3,000 foot rule question?

[disentangled]

*If you paid $150 to hike Culebra and started from the upper TH - Doesn't count
4/way - Still Doesn't count

*San Luis from willow creek - Doesn't Count

i'm confused about these two, given the total gain indicated in the route descriptions. what am i missing? i know, tedious question. still, the rule makes things tidy in my mind, and i haven't done these two yet.

[HikesInGeologicTime]

So what's the standard for 13 and 12ers?
For those keeping score is there some general consensus?

I have one partner who insists on adhering to the 3000’ Rule for all Centennials regardless of whether their elevation starts with a 13 or a 14. He’s more relaxed with the Bicentennials and lower, though...which is good, because sticking to 3k below the likes of Edwards (or Red Mountain A, which I hiked with a different partner) is irritating enough!

"Ascent of a Peak:
Arriving at the highest natural ground is required to claim an ascent of a peak. This means if a 10ft pillar of stone sits atop an otherwise flat and expansive summit, one must get atop this stone. Some feel it is sufficient to "touch the top" with a hand, while others require standing or sitting on the highest rock. Use your own judgment, but at a minimum your body should touch the highest natural surface.

This sounds like the launch party for a separate thread of vigorous debate, but I was drawn to it, as yet another partner and I were discussing criteria for what constitutes a summit this past weekend; specifically, he was able to climb on top of and stand on Snowmass’ summit block, while my short, stubby legs and I had to settle for draping my arms over and resting my chin on the highest point (though I did manage, in a feat of flexibility I have never achieved before and am unlikely to ever again, to swing my legs up one at a time so that I could claim to have gotten both feet up there as well!).

I figure that stringent adherence to the sitting/standing rule would invalidate quite a few summits where I merely touched the very highest point with a hand or foot due to the prominence in question being too narrow for someone with my lousy sense of balance to put more than a minimum of body weight on anyway, but I’d be happy to dig up a few more arguments to prove why the “DOESN’T COUNT UNLESS YOU SIT OR STAND ON IT!!!!!” crowd is totally wrong.

[HikerGuy]

The 3,000 foot rule died a quick death once I moved beyond the 14ers. There are just two many combo peaks/traverses that it is not practical. I keep track of when I get 3000+ (40% of the time), but lose zero sleep over it. Hike your hike, touch the top of the peak and make it back home safely for that sweet checkbox dopamine hit.

[Corey17]

*If you paid $150 to hike Culebra and started from the upper TH - Doesn't count
4/way - Still Doesn't count

*San Luis from willow creek - Doesn't Count

i'm confused about these two, given the total gain indicated in the route descriptions. what am i missing? i know, tedious question. still, the rule makes things tidy in my mind, and i haven't done these two yet.

This is a case of Net vs Total. Net gain - what matters for the 3,000 foot rule - is simply summit minus TH. Total includes the rises and falls along the trail, of which Culebra and San Luis both have plenty. The numbers:
Culebra: 14,047
Fourway: 11,240
Net Gain: 2,807

San Luis: 14,014
Willow Creek: 11,500
Net Gain: 2,514

[disentangled]

*If you paid $150 to hike Culebra and started from the upper TH - Doesn't count
4/way - Still Doesn't count

*San Luis from willow creek - Doesn't Count

i'm confused about these two, given the total gain indicated in the route descriptions. what am i missing? i know, tedious question. still, the rule makes things tidy in my mind, and i haven't done these two yet.

This is a case of Net vs Total. Net gain - what matters for the 3,000 foot rule - is simply summit minus TH. Total includes the rises and falls along the trail, of which Culebra and San Luis both have plenty. The numbers:
Culebra: 14,047
Fourway: 11,240
Net Gain: 2,807

San Luis: 14,014
Willow Creek: 11,500
Net Gain: 2,514

thank you!! i didn't know i knew the answer. now it makes perfect sense. looks like lots of road walking in my future.

[bdloftin77]

Re: 3000' Rule
As a member of the Stodgy Ultra-Purist 3000' Rule Finisher Society, I can say with reasonable certainty that Sherman was my least favorite to fulfill this personal goal. The listed 5.25 mi RT became 13.5 mi from parking near Fourmile Campground at 10,800', since there was no parking available closer to the required 11,036'.

