stooopid sign

[Ridgerunner]

Another angle...

I guess what I wanted to say was that a clueless ignorant fool is hard to single out only by the clothes he wears. Maybe that kid is from MIT. It had to be taken tongue in cheek, as I am no saint...
But more importantly, taking another angle on the same subject, Guy Waterman must be smiling in heavens to see that his "army of lugged soled boots" is diminishing in numbers. Who remembers his concern expressed in his wish to see people start hiking in softer footwear ? Read Wilderness Ethics for more...a darned good book to question one's positions on many subjects pertaining to hiking.
Peace.

 

[WalksWithBlackflies]

Maybe that kid is from MIT

Hence, why I didn't say "stupid" or "dumb"... I said "ignorant". There's a difference. I'm a smart guy, but put me on a sailboat and I wouldn't have the first clue (ignorant) as to how to navigate. That being said, I could care less if someone hikes in flip-flops... as long as they know what they're getting into. And yes, I would ask.

 

[chomp]

Re: Playing devils advocate

Hell, I wouldn't attempt Mt. Jo barefoot, as I'm quite sure a "certain to occur" misstep would cause my foot and ankle to completely separate from each other

I don't want to jump into this conversation but, but I do want to note that one of the biggest reasons *FOR* hiking barefoot is the lack of ankle injuries. It is nearly impossible to roll your ankle when you walk barefoot.

Strained ankles and other such injuries are a direct result of wearing shoes, that provide a convient platform to roll off of. The higher the platform, the easier (and more severe) the roll. Imagine wearing Tevas and rolling your ankle.. then imagine wearing platform shoes and rolling you ankle. Obviously, rolling your ankle in big, platform shoes would be much easier and much more painful.

When your foot is planted directly on terra firma, it is extremly difficult to roll it over - even if you have weak ankles. Its once you start wearing some elevated platform that you run into trouble. That is why a stiff boot is better than a flimsy sneaker for people with weak ankles. But bearfoot (for your ankles, at least) is probably the best solution of all.

 

[Jaytrek57]

I don't want to jump into this conversation but, but I do want to note that one of the biggest reasons *FOR* hiking barefoot is the lack of ankle injuries. It is nearly impossible to roll your ankle when you walk barefoot.

???
Umm...I suppose...if you hiked entirely on flat ground. Even then I disagree.

If you were barefooted and I was in my Asolos...and we both mis stepped on a 4 inched rock...slipped on a root...who would have more of a chance to "roll" there ankle?

Peace.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

If you were barefooted and I was in my Asolos...and we both mis stepped on a 4 inched rock...slipped on a root...who would have more of a chance to "roll" there ankle?

You. At least if the barefoot person was used to walking barefoot. By your response, I don't think you've done much barefoot hiking.

When barefoot, reaction time is MUCH quicker. There is a much better feel of the ground, and those missteps occur less frequently, because you feel things before they happen.

I speak from experience.

When hiking in boots, the ankle becomes lazy, letting the boot give support. When things don't work right, the ankle doesn'T have time to react to protect itself.

When hiking barefoot, the ankle is always ready, and the muscles are 'warmed up'.

 

[el-bagr]

Not to delve in too deeply (is it too late?), but Chomp and Pete Hickey are right on about ankle injuries. For those who do it frequently, you really are much less likely to roll an ankle when barefoot. Moreover, if you do, the chances of ankle strain are much less -- physicists and geometrists, think about the decreased level arm brought about by the lack of artificial soles.

An added factor is that the bare- or lightly-shod-footed must be more aware of foot placement. This necessarily increased proprioception augments ankle security.

As has been said, hike your own hike. Don't worry, be happy. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Jaytrek57]

Again....all things being equal I think my example stands pretty much on point.

You make exceptions and assumptions for one set of the example but negate to do so for the same. That's not very fair in a debate.

With all due respect Pete...If I were to say to you I hike exclusivley barefooted....would that change your opinion? I hope not.

What a great country we live in when my morning coffee break contains the pros/cons of hiking barefoot?!?

Peace to everyone!

 

[mavs00]

It can be debated forever....

But more importantly, taking another angle on the same subject, Guy Waterman must be smiling in heavens to see that his "army of lugged soled boots" is diminishing in numbers. Who remembers his concern expressed in his wish to see people start hiking in softer footwear ? Read Wilderness Ethics for more...a darned good book to question one's positions on many subjects pertaining to hiking.

I agree that it was a great and thought provoking read. I also must admit, that while I agree with much of what he say's on the subject, I do not take for 100% gospel his "brand" of what responsible hiking is.

For instance, I think that it takes many successful RT hikes up MARCY by hikers wearing footwear suited to the individuals experience and ability to equal the environmental impact of 1 SAR litter rescue of a hiker that broke an ankle (leg, head, rib, etc) because he choose to wear $5 Wal Mart "fakinstocks"**. Either by ignorance or underestimating the gravity of the undertaking. I also understand that that is debatable point .

