Crampon heroes are a bad example

[Panama Jack]

Hi everyone! The TR's from this past weekend included alot of talk about the need for crampons but waaaaay to many people claimed to have not put them on for a variety of reasons. Then in the special equipment needed section these same folks state that while THEY didnt use crampons YOU should. This kind of ego and bravado really is a dangerous thing to people trying to get a feel for whats going on where they are headed.

Skill level is one thing, the conditions are another. With so many newbies trying out the backcountry, I think it prudent to use the TR's as just that reports on the trail, not reports on individual risk taking.

Just food for thought, if you disagree, I'd love to hear you reasoning, I'm always open for enlightenment.

 

[^MtnMike^]

I think the point being made is that you should at least bring the crampons (like they did). Whether or not you feel the need to use them (like they did or didn't) is ultimately up to you.

Just my 2 cents
^MtnMike^

 

[Quietman]

I don't have crampons but have an interesting analogy.

My father has a 4WD truck but when asked why he won't switch to the 4WD in a blinding snow storm he says "Why should I, I haven't slid off the road yet."

 

[Jasonst]

I was out last weekend and the conditions on the Carters were pretty nastily (is that a word?) icy. I had the crampons but didn't use them due to the poor snow cover. However, with a little bit of snow, they would probably be the preferred option. Just my .02

 

[Panama Jack]

Good insights, ty

Hey! Weren't you the same 4 people with TR's this weekend? Thanks to you all for the input, I suffer from hikelikemeidus sometimes. Your experience with the nuance of conditions is certainly greater than mine, thanks for the insight, Peace!

 

[Warren]

On Whiteface, NH this past Friday I saw 4 people turn back due to icy conditions. It was sketchy, I didn't take crampons and continued- even if I had them I doubt I would have used them. It would have been a lot on and off again stuff and still enough rocks sticking up through the ice for the danger of tripping to be there. But if I wrote a trail condition report on it (I didn't as conditions changed quickly since then) I would have recommended crampons as special equipment and then noted that stableicers would have been preferred. Crampons could have been used, even if it was by dry pointing in them but enough people had considerations about ice and such.

 

[Holdstrong]

I dont know if I would call that reporting dangerous or egotistical - I read those reports as more of a "definitely bring them, and then decide to use or not"

But on a similar note, and something that can not be said enough.... I am hoping that those who forgo crampons in these conditions are not doing so at the expense of alpine vegetation.

In the 'dacks this weekend I was suprised at how many people were coming down off of summit trails without crampons.... knowing what it is like up there I couldn't imagine how people were managing it - and then on my way up I witnessed one of the techniques first hand. They were simply breaking their own trail around the ice. And I don't mean walking on the side of the trail, I mean they were walking jug handles through the vegetation to get around the steep slick sections.

On a completely unrelated note, I wore full crampons with my trail runner sneakers for the first time this weekend. Murder on the ankles and a bit chilly, but they got the job done and beat renting plastics this time of year.

 

[RoySwkr]

I wrote a couple of similar trip reports last year, but I phrased it more like "some people wore crampons and some didn't" which didn't necessarily make anybody more of a hero. Depending on your boots and your crampons and your sense of balance, what is appropriate under certain conditions varies with the person. [I would say that I personally agree with a certain woman but don't want to insult her with the comparison.] If I read a report like the above, I should either bring crampons or be prepared to turn back if it's too icy for me. If the report says "only the wimpier half wore crampons" or "many reckless fools went without crampons" then there may be a problem with the language but it's still a useful report.

As to vegetation, it's not just the rare stuff but the trail treadway itself that can get chewed up. I just read the Leave No Trace guidelines for the Northeast and they suggest staying off trails when there are most erosive - presumably that includes not hiking a trail where you would need to crampon on unfrozen dirt and gouge it up. I wonder how one would write such a suggestion in a trail conditions report without sounding too preachy - but it could get people to go someplace more appropriate.

 

[Panama Jack]

. If the report says "only the wimpier half wore crampons" or "many reckless fools went without crampons" then there may be a problem with the language but it's still a useful report..

Roy, I laughed out loud and scared the dog when I read your post. You have a very funny way of saying things.

As for the vegetation, I never really considered that but I could agree it is a handy alternative when you come to slick spot with no crampons.

 

[sierra]

crampons

I fail to see the complexity of this dabate. In the colder months, ice forms in the mountains, to proceed safely, crampons are used, this will not only expedite your climb, but also make it safe. Also, that was a great point made about vegetation, if someone before has gone through all the trouble of making a trail, damaging the wonderfull plants around it simply because you dont have or wont wear crampons is a pretty shallow defense.
Just seems to me people like to argue just about anything, proceeding in the winter, without the proper gear and knowledge of when and where to use it, is very serious miscaculation on thier part. I thought I heard it all when someone stated that you where a hero for wearing crampons, I thought you where just smart and safe.
Man it was a long day at work, must be monday.

