Talk:Adirondack Forty-Sixers

Peak-bagging

If you so feel the need to include your opinion that 46ers are peakbaggers, please label it as such. Some people would agree with you, however others would take offence. Please qualify this information. --Jowe 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Any organization that requires that you climb a set list of mountains to join is a peakbagging organization. It is not an opinion; it is a fact. No one I know takes offense to the term. Daniel Case 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If all moops are meeps, are all meeps moops? As it is now, the wording is more agreeable - and I don't really care all that much to fight down shades of grey.

The way it was worded the first time "peak-bagging hikers" made it sound like "peak-bagging" was derogatory, like "f'in hikers". Some 46ers are just peak-baggers. But my friends and I have disparagingly called people peak-baggers, as they weren't out to enjoy nature - just out to get the patch. I've had 7 or so left for about 6 years and would not like to be labeled a peakbagger. --Jowe 05:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on your definition of peak-bagging. I have to drive 3hrs to get to the closest trailhead, so yeah... I'm going for the top. Still, that doesn't stop me, or other "peak-baggers" from enjoying the view we get before we get there, and when we get to the top we're pretty tired, so we relax. Many peak baggers re-climb the same peak numerous times, either out of necessity or simply *gasp* for the view. I guess you can think of it as the word 'pimp' whereas it used to be a derogatory term, and now it's not. There really has to be some sort of definition of peak-bagger before people can start debating whether its offensive or not. Ghostalker 04:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a shout out to Daniel down there, I'll see you back on the forum. -Tuchov

In the third paragraph of Origins, I changed "up any of the peaks" to "up many of the peaks." When the Marshalls were climbing in the 1920s, there were trails up Dix, Marcy, Algonquin, Whiteface, Giant, Sawteeth, Colvin, and many other high peaks. There were roads up Whiteface and Giant. Verplanck Colvin cut a trail up Dix in 1871, but there was a trail there earlier, as well as trails up Hough and Marcy, that had been cut the owners of the Elk Lake Lodge. Where there weren't trails, there were often logging roads. The entire Boquet River Valley had been lumbered, for example, and many early hikers describe following sled trails up to the summits.

In "46ers Today," I deleted a reference to Adirondack Peeks as the club newsletter. It is the club magazine. The newsletter is a separate publication.--daniel eagan, 3/30/06

Notability

Has this club received any outside coverage that would make it notable? No claims are presented... — Scientizzle 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right now, I can say yes, but I don't have any articles or anything on me. I'll go searching though, as I remember they've been in the papers numerous times for their trail work, volunteering, and educational workshops. Ghostalker 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/msscfa/pr/sc19467.pdf

http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/Phil%20Brown%20Book%20Review.pdf

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/LIVING/304060001/1004/NEWS05

The first one is a notice of records stored in the NYS main library in Albany, which states the history and founding of the organization. The second link is actually a reference to a recently published book, that follows in the footsteps of the original 46ers (Google: Bob Marshall). The third link is a newspaper article (April 6, 2007) about a woman who started hiking in the high-region, got attacked by dogs, and still worked to complete the 46, then went on for the winter tour of duty. I think all of those links add to the clubs notoriety, and I wish they had been posted when the article went up, rather then when theres talk of deletion in the air. Ghostalker 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed future event text

I am moving the following material to the talk page; if/when it actually transpires, it can be moved back to the article. I have pulled an inline ext link--

In 2007, 46ers Rich McKenna and Kevin MacKenzie created a 46 Benefit Traverse (one continuous hike (route) over the 46 High Peaks) spanning nine days. It was created as both a personal challenge as well as benefit for Crouse Hospital Neonatal Unit in Syracuse, New York in support of the Aidan and Allyson McKenna Memorial Fund. Hike logistics include daily mileage ranges anywhere between 14 to 26 miles per day with between about 5,000 to 11,500 feet of daily vertical gain/loss. Mileage includes trails, bushwhacks and slides and focuses on non-traditional routes using bushwhacks and slides whenever possible. No vehicle or trail support was planned at any point. The Post Standard stated on May 20, 2007 that, "The ardous trip will take between 150-200 miles, with 66,000 feet of ascent and descent." The first attempt failed in July of 2007 and a subsequent attempt is schedule for later in 2008.

--Mwanner | Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Records?

I note there is no mention of the various successful attempts to set a time record for climbing all 46. That struck me as odd. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

First the 4,000 ft peaks, then the 4,000 ft peaks?

Can someone who knows please clarify this portion of section "Origins"?

They initially planned to climb only the summits above 4,000 feet (1,200 m), of which there were 42, and did so between 1918 and 1924. They climbed the 4,000 ft (1,200 m) mountains later, on the suggestion of friends.

The distinction between "summits above 4,000 ft" and "4,000 ft mountains" makes no sense unless four of the peaks were at one time thought to be exactly 4,000 ft. Even if that guess is correct, there needs to be supporting language somewhere explaining it. The current high peaks list elevations don't explain the statement, and the later statement that "more recent surveys have shown that four of these peaks are actually lower than 4,000 feet" implies that all four were believed to be 4,000 ft or more at the time of listing, and thus the problem statement isn't about them.

I can't find any outside information guiding me to a correction. The history shows that the problem statement was entered 02:05, 31 March 2005 by an IP-only guest user, so just asking isn't going to work.

Does anyone know enough to go find the answer? Esobocinski (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Official" Adirondack 46 are those peaks listed as being 4000 feet or over in Verplanck Colvin's survey of the 1870s and 1880s. Covlin did remarkably well given the lack of GPS and laser sights... but he did make a few mistakes. With better equipment we now know that a few of the peaks are actually under 4000 (and McNaughton peak, which is exactly 4000 ft, should have been listed, but wasn't). Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)