Short and steep or long and flat

[guitarpreston]

Making a few plans for this season, based on some new intel I picked up that may or may not be good, and last year. Let me start out with, I am from Texas, and enjoy this level of air density... Im making a few different options for hunt plans and looking at the routes in to a couple different spots, one is about 2-3x as far as the other with the same elevation gain roughly, so it should be significantly more mellow, just longer. The second spot, should be significantly more steep getting in but shorter. The added variable is the starting elevations are about 3k different, short and steep starting about 9500, long and flat about 6500. Both about 2000 ft of gain.

I have 0 time to go get boots on the ground or get there early to acclimatize.

Whats your move, short and steep or long and mellow?

 

[LongWayAround]

Gaining 3,000' is no small effort, especially for some one not accustomed to it.

What is the actual distance of your two routes?

Edit: misread the OP

Depending on terrain, 2,000 feet over a couple of miles isn't bad.

Coming from sea level and planning to start at 9500 and gain 2k with a pack and weapon is probably going to be pretty humbling. Similarly, packing a deer and gear solo for five miles is a big chunk to bite off.

 

[Theringworm]

You can’t have the same elevation gain if your starting elevation is different for each option.

 

[guitarpreston]

I should have clarified, they are to two different spots, not the same end destination. 6500-8500ish over 5 miles and 9500-11,500ish over about 2.5 roughly.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Is this for elk?

 

[guitarpreston]

Is this for elk?

Deer

 

[displacedtexan]

You can’t have the same elevation gain if your starting elevation is different for each option.

Sure you can. Adding 2k is adding 2k.

I should have clarified, they are to two different spots, not the same end destination. 6500-8500ish over 5 miles and 9500-11,500ish over about 2.5 roughly.

Neither would REALLY scare me (I live at 700'), but starting at 9500 is definitely going to hit you harder than starting at 6500. I'd lean 6500, assuming the odds of success seem similar.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Deer

I won't assume your fitness level, but I'd think twice before killing a deer 5+ miles in by yourself.

 

[fatlander]

We did a 2,450 foot climb across 1.6 miles into a spot last year with camp and a week of food. It was pretty much the same grade throughout and absolutely brutal, but we knew there were lots of elk in there. Had an incredible week. With all that said, I wouldn’t ever expend that specific effort on a whim or a hunch.

2k feet across 2.5 miles doesn’t really sound all that bad. But it all depends on how spread out the elevation is across the mileage. Same goes for your other plan. I’d go where you know you have the highest likelihood of being in lots of deer. Good luck hunting this fall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EastHumboldt]

You will suffer more at 11500 than at 8500. Altitude sickness is not a myth. How old are you and are you in so so shape, good shape, or super fit? One thing many don’t realize is when you move to a higher elevation your body starts making more red blood cells to compensate for less oxygen. This takes a few days. If you are not in really good shape your acclimation at 11000 feet will not be voluntary, you won’t be able to do much without getting dizzy and or nauseous. What I’m saying is you’re probably gonna take a day or two to acclimate whether you plan for it or not.

I live close to 5000 ft. Im 67 and in so so shape… meaning I hike my dogs a couple miles almost every day, at around 7k elevation. Our base camps for mule deer are usually at 8-8.5k and we hunt up to 9.5 k. The first 3-4 days I suffer from being winded. After that I just suffer from being old and 20 lbs overweight. I think camping at 11500 and hunting up from there would suck really really bad for me. I relate this to give you a peek at someone else’s experience regarding altitude/conditioning.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Yeah, the starting elevations may be more of a limiting factor than the gain/distance listed.

My rule of thumb is 1000'/1 mile for difficult but doable (lower 48, I know AK is a different ball game). Much more than that it's a judgement call on how much we want to suffer. Always depends too on the situation. On trail vs off trail, underbrush levels, deadfall, cliff potential, etc.

Packed a bear out a few years ago. 1.2 miles, 2100' of gain, 4600' to 6700'. That was pretty rough and took ~3.5 hours with just day packs. I'd do it again though.

Conversely, we chose one time to pack a buck out (backcountry with camp) 11.5 miles and 4300' of decline instead of 6.5 miles over the same drop. The longer route was 80% trail with a half mile of deadfall vs the shorter route being 30% trail and 3 miles of deadfall.

 

[Beendare]

I come from sea level every year and it seems that many years I do one of those big treks covering a lot of country to find the elk. I've done 10-12 miles the first day many times with 3,000' of UP elevation or more and it kicks the stuffing out of me for a couple days.

But then after that I am probably better for it.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I come from sea level every year and it seems that many years I do one of those big treks covering a lot of country to find the elk. I've done 10-12 miles the first day many times with 3,000' of UP elevation or more and it kicks the stuffing out of me for a couple days.

But then after that I am probably better for it.

You're packing elk out 10-12 miles?

 

[guitarpreston]

The longer option is going to be pretty good walking. Not sure about the shorter option.

Fitness level moderately fit. Learned a lot last year about pacing at both altitudes. The high altitude really humbled me last year but I think I’m in better shape and at least know what to expect.

 

[sndmn11]

I should have clarified, they are to two different spots, not the same end destination. 6500-8500ish over 5 miles and 9500-11,500ish over about 2.5 roughly.

I'd do the longer one so it is easier to learn that distance doesn't mean better hunting. Then I'd go do the higher one so it is easier to learn that elevation doesn't mean better hunting.

Between the two, I'd choose the route that offers glassing views every half mile, and I would stop and use them for at least an hour. Making a head down walk with no purpose (a specific buck) means you are walking by oodles of animals.

 

[guitarpreston]

I'd do the longer one so it is easier to learn that distance doesn't mean better hunting. Then I'd go do the higher one so it is easier to learn that elevation doesn't mean better hunting.

Between the two, I'd choose the route that offers glassing views every half mile, and I would stop and use them for at least an hour. Making a head down walk with no purpose (a specific buck) means you are walking by oodles of animals.

Funny thing is the "longer" one is still closer to town. But its at least more open sage country and I could do some more glassing.
Shorter option starts off in thick timber but still a maintained trail to get me in most of the way.

 

[sndmn11]

Funny thing is the "longer" one is still closer to town. But its at least more open sage country and I could do some more glassing.
Shorter option starts off in thick timber but still a maintained trail to get me in most of the way.

I think the more time behind optics when mule deer hunting, the better chance you have to learn. I'd put an X on any possible vantage point within a 1/2 mile of your trail and not pass them up. I also think that 100 yards 90deg off the trail is better than a mile further down the trail.

 

[Arcticmanak]

Which spot would be less likely to have competition from other hunters? That would be a primary consideration. I'd take the more difficult route if it would get me away from hunting pressure.

 

[fngTony]

I frequent a couple hikes very similar to those scenarios. My legs will feel the same after each hike, but mentally and physically during the hike the higher elevation takes a bigger toll. It’s really easy to get fatigued and lose your motivation when you feel like crap. What’s the difference in terrain? I would rather walk 20 miles on a dirt path on an 80° slope than something flat with watermelon size rocks all over the place where you can’t keep any sort of consistent step which also slows you down quite a bit while making a heavy pack, much more difficult to balance.

 

[Yoteassasin]

Last year I did a 7500 to 10k in 5miles and back with a deer in one day. It’s not for the faint of heart . Also remember a lot of what you Will be moving through will likely be trail less