Feeling Ornery

[nsherry61]

As context, I've been struggling with very slow healing posterior tibial tendonitis in my right ankle since January, so I haven't been able to get outside and hike or backpack, and most of my late winter, spring, and summer plans are in the toilet. So, for what it's worth . . .


I really don't like the vague, ambiguous and somehow ego-connected concept of thru-hiker or thru-hike or, for that matter section-hiker or section-hike. The concepts ultimately seem pretty meaningless to me.

Why do we use these almost meaningless terms as if they provide helpful insights into what we have done or how we identify ourselves?

Thru-hiking the JMT is also section hiking the PCT (almost). Does it really matter that I hike a named trail end to end instead of some other planned hike of similar length and/or terrain? I DON'T THINK SO.

Is a loop hike of a loop trail a thru-hike? What if I hike on two different named trails to make the loop?

Is hiking 100 miles of a single named trail (i.e. a section hike) somehow different than hiking two or three trails or sections of trails that add up to 100 miles (not really a section hike)? I don't think so.

I suggest that saying you are thru-hiking some particular trail is useful and meaningful. But how does a more generic, "I'm doing a thru-hike or I'm a thru-hiker have any relevance at all to meaningful communication other than suggesting you either have a stick up your butt about your accomplishments or you are kind of a newby that wants to be identified as part of some meaningless in-crowd that you haven't figured out is meaningless yet?

I can see section hiking some big named trail as meaningful (i.e. doing it in parts over the years). But going out and doing a section hike of the xyz trail doesn't have any real meaning. Going out and doing a 100 mile section of xyz does have meaning.

How about being a thru-hiker? Who gives a rip if you can hike some random named trail end to end instead of some other fantastic backpacking trip along a whole mix of great trails.

Maybe identifying as being a section-hiker or a thru-hiker really just means that you are a backpacker without the imagination or creativity to put together a great backpacking trip beyond just following some single, famously named trail from end to end.

[Puddlefish]

For me, it's about what makes me happy. I'm happy day hiking, which in turn allowed me to get into good enough shape to make a thru hike attempt... which was an awesome day to day experience, other than getting hurt, which means it wasn't a thru hike, but a section hike, which didn't diminish that day to day enjoyment, even though the title changed, the experience remained the same.

Then again, I'm not super competitive and goal driven at this time in my life. All this works for me, and I'd never suggest there's a better way of hiking for anyone else. It is fairly pointless when people disparage others' hikes.

If someone tells me they thru hiked and had a blast everyday, I'll find that awesome and inspiring. If they tell me, they struggled through the pain and hardship and unhappiness to complete their thru hike, I'll politely excuse myself from the conversation while secretly thinking they're an idiot. But, in the end, they aren't hiking for me, so whatever floats their boat.

[martinb]

Bummer that you are town-bound. These things tend to make the regular backpacker slightly grumpy.

The bottom line, for me anyway, about these labels (section, thru, whatever) is the conquest. Whether it's making it through a tough, short trail for an overnighter or summiting Everest, the Id is in control. The personality type for these sorts of adventures matters. Recently, there was a thread about the wilderness experience on the AT. It seems as though the wilderness experience is secondary to the conquest of finishing the trail. The AT, though, is about immersing yourself in the wilderness experience, not completing the trail is the fastest manner possible (I know most do not do this but it has been done).

This is part of the reason I don't spend much time on the AT. I do use it on loops and such but, for me, the whole point of backpacking is about being in mother nature and going as I please. I could never condition my mind to hike X number of miles per day in order to further some ultimate conquest.

[nsherry61]

But to address the OP, may I suggest a rewrite that "day hiking . . . allowed me to get into good enough shape to . . . attempt a long distance backpacking trip ... which was an awesome day to day experience, other than getting hurt, which means I had to shorten my hike".

What is the benefit of using the thru-hike and/or section-hike labels? They add a level of confusion and no added clarity. They distract from the fact that you went backpacking and your long hike was shorted by some amount due to injury. Who cares if it was some unspecified end-to-end hike on a single famous trail or some other route?

[Feral Bill]

The title "Thru Hiker" is a trophy, for those who care about those things. Of course doing a thru hiking gives a form of sorts to a long walking vacation, which is not a bad thing. I might even do so one day, or not.

[Slo-go'en]

When people ask me if I'm thru hiking, I answer "not yet". That typically gets a chuckle.

