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: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:52 pm
Location: Snowmass Village, CO

3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby halestorm » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:34 am

My climbing partner and I are going to do Sherman on Thursday morning after doing Bierstadt, Sawtooth, Evans on Wednesday and were wondering if anybody knew if the RT mileage is significantly shorter from the Iowa Gulch TH if your following the 3000' rule. It seems that it would be about 11 miles RT from the Fourmile Creek TH, but I cant seem to get a good estimate of what it would be from Iowa Gulch. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Scott
Last edited by halestorm on Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Woodland Park, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby CO Native » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:50 am

To gain 3000 feet from the Iowa Gulch side you have to start from below the Iowa Gulch holding pond. Round trip is around 13 miles.
Basically you have to start at this intersection:
http://www.14ers.com/photos/mtsherman/RSher_201.jpg
Remember what your knees are for.
http://www.hikingintherockies.com

User avatar
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:52 pm
Location: Snowmass Village, CO

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby halestorm » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:59 am

Thanks!

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby KevinK » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:45 pm

Is it really worth walking miles of boring road just to add a little vertical gain? Why not add in Dyer, Gemini and maybe Sheridan instead? That way you would get a nice loop hike, less road walking, plenty of vertical, and a couple extra ranked peaks.
Oh mama ain't it good to be alive
On your mountaintop and feeling high

-Railroad Earth

Posts: 764
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 9:21 pm
Location: Moab, UT/Glenwood Springs, CO

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby kaiman » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:56 pm

KevinK wrote:Is it really worth walking miles of boring road just to add a little vertical gain? Why not add in Dyer, Gemini and maybe Sheridan instead? That way you would get a nice loop hike, less road walking, plenty of vertical, and a couple extra ranked peaks.


+1
"I want to keep the mountains clean of racism, religion and politics. In the mountains this should play no role."

- Joe Stettner

"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end."

- Edward Whymper

User avatar
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:52 pm
Location: Snowmass Village, CO

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby halestorm » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:43 pm

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. Some people think hiking up Pike's peak and taking the train down qualifies as climbing a peak. Some people think riding a mountain bike to above treeline and walking from there is considered climbing a peak. While I respect there is always physical activity involved in getting to 14,000 feet (other than driving up to Pike's) and anybody that has been to all the summits has obviously logged their hours. 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".

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

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Peak Fitness » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:48 pm

Uh oh! Here we go! Buckle up everybody. ](*,)

Posts: 3864
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: 3000' rule TH suggestions for Mt. Sherman

Postby tmathews » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:53 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. Some people think hiking up Pike's peak and taking the train down qualifies as climbing a peak. Some people think riding a mountain bike to above treeline and walking from there is considered climbing a peak. While I respect there is always physical activity involved in getting to 14,000 feet (other than driving up to Pike's) and anybody that has been to all the summits has obviously logged their hours. 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".


I used to not care; in fact, I chose my first 14ers based on how far I could drive before hiking (Antero, Sneffels, Princeton). Now that I'm in better shape, though, if I don't gain 3,000 feet or more, it doesn't seem like a hike or much of a workout for me. It's weird how my views on that has changed over the years.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:32 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Derek » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:05 pm

I used to be all for the 3,000' rule. And then I started hiking 13ers..and 12ers, 11ers and so on.

3,000' becomes pointless after awhile. I have hiked some low peaks that didn't have 3,000' gain that kicked my butt WAY worse than some 14er's over 4,000'! So shouldn't it count?
I figure that when you start hiking peaks with no trails and bushwhacking becomes the standard ascent, the 3,000 ft rule flies out the window.

But thats me, and its a personal choice for everyone :)

--Derek
"All dolled up in gabardine..."

User avatar
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:39 pm
Location: Lakewood, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby jaymz » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:48 pm

No offense to those who think differently, but to me, the 3,000' rule is for people who don't have the common sense to know the difference between driving up Mt. Evans and hiking up it from the Sawtooth. 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. But I didn't need any "rule" to tell me that what I had just done was more extreme and more demanding than simply driving to the top. 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.

Maybe if I were checking off all of the 14ers, I'd care more about it. But I'm not. Therefore, I'm not going to hike up a damn road just so a few sticklers will respect me more, and I'm not going to add unnecessary misery to my hike since I'm out there to enjoy it as much as possible.

But that's just me. :twisted:

User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:13 am
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby Tory Wells » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:00 pm

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!
"Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, am I." -David Gilmour, Pink Floyd

"We knocked the bastard off." Hillary, 1953
"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves." Hillary, 2003
Couldn't we all use 50 years of humble growth?
-Steve Gladbach

User avatar
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:11 pm

Re: 3000' rule - yay or nay?

Postby tommyboy360 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:36 pm

KevinK wrote:Is it really worth walking miles of boring road just to add a little vertical gain? Why not add in Dyer, Gemini and maybe Sheridan instead? That way you would get a nice loop hike, less road walking, plenty of vertical, and a couple extra ranked peaks.


+1 More Mountain and less road. This is a great alternative than to parking far down a MINING ROAD and walking up it just to comply with someone eles's rules. Hike the surrounding peaks/variations and truly discover all sides of the Sherm. The road was built by a mining company -- I don't see how hiking it gives you a deeper mountain experience then parking at the start of the Iowa gulch trail. I'm happy to experience the road with just the windows down and the camera held outside of the car. KEEP OFF THE ROAD for the full 3000 if you're hiking it --that would be the ideal rule interpretation for me. There are a lot of ways to increase the challenge/fun factor on Sherman... but adding more time on a mining road doesn't do it for me. I'd rather keep a short day and head for happy hour or go hit an afternoon sesh @woodward and hike their ramps.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests