding requires an extraordinary amount of calories. Hking also requires extra calories. I don't see how anyone could consume and CARRY enough calories to support both! ...

Anita

Nice post, baseballswthrt. The caloric and hydration requirements of breastfeeding are large. A 3 month old may nurse every 2-3 hours and spend 45 minutes doing it. So unless the mother can walk and nurse at the same time, she's not going to make many miles per day. And the stress of hiking would compromise her milk supply and produce a very cranky infant. Many nursing mothers encounter this situation almost every afternoon even when not hiking.

Morning Glory
10-08-2004, 16:30
If these people decide to try this, I sure hope they show respect to others, but not spending their nights in shelters. I couldn't imagine trying to spend the night with a screaming kid.

icemanat95
10-08-2004, 16:47
I was going to say the exact same thing as Alligator. Just because it was done does not mean that was the preferred method. Lots of children were lost to those conditions and my guess was that the people that made those sorts of decisions did it out of some necessity. Thru-Hiking the AT next April ain't a necessity, the trail has been there for close to 80 years, it will still be there in a few years when the child is old enough to participate and hopefully appreciate it if the parents still have the itch.

Exactly. Pioneers NEEDED to travel and function under conditions of deprivation. They lost A LOT of kids. mortality rates approached and often exceeded 50% among children under 5. It wasn't until the 20th century that the mortality rates started coming down to the point that people even had to worry about birth control and population growth.

Breast milk does not confer blanket immunity to all the diseases the mother has been exposed to either, that's horsepucky. It provides an immunological boost, but not immunity by a far shot. Yes children are more resilient than we are giving them credit for, but they aren't made of solid rubber either. A case of the flu can seriously dehydrate an infant in a matter of hours. By the time you get to a town, the child may be in very serious condition indeed and serious illness of that type, early in life can have lifelong effects.

Sounds to me like these folks are living in some sort of selfish dreamland. Children change EVERYTHING. You can no longer barge through life pursuing your own dreams without thought for anything else. you've got to make that child priority number one. And while that doesn't mean you have to give up your dreams and goals, it does mean that you need to consider the child in the equation and perhaps delay your dreams until the child is old enough to handle it.

His wife ain't gonna want to do it anyhow. She can say what she wants now, but once she's living for two, she's just not going to have the energy to carry a share of her stuff, plus the baby's stuff, plus the baby. At least not for several months.

icemanat95
10-08-2004, 17:38
Sgt. Rock,
You and Rumbler make some valid points, however, the original question was, could this be done safely and I still maintain that it can. You can set up all kinds of scenario's as to why it shouldn't be done, but that can be done for hiking alone, hiking with a dog, hiking blind, or hiking with one leg. I wonder, if before Bill Irwin hiked his hike, would this board have advised against it. I'm quite sure it would have. Just think of all the dangers that could happen to a blind person hiking the trail. Seems it would be foolhardy, but it was done. Hiking with an infant would seem foolhardy, but I maintain that it can be done, and done safely.


Totally different case. Bill Irwin was an adult, fully capable of assessing the risks and taking them on for himself. This child is not in a position to do so. The child would be put into hazard by the decisions of its parents. Whose judgement here is, in my opinion, questionable.

Can it be done safely? Maybe, if the parents seriously reconsider their mileage expectations, plan in a pile of money for frequent and more lengthy townstops to allow mother and child to recover from the deprivations of the last leg, etc. They must also be willing to just plain bail out if the child doesn't appear to be thriving. Then of course there is the likelihood that someone will consider what they are doing to be neglectful or even abusive and call the police on them. That'll end the trip FAST.

Yes it could possibly be done safely, but it is unlikely to be done safely, and the margin for error is razor thin. They can only plan and account for their own actions, they cannot plan for the actions of others, sudden changes in weather, etc.

Men can and do continue murderous regimens of daily running, swimming, physical training, obstacle courses and teamwork drills with stress fractures in their legs, cellulitis infection in their skin and pneumonia. It happens all the time in the Basic underwater Demolition/SEAL school or the Special Forces Qualification Course or the Air Force Pararescue pipeline. They do it because they feel they have to to achieve a goal that may well be more important to them than living or dying. But that doesn't mean that it's a particularly practical thing to do. There is a far distance between what can be done and what should be done. So the question arises whether the risks to the child exceed the rewards for the parents. The consensus here is that no, they do not.

I'm all for the parents taking the child on weekend backpack trips close to home or even on trails away from home so long as the trips are planned to allow them a quick exit should something bad happen and with long rest periods between them when mom, baby and dad can recover from the trip (yeah, since dad is going to be carrying the majority of the kit, he's also going to be seriously knackered and possibly experiencing stress injuries from the weight). But commiting a child to probably 8 months on the trail is probably quite a bit too ambitious. If you told me one of the parents was a licensed pediatrician with training as a Wilderness First responder, I might be more favorably inclined, but that's not likely.

A lot of things are possible, but many of them are not terribly smart.

Israel
10-08-2004, 17:47
So, are you saying because the board cannot come to a unanimous position that is why you rarely post here? Forgive the pun but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater aren't you?




Bjorkin,
No, that is not what I am saying. I guess what I meant by that was the argumentative tone the posts very often take.

Maybe I jumped the gun on this thread, maybe I even contributed to the arguements. Posts since my post above have been civil. I am sure we all agree though that threads on this forum often turn unproductive and argumentative.

icemanat95
10-08-2004, 17:49
Bill Irwin still can communicate with others while infant itself cannot voice his/her own decision. Infants at that young age, are prone to more illness than the middle or old aged Bill Irwin. That is BIG difference. I wouldn't dare to go out if I am sick. Nobody will tell me to go out if i am sick. A sick infant outside in the rain.. ekkkk

Flash Hand :jump

That's actually an interesting point. I know a gentleman whose hiking resume is pretty bombproof, but who, when he was new to parenting, had taken his child with him in a backpack on a dayhike. It was Fall and a bit cool, so he dressed himself as ne normally would for a hike in weather like that and dressed the child more warmly. About halfway outbound on the hike he realized his child had gradually grown less responsive to him and did a more detailed check. The child was cold and beginning to get hypothermic, The inactive child was doing little to generate body heat and was losing it faster than it could generate it or pick it up off daddy's body. Because the child could not really communicate, it was dependent upon him paying minute attention to it's well being AND ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING how those conditions would affect the child.

