Solo hiking

[RoySwkr]

Perhaps the most stringent definition of "solo" is the one in which you not only travel alone but aren't allowed to meet anybody. Yes, this proves you can find your own way and are willing to travel alone and rely on yourself in the woods, but since meeting somebody accidentally 5 minutes before you get back to the car would invalidate it, that makes it too stringent for me.

Boaters call in "solo" if you have a one-person boat without a partner even if you travel in company with other boaters. While this proves you can handle a boat yourself, it doesn't prove you could choose the best route or are willing to rely on yourself in case of troubles. I consider this too lenient.

Hence I would call it solo if you do a hike by yourself without relying on a particular group to be in the area, such as going ahead of a group that you would expect to help you if they caught up. Knowing that other hikers may be in the area doesn't count unless you decide not to go if there are no cars in the parking lot.

In the 3 warmer seasons, solo hiking means that you must have enough skill to follow your route and the willingness to spend a day in your own company. It may be physically and emotionally easier to hike solo than to conform to a group pace and accept decisions of others.

In winter, route finding and trail breaking can make it significantly harder to hike by yourself, so perhaps it is not solo hiking if you follow tracks made by others. For instance, if I want to say I climbed Owls Head solo, am I allowed to read on VFTT when the route is broken out and go by myself the next day or must I do it after a fresh snow?

 

[Roxi]

Guilty as charged, I sometimes use the term "climb" when referring to hiking but thats only because I spend alot of time out west on the real mountains and climbing is actually what you have to do to get up them.

Interesting judgemental remark/opinion about the Rockies being "real mountains" implying that other mountains further east are not. I've bicycled through the Rockies, ADKs, and Whites. The Rockies were the easiest on the legs, primarily because the grade wasn't as steep, even though I'd spend most of the day pedaling up them. (The half hour down the other side was a lot of fun!) The ADKs and Whites were much harder on the legs (and lungs) because they were so much steeper, despite being shorter. I have not hiked the Rockies and so I can not compare them to the ADKs and Whites in that activity, but I suspect that all the mountains are "real."

 

[Neil]

As for hiking vs. climbing, was Grace Hudowalski wrong to have signed all of her letters to ADK 46ers "Good Climbing"?

Not much I can say to that, is there?

It's just a personal hang-up, like dancing bananas. (note to forum: inside joke).

When I was spending my formative hiking years in Lake Louise the distinction between hiking and climbing was an important one and it was considered bad form to use the term climbing when hiking was what one was doing. (Scrambling is different and lies somewhere in between. There is even a scrambling forum just for the CDN Rockies.) Here in the NE the distinction between climbing and hiking is acceptable because there is so little technical climbing and peakbagging is so prominent.

Maybe someone'll do a Ph.D. on the subject.

 

[Neil]

I have not hiked the Rockies and so I can not compare them to the ADKs and Whites in that activity, but I suspect that all the mountains are "real."

Hiking in the Rockies is a lot easier than in the NE because the trails are graded and switchback when ascending steep terrain. OTOH "Scrambling" in the Rockies is a lot tougher than peakbagging in the NE because of greater elevation gains, route finding challenges, risk of serious injury or worse if you go off route and find yourself in technical climbing terrain. Not to mention thousands of vertical feet of treadmill scree.

 

[hikrgrl]

But tell that to all women I passed by, horrified by the fact that I was alone on the trails. Or to my friend who used to call her boyfriend at the summit, just to tell him that she haven't been attacked by a maniac (yet).

Some people just prefer having someone to talk to, but some others are just too scared to be alone in the woods. Remember Blair Witch Project ?

Haha, I hiked 8 peaks this past week...Isolation, Hale, Carrigain, N & M Tripyramid, Osceolas, & Passaconaway. On Isolation, I saw no one...Hale & Carrigain passed a bunch of people...Passaconaway I met up with some random hiker for the last mile...and on the Osceolas I met up with another random hiker and his dog Duff (which was psychologically helpful for the descent since that trail & conditions pushed the envelope of my experience level).

I checked in with someone back home at the end of each hike. And I carried all the equipment that I would need if I absolutely needed to spend the night.

The reactions of my non-hiking friends at work ranged from shock and horror to mild amusement ("Glad to see that you haven't stopped being completely insane!")

I love being out in the woods by myself.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

On the topic of which is tougher - hiking in the East versus hiking in the West: having done alot of hiking on both sides of the country, I'd have to say that each presents its own challenges. If you've done it on both sides of the country then you probably have your own opinion, and no amount of persuasion is going to convince someone who hasn't.

Neil's comments about trails being less steep is generally true, as the "standard" grade for trails is around 5%. This is done for the benefit of horses, whether or not a horse will ever travel on the trail. So, this 5% grade is the good news. The bad news is most mountains don't have trails. However, this is good news for those of us who like to find our own way.

To be sure, there are differences between East and West that most won't argue with. One is that there are far fewer developed trailheads in the West, and another is that the backcountry roads are exceptionally rough. Carrying not one but two spares is often recommended.

