peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Two hikers in good shape on snowshoes just short of Madison Hut. Only the clothes on their backs and hydration packs. II guess the recommendations and recent tragedy don't apply to them.
Seen along the trails on Adams today
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
Perhaps they just ran up and down Valley Way?
Only The Shadow knows...
Only The Shadow knows...
jrbren
New member
I would agree the situation with the woman who lost her life last month does not apply. The weather is relatively nice for this time of year this weekend. The recent tragedy was during what some meteorologist called the most powerful noreaster of the year, exceeding the one that dumped 3' on Worcester, but less snow felt in MA since its center was farther out to sea. It's rotation was sucking cold air out of Canada as far west as Wisconsin. Nothing like that going this weekend to the best of my knowledge. I would think the best way to discuss the attire of the two you saw would be to ask them. They could be trail runners. Maybe they were fools. Maybe both. Us random strangers on the internet who weren't there can only speculate.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
No doubt they were trail runners. Rather than opening up the normal dialogue with (edited name) and others, I and NH F&G and most outdoor organizations disagree with the concept that trail runners are inherently superior to other outdoor enthusiasts and have no need to carry emergency gear in winter. No matter what physical condition they are in, accidents happen, snowshoes break and in winter conditions an extended period of time stationary is going to potentially lead to bad results. Looking at Mt Washington yesterday the temps were around 5 degrees and 30 to 40 MPH winds. Mild for this winter but still dangerous for those poorly equipped.
I will borrow from a recent trip report
"I stepped into a spruce trap up to my waist. It took about half an hour to get me out. My right foot came out alright, but my left foot felt like the snowshoe was nailed into the ground. I couldn't even wiggle it. The trouble, as we eventually figured out when we had removed enough snow, was that the front of the snowshoe was wedged under a blowdown (about 5" diameter) buried under the snow. We used snowshoes as shovels to try to get enough snow out of the hole to work (in spite of more snow constantly falling in) and then Sarah lay on the snow and reached into it with her hands to find and loosen the straps on my snowshoe. I then had some movement and was able to work my boot out of the snowshoe. Then Sarah managed to finally extract the snowshoe from the blowdown. Sarah is now my hero.
I was thinking during this that if it had happened while I was hiking solo I probably would have died there. That's not actually true; I probably would have freed myself eventually, but it would have taken even longer, since was not in a position to easily reach down that far".
I don't think the hikers were planning to get caught in spruce trap and spend 1/2 hour digging in the snow. After swimming in snow for 1/2 hour I expect they would have cooled down and had gear in the pack to warm up.
I will borrow from a recent trip report
"I stepped into a spruce trap up to my waist. It took about half an hour to get me out. My right foot came out alright, but my left foot felt like the snowshoe was nailed into the ground. I couldn't even wiggle it. The trouble, as we eventually figured out when we had removed enough snow, was that the front of the snowshoe was wedged under a blowdown (about 5" diameter) buried under the snow. We used snowshoes as shovels to try to get enough snow out of the hole to work (in spite of more snow constantly falling in) and then Sarah lay on the snow and reached into it with her hands to find and loosen the straps on my snowshoe. I then had some movement and was able to work my boot out of the snowshoe. Then Sarah managed to finally extract the snowshoe from the blowdown. Sarah is now my hero.
I was thinking during this that if it had happened while I was hiking solo I probably would have died there. That's not actually true; I probably would have freed myself eventually, but it would have taken even longer, since was not in a position to easily reach down that far".
I don't think the hikers were planning to get caught in spruce trap and spend 1/2 hour digging in the snow. After swimming in snow for 1/2 hour I expect they would have cooled down and had gear in the pack to warm up.
Last edited:
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach." Aldous Huxley
jrbren
New member
But this thread is opening up that dialog, no ? I know I usually hike alone, and I know many shake their finger at me for that. I will never, ever purchase a hike safe card (unless law mandates it and it is enforced). I generally do not carry a cell phone or GPS. I believe the more I carry the more likely an accident is to occur in the first place (like falling into a spruce trap). There is always that trade off. Many would say I am disaster waiting to happen. How do you know they do not have tools to repair snowshoes ? Or are smart enough to stay on the well packed trails if one breaks ? Many do not bring snow shoes at all when on well packed express ways like Valley Way. How big would their pack need to be to be safe ? IMHO, see to snow snowshoe-ers traveling fast & light is not cause for concern. The most important tool any one can bring is that thing between one's ears.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
" How big would the pack be to be safe" If in doubt go to the authorities http://hikesafe.com/index.php?page=full-gear-list. The 10 essentials is a carryover from several long term outdoor organizations and modified for the conditions and accidents that occur locally.
