Break out the flame throwers

[brianW]

I believe that most seasoned hikers would be completly fine with a child on their back. 20-40 lbs moving at will can be a challenge but if you are used to hiking and carring the weight it isn't that big of a deal.

The concerns that were brought up by MonadnockVol are legit though. Someone that only hikes a few times a year and carrying a child could pose a serious problem. I have seen many on Monadnock with child in back/front carrier that did not look comfortable with their footing.

Note: I have 4 daughters 12,10,6,1 and have done many miles with them on my back.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I took both Amanda and Matthew for many hikes in a carrier. The greatest danger to the kid is when they are higher than your head, or much to the left or right of your head and they may get hit with a branch. Once you learn to expand the space around your head to include them, they are much safer. The next bigger danger is shifting weight. This has not been a problem for me hiking. Skiing with Amanda on my back would get squirrelly if she shifted. It was easier to pull her in the pulk.

Tim

 

[adirobdack46r]

I have a little boy almost 3yrs and a little girl 7mo. I would love to get them out on the trail this summer. Might be just a hair too soon. He is maybe not quite old enough yet and I can't carry both of them. Maybe just try him out on a couple half mile trails with her on my back. With today's gas prices it is hard to justify driving very far to only hike a half mile

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Don't push them. They will learn to resent it. Let them do what they want to do -- don't push for a summit or a pond or any other destination. Pick up rocks, sticks, leaves. Find insects, frogs. Look at animal tracks, "poop", etc. Eventually they will want to "achieve" that summit or pond or goal, but for a while, it's all about the journey, not the destination. Mine are just big enough now that they "want" to succeed by summiting, or reaching that destination or completing the loop.

Tim

 

[dug]

I agree with Tim. A half-hour walk in the woods looking for signs of animals is a great start. My daughter is not quite 3 yrs old. She is too big for our carrier, and it's too much for a long hike. However, we do spend a lot of times in the woods looking around a beaver pond, she is an expert at identifying fox and deer scat, and doing some bouldering.

 

[Grandaddy]

We started with a Snugli (which is rated for up to 22 lbs, I believe) until our daughter was 8 months, and I walked into REI and saw that they had a sale...we picked up a Kelty. The Snugli was nice for infants 'cuz it was only ~$25, and it is comfortable until nearing the weight limit.

I think that it is great to get people outdoors early in life! This needs to done with reasonable caution, of course. We introduced our 5 mo daughter to hiking last year on trips to Greeley Ponds and Mt. Willard. We nearly turned around on our way up Willard, because my daughter wasn't "feeling it" that day, most likely because of the throngs of people we had to navigate through at the train stop with my dog. We pushed on a bit further and she got into her groove.

 

[Mike P.]

While our kids were in the front pack, I don't think we ever got beyond the local rail trail which is well graded

With the Kelty pack, we mostly did the rail trail but may have got up Manchester Ct 800 ft. Case Mt. (a road uphill with a waterfall view) & at one point I tried to push a stroller in the South Taconia area with little success.

It's important to get kids out but you should IMO (but hey your the kids parents) make the destination kid sized. They love being with you & they love being out. To a small child/infant the pond at the rail trail & LOC is the same, the fact you can see frogs & ducks locally makes it more exciting than an alpine tarn. A two mile walk with almost no elevation gain is a decent (long) walk in their mind, there is no reason to do the Bonds or Presidentials with them. Wait until they can enjoy them