 

[spaddock]

Here in the NE the distinction between climbing and hiking is acceptable because there is so little technical climbing and peakbagging is so prominent.

Is peakbagging more prevalent in the NE? I did a google search on peakbagging and the hits were primarily in the NE. Alot of the hits were to this site. Or is there just more people out here, thus the bigger numbers?

Pretty sure peakbagging the 14'ers is pretty popular but the biggest city around is Denver, and it's harder to fly in for the weekend and acclimatize whereas here in the NE we can drive from cities such as Montreal, Boston, NYC, Ottawa, etc.

And just to stay somewhat on topic, anybody who would brag that they did Phelps solo needs to check their ego at the door.


-Shayne

 

[--M.]

What I like about the Rockies/Northeasts comparison is that the debate often says more about the debater than it does about the hills themselves.

The Whites/ADKs don't need to have "short-man disease" (with apologies to those offended on behalf of short men) because they're not actually anthropomorphized; they're just mountains.

In addition, everyone I've ever heard who has actually hiked both will comment freely on the ruggedness of the Appalachians/Adirondacks in their own right without need for comparison; and that they even deserve their reputation quite well when they ARE compared, and at that compared to any range on the planet. [Geological historians point out that the east coast's mountains were once higher than today's Himalaya.]

In addition, my readings on the term "climbing" also impart that there're lots of technical opportunities in the east, especially in the Catskills and Whites. And isn't that what "climbing" is, activities involving carabiners, and ropes, and partners who belay? As brave as I felt atop Webster Cliff, I got there by walking, with a little scrambling thrown in. I never for a moment felt I was "climbing."

Mostly, Colin Fletcher had it right: What we do is walking, but call it what you will, it's a big tent.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Is peakbagging more prevalent in the NE? I did a google search on peakbagging and the hits were primarily in the NE. Alot of the hits were to this site. Or is there just more people out here, thus the bigger numbers?-Shayne

It's not restricted to the Northeast by any means. For example, Colorado has its 14er list, and in the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club has at least 3 lists. One of them is called the DPS Peak List and has 99 peaks. The peaks are found in CA, NV, AZ, UT and Mexico. Another is the Hundred Peaks List, and these are found in CA. A third is the "biggy", the Sierra Peaks List, of 273 peaks found within the Sierra range. And, there's a least one other recognized list. The Angeles Chapter is large, approx 58K members, and covers most of southern California.

Am reasonably sure the Mazamas of Oregon have their list(s), and Mountaineers of Washington theirs. There are undoubtably others.

 

[jrbren]

There are undoubtably others.

There is ofcourse the 8000er list that Reinhold Messner started...
I think 4000m peaks are a big deal in the Alps...

Edited to add Marathoners have their lists too, there is a 50 state club, to run a marathon in every state.

 

[DougPaul]

There is ofcourse the 8000er list that Reinhold Messner started...

Uhh... The list predates Messner. He was the first to complete it.

Doug

 

[jrbren]

Uhh... The list predates Messner. He was the first to complete it.

Doug

No list really begins until someone completes it. I maintain he started it. I won't consider Jupiter high points until someone does it. I am talking of "peak bagging lists", not lists of geographical features.

 

[DougPaul]

No list really begins until someone completes it. I maintain he started it. I won't consider Jupiter high points until someone does it. I am talking of "peak bagging lists", not lists of geographical features.

In that case, a number of people were working on the same non-existant list.

Doug

 

[jrbren]

In that case, a number of people were working on the same non-existant list.

Doug

You lost me. I do not know where you are going with this or what your point is. Sorry.

 

[David Metsky]

I think he means that lots of folks were trying to be the first one to bag all the 8000 meter peaks. Even though no one had done it yet, the list had real meaning and people were treating it as such. Just because no one had completed it doesn't mean that people weren't working on the list.

It's all semantics. People hike their own hike, and complete their own list.

-dave-

 

[jrbren]

I suppose in a thread that was debating climbing vs. hiking up hill, definition of "real mountains", I should have been more careful in my choice of words. Next people will try to tell me Babe Ruth was not actually on the construction crew that built Yankee Stadium . Cheers - John

 

[SherpaKroto]

Truer words were never spoken. I had to drive in and out of Boston twice on Tuesday. Now that was scary!!

Marty: solo? Yikes!

Solo - most have nailed it. To me getting to the trailhead alone; listening to the early morning sounds as I gear up; hearing the cracking of the leaves and twigs underfoot as I walk, or the swish of my skis; listening to distant sounds from the forest dwellers; hearing the snow fall; sharing a summit with only the wind, the sky and a few jays or ravens; returning to the car when I feel like it; gearing down; all at my own pace (which is usually faster than with a group). That's solo to me.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

No list really begins until someone completes it.

Hmmmmm. What about the Views&Brews list? Nobody has compleated it, yet there is list and a patch.

http://viewsandbrews.com/

In keeping along with the subject of this thread, I am thinking that someone completing that list solo, would be a good topic for a Country and Western song.

 

[pks4000]

How about a Caribbean Rock tune. That we could do.
CS/BMT and The Cocabanana Band