What constitutes an "unsupported hike"?

[B the Hiker]

Greetings all,

I have a friend preparing for a 40 miler with something like 13,000 feet of elevation gain, which is all quite insane, but that's another story.

I suggested to him that email out to friends to see if they would like to do a section with him, and he said he couldn't because he and his hiking partner wanted to do the trip "unsupported" and having someone along for a section would violate that.

Not that there is an official definition, but if someone hiked part of the route and didn't give them food or anything, would that really mean the couldn't say they did it "unsupported"? We're talking August, not the winter where people are breaking trail or anything.

Would be interested to hear people's thoughts.


Brian

 

[Chip]

I suppose it could be argued (but not by me ) that psychological support is support.
Obviously, it's their hike if that's the way they feel.

 

[marnof]

It's an interesting question, and I've wondered about it recently too. If they happened to meet someone on the trail and hiked a mile with them, would that be a deal breaker? The issue of support, to me, would have more bearing on supplies, navigation, etc. provided by a source outside of the immediate party. Perhaps it's a case of two's company, three's a crowd. I'm nearing completion of my solo 48 list and wondering how the terms "solo" and "unsupported" are defined, and what difference it makes to the average hiker. I'm treating it like a completist--having hiked 42 solo, I'd like to finish that way.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I am pretty sure that having people along isn't considered support unless they are giving you supplies or carrying things for you, otherwise known as "muling". Sometimes in ultra races, having a pacer isn't allowed, but that's a bit different I suspect.

 

[funkyfreddy]

Just wanted to say that you're all welcome to support any of my hikes You're welcome to support my music too

 

[dug]

Purists would say anything beyond a naked bushwack is supported.

 

[sdways01]

You mentioned "he and his hiking partner", doesn't that mean he is already supported? I would say as long as any additional person doesn't give any supplies (food, water, gear, etc) it is still unsupported. You could argue that anyone else there to help in a bad situation or emergency would be support too though.

 

[HH1]

No GPS/Cell/Spot

 

[RoySwkr]

I would say that the team is unsupported if they don't accept anything from anybody else, this would include navigation or pacing help. And they need to carry all their own supplies - in Australia you can drink water from natural sources but not pipes or tanks. They can decide how extreme to be - once on Franconia Ridge a seminarian I met said, "God bless you!" and someone might argue that this is support

 

[Maddy]

No GPS/Cell/Spot

No DOG!!!

Looks like I won't be hiking "unsupported" any time soon!

 

[Jeff List]

There is a website called "Fastest Known Time" in which the classes "supported," "self-supported," and "unsupported" are differentiated:
http://fastestknowntime.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=readfirst&action=display&thread=19
Here it is specifically stated that "Unsupported also means unaccompanied!"
Want to get your "Fastest Known Time" reported on this website? Then follow these definitions.
Otherwise, call "unsupported" whatever you want to call it.
Just having someone along, but carrying nothing that you use, does seem pretty unsupported, and not much different than having someone cheer you on from a road crossing. But your companion could be carrying all the emergency gear that you would only use if you had to quit, which means you could go lighter with safety, and in that respect it does amount to support.

 

[B the Hiker]

Thank you for all your thoughts and comments on this ridiculous matter. As they say, "The fight is so fierce because the stakes are so low."


Brian

 

[sardog1]

Purists would say anything beyond a naked bushwack is supported.

Your skin must be considerably tougher than mine .....

 

[jrbren]

It's up to that individual to define. For me I would not put that requirement on any of my hikes. If I did I would have to waive the use of any trails, since that is support in my book. Its really hard to be truly unsupported in regions that are heavily traveled like the northeast USA. Most strangers will help you if you are in trouble. I guess I would define it is do not accept or even have available any aid aside from what you leave the trail head with on your person or find in nature on the journey. I would also bet money if one vows to not accept support from others even in an emergency would renege on that self commitment if they really were in real trouble. So if unsupported is really important to you , then you have to go to a region where help is not available. I read a book by Reinhold Messner a few years ago about his solo attempt on Everest (title escapes me). He discuss this topic and what it means to him at length. He did not even want anyone at base camp because it gave him psychological comfort to know someone else was "nearby". I assume your friend will not be bringing a cell phone.

