Hiking the Appalachian Trail with an infant...

[minnesotasmith]

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]

Not a good idea at all.

[minnesotasmith]

I was just wondering if they could pull it off or not. BTW, they would hike in the normal season.

[Lilred]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Minnesota - It's their first child. Right?

[Jack Tarlin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So when are they planning on leaving, the beginning of April?

[A-Train]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How would the baby's developing brain be affected by the constant bouncing around while the adult walks along?