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
Online
User avatar
Posts: 857
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:39 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby jaymz » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:54 pm

summers wrote:
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.

Great perspective. I took my parents up Devil's Head last summer. They're in their 50's, flatlanders, and not in the best shape. It took them two hours, but they were so proud of themselves, and no other experience they've had in Colorado compares to it! They still tell everyone back in Missouri about the time they went mountain climbing. Never in a million years would I take that away from them.

User avatar
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:54 am
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby JayMiller » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:28 pm

Nay - for the most part. I've been told that when I was setting on the summit block of Sunlight, it didn't count because we camped at the upper end of Chicago Basin. Of course Windom didn't count because we cut across the valley and climbed the class three side instead of hiking back down to 11,000 feet and climbing the class 2 ridge.
And of course very people can count Eolus. I sure can't. Except that I do. I also count Torreys from Kelso ridge and Longs even though we camped in the boulder field.

My rule is simple. On class 2 climbs, I try to climb as close to 3,000 as possible, but that doesn't include walking up a road. On class 3 climbs I don't care.
My Philosophy on Life: If you wake up alive and well ... Shut the heck up.

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 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:58 am

I have not heard of the 3000' foot "rule" applying to where you camp before. I was under the understanding it applied to TH to summit accumulated vertical elevation gain between your car and the summit. So if you were camped at your car, it would apply. If you hiked up x vertical feet on day one, and camped, then hiked the remaining y vertical feet to the summit on day 2, then x+y would need to be > then 3000' feet, not y'.

A moot point for me, 1.) I have no 14er aspirations to hike them all 2.) If I did I would not adhere to a random vertical elevation gain criteria. 3.) On most peaks I would likely get 3000' anyway since I am too cheap to rent a 4WD vehicle, > 2X cost of a Corolla, but it would not make sense to me on something like Sherman. It might make more sense on something like Castle where I read you can drive to a pretty high altitude with a 4WD, perhaps these are the types of peaks this rule was born on. I would also assume if you adhere to the 3000' rule then you could not climb multiple 14ers in one day unless you walked all the way down to ~11K' in between the peaks.

Since I live in New England I can't help but compare. How many 14ers are like Castle where one can drive quite a ways up with a 4WD, but if you do not have a 4WD, your task is quite a bit longer ? Other then a couple of peaks (Washington, Whiteface & Mansfield), I can't think if any NH 4000 footers or Adirondack 4000 foot peaks that you can drive most the way up. Maybe this is why we don't have 2000' rule out here ? (3000' would cut the number of peaks in half).

One other point, I have climber friends who would say you do "climb" any of the Colorado 14ers unless you did a technical class 5 route (class 4 routes would make them pause I am sure). You hike them. In other words if you need to rope up you are climbing, other wise you are hiking. So everyone has there own views of what "counts" and what doesn't. My view is do what make you happy and do not worry about what others think, because in the end no one cares if I climb or hike any peak other then me.
*****************
Best Regards - John
*****************

User avatar
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:50 am
Location: SoSlo (South of Sloans Lake)

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby wildlobo71 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:06 am

jrbren_vt wrote:
One other point, I have climber friends who would say you do "climb" any of the Colorado 14ers unless you did a technical class 5 route (class 4 routes would make them pause I am sure). You hike them. In other words if you need to rope up you are climbing, other wise you are hiking. So everyone has there own views of what "counts" and what doesn't. My view is do what make you happy and do not worry about what others think, because in the end no one cares if I climb or hike any peak other then me.


I woudl debate your friends on nuances of this point - hiking involves only feet; anything class-3 and above requires hands for either stabilization or assistance in getting over obstacles short of needing rope. THat's still climbing, not hiking.

Otherwise - I agree with your last point entirely.
Bill W.
Yes, I have my Scotch.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:49 am
Location: Golden, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Doctor No » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:08 am

jrbren_vt wrote:Since I live in New England I can't help but compare. How many 14ers are like Castle where one can drive quite a ways up with a 4WD, but if you do not have a 4WD, your task is quite a bit longer ?


Castle, or Antero?

Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Woodland Park, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby CO Native » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Doctor No wrote:
jrbren_vt wrote:Since I live in New England I can't help but compare. How many 14ers are like Castle where one can drive quite a ways up with a 4WD, but if you do not have a 4WD, your task is quite a bit longer ?


