Peak Bagging Achievment

[ILUVSWTAS]

height isnt that relevant, maybe if you're a dwarf, good climbers are good climbers be thy five foot or six foot

We are talking bushwalking here, not climbing. Not too many mountains in Tassie that require climbing....

I think being short has many advantages over a taller walker. Alot of the famous historic walkers in the past have all been short stocky fellows.

[wayno]

shorter legs are an advantage on hills. something about the ergonomics and efficiency . the best hill runners dont tend to be long legged some of them are quite short.

[doogs]

It's also easier for short people to follow wombat pads through scrub

[north-north-west]

For someone who has just finished a 6 week bushwalking holiday to Tasmania you certainly whinge NNW It must've been awful spending all that time roaming the state without a care in the world, only thinking of where to go next...and after the summer we had down here....I am very very jealous

Here I am, trying to make life easier for others, and I get accused of whinging. Honestly, why do I even try?
Besides, you've probably already done everything I did, and there were plenty of cares. Weather, scrub, weather, snakes, leeches, mozzies, people, weather . . .

[Tortoise]

Here I am, trying to make life easier for others, and I get accused of whinging. Honestly, why do I even try?

Hey NNW, you encouraged me!

height isnt that relevant, maybe if you're a dwarf, good climbers are good climbers be thy five foot or six foot

Absolutely, no argument. BUT... If you have 30 - 60cm more effective reach, there are many more options for hand holds and foot holds, so much more leeway for being a below average rock scrambler.

Not too many mountains in Tassie that require climbing....

Technically yes, Iluv. However, it's the getting up the boulders, whatever you like to call it, that is likely to stop me from reaching many of the most classic summits. (Fitness is another issue for the Eldons etc as well ).

I think many 'mountain leapers' don't even notice little things that can stop me. I even needed help figuring out where to put my feet coming down one bit of the van dyke boulders for goodness sake! If i'd had about an extra 30cm reach from hand to toes, it would have been a total non-issue.

But don't get me wrong - i'm hugely grateful for what I can do, and that I can still enjoy magnificent places that most of the population never get to experience for themselves.

[norts]

What annoys me about having ducks disease is when you climb over a log get, your crutch saturated then look back and watch the 6 footer step over it and not even notice.

Roger

[north-north-west]

What annoys me about having ducks disease is when you climb over a log get, your crutch saturated then look back and watch the 6 footer step over it and not even notice.

Exactly!
Or struggling up steps on such classic routes as the track from Condo Ck to High Camp, because the people who built the things were 6'+ and don't realise that not everyone can take a 2' step with ease.
On the Notch, trying the climb up to Lot, and being stuffed because the handholds are all out of reach, even on tiptoes. It seldom stops me, but it's just that bit harder when you don't have the reach.

[Tortoise]

And creek crossings can be a bummer. Long legs leap effortlessly across raging torrents and deep chasms. Little legs, in the absence of olympic long jumping skills, don't.

On the Notch, trying the climb up to Lot, and being stuffed because the handholds are all out of reach, even on tiptoes. It seldom stops me, but it's just that bit harder when you don't have the reach.

So how do you do it, NNW? Abandon the '3 points of contact' principle, launch out into thin air, and hope for the best?

Lot (and Mt Anne for that matter) is one of the classics that may literally be out of reach for me, though i haven't given up completely yet. (It doesn't help that an avulsion fracture of one ankle never healed properly - missing some ligament doesn't do heaps for my confidence.)

[Tortoise]

On second thoughts, i can probably answer my own question - use 'less secure' holds you can reach.

[north-north-west]

Basically, yes. Use anything that works - bum, knees, elbows, grass and other light vegetation, jump, whatever gets me up and down.
Lot you can do because the climb directly up from The Notch is not essential. The sidle is longer, probably slower, slippery in the wet, but no issues for a shortarse as long as you're careful. Although there are a couple of little bits getting from Shelf Camp to The Notch that might give you more trouble.
Anne I think you could do as long as you had a helping hand, but in dry conditions only. There're plenty of handholds on the most awkward bit. Might want to give the Wife a miss, but. THAT has an interesting start to the climb.

[Tortoise]

all righty. Anne & the circuit - with the right company - is still on my list. Lot's wife never was!

Missed out on attempting Anne summit 3 times - but had the most stunning view of her from shelf camp for about 30 seconds, glowing deep orange in last light, before the reeeeeeally bad weather hit. One of the 'WOW' pictures firmly in my head, decades later.

Oops - I seem to have got a bit off topic...

[north-north-west]

Funny, I uploaded a couple of shots like that to the computer today . . .

[Taurë-rana]

TBH,'the list' has been fantastic for me - I've discovered magnificent places I doubt I would have bothered with if they didn't have a point or two. Love it, love it, love it.

I agree, and it also encourages us to do walks that are a little less straightforward than others giving us the opportunity to learn stuff about ourselves and our navigational and coping under stress abilities...

