Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:59 am
Location: Menasha, Wisconsin

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby hotrod » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:07 pm

At what point does hiking become climbing?
Growing older is inevitable, but getting old is not.

User avatar
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:26 am

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby kilian » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:06 pm

hotrod wrote:At what point does hiking become climbing?


When you have to use your hands to control your ascent/descent?
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:09 am
Location: Pine, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby maledeel » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:30 pm

In broadest terms, climbing means to go up. It doesn't matter how you go about going up (walking vs. using hands).

You climb a ladder, you climb stairs, you climb a hill, you climb a gentle slope, an airplane climbs at takeoff, you climb the First Flatiron, you climb Bross.

User avatar
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:11 am
Location: The West Side

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby EatinHardtack » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm

kilian wrote:
hotrod wrote:At what point does hiking become climbing?


When you have to use your hands to control your ascent/descent?



What about couloirs? I hiked dead dog last year, or did I climb it? :-k
"In our youths our hearts were touched with fire" - Oliver Wendell Holmes

User avatar
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:49 pm
Location: Palmer Lake, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Flips » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:53 pm

Doug Shaw wrote:
fleetmack wrote:Oh wait, sorry, the stupid/absurd/idiotic/wasteful commercials have got me thinking everyone is evil.


No sh*t. What I can't decide is whether November 3rd should be made a national day of celebration since the election cycle is over, or a day of mourning because some scoundrel will be in office (regardless of who wins).


Definitely a national day of celebration. Better yet a holiday... It's my birthday!! :D

Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:00 am
Location: Keystone, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Yalegirl09 » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:55 pm

Flips wrote:
Doug Shaw wrote:
fleetmack wrote:Oh wait, sorry, the stupid/absurd/idiotic/wasteful commercials have got me thinking everyone is evil.


No sh*t. What I can't decide is whether November 3rd should be made a national day of celebration since the election cycle is over, or a day of mourning because some scoundrel will be in office (regardless of who wins).


Definitely a national day of celebration. Better yet a holiday... It's my birthday!! :D


Happy Early Birthday Randy!!!!! :D

Posts: 709
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Golden, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Hacksaw » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:57 pm

tmathews wrote:So, if you claim a summit without gaining at least 3,000 feet will that mean you are subject to prosecution under the Stolen Valor Act? :wink:


More importantlly if you claim a "winter ascent" that is prior to December 21st.
"True love is much easier to find with a helicopter."

User avatar
Posts: 719
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:10 am
Location: Silt, colorado

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby giarcd » Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:10 am

A "wintery ascent?"----I'm easily confused!

User avatar
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:57 am

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Duffus Kentucky Climber » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:27 am

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:
It looks like the ridge is just right up there!

Posts: 3862
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:56 pm

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:33 am

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. ;)

User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby susanjoypaul » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:44 am

Hacksaw wrote:
tmathews wrote:So, if you claim a summit without gaining at least 3,000 feet will that mean you are subject to prosecution under the Stolen Valor Act? :wink:


More importantlly if you claim a "winter ascent" that is prior to December 21st.

The "hike" versus "climb" thing doesn't bother me at all... I use both terms interchangeably. And the 3,000 foot rule is a personal decision that each of us has to make - I've started lower than the trailhead intentionally to gain 3K' on some 14ers, and blown it off on others.

Here's what Roach has to say on the subject: http://www.climb.mountains.com/Word_Tent_files/What_is_a_Peak.shtml#When_is_a_Peak_Climbed

But the winter ascent thing is pretty clear cut: I think we can all read a calendar. Gladbach narrowed it down even further in one of his trip reports last year... let's see if I can find it.

Aahhh... here's the report: http://www.14ers.com/php14ers/tripreport.php?trip=7587
And here's the reference to the definition of a "winter ascent": http://www.amc4000footer.org/faq.htm#winter
LoJ goes by the day, but not the hour - but he at least sticks to the solstice and equinox dates: http://www.listsofjohn.com/Winter/WinterIndex.php

So, do I secretly sneer when I see someone claim a "winter ascent" outside of calendar winter? No, it's just a big red flag that the poster is a noob, and doesn't know any better. They see snow - they think it's winter! That, or they're trying to impress folks on here with their winter mountaineering skills, without actually subjecting themselves to true winter conditions. And I can't imagine anyone doing anything that dumb. Must be the noob thing...

User avatar
Posts: 2523
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby MountainHiker » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:20 am

We really need more constitutional amendments. Since 62 failed, people won’t be able to claim summits made while they were still fetuses. :?

What about handicapping for height? Should short people get to climb less and still count it? Tall people are basically cheating, so they should have to climb more! :roll:

What if there is a snow drift at the saddle? Can that nullify the 300’ rule? Or is it okay if you walk around the drift to still get the 300’? 8-[

It’s clear there needs to be more government oversight in this area. We should be using RFID technology to verify someone really summits.
:lol:
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: for536xk and 7 guests