Are pants really necessary on the PCT?

I hiked without sunblock, so I needed something to keep the sun off my legs. I used convertible pants. I rarely hiked in just the shorts. I did unzip the knees a little bit on some uphills.

There are also lots of sharp things in so cal, so having an extra layer of protection was a nice luxury.

I also hiked through a snow storm that drove a lot of people off the trail at Big Bear and Wrightwood. It was cold and I was glad to have them in the driving wind/snow.

This is coming from someone who hasn't done the pct, but if you don't burn easily I think you could get away with it.
I almost never burn, unless I'm at high altitude where the sun is so much more intense. I tan easily. I've worked entire summers outside in short sleeve shirts with no sunscreen and never burned, but when I hit the high elevations I can get burned easily. If you have never hiked above 10,000 feet, then you don't know how intense it can be. You are much more likely to be burned in the high sierras than the desert. Hiking in the desert will give you a good tan before the high elevation starts.

You will need sunscreen if you are using shorts, a lot of it.

One option is to carry some super thin tights and put those on under your pants if necessary for a little protection.

The real problem is your face/ears/neck. I usually wear a buff balaclava style (high alpine terrorist).

So yes, I think you will be fine in shorts, as long as you don't run out of sunscreen. This is not considering the long term health effects of sun exposure…

just my $0.02 based on my limited experience in the high sierras.

Won't you need long pants to keep the bugs off?

–B.G.–

Just walk fast and set up your shelter asap when you get to camp ;)

Necessary? The answer depends on how tough you are.

Pants Pros:

– sun protection without greasy sunscreen which sucks up trail dirt like a sponge
– abrasion protection (lots of trailside brush, often with thorns)
– insect protection – skeeters can't usually bite through Supplex nylon
– wind protection
– keeps your legs cleaner
– added warmth when temperatures dip – and they will, especially at night in the desert.

Pants Cons:
– heavier than shorts
– hides your legs (can be a pro or a con, depending on how good your legs look)
– greatly inferior to shorts for swimming and water crossings

Frankly, I found that on the PCT, CDT, TRT, and CT, I benefited greatly from long pants and wind shirts. I won't hit any trail without both. It's a whole different world above tree line and out in the sand and/or pumice.

YMMV

That's why God gave us zip-offs :)

Justin,
I've had a little bit of experience with sun exposure at altitude. I agree, it's a whole different ballgame than the lowlands. I should consider the Sierra more in this sun protection plan…

Bob Gross,
Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. I was considering using some very light wind pants for that, but not sure. It's looking like the need for pants might be inevitable here…

Dale,
I've never found a pair of zip-off pants who's "shorts mode" I didn't hate. They always feel like capris to me. Are there any that actually turn into loose, airy shorts? If so, I've never found them. I guess it makes the "pants mode" really weird?

At the last time that I checked, very light wind pants classify as pants.

If you can sew, you can do a Thru-Hiker Liberty Ridge pants kit out of WPB Momentum 90. In my size, they came out at 2.37 ounces, but I don't know if that fits into your weight budget.

–B.G.–

At the last time that I checked, very light wind pants classify as pants.

Bob Gross,
Of course you are right about this, I think I just wasn't very clear initially. When I said pants, I was referring to more traditional hiking pants made out of some supplex-like material that I might need to wear on a daily basis for UV protection alone.

I would only wear extremely lightweight "wind pants" if I was cold or if I was getting attacked by bugs, since these pants wouldn't be that durable or breathable.

So my question was mainly about the need to wear pants on a daily basis for UV protection instead of the issue of not having "pants" at all in my pack at anytime. I will certainly be taking a base layer for my legs (either Cap 2 or 200 weight Merino bottoms) which I suppose could be considered pants in the strictest of senses. It sort of gets into semantics eventually, but hopefully my intent is clearer at this point.

Before this summer I always backpacked with zip-off pants, but like you, I never really like the "shorts mode". This summer, on my Colorado trail thru hike, I made the jump to using light running shorts with Montbell Dynamo wind pants. I was more than pleased with the combo. And considering that the Dynamos weight 2.6 oz (2.1 oz in size small), you'll never regret the weight. I don't find the Dynamos comfortable with regular nylon cargo shorts, but they are extremely comfortable when worn over light running shorts.

When I got the Dynamo's I was pretty worried that they would be fragile considering how thin and light they were. Not to worry. After wearing them every day, while sitting on logs, boulders, or whatever, I found them to be as durable as they are comfortable.

