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: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Denver CO

3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby BTL » Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:59 pm

After reviewing my ballot, I think this issue is probably as relevent as any other and belongs right up there with all of the other special interest ballot measures. :D

Just need to fine tune the wording....

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

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:11 pm

So, if you claim a summit without gaining at least 3,000 feet will that mean you are subject to prosecution under the Stolen Valor Act? :wink:

Oh, hey, this is my 1,200th post. Nifty.

User avatar
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:08 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby pk122 » Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:12 pm

I prob have already broken this rule multiple times, but there is something to be said about people who would rather drive 5 mph than walk 4 mph leading to the end of the "road" to the TH. It amazes me that some people would rather sit in their car another 20 min than walk 25, and risk thousands in damages to their car. I feel like I'm always that guy that parks a couple miles down in the "safe" parking lot. I'll take the extra exercise, though. :lol:

Closer to me in Kansas they had the biggest waste of time "amendment" to gun laws that really wasn't even an amendment on their ballot today. And Rhode Island's state name change--give me a break.

User avatar
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:10 am
Location: Congress Park

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby fleetmack » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:01 pm

Ken Buck wants to FLATTEN the mountains with a steam roller!! I just can't vote for Ken Buck

Michael Bennett actually proposed an amendment that snowboarding be OUTLAWED to those who don't subscribe to federal health care!!!

Oh wait, sorry, the stupid/absurd/idiotic/wasteful commercials have got me thinking everyone is evil.

Almost my 1200th, equally nifty.
"Cynicism and ill-humored opinion have built a stronghold called the message board. Sweet mother of God, see a f***ing shrink, people."
--Corey Taylor

Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:44 am

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Doug Shaw » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:10 pm

fleetmack wrote:Oh wait, sorry, the stupid/absurd/idiotic/wasteful commercials have got me thinking everyone is evil.


No sh*t. What I can't decide is whether November 3rd should be made a national day of celebration since the election cycle is over, or a day of mourning because some scoundrel will be in office (regardless of who wins).

User avatar
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby timf » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:26 pm

Blue dictator, red dictator, what's the difference. (Hmm, maybe this thread should be under the off topic section).

You probably could add a 3000' gain clause and hide it within another amendment. That's the trendy way everything gets passed anyway.
Will it be 3000' total (gross/net gain/on the descent/etc)

User avatar
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby djkest » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:28 pm

I like the 3,000 foot rule but I think there should be some exceptions, mainly Sherman. It seems a little ridiculous to park several miles down the road so that you can comply with an arbitrary rule. I didn't even park at the "upper trailhead", it was full, but we were about 1/4 mile below that. Still not 3,000 feet.
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

User avatar
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby smoove » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:52 pm

djkest wrote:I like the 3,000 foot rule but I think there should be some exceptions, mainly Sherman. It seems a little ridiculous to park several miles down the road so that you can comply with an arbitrary rule. I didn't even park at the "upper trailhead", it was full, but we were about 1/4 mile below that. Still not 3,000 feet.


Just do Sherman in the winter. Then you're forced to park down the road. That fixes the problem for Bierstadt too.

Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby FourteenerDan » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:09 pm

Am I bad for counting the 3000 rule for the Decalibron because it added up to more than 3000 feet after I climbed all 3 (or is it 4?) summits?

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

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:13 pm

FourteenerDan wrote:Am I bad for counting the 3000 rule for the Decalibron because it added up to more than 3000 feet after I climbed all 3 (or is it 4?) summits?


Stolen Valor! :o :shock: :wink: :mrgreen:

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby Bean » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:14 pm

The 3,000' rule is moronic. I'd much rather have an amendment defining hiking vs. climbing (i.e. "no, you did not climb Bross, you hiked it.").
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

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

Re: 3,000' Rule Constitutional Amendment?

Postby tmathews » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:16 pm

Bean wrote:The 3,000' rule is moronic. I'd much rather have an amendment defining hiking vs. climbing (i.e. "no, you did not climb Bross, you hiked it.").


+1! This is one of my pet peeves, actually. It irks me like people who don't signal lane changes or people who won't accelerate fast enough in a merge lane. I have many, many traffic peeves, but I'll save them for another thread....

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: High_On_Thin_Air and 11 guests