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.
User avatar
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Rich H » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:21 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.
"If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world."

User avatar
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby susanjoypaul » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:25 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
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Rich H » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:27 am

ah no trust these days
"If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world."

User avatar
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:57 am

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Duffus Kentucky Climber » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:32 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
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:31 am
Location: South Hero, Vermont

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby jrbren_vt » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:17 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
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:31 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
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:50 pm
Location: Gross Reservoir, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby winmag4582001 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:33 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."-Joel Bernardini

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Dillon

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby TravelingMatt » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:40 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?
So pleas'd at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky,
Th' increasing prospects tire our wand'ring eyes,
Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!
-- Alexander Pope

User avatar
Posts: 1369
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby djkest » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:08 pm

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

Posts: 3864
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:16 pm

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 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:20 pm

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
Posts: 7181
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Jim Davies » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:09 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". :)
Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths. -- Steven Wright

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sflohr and 15 guests