SGT Rock
http://hikinghq.net
My 2008 Trail Journal of the BMT/AT
BMT Thru-Hikers' Guide
-----------------------------------------
NO SNIVELING
Nothing against the North, since I'm from up here, but that is sort of the reason why I would rather spend my 60% in the South, because it might go further, and be more appreciated. Of course I'm sure there are many places like that in the North also. Of course if I was starting in the South I would keep that 40/60 rule in mind, but I will likely start in the North, and try and save my 60 for the South. Cheers.
It depends on the season. Sometimes the weather is really nice in early March. But I'm not sure I'd ever leave before the 15th of March. I prefer late March or even early April: You miss most of the bad weather; you're hiking in Springlike conditions right away (early starters don't see any wildflowers or much of anything green for months!!); the skeeters are pretty much done by the time you get to Northern New England; and you get to hike Maine in Septemeber, absolutely the best time of the year to be in the woods there.
To each their own, but this "trend" toward leaving early in order to avoid the perceived big "pack" of hikers doesn't really do much except to make sure that the "pack" is still in place, but that it can be found on the Trail earlier in the year.
What he's saying is that you will NEED that extra money up north. Everything that you spend money on will be more expensive, from restaurant meals to motels to groceries. (Especially tobacco, if you use it!!!) If 50% of your money is gone by Harper's Ferry, you'll either have to scale your spending way back, or you'll have to get off the trail.
Marta/Five-Leaf
If not NOW, then WHEN?
ME>GA 2006
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?trailname=3277
Instagram hiking photos: five.leafed.clover
Actually, I want leave early so that my A.D.D. doesn't stop me from reaching Big K by October 15. I want to be able to take a blue blaze someplace interesting whenever I feel like it. I really want to avoid the calendar countdown as much as possible.
Still, sounds like sage wisdom. I'll keep it in mind.
I can tell y'all this after 21 years on the AT and having hiked the first 500 miles NOBO about 10 times, that first time hikers spend a TON of cash in this section because of the frequency of hostels, motels, restaurants and outfitters and shuttle services. Newbies ain't used to the woods yet and Walasi-Yi after just 30 miles is damn inviting. Hikers tend to spend a LOT there. You really gotta watch your spending. It's so easy to fall into big cliques and spend wildly in towns eating, drinking and dining and then by Damascus you're in financial trouble.
Lone Wolf makes an excellent point. There are indeed a lot more facilities between Springer and Virginia than there used to be, and they're not all cheap.
Hikers, especially younger ones on a tighter budget, really need to show some discipline here. You don't HAVE to stay everywhere. And it's really hard to spend money if most of your time is spent in the woods.
I wonder how many younger hikers needing it are actually capable of heeding it?
If not NOW, then WHEN?
ME>GA 2006
http://www.trailjournals.com/entry.cfm?trailname=3277
Instagram hiking photos: five.leafed.clover
There've been hikers here in Hanover the past few weeks who were essentially out of money 38 days from Katahdin.
Camping in the rain eating Ramen while your friends are spending the evening going out to dinner, a movie, catching the end of the ballgame at a bar, and then going back to a warm snug motel room really sucks.
Yet these were the people ordering loaded pizzas and buying designer six-packs back in Damascus.
Do I have sympathy? Some, but not much. If you don't like the tent you're sleeping in, remember who put it up.
I hear ya...... And concur with the "better safe than sorry" route........ I would never have tried it without that buffer built in.............I saved and allotted $4800 for the trip even though I believed then and still do now that it could be done for less.... I'll never know if I was correct in my assumptions................. but that never stopped me before in my beliefs.
Last edited by mixinmaster; 09-15-2007 at 13:24.
I am sure you have done the math, but I am not certain I could get from Baxter to say, Atlanta, on $190.
Pretty friggy getting anywhere from here. Time, food, etc.
Although I agree you should do careful planning so you have more than enough money to cover all expenses on the trail and at home during a thru hike, I belive the actual cost of a thru hike is generally incorrect. For instance, the cost of food isn't technically a hiking expense, it is a cost of living. True, you still have to pay for food on the trail but I don't know of anyone who has a zero food budget off the trail. If the cost of food for your hike exceeds the cost of food when you're not hiking, then that would be a hiking expense.
In my case I own my house, have a pension, and every day expenses are paid no matter where I am or what I'm doing. I have been hiking for decades and had almost everything I needed for equipment. The cost of my thru hike was mainly transportation to and from the trail, and on a couple of planned trips home for graduations, guidebooks, etc. Even counting shuttle fees, donations, and an occasional lodging charge, my expenses per week were quite low.
If you are employed, pay rent and then quit work to hike the trail I think you could say that your loss of income is technically a hiking expense and this would drive the true cost of your hike way up.
Bottom line is it isn't really important what it cost you to hike the A.T. as long as you plan carefully so you have all living and hiking expenses covered and your hike is more important to you than what shows up on the balance sheet.
A thru hike is no different than any other 'vacation' that people routinely work out a budget for.
The good news is it still costs $1 per mile to hike the trail
The bad news is the trail is now 4,500 miles long.
TOF,
You are correct that individuals must consider how their current income and expenses are changed by taking several months to go hiking. But I think sharing that sort of information is as useful to many hikers, unless they have the same situation. I think that considering it in terms of "how much money would I need in my pocket (or accessible via ATM/Credit Card/etc.) to make it from one terminus to the other (and possible include travel from and to home)" makes the info usable by many.
Like you said, "A thru hike is no different than any other 'vacation' that people routinely work out a budget for." If I ask my friend how much it cost him to Hawaii include things like airfare, lodging, dining, and paid activities, but not the time that they took off of work or the cost of putting the dog in a kennel, because those cost don't apply to me. I look at the actual cost of a thru hike, as you put it, as being more of a normalized cost that can be practical information to share, but then individuals need to apply that information to their own situation. I don't disagree with your comments, I just wouldn't call these estimates incorrect.
Having done a significant stretch, I am redoing my budget for the future to change costs, trying to take the same approach to money as I have to weight; if it's worth it cutting a gram, I'm trying to do the same with pennies. (Old English saying: "Mind the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves." Sort of has an ultralight sense to it...money and weight).
That means things like Greyhound, which isn't as efficient but usually cheaper, hitching (not paid shuttles), and which for me will be about $175 from Long Beach to Atlanta, and Bangor/Long Beach about $225, or $400 total (although I continually compare air). I'm trying to eliminate motel stops, and hostels for work when possible, with a minimum of zero days accordingly (about 15, at an additional cost budget of $20/day) I'm also working on cutting food down to the minimum, by bulk/costco purchases and my own drying, which has worked in the past. No, I'm totally against the 'stealing is cool' approach to goods or services, but I have no hesitation about asking for freebies or discounts.
At this stage, I think I've gotten a varied and nutritious diet down to about $2 a day, based on a 160 day thru, with fuel and other 'hiking day' costs down to a total of $3 for all of it. I'm assuming gear replacement costs of about $200, including shoes, and pretty much everything I have is under lifetime warranty.
I'm not posting my total budget, but I've gotten into pretty total detail, and I'm pretty sure I can accomplish another thru (the whole way, I hope, this time) for about $1,750. Rock has other things to do, and probably will enjoy the process more than me, but if I do it again, I need to get the cost down. I'll drink beer when I get home, but not much until then.
The Weasel
"Thank God! there is always a Land of Beyond, For us who are true to the trail..." --- Robert Service
I think O.F. and Tater raised some excellent points. It should be added that a lot of folks, especially younger ones, don't realize how much of their trip will be spent in or near towns; i.e. there's this perception that one will be in the woods or mountains all the time and simply won't have any access to places that require the spending of money.
This simply isn't true any more, if in fact it ever was.......there are a LOT more places that tempt hikers these days, and people spend a lot more time in towns, motels, hostels, etc. than they used to. Subsequently, they spend more money, too.
The whole "one dollar a mile" mindset might have been true many years ago, not only because everything cost less back then, but there were also fewer facilities and fewer places to spend money. Also, hikers took less time off back then, and fewer zero days, mainly because there were plain and simply fewer good places to spend this time and money, but also, I really think people had a different mindset back then. Years ago, people would frequently spend six, seven, even eight or nine days in a row in the middle of nowhere, with no significant opportunities to spend money. This simply doesn't happen anymore; there are lots of hikers who don't spend more than five days in a row in the woods til they get to around Bland, VA, i.e for more than the first quarter of their trip, they stop at a town, motel, or hostel every three or four days, never mind restaurants, bars, etc.
This means the typical thru-hiker of today spends a whole lot more money early in their trip than they used to, and this continues to be the case as they get further North. There are simply a lot more places on or near the Trail than there used to be that attract hikers and hiker dollars, and in that today's hikers are better informed and have better guidebooks, the hikers know in advance where these places are.
In short, for most folks, it proves to be a lot more expensive a trip than it used to be, which is all the more reason for the prudent hiker to plan ahead, save sufficiently, and use some discipline once they are out there.
It was a lot easier to hold onto your money when there were fewer nice places in which to spend it!!