Wilfull neglect is not required to put a child in jeopardy, it can happen by accident or out of innocent ignorance. The child in this case was fine, he caught the situation in time, got the child warmed up immediately and got it home without further mishap, but that was the last time he brought his child out for that long a hike in the margins of the season.

Is the risk worth the reward?

illininagel
10-08-2004, 18:00
Sounds to me like these folks are living in some sort of selfish dreamland.

I couldn't agree more. I was hoping that this whole thing was some sort of joke.

tarbubble
10-08-2004, 20:23
i have never set foot on the AT, though i hope to someday. i live in CA and am familiar with Western trails, which tend to be more graded and wider than your eastern trails (so i'm told).

we took our son out on his first backpacking trip at 3 months of age. it was a 2-night trip in a transverse range in S. CA. i breastfed him. we used cloth diapers, which i washed out once a day (carried a collapsible bucket and washed them FAR away from our water source). i catholed whatever i could. since then our son has been on around 8 backpacking trips, maybe 9 or 10 (can't recall). he's 2.5 years old now. his longest trip was 5 days in the Grand Canyon.

at 3 months, we didn't shoot for high mileage. we read and read and read everything we could find about taking babies backpacking. i subscribed to an email list about backpacking with children (i'm now the moderator of said list). the first trip was an eye-opener and we learned a lot.

at 3 months, i would not choose to take a child on a long-distance hike. you need a backpack carrier in order to really hike comfortably (although a sling works pretty well), and most babies can't ride in a backpack carrier until about 6 months of age (when they can sit up without slumping over). once he was old enough to ride in a carrier, my son LOVED riding in it. he was never unhappy on our trips, aside from the normal night terrors (which he gets at home as well). midnight crying bouts were usually silenced pretty easily with some nursing, or a pacifier after he was weaned (which was at 15 months).

he LOVES backpacking & camping trips with Mama & Daddy - instead of sleeping in his crib, he gets to cuddle up with us in the tent. he loves tents. he gets to be with us all day long, instead of crying when Daddy has to go to work. he argues with squirrels and caws back at the crows. he squeals when he sees deer (and frightens them away). he loves fruit leather and jerky.

BUT, i agree with the chorus that says yes it's possible, but not advisable. tell your friends to wait one year and take their child on a number of shorter trips, so they can decide if they are really willing to do this. the child will be 15 months old, still not too heavy, but much more robust and able to communicate. they should also see if they can find friends & family to join them on the trail. with children, there is great safety in numbers.

another thing your friends need to think about is mosquitoes. babies under 1 year old can't use DEET. we solved this by choosing dry locations in mosquito season, and by draping his carrier with netting when we had to pass through buggy spots. now, with West Nile everywhere, you can't take chances.

there are many, many things to consider when you take young babies out into the wilds. it can be done safely, but you have to pick & choose your places & times carefully. a thru-hike locks you in to an area and time, and might not give the flexibility necessary for baby-packing.

Tha Wookie
10-08-2004, 20:33
Wow. You are one great momma!

I see the future, and it is bright.

:clap

tarbubble
10-08-2004, 21:21
Wow. You are one great momma!
some would say i'm a horrible mother to subject my child to such rigors & risks. i just try to pick & choose my risks, y'know? i don't know a darn thing about snow, so i'd never take him on a snow trip. but i know that taking him 3 or 4 miles in, to a well-used campground in the Angeles NF is probably safer than taking him to Disneyland. and less tiring for everybody!

another thing i didn't mention in my earlier post is mileage. when my son was 15 months old we attempted to take him on a longer trip. we were able to average 10 miles per day, but that was ALL day with lots of stops. remember, babies want and need to move. you have to give them breaks from the relative immobility of a baby carrier. the probelm is that Mama & daddy have been walking all day but baby hasn't. when you stop for the night M & D are tired but baby is FULL of energy! one parent does the babysitting while the other parent does ALL the other work. although very young babies can be placed in the tent and given toys to play with. you need to have a very high tolerance for filthy babies, because they will get appallingly dirty.

it's a lot of work and i just wouldn't tell new parents to jump right into it, especially with a 3 month old.

smokymtnsteve
10-08-2004, 21:35
I agree that it would be challenging to thru hike with a infant, however it would be quite possible to reasonably walk great distances on the AT with 2 parents and a baby, course it depends on the health and ability of the parents, women have been breastfeeding and working since the beginning of people,

I think the folks with all the fear are actually expressing thier own fear and/or discomfort level on the trail , Hunger, cold, dry, access to medical services, with 70-80 lbs of gear and supplies, it wouldn't be real hard to have what you need to take care of two adults and a baby,

The man can carry 70 lbs pretty easy, 70 lbs is a lot of weight, but not something extraordinary, 70 lbs of gear is plenty enough gear and supplies to keep any two people and baby people warm and dry in the southern appalachians for a few days, not like he would be going for big quick miles, Heck even ole broke down smokymtnsteve could carry 70lbs 6-8 miles a day, (didn't say i would want to ;) ) and this is a young healthy feller were talking about.
heck I would even make her french press coffee in the morning, I eat a healthier more balanced diet on the trail than most americans do every day.
and with that amount of weight, gear, supplies miles, good nutrition and good shelter is very attainable, tough but do able. as slow as he would be traveling the father would have time to gather some wild edibles too, real good nutrition better than what is attainable to most of the USA population,

I'm sure that a heathy young lady who is well feed and hydrated would have NO problems carrying a baby 6-8 miles a day working up to ten miles a day,

except for the access to Emergency medical treatment which is the same for everyone hiking they baby would be at no more risk than any person on the trail, between springer and damascus you are never more than a good days hike to a good road crossing where you could get medical help.

some folks can live real comfortable in the woods, the AT has shelters and lots of road crossings, you can live in luxury on the AT compared to most of the population of the world,

then there is the possiblity of having a nanny or third grown up (sister, cousin) to go and help, lots of moms have a helper at home ,,, why not on the trail,

TakeABreak
10-08-2004, 21:40
I think these people out their minds.

