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

More info...

Other ways to help...

3000' rule clarification

Items that do not fit the categories above.
User avatar
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

3000' rule clarification

Postby doggler » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:48 am

Hypothetical question here. And please save me the "whatever you want it to be" stuff; I don't really care either way, just want to know the answer.

A person climbs the standard Lindsey route. En route, he crosses over the summit of NW Lindsey.

Therefore, this person honors the 3k rule on NW Lindsey, but not Lindsey. Right?

If that's the case, how does one ever honor this rule on Lindsey?

If not, disregard.

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6578
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:54 am

If you're looking to get 3k+ on EVERY peak, climbing it again would do it.

More fun reading: http://www.14ers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26253
Only SNOW will end the madness

User avatar
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby doggler » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:58 am

BillMiddlebrook wrote:If you're looking to get 3k+ on EVERY peak, climbing it again would do it.


Thanks, Bill...OK, so further clarification. If I did the Chicago Basin 4x in the same order every time, I could essentially "choose" which mountain I assign the 3k to?

I don't plan on changing any of my climbing plans, just want to fill in these fun little check boxes correctly.

Ridiculous. Awesome. Silly.

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6578
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:02 pm

Yup, silly. An arbitrary number that some people have as a goal and, on some peaks, you have no choice but to get over 3k.
Only SNOW will end the madness

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby Bean » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:19 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:Yup, silly. An arbitrary number that some people have as a goal and, on some peaks, you have no choice but to get over 3k.

And on others, going for 3000' requires you to walk on a road for several miles.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

User avatar
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby MountainHiker » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:19 pm

I have checked the 3K box if I have covered the 3K for a peak even once. However I have also indicated every time I have stood on the summit. For instance with Bierstadt, I have only covered the 3K when I couldn’t drive to Guanella Pass. That would be just a minority of the many times I have climbed Bierstadt and indicated all of in my peak list.

I have climbed all of the groups of fourteeners multiple times, so I, in good conscience have clicked the 3K box for each one. The only group where there might be an issue is Chicago Basin. I have climbed those 3 times. Each time as a group. There is unranked N Eolus along with 3 ranked fourteeners. I suppose some would say I should uncheck N Eolus 3K box until I go up there and climb those a 4th time. F**k em! (This gets censored, right!)(apparently not! :oops: ) I probably will climb those a fourth time someday, but not for that reason.

I predict you won’t get spared the “whatever you want it to be” stuff.

No on second thought. We need rules! No tolerance, unbendable rules!
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert

User avatar
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby doggler » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:24 pm

MountainHiker wrote:I suppose some would say I should uncheck N Eolus 3K box until I go up there and climb those a 4th time. F**k em! (This gets censored, right!)(apparently not! :oops: ) I probably will climb those a fourth time someday, but not for that reason.

I predict you won’t get spared the “whatever you want it to be” stuff.


Yeah, I thought about assigning my one Chicago Basin trip to N. Eolus!

It would be more fun if you could only assign it to the FIRST peak you climbed. :?

User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:57 am
Location: Parker, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby rking007 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:50 pm

Kinda off topic but not, at what top out elevation does the 3000 rule become a non rule? Say you climb Mt. Morrison here in Denver. Does the 3000 rule apply to non 13er or 14er peaks?
- Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

User avatar
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby doggler » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:08 pm

rking007 wrote:Kinda off topic but not, at what top out elevation does the 3000 rule become a non rule? Say you climb Mt. Morrison here in Denver. Does the 3000 rule apply to non 13er or 14er peaks?


Nah, you just gotta start out from Scotsbluff.

User avatar
Posts: 1427
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Dillon

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby TravelingMatt » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:17 pm

Most people will say the 3000' rule is satisfied for all the peaks on a hike by gaining a gross of 3000' between starting and ending points. "Starting and ending points" are those places where you begin and finish walking under your own power.

So the short answer to your question is yes, that's a 3000' ascent of Lindsey. I actually don't remember going over a sub-peak on Lindsey's standard route (with the god-awful loose gully, not the ridge) but I've been up hundreds of mountains and I'm getting old, so I'm starting to forget stuff. There is a different, longer descending portion on Lindsey's standard route however, where you go down into that basin after following the creek up to the ridge.

There are debates over the definition above, to put it mildly. Some people insist the *net* gain from starting point to highest summit be at least 3000'; that is, for an X foot peak, you must start at X - 3000 feet or lower, regardless of other peaks reached or descending portions traversed. Lindsey still counts by this definition (the Huerfano TH is around 10700').

If you want to assign only one peak per 3000' climbed, you can just count Lindsey but not NW Lindsey.
So pleas'd at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky,
Th' increasing prospects tire our wand'ring eyes,
Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!
-- Alexander Pope

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby Bean » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:19 pm

TravelingMatt wrote:Most people will say the 3000' rule is satisfied...

I think most people will say the 3000' rule is stupid and pointless.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:57 am
Location: Parker, Colorado

Re: 3000' rule clarification

Postby rking007 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:19 pm

doggler wrote:
rking007 wrote:Kinda off topic but not, at what top out elevation does the 3000 rule become a non rule? Say you climb Mt. Morrison here in Denver. Does the 3000 rule apply to non 13er or 14er peaks?


Nah, you just gotta start out from Scotsbluff.



Hahaha done...
- Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests