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: 1071
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: Estes Park

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby unclegar » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:43 am

I'd personally feel great about calling the first trips a Tab trip and a Torreys trip.
...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: 1066
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby mattpayne11 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:03 pm

This rule is only useful for those that are competing for records. Otherwise, it is a matter of personal accomplishment. I think that anyone with half a brain can make a differentiation between climbing Evans from Guanella Pass vs. the parking lot of the road. Also, generally speaking, meeting the rule's requirement only requires one to hike further on an un-paved road, so what is the point to brag about that?

User avatar
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:47 pm
Location: Keystone, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby screefieldstevie » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:11 pm

screefieldstevie wrote: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)


I probably should have added that common sense also prevails as in Antero, Evans, Pikes, etc. pretty much any mountain you can practically drive within 2 feet of......I do believe that you should put forth SOME effort.......I just don't believe that there should be a standard gain
"Cause the Rocky Mountain Way Is better than the way we had" - Joe Walsh

User avatar
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Edwards, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Chicago Transplant » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:02 pm

For most of the peaks its not even really an issue to debate it, you are going to exceed 3000' easily (minus combos) for pretty much 80% of the 14ers even if you drive as close as possible to start your hike, most of the trailheads for the standard routes (regardless of vehicle) are below 11k.

Hiking a bunch of extra mileage on a flat dusty road, is pretty silly. The easy way to get 3k on ones like that is to either do them in winter when the road is closed lower down, or just take an alternate route. Both of which are pretty enjoyable ways to tackle peaks like Bierstadt, Sherman, or the Kite Lake Group to avoid the usual summer crowds. When I climbed the Lincoln Amphitheater route on an August Sunday I didn't see anyone else until the summit. Its 6 miles RT and 3600' of elevation gain, so its not really much of an effort either. I guess you could say the real reason behind the 3k "rule" is just to encourage you to seek solitude, not so much to try and force you to "hike up a road" for a bunch extra. 8)
"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: 171
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:08 pm
Location: Denver

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby wooderson » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:45 pm

For those of you looking to always get your 3,000 feet of elevation gain, my suggestion is to downgrade your SUV or truck to a 2WD sedan. With our Honda Civic, my partner and I rarely have any trouble getting at least 3K. :)

Probably sounds heinous to some, but a few miles of road walking each way can make for a nice warm-up and cool-down!

User avatar
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Grand Junction, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby oldschool » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:09 pm

This has come up before......my answer is for sure NAY! There are many trailheads on this website that put a person at less than 3000 ft of elevation gain.....so if it's the "rule" maybe the trailheads should be changed?! Anyone that gets up a 14er got up a 14er, whether or not they gained 3000 ft. It should be the other way around IMO.....if you go from the stated trailhead, congrats! If you go for a 3000 ft elevation gain, that's your business.
"There's a feeling I get when I look to the West and my spirit is crying for leaving" Led Zeppelin

User avatar
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Daniel Trugman » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:11 pm

I'm all about the "eight hour rule" these days. The way I see it, if the hike/climb in question doesn't take me at least eight hours, I wasn't ambitious enough with my plans, and an "enchainment" with another hike/climb/sport is necessary.

I've climbed as hard as I could all day and not gained 3000 feet. I've climbed pretty leisurely for ninety minutes and gained 3000 feet. I think the "effort" or hours-logged metric makes more sense.
"When mountains speak, wise men listen."
-- John Muir

Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:26 am

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Gabriel » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:06 pm

If you really want to gain 3000 ft go to a mountain that really requires it. Mostly not in Colorado in summer conditions. What's the point in road hiking?

G

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby CR0SS » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:19 pm

Gabriel wrote:If you really want to gain 3000 ft go to a mountain that really requires it. Mostly not in Colorado in summer conditions. What's the point in road hiking?

G


It was all explained here.

mr3mtnlabbie wrote:... shame on those that don't put the work into it & respect what they are & how difficult they can be!..IMHO:)



You just can't respect a mountain I guess unless you walk up a road.
Sierra Club, helping to confine humans within city limits one acre at a time.

User avatar
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:30 am
Location: Fort Collins

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Johnson » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:32 pm

I hiked with a friend in Oregon this week. He is getting a bunch of peaks in that region. When I asked him about the 3000 foot rule he said, "what?"
In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. - Psalm 95:4

"I would be doing myself a disservice and every member of this band if I didn't perform the hell out of this." - Gene

User avatar
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:39 am
Location: Pueblo, Co

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby spazbur » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:30 pm

I feel part of hiking 14ers is the challenge to achieve the goal of the summit. If everybody could drive to the top this website wouldn't even exist. So I the 3000' rule is a good one. Maybe one exception could be multiple summits in one day. You have already put in the work for the first summit, anything else in a day is a bonus.
Whatever people may feel at least we are out there enjoying it all.
Last edited by spazbur on Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby mattpayne11 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:14 pm

bjohnson17 wrote:I hiked with a friend in Oregon this week. He is getting a bunch of peaks in that region. When I asked him about the 3000 foot rule he said, "what?"


That's because the rule was arbitrarily contrived by elitist 14'er climbers like most of us on this website 8)

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests