Backpacker calls this place The Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico.

truchas wrote:Backpacker calls this place The Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Pecos, but I think the Bob is wilder, as are the Teton, Washakie, etc. Even in New Mexico, I think the Gila would be wilder than the Pecos. In spite of this, I never get sick of backpacking there...

Personally, I think Backpacker has been slipping the past few years.

Bubba Suess wrote:

truchas wrote:Backpacker calls this place The Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Pecos, but I think the Bob is wilder, as are the Teton, Washakie, etc. Even in New Mexico, I think the Gila would be wilder than the Pecos. In spite of this, I never get sick of backpacking there...

Personally, I think Backpacker has been slipping the past few years.

I think Backpacker makes those claims to keep the interest of the reader. The South San Juans are probably wilder than the Pecos. But like you, I love the Pecos and some parts of it are pretty remote and uncrowded.

truchas wrote:I think Backpacker makes those claims to keep the interest of the reader. The South San Juans are probably wilder than the Pecos.

I think they ought to try keeping the interest of the reader by having better content. I grew up in a subscriber household and used to love it. They would usually have a reasonably in depth article on a certain destination, a good topical discussion of some other types of destinations and the weekend wilderness section, in addition to all the technique stuff. One of my favorites as a kid was an article called "Lost Mountains", some of which are here on Summitpost. Others, like the Ferris Mountains in Wyoming are still anonymous. The peaks around the South Fork of the Rio Honda near Wheeler were one of the featured areas.

Now, Backpacker has "the Best National Park Trails Ever" or some such claptrap. Any article on a particular area has to be about "the journey through it" rather than about the great backpacking that can be done there. It is so disappointing but I still subscribe, hoping things improve.

And now, as I step off my soapbox...

Backpacker, Outside, all yuppie hiker mags. They do serve a purpose and they are better than nothing. I read them at a library, I would not pay a penny for them. Glamorous looking climbers and adventurers, I wonder if some really exist. Babes are eye candy, though.

I get all the gear I need cheaply, amazing by their ads how much stuff is out there.

So the Pecos is the place to backpack in NM. I had a plan to go there, but I don't know of any good enough peaks to access by a longer such hike, are there any?

1000Pks wrote:Backpacker, Outside, all yuppie hiker mags. They do serve a purpose and they are better than nothing. I read them at a library, I would not pay a penny for them. Glamorous looking climbers and adventurers, I wonder if some really exist. Babes are eye candy, though.

I get all the gear I need cheaply, amazing by their ads how much stuff is out there.

So the Pecos is the place to backpack in NM. I had a plan to go there, but I don't know of any good enough peaks to access by a longer such hike, are there any?

I guess it depends on how long of a hike you want. Truchas is best accessed from the North or South. South Truchas is 11 miles from Jack's Creek from the south and North Truchas is 12 miles from the Santa Barbara Campground from the north. Rio Quemada which I believe is about 6 miles is not a good trailhead because of vandalism. I did a backpack from Iron Gate a few years ago from the south that passed by Pecos Falls, Santa Barbara Peak and worked it's way over Chimayosos and North Truchas Peaks and back down through the Beatty's Cabin area. It was a great backpack with a summit of one high 12er and 1 13er. There are plenty of more peaks in the area if you wanted to set up a base camp.

1000Pks wrote:So the Pecos is the place to backpack in NM. I had a plan to go there, but I don't know of any good enough peaks to access by a longer such hike, are there any?

I would add two more to that short list. The Gila Wilderness is one of the best backpacking destinations anywhere, for my two cents. The eastern part has great canyon backpacking while the western part has higher peaks, nearly reaching 11,000 feet. They are not as craggy as I would like, but the vastness of the region is breathtaking.

www.summitpost.org/canyon/276296/West-F ... anyon.html

I would also add the White Mountains Wilderness, specifically the crest trail as a great backpack.

truchas wrote:

Bubba Suess wrote:

truchas wrote:Backpacker calls this place The Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Pecos, but I think the Bob is wilder, as are the Teton, Washakie, etc. Even in New Mexico, I think the Gila would be wilder than the Pecos. In spite of this, I never get sick of backpacking there...

Personally, I think Backpacker has been slipping the past few years.

I think Backpacker makes those claims to keep the interest of the reader. The South San Juans are probably wilder than the Pecos. But like you, I love the Pecos and some parts of it are pretty remote and uncrowded.

I concur. Gila is wilder than Pecos, but some parts of the San Juans see few visitors.

I would cast a vote for the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument. You drive 80-100 miles of dirt easily to get to a lot of things there, no hiking trails or services developed, and a few ranchers. Backpacked in there and not seen anyone for a few days, no footprints, no fire rings. There are some more popular 4wd and destinations off the river but a lot of that is not frequently explored for sure.

I vote for the Gila, too. It might just be the higher visitation levels since the climate is mild, but it's the only place I can think I that I have heard of people getting lost with in it and nearly dying. Maybe people just die in the Bob Marshall?