I am planning on doing another thru hike some day, whether it will next year or down the road I do not know, But, I hope like hell, there aren't any dummies like them out there when I do it. the last hing I want is to be sleeping in a tent or in a lean to and have some baby start crying at 1 am.

Which brings up a question, I hope they don't think people already at a shelter is going to give up space for them. Once they are full they are full, if they are dumb to be out there with a kid they better plan on tenting it, becuase not many hikers are going to put up with a kid crying all night, no one gets special priviliges, not even stupid parents.

Oh yeah if the mom is going to be carrying all of the extra for the infant and the infant is her husband going to be carrying his gear and hers.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif really bad idea people http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

the trail is supposed to be about getting back to nature and enjoying ones self and the company of those around them, it is supposed to be for adults not children

smokymtnsteve
10-08-2004, 21:50
don't worry takeabreak..if these folks do hike, i'm sure that you would make quicker miles than they will so , you could just get up and leave the area at the babies first cry and never see then again. they probably won't be able to keep up with you.

Me I'd make momma some pancakes and coffee in the morning, then I would go continue my hike. I bet there would be a lot of hikers wanting to help feed momma, girl probably have to turn food away.

tarbubble
10-08-2004, 22:01
bingo - at the right time of year, in the right locations it's really no big deal to have a baby along on a longer trip. by using my little grey cells and putting the work in to make some of our own gear, we were able to get our gear for all three of us down to around 30 pounds. on our first trip with our son, my husband did carry about 70 pounds. i knew i could chop that at least in half, and i did. we bought a used down sleeping bag to replace our two synthetic bags (we share it like a quilt), i made a 4-person silnylon tipi-tent, we started using pop-can stoves instead of our 1-pound multifuel stove - i even found a way to diaper the baby with even less weight. i gave up my comfy, comfy therm-a-rest and carry a z-rest. i sewed a silnylon poncho for my son.

so weight-wise, it's absolutely possible. even now, i know a couple of ways i could cut another pound off and sacrifice nothing.

i still have to say that i think the couple in question should spend a year getting some baby trail miles in on shorter trips before they decide if they want to undertake something really big with their child. it's just plain safer for the baby that way.




oh, and as for the trail being for "nature" and "adults only" - what's more natural than a child? and i'd never expect people to share a shelter with my family. we're always self-sufficient.

Bluebearee
10-09-2004, 16:49
Maybe the couple should check out Kanga, Christopher Robin and Roo's TJ on their hike of the JMT this summer. I'm part way through it, but they sound like an excellent source on whether this is doable or not.

minnesotasmith
10-09-2004, 21:14
It's been proved doable by first-hand experience of posters here, yet those against the idea won't change their positions, even with new info (that someone on WB has hiked distance with an infant, and it worked out fine). Sounds like doing the hike when the kid is a little bit older (bit still not walking) would help considerably, with little downside. BTW, the couple would do their thru-hike in one calendar year; sorry if that was unclear. Plus, it's the mother-to-be (who has already borne and raised one kid to near-maturity) that is the most enthusiastic about the idea of a thru- with the kid along.

bearbait2k4
10-10-2004, 13:02
Minnesota, there is one poster here who has successfully gone out on longer trips with a 15 month old baby, and I could be wrong, but I don't think they were thru-hiking with the child.

The person with experience here is suggesting that this couple wait. I would listen.

java
10-10-2004, 13:42
so if mom carried the baby and no pack, would she be slackpacking?

Bandana Man
10-10-2004, 17:49
Maybe the couple should check out Kanga, Christopher Robin and Roo's TJ on their hike of the JMT this summer. I'm part way through it, but they sound like an excellent source on whether this is doable or not.
Great story! Thanks for pointing it out. Here's a summary from the couple's JMT journal (John Muir Trail).

Their baby (Roo) was born in July 2003. The family took Roo on her first backpacking trip in September, which means Roo was 3 months old at the time. Their journal did not specify the length in miles or duration in days, but it can be inferred from other entries this was not an overnight hike.

In March 2004, when Roo would have been about 8 months old, the family took Roo on her first overnight backpacking trip. Again no mention of length or duration.

In the months of May through July 2004, they regularly took Roo for weekend hikes. The entry for May 9 indicates they only hiked 2 days each weekend before leaving the trail. (Edited to add this: Roo was in some kind of backpack-carrier. Roo didn't literally "hike" herself. :) )

From Aug. 7 to Aug. 22, 2004, the family successfully thru-hiked the 211-mile JMT from Yosemite to Mount Whitney. :clap

Roo's parents were first-time parents, but experienced backpackers. The journal indicates Roo's parents completed a JMT thru-hike in 2002 before Roo was born. The parents are deeply involved in the Sierra Club. The journal implies that one or both of them have conducted Leaders Training classes for Sierra Club members. Presumeably, the parents are very knowledgable and experienced in backpacking on the JMT.

There is no indication in their journal that Roo was nursing at any time on their hikes. On the contrary, the May 9 entry indicates Roo ate bread and pasta.

Minnesota -- This JMT journal provides evidence IMO that parents can be responsible and still take a young infant on a long-distance hike. However, your friends propose to hike with a much younger child than Roo, and a 2,000 mile thru-hike on the AT is an entirely different challenge than 211 miles on the JMT, as you are certainly aware. Your last post that the parents might want to wait until the child is a little older seems to be good advise. There is no reason why they cannot use the time to practice with a lot of weekend hikes, like Roo's mom and dad. Good luck to them!

