Andrew Bentz hiked the entire PCT this summer in 93 days. Then, just for fun, he started at Whitney Portal and hiked to Yosemite Valley in 3.5 days. He had to be quick, since he had to leave for his first day back at college the day after he got home.

Monday, Aug 25, 11:40 PM at Whitney Portal
Hiking Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, finishing Friday,
Aug 29, 11:00 AM at Happy Isles in Yosemite

Crazy kid!

His report is here: john muir trail fkt

I did not read this specific article, but I heard the interview on NPR.

He ran about half the time + had a fabulous support team that really made it possible for him to carry nothing but water and the very basics. His buddies were there for him if he got into trouble,so there was no chance for his story to be another unprepared ultra-lighter case study.

I think that is a different hiker. This kid did it all on his own -- unsupported. His dad dropped him off at Whitney Portal, and then met him in Yosemite Valley.

What a trip. My two favorite phrases: "Day one, Portal to Mather" and "bear-in-th-woods".

And yes, the supported record fell this year, too, to Leor Pantilat, only 3:24 faster than Bentz. Both amazing deeds, but Bentz's, at less than 3 1/2 hours behind the guy who had that whole team, has got to be considered by far the greater achievement.

This is one hell of an accomplishment but...

If I'm not mistaken, a hard canister is required for overnight travel in SEKI and Yosemite and at minimum an Ursack in the Inyo. My guess is he traveled through these areas illegally.

If that is the case, should the record count?

Trav,
He did not stay still long enough to count as sleeping overnight.
No harm, no foul.

We know he was traveling lightweight -
no handkerchief, hence his term 'snot rocket'

LOL

Overnight means overnight. It does not mean just because you are awake the 21 hours a day you are exempted from the requirement. You can't protect your food when you are a sleep those 3 hours.

Again, it was a heck of an accomplishment.

You are correct -- I was thinking about the guy who broke the speed record for the PCT this year (56 or so days)

Anyway, such records don't interest me, so I am not sure what the other guy's name was, etc. I do remember that he mentioned not carrying a bear can, but it may have been because his friends carried the overnight food. Who knows, don't care.

Definitely overnight in the wilderness area, say for permit purposes. Actually, he did not travel through any area in Sequoia where a canister is required: they are surprisingly few. He was in and out of the Rae Lakes Loop, the only area in Kings where canisters are required, in a few hours, and in the Whitney Zone for a fraction of the time most dayhikers spend, and they are not required to carry a bear can. In Sierra, you are only required to keep your food away from bears, canisters are only one way to do that. In INyo, only the Whiney Zone and a short stretch from above Tully Hole to Duck Creek require canisters. He definitely did not sleep in the WZ or in that other short stretch in Inyo, so I think he was ok so far. Probably the only time he was on the edge was at a bridge near Tuolumne. DOesn't say exactly what bridge that was, but it may not have been in the wilderness, so just holding on to food may have been ok.

As far as not recognizing the record because he carried no bear can? None of the recent record setters have either. If that makes sense then Ralph Burgess holds the only record, supported and unsupported having gone SoBo in 4.5 days.

Saltydog,

It does not matter, if you do not sleep in a zone that requires a canister. Travel through and overnight stay in the wilderness are the operative phrases because if something happens to you, you might have to stay overnight in those places. He complained of pain so great that he was contemplating bail out points back through the Inyo.

Yosemite has a hard side and the Inyo has a softside canister requirement, period.

The forest/park land managers could have been asked for a special dispensation. There was nothing in the narrative that stated they were.

It is a great accomplishment but it done by breaking park and forest rules.

I don't think so. In the Parks, 36 CFR 2.10 specifically exempts food that is being transported, prepared or or consumed from any storage requirement. That's why we can keep our first day's food outside the canister. In the NF, as I noted above, only the WZ and Duck Creek areas require canisters. If your interpretation of the applicable reg were correct -36 CFR 261.58 - then we would not be able to carry the first days food separately, which we all do, and even day hikers in the Whitney Zone would need to carry canisters, which no-one does.

....and wouldn't it also mean that the packers who supply the High Sierra Camps would also have to place all the supplies in cannisters??

Day hikers can protect their food. The nature of day hike is to be out of the wilderness before it is time to bed down...or should be. This is not applicable to this trip.

He had an overnight permit for the MMWT...the trip requires a canister and WAG bag...forest interpretation. This mean if he did not have something designed to keep bears from food he was in violation. Again, no one can be certain there are going to meet their schedule...illness or injury.

If you pass through an area with these regs, you have to have a canister. Yosemite and Rae Lakes have canister regs.

There are surely local regs that are involved here, too.

Don't know where you are getting your interpretation: maybe you could provide your source. And note that the "forest interpretation" can be flat wrong, too, as it most certainly is in the case of the WagBag.

This is what I have been told by people at the forest service and parks when I ask these type of questions.

It only makes sense. You cannot guarantee where you are going to end up when you are doing a multi-night trip. Therefore, if you pass through a region with canister regs, you are required to have one.