I'm 5' nothing and have had no problems going up Anne from back and front, or going down The Notch, or climbing Feder, or touching the top of Mt Ossa, etc. I have had only a very occasional leg up. As NNW said though, with a helping hand you should be able to get up anything! I think being able to get up most mountains in Tassie is more about confidence than height. And there are pros and cons with tracks with logs on - being smaller makes it much easier to get under trees, but harder to get over them of course.

Scrub bashing would surely be easier if you are bigger and weightier and stronger, and longer legs means fewer steps on the whole walk so less energy used, and bigger people can carry the same weight more easily, although they probably tend to carry more.

My biggest issue now is sports injuries, and getting cold too easily.

[Tortoise]

'm 5' nothing and have had no problems going up Anne from back and front, or going down The Notch, or climbing Feder, or touching the top of Mt Ossa, etc

BUT, as I said, if you have even 30cm more effective reach, there are many more options for hand holds and foot holds, so much more leeway for being a below average rock scrambler. Which I am.

Often it seems to me just a few cms would make all the difference. Ledges and big chuncky holds just beyond the reach of toes or fingertips - which of course doesn't matter if you don't need those.

If you've got it (and I would class you as an above average scrambler), you've happily got it. I know you'd enjoy standing (and dancing maybe!) on the Claude chockstone just because you can.

There is a huge contrast between Tassie and NSW /VIC, where I easily bagged countless peaks because all I had to do there was WALK!
The occasional tricky bit (i remember the Castle and something in the Warrumbungles maybe), I could usually manage with a little bit of help.

Of course, the rugged rocky peaks here is part of what makes Tassie so special.

I don't think my discussion is getting me anywhere, but in case there's others like me who read this, I understand your frustration!!

[Taurë-rana]

OK, point taken, it would help you with scrambling to be a bit taller. I think that you will improve with practice though. The other option is going back to what you said before, going places with friends who can help you with the hard bits (And hopefully carry all the heavy stuff into the far away peaks...)

[north-north-west]

I could start a new thread, but thought it would be neater to extend this. Anyway, for the powers that be in the peakbagging world, I have a question on a technicality abut claiming points.
The rules say "You have to touch the very tippy-top." Fine, but . . . what happens when you get up there and the highest natural point is covered by a 3 metre high cairn? Like this:

Is it sufficient to touch the sides of the cairn, or does one have to climb to the top of it to claim the point/s, like this?

And if one has to climb the cairns, what about trees? I mean, if the highest point is covered with trees - which is often the case - and, after all, trees are rooted in the ground, so they're as much a part of the mountain as the rocks, so . . . well, you get the picture.

This is a serious query, by the way. Especially on the cairn thing.

[GPSGuided]

LOL! Then Mt Wellington would one hard nut to crack. Who'll get a chance to climb that communication tower?

[north-north-west]

Artificial structures from artificial substances aren't relevant. Cairns are built from loose rock collected from the peaks themselves. It could be argued that they are an intrinsic element of the peak. They often make it impossible to touch the highest natural rock/dirt point. I can see arguments either way and just want to clarify what the ruling is.

The tree thing was really a joke. Mostly.

[stepbystep]

Woods Quoin by the look of it? Nice Wentworth cairn on such a crappy peak....to add to it, when that cairn was built none of the vegetation would have been there.

My personal rules are to touch the highest rock, occasionally there is a highest shrub to pat, but no, climbing trees is ridiculous! Oh, wait, the whole thing is riduculousnessity...set your own rules I say

[north-north-west]

Yes, I was surprised to see such a beautiful cairn there, and in perfect condition. Too many of them have been dismantled to some extent by climbers and vandals, but that one is pristine. Apart from all the birdshit.

Maybe I'm just hoping for a ruling to justify climbing the things . . .

[doogs]

The new rules are that you have to take a 'selfie' within the vicinity of the top, then post it on FB to get your points. Double points for a stupid face and triple for a nude selfie.

[GPSGuided]

466 peaks? That's almost a lifetime worth! Still have time to do anything else in life? How did the successful candidates allocate their time to reach that goal?

[pazzar]

The new rules are that you have to take a 'selfie' within the vicinity of the top, then post it on FB to get your points. Double points for a stupid face and triple for a nude selfie.

I will have to go back and traverse the Eldons nude then.

[north-north-west]

The new rules are that you have to take a 'selfie' within the vicinity of the top, then post it on FB to get your points. Double points for a stupid face and triple for a nude selfie.

I will have to go back and traverse the Eldons nude then.

Hope Dan redoes the Overland video . . . starkers. Would start a whole new form of tourism.

[DanShell]

The new rules are that you have to take a 'selfie' within the vicinity of the top, then post it on FB to get your points. Double points for a stupid face and triple for a nude selfie.

I will have to go back and traverse the Eldons nude then.

Hope Dan redoes the Overland video . . . starkers. Would start a whole new form of tourism.

I hope theirs another Dan on here that has made an OLT video........hahahhahahhahahahha I couldn't imagine me doing a starkers video.....my go pro has no zoom for starters