I have no doubt that they were most likely skilled individuals as is the hiker who did the report I excerpted.
I expect most who have been trapped by spruce traps would argue the contention that the weight in the pack leads to getting trapped more frequently. They are not referred to a "trap" for nothing and generally its an either or proposition. They can occur immediately adjacent to a popular trail as much as off trail. Generally I feel that snowshoes increase the severity of a spruce trap due to the mechanics but I also find that snowshoes lessen the frequency.
Realistically I can and do winter hikes without snowshoes on occasion and use "the most important tool" to either turn back if the snow conditions are marginal or postpone the trip. My intent was not to comment on their decision to wear or not wear snowshoes.
I am quite familiar with the carrying capacity of a hydration pack. the packs they had on could conceivably have carried some of the 10 essentials, general low bulk including a snowshoe repair kit. The packs from my observation did not carry any bulk items which generally are spare clothing items. No matter how fit or well dressed a hiker or runner is, if they stop voluntarily or involuntarily they will need more clothing to compensate for a reduction in heat generation from the body. Add in increased heat loss from getting covered with snow and the heat equation doesn't balance and the result is hypothermia and the resultant loss of clear thinking. 99.9 % of the time I agree that the extra gear is not needed and the vast majority of the winter hikers in the whites make it back to their car. This even applies to clueless poorly/underequipped hikers, the odds are vastly in their favor that they will make it out of the woods.
Solo, underequipped and without a GPS or cell phone makes it somewhat simple for the 0.01% occasion, odds are its a body retrieval, although the rescue crews are still having to go out and assume that the hiker is alive until proven otherwise. Thus its a decision on the hikers part that they wont get into the 0.01% category by their wits or they are willing to allow others to take risks on their behalf. Unfortunately I am not aware of a formal option to establish that a hiker has preauthorized stating their decision to not attempt to save their life. Their are some individuals that would support this but unfortunately rarely would family members and society in general support this thus at some point F&G will be called out and put at risk.
I have no doubt that they were most likely skilled individuals as is the hiker who did the report I excerpted.
I expect most who have been trapped by spruce traps would argue the contention that the weight in the pack leads to getting trapped more frequently. They are not referred to a "trap" for nothing and generally its an either or proposition. They can occur immediately adjacent to a popular trail as much as off trail. Generally I feel that snowshoes increase the severity of a spruce trap due to the mechanics but I also find that snowshoes lessen the frequency.
Realistically I can and do winter hikes without snowshoes on occasion and use "the most important tool" to either turn back if the snow conditions are marginal or postpone the trip. My intent was not to comment on their decision to wear or not wear snowshoes.
I am quite familiar with the carrying capacity of a hydration pack. the packs they had on could conceivably have carried some of the 10 essentials, general low bulk including a snowshoe repair kit. The packs from my observation did not carry any bulk items which generally are spare clothing items. No matter how fit or well dressed a hiker or runner is, if they stop voluntarily or involuntarily they will need more clothing to compensate for a reduction in heat generation from the body. Add in increased heat loss from getting covered with snow and the heat equation doesn't balance and the result is hypothermia and the resultant loss of clear thinking. 99.9 % of the time I agree that the extra gear is not needed and the vast majority of the winter hikers in the whites make it back to their car. This even applies to clueless poorly/underequipped hikers, the odds are vastly in their favor that they will make it out of the woods.
Solo, underequipped and without a GPS or cell phone makes it somewhat simple for the 0.01% occasion, odds are its a body retrieval, although the rescue crews are still having to go out and assume that the hiker is alive until proven otherwise. Thus its a decision on the hikers part that they wont get into the 0.01% category by their wits or they are willing to allow others to take risks on their behalf. Unfortunately I am not aware of a formal option to establish that a hiker has preauthorized stating their decision to not attempt to save their life. Their are some individuals that would support this but unfortunately rarely would family members and society in general support this thus at some point F&G will be called out and put at risk.
I admit to being on the fence with this. I generally will carry enough to get me through a night, even if uncomfortable. However, in the summer that can mean not much in clothes, depending on the weather. Obviously, winter is a bit different.
That being said, my personal opinion is that what happened on Adams a couple of weeks ago would've happened no matter what clothes she had with her. I think she fell and knocked herself out.
There's a lot to be said about fast and light vs. slow and secure....
