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: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:57 am

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Duffus Kentucky Climber » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:16 pm

I claim both Belford and Oxford on the same climb. When I returned to Belford my wife realized that she must have left her camera on Oxford!! Bad news is that the snow and ice had melted on the return leg of my second traverse to recover the camera. Good news is that in my perverted little mind I'm counting Oxford's summit as legitimate under my own personal hardship clause, part b, subsection II of the husband's handbook of Climbing 14ers with your Wife rules.
It looks like the ridge is just right up there!

Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby holttd » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:21 pm

I think the intent of the 3,000' foot rule is good but the implementation is just inefficient. in my opinion the intent was to prevent people from counting peaks like Pikes or Evans after driving to or near the summit. its moronic to park down the road from Grays trailhead just because the elevation gain is 2,950 ft from trailhead to summit. if the standard trailhead is near 3000 ft of elevation gain, i'm counting it even if its not exactly 3000. Its also moronic to not count both peaks on the climb. i'm not going to climb grays, go back to the trailhead, and then climb torreys. If i do the mummy kill in RMNP, i'm counting all of them as 13ers, not just chapin or chiquita. the point of all this is to enjoy the outdoors and keep track of you accomplishments. it shouldnt be a chore or else you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

again, i think its a good idea, but use it as a guideline and not a strict rule.

my $.02
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help. -Psalm 121

User avatar
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:37 pm

holttd wrote:I think the intent of the 3,000' foot rule is good but the implementation is just inefficient. in my opinion the intent was to prevent people from counting peaks like Pikes or Evans after driving to or near the summit. its moronic to park down the road from Grays trailhead just because the elevation gain is 2,950 ft from trailhead to summit. if the standard trailhead is near 3000 ft of elevation gain, i'm counting it even if its not exactly 3000. Its also moronic to not count both peaks on the climb. i'm not going to climb grays, go back to the trailhead, and then climb torreys. If i do the mummy kill in RMNP, i'm counting all of them as 13ers, not just chapin or chiquita. the point of all this is to enjoy the outdoors and keep track of you accomplishments. it shouldnt be a chore or else you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

again, i think its a good idea, but use it as a guideline and not a strict rule.

my $.02


You can "count" them all you like--they just won't satisfy the 3,000' rule. I think it's a bit extreme to call someone moronic simply because they make a personal choice to abide by the admittedly arbitrary 3,000' rule. I wouldn't hike back down to the TH and then back up to Torreys either. I would, however, come back another day and do them both again. And it's not even a chore! Some of us enjoy returning to an area and rehiking a route--or even better, reaching the summit by a new route!

For what it's worth, I agree that it's a tough pill to swallow if you fall just short of 3,000' from the peak's TH. I think someone proposed something like a "reasonable trailhead" rule or something like that. I think that would be a good guideline: if you reached a peak's summit from an accepted (more subjectivity here, of course) trailhead, then you climbed the peak. But that would of course be a different rule than the 3,000' rule.

But I agree with Roach's reasoning that if you climb the first peak of a combo, then merely gain a few extra hundred feet to the neighboring peak, you're essentially just "visiting summits." Now you're obviously doing a lot more than merely visiting summits if you accomplish one of the great traverses or that beastly Capitol to Snowmass traverse! In the end, gaining 3,000 feet on each summit is just another objective goal to shoot for. If it doesn't matter to you, then don't do it.

Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby holttd » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:46 pm

smoove wrote:
holttd wrote:I think the intent of the 3,000' foot rule is good but the implementation is just inefficient. in my opinion the intent was to prevent people from counting peaks like Pikes or Evans after driving to or near the summit. its moronic to park down the road from Grays trailhead just because the elevation gain is 2,950 ft from trailhead to summit. if the standard trailhead is near 3000 ft of elevation gain, i'm counting it even if its not exactly 3000. Its also moronic to not count both peaks on the climb. i'm not going to climb grays, go back to the trailhead, and then climb torreys. If i do the mummy kill in RMNP, i'm counting all of them as 13ers, not just chapin or chiquita. the point of all this is to enjoy the outdoors and keep track of you accomplishments. it shouldnt be a chore or else you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

again, i think its a good idea, but use it as a guideline and not a strict rule.

my $.02


You can "count" them all you like--they just won't satisfy the 3,000' rule. I think it's a bit extreme to call someone moronic simply because they make a personal choice to abide by the admittedly arbitrary 3,000' rule. I wouldn't hike back down to the TH and then back up to Torreys either. I would, however, come back another day and do them both again. And it's not even a chore! Some of us enjoy returning to an area and rehiking a route--or even better, reaching the summit by a new route!

For what it's worth, I agree that it's a tough pill to swallow if you fall just short of 3,000' from the peak's TH. I think someone proposed something like a "reasonable trailhead" rule or something like that. I think that would be a good guideline: if you reached a peak's summit from an accepted (more subjectivity here, of course) trailhead, then you climbed the peak. But that would of course be a different rule than the 3,000' rule.

