[pct-l] Stream Crossing Footwear

[Diane at Santa Barbara Hikes dot com]

On Feb 15, 2010, at 9:46 PM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> Let's consider the current topic of ultra lightweight footwear for  
> creek crossings. Got to have something on your feet, right? Why?  
> Because you might injure your feet between two rocks, while  
> stepping blindly anywhere, maybe into a sharp and pointed rock or  
> branch, or just stubbing a toe. So, the idea is to carry an extra  
> pair of "shoes" for just this purpose, something that looks like a  
> pair of "flip-flops" on steroids.

Actually, many people wear running shoes and do not carry extra shoes  
for creek crossings. Why bother? Your feet dry out in running shoes  
quickly enough. You have to cross so many streams it's too much of a  
pain to change your shoes and you'll probably already be wet anyway  
from melted snow.

>
> They may be fine for mid and late season fords where you can choose  
> the depth, width, flow rate, and amount/size of rocks on the  
> visible bottom where you cross, but for early season whitewater,  
> forget it. Not only do you have poor choices where you can cross  
> safely, but you usually can't see the bottom enough to  
> differentiate where the obstacles are--you have to "feel" your way  
> across and stay safely balanced while at it!

Actually, the early season fords are not so murky that you can't see  
the bottom. Trekking poles or a stick can help you gauge the bottom  
before you place your foot. And in the murky glacial runoff in Oregon  
and Washington, poles or a stick are very helpful no matter what you  
have on your feet.

When creeks are very deep, it is easier to swim wearing something  
lighter than concrete blocks. And yes, I had to swim because I was  
too early.

>
> When the current is trying its best to dislodge your feet and mis- 
> direct each step in mid-stride, where you put your foot down  
> becomes a matter of guess, aim, and hope. If your foot gets cut,  
> bruised, or seriously hurt in this process, the chances of you  
> going reflexively into the water are pretty good. What happens  
> thereafter is no longer a matter of hope, but prayer. So, cover  
> your feet up with something as durable and protective as your  
> hiking boots so you don't suffer pain and fall in mid-stream!

The creeks may be scary, especially if you are a creek crossing  
weenie like me, but they are never as bad as this. I never bruised my  
feet or seriously hurt myself or fell into the water. I never even  
came close to this in any of the creeks, even the worst ones.

>
> Novel idea? What is wrong with cruising in with your hiking boots  
> on, making a confident and balanced crossing that doesn't threaten  
> to take your life, and simply changing your socks once on the other  
> side? I've been doing this for 35 years and for the most part with  
> the same pair of boots. Talk about durable suckers!  Walk your  
> boots dry!

I felt I had the ability to walk more confidently not staggering  
under a heavy load or clomping around in stiff boots that prevented  
the natural range of motion of my feet, ankles and legs.

>
> Maybe the problem with this idea is the construction of modern  
> trail footwear, not built well enough to endure (in the effort to  
> be lightweight) or too soft (for minimal break-in period) to  
> prevent injury. Ah, but the kind of boots I'm talking about were  
> those big, nasty, heavy monsters which, according to current fads,  
> are considered BAD for hiking these days! Does an aspiring hiker  
> assume all the other lemmings are right and do what they do (for  
> whatever risk comes with it) or does he go out and test crossings  
> for himself, choosing a safe design of footwear for the overall  
> hike and maybe the sensitivity of his feet (from a practical, not  
> theoretical standpoint)?

If you like big boots, that is fine, but you don't seem to understand  
lightweight hiking and lightweight shoes at all.
>
> I understand that "a pound of weight on the foot is like 5 pounds  
> on the back," but from a thru hiker's point of view, by the time I  
> get to the early season nasty, dangerous creek crossings, my legs  
> and overall strength will be like The Hulk's, able to carry most  
> anything I'd ever want (especially for safety's sake) and not even  
> feel it! So why would I chose to put on my feet, where the rubber  
> meets the rocks, some flimsy, weak, membrane of a shoe that will  
> not protect my feet from scree, dirt, mud, water, sharp sticks and  
> rocks, toe stubs, and major side abrasion, allow my ankles to roll  
> sideways and strain, not have the stopping power of a vertical  
> heel, have one-piece soles that work well as skis in the snow, and  
> wear out so fast (comparatively) that I'll have to leave the trail  
> several times to buy new ones somewhere (hopefully)? Think of the  
> time lost to do this, not to mention the risks taken while the  
> shoes are wearing out!

What protected me from rolling sideways and all that other stuff was  
having strong feet and ankles. I never felt like I was wearing skis  
in the snow. The snow isn't even as bad as you make it out to be.  
It's mostly just annoying, and in those places where it's scary, you  
CAN do it with running shoes and trekking poles. Remember, thru- 
hikers are there in June, not in April.

Humans evolved with fully functional feet and legs. The PCT has been  
groomed for relatively fragile stock. It's quite easy to manage  
without half a cow of hide strapped to your feet.