Thru-hiking with a 3 month old baby?

[Marek Janda]

Will we get some report how did it go? I guess at least some people are considering doing something similar and would welcome some info.

[Erin McKittrick]

Good for you!
As a fellow adventurer-with-baby, I too am curious how it went. I shudder to think what the folks on this thread will think of my own plan next summer to spend a month in the remote arctic with an 18 month old. But as a society, our calculation of risk is often less than rational and tinged with emotions and paranoia.

[Sarah Kirkconnell]

Erin…it is more that the majority of people don't have the ability to handle both the wilds and a small infant/toddler.

Bluntly, you have the knowledge for what you are doing – and taking the child along isn't a burden. But if you had never done this kind of traveling before? Then it does become something scary. Let us imagine you had lived in a city your whole life and decided that going and living in the wilds would be a great adventure – then yes, people would be right in being paranoid ;-) They'd be worried for both you and the child.

I can say for myself that I dragged my son along with me plainly not knowing any better, when he was little. I look back now and realize that not every decision I made was good. We were fortunate in that no one was ever hurt badly. Not every child adapts well to the wilds. While mine was fine I see friends who have kids that just are not made for that kind of life. At the same time, I also pushed MY agenda on him – one reason I have backed off a bit in the past couple years of hauling him with me. I realzied that he had to have the choice. And due to that….it is working.

I am pregnant currently and one thing I found this time is I have found my level of comfort has gone up considerably. Once I knew I was I quit hiking in overly hot weather, no river fords, no snowshoeing in avy prone areas this winter – that kind of thing. Will I hike with this one? Of course. But I would hedge I won't be dragging him behind me on a trail in December, in sub freezing temps – simply becuase I have some need to be outside.

The good thing is kids have the ability to force parents to change if they cannot handle it. So it does usually level out before things can turn bad.

[Mary D]

Guess what? While we've been speculating here, Nick's excellent trip report has been posted! http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/babyonboard.html

[Larry De La Briandais]

Well, personally, I think its nuts. For reference, my wife had to talk me into taking our 4 week old daughter camping in a Motorhome! It turned out just fine, but I was hesitant.

One thing I don’t see you mentioning (maybe you did and I missed it) is something to give the baby a bath in. I wouldn’t want to rely on wipes. We had a little blowup bath tub (with a duck head in the front) that our daughter used at home for a long time. Something like that would be light enough and pack small enough. It would allow you to heat up some water for a warm bath. The one we used even had a temp strip in the bottom that warned you if the water was too hot.

Being flexible is probably one of the most important things, right after being prepared. Not pushing on when something is just not quite right with the baby will help keep things from getting out of control.

Good luck. :-)

Guess I should have read to the end BEFORE posting. Oh well…

[Thomas Burns]

Apparently, this hike went off without incident, so my comments below might end up sounding silly. So be it. Also, I'm getting into the discussion late. (Sorry, missed it when it came up the first time.)

Let me say ahead of time that sometimes posts such as this can end up sounding chiding or paternal or angry. This is not my intent, and I apologize if it ends up sounding that way. My intent is sincere. My comments are from the heart.

Taking a newborn on a hike is a bad idea for all the reasons that have been expressed in previous posts here: the possibility of bad weather, nutritional issues, inaccessibility to immediate medical care, etc.

The fact is, the chance of something going dangerously wrong is small. But when you consider that a three-month old can barely hold up its own head, the consequences of something going wrong are great indeed.

When my daughter was young, I carried her on my shoulders until she was three. Only once did I fall — on my glutei. She wasn't injured, but she's 25 now and she still tells the story — it changed our relationship. I wasn't the invincible protector/ "The Dad" anymore. She never let me carry her on my shoulders again.

Of course, a three-month-old won't remember a fall. However, a few years back, I took three weeks to walk the AT in Virginia and Maryland. My trail name in my youth was Goatfoot. I am a nimble guy. And yet, on a simple flat stretch of trail and using two hiking poles, I fell flat on my face and chest, hard enough to crack a rib.

When I think of the consequences to a fragile newborn or nearly newborn, shivers go up my spine.

I'm glad the hike went well. I just hope that those who try to replicate it will consider the consequences, however remote, of attempting to replicate it.

One more thing, which I do not mean to sound too critical: If I had the words "BPL staff" associated with my name, I would think three times before I recommended such activities so potentially dangerous to a small child. By virtue of your position, your word carries a good deal of weight. Please, please consider the consequences of your advice.