But I agree with Roach's reasoning that if you climb the first peak of a combo, then merely gain a few extra hundred feet to the neighboring peak, you're essentially just "visiting summits." Now you're obviously doing a lot more than merely visiting summits if you accomplish one of the great traverses or that beastly Capitol to Snowmass traverse! In the end, gaining 3,000 feet on each summit is just another objective goal to shoot for. If it doesn't matter to you, then don't do it.


i agree with this as long as its for enjoyment of the peaks or trying a new route, but i think it defeats the purpose to do it just for some checklist.

i just think that doing the radical slam counts as climbing 7 mountains and not 1. personal opinion.
Last edited by holttd on Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help. -Psalm 121

User avatar
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:07 am
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby timf » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:09 pm

Hey so uh....

What do you guys think of carrying guns in the backcountry or the fees on Culebra? :lol:
OK that was admittedly a bit of a troll, but the 3000' rule seems to proceed the others.

Personally whatever you want to count for your own edification counts: biking up Evans, hangliding off Sherman, touching the Sunlight block with your hand, Democrat from Kite Lake or Bierstadt from Guanella Pass, it only matters to me.

Yes visiting Oxford's summit after taversing from Belford counted for me, but I unintentionally had to do it on a 2nd trip.

Yep Saturday I'm doing a little Horseshoe, Finnback, and Peerless action. I think it might still be just under 3000' or at least Horseshoe by itself is about 2500' and I'm glad. Finnback and Peerless count only because they're named on a map. Not sure that I'll count it as a winter ascent quite just yet.

Tim

User avatar
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby djkest » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:28 pm

holttd wrote:i agree with this as long as its for enjoyment of the peaks or trying a new route, but i think it defeats the purpose to do it just for some checklist.

i just think that doing the ridiculous slam counts as climbing 7 mountains and not 1. personal opinion.


Ridiculous Slam? I've heard of the Radical Slam, but this is getting ridiculous! (har har)

So then, according to this rule, doing Decalibron counts as 1 or 0 summits?

I think I will abide by the 3,000 foot rule when reasonable, but won't go out of my way to make it. Also there is a camp of people who believe traverses count- I think most of the people who set speed records definately count traverses.

So the rule may state:

3,000 gained on first summit
300 feet of prominence for each peak on a traverse
3,000 feet decended after last summit

(according to that school of thought)
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby holttd » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:30 pm

haha, my bad. wrong r word. edited.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help. -Psalm 121

User avatar
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:36 pm

djkest wrote:So then, according to this rule, doing Decalibron counts as 1 or 0 summits?


I would say one summit--pick your summit. I chose Bross the first time and Lincoln the second time. I've done Democrat three times and I'm still not sure that I've satisfied the 3,000' rule. (Hmm, this rule kind of sucks.)

djkest wrote:Also there is a camp of people who believe traverses count- I think most of the people who set speed records definately count traverses.


You are correct. Has anyone done a speed record that satisfies the 3,000' for every summit? I'd like to see that!

User avatar
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby susanjoypaul » Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:10 pm

A "winter ascent" has nothing to do with conditions - it has to do with what day of the year you do an ascent. Does it fall in calendar winter? Yes = winter ascent. No = not winter ascent. Regardless, if you did the peak - you did the peak!

Likewise, abiding by the "3,000' Rule" has nothing to do with the difficulty of a route. It has to do with how much elevation is gained during the ascent. Did you start your hike 3,000 feet below the summit? Yes = 3,000' ascent attained. No = 3,000' ascent not attained. Again, regardless - if you did the peak, you did the peak.

Pretty simple, right?

There are no "winter ascent gestapo" or "3,000 foot police" out there monitoring your progress. Seriously, no one really gives a crap. On this site, there's a 3,000' check box that you can check - or not. There's a date that you can validate - or not. These are just a couple of things that some people - myself included - like to track, for ourselves. No one is forcing anyone else to abide by them.

I feel like I'm witnessing the dumbing down of 14ers.com. Ah, t'was a sad and sorrowful day...

User avatar
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby rockdoc53 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:01 pm

I voted for this amendment two weeks ago on my mail-in ballot. I decided that the number 3000 is no more arbitrary than the number 14000.

User avatar
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby rijaca » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:22 pm

susanjoypaul wrote:the "3,000' Rule".... Seriously, no one really gives a crap...


Yep.
"Spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill"

User avatar
Posts: 2703
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Glenwood Springs, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby cheeseburglar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:28 pm

I volunteer to help collect signatures if someone else does the rest of the work.
I'd love to see this on the ballot.
The marmot said “Nobody is perfect and you are not nobody.”

Random FoTH Quotes

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jim Davies and 5 guests