Than again, I weigh the 'human" impact of rescues, such as injury or death of potential recuers very heavily in the "responsible hiking" equation. It's up there in importantace with the ecological impact (IMHP).

As to the barefoot, debate, it's probably mute (or is it moot) since the incident in question involves "flip flops" and not unshod doggies.

** - DISCLAIMER - I've no idea if the "flip flops" in question were indeed Wal Mart "fakinstocks", that was just my assumption for the example.

As has been said, hike your own hike. Don't worry, be happy. Can't we all just get along?

ONCE AGAIN, all due respect to the previous posters. Just playing devils advocate and stirring up some lively (yet civil) debate on the issue. So long as you all acknowledge that I am right and you are all wrong, everthing will be fine

and btw, I would not have said a thing to the flip flopper either, but would probably have noticed it and thought it odd (or funny) at the same time.

 

[BeninVA]

If you want to see some wacky footwear on the trail come down to VA. I have seen a lady in heels trying to make her way down a side trail of the AT. In some cases the lack of good footwear is an uneducated hiker setting foot on the trail. Another example of how we as experienced hikers need to lead by example and educate.

I have also seen barefoot hikers. Hey if it works for them great, they better be prepared to accept the dangers involved. If it were me, the SAR groups would be draggin my sorry excuse for a behind out.

 

[Stan]

I have a friend who hiked half the Sugarloaf, Spaulding and Abraham route very comfortably in Tevas, her boots having bothered her so much she couldn't stand them anymore.

I bagged several peaks in sneakers ... then moved up to Bass walkers for an early spring hike in snow ... then concluded I should get something that would provide some traction.

But now, after conversations with my podiatrist, not to mention some time with my foot mobilized, I advocate strong steel shanks and firm comfortable boots that help support the ankle. It's nice to fantasize about aboriginal skills ... especially while checking your position with a GPS ... but I wonder how far into their 40's, 50's, 60's and beyond these porters and other barefooted wannabes might be hiking?

 

[iceNsnow]

a neat idea

My neice told me how she had the most enjoyable time hiking Giant barefoot!

I was thinking that it would be waaaaaaay too slow for me, but then she made it clear to me that the idea!!

So some like it fast and some like it niceNslow, and then again I like it w/ iceNsnow!

Each to their own and why second guess what they are thinking?!

PS I would help anyone that was hurt on the trail for whatever reason - we all make run into troubles...........


Enjoy!!

 

[Silverback]

I can't walk around my neighborhood without some kind of support, so you know where I stand on the boots thing.

Some people can hike barefoot or lightly shod. God bless them and I won't criticize them for doing it. However, I know many people who are not familiar with the ruggedness of the typical Adirondack Trail and who set out believing that these trails are nicely groomed like trails in their neighborhoods. These are the folks that I worry about because they are a danger to themselves and could provide for a difficult rescue situation. Many of these same folks head out on a 15 mile hike without water, thinking once again that the mountain trails are like the ones in the local parks, only with a little more incline.

As far as the damage that boots do to the mountain, I would contend that far more ecological damage is done on the drive to the mountain than is done by human boot prints. As far as erosion goes, I agree that hikers have had a hand in it, but one of nature's slides on any one of the mountains has moved more earth and wiped out more flora than all the trails combined. Any sub-alpine damage created by human footprints would be backfilled within a year or two of abandonment. The one place that we can(and occassionally do) cause significant damage are the alpine zones, and those can be as much damaged by sneakers as they can be by boots.

We all could do more for our environment by paying more attention to what we drive and how it is fueled than by debating whether to hike in boots or to hike on muddy trails in the spring. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that we still use the same method of propulsion that we used 100 years ago? It's only a matter of time before we can't drive to the trails because there won't be any fuel to get us there, rendering the erosion point moot.

Boy I wandered a bit here. Sorry about that.

 

[bruno]

98 % of the time i wear stuff on my foots but i've comfortably hiked the field-willey-tom loop completely barefoot as well as icegulch. icegulch in particular was actually easier sans boots. try it sometime (but maybe take boots or shoes just in case!).

i don't know if i'd whack a la ospreyboya without zapatos though as i might stumble over a skull or somethin'! ouch!

 

[SherpaKroto]

Oh boy - 10 minutes back and a donnybrook in process!

Boots- Post'rBoy made me give them up except in winter. So far, great (one misstep, but boots would not have prevented it). I definitely get a better feel from the sneakers. I doubt I'll go the barefoot route, but have done short hikes barefoot when I was an ignorant teen . Even with a full pack, the weight savings on my feet far outweigh any perceived loss of stability (again, no way I'm going barefoot though!). AS for ADK trails - I was happy to have the sneakers for my recent 6.5 day trip.

 

[imarchant]

I had the pleasure of hiking with someone yesterday doing Graham and Balsam Lake Mnts in the Catskills. He has done all the Catskill 3500 ft peaks barefoot. He now does the ascents barefoot and wears shoes on the descent. He said the descent is much rougher on the feet.

I think any "prepared" barefoot hiker would carry some footwear in their backpack just in case.