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: 301
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Franktown

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby weschun » Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:09 pm

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

Yep.
rijaca

+1

you betcha

just get out there
I'm striving to be the man my dog thinks I am.

User avatar
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Estes Park

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby unclegar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:50 pm

susanjoypaul wrote: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.


+1
I like the idea of a reasonable standard, but I won't be what I consider to be ridiculous about it. I parked at four-way on the Culebra route to gain the 3000'. I also figured if I'm going to pay the money, I want my money's worth. :-k It was a beautiful day and I was not in a hurry to get anywhere after I was done. On the other hand, I parked somewhere on the road to Sherman (not to the gate but not low enough to give 3000') and I slept fine the next night as I recall. It is an ideal and a personal one at that. If you can live with your decision, I'd say that was the right decision. (but it doesn't satisfy the rule) :D

HIke -vs- climb is semantics. If I feel like I hiked, I write hike. If I feel like I climbed, I write climb.

Maybe in the future, if we don't gain 3K' the democrats will give us a discount on the trail access fee. :wink:
...the mountain peaks belong to Him. -- PS 95:4

“All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.”
― Charles M. Schulz

User avatar
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Estes Park

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby unclegar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:24 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...If i do the mummy kill in RMNP, i'm counting all of them as 13ers, not just chapin or chiquita...


Agree on the intent. But, nope, can't count Chapin as a 13er no matter what the rules are. [-( :D
...the mountain peaks belong to Him. -- PS 95:4

“All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.”
― Charles M. Schulz

User avatar
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Edwards, Colorado

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Chicago Transplant » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:38 am

The secret to any good ballot initiative is to make the language as confusing as possible, while simultaneously hiding some sort of provision that makes an otherwise attractive proposition completely ridiculous so that nobody in their right mind would ever support it. And most importantly, its has to cost money.

Here is my proposed text for a 3000' rule amendment:

"Shall there be an Amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning legal ascents of 14,000' mountains and the requirement for 3,000' of gross elevation gain therein; requiring the closing of all roads on any peak that has an elevation above 14,000' such that no road will remain open for the driving of motorized vehicles at any elevation above 11,000'; and in connection therewith of permanently prohibiting the operation of any railroad, chairlift or snowmobile thereupon; and there within disallowing the operation of any helicopter thereupon including for the purposes of fighting wildfires and mountain rescue operations; and the establishment here forthwith of a Department of 14er Regulations comprised of people who escort each potential summiteer from the trailhead to the summit to verify the legal 3,000' of gross elevation has been achieved whose funding shall be provided by a 10% sales tax on all footwear, backpacks and alcoholic beverages with witty mountain related names?"

That should be just about ridiculous enough to make the next ballot :D
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day

User avatar
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Estes Park

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby unclegar » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:40 am

Chicago Transplant wrote:...Here is my proposed text for a 3000' rule amendment:

"Shall there be an Amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning legal ascents of 14,000' mountains and the requirement for 3,000' of gross elevation gain therein; requiring the closing of all roads on any peak that has an elevation above 14,000' such that no road will remain open for the driving of motorized vehicles at any elevation above 11,000'; and in connection therewith of permanently prohibiting the operation of any railroad, chairlift or snowmobile thereupon; and there within disallowing the operation of any helicopter thereupon including for the purposes of fighting wildfires and mountain rescue operations; and the establishment here forthwith of a Department of 14er Regulations comprised of people who escort each potential summiteer from the trailhead to the summit to verify the legal 3,000' of gross elevation has been achieved whose funding shall be provided by a 10% sales tax on all footwear, backpacks and alcoholic beverages with witty mountain related names?"...


I like it. OK. Now where is that little blue booklet so I can just read the pro's and con's? :D I can understand that. :wink:
...the mountain peaks belong to Him. -- PS 95:4

“All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.”
― Charles M. Schulz

User avatar
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: Crested Butte, Co

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby 14erdude83 » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:43 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. ;)




=D> :lol: :lol: :lol: =D>
Leave it to Obama....lmao

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

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby djkest » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:46 am

Another valid question. Since climbing the Barr Trail on Pikes Peak is more than 6,000 feet, can I count a round trip as 2 summitts?

Must I actually make it to the top to count it if I've already done the 3,000 ?

If the wind is blowing uphill do I need to cover more ground to make it count?

If I fill my backpack with helium will that help me?
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

Online
User avatar
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:10 am
Location: Burton, OH

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby edhaman » Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:24 pm

Just be ready. The Amendment will eventually cause the Democrats to impose a VFT (Vertical Foot Tax), and cause the Republicans to prohibit naked hiking and try to install a Ten Commandments marker at each trailhead.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 7427
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Jim Davies » Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:30 pm

djkest wrote:Another valid question. Since climbing the Barr Trail on Pikes Peak is more than 6,000 feet, can I count a round trip as 2 summitts?

I think you should be able to apply the overage to other routes that are under 3,000'. For example, if you do Barr Trail and Sherman from 12K, they should collectively count as two summits, but Sherman alone wouldn't.
Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of white blood cells.

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

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby holttd » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:19 pm

this thread took a hilarious and awesome turn. i love it.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help. -Psalm 121

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: edhaman, Jim Davies, painless4u2 and 14 guests