That being said, my personal opinion is that what happened on Adams a couple of weeks ago would've happened no matter what clothes she had with her. I think she fell and knocked herself out.
There's a lot to be said about fast and light vs. slow and secure....
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
Crikey
Nice straw man! Can you point me to where I have ever made the statement that "trail runners are inherently superior to other outdoor enthusiasts and have no need to carry emergency gear in winter"?
Or, if you can't, perhaps apologize for insinuating that I said something which I never did? I won't hold my breath.
Railing on the internet about what random strangers are or aren't carrying in the hills is just an updated version of "Old Man Yells at Clouds", and about as meaningful. The distortions are just a cherry on top.
EDIT : Here is one of my most recent statements on the topic:
Nice straw man! Can you point me to where I have ever made the statement that "trail runners are inherently superior to other outdoor enthusiasts and have no need to carry emergency gear in winter"?
Or, if you can't, perhaps apologize for insinuating that I said something which I never did? I won't hold my breath.
Railing on the internet about what random strangers are or aren't carrying in the hills is just an updated version of "Old Man Yells at Clouds", and about as meaningful. The distortions are just a cherry on top.
EDIT : Here is one of my most recent statements on the topic:
Last edited:
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,015
- Reaction score
- 255
This past January I was passed just before the Chimney on the Osceolas by a guy who had nothing but the clothes on his back in some sort of low cut running shoes. He flew by me on a narrow strip of track that he would have post holed thigh deep had he missed it. The steeps were plenty slick in a lot of places.
I go back and forth with this too. I guess it is a balance of the odds for everyone. I tend to think "what if such and such happens and I have no gear" but maybe that is my conservative nature. I guess it is their option to decide what they want to do. If they want to go "all in" doing what they enjoy and take on the risk it is their call. But they should also expect zero sympathy when something goes wrong knowing what they were gambling.
I go back and forth with this too. I guess it is a balance of the odds for everyone. I tend to think "what if such and such happens and I have no gear" but maybe that is my conservative nature. I guess it is their option to decide what they want to do. If they want to go "all in" doing what they enjoy and take on the risk it is their call. But they should also expect zero sympathy when something goes wrong knowing what they were gambling.
Dennis and Tim - seems like thread drift into personal. Might I suggest you take the disagreement into PMs ?
Alan
Alan
Mike P.
Well-known member
Trail running in general, and it's winter equivalent, snowshoe running, (they do races with people running using the smaller snowshoes), is risky, but being on the trails carry some risk, regardless of how your equipped.
Is it riskier than a fat out of shape person trying to get back in shape carrying a heavy pack up a steep trail? Which is riskier, carrying a big pack and taking longer with the idea you have gear in case of an emergency or going fast and light? (The out of shape person who decides to go fast & light and isn't capable of going fast is a poor option, hopefully I, I mean they start going fast & light on easier, shorter trails.)
Were the two on Adams people who have hiked Valley Way 10-15 times, a few in winter maybe the week before & knew it very well or extreme athletes who just saw that Adams by Valley Way offers a pretty popular route (where men can wear smaller snowshoes or possibly bare boot) that climbs almost 4,500 feet, the most elevation gain for a single peak on a popular route. (Few are climbing Washington by the Great Gulf at the moment)
Trail running isn't something I can do, poor balance and ankle stability put me in a case where if I land wrong and roll my ankle, it may break. (Hurricane in 2013 was just missing a bog bridge and had an Avulsion) I also know that will bad sprains, chip fractures and Avulsions, I can limp my way down. (I probably should carry a SAM splint.....) Losing weight now but running up mountains is not in my future, I have a brother who does in the warmer seasons though, he's the better athlete, always was.
To date, there (to my knowledge) no trail runners who have required rescue or recovery. There's also not many in general compared to the number of hikers. Would these two have gone back when the weather was brutal? If yes, would they have turned back as they approached treeline & began to feel the wind's bite? One's brain should be the best gear you have. The less you bring, IMO, the more willing you should be to turn back. No light, no late starts, no gear, watch the weather very carefully, no snowshoes, stay on the most popular trails, no rain gear, when the horizon looks iffy, retreat. If you only go out on bluebird days and turn back at the first cloud, you should need little in the way of gear, personally, I like different types of weather sometimes.
Now I am pretty sure, most of us have shovels in our cars because we've been plowed in at a trailhead before. But I wonder how many people driving in winter weather have a shovel. Lose control & put your car in a snow bank during a storm, it could be hours before AAA digs your or pulls you out. What percent of Northeast drivers do you think have a shovel? (F & G just can't fine them)
When the first trail runner requires a rescue and lives, it should be interesting to see how F&G responds. In summer, I guess you can be prepared, but in September, can a trail runner in F&G's opinion be well prepared? Whether we debate it back and forth is immaterial.
