3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
This forum is for general, mountaineering-related topics. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 437
Joined: 8/15/2007
14er Checklist (45)
14ers in Winter (7)
13er Checklist (163)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Rich H » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:21 am

susanjoypaul wrote:true winter conditions


You can't count winter peaks climbed in 2001-2002 either....it was too warm and there was no snow and I was bagging peaks naked.
User avatar
susanjoypaul
Posts: 1993
Joined: 9/8/2006
14er Checklist (58)
14ers in Winter (2)
13er Checklist (87)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby susanjoypaul » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:25 am

Rich H wrote:
susanjoypaul wrote:true winter conditions


You can't count winter peaks climbed in 2001-2002 either....it was too warm and there was no snow and I was bagging peaks naked.

Trip reports? Photos? We need proof!
User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 437
Joined: 8/15/2007
14er Checklist (45)
14ers in Winter (7)
13er Checklist (163)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Rich H » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:27 am

ah no trust these days
User avatar
Duffus Kentucky Climber
Posts: 1002
Joined: 8/23/2006
14er Checklist (34)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Duffus Kentucky Climber » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:32 am

tmathews wrote:
Duffus Kentucky Climber wrote:We hiked/climbed/walked Democrat only because of a flat tire on the drive to the TH. So when we came back to finish the DeCaLiBron, I counted Cameron as a legitimate 14er under the 3,000 ft rule. I guess I was assuming it was more of a guideline than an actual rule. If it becomes an amendment, what is the chance that it will become an actual federal law? Hopefully some government agency won't make it a REGULATION, because you can be punished much more severely for breaking a regulation than a law and the courts can't intervein. I think we're screwed! :shock:


I guess a 3,000-foot Rule Czar will have to be appointed. ;)


My God, man, are you talking about forming another federal bureau? Please don't let anyone tell Obama what comes after a Trillion! [-o<
It looks like the ridge is just right up there!
User avatar
jrbren_vt
Posts: 457
Joined: 2/18/2006
14er Checklist (4)
13er Checklist (3)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby jrbren_vt » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:17 am

Actually I always thought of someone who only "counts" (whatever that means) a winter ascent as one the occurs during the Calendar winter as somewhat nieve to mountain conditions (noob, if you will). Winter the Rockies and the northeast where I spend most of my time is well longer then 3 months. Yes, the local peak bagging clubs require the trips to be done during the calendar winter (for the northern hemisphere, as arbitrarily defined as the winter solstice to the spring equinox) for the purposes of water cooler discussion, forum chest thumping and patches, but I find it rather amusing. From my experience November and 1H December are a couple of the most treacherous months as daylight is the shortest, the snow pack is not all that established yet allowing for more exposed ice, and the weather is variable. If my schedule and the weather allow, I like to go on hikes right after March 21st as I note a drop off in traffic on the most popular peak bagging peaks as many consider the season over since their climbs don't "count".

On the 3K' rule, from route descriptions on this site, it looks like taking the class 1 dog route up Quandary is more of an accomplishment then the class 3 west ridge. Hmmm... that is about all I need to know about the 3K' rule. To each their own.
*****************
Best Regards - John
*****************
User avatar
smoove
Posts: 538
Joined: 8/2/2007
14er Checklist (41)
14ers in Winter (11)
13er Checklist (33)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:31 am

susanjoypaul wrote:I've started lower than the trailhead intentionally to gain 3K' on some 14ers, and blown it off on others.


The first time I did 3,000' on Bierstadt, I summited, climbed down 150', then resummited. Silly? Probably. Moronic? Debatable.

susanjoypaul wrote:without actually subjecting themselves to true winter conditions.


The most wintry conditions I've yet faced were on Quandary about a week before winter started last year. But fear not; I did not count that particular climb as a "winter ascent."
User avatar
winmag4582001
Posts: 271
Joined: 1/20/2010
14er Checklist (27)
14ers in Winter (5)
13er Checklist (28)
Contact:

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby winmag4582001 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:33 am

jrbren_vt wrote:On the 3K' rule, from route descriptions on this site, it looks like taking the class 1 dog route up Quandary is more of an accomplishment then the class 3 west ridge. Hmmm... that is about all I need to know about the 3K' rule. To each their own.