DeCaLiBro from Paris Mill was 14.5 mi.

I did Bierstadt from Echo Lake as part of Tour de Abyss.

2WD limitations took care of the rest, including Culebra. Four Way does not fulfill the 3000' Rule. You have to walk down the slope and wander around until you drop below 11,047'.

Re: Double-Summits
When I biked from Echo Lake to summit Evans then completed Tour de Abyss to summit Evans again, I counted that as two summits in a single day. If summiting Evans as part of Tour de Abyss from parking at 13,300' and going across the Sawtooth counts, I won't lose any sleep over counting that after already summiting Evans once prior to that in the same day. If you summit once, then drop back down to a commonly accepted TH and re-summit, there's no logical reason not to count that as two summits in a single day.

In contrast, I did not count summiting Cameron twice when I walked back over it from Bross to descend from the Democrat-Cameron saddle my first time at Kite Lake. Nor do I count myself as having summited Culebra/La Plata/Massive/Recloud/Shavano twice in a day when returning from Red/"E La Plata"/"N Massive"/Sunshine/Tabeguache, respectively.

3000' Rule - that sounds rough!

Double-Summits - Yeah I agree that if you return to the standard trailhead, you can count it twice. That's more arbitrary (for this site at least) as to how many times you can count a summit. Hopefully no one abuses it.. not that it matters too much. On listsofjohn, the site understandably lets you submit only unique peak ascents for each day - won't let you say you climbed Evans twice in a day for example. If I had done your route and recorded on listsofjohn, I would have submitted Evans (it records one ascent), and put in the comment that I ascended twice, and my route.

[RETEP 1]

I find it ironic that “mountaineering purists” insist on hiking roads to meet a 3000’ rule. As for me, I’ll go as far as it takes so long as it’s single track.

[disentangled]

I find it ironic that “mountaineering purists” insist on hiking roads to meet a 3000’ rule. As for me, I’ll go as far as it takes so long as it’s single track.

starting points are arbitrary anyway, and especially depending on the type of vehicle you have. since i'm unwilling to risk damage to the one thing keeping me from being stranded 300 miles away from home, my starting point will always exclude 4WD roads. given that, i'm stubborn enough to turn this little dilemma into a rule. lol

[timisimaginary]

This. I am old and not a hiker with any special goals other than to return to Colorado next year (Covid and crowds deterred me this year) and find mountains with few people on them. I have considered the 3,000 foot "rule" and understand ("pedantry be damned") that it doesn't matter to me. These days, I'm more attracted to 13ers.

Not to beat a dead topic, but I assume as the mountains get smaller people care less and less about the 3k "rule". Like is anyone diligently making sure they start at 9k when hiking 12'ers?

it really starts getting tricky when you're going for peaks below 3k. starting your hike underwater with scuba gear is no fun.

[bergsteigen]

So far I have hiked 443 ranked 13ers (529 ranked repeats, 610 with total ranked and unranked repeats), and I have gained 1,151,565’ over 2,836mi. While I have done a ton of single peak ski repeats, most of my trips are routes that include multiple 13ers. This is more efficient than hiking 584 as individual peaks - which would be ridiculous and environmentally unfriendly!!!

While I have had one 13er gain be effectively its prominence, I also have gained 6,875’ for ONE peak. Average that out... ~3.5K

So with some simple math... 1151565/443 = 2,599’/peak

Boggy B - remember that 11k, 8 peak day we did together separately? Well 11073/8 = 1,384’/peak. Do you want to do that loop 2 more times to be able to count each peak as getting 3k? Nope? Me neither.

584 * 3k = 1,752,000’ Who’s done this? I bet NO ONE!

[bdloftin77]

I also have gained 6,875’ for ONE peak.

Which one was that??

[bergsteigen]

I also have gained 6,875’ for ONE peak.

Which one was that??

South River from the south. I wanted to camp at the hot springs, so I tacked on the added vertical over the other easier route. Sometimes style points win over efficiency!