Crash! Bang!
10-11-2004, 12:18
anyone meet magic rat, tofutti, and beep-beep? they were a couple doing a long section in nj and pa this year. the child was closer to a year-old and was just the happiest baby. they didnt seem to be struggling too much, altho they were grateful to me when i held her for a little bit in the van on the ride from cabelas back to town. its possible, but should only be done by the most patient, the most careful, most well-prepared hikers and parents

Crash! Bang!
10-11-2004, 12:21
and yes, they should camp away from other campers

Tabasco
10-11-2004, 12:22
I met Magic Rat on his thru last year just north of DWG. Gave him a gatorade to drink. Nice guy.

smokymtnsteve
10-11-2004, 12:25
and yes, they should camp away from other campers


Or the flip side,,other campers/hikers that don't want to be near them should camp away from them.

Israel
10-11-2004, 12:33
keep in mind there is a BIG difference between a 3 month old and a 1 year old or even an almost 1 year old. BIG difference!

Also, one of the proceeding posts raises an interesting point...it is illegal in most states to have a baby in a car w/o a proper baby seat. Hitchhiking without a baby seat is really putting the baby's life at risk, as well as being illegal.

tarbubble
10-11-2004, 12:36
forgot to mention that we ALWAYS take a water filter when we backpack with the baby. adults can fend off the few nasties that might survive Aqua Mira or iodine, but babies should be given the cleanest water possible.

walkin' wally
10-11-2004, 14:45
On the Whiteblaze hike that we took this past weekend There was a 8 month old baby boy in the Full Goose shelter lean-to. His parents were taking him through the notch the next morning. There were four adults and they were all going to help out with the baby. This baby had his first outing at two months they said. I was really surprised to see him when I arrived at the lean-to. That shelter is not the easiest one to get to on the trail.

At any rate he is the youngest slackpacker I have seen. :sun

minnesotasmith
12-13-2004, 17:14
From www.thru-hiker.com (http://www.thru-hiker.com) :

One set was used to successfully go hiking carrying an infant in the winter in Quebec.

http://www.thru-hiker.com/messageboard.html

saimyoji
12-13-2004, 17:39
Have done several hikes/camping trips with my yung'un. At 8 months she was diggin the outdoors. At 18 months she was diggin helping me set-up around camp. Now at 32 months she's playing with our gear beggin to go out on the trail.

Its' all about how you train your kids. If you give 'em good experiences, they'll wanna go back. Make 'em do something they don't wanna do, fahgetaboutit.

Infants on a thru-hike? Can't fathom it. More power to you if you can hack it.

grrickar
12-13-2004, 18:04
I'd say it's a really bad idea. I have taken my daughter camping with me since she was old enough to walk - all in hopes that she will come to love and respect the outdoors like me as she grows up. So far she is excited about going each time I ask.

My daughter is 4 now, almost 5. I would not even consider taking her on anything more than a short walk in the woods. Maybe later I would consider taking her on hikes and building up gradually to longer distance ones. I went from not hiking to a fairly long first hike and I had issues - I can only imagine what my 4 year old would go through.

As far as infants are concerned, they are away from medical care, someone has to carry them, and there aren't facilities in most sections of the trail to accomodate them.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-24-2006, 13:00
While I rarely disagree with LilRedMG, I must this time. Having breast-fed the youngest after going back to work, I can tell you breast-feeding does zap your energy. It is difficult enough to eat enough to meet a hiker's nutritional needs and it would be extremely difficult for a breast-feeding mother.

Tiny infants often get suddenly and dramatically ill and require immediate medical attention. While you and I just feel like we are going to die with a bad case of the runs, diarrhea can kill a 3-month-old infant within 12 hours. While the baby would be getting some immunity from its mother's milk, many bacterial infections do not cause mom to develop permanent immunity and an infant's immune system is adequately developed to deal with the level of bacterial exposure that would likely occur while hiking.

As others have noted, infant mortality was extremely high in infants that were migrating in the 1800's - and it was higher for infants that were migrating than for infant living in the same time period who were in permanent dwellings.

Everyone here who has raised children knows how hard it is to feed, bathe and maintain a clean environment for a tiny infant with things like refrigeration and hot water available. Imagine how hard it would be at shelters or backcountry campsites.

While I'm all for people living their dreams, I want to see this child live to see his or hers.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 14:37
Americans are becoming p***ys. Last night I had a 42 y/o lady call the ambulance for knee pain, a common problem that almost all hikers have had and attempted to walk thru. She insisted on walking out to the ambulance because God forbid the neighbors would see her on a stretcher. She climbed into the ambulance as her family proceded to follow behind us in 3 seperate cars. When ask why she did not go to the hospital earlier in a car she stated that her knee was hurting and there was no way that she could possibly go in a car.
Lilredmg is correct. there were alot of deaths in the migration and settling of our country, but it was a normal lifestyle and progression at the time. As long as they take their time and don't try a speed hike this should be no problem. You are never more than a day from medical help almost anywhere on the trail. Yes, falls are inevitable however if the child is in a carrier and care is taken during difficult sections, then falls will be minimal and usually injury free. Most people are so concerned with talking on their cell phones that it is amazing that thousands of infants aren't killed every year from their parents tripping over the curb at Wal-Mart.
Pack weight might be heavy for the one not carrying the child, but they would know this before they started the hike. Yes, carrying out all those diapers may be a hassle but they go into the woods light and come out heavy--just the opposite of town food, 6 packs of beer, soda, juice, etc. I do enjoy beer while I'm hiking the trail and I know that I and several other hikers that I know probably would not thru hike without enjoying a drink on the trail. Same weights just different times of heaviness.
It all goes back to the question of how fast. It the hike is not rushed, I see no reason that it can not be done safely and ENJOYED!
The parents MUST be considerate of others and not stay in shelters--it will be warmer and a better environment in a tent anyway, but I do not see safty as a problem. I took my son car camping at 8 days old. Yes it was warm and it was car camping but he seemed to love the outdoor air and slept better during camping than any other time in his infancy. Part of parenting is to to raise children with strong morals, respect, understanding and decision making skills. Why would anyone want to wait until the child is old enough to decide---he/she will never enjoy the outdoors or the environment. They will instead elect to sit for hours infront of the video games supplied by their parents.
I have raised two children, a 33y/o son and a 30 y/o daughter. They were both intoduced to the wilderness, whitewater paddling and motorcycles at very young ages and have grown into wonderful responsible adults without ever being being injured, killed, mutilated or falling on a Wal-Mart curb. DEFINITLY take a good first aid course prior to the trip, not so mush as to treat problems but to recognize them BEFORE they become problems. I tend not to worry too much about health issues on the trail because I have been a paramedic for 30 years. My first aid kit is Vitamin I, Immodium and duct tape. You are wearing tons of bandages and the woods are filled with spinting devices. Basically you either need a bandaid or an ambulance, there is not much in between. The responsible thing to do is not to leave the infant home but to be prepared for everything.
Do leave the DOG home though as a complete thru hike is not good for canine health.

geek

SalParadise
11-24-2006, 15:13
Do leave the DOG home though as a complete thru hike is not good for canine health.

go ahead and bring a little baby along on a thru-hike, nevermind the many dangers inherent in it. Oh, but don't bring the dog, that's not safe. That's awesome.

homebrew
11-24-2006, 15:37
:sun Gosh, I wonder what I would like to here most-some adult hiker snoring occasionally or a newborn wailling at amp11 in or tented near a shelter from 2-5am.

ed bell
11-24-2006, 15:42
I believe I'd rather stick a titanium spork in my eye.:)

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 15:47
it is not safe for the dog. i thru hiked in 1990 and spent a day and a half hiking with Mr. Irwin and learned alot from him about his dog. Orient (his dog) was checked by the vet constantly throughout the trip and at the completion the vet estimated that Orient had done about 7 years of wear and tear on his pads and legs in the 10 month hike.
I met the family with the young children traveling sobo in Maine on my 2002 nobo thru hike. i stopped and ate lunch with them. the kids were great and having a blast.
now i realize the vast difference between a 2 y/o and a 3 month old but the child would be carried the whole way. immunizations protect the child from earth borne diseases and viruses and besides most people get ill from contact with other people not the weather.
so again we're back to speed of the hike. last night i opened a new thread wondering if any one had thru hiked and stayed in every shelter, i had heard of a couple that did just that. i was just curious.
with the infant, i don't think that this family should impose upon others by staying in shelters but if they only traveled shelter distance each day, 6--10 miles or less, the parents would have an easier day, more rest in camp, better sleep at night, more quality time with the child and more energy. 7 miles a day works out to a 10 month hike.
i can't believe the number of people that will turn in their neighbor for leaving a well cared for dog in a fenced in yard for an extended amount of time but do not think twice about walking the same dog into the ground on a thru hike.
geek

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 15:54
poor parenting is driving w/o your child correctly secured in a child seat and using a video game as a babysitter.
child abuse is feeding children junk food in our (me included) over weight society.

bfitz
11-24-2006, 16:22
I know many that have hiked with infants on sections. I know one infant under 1 year old with at least 250 miles under them. If you can do it on short sections yopu could do it forever, so long as there is plenty of consideration for the childs needs and they take precedent over the usual concerns of hikers. Like waiting out bad weather, hiking reasonable miles to avoid parental fatigue etc. and a high level of vigilance, as well as skipping sections that are unreasonable to do with an infant. But in general, a section hike with an infant really isn't that big a deal, and what's a thru hike but a series of section hikes undertaken all in a row?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-24-2006, 16:51
I took my son camping when he was about 4 months old - warm weather. There is a lot of difference between a short trip and a six (plus) month trip with an infant.

From age 3 months to 9+ months the baby will be getting the vaccines someone mentioned and would normally have well-baby checks monthly. Just how do manage this on the trail?

The baby would begin eating solid foods - a few spoonfuls at a time probably 6 times a day. Just how do you manage that safely without a way to keep the food from spoiling.

From 3 to 9 months, a baby will begin teething. Someone mentioned a baby wailing from 2 to 5 AM - try off and on all day, every day for about 3 to 6 days per tooth. The poor little one will likely run a slight fever and get the runs as well. Everybody who made a midnight run to the all-night drugstone for Ora-Gel at 2 AM, raise your mouse.

From 3 to 9 months, a baby will begin crawling and putting everything it get hold of into its mouth. It will not be a happy camper about being held all day long after it is 6 months or so old. It will want down on the ground to explore. It will be quite vocal about its wishes.

I could go on. It might be possible to hike for a week or two with an infant, but over an extended period it would be darn near impossible to meet the child's medical and physical needs.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 17:00
again i will revert back to Mr. Irwin and Orient. if the dog was checked by the vet constantly throughout the hike...why not a child by a doctor?
i thought that most of us eat solid food on the trail w/o it spoiling.
yes babies are very irritable while teething butora-gel fits in my pack.
again, with no tv or videos to distract the child it may have to spend more attentive time with a parent, is that bad?
as bfitz pointed out, a thru hike is nothing more than a series of day or section hikes.

p.s. bfitz--is this really W.D.

ed bell
11-24-2006, 17:05
But in general, a section hike with an infant really isn't that big a deal, and what's a thru hike but a series of section hikes undertaken all in a row?The parents sure would have to be mighty flexable with their time. Money would be a big issue IMO. Trying to pull off a LDH(I'm not even gonna call it a thru-hike) while being cash strapped is just plain irresponsible. MS started this thread.:-? Maybe there are some aspects of his hike we don't know about.:-? ...9 months to complete..... I know some people who want to take an infant...:D

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 17:12
speed, money and time are everything. if you can't afford to thru hike easily--you CAN NOT afford a child!!!
if you can not go slow enough to make it safe and pleasurable for all involved--don't go.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 17:17
i don't want everyone to think that i am careless with my responses to this thread. i think that this would require a ton of dedication by these two parents but i am saying that it would be possible and not nearly as dangerous or unsafe as alot seem to think.
would i have taken one or both of my children on a thru hike at that age?
i don't know, but i would have liked to be able to have that decision and entertain that thought back then!

bfitz
11-24-2006, 18:21
p.s. bfitz--is this really W.D.
Huh?