[MuddyWaters]

A thru hike has to be reasonably long, such as to be difficult to hike in one go. I personally scoff at the idea of "thru hiking" anything less than about 500 miles. Its just hiking. It's an arbitrary distance,
But without a doubt a two-day 50-mile hike does not count as a thru-hike, except to a fool.

All the Facebook people want the cache of calling themselves thru-hikers for some reason.

[Tipi Walter]

To me, "Backpacker" is top of the heap---all other designations like thruhiker or section hiker or whatever falls below this title.

"Lifetime Backpacker" is even better, as often many purported top-rung "thruhikers" stop backpacking after their long trail goal is reached.

And Whiteblaze lists at least 21 trails other than the AT on their forum so in my opinion "backpacking" is the dominant keyword, not "thruhiking".

[KCNC]

To me, "Backpacker" is top of the heap---all other designations like thruhiker or section hiker or whatever falls below this title.

"Lifetime Backpacker" is even better, as often many purported top-rung "thruhikers" stop backpacking after their long trail goal is reached.

And Whiteblaze lists at least 21 trails other than the AT on their forum so in my opinion "backpacking" is the dominant keyword, not "thruhiking".

^^^^^This

My son is on the AT - Pearisburg at the moment, started at Springer, headed to Katahdin. When friends and family ask what he's doing I tell them "He's hiking the AT" which almost always triggers the follow-up question "The whole thing?" - to which I reply "That's his intent."

No use of "thru" or "section" anywhere in the conversation, and I've communicated exactly what he's doing.

I'll complete the AT, but not all at once. Outside demands just don't make it realistic to put everything on hold for 4-6 months.

But I can do 2-3 weeks on a fairly regular basis, and that gives me the freedom to avoid large crowds, which is more enjoyable for me.

[Slow Trek]

My son and I walked from Springer to Harper's Ferry in 2016. We knew my job would not allow time to go any farther. In seven days we are heading back to Harper's Ferry to continue North. We have 30 days,because he did what kids do,grew up and got a job. I am happy he can get a month off. I don't really know if circumstances will allow us to see the top of Mt K together,but I sure as hell will try. We will obviously not get there this year. Are we failed through hikers? Section Hikers? Long Ass Section Hikers? Simply stupid,like most of my friends think? I don't know,and I don't care. What I know is this-some of the best days of my life have been spent on the AT,and I would not trade that time with my son for anything. I will leave it to someone else to find the proper terminology,because I hike for the joy. And the heat,sweat,spiderwebs and rain.... See you out there.

[perrymk]

I think the labels are useful when used in the right crowd. When I told people who were members of the Florida Trail Association that I was section hiking, actually section day hiking, the Florida Trail, they understood what I meant. Even non-hikers grasped fairly quickly that I was hiking a particular trail in sections that could be completed in a day.

One person's lack of imagination is another person's personal goal. It probably doesn't matter to the world in the grand scheme of things but if it brings one person some happiness, then it matters enough.

It's also OK to vent a little, especially when you can't fully participate in an activity I'm guessing you enjoy, labels and all.

[nsherry61]

. . . In seven days we are heading back to Harper's Ferry to continue North. We have 30 days,because he did what kids do,grew up and got a job. . .

That's awesome! And, congratulations of making time and kids to do that with!

I was planning on hiking the Sierras from Kennedy Meadows to Tahoe with my son and his girlfriend as they hike the PCT. But alas, other family obligations are limiting my time and my ankle is limiting my backpacking, so hopefully I'll be well enough to hike for a day with them in Oregon when they arrive (assuming they get their). What a great adventure.

[nsherry61]

. . . I was section hiking, actually section day hiking, the Florida Trail, they understood what I meant.

Exactly. Perfect use of the term.

It's also OK to vent a little, especially when you can't fully participate in an activity I'm guessing you enjoy, labels and all.

Live for might be a bit more on point, sadly. To be honest, what I was/am really trying to do with this thread was stir up a heated and entertaining debate about something that annoys me, but really doesn't matter. . . kinda like starting a thread by saying that country music sucks.

[Dogwood]

Any hiker can be egotistical..."with a stick up their butt." Thru hikers have no monopoly on being egotists. I've seen quite a few AT day hikers, weekend warriors, and LASHers with the issue as well...including younger folks like Scouts. I've seen it in cyber hikers. IMHO the egotistical thru hiker is most often associated with thru hiking the AT, new LD hike attempters and doers...as said those wanting a label, to be part of a crowd, to be recognized or validated. I don't see it as much from long time LD backpackers. It's changing a bit though as more hikers make the PCT their first, and sometimes only, LD hike.

[rocketsocks]

One dosent have have to backpack the PCT, CDT, AT, FT, CT...etc; to be a back packer, start with dispelling that arguement and then you might be on ya something, otherwise, who really gives a crap but internet chuckleheads.

[evyck da fleet]

^^^^^This

When friends and family ask what he's doing I tell them "He's hiking the AT" which almost always triggers the follow-up question "The whole thing?" - to which I reply "That's his intent."

This is how I reply. When inserting thru hiker it makes it sound like an accomplishment as opposed to a hike. If I want to hear about your experiences hiking I’ll ask where you’ve hiked and what trails. I can get the info I want whether the trail was completed all at once or in sections. I’m less likely to ask for more detail if the hiking list is presented as a list of conquered trails.

[BillyGr]

A thru hike has to be reasonably long, such as to be difficult to hike in one go. I personally scoff at the idea of "thru hiking" anything less than about 500 miles. Its just hiking. It's an arbitrary distance,
But without a doubt a two-day 50-mile hike does not count as a thru-hike, except to a fool.

All the Facebook people want the cache of calling themselves thru-hikers for some reason.

It depends on what one is classifying as a Thru Hike.

For a simple example, if one did that 50 miles (actually just a little bit more) by starting on the AT in NY and ending in MA, one could say that they Thru-Hiked the AT in CT (which they did - completed the length of the trail in the state in one trip).

Not the same as what you usually think of when saying Thru Hike, but as long as the qualification (the length in CT part) is there, it's still true.

[MuddyWaters]

It depends on what one is classifying as a Thru Hike.

For a simple example, if one did that 50 miles (actually just a little bit more) by starting on the AT in NY and ending in MA, one could say that they Thru-Hiked the AT in CT (which they did - completed the length of the trail in the state in one trip).

Not the same as what you usually think of when saying Thru Hike, but as long as the qualification (the length in CT part) is there, it's still true.

Absolutely not. Unless you want to be snickered at.

A thru hike at minimum is a complete hike of an established lengthy trail or route, in a single effort. Or unestablished if its a route you pioner and anyone wants to recognize.

It is not ever applied to some arbitrary "part" of a trail.

What you refer to is simply called "hiking"

People that use the term for other things, are ignorant, or desperately want to come claim they have done something significant by word association, when they havent.

If AT in CT was congruent with the named " Whaasup" trail for the length, one might say they thru hiked the whassup trail, but you don't go inventing trails by declaring arbitrary endpoints.

It also implies some amount of length, time, and difficulty.

[Dogwood]

Naming trails and hikes with acronyms is where the ego problem tends to promulgate. As they get more and more recognized, ala WB and WB Users adding to the AT frenzy, "the AT is the king of trails", folks wish to attach themselves in greater degrees to hiking these enormously popularized trails. Making hiking them "easier" through making them more familiar and predictable adds to the melee. It can result in these trails being loved to death and being put upon a pedestal. Hence, what follows is putting those who hike "the" trail, potentially anyone, upon a pedestal.


No one gave a rat's arse about a hike in the Pinelands Preserve until it became the "official" Back To Nature(Batona) Tr with infrastructure - maps, trail description, logistical info, signage, blazes, guidebook accounts, and generation of folk's online inquiries and opinions reaching critical mass.


The thread topic makes for good WB cyber play without coming to any concrete factual conclusion. It's an endless loop debate. Heck, some of the longest and most heated threads on this site are ones that attempt to define "thru-hiker. " Confrontations and intellectual dishonesty arise even with the ATC's 2000 Miler definition, which this thread will morp, specifically the ATC's qualifying sentence "we do expect that persons applying for inclusion in our 2,000-miler records have made an honest effort to walk the entire Trail."


I understand though Nsherry. I hope you get well soon. Godspeed. Make a commitment to healing and getting outside away from the Interwad. Getting in the water doing rehab and low impact might brighten your spirits.

[MuddyWaters]

Along those lines

Someone recently prefaced an ad for items for sale by saying that they were a "1000 miler". Note that this had absolutely nothing to do with the items for sale.

First thing that comes to mind is "thats not a thing"

More of the same

People desperately want to claim that they too must be
*something* by association. Life's just not fair if they don't get recognized also for their personal accomplishment