Art at crystalacresnh.com
Thu Jan 21 07:19:00 CST 2010
Back in the olden days -when Backpacker Magazine sponsored a chat
room with AOL - some one of authority defined a long distance hike
as one that required the hiker to resupply at least once. So two
weeks sounds reasonable for section hiker to be on a par with thru
hiker. Although, I did many resupply stops within 3 days on my thru
hike as per Baltimore Jack's suggestion and a month long shake down
hike the previous spring.
>I was always taken aback on the trail when section hikers looked in
>awe on thru-hikers. They're always doing the first two weeks, the
>hardest two weeks. And talk about persevering - all I had to do was
>follow white blazes for 2,000 miles and I was done. They had the
>logistics of trying to set up the transportation loop every year,
>getting to the trail, arranging shuttles, etc. Not to mention taking
>10 years or so to complete the trail (I don't think I have the
>attention span for that!).
>Somewhere near Damascus we were leapfrogging with a crew of four or
>five section hikers, for most of a week. One night we were sharing a
>campsite, and one of the section hikers threw out a question along
>the lines of "At what point do you consider a section hiker on a par
>with a thru-hiker?" (I wish I could remember the exact wording - it
>came out much better than my rough approximation there).
>This wasn't something any of us had ever considered. So we threw it
>back and forth for a bit and decided that if you were out for two
>weeks or longer, and not hiding from the weather in town or motels,
>you were hiking what we were hiking, eating what we ate, hurting
>like we hurt, and worst of all, smelling like us too! ;-)
>at-l mailing list
>at-l at backcountry.net
Life is Good!!!
More information about the at-l