Thru-hiking with a 3 month old baby?

>Condescending people in this thread.

>If you are a worrier you can always put your kid in a padded room until they are an adult.

Sigh. More comments aimed at the person and not the argument, which is a serious one since it potentially effects the safety of children.

So be it. I've had my say, and I am outa here.

Stargazer

P.S. I think the gent with the three-year-old is doing exactly the right thing at exactly the right time for the child in exactly the right way.

So long.

Stargazer,

I respect you greatly and think you add amazing insight and value not only on backpacking but real life as well.

I was trying to make the point that if harm-reduction is the number one goal for an infant, keeping them out of a motor vehicle should be of highest priority. Based on my experiences, most people with infants put their child in this sort of risk situation frequently without giving it a second thought due to the perceived safety of a child seat.

I apologize for being so brash and dismissive to other peoples viewpoints.

Be well,
Jay

A long, long time ago my parents cross-country skiied with me in a kid-carry pack around 6 months old, IIR the stories correctly. Much day-hiking that way. Wouldn't have had it any other way, glad to have had it.

I was thinking about the debate on this thread and realized that from my perspective: The chances of me making a mis-step over the course of hiking 150 miles are pretty decent–much greater than getting in a wreck while driving the same distance.

At it's root, I would think "either" "side" of the debate could find agreement that ultimately it's about cognizance and foresight.

Sorry Brad,
my position is not either side:
firstly hike your own hike, even with your own child, if it is cared for.
Second if the trip is child enhancing, do take your child even somewhere as dangerous as a car trip or a ski trip or a long walk in a wonderful place. Which of these is most dangerous is a side issue.

>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.

That's not actually logic, John. That's called a strawman argument. "Children aboard airplanes," "children in cars," etc. is not the same thing as a three month old infant in a sling being lugged through the mountains. Tell me how the risks are the same and I'll let you call your "locked up in a bunker" conclusion a logical reply to my argument.

I think some may be missing my point here. Nobody is saying children should be locked up in padded rooms. What I'm saying is that infants should be treated with especial care. Infants. James mentioned that he has a three year old daughter, but that's not relevant. A three year old can hold her head up, walk on her own, eat solid foods, communicate a wide variety of needs like: when she is uncomfortable, thirsty, in pain, and so forth. A three month old infant can pretty much only cry, and is entirely subject to the whims of its caregivers. A three month old infant is a very fragile being with a special diet and a fundamental lack of basic motor skills.

My dad took me camping when I was a little kid too. I'm not saying it's bad to take kids into the woods/mountains, what have you. If anything it was a good thing for me and my family. What I'm saying is that before a certain age, however, it's far too risky. Before a certain age, it is a bad thing. I'm not going to pretend to "prescribe" a single age since that's idiotic: all children develop at different rates and in any case we haven't specified a single activity. However, a child who can't even hold its own head up or communicate the difference between "fussy," "thirsty" and "in pain" is clearly too young to be taken so far away from the safety net of home for an extended period of time.

Since a child that young isn't going to remember anything from what it did at that age anyway, what's to come from the whole ordeal? Could the risks be worth something? The parents were able to go on their long-awaited hike without postponing it a year or paying the money to hire a nanny. Is this on a higher level than ensuring the safety of a newborn? Bonding was mentioned. Certainly they can do just as much bonding at home as they could in the mountains, though. I can't accept that this was the only way they could bond with their child. Ultimately this is why I say that the whole ordeal amounts to nothing more than selfishness on the part of the parents.

Hi Art,
This was a life enhancing trip for Flora. Look at the photos of her smile, read the trip report. You would have her miss this experience just in case she had an accident. I do not think you are in a position to dictate this although your langauge shows you want to. There are more important things in a baby's life than small well judged risks. Like: being with her parents, being in an interesting environment, being held. Anyway In the first instance it is for her parents to judge risk not you. I think you should stop your criticism!

Hi Derek-
That was exactly my point. We are saying the same thing in different ways. Perhaps I could have been more eloquent.

Let me try my argument this way:

I would guess that the probability of this infant experiencing a serious injury or death on the trip was equal to or less than the probability of an average American infant in the course of an average American Family's day. (i.e. – getting driven back-and-forth to daycare, to the grocery store, to grandma's house, etc.)

The difference imo is society accepts one risk, because they're all doing it too, and takes exception with the other.

It's no different imo than the people who are critical toward people who rock climb or do outdoors stuff solo while they are busy stuffing their face with Big Mac's, and Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and smoking, and doing other things that are actually far more likely to end their life at an early age.

I don't know, I could be wrong I suppose. It's only my opinion after all.

Hi Brad,
i can tell you are your parents child and all the better for it, we think the same

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, Derek, even if you do presume to use it to dictate what's best for someone else's child.

>This was a life enhancing trip for Flora. Look at the photos of her smile, read the trip report.

I'm sorry? Who is Flora and when did she write the trip report? I read the trip report and it didn't sound like it was written by anybody named Flora. I remember reading something about a baby crying throughout the night, a pair of parents getting special treatment from inn keepers due to a crying baby… Hmm…

>I do not think you are in a position to dictate this although your langauge shows you want to.

I do believe that I'm in a position to express my opinion in a non inflammatory way on a semi-public forum. I have no emotional interest in these people's lives. How could I? I've never met them.

That said, it would be short-sighted to dismiss the issue as a matter of "the parents know best." That would be entirely ignoring the existence of parents who are negligent and the child welfare organizations in place in many developed countries to combat this. Now, I don't believe Nick and his wife are negligent. Don't quote me in saying that because I won't. I just want to acknowledge the existence of negligent parents to point out that not all parents do know what's best for their child, particularly new parents. This is why we're having this discussion.

>There are more important things in a baby's life than small well judged risks.

The point of all my posts in this thread has been that "small" and "well-judged" are absolutely NOT appropriate adjectives for these risks.

>Like: being with her parents, being in an interesting environment, being held.

Since when do you have to be in the mountains to fulfill these requirements?

>The difference imo is society accepts one risk, because they're all doing it too, and takes exception with the other.

I see your point, but I still disagree. The difference, imo, is at least twofold. On the one hand, medical attention is very close at hand when at home; while, in the mountains, medical attention is not close at hand. Since infants are so fragile, the importance of this difference is highly inflated until the child grows older.

On the other hand, an infant can not communicate his or her basic needs. This is also important, not just because of the infant, but because it's basic protocol for any outdoor group activity.

Add those two factors together and you have a situation where any number of problems could afflict the child and he or she would be unable to say just what's wrong; thus leaving the parents to guess, which may result in waiting until the problem has become too severe and it's too late. Of course there's always the looming risk of freak accidents (falling down, loose rock falling from above, etc.) which should never be taken for granted in situations where something as simple as stumbling over a root could mean exposing the back of the child's head to a sharp rock even upon regaining balance.

Hello Art,
I do not dictate I insist on peoples right to hike their own hike. You can tell the difference.
If you have really read the report you can tell Flora was happy 99% of the time, she was also interested and stimulated. This was good for her development. Whether she remembers it in the future or not is not the point. A baby's intelligence, confidence etc. etc is formed in the early years not just the ones she remembers.
You vastly overestimate the dangers, but my point is that your criticism is too harsh for the situation anyway.

>Whether she remembers it in the future or not is not the point. A baby's intelligence, confidence etc. etc is formed in the early years not just the ones she remembers.

Early years, yes. Early months, not so much. IMO there are other, better, things to do for a child in the early months.

We traveled, camped and hiked with our kids from early on. You know, we (humanity) have been hiking with kids for MILLENIA. As I've said, "kids with handles."

Of course some common-sense concern should be shown for rough terrian and the possibility of big falls, really dangerous weather like lightning, etc.

40,000 people die in automobile accident severy year in the US, so I'll wager your child has more risk in gettting to the trail head as oppsed to on the trail.

One of the best things you can do for kids is to take care of their parents. The peace and recreation from a little wilderness travel is a GOOD thing for stressed-out parents and travel of all kinds does so much for kids. Mine made it to woods and ocen and the major cites of the US and Europe before they finished elementary school and I know they are better people for it. It is far better to start travel with a "babe in arms" than a toddler, I can bet you big $$$ on that!

> What I'm saying is that before a certain age, however, it's far too risky.
>Before a certain age, it is a bad thing.
Without any supporting statistics being quoted, this claim cannot be anything other than a personal value judgement. That's fine of course, and I fully support the right of anyone to make personal value judgements. We all do that, all the time.

But it seems to me that honesty requires that we make sure that our judgements are acknowledged as being OUR judgements, with no absolute values. It also seems to me that it would be wrong for one person to try to force his (or her) value judgements on another person.

The corollary of this is that you will inevitably go to hell. You see, there are so many incompatible religions out there, and each individual one is adamant that unless you believe in that individual you are damned. So whatever religion you profess, the majority of religions (all but one) have you as a damned sinner. Cute.

