Boston Globe story on hiking boots

[dentonfabrics]

Elementary story about hiking boots, including a pitch for the Vasque Sundowner, in the Sunday Globe. (I've never heard of the American Hiking Society)...

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/04/15/todays_hiking_boots_are_far_from_clunky/

 

[marty]

I just read this. Generally accurate, I guess. Had to strongly disagree on one point, where it stated "Although many of us know hikers, who have tackled the White Mountains in gym shoes or cross trainers, this is a mistake says Marcoux" (one of the interviewees).

There are a whole bunch of experienced hikers who do three season hiking in trail runners and other lightweight footwear. They have no problems hiking the Whites and other mountains. Such lightweight footwear might not work great with heavy packs or in deep snow, but is fine for warmer weather dayhikes.

Marty

 

[BLE]

There are a whole bunch of experienced hikers who do three season hiking in trail runners and other lightweight footwear. They have no problems hiking the Whites and other mountains. Such lightweight footwear might not work great with heavy packs or in deep snow, but is fine for warmer weather dayhikes.

Marty

I agree. I ditched my Vasque boots years ago in favor of low top crosstrainers and have never looked back. I really got tired of the lack of agility and clunky feel of the boots.

 

[jmegillon149]

boots, American Hiking Society

not sure I agree with the assesment that you have to pay $150-400 for good boots. While its true you probably can't get good boots for $19.99, I have NEVER spent over $175, and certainly found good boots that list closer to $100.00. Most stores have so many good sales, that you won't generally have to pay that much. Stuff like this misleads, and may make people who would like to hike get discouraged by falsly assuming the gear investment is way out of reach.

I'd also never heard of the AHS, but according to their website ( http://www.americanhiking.org/alliance/index.html ), they are a group of outdoor groups. Kind of cool in theory, but I wonder how actively these groups are in their cooperative efforts.

For example, in the Whites, all those tiny hiking clubs exit, and could probably benefit from cooperative efforts with the AMC, especially in terms of trail maintenance.

 

[Andrew]

As long as people can stay in the trail!


I remeber back in school there was an uproar about us kids wearing Chuck Taylor sneakers, since it was perceived that it would serve to weaken our ankles due to artificial support.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

I'd like to wear crosstrainers or trail runners but the hiking boots I currently own provide good ankle support which for me is a must.

 

[Grayjay]

Met Brad Washburn once at at base of the Auto Road when he was mapping the Presies, and he said that he always wore "sneakers" while hiking in the Whites.

 

[KayakDan]

For the past three years I have been winter hiking in a pair of EMS boots off the clearance rack in Peterborough. $35.00! They get Sno-sealed every fall and stay warm and dry to about 10o.
You just have to always keep looking for the bargain!

 

[lumberzac]

It’s really personal preference. I prefer hiking boots over cross trainers; I’ve never liked the way low top shoes feel on my feet. That doesn’t mean boots are better, they’re just what I like to use. The only real advantage I’ve found is that full leather boots offer more foot protection. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had a stick or pointed rock stab the top of my foot as I hike. The leather offers some impact resistance to this.

As for the cost of boots, for a beginner it really doesn’t make sense to pay top dollar for boots when a less expensive pair will work just as well. As one continue to hike more and more it become more cost effective to buy a more expensive boot. For example, I normally can only get a maximum of one season hiking season (I’m excluding winter from this as I where different boots that time of year) out of a $70 pair of boots, whereas I can get 4 seasons out of a $200 pair. Something to keep in mind is not all $200 boots are equal, nor are all $70 boots, so you still have to pay attention, but I’ve found that generally with boots, you get what you pay for. And always keep your eye on sales, sometimes you can find good pair of boots for much less than what they are normally priced for.

 

[dvbl]

I read that story three times and still didn't notice any slant or bias. Are you sure that story is from the Boston Globe?

I'll second what lumberzac said.

Keep looking for deals, but "fit" comes first.

 

[Maddy]

I have such great feet that I wear my hiking boots to run errands in town. (this is not a joke)
The crosstrainers are for watching TV.

 

[Grumpy]

It’s really personal preference. ...

That remark is right on the nut. I think folks should hike in footwear that suits their taste and needs, which they will learn about through their own experiences. I both like and need a heavier boot and the superior support it provides, so that's what I hike in. I have friends who go the other way. We don't question one anothers' choices.

As for cost, I like boots that will last a long time, which typically translates to more dollars up front. Annualized, the cost tends to drop back into the range of one-season-and-toss quality footwear.

The American Hiking Society, as nearly as I can figure out, is mainly advocacy oriented, set up to represent hikers' interests in the political arena, especially at a national level. The AHS volunteer vacations -- usually focused on trail building and maintenance work -- are said to be good experiences by those of my friends who have participated in them. AHS is the organization that started National Trails Day, celebrated in June.

G.

 

[jmegillon149]

so thats who started Trail Day, did not know that - even though I have participated in trail work on that day

 

[Andrew]

I actually prefer boots also, like lumberzac I just don't feel right in low tops. I own a pair of hiking sneakers but it has been a challenge for me to actually get used to putting them on. Even just a trip to Keene in winter makes me nervous- "What if I get stuck in a snow bank and have to thrash about in the snow?"...and things like that run through my head.

Softer mid ankle or better are my preference since I tend to slosh through difficult trail conditions or brush, and I hate getting snow/ rocks/ sticks in the boots.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I'd like to echo those who say it's a highly personal choice. Boots are the single most important piece of gear, and probably ranks up there with cell phones, dogs and other hot topics in terms of generating strong feelings.

Experienced hikers know exactly which type of boot they prefer depending upon the mountain range and time of year. As for the Globe article - personally, I think the vast majority of its readers are non-hikers, and to recommend a sturdy boot for new hikers is spot on. Once people have hiked for a couple of years they'll figure out what works for them.

 

[Dugan]

Boots are the single most important piece of gear, and probably ranks up there with cell phones, dogs and other hot topics in terms of generating strong feelings.

How dare you rank boots ahead of dogs?!?!?!

 

[Kevin Rooney]

How dare you rank boots ahead of dogs?!?!?!

Excellent point!

 

[Grumpy]

How dare you rank boots ahead of dogs?!?!?!

Well, have you ever heard a hiker complain, "My dogs are really barking" at the end of a long day? Dogs-feet-boots -- all rolled up together. You can't separate 'em and talk about one without the other(s).

G.

 

[Maddy]

Boots are the single most important piece of gear....
.

What does Brutus think of THIS???
I bet if he was a wee bit younger, he might feel justified eating your boots!