Despite the fact that they are wind pant, the dynamo fabric is much more breathable than most wind shirts. It was no problem for me to hike in them on warmish alpine days.

They might not be everyones cup of tea, but if you have a chance to try them before you leave, they might work for you on thoses days when you wished you had just a little extra leg protection.

I do a lot of hiking in the Sierra mostly above timberline. I wear a pair of light cargo shorts (7 oz) and use a light pair of homemade wind pants (3 oz) for sun/weather protection. I also carry a pair of Capilene 2 "long johns" (5.6 oz) for sleeping and if the weather turns unseasonably cold. This combination has served me well for three-season walking. I like the cargo shorts because of the pockets but I also will wear a 4 oz pair of running shorts in warmer weather Arizona hiking.

Besides the stuff mentioned above, the PCT has a lot of poison oak and poodle-dog bush in places (mainly in southern and northern CA; the Sierras, Oregon, and Washington are better). If you are remotely susceptible to these plants, think about pants.

Ha, I forgot about the bugs. I found moquitos around Big Bear and San Jacinto. It was nice to have some leg coverage during breaks.

I'll also add that I didn't take a baselayer pants or rain pants. Just a rain skirt (never used) so my hiking pants were all I had. The shorts/longjohns combo sounds good, but you'll have to carry a LOT of sunscreen.

I don't mean to be snide, but don't know how anyone but you can answer this. If your genetic background evolved in latitudes closer to the equator than the pole and you don't sunburn, you won't start. The burnless health effects of UV are certainly personal risk to choose. If shorts only, you hike in short sleeves, is my guess. Sunscreen? If your forearms don't burn, your calves won't. Me, I wear long everything plus sun gloves.

" If your forearms don't burn, your calves won't."

This hasn't been my experience.

" 'If your forearms don't burn, your calves won't.'

This hasn't been my experience."

Rather than try to analyze this difference, I'll resoundingly accept it in the name of how personal this all is. I'll re-phrase to, "if your calves don't burn, your calves won't" :-)

I wore long sleeves but with shorts on the PCT.

Below treeline, I often rolled up my sleeves. My legs never really burned. No sunscreen.

As others said, it comes down to personal preference, gene pool, time of the year, etc.

The PCT is a very well graded and maintained trail. For those who prefer to hike in shorts, it is a much better trail to hike than an off-trail route esp during prime thru-hiking season (in a higher snow year, you'll want pants as post-holing in shorts is quite paintful!)

" I'll re-phrase to, "if your calves don't burn, your calves won't" :-)"

Can't argue that!

"Necessary? The answer depends on how tough you are.

Pants Pros:

– sun protection without greasy sunscreen which sucks up trail dirt like a sponge
– abrasion protection (lots of trailside brush, often with thorns)
– insect protection – skeeters can't usually bite through Supplex nylon
– wind protection
– keeps your legs cleaner
– added warmth when temperatures dip – and they will, especially at night in the desert.

Pants Cons:
– heavier than shorts
– hides your legs (can be a pro or a con, depending on how good your legs look)
– greatly inferior to shorts for swimming and water crossings

Frankly, I found that on the PCT, CDT, TRT, and CT, I benefited greatly from long pants and wind shirts. I won't hit any trail without both. It's a whole different world above tree line and out in the sand and/or pumice.

YMMV"

Exactly this. But one other consideration in SoCal, the dreaded poodle dog bush. Don't believe it start reading this journal to see a potential outcome. http://www.thehikinglife.com/journal/2012/05/pct-day-16-return-of-the-poodle/. Make sure you read through until Kennedy Meadows for the full effect. Also, Swami did a calendar year triple crown so there is a boatload of usual information on his site.

Hmmm…

Well I know it's a bit of a personal decision depending on my own genetics, etc., but there is a limit to genetics, and I was just trying to get an idea of how many people successfully go through SoCal in shorts without much sunscreen.

For the sake of this post, this is what I look like with my normal summer tan (handily pictured here with a white shirt on for comparison's sake):

So I'm not exactly fair skinned. But I've also never hiked through the SoCal desert in May/June and the Sierra in June/July, so I'm just trying to get a feel for what other people have experienced.

If it's even a normal snow year, it seems like the need for pants is sort of inevitable in the Sierra due to the snow's albedo, the altitude, and the potential postholing and glissading activities.

In fact, the only time in my life that I can ever remember getting burned on my legs was hiking above 7,000 feet for several hours in shorts on the east side of Mt Hood. It was a pretty mild burn but I can imagine that weeks of that would add up pretty fast.

I have to respectfully disagree about the equivalence of forearms and legs with their susceptibility to burn. At least in my case, my forearms are much more likely to burn than my legs.

As for the poison oak and poodle dog bush considerations, this will not be overlooked. But I still don't see how pants would be a whole lot better for this than shorts on a long hike like the PCT where you won't be laundering your clothes immediately after contact. Everyone does know that it's the oils exuded from these plants that are the problem right? If you walk through these plants with pants on and then proceed to touch your pant legs, you might as well be touching the plants themselves.

I am extremely allergic to poison oak and poison ivy (and presumably poodle dog bush), to the point where I'm always on the lookout and will wash my body immediately after contact, and I refuse to pet dogs out on the trail because they are notorious for rolling around in the stuff.

Even with all this in mind, I still don't really see the long term advantage of long pants in defending against poison oak and poodle dog bush, due to the aforementioned true cause of the contact dermatitis (i.e. the oils) and the complication of having to deal with a contaminated piece of clothing after contact.

1. I would probably do most of my hiking in convertible pants and minimize sunscreen, but I don't like the way my bony kneecaps hang up on the zipper interface.

2. Doing section D this year, I hiked exclusively in shorts and used that pump-spray sunscreen from Banana Boat, repackaged in a 3-oz. bottle. Worked very well with only 2 applications per day. I'm not even sure I got a tan on my exposed calves.

3. Poodle dog bush, ugh. Horrible conditions on Sec. D. On Sec. C the previous year, we each brought a disposable painters suit from Home Depot, but didn't use them since the PDB was not very pervasive on the trail. We figured the same would be on Sec. D and chose poorly. Anyway, you could use them on those sections and then dispose of them at the earliest appropriate place (e.g. Acton KOA).

Derek,

Most (all?) of us have never met you. Without knowing you, and just based on one photo, hard to tell.

My advice? Start hiking in pants. If you absolutely hate it, and pick up a pair of running shorts about a month in (Agua Dulce is a good place).

People have hiked the PCT in shorts for many years. Unless you had a great-grandfather named Sven or Seamus and have blond hair or red hair with near albino skin, your sun protection is probably about average for a person of European descent.

Meaning you burn if you are not careful, but don't turn into a ginormous red blister at the slightest UV radiation (see above about Sven and Seamus!)

Take the sun screen to be sure.

As a baseline: I'm of Mediterranean descent (which means a rather large genetic cross section of various invaders from all over!), I naturally have a very light to light tan pretty much year round and did not need sunscreen on my legs in the desert or the high sierra. I do wear a dorky sun hat and long sleeves. Based on your last name, and depending what else is in your family DNA, you may have a similar story?

As I tell all prospective thru-hikers: Gear is the least important part of thru-hiking. You'll make do, find what works for you and do OK.

In my Dermatologist's office there's a poster of a guy in his bathing suit soaking up the sun. The caption is, "he's getting a healthy pre-cancerous tan".

By the way, I go to this doctor as a follow up to having a cancerous melanoma sliced out of my cheek. How dangerous is melanoma? After lung cancer, it's the most dangerous cancer once it spreads. There is no real treatment, once it spreads.

I suggest to people that they do a little research, even on google, about high altitude sun exposure. Throw in some snow, and you've got a real nasty tanning salon.

Most people assume that sun exposure is fine, as long as you don't burn. The myth of the healthy tan needs to be updated.

Lightweight long pants are actually cooler to hike in when you are in direct sunlight. Shorts are cooler to hike in when you are in the shade. Southern California doesn't get much shade. You don't see people living in the Sahara wearing shorts for a reason.

After you leave the desert, I found that having long pants treated with Permithrin (along with the rest of my clothing) meant that I didn't need to use DEET very often (only used it for 3 days on the PCT) and hardly got any bites.

You also don't need to wear sunscreen which is an issue for those of us fairer skinned. They also protect your legs against poison oak so that you are less likely to spread the oil over a larger area through your sleeping bag at night (providing you don't wear them to bed and assume that the pant legs were exposed when you hiked through a patch of the stuff).

I wore pants that had mesh along the sides from Railriders (Eco-mesh pants). I found the mesh pants cool enough to wear that I kept them all the way to Washington rather then switching to shorts. Convertible pants aren't as cool to wear but have the advantage that you can change them to shorts when appropriate.

That said, I have seen people hiking in shorts on the PCT. I wouldn't, but to each their own.