Crocks as primary hiking footware.

I've been a fan of slip-in/clog type shoes for over a decade now. I wore my crocs till I literally forced myself to throw them out….the soles became filled thorns, metal pieces etc.
More importantly, the limited traction they came with new had long since faded away.

I used these for all kinds of work, chores, etc…as i've done with other clogs.

I know people use these as 'camp shoes' as well..

all that said i'd be crazy to take these hiking…you get a little wet or slippery terrain and watch out!

I wouldn't think it would be the best choice of hiking footwear, but I did run into a Thru Hiker on the AT in Shenandoah National Park last year that had hiked 900 miles in Crocs.

My family spends a lot of time in the water (creeks, lakes) when we backpack so we bring crocks because they protect our feet well, weigh very little and dry super fast. But as a hiking shoe… I don't think so. Not enough protection any way you measure it.

last march i spent ten days on the green river through canyonlands national park and wore my crocs the whole time including a three night backpack up water canyon and into the maze as well as a whole lot of scrambling and aside from the frequent pebble sneaking in they were amazing. no blisters. great for wading and a really nice grip while climbing. they did wear down quite a bit but very comfortable. and they float.

With an UL pack, they work surprisingly well. After my light-ish boots killed my feet and blistered 'em badly, I hiked about 10 miles one day in not-crocs. My fakes had "comfort massaging nubs" on the footbed, which turned out to be "discomfort blister inducers," particularly in the toe area. Not all "not-crocs" or crocs are made that way, though. What I found surprising was how well I could hike in them; they even had great grip on rock, nice cushion. I did wear socks. My pack at that point in the trip was probably only around 16-20 pounds wet, though…

Thanks for the insight guys. I'm optimistic they are a very feasible option in the right conditions. I think the traction comes with the softer sole. They may not have virbrim super soles … but they do bend around surfaces and grip good enough for me. They have a barefoot walking quality.

I'd like to see a backpacking specific model tuned to hold out debris. They'd honestly be a great, very lightweight option. I've only heard of people being surprised at how comfortable they are to hike in. Save the blister thing above, most Croc-style sandals have a flat inner surface.

I guess this question came after passing 9 people on a recent trip all with crocs dangling from their packs. I don't buy into the … trail shoes and campsite shoes thing.

I have hiked in mine when there was multiple water crossings one after another. It works well. They are more durable than one might think – and very comfy on tired feet.

As for camp shoes? For me it depends on the trail. When we have lots of water crossings yes, I carry them. It just works for me. No water crossings and usually they stay home.

What didn't work for me was hiking in Chaco sandals once – they shredded the top of my feet. I wear them everywhere else but not the trail!

For last two-three years, I've used Crocs Georgie BOOTS as my primary footwear, whether hiking, kayaking or out with kids. But only in temperatures below 50F (September to May in Finland). They are just plain great in snow.
Due to wide short shaft, they breathe way better than traditional rubber boots. And weight 20oz a pair. 1500 miles seems to be the limit in my use. Have to resole old ones with ShoeGoo or Liquisole, + bought a new pair while they are still available.
What I love on a hike is the evening routine: Find campsite by a lake, wash feet socks and boots, hang socks to dry, put boots back on bare feet and relax.

Note that crocs material is easily heat molded.