Peak Bagging Rules
To the disdain of many, I for my own part have set minimum requirements for claiming
an ascent and I have completed the fourteeners this way. Most Colorado peak baggers are familiar with the 3,000' vertical elevation
gain rule. A lot of trailheads in Colorado are far above 11,433' (the maximum
trailhead elevation allowed for an official ascent of the highest peak in
the state. There is an issue about physical elevation gain vs. elevation gained
by subtracting the lowest point on the climb from the summit elevation. Physical
elevation is not a good criteria for claiming a 3,000' vertical ascent, as one
could start at 13,000' and skirt around a peak up 1,000' and down 1,000' three times
to gain 3,000' of physical elevation. In contrast, when subtracting the lowest
elevation from the highest to derive 3,000 vertical feet ensures one must climb a
peak to some established degree of its entirety.
Another issue concerning whether one has climbed a peak is traversing. Many
extrapolate that if one has gained 3,000' on a peak that traversing a ridge or connecting saddle to
another peak counts as an ascent of that peak as well. Then there are those
who do not gain 3,000' on the initial climb and traverses combined yet claim
ascents on all summits visited. Of course if a person is on the summit of a
peak they have reached the top, but have they really climbed it?
To quote Louis Dawson,
"In some circles, a peak climb is said to be 3,000
vertical feet or more. But many people who use that standard have a pesky
habit of counting climbs of peaks they traverse to from other peaks".
Aside from the
3,000' rule, using the logic of traverses counting as ascents is problematic.
The logic for counting traverses is a derivative of the following:
A person has proven that they can climb multiple peaks separately through
traversing by virtue of the fact that
the person reached them from a common starting point which may as well be the starting point for any of the peaks climbed in a series. This is all well and good,
except for the fact that there is no "delivery" in the afore-mentioned logic.
Claiming ascents via traversing is only projecting that the person can do all of
the peaks climbed via traversing in a series separately.
Using the logic of traversing, one could climb
a peak (Peak A), return to their vehicle, and even decades later return to the spot
closest to Peak B that was reached decades earlier and get there via Jeep, helicopter,
parachute, etc., then claim an ascent of Peak B by reaching the summit only after
minimal elevation gain. Most likely no one does this, but it illustrates
the fact that traversing isn't really climbing a peak.
To sum this bit of philosophy, I don't count fourteener climbs that gain less than
3,000 vertical feet or peaks reached by traversing involving less than 3,000' re-gain. For an example of standards
I place on myself for bagging two peaks in a day see Antero/Tabeguache or Sunlight/Windom trip reports.
HOME