Sincerely, with apologies, and getting off my soapbox (and hesitating hard before I post this),

Stargazer

[Art Sandt]

I have stated already in this thread that what these hikers had planned was incredibly selfish, and seeing that their infant survived the trip doesn't change that. It was selfish to expose a newborn to anything other than the comfort of a crib in the critical first months of its life just so the parents could "connect with nature." I'd like to hope that Nick knows now why he was warned so sternly when he originally proposed his escapade.

[Erin McKittrick]

"It was selfish to expose a newborn to anything other than the comfort of a crib in the critical first months of its life"

I think that quote is one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time. Babies thrive on interaction – with their parents, with other people, with the world (nature included). Throughout history, babies have been worn everywhere by their parents – part of whatever the family's activities are. These people thought carefully about their trip, planned for the safety and enjoyment of all three participants, reacted appropriately to changing conditions, and had a great trip! And yet, people still come here to criticize.

How selfish is driving your children in cars? Merely to make your life more convenient? And really, what's wrong with a bit of selfishness? Parents need to love, protect and care for their children. Life will inevitably need to change after their birth. But it's not healthy (for anyone in the family) if the adults to give up their lives based on an out-of-proportion paranoia.

[Sarah Kirkconnell]

Let me add a couple things that changed my take on kids in the outdoors versus what I wanted. It took me many years to realize some dumb things –

#1: Fording a swollen creek in spring. With a kid on my hip. I fell, dropping said child in the creek, on his back. All I could do was grab him and throw him to the other side. It took me a good couple minutes to get out of the creek – my leg went in between 2 boulders. While I had extra clothing for HIM, I did not and was wet nearly all over. Very stupid. This was when said child was 3 1/2.

#2: Teaching him to snowshoe. At 5 he decided to not listen on a relatively steep slope. He freaked (as kids will do) and fell. THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED HIM was the tether system I had developed that connected him to me. I was nearly taken down as well, but had enough time to plant in. He was head first in the snow when my husband grabbed him out within seconds.

#3: Fording rivers backwards with him. He did quite well on this one actually. Partially due to being 11 at the time. He wanted me to hold his hand and show him where to put his feet.

Over the years I have used near bullying to get him to move when he is afraid, barking orders like a drill sergeant. Oh sure, it was just grand that he could do snow fields at 5 I am sure – and hey, he even had crampons at that age. Was that sensible? I think no now.

I have come to realize I asked too much and that at times I only wanted what I wanted. Little kids may be able to take it, but neither do they enjoy being in cold, wet weather. Or slogging in 102* temps to only be bitten 150+ times by mosquitoes. No kid enjoys having a diaper changed when it is 32* out and blowing a cold wind!

Take your children but do it thoughtfully. Realize that they do have limits and that often what we want is NOT realistic.

Being in a warm and cozy house for the first couple months is not abusive – it is a sign that the parents only want the best. More so, enjoy the time when the child is young – it goes so fast. You have plenty of time when they are older and can actually enjoy being out there (such as the teens – they are strong, can hold a great conversation and make excellent partners.) I am not saying don't take them at all, but DO consider the very real risks.

[Sarah Kirkconnell]

PS: I cannot think of ANYTHING better than snuggling for a couple months with an infant in a safe place. One of my friends doesn't leave her house for a month after each baby. And that is just perfect. No one with cooties touching the baby either! No one coughing on the baby.

I'd have given anything to have done that with my son when he was born. The boy and the husband can go shopping, run errands. They can do stuff without me. When this little one comes I plan on parking my butt in the house for the first month and baby sniffing till my nose plugs up.

[Dave T]

.

[Roger Caffin]

> > "It was selfish to expose a newborn to anything other than the comfort of a crib
> > in the critical first months of its life"
> I think that quote is one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time.
I have to agree 110% with Erin.

After all, for maybe more than 50% of the world, babies don't even get to see a crib. They spend most of the day being carried by their mothers, in the field. One has to be somewhat insular in outlook to think that your way of bringing up children is the ONLY possible (or responsible) way.

Let's get real here. We have a mother (Fany) who is an experienced outdoors guide going walking in a quite civilised part of Europe with her first baby, with her experienced guide/husband in support. Does anyone REALLY think that Fany (mother) would be anything other than 99% focused on the well-being of her baby? GET REAL!

In fact it has often been observed that a mother looking after her baby is one of the most single-minded (and potentially lethal) things on the planet. Said with a smile, but think about it.