 

[Darwin]

While hiking recently in the presi's I thought I didn't need crampons. I stepped off the trail because it was to icy and bam!! Wouldn't ya know it, I slipped on some hidden ice and almost poked my eyeball out on some vegetation ! So, my new rule is, if the word crampons even come in to my head, I might put em on . Like Stinkyfeet I really hate walking in cramons but I love snowshoeing. My feeling is that if you need them use them. That is why Darren has the disclaimer at the top of the tc screen. I think that anyone who is posting truly means well but you need to know your own limits in any given condition.



--Darwin

 

[WildPeaks]

I guess I'm different. I prefer crampons over snowshoes. I started winter mountaineering w/ neither but quickly realized that both are important for the conditions they were intended. It can be a real drag walking in crampons when there's not enough crusty snow or ice, thus the scratches on the rocks. Last March I enjoyed using them w/ 2 ice axes on the Flume Slide Trail. (another hardly used & highly debateable item). 3 weeks later I had to keep putting them on & taking them off again going up BLT on Whiteface. On other trips I had snowshoes on for three straight days.
It's good to find a likeminded companion to hike with, but nice to know you all have your own preferences.
Can't wait to get back out there soon! Anyone interested? I can do a weekday as well.
Tom

 

[torn&frayed]

Then in the special equipment needed section these same folks state that while THEY didnt use crampons YOU should

I still can't find a trip report that looks like this.

 

[mavs00]

Hi everyone! The TR's from this past weekend included alot of talk about the need for crampons but waaaaay to many people claimed to have not put them on for a variety of reasons. Then in the special equipment needed section these same folks state that while THEY didnt use crampons YOU should. This kind of ego and bravado really is a dangerous thing to people trying to get a feel for whats going on where they are headed.

Skill level is one thing, the conditions are another. With so many newbies trying out the backcountry, I think it prudent to use the TR's as just that reports on the trail, not reports on individual risk taking.

Just food for thought, if you disagree, I'd love to hear you reasoning, I'm always open for enlightenment.

I posted a trip report this past w/e and it's quite possible that you’re speaking to me.............. Fact is, I stated that on 11/26 on Mt. Adams (NY), I saw things a certain way....... I recommended crampon use, but also stated that several in our party got by without them, so for that 3481' mountain on that day, I though crampon use was still an optional thing.

There were 6 in our party, 2 did not use crampons, 4 did for the last 600' or so (including me and my family). The two that did not wear them, did not for very specific reasons that had NOTHING TO DO with ego, bravado or the desire to create "a dangerous thing…” on the VFTT trip reports forum upon our return.

One was the 11 y/o son of a prominent VFTT member who came along and did not have crampons with him, and the other was his uncle, an experienced 46er that understood the nature of the Adams trail during this transitional time (it's generally a soft trail, punctuated with stretches of icy slab rock). He choose not to wear them in an effort not further "chew" up the trail (as eluded to in Roy's post) and felt comfortable negotiating the icy rock sections without them. We wore them because, with our kids, we simply felt it was safer option once we reached a certain point, period.

Our mountain ended at 3481' so we remained in that zone that still allowed for a measure of "choice" between use and non-use without compromising safety to a great degree. That's how we saw it, and that how I reported it. We did add that it was likely that above that elevation, they were likely mandatory as we all felt were at the upper limit of the “optional” zone ourselves.

I agree with Holdstrong, and would add It's probably best not make blanket judgements about people's intentions (invoking heroism) or character (invoking egotism) by reading several lines of a trip report or two. They may not be accurate in many instances, and its quite possibly very insulting to those that take the effort to provide ANY information for the rest of us in the TR section.

BTW, They can’t even get people to stop the “I lost my mitten on” or “what’s the easiest trail to get to” posts in that section, so eliminating the skill level vs. conditions issues, might be asking a little much.

 

[snowman]

Skill level is one thing, the conditions are another. With so many newbies trying out the backcountry, I think it prudent to use the TR's as just that reports on the trail, not reports on individual risk taking.

I completely disagree. I feel you are confusing Trip Reports with Trail Conditions.
A TR is anything you want to communicate from your trip not to solely to inform others what they should or should not expect trail conditions to be like. Of course we all as readers use TRs for conditions info but to imply that it’s the writers obligation to communicate accurate trail info is off base. Go to Trail Conditions for that.

And at this time of year especially, you go into the mountains expecting and prepared for winter conditions regardless of what some TR says.

 

[SherpaKroto]

There are times when I use them to descend, ascend, both, and times when I don't use them at all. The trail can look awful different a few hours after I pass (or return). "Oh the times they are a changing" (there you go Harry - I used a Dylan quote). When I recommend crampons in my trail conditions it's because crampon use crossed my mind when I hiked it. It has nothing to do with me feeling superior to anyone. You don't know me - I don't know you. I do know I feel safer when I know my crampons are in the pack. I'm glad I carry my crampons whether I use them or not. Now about those cell phone carrying, cotton wearing, dog loving hunters on the trails...