The parents sure would have to be mighty flexable with their time. Money would be a big issue IMO. Trying to pull off a LDH(I'm not even gonna call it a thru-hike) while being cash strapped is just plain irresponsible. MS started this thread.:-? Maybe there are some aspects of his hike we don't know about.:-? ...9 months to complete..... I know some people who want to take an infant...:DI'm assuming they are financially and physically able to handle all that.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 18:56
bfitz--it was a joke. you mention about a string of section hikes--warren?

ed bell
11-24-2006, 19:10
Huh?
I'm assuming they are financially and physically able to handle all that.A lot of thru-hikers find it hard to meet those two requirements without an infant. That was all I was trying to say.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 19:14
very true, very true!

halftime
11-24-2006, 21:38
It seems that the desire to attempt a thru hike with an infant would be driven more out of personal ambition of the parents than anything remotely benificial for a child.

Don't get me wrong, I think Thru-Hikeing as a family would be the ultimate experience. It should however be attempted when a child is old enough to take in the experience for themselves as well as having been prepared well enough to endure many of the difficulties a Thru Hike will require (even with the best parental care and caution that is possible). At any time, the well being of the child (no mattter what age) should be above any personal goals or ambitions of the parents. That is just part of being a responsible parent.

SalParadise
11-24-2006, 22:29
I'm no expert, but I'd imagine it would be near impossible for an infant to get any sleep while the mother was hiking, from all the jarring ups and downs. If so, it would seem that the window of actual hikable hours would be pretty small? Or could an infant in fact get some sustained sleep with those conditions?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-24-2006, 22:33
Babies can sleep thru nearly anything so I don't think the baby getting enough sleep would be a problem.

Dances with Mice
11-24-2006, 22:37
Since the couple originally under discussion at the start of this thread would now have a two-year old and no reports of thru-hiking infants have been reported since 2004, we can assume it didn't happen.

But, hey, post 59 on this thread is still waiting for takers! Step right up, line forms on the right, reach deep into your convictions and your pockets.

<sigh> It's no use. Nobody wants my money. Nobody even tries to take it, ever. I am so busted on this site.

SalParadise
11-24-2006, 22:44
Babies can sleep thru nearly anything so I don't think the baby getting enough sleep would be a problem.

thanks, I just wondered.

SalParadise
11-24-2006, 22:54
hey, I think this is an untapped market of hiker-babies we're looking at. We've got to start selling Gerber on Ramen-flavoured baby food. Or maybe Mountain House can start selling some miniature lazagna pouches. Heck, Snickers already has bite-size versions, so we're covered there.

We could even start BabyREI stores, just like Baby Gap, with all this tiny, tiny hiker equipment like eight-inch hiking poles and Nalgene bottles with nipples on them.

Jim Adams
11-24-2006, 23:24
a totally untapped market!

Wanderingson
11-24-2006, 23:44
Geez, I have got to get me some of that stuff these folks are smoking.

IMHO, some folks should not be allowed to breed.

As a father of three, I do know that there were multiple issues when each of mine were just 3-months old and any 3-month old is vulnerable to daily challenges of life and that is from the comfort of having a roof over their heads.

On a funny note, I would love to see the size of pack it would take to haul all of those diapers. Oh and don't forget pack in what you pack out. Adds a whole new dimension to Hiker Funk.

If these two folks have done ANY long distance hiking, I'm sure they know the challenges they face, but perhaps are disillusioned by an obsession to accomplish a thru.

Valmet
11-26-2006, 10:24
Everybody has the right to be stupid. This couple should be no different. But they should be aware that their infant could die within hours of certain medical problems and be ready for that. Breast fed does not mean immune from medical problems. Also they should not stay in any shelter, I for one would not like to be in a shelter with a crying infant for hours. As far as comparing how it was done during the pioneer days, well they were a tougher people that lived and died. We as a people are SOFT, period. It may seem romantic to do this, but very STUPID.

Dancer
11-26-2006, 16:42
I don't have time to read all the posts to this thread so my points could already have been made. Here are just a few reasons why this is a bad idea.

1) Dirty diapers and sanitation - Pack it in and pack it out takes on a whole new meaning here. Dirty diapers can't be buried and who wants a backpack full of diapers from a breastfed baby, they are the worst. Also a new mother will tell you that they wash their hands almost continuously. That would be impossible on a thru-hike.

2) Crying babies - it's bad enough that we have to put up with them in theatres but please don't tell me that we have to put up with them in shelters. A 3 month old isn't going to sleep all night and neither will the people in the same shelter or in nearby tents.

3) Physical exertion - a new mother caring for an infant, especially breastfeeding is not going to enjoy hiking 10-20 miles a day. For one thing she is going to be up during the night with the baby, her body is busy making milk and there will be added weight by carrying the baby and it's accessories. She probably could do it but she won't enjoy it.

4) My neighbor's new baby started having seisures in the middle of the night and was rushed to the hospital. The poor thing was having a stroke. If they had been hours or even days from medical care the baby would have died. What if the baby eats something it shouldn't or gets stung or bitten by a spider or a snake?? Adults can accept responsibility for these risks, children can't.

5) The baby - Nobody or thing for that matter should be forced to thru-hike. This includes animals and children. In preparation for my thru I have heard a hundred time that you have to be physically and psychologically prepared for the rain, heat, snow, and bugs. How do you prepare an infant for 10 straight days of cold rain? Sure you can keep the baby warm but it's still going to be miserable.

I would discourage this couple from taking their new baby. When you have a child your dreams have to go on a shelf until you have prepared your child to live theirs. I would advise a section hike using grandparents and friends to watch the baby on weekends and for a couple of weeks at a time.

refreeman
11-26-2006, 17:03
N0.

Adults in peak physical condition get sick while Thru Hiking and must interrupt or stop their hike. An infant would DIE from such an illness.

refreeman
11-26-2006, 17:10
Ok here’s one they might understand. If the infant died on the AT the parents would likely be thrown in jail for a long time with charges of fatal child abuse. That’s no joke. DCF doesn't have a sense of humor.

Dances with Mice
11-26-2006, 17:34
Chill. The couple, if they existed, chose not to hike the AT with their infant.

SalParadise
11-26-2006, 18:36
It seems mostly like a joke thread to begin with, but then with the few people who've come on and argued that it would be fine, it makes for a good debate, at least.

