[pct-l] What is a Thru-Hike Defined as Nowadays?

[chiefcowboy at verizon.net]

Well, a "long trail" could be only ten or so miles - if you end up hiking 
with an opinionated idiot who focuses on what really constitutes a 
"thru-hike."

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Abela
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:31 PM
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] What is a Thru-Hike Defined as Nowadays?

I think a potentially more interesting question is "how long should a
trail be before it can be considered a 'long trail'" which would
thereby allow us to start defining a 'thru-hiker' status?"

This is a much harder question to answer of course. In some nations,
the longest trail that might exist is a few hundred miles (such as the
Israel National Trail - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3-prtXKT9w )
and of course in the USA we have three big ones. But here in the USA
we also have some shorter ones, such as the Colorado Trail (which is
shorter than the INT) and the Oregon Coast Trail and the California
Coastal Trail.

Over at wikipedia they define a "long distance trail" as anything
longer than 31.1 miles (50 km)... and lets just face it, a fair number
of people here on the pct-l could hike such 'long distance trails' in
a single day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-distance_trails_in_the_United_States

Should we really be considering a "long distance trail" something that
a person can hike in one or two days? What about a 7 or 10 day hike,
should that be a "long distance trail"? At what point should be
calling these (what I would tend to think of as a "short trail") long
distance?

Personally, I think a 400 mile trail should be about the minimum of
what should be properly defined as a "long distance trail". At least
at this distance, advanced planning needs to take place for resupplies
and such. That would cut the list of "long trails" from 83 down to 28,
but I think it would help make the ability to properly define a
"thru-hike(r)" have a much better chance of true classification - a
base-line from which to start addressing the issues others have
already presented.



Directly related to the question of "what is a thru-hike", I am of the
opinion that if you get on a bus or a plane and go home, or go a
wedding, or some other "non-trail event" than you should loose your
"thru-hike" status and be considered a "section hiker". That might be
a bit on the purists side of things, but it is what I feel should be
apart of any classification for what a thru-hiker should be defined
within.
_______________________________________________
Pct-L mailing list
Pct-L at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
All content is copyrighted. Reproduction is is expressly prohibited without 
the express permission of the author.