Cheers

[Art Sandt]

>>"It was selfish to expose a newborn to anything other than the comfort of a crib in the critical first months of its life"

>I think that quote is one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time.

My friend, yours and mine must be very different worlds.

>"Throughout history…"

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. Throughout history, my friend, infant mortality has been a matter of course; not a matter of exception like it is today. The reason infant mortality is so low today is because of a better understanding of what a baby needs to stay healthy, which is safety, comfort, and proper access to medical attention. Did you think about that before patting ol Nick on the back for taking the risks he did? Didn't think so.

>How selfish is driving your children in cars? Merely to make your life more convenient? And really, what's wrong with a bit of selfishness?

You're right. Driving IS a risk that many mothers try to avoid doing excessively with their newborns (I wonder why?), but driving and hiking hundreds of miles through the mountains are not the same thing. The key difference I'd like to stress here is that driving, while certainly a risk, only exposes the child to danger for a short few minutes/hours of the day. Hiking through the mountains, the child is exposed, not only to the inherent risks of the activity, but to the elements, for ALL DAY LONG.

Your last sentence has the effect on me like you say my post had on you: "What's wrong with a bit of selfishness?" Indeed. What is wrong with it? Why SHOULDN'T life be all about me, me, me? What right does that durn baby have to impose its limitations on me, just because I helped give it life? Why should I define "being responsible" as catering to the baby's unique needs; rather why not define it as forcing the baby to get with the program and fit itself to my life right off the bat?

[Dave T]

.

[Derek Goffin]

I did things like this with my first child. Not so long but I was not so experienced. I am sure I cannot police this thread but This is hike your own hike territory and I think criticism should die now.

[Thomas Burns]

"This is hike your own hike territory"

Sorry, gotta disagree with you here. The 3-month-old baby did not and cannot choose to hike or not to hike. The parents made the choice, IMO, incorrectly despite the (thank goodness!) good outcome. The child is hiking the parents' hike, not its own.

It's worth saying again: I'm glad things turned out well, but I hope and pray that others will not use the good outcome to replicate the hike, no matter what their level of experience.

The chances of things going wrong are small, but the effects of even a simple fall by the mother could have disastrous consequences for the child, even if the mother remained uninjured.

Please, please folks. Wait at least until your children have developed some large motor coordination before you take them on the trail.

Stargazer

[James Patsalides]

What an interesting debate.

My three year old has never been on a wilderness hike, BUT, she and I hike together as much as she can handle, she has trekking poles and a little backpack, and she LOVES using them (just like daddy) in the yard or on our town rails-to-trails routes. I even took her to a state park near us for an afternoon ramble & picnic, and she had a GREAT time…

However, we have a simple rule – she can come hiking with me, but only within the boundaries of what SHE is capable of doing. I will carry her stuff if she gets tired, but I will not routinely carry her.

My hope is that she will become accostomed to the outdoors, love it as she becomes a teenager, and as she gets older and more able to handle more challenging hikes, we'll be able to do more & more together. But, by our rules, this is HER choice and SHE will set the pace of our hiking. If she chooses not to embrace the outdoors, it'll be HER choice, not mine!

[Derek Goffin]

The parents have the right to hike their own hike , luckily the prescriptive among you have not got the right to stop them.
Stargazer have you found a way to ask a 3 month old whether it wants to be "in a crib" for months on end, probably looking at the same toy? I think you have not. The child perforce has to go with its loving parents which is exactly what should happen. If it gets fed up with sleeping or looking at its parents it can look around at the fascinating ever changing scenery.
My mother told me that she was told in 50's Britain. "If your child is crying, see to its needs, and if it still cries wrap it up and put it in the pram in the garden until it cries itself to sleep". This is not child abuse because the midwife told her to do it. My mother could only bring herself to do that once. My point is you cannot expect other people's children to be brought up perfectly. Good enough is all others can expect. Nick's path is certainly good enough.
Aside from my point, I as a baby, expect I would prefer to be carried through the Pyrenees than left to cry in a pram every day, but parents "look after your own children your way, as long as it is good enough"

Edit for Americans who do not know the conditions, British suburban winters are generally worse than Pyrenean summers even at 2000 metres.

[Thomas Burns]

>Stargazer have you found a way to ask a 3 month old whether it wants to be "in a crib" for months on end, probably looking at the same toy?

Well, yes, exactly. That's my point. It is specious to use the "hike your own hike" argument because the child cannot choose the hike in exactly the same way it cannot choose to stay or not to stay in the crib.