Vi+
11-26-2006, 19:49
Stupidity should be painful.


Can you imagine, you're hiking along enjoying nature, the complete solitude, the silence, when suddenly someone still unseen shouts, "Ow!"


Might even happen to me or you some day.

Dancer
11-27-2006, 04:25
Stupid people shouldn't have babies... wait a minute, the human race would go extinct!

ozt42
11-27-2006, 05:33
I think the strong possibility of being investigated for child neglect in every jurisdiction I passed through would be enough for me to say no. All it takes is one call to the authorities from one concerned person and how many dayhikers do you pass on an average day.


Of course you'd get a free ride into town at the first road crossing in every state...

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2006, 07:10
ozt42 makes a good point. In most states, there are minimum requirements for shelter and food prep written into the laws that determine when someone gets investigated for child neglect. For children under two, most are going to require a way to keep the child warm and dry, a safe place for the child to sleep (once they begin crawling / climbing, this usually means a crib), a way to bathe the child (babies need more than a bandana bath and bit of alcohol gel), a way to deal with the child's toileting needs, refrigeration (a cooler is an acceptable substitute), and are receiving routine and emergency medical care (routine medical care - babies have monthly well-baby checks. They are also getting a host of vaccines - these records are maintained by individual states and getting them recorded while hiking thru multiple states would be a nightmare).

Appalachian Tater
11-27-2006, 07:57
If at all possible, they should plan to have the child on Springer Mountain and then start hiking north the next morning. This is much more media-friendly than merely thru-hiking with a newborn.

If women in Vietnam can squat down, give birth, sling the baby over their backs, and go right back to work in the rice paddies, there's no reason that a simple thru-hike can't be done. It actually makes more sense to me than thru-hiking with a dog because a newborn can't run off after a squirrel and get lost and it wouldn't have to be kenneled for the Smokies, either.

The main thing that would worry me is if the parent carrying the little drool-machine were to slip and fall and crack the baby's skull open, it would take a while to get medical treatment. Has anyone ever thru-hiked without at least a couple of nasty falls?

SalParadise
11-27-2006, 09:40
Everyone keeps talking about what life was like 100 years ago or a baby's experience in a 3rd world country, even that we're all wimps for being concerned over similar treatment. It's ridiculous. Manifest Destiny families or poor rice-patty mothers raise their children like this out of necessity and would certainly choose frequent doctor check-ups and a sterile hospital if they could.

This country has the money, technology, living conditions and child-neglect laws to reduce infant mortality well beyond what they are in those conditions. And fighting to help maintain infant health (at least by means of vocally protesting an infant thru-hike), I don't consider a matter of inner strength.

Jaybird
11-27-2006, 09:54
I know of someone who is considering through-hiking the AT with an infant. He and his (currently expecting) wife would set out while the kid was under 3 months old, with the wife breastfeeding it. Are they out of their minds, or could this be done in a safe and practical way?



Is breastfeeding allowed while on the A.T.?????

It's banned in many airports & public places....

Appalachian Tater
11-27-2006, 10:05
Is breastfeeding allowed while on the A.T.?????

It's banned in many airports & public places....

Where specifically is breastfeeding banned? I was under the impression it was legal everywhere these days. Sometimes mothers are illegally asked not to, and the usual result these days is a "breastfeed-in" protest.

sparky2000
11-27-2006, 10:15
My grandmother had five little one's that died shortly after weaning. Now we know it was due to wheat allergy. The assumption that "normal" does exist is unreasonable.

SalParadise
11-27-2006, 17:47
Is breastfeeding allowed while on the A.T.?????

It's banned in many airports & public places....

uh, there's a lot of illegal stuff done on the AT. I'm not sure illegal public breastfeeding would cause much of a stir.

Actually now that I think about it, I'd be worried for the mother's safety. Whip one of those things out in front of some starved male thru-hikers and you'd cause mass hysteria.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2006, 17:51
I can see guys begging for a squirt in their coffee, but surely they wouldn't fight the baby for its dinner.... oh, wait... these are starving thru-hikers... nevermind.

Topcat
11-27-2006, 18:05
If at all possible, they should plan to have the child on Springer Mountain and then start hiking north the next morning. This is much more media-friendly than merely thru-hiking with a newborn.

If women in Vietnam can squat down, give birth, sling the baby over their backs, and go right back to work in the rice paddies, there's no reason that a simple thru-hike can't be done. It actually makes more sense to me than thru-hiking with a dog because a newborn can't run off after a squirrel and get lost and it wouldn't have to be kenneled for the Smokies, either.



People always say things like this, but they miss the point. Spend a little time in the third world and you will see things like women giving birth in the field, you will also see starvation, poverty and high infant mortality rates as well as women dying at birth. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean that it is the best thing to do.

Topcat
11-27-2006, 18:06
I can see guys begging for a squirt in their coffee, but surely they wouldn't fight the baby for its dinner.... oh, wait... these are starving thru-hikers... nevermind.
Someone has to check the cream content....:D

MOWGLI
11-27-2006, 19:47
Is breastfeeding allowed while on the A.T.?????

It's banned in many airports & public places....

Banning breastfeeding ANYWHERE is right up there with some of the dumbest things human beings are capable of.

Sly
11-27-2006, 20:05
Banning breastfeeding ANYWHERE is right up there with some of the dumbest things human beings are capable of.

As I remember it was a rather good experience! :p Seriously, done discretely most people wouldn't even know it was happening. :)

DaSchwartz
11-27-2006, 22:23
The odds you will fall while hiking the AT. DOZENS OF TIMES

100%

The odds you will fall and crush the baby to death.

To high to even risk it. I would say close to 100%.

This would simply be child endangerment. No other word to describe it.

I agree with Tarlin, this is way over the line and insanity.

Appalachian Tater
11-27-2006, 23:11
The odds you will fall while hiking the AT. DOZENS OF TIMES

100%

The odds you will fall and crush the baby to death.

To high to even risk it. I would say close to 100%.

This would simply be child endangerment. No other word to describe it.

I agree with Tarlin, this is way over the line and insanity.

But do dogs fall?

