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

More info...

Other ways to help...

3000' rule - yay or nay?

Trailhead conditions, directions, roads, parking, camping, etc. Trailhead Info/Status
User avatar
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:31 am
Location: South Hero, Vermont

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby jrbren_vt » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:45 am

Nay
*****************
Best Regards - John
*****************

User avatar
Posts: 561
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:32 am
Location: 4150 feet below Denver and somewhere East

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby TK » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:05 am

Give me a way to follow the 3,000 foot rule on the East coast, and I'll follow it more strenuously in the Rockies.
"If you're not sure where you are, but you haven't taken the time to stop and look at the map, you're not lost, just lazy." -Darran Wells

Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:56 am

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby I fall a lot » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:17 am

lanternerouge08 wrote:The 3000' rule is arbitrary...why add a bunch of stupid rules to get in the way of your enjoyment of the mountains? I don't need someone else to tell me when I have climbed a peak and when I have not; I know the difference, thank you very much!


word.

User avatar
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby osubg1 » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:50 am

crossfitter wrote:I don't adhere to the 3000' rule because there is no mountaineering to be found in walking up a road.


+1

And +1 for crossfit :D

User avatar
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Denver

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby mtn_hikin » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:18 am

I always hit 3000' but it can be hard sometimes because I have to spend so much time chasing after my dog who runs away off the leash because he is scared of the gun I carry.

User avatar
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: colorado springs, co

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby yourhorsedoctor » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:42 am

mtn_hikin wrote:I always hit 3000' but it can be hard sometimes because I have to spend so much time chasing after my dog who runs away off the leash because he is scared of the gun I carry.


HAHAHAHA - that's the funniest post I've read in ages!!! :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:51 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby runningstix » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:51 pm

mtn_hikin wrote:I always hit 3000' but it can be hard sometimes because I have to spend so much time chasing after my dog who runs away off the leash because he is scared of the gun I carry.


Thats pretty funny. I can relate, as soon as I pull a gun out one of my two dogs freak out. I dont understand it really, how does she even know what it is. doesnt matter if its a pistol or rifle she flips out
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift" Steve Prefontaine

User avatar
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vail, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Peak Fitness » Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:10 pm

I, personally, adhere to the "3 beer" rule. If I've had at least 3 beers the night before a climb, I won't climb... until I've had at least 3 more the morning of. \:D/

User avatar
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:36 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby rijaca » Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:59 pm

Peak Fitness wrote:I, personally, adhere to the "3 beer" rule. If I've had at least 3 beers the night before a climb, I won't climb... until I've had at least 3 more the morning of. \:D/


+1 :iluvbeer:
"Spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill"

User avatar
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Castle Rock, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby randalmartin » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:11 pm

For me one of the purposes of doing 14ers is the physical challenge. So I use the 3000 ft rule mainly to set some minimum floor that helps ensure I make the hike challenging enough. Having said that there are plenty of times that I could see not worrying about it. Of course in my case I have a Mini Cooper so it's often a moot point since I can't drive to 4WD TH's anyway. :?

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby KevinK » Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:40 pm

halestorm wrote:While I totally agree that my day would be more pleasurable by doing exactly what you suggest, I believe the overall experience of bagging the 14ers is enhanced with some basic set of personal rules as to what qualifies as climbing a peak and what doesn't.


If you agree that my suggestion would be more pleasurable I don't see why you don't just do it? I'm pretty much ruled by pleasure so hikng a couple extra peaks along a nice wildflower studded ridgeline instead of a few extra miles on a rocky jeep road is a no brainer for me. I think that the overall mountain experience is enhanced by exploring new areas, traveling the most interesting terrain possible and enjoying the moment. Though I do think worrying about details like the 3000' rule is silly I never said you shouldn't go for 3000' if you want it. I just suggested a better way of getting it.

halestorm wrote: My personal opinion is that if you don't gain 3000' on a climb, you aren't climbing a mountain...you're just visiting the summit.
If there weren't at least some that agreed with the sentiment, there wouldn't be such a thing as the "3000' rule".


Well if you want to split hairs you're not going to be actually "climbing" a mountain on either of those routes to Sherman 3000' or not, let's say hiking a mountain. I could make a strong case for having hiked more of that mountain by exploring the neighboring peaks and connecting ridges than someone who just walks a little extra jeep road and then the standard trail there and back. I usually get way more vertical gain my way as well.

jaymz wrote:This was the day I forsook the 3,000' rule, because I concluded that the person defending it to me was insane -- the day before, she climbed Grays, hiked back down to her car, and turned right around and hiked Torreys. No, thank you.


Great story, what a kook! With all the beautiful wilderness Colorado has to explore you couldn't pay me to do laps on the Grays trail.
Oh mama ain't it good to be alive
On your mountaintop and feeling high

-Railroad Earth

Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: exiled to Anaheim, CA

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby summers » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:21 pm

jaymz wrote:When I did the Tour d'Abyss, I met a girl on top of Evans who told me I couldn't count it or Bierstadt as a summit.


I think this is the thing that has bothered me most on this thread... someone who would actually belittle someone else's accomplishment. Insane doesn't even begin to describe that.

Last weekend I met a woman on South Arapaho who had struggled mightily to make the summit -- her first one ever. Was that the time for a discussion of how it wasn't really a summit (just a subpeak of N. Arapaho) or how it didn't meet some 3000' rule? Of course not -- the appropriate response was "Way to go! Congratulations on making it to the summit!"

If some flatlander drives to the top of Evans, and then makes it up the last quarter mile, and is really jazzed about the accomplishment, who am I to belittle him or her? It's a life-changing event for some people. Everyone starts somewhere. Just because I wouldn't count that as a summit doesn't mean I don't congratulate them on the accomplishment, and encourage them to see more of this beautiful world.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: agdewijn and 9 guests