In fact, most cribs are designed to be the safest possible environment. The choice is made for the babe, and it should (not must no one is delivering orders here) it should be made responsibly.

Thus, you are arguing from a false analogy. Babies may develop emotional trauma from staying too long in a crib, but with even minimal attention, the potential of dying there approaches zero. The same cannot be said of an accident or illness on the trail, far, far from the nearest hospital.

The question is, is it a good choice. Nobody is being prescriptive here. (Can you say, argument ad hominem?) The original post asked for advice. It got replies on both sides.

My concern is that other parents will make similar decisions based on the success of that hike. Any logician will tell you that one case does not generate a general principle. In this case, the chances of something going wrong are small, but the consequences are potentially catastrophic. Thus, I advise (and do not prescribe or proscribe) that no one attempt to replicate such a dangerous experience. IMO. IMO. Those of us who argue this side could be wrong, but god help the child (nothing else can) in that one case that we are not.

Sorry about the repetitions, but I honestly think that you aren't responding directly to the arguments.

Stargazer

[John Brochu]

Jeez, between this thread and the one on PLB's I'm wondering if BPL doesn't now stand for Backpacking Lame….

>>>Those of us who argue this side could be wrong, but god help the child (nothing else can) in that one case that we are not.<<<

Seriously, I don't understand this logic. What about the thousands of children that board airplanes each day bound for Disney World. Certainly, the chances of death are minimal but greater than say, staying locked up in bunker at home or maybe even greater than taking a hike through Europe with mommy and daddy.

We can't and shouldn't live our lives sheltering ourselves and our loved ones from every possible tiny little threat of death.

And as far as the guy that says driving in a car can't be compared to hiking because you're only in a car for short time periods. You need to brush up on probability theory.

[Derek Goffin]

Stargazer I see where you are coming from. If you are just giving advice I have no objection to your position. I just disagree with your position. Children should not be brought up in the safest possible way at all costs, the best upbringing in my opinion(trying to avoid being prescriptive)is to be given interaction, stimulation,touch and love within a reasonably safe environment.

Sounds like it could be the Pyrenees to me

[Thomas Burns]

>Seriously, I don't understand this logic. What about the thousands of children that board airplanes each day bound for Disney World. Certainly, the chances of death are minimal but greater than say, staying locked up in bunker at home or maybe even greater than taking a hike through Europe with mommy and daddy.
>We can't and shouldn't live our lives sheltering ourselves and our loved ones from every possible tiny little threat of death.
>And as far as the guy that says driving in a car can't be compared to hiking because you're only in a car for short time periods. You need to brush up on probability theory.

Nope. Sorry. This one won't go. We recognize the dangers of being in a car, so we minimize those dangers with specially designed car seats, etc. It's tough to minimize the danger of a frontwards fall to a child when it is strapped to your front.

As for the airplane, crashes do rarely occur, but the probability of any one flyer being involved in a crash approaches zero just because the airlines take extraordinary steps to ensure safety. The chances of a fall or illness on a hike are much greater. Three-month-olds can barely hold up their heads. I can protect their delicate necks from turbulence with a car seat in an airplane. A front baby carrier provides far less protection in case of a fall on the trail.

Stargazer

P.S. As for the "Backpacking Lame" comment, that's also an argument ad hominem.

[j lan]

This thread is the most serious car crash ever.

Oh and speaking of car crashes, it is one of the top ways your baby can die. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/Images/LC-Charts/10lc%20-Unintentional%20Injury%202006-7_6_09.jpg

Condescending people in this thread.

[Jonathan DeYoung]

its all a matter of opinion and each one of us is entitled to that.

I for one am glad that the baby is safe and happy from what I can tell appears to be a big smile in some of those pictures.

As a father of 3 I can only say that when my kids are smiling like she is in those pics… it means they are happy, loved, and life is good! Once the warmer weather roles back into the northeast I will be on the trails with my not so SUL 1 year old on my back :)

EDIT:(warning and a semi silly thought here)
If you are a worrier you can always put your kid in a padded room until they are an adult.

[John Brochu]

>>>As for the airplane, crashes do rarely occur, but the probability of any one flyer being involved in a crash approaches zero just because the airlines take extraordinary steps to ensure safety.<<<

I will respond to this with your very own argument…

>>>Those of us who argue this side could be wrong, but god help the child (nothing else can) in that one case that we are not.<<<

[Author]

Posts