Putting myself out there, If I do Monadnock on a summer evening (dark at 8:45 or so, close to 6/21) starting at 7:00 PM and it takes me 1 1/4 hours up, I hang for the sunset & then back to my car, what do I need? Typically, I bring a headlamp or two plus a light on my keychain (have walked the last mile back to Lowe's with these before, not ideal but useable) my raincoat as the only extra layer, a bar or two and 50 ounces of water. Guessing I've done it in shorts and T-shirt (non cotton) and also with a pair of zip off pants carrying the legs if I was really thinking. Is that enough??? Maybe there was a compass in my pack but I'm pretty familiar with the trail I do this on.
Is it riskier than a fat out of shape person trying to get back in shape carrying a heavy pack up a steep trail? Which is riskier, carrying a big pack and taking longer with the idea you have gear in case of an emergency or going fast and light? (The out of shape person who decides to go fast & light and isn't capable of going fast is a poor option, hopefully I, I mean they start going fast & light on easier, shorter trails.)
Were the two on Adams people who have hiked Valley Way 10-15 times, a few in winter maybe the week before & knew it very well or extreme athletes who just saw that Adams by Valley Way offers a pretty popular route (where men can wear smaller snowshoes or possibly bare boot) that climbs almost 4,500 feet, the most elevation gain for a single peak on a popular route. (Few are climbing Washington by the Great Gulf at the moment)
Trail running isn't something I can do, poor balance and ankle stability put me in a case where if I land wrong and roll my ankle, it may break. (Hurricane in 2013 was just missing a bog bridge and had an Avulsion) I also know that will bad sprains, chip fractures and Avulsions, I can limp my way down. (I probably should carry a SAM splint.....) Losing weight now but running up mountains is not in my future, I have a brother who does in the warmer seasons though, he's the better athlete, always was.
To date, there (to my knowledge) no trail runners who have required rescue or recovery. There's also not many in general compared to the number of hikers. Would these two have gone back when the weather was brutal? If yes, would they have turned back as they approached treeline & began to feel the wind's bite? One's brain should be the best gear you have. The less you bring, IMO, the more willing you should be to turn back. No light, no late starts, no gear, watch the weather very carefully, no snowshoes, stay on the most popular trails, no rain gear, when the horizon looks iffy, retreat. If you only go out on bluebird days and turn back at the first cloud, you should need little in the way of gear, personally, I like different types of weather sometimes.
Now I am pretty sure, most of us have shovels in our cars because we've been plowed in at a trailhead before. But I wonder how many people driving in winter weather have a shovel. Lose control & put your car in a snow bank during a storm, it could be hours before AAA digs your or pulls you out. What percent of Northeast drivers do you think have a shovel? (F & G just can't fine them)
When the first trail runner requires a rescue and lives, it should be interesting to see how F&G responds. In summer, I guess you can be prepared, but in September, can a trail runner in F&G's opinion be well prepared? Whether we debate it back and forth is immaterial.
Putting myself out there, If I do Monadnock on a summer evening (dark at 8:45 or so, close to 6/21) starting at 7:00 PM and it takes me 1 1/4 hours up, I hang for the sunset & then back to my car, what do I need? Typically, I bring a headlamp or two plus a light on my keychain (have walked the last mile back to Lowe's with these before, not ideal but useable) my raincoat as the only extra layer, a bar or two and 50 ounces of water. Guessing I've done it in shorts and T-shirt (non cotton) and also with a pair of zip off pants carrying the legs if I was really thinking. Is that enough??? Maybe there was a compass in my pack but I'm pretty familiar with the trail I do this on.
sierra
Well-known member
I see it all on the trails and have seen my share of people with little or no gear. Funny thing is, I rarely even think about it, or offer advice as to what they " Should" have. If your a trail runner and you want to traverse winter terrain with no gear, have at it. I carry a decent pack year round, but thats me. Once I came upon a group who were very cold on Lions head and one guy had a hoody on! They asked me if I had an xtra jacket, my answer " No, just what I need" and there in lies the crux. If you tavel light, live with it.
mncta5
New member
Well said, Sierra! Pontificating will only garner contempt! I also carry a good-sized pack year round and am asked, from time to time, if I'm spending the night. I guess I should reply "possibly", and leave it at that
mirabela
Active member
I'd like to agree with the spirit of this -- I really would -- except that every time a recreational user has a disaster in the woods, dozens of other men and women put themselves at risk trying to find them in time to save them. I don't have a "bright line" answer about what is OK and what isn't -- none of us do, and that's probably why we debate it here so often -- but one thing I wish everybody understood is that none of us are recreating in a vacuum. Our choices inevitably do impact others.
nartreb
Well-known member
>every time a recreational user has a disaster in the woods, dozens of other men and women put themselves at risk trying to find them in time to save them.