Amen to that statement.
"Remember, you're unique, just like everybody else."
User avatar
TravelingMatt
Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/29/2005
14er Checklist (56)
13er Checklist (355)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby TravelingMatt » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:40 am

If a 3000-foot amendment passes I'll be eager to see what loopholes are in it. Can we repeatedly run up and down somewhere on the trail to get the required gain? How much extra funding will the USGS get to determine elevations more precisely, and how much more will taxes go up to pay for it? Will we all be required to buy GPSs or have our employers pay for them? Can some pro-Democrat lobbying group write in an exemption for starting from Kite Lake?
AC 0000000
User avatar
djkest
Posts: 1588
Joined: 9/7/2009
14er Checklist (58)
13er Checklist (16)
Contact:

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby djkest » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:08 am

So does the 3,000 foot rule say you need 3,000 feet of gain/loss for each summit achieved?

I did Belfox and that was 5700' gain/loss for the both of them. I can count both, right? Or the real question- I did Beirstadt + Evans. My total gain was over 3,000 but up Beirstadt was less than 3,000 by itself.

What is the consensus on driving to the top of Pikes Peak, hiking down 3,000, and then back up 3,000 to your car?
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog
tmathews
Posts: 3852
Joined: 7/2/2008
14er Checklist Not Entered

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:16 am

djkest wrote:I did Belfox and that was 5700' gain/loss for the both of them. I can count both, right? Or the real question- I did Beirstadt + Evans. My total gain was over 3,000 but up Beirstadt was less than 3,000 by itself.


According the the rule that most of the 3,000-foot loyalists adhere to, I believe that would be a "No." Kinda sucks for multiple summits. I just hiked Tabeguache last weekend to get my 3,000-foot gainer. The last time I summited I went the standard route, so only counted Shavano (although I did count the summit of Tab, but not a 3,000-foot one).
Last edited by tmathews on Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
smoove
Posts: 538
Joined: 8/2/2007
14er Checklist (41)
14ers in Winter (11)
13er Checklist (33)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:20 am

djkest wrote:So does the 3,000 foot rule say you need 3,000 feet of gain/loss for each summit achieved?

I did Belfox and that was 5700' gain/loss for the both of them. I can count both, right? Or the real question- I did Beirstadt + Evans. My total gain was over 3,000 but up Beirstadt was less than 3,000 by itself.

What is the consensus on driving to the top of Pikes Peak, hiking down 3,000, and then back up 3,000 to your car?


As I understand the rule under its strictest interpretation, you must gain 3,000 feet for each summit. So under that interpretation, you can only "count" Belford or Oxford, but not both. And I don't believe you could count both even if you threw an extra 300' of gain in because the 3,000' is measured from the start of the hike/climb. I.e., you did the vast majority of the gain to reach Belford, and much less than 3,000' to reach Oxford from the saddle. Again, that's a strict interpretation and it's always a personal choice. That's why I love Bill's checklist system. You check the peak off if you've gained the summit under your own power--and then there's that extra 3,000' box if you're into that sort of thing.

I would say you could count Pikes as satisfying the 3,000' rule in your scenario. You ascended 3,000' under your own power (on foot--as there's another debate re: ascending on a bicycle).
User avatar
Jim Davies
Posts: 7863
Joined: 6/8/2006
14er Checklist (58)
14ers in Winter (1)
13er Checklist (61)

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Jim Davies » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:09 pm

jrbren_vt wrote:Actually I always thought of someone who only "counts" (whatever that means) a winter ascent as one the occurs during the Calendar winter as somewhat nieve to mountain conditions (noob, if you will).

Interesting typo, since "nieve" is Spanish for "snow". :)
Climbing at altitude is like hitting your head against a brick wall — it's great when you stop. -- Chris Darwin

Return to “General Mountaineering Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fabio 49, gspup, Humen13 and 22 guests