> However, a child who can't even hold its own head up or communicate the difference
> between "fussy," "thirsty" and "in pain" is clearly too young to be taken so far
> away from the safety net of home
There are several flaws in this argument.
First, ask a mother whether she can tell the difference between those three things in her baby. Betcha!
Second, what has holding her head up got to do with the needs mentioned? Not very much imho.
Third, what makes you think that home represents a 'safety net'? Statistics show that a HUGE percentage of accidents happen at home.
Fourth, what makes you think that 'home' has all that much better access to medical support than the Pyrenees? How many Americans have ZERO medical support because the hospitals won't accept them – maybe because they have no insurance? Or the doctor is too busy to visit. Or …

> What I'm saying is that infants should be treated with especial care.
> Could the risks be worth something?
Look at the picture of Fany and Flora smiling.

Underlying all this debate is the assumption that perfect safety is possible. It isn't, nowhere and never. But it seems that parts of society want to believe otherwise (and will sue when things don't work out that way). We live with risk all our lives – and still get to die at the end.

Cheers

Normalize the data.

If the number of infants going on a three month thru hike, was equivalent to the number of infants that travel in a car, I suspect that the thru hike would prove to be far more dangerous to the infant.

>The corollary of this is that you will inevitably go to hell.

How lovely.

"Anyway In the first instance it is for her parents to judge risk not you."

+5

The parents are the ones who will have to live with the consequences if something goes awry with the dearest thing in their entire existence, for the remainder of their days and, some would have us think, eternity as well. So, trust them to evaluate the risks very carefully, indeed, wish them godspeed, and tend to evaluating the risks in your own lives.

"The 3-month-old baby did not and cannot choose to hike or not to hike. The parents made the choice, IMO, incorrectly".

Correctly/incorrectly is not an absolute value here, my friend. yes, parents make many every-day choices ("incorrectly"?) of whether or not to send a kid to a particular school (where they can be shot), join a football team (where they can get concussions), play with plastic toys (cancer) and eat at fast food joints (a number of bad things). The point is kids make very little choices, and for a good reason. The parents are the ones who make the majority of choices falling back on their own experiences, skill level, and goals; and they are ultimately responsible. By only putting your kid into a sterile environment can you avoid all the potential bad outcomes.

"I hope and pray that others will not use the good outcome to replicate the hike, no matter what their level of experience."

First lets keep prayers for ourselves. I'm sure there is a huge laundry list you want to get done with before moving on to that of others. Second, the others will make up their own mind – no need for anyone what they need or not need do based on your own frame of reference.

".. the effects of even a simple fall by the mother could have disastrous consequences for the child, even if the mother remained uninjured."

An uncoordinated overweight mother can fall walking up the stairs if not careful – shall we test all the mothers in the world if they pass your reasoning and take their children away if not? or should we adjust our "opinions" to the situation, and say she wasn't doing anything that extreme for her own skill level, and prudent enough to turn back when she assessed the risks are high?

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

That child depended on mother's coordination, not her own. At no age (of childhood) would that child's motor coordination exceed that of her mom! mute point.

…now I want to challenge EVERY person who can't bite their tongues but show their great intelligence and understanding of world statistic, child rearing, and logical reasoning: what have YOU personally done for improving the children safety around YOUR neighborhood? How many children that are HUNGRY have YOU fed? How many who are COLD kids have YOU invited to your house? My impression is that you are all so smart online to give advice but have no clue in real life.

My word!

"Burns" gave a VERY heartfelt opinion when ASKED by the OP for opinions. In fact, the OP even asked if people thought it responsible. Whether or not I agree with him, I thought it very touching that Stargazer felt such obvious anguish in sharing his opinion.

I find it a bit disheartening that we can't simply share our opinion (even when asked!) without others feeling the need to attack opinions (or, too often, the people who offered the opinion) with which they don't agree instead of simply offering their own, either in agreement or in rebuttal. And when the attack isn't enough, throw in hyperbole to boot.

~Sigh~

"…now I want to challenge EVERY person who can't bite their tongues but show their great intelligence and understanding of world statistic, child rearing, and logical reasoning: what have YOU personally done for improving the children safety around YOUR neighborhood? How many children that are HUNGRY have YOU fed? How many who are COLD kids have YOU invited to your house? My impression is that you are all so smart online to give advice but have no clue in real life."

(SNARL) I HAVE actually DONE quite (HISS) a BIT to help KIDS in my AREA. I have (ROAR) HELPED FEED them, CLOTHE them, EDUCATE, them, (SPIT) MENTOR them..it's MY JOB. (SNARL)

And, I'm actually just as smart OFFLINE!

Ok, sorry…
this is getting pretty silly folks.

One of the defining experiences of being a parent is that other parents make different decisions.

It looks like a great trip. I can't quite tell how long they went for, maybe two weeks, and that seems to me much more realistic than 3 months. Not because of the risk on any given day, but for the logistics. They made the decision to cut it short, which seemed reasonable, and had a great time.

.

"allright… continue."

Chuckle….

Well said Dave.