That's just not accurate. S&R is not telepathic. Don't carry any communication devices or tell anyone where you're going, and nobody will come looking for you.
That's just not accurate. S&R is not telepathic. Don't carry any communication devices or tell anyone where you're going, and nobody will come looking for you.
mirabela
Active member
OK, fair enough -- but even people who take no reasonable precautions about communicating their plans usually become noticed as missing sooner or later if they stay gone long enough. It's true, too, that some people manage to get into serious trouble and extricate themselves without external help. I'd like to hope that any one of us, if we were to come upon such a case, would intervene and assist to the best of our ability. Either way, though, it doesn't really change the point I'm trying to make, which is that nobody is really in a position to say their decisions cannot impact anybody but themselves. Again, I don't have a bright-line "therefore, everybody must carry X or do Y" type of a rule to extrapolate from this. I don't think there is one. But I think the attitude that what one does out there and how one does it is nobody's business but one's own is naive.
Tom_Murphy
Member
I think the terms "trail runner", "fast& light", "hiker", "slow&heavy" allow us to talk past each other.
IMO the root question is "what is your plan if you suffer an immobilizing injury?"
Do you even consider an immobilizing injury as a possiblity that should be planned for?
Other questions that would affect what gear you might bring "Are you with a group or solo, on a very popular trail or off trail, summer or winter, good weather or bad?"
One example
19-year-old Vt. hiker found dead
his obituary
IMO the root question is "what is your plan if you suffer an immobilizing injury?"
Do you even consider an immobilizing injury as a possiblity that should be planned for?
Other questions that would affect what gear you might bring "Are you with a group or solo, on a very popular trail or off trail, summer or winter, good weather or bad?"
One example
19-year-old Vt. hiker found dead
his obituary
DayTrip
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,015
- Reaction score
- 255
Doing what we want to do without restriction is a great freedom. The issue is with the consequences. If you make a decision you should have to suffer the consequences of your choices.
But that is just not how our society works, at least in the US. Many people don't want to wear helmets on motorcycles. Fine by me. But what happens when you wreck your bike, seriously mess yourself and have no health insurance because you think it's too expensive? Can't just let you die so someone has to pay for the healthcare. Wanna take cocaine every day? Fine by me. But when you crash and go bankrupt and go on disability so you can afford to live? Not your dime. Let the tax payers cover my "second chance". Light up your credit cards on toys and vacations, go out to eat instead of paying your mortgage? No problem. Just file for bankruptcy and leave someone else holding the bag. Wanna run trails with no gear? Doesn't bother me at all. But when you roll an ankle and need a rescue and balk at paying the costs? I could go on and on.
I personally think we should be able to do just about whatever we want (with obvious exceptions) without someone or some law inhibiting my behavior. But when you make bad decisions planning on someone else or someone else's wallet as your bail out plan that really irritates me. You should be responsible for your own safety net. Safety net too much trouble for you? Then you hit the ground and I don't feel bad for you. But I respect your right to hit the ground.
But that is just not how our society works, at least in the US. Many people don't want to wear helmets on motorcycles. Fine by me. But what happens when you wreck your bike, seriously mess yourself and have no health insurance because you think it's too expensive? Can't just let you die so someone has to pay for the healthcare. Wanna take cocaine every day? Fine by me. But when you crash and go bankrupt and go on disability so you can afford to live? Not your dime. Let the tax payers cover my "second chance". Light up your credit cards on toys and vacations, go out to eat instead of paying your mortgage? No problem. Just file for bankruptcy and leave someone else holding the bag. Wanna run trails with no gear? Doesn't bother me at all. But when you roll an ankle and need a rescue and balk at paying the costs? I could go on and on.
I personally think we should be able to do just about whatever we want (with obvious exceptions) without someone or some law inhibiting my behavior. But when you make bad decisions planning on someone else or someone else's wallet as your bail out plan that really irritates me. You should be responsible for your own safety net. Safety net too much trouble for you? Then you hit the ground and I don't feel bad for you. But I respect your right to hit the ground.
Similar threads