Castle, or Antero?

Bross.
Remember what your knees are for.
http://www.hikingintherockies.com

User avatar
Posts: 7160
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Jim Davies » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:50 am

Princeton.

And, of course, Cameron.
Image
Last edited by Jim Davies on Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths. -- Steven Wright

User avatar
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Estes Park < > < > Fort Collins

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby unclegar » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:05 am

Rule. Nay. Guideline. Depends. :) I have chosen to get 3000' if it is a practical choice to me. But when it becomes ridiculous to me, I don't worry about it. Bottom line is it is a personal choice or goal or ideal.

For example, this past week I hiked Culebra. There were some in the group who parked at the top and some, like me, who stopped at Fourway because it is over 3000' from there. I thought the walk between the 2 was scenic and I enjoyed it. On the way back, someone asked if I would like a ride from the top lot back to my car. I had to think about it for a minute and then decided to go ahead and walk back. Did it really matter that much to me? No. Mainly, I decided to walk because it was before noon and I was driving to the Lindsey TH that night. I really had nothing else I needed to rush off to do. I had lots of time and decided to enjoy the rest of the scenery on the way down. I did pay $100 for it, BTW. :)

I stopped on Castle at the Pearl Pass crossroads to get over 3000'. I stopped at the river crossing on the way up Antero to get 3000'. On some of these you have to decide where on the road to stop. That seems as reasonable to me as anyplace. I stopped at the radio towers at Princeton. At Sherman did I park miles and miles down the road to get 3000'? No. We parked below the gate but not too far. We stopped when the person driving became uncomfortable with driving the road in their vehicle. I drove to Kite Lake for the Decalibron and yes, I counted them all. I did Grays and Torreys together. I did Tab and Shav together. Do I count them all? Yes.

Maybe Some day I'll come back and do them again as a repeat or to go with someone else or help someone. At that point I'll add a yes check mark to the 3000' gained question on my peak list. Until then, I still did them. You can all hike/climb however you want. I won't give anyone grief about it except to tease them. :twisted: BTW, the 3000', dog off leash, gun post had me laughing out loud. :lol: That was great. We people are pretty funny sometimes at what we are passionate about. But hey, we were all created a little differently. :)
...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: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:47 pm
Location: Keystone, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby screefieldstevie » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:14 am

so I'm going to come out and say it......S-T-U-P-I-D.........sorry that's how I feel about this ridiculous rule........there should be no "rules" when it come to hiking....(excluding safety, of course)
"Cause the Rocky Mountain Way Is better than the way we had" - Joe Walsh

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:37 am

Maybe! But the Cameron stuckage may have just been a fluke because I think he previously drove to the top of Lincoln in a VW bus. :D
"There's no recess and no rules in the school of life" - D. Mustaine

Online
User avatar
Posts: 857
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:39 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby jaymz » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:37 pm

So, assuming one is following the rules...
Say you did Shav/Tab, and for the rule's sake you can't count Tab. But you don't want to climb Tab again (for whatever reason). Is it a legal loophole to just climb Shavano again, and then count your first climb as officially a Tabeguache climb (where Shavano would just be an obstacle along the way)?

Same thing with Grays/Torreys: Say I did both the first time (Grays first), realizing that I can't count Torreys as an actual summit. But then the next week I only do Grays and consider the first trip a Torreys trip, regarding Grays as simply a bump in the trail. Can I then count them both?

This is the kind of crap I start thinking of when I think about the rule. I believe in philosophical terms it's called "casuistry."

:-k

Online
User avatar
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:49 am
Location: Golden, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Doctor No » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:41 pm

jaymz wrote:So, assuming one is following the rules...
Say you did Shav/Tab, and for the rule's sake you can't count Tab. But you don't want to climb Tab again (for whatever reason). Is it a legal loophole to just climb Shavano again, and then count your first climb as officially a Tabeguache climb (where Shavano would just be an obstacle along the way)?


I think that this is basically what people who strictly follow the 3000-foot rule do. I don't really care, but for purposes of checking the "3000-foot" box on the checklist, when I climbed Grays by itself in July (standard route) I counted that. In August, when I climbed Grays/Torreys/Grays from Horseshoe Basin, I counted a 3000-foot ascent for Torreys.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AckMonster, Beto, Jmbiller, lostlandscapes, wrxpilot and 17 guests