High Sierra Topix

Observation peak - the only one I ever climbed (and with Mike). We were fishing Dumbell and the fishing was so good we had to stop and do something else. Not to mention it was easy - just right for me (and Mike).

Basically what Eric and others said. Doing a thru hike to me is like a series of one night stands, exciting but lacks the true intimacy of a long term relationship. I love short hiking days and long layovers. They increase my level of intimacy with my surroundings. Just as being with the same woman over many years is still exciting and not at all boring. I might add that the long times away from each other as a result of my extended forays into the wilderness adds a little spice to our life on my return home.

There are many methods of "thru-hiking". Perhaps we need a definition of what this post means by "thru-hiking".

If thru-hiking is simply doing a long route continuously, you could hike fast and take lots of town days (what seems to be typical of PCT hikers) or hike slow and infrequently resupply or even have resupply brought in by outfitters. If you do half of the PCT slowly one year, and finish the next, is that still a "thru-hike"? That is usually referred to as "section hiking". Is the JMT a thru-hike? Maybe it is too short. It seems short compared to the PCT or CDT or AT.

So I do not agree necessarily that if you thru-hike you have no "intamacy" with the wilderness. I did Roper's High Route. Not sure that is considered a thru-hike. I took 33 days, with only one day off. Only hiked 5-8 hours a day, did two side-trips, lots of poking around at the end of most days, and fished. I really did not do it any differently than any other backpack trip- just did it continously. Also did the same thing for 30 days in the Wind Rivers - no official route, just my own. On that trip I carried 14 days food for two sections with one day off between. I had three "resupplies" on the High Route. Were these "thru-hikes"? Who officially designates a "thru-hike"? Does a thru-hike have to be a big "named" route?

Wandering Daisy wrote:There are many methods of "thru-hiking". Perhaps we need a definition of what this post means by "thru-hiking".

My definition of thru hiking: Walking for speed on a lengthy, famous trail without regard for the scenery, geological formations, flora, or fauna while subsisting on freeze-dried gruel and speaking only to bore others with opinions about the merits or demerits of various kinds of backpacking gear.

I did a thru hike in 1975 -- the John Muir Trail. And what I chiefly remember about it is how eager I was for the trip to end starting around the halfway point. Later I discovered cross-country hiking, the opposite of thru hiking. You always have to be aware of where you are and where you're going on a cross-country trip. You have to be alive. Thru-hiking is a matter of staring at your toes all day to make sure your feet land in the right places on the trail.

Wandering Daisy wrote:There are many methods of "thru-hiking". Perhaps we need a definition of what this post means by "thru-hiking".

If thru-hiking is simply doing a long route continuously, you could hike fast and take lots of town days (what seems to be typical of PCT hikers) or hike slow and infrequently resupply or even have resupply brought in by outfitters. If you do half of the PCT slowly one year, and finish the next, is that still a "thru-hike"? That is usually referred to as "section hiking". Is the JMT a thru-hike? Maybe it is too short. It seems short compared to the PCT or CDT or AT.

So I do not agree necessarily that if you thru-hike you have no "intamacy" with the wilderness. I did Roper's High Route. Not sure that is considered a thru-hike. I took 33 days, with only one day off. Only hiked 5-8 hours a day, did two side-trips, lots of poking around at the end of most days, and fished. I really did not do it any differently than any other backpack trip- just did it continously. Also did the same thing for 30 days in the Wind Rivers - no official route, just my own. On that trip I carried 14 days food for two sections with one day off between. I had three "resupplies" on the High Route. Were these "thru-hikes"? Who officially designates a "thru-hike"? Does a thru-hike have to be a big "named" route?

I envy those who can get those many days off! haha

Actually surprised to see the number of those who don't favor "thru-hiking" (pct, at, cdt, such and such). I personally didn't really enjoy the JMT but that could be due to the way I planned it as I only had a short window and was hell-bent on getting to each planned campsite. Now that I do a mix of trail and off-trail, gotta say I enjoy the off-trail better.

Daisy,

My definition of thru hiking is that the end is the goal. Though my longest venture has been but 3 weeks I always mourn the end. I remember about 2 weeks into a 19 day trip markskor and I bemoaning the fact that we had just a week left. Exploring new territory and returning to special places,savoring sunrises, sunsets, nice fish,and occasional encounters with wildlife and backcountry characters is what it is about for me. The journey and the pauses ...

oldranger wrote:Daisy,
My definition of thru hiking is that the end is the goal.

Yes, and I think this characterizes most of the folks that are in fact thru hikers. It is like completing a ultramarathon, marathon, triathlon, or any other sort of endurance endeavor.

In contrast, it is clear that most of us who post on Topix like our High Sierra trips for the trip itself, rather than the end of the trip. For us it is about the journey rather than the end. That is not to say that everyone who thru hikes is set on the end as the sole goal, but it is clear that many are.

Again, everyone who hikes in the High Sierra has a slightly different motivation. This forum doesn't attract thru hiker types because that is not a primary topic of our posts and questions.

Lots of salient points in here but also a lot of over generalization. I'm looking forward to crafting a response once I've finished my big section hike in two months. But in short, thru hiking is kind of like doing a big road trip. True, you don't get as intimate of knowledge about any given area, but to assume someone like me is just passing through and not absorbing a ton of info on each place is incorrect. I will then have decades to follow up on certain areas in more detail as opposed to just retreading places like the Sierra over and over again. 13 years ago my wife and I did a 7 week cross country road trip heavily focused on parks and wilderness areas and this trip is remarkably similar. And hiking 20+ miles a day isn't really a big deal once you adjust. I'd agree that being away from family from a long period is the toughest thing, but that can be avoided as well. I'm about to spend 5 days with my wife and son at mount lassen for example, with more visits in the works for up North.

I also wanted to reply about the comment on pct hikers not really getting a proper wilderness experience as they pop into town too much. Again, it's all about how you approach the trail. I hiked over 400 miles from cottonwood pass to donner pass and only left the trail twice for that entire stretch. Combine that with the fact that North of Tuolomne the mountains were devoid of people and I can tell you it was far more of a wilderness experience than any of the week long Sierra trips I've done before.

Well, it's hard to give anything but generalizations or personal experience, since there's no real way to be really specific about 2000000000 different people who attempt a thru of one of the long trails... so many attempt and fail. Personally, I only know about thru hikers through second or third hand experience, and it's obvious how many of them are actually here participating -- not too many.

What folks I've talked to about "Wild" don't get is that you don't have to hike a trail to attempt a "geographical band aid" -- that's what I call it when someone who's seeing me for mental health issues starts to talk about moving out of state, quitting the job, or some other HUGE change that they hope will kick-start their life into happy and good again. For someone to just pick up a pack loaded with junk some salesman suggested and hit the trail is pretty much the kiss of death you'd expect -- they don't have the same great results Strayed writes about (not that I think she had great results -- she does people a great disservice by pretending the trail cured everything for her -- she could have gone to therapy or done a round-the-world trip or rode a train across the country, or some other thing, and gotten the same result, because 99% of the real action was all in her head). They bail off and go home defeated and don't write a book, and they may or may not have gone on to do something else to fix the problem... Correlation is not causation. Not every problem is a nail, but to someone who really likes the idea of their hammer....

The ones with motivations other than self help, the ones with a yen to do "something awesome" that have no backpacking experience and just go -- plenty of them fail, some of them succeed, and I have to wonder how many still hike at all. Not all of them write badly-written books and publish them free on Amazon, or create a mediocre trail journal.

I tend to think of thru hiking as a different thing from backpacking, primarily because so many people I speak to who have done it appear to have wholly different motivations than I do for slinging on a backpack. I get people in my backpacking class, occasionally, who state the intent to do the PCT (more often the JMT) and want a good overview of gear available that isn't biased (store clerks are obviously biased).