Boots or Shoes

[rguyse]

Is it wise to use boots while hiking the trails at Philmont? Will hiking shoes suffice? I prefer hiking shoes to boots and have backpacked many times in shoes; however, never in a terrain like Philmont. Which is best?

 

[Eagledad]

95% of the Philmont trials are basically smooth trails packed down by thousands of backpackers.

 

Barry

[Ohio_Scouter]

Personally, I recommend boots for backpacking at Philmont, but I'm sure that others have had success with hiking shoes. Here is what Philmont recommends:

 

Buy a pair of quality hiking boots. A pair of boots 6 to 8 inches high with sturdy soles is recommended. Lightweight hiking/running footwear is excellent for the dry, rocky trails prevalent at Philmont. Lightweight footwear is not recommended for people with weak ankles, who need heavier leather boots. Wear your boots to school or work and when walking anywhere to break them in and to condition yourself.

 

 

[Gold Winger]

Boots give extra ankle support which is nice when descending the nice rocky trails coming down from either Baldy or Tooth of Time.

 

My son's SM also recommded boots because with shoes it is easier to to get small rocks into your shoe and then have to stop and remove them. Of course you could avoid that problem by wearing puttees.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>> Boots give extra ankle support which is nice when descending the nice rocky trails coming down from either Baldy or Tooth of Time.

[GernBlansten]

I would not have wanted to hike over the Tooth in trail shoes. That trail is as rocky as any 14nr here in Colorado. Some of the steep climbs out of the valleys and Mt. Phillips would have been dicey in shoes too. But most of the trails are well worn and would be fine in shoes. But you can't always stay down in the valleys.

 

A good pair of boots are just as comfortable as shoes. I like over the ankle boots just for the protection on scraps and sticks. I hate getting jabbed in the ankle by a sharp stick or scraping the skin off my achilles stepping over a log. Also the little pebbles that seem to always find their way in.

[Oak Tree]

I personally don't think I've ever had boots that felt as comfortable as shoes. The more experience I get at hiking, the more I tend toward preferring shoes. It's going to be personal preference, but I'd go with lighter weight footwear. If you've backpacked many time in shoes and liked it, I'd stick with that for Philmont.

[Gold Winger]

Depends on the shoes and the boots and how well they fit.

 

All through college I wore late 70s vintage GI combat boots. They were on my feet a good 12 hours a day and I probably walked betwee five and ten miles a day. Loved those boots.

 

I wear boots everday, all day because I'm on my feet for much of the day.

 

I think that comfort really depends on fit along with construction and design.

[John-in-KC]

Have to agree with Gold Winger, there are some boots which I could and did wear all day comfortably.

 

Long ago, I ripped one of my maleolus ligaments on a run. I like ankle support... a lot!

 

I'm also a believer of boots in the field.

[GernBlansten]

One rolled ankle could ruin your entire trek, along with the other scouts. Think of the children!

[packsaddle]

But the pain is just exquisite.

[Its Me]

 

I agree with Oak Tree, a good pair of sturdy comfortable shoes trumps 7" new boots for all but the worst situation. When I think high sided boots I think muck and water crossings. High desert trails with well worn paths call for shoes with aggressive soles (souls). Leave the eleven pound boots at home and take the four pound shoes.

 

another vote shoes

 

 

[Gold Winger]

I'm wondering why you'd take new boots.

[GernBlansten]

Or eleven pound boots? Heck, my telemark boots only weigh 7 lbs and I feel like frankenstein hiking in them.

 

[Gold Winger]

My Asolo boots weigh less than 4 lbs lbs for the pair and are light enough that I can do an assembl whilst wearing them.