[pct-l] AT vs. PCT

A little late – but I couldn’t resist attempting to answer --

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:07:26 EST From: CitrusHicker@aol.com Subject: 
[pct-l] Biggest Difference between AT Thru-Hike I'm looking for some wisdom 
on what the biggest differences are between an AT Thru-hike and a PCT 
Thru-hike from some experienced hikers.

1   Is the "community" that much smaller?, I know there's fewer PCT hikers 
but since the weather window is so much smaller it would seem everybody 
would still be pretty concentrated.

Yes, the community is smaller.  There is a big difference between 3000 
starters and 300.  The  time window is small, but people still spread out 
from mid-April to mid-May.  You will meet a fair number of other thruhikers 
though, if you start out during that time frame, and especially if you 
attend the ADZPCTKO and start out with the 50 or so who will begin the trail 
that weekend.  Past the Sierras, the group thins out a lot, but we still met 
a couple of thruhikers every week (for a total of about 65 long distance 
hikers over 5 months), and lots of shorter term hikers and backpackers 
(usually 5-10 a day.)  The main difference is that there isn’t the 
shelter/designated campsite system that you have on the AT which 
concentrates use so much.  You mostly meet the other thruhikers in town, but 
once you leave town, people camp all over (and rarely at water sources) so 
you may travel within a few miles of other hikers at much the same speed, 
but never see them.  Except for the Sierras, where people tend to clump 
together for safety, the only people we hiked with for more than a day on 
the PCT were people we knew before we went out there, former AT hikers. 
Everyone has their own sense of how fast a hike they want or are capable of 
doing, and hikers tend to be more consistent on the PCT than on the AT – 
there were fewer jackrabbit hikers, so we had less leapfrogging on the PCT.  
The people we passed, we rarely saw again and those who passed us were never 
seen again.  It makes it much harder to have a sense of community when you 
only meet someone for a few hours in town, and then never see them again.  
In the early days, when we met the most people, there was also the question 
– how long will these people last?  A lot of those we met in the first few 
weeks never intended to go all the way.  Many were gone by Big Bear.  Those 
we met later on were generally speed hikers who zipped past without even a 
hello, unless we met in town.  In Oregon  and northern California, many of 
the places we had maildrops aren’t really towns, just resorts where hikers 
generally pick up their mail and move on, so we didn’t even have that much 
contact.  It was always fun when we did get to meet other hikers, but it was 
also disappointing that the contact was so brief.

2. Bears are much more agressive in the west?
We had a bear eat our hung food in New Hampshire, but had no problems on the 
PCT.  We were too early in the season in the Sierras and the bears we saw up 
north weren’t park bears, so they didn’t bother us.  We saw more wildlife, 
including bears, on the AT.

3. : Is everybody really focused on their schedule? On the AT I didn't pay 
much attention because I allowed myself 7 months. Obviously the PCT requires 
a faster schedule.

On the PCT, there was always the perception that we had to hurry because 
winter was coming, SOON.  (In fact, we got snowed on three times in 
Washington, and we finished fairly early - Sept 22.)  On the AT, when I 
finished I figured I had at least 3 weeks, if not more, before winter was a 
serious possibility.  (We finished Sept. 23.)  Partly because the window of 
time is small, and partly because of the Jardine influence (faster is 
better), partly because the trail is so easy, most of the people we met on 
the PCT who finished in one year were really pushing the miles.  On the AT, 
you can average 11 or 12 miles a day and still finish easily.  On the PCT, 
we had to average 19 miles a day to finish.  It makes a difference.  Some 
hikers decide they don’t like the push for miles and change the plan to do a 
partial hike at 15 miles a day; others just grin (or grimace) and bear it.  
It wasn’t that difficult to do the miles--the terrain is generally pretty 
easy and the trail well graded (except in some parts of Washington)--but it 
meant there was always the pressure to hike more.  The other hikers seemed 
much more driven than we were.  We took time off and deliberately did short 
days because we wanted to extend the hike and to enjoy it more, but a lot of 
hikers ended up finishing earlier than they planned because they couldn’t 
slow down once they got into the habit of pushing for miles.

Other differences – water is a constant preoccupation for much of the trail. 
  The long 20-30 mile waterless stretches meant we HAD to do long days to 
get to water or to set up the stretch for the next dry part.

4.  Generally speaking, a PCT thruhike is a very different experience from 
an AT hike.  For me, the AT was a lot more fun, though that isn’t quite the 
right word for it The AT was more satisfying in a lot of ways.  Of course, 
it was also my first long hike, which makes a real difference, I think.  On 
the PCT, I sometimes felt like the trail was an endurance test, not 
something to be enjoyed.  On the AT, that was never an issue.  There was a 
question of whether I COULD finish the AT, but never whether I wanted to.  
On the PCT, I often asked myself why I was bothering.  For me, the PCT felt 
more monotonous than the AT.  The push for miles was part of that, 
especially in the dry stretches.  The views were often more open, (though 
the PCT has its share of long green tunnel too and smog was a constant) and 
there was a lot of beautiful country, but to me it seemed as if there were 
fewer rewards along the way.  You almost never climb the peaks you’re 
passing, see the good waterfalls, etc. unless you make a side trip or do an 
alternate route off trail.  Instead the trail contours endlessly around and 
around through thick brush or dense trees.  I really missed the sense of 
accomplishment I had on the AT when we reached the top of the mountain, 
especially the hard ones.  The passes in the Sierras and in Washington were 
the only places I really had that sense of accomplishment – that and finally 
crossing the California Oregon border after three months on the trail.  That 
is one reason, I think, some of the hikers do the big miles.  They use 
“hiked 30 miles” to give the kind of sense of accomplishment you get from 
reaching the top of the mountain.  Of course, many of the hikers just slowed 
down and did the off trail climbs and side trips anyway, despite the extra 
miles.  We did several  -- and were glad we did.

I love the western mountains and the experience was worth doing, but it was 
different from what we expected/hoped after our AT and CDT adventures.  But 
then, long hikes are ALWAYS different from what you expect, one way or 
another.

Ginny O


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================
To:            pct-l@backcountry.net