A large dog could carry the baby in a customized doggie back-pack. Then the dog would be considered a service dog and could thru-hike the ENTIRE trail.

SalParadise
11-28-2006, 01:37
But do dogs fall?

A large dog could carry the baby in a customized doggie back-pack. Then the dog would be considered a service dog and could thru-hike the ENTIRE trail.

AWESOME! now THAT'S an idea! there's just got to be a way to hook up a carseat to a german shepherd. probably shouldn't teach the dog how to roll over, though.

or maybe the baby could be pushed in a wheelbarrow?

Do you think a person maybe could hook up 100 helium balloons to the baby, tie the end to dad's waist, and maybe it could just float down the Trail.

I think we've just got to go through this thread, find the 20 top ideas, get some volunteers and just see which idea works the best. you know, for future generations.

Wanderingson
11-28-2006, 03:09
Is breastfeeding allowed while on the A.T.?????

It's banned in many airports & public places....


That would make for an interesting National Geogrpahic cover.

copythat
11-28-2006, 03:41
this is a great thread! but salparadise, you're no. 1 ... the image of someone pushing a baby along the trail in a wheelbarrow made me almost fall off my chair laughing!

when my first daughter was born i was sure that, since i was such a great guy, i could easily incorporate her into my life without missing a step.

i soon realized that it was i who would be incorporated into her life, that her needs -- for rest, nutrition and the like -- were greater than mine, and that i had signed on to meet them as well as i could.

i understand the desire to introduce our children to the things we ourselves find most important ... but what is there in this world that is more important than the health and safety of our children?

caution is not a four-letter word.

bfitz
11-28-2006, 03:50
Put it this way...if you're totally prepared to take the extra time and precautions, weather exceptions, extended town visits, flus, teething, reusable diapers etc. ad nauseum, it could be done...I guess it wouldn't really be "thruhiking" and what would be the point? Unless you had a lot of time and money on your hands...but it wouldn't be the first nine month thru hike I heard of, either.

Dancer
11-28-2006, 05:29
But do dogs fall?

A large dog could carry the baby in a customized doggie back-pack. Then the dog would be considered a service dog and could thru-hike the ENTIRE trail.

WHAT!!?? I can see that now... the dog carrying the baby and it comes up on squirrels and birds and does what dogs do, it chases down the trail after them and gives the baby a hell of a ride. Or it takes off after a bear or a moose. Yeah, good idea:eek:

Why doesn't the breastfeeding mother let the father thruhike and then when the baby is eating solid food and the father is back she can take off and thruhike. The baby won't remember that his/her parents took off when it was a baby, it's too young.

Appalachian Tater
11-28-2006, 05:47
Aren't thru-hikers' dogs always kept on leashes so they don't run off or menace wildlife (or other hikers) anyway? I thought that was too obvious to mention!

I think you're missing the whole point--the baby shouldn't interrupt the parents' lives. If they want to thru-hike, they should thru-hike. What doesn't kill the baby will only make it stronger.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-28-2006, 06:39
I think you're missing the whole point--the baby shouldn't interrupt the parents' lives. If they want to thru-hike, they should thru-hike. What doesn't kill the baby will only make it stronger.This is the crux of this matter - the parents are putting their wishes above the needs of their child. While hiking with older children can be a wonderful experience for both the parents and children, an infant is going to be pretty miserable out there and is not going to understand why mom and dad aren't making that misery go away.

Appalachian Tater
11-28-2006, 06:52
It really seems like all of the people pooh-poohing the idea of a newborn thru-hiking haven't actually thru-hiked with a newborn.

The Old Fhart
11-28-2006, 07:49
Appalachian Tater-"It really seems like all of the people pooh-poohing the idea of a newborn thru-hiking haven't actually thru-hiked with a newborn."What-and you have??:rolleyes:

Dances with Mice
11-28-2006, 08:43
How many of the supporters of this idea have raised children? Let's see some hands.

MOWGLI
11-28-2006, 09:04
How many of the supporters of this idea have raised children? Let's see some hands.

What's wrong with subjecting a "newborn" to extreme hot & cold, bugs, rain, snow, mud, and the like? Builds character I hear. :rolleyes:

Dancer
11-28-2006, 11:34
What doesn't kill the baby will only make it stronger.

What doesn't kill the baby might just leave it disfigured or brain damaged. Infants are more vunerable to illness and disease. Snake bites, insect stings, poison ivy, falls, cuts, sunburn, waterborn illnesses, animal attacks...these are things that a full grown adult can usually recover from but could kill an infant. Most of the time you don't know what your infant is fatally allergic to until it's older and gets into the poison ivy or goes outside and gets a bee sting.

Appalachain Tater, argue all you want but taking an infant on a thru-hike is just plain stupid. Also, you said that the baby shouldn't interfer with the parent's lives...well yes it should. If you have a child your child should automatically become priority.

mindi
11-28-2006, 14:28
Amazon, I think he was being sarcastic.

SalParadise
11-28-2006, 14:32
Disfigured??? just the opposite. Just imagine the awesome set of quads that baby would have if it would learn to walk along the way.

Jim Adams
11-28-2006, 14:38
Sal,
can't stop laughing---read your reply and instantly pictured a year old "Michlin Man".

Programbo
12-02-2006, 11:38
Ugh....It just gets worse and worse out there doesn`t it?

Dances with Mice
12-02-2006, 12:29
How many of the supporters of this idea have raised children? Let's see some hands.I believe my question has been answered.

Trillium
12-02-2006, 21:16
MS, you started this thread. Please bring the train in to the station and let us know what the couple that you mentioned in the opening post decided to do.

soad
12-02-2006, 22:21
Disfigured??? just the opposite. Just imagine the awesome set of quads that baby would have if it would learn to walk along the way.

We just had a baby last week, I took one look at my daughters legs and told my wife that we are going hiking this spring....my bruises are slowly healing :) :) .

ed bell
12-02-2006, 22:25
MS, you started this thread. Please bring the train in to the station and let us know what the couple that you mentioned in the opening post decided to do.I have wondered whether or not this thread was the result of MS trolling.:-?