Out of curiosity, is this a day hike or multi day ? Is this in the northeast USA ? (if not where ?) If yes my guess is it is near big peaks with that elevation gain, which would mean lots of other hikers around.

 

[Raven]

It's an interesting question, and I've wondered about it recently too. If they happened to meet someone on the trail and hiked a mile with them, would that be a deal breaker? The issue of support, to me, would have more bearing on supplies, navigation, etc. provided by a source outside of the immediate party. Perhaps it's a case of two's company, three's a crowd. I'm nearing completion of my solo 48 list and wondering how the terms "solo" and "unsupported" are defined, and what difference it makes to the average hiker. I'm treating it like a completist--having hiked 42 solo, I'd like to finish that way.

This is the age old question regarding solo hiking and meeting someone along the trail. I've done the 48 solo and am close to completion of a solo W48. As others mentioned, the rules are personal until you post on a site with specific rules or apply for some recognition (AMC, ATC, FKT Site, etc). For my own journey, I was breaking trail solo on the Carters a number of years ago when I met up with another solo hiker near the ridge. We broke trail together - to me that ended the solo part. Great hike though. Fortunately (?) the mountain gods gave me what I had asked for and this past winter supplied me with the Carters mostly unbroken for me to finish what I had started. Someone had broken out part of the trail to the ridge but the large majority was unbroken and I did not add a companion this time along the way - to me that was a solo hike (and unsupported, not that that is an issue on most day hikes).

As far as "unsupported" goes, my personal opinion is that companionship is support for reasons already stated. That said, HYOH and enjoy it whatever way you want to do it.

Purists would also say the actual trail is support......or legs....

Love Brian's comment that "The fight is so fierce because the stakes are so low." Lol

 

[Mark]

Purists would say anything beyond a naked bushwack is supported.

... and bring your own oxygen and water.

 

[peakbagger]

To take its to it illogical extreme there would be no such thing as an "unsupported" hike on a trail. A trail is inherently a means of support that was put in place deliberately to ease passage through territory. Every step put in place and every branch cut back is "support". Even a herd path which is not deliberately put in place makes the next passage somewhat easier.

 

[marnof]

This is the age old question regarding solo hiking and meeting someone along the trail. I've done the 48 solo and am close to completion of a solo W48. As others mentioned, the rules are personal until you post on a site with specific rules or apply for some recognition (AMC, ATC, FKT Site, etc). For my own journey, I was breaking trail solo on the Carters a number of years ago when I met up with another solo hiker near the ridge. We broke trail together - to me that ended the solo part. Great hike though. Fortunately (?) the mountain gods gave me what I had asked for and this past winter supplied me with the Carters mostly unbroken for me to finish what I had started. Someone had broken out part of the trail to the ridge but the large majority was unbroken and I did not add a companion this time along the way - to me that was a solo hike (and unsupported, not that that is an issue on most day hikes).

Yes--I'm feeling that solo hiking is somewhat irrelevant, though, when passing groups of hikers all the way to a summit (crowded with more people) on a groomed and well marked trail, on a day with perfect weather! When it comes into play is on those stretches when you haven't seen a soul for hours.

I usually hike solo in favorable weather conditions, but I've gone without the cell phone the last few peaks--not by design (I dropped it in the Sound recently and will replace it soon hopefully with an iPhone 5). I get a little grief for hiking without one, but I'm sure many on this forum can recall the joy of hiking without their support, decades ago.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

<Moderator Note>
All references to supportive undergarments, or lack thereof, for either gender made by either gender have been deleted. I would appreciate it if you would not make any more work for me.
</Moderator Note>

Tim

 

[John H Swanson]

I think in spme ways it depends on your goal. Meaning if the goal is to climb a mountain unsupported, then trails do count as support. But if your goals is to redline the trails, then obvoiusly using the trails does not count as it is part of the goal. One could say that the goal could be to climb the peaks by trail in which case, the conclusion is clear.