Well, I guess we can reasonably disagree on what makes sense. Lots of rangers will give you conflicting interpretations, that can't all be right. I am just going by what the regs and the forest orders actually say, and I wish more rangers would too. I am sure every ranger in the Whitney district will tell you that you are required to carry a wagbag, despite the fact that there is no reg and no forest order even requiring you to pack out human waste, much less to use a wag bag to do it. And as for making sense, is a day hiker who can spent up to 24 hours in the zone less likely than a through hiker who blasts through it in 3 hours to get delayed overnight?

This is interesting to me because I spent more than 24 hours in the Whitney Zone, on a day hike, and obviously no food can. That can't possibly be the most correct interpretation. Folks do midnight hikes of Half Dome all the time, on day hike permits, and bear cans are not required.

And for that matter, folks also do much shorter daytime day hikes and take naps.

I know this is a dirty word but you are responsible for protecting your food. My guess is if you are napping day hiker and your food is sitting there in a pack out in the open and LE ranger walks by you could be fined. However, the chance of a LE officer walking by are near nill.

Day hiking permits do not exempt you from protecting your food from the four legged residents. Most day hikers are on the move most of the time and finish their trips in 13 to 18 hours. Longer trips are usually because of injury, illness or misjudging there physical requirements of a trip up and down the MMWT. Those who go past 24 hours on a day trip are usually in some sort of trouble and the cavalry will have been called out or will be shortly.

The case here is there were canister requirements...if he did not have one he was in violation of the law.

I reviewed the authorities cited by Salty Dog. Based on them, it is not at all clear to me that there were violations. There are a number of unknowns. Did he carry a canister? Did he ask for an exemption? And even if no to the other questions, where did he camp. All relevant under the regs.

Assume he did not carry a canister or ask for an exemption. With the possible exception of the bridge in Yosemite he did not camp or sleep in any area where canisters are required: Just below Mather, Mono Creek below Silver, and some bridge - not clear which one - around the 22 mile mark at Tuolumne. He may have been on thin ice sleeping with food in his pack but by then of course, he had about the amount of food left you might carry in your pockets, so who knows how he had it arranged for the last 2-hour nap.

Anyone want to bust him for that?

It's not stated, therefore, it should be assumed he did not ask for an exemption.

You cannot guarantee with absolute certainty, will not sleep east of Trail Crest and between Donohue Pass and Happy Isle. If you pass through and area with a canister requirement you must have a canister.

Let's try this one on for size, I get a permit for the MMWT and I do not take a canister of any type with the idea of staying at Crabtree Meadow but stay at Trail Camp instead. According to all y'all, I'm not in violation because I intended to go to Crabtree Meadow. My next unintended stop in Chicken Spring Lake...same circumstances, again, I am not in violation in a canister area. Your argument does not make sense to me.

All this sounds like to me is a meetup group or the Sierra Club get multiple permits for for San G and hike as single group.

I don't see why an article's failure to mention something means it didn't exist. In fact, like you, I suspect he had neither a bear canister nor special dispensation. I don't know either of those things to be a fact, of course; I just suspect it. But I am not about to label someone a law violator based on facts that are unknown to me.

Regardless, based on the text of the regs that Salty found, even if he lacked a canister and lacked special dispensation, he may be okay depending on where he camped, a/k/a where he "store[d]" his food, as opposed to where he "transported, consumed, or prepared [his food] for consumption," a distinction made by the regs themselves.

WB: You are making a fallacious argument. No one is arguing that if he actually stayed in the WZ - or Rae Lakes, or DUck Creek - there would be no violation. The bearcan is required in the WHitney Zone, therefore if you stay there without one, bzzzzt!!!! If you don't stay there, no violation. It's really very simple.

How is it a fallacious argument? You cannot guarantee any travel is going to go as planned. See the trail runners caught with their pants down earlier this summer...or without proper gear for what could happen that did happen. Based on your reading of this, I do not need a canister to do Mt. Whitney via the MMWT based your reading of the rules all I need to do is not follow my itinerary then make up a story, if stopped by a LE ranger.

If you pass through areas with canister requirement you need to have a canister. You cannot guarantee you are not going to be forced to overnight there...by weather, illness or injury.

I have been told this multiple times by multiple people at multiple ranger stations/visitor centers over multiple years in the Inyo. Based on that I have tendency to believe what I have been saying to be true.

Okay, you really want the scoop on the fallacious argument? The first fallacy is called "straw-man". You no doubt have heard of that. You are arguing against a proposition neither Karen nor I have made: namely that there would not be a violation if you camp in a canister zone without a canister. Clearly there would have been. But he didn't and there wasn't. Which brings us to the second fallacy, known as "hypothesis contrary to fact". You suppose circumstances that did not occur.

You can't ticket somebody for what might happen, only for what they actually do.

And you are still making the straw argument when you say "Based on your reading of this, I do not need a canister to do Mt. Whitney via the MMWT based your reading of the rules all I need to do is not follow my itinerary then make up a story."

That is not what I am saying and it does not follow from what I am saying. SO far, you have not cited a single rule, reg or forest order to support your interpretation: only what you have been told over the years.

I have pointed you to both the NPS regs and the USFS regs. Look, a lot of rangers will tell you a lot of things for a lot of reasons: most very well intentioned, others not so much. For example, based on your apparent Whitney experience, I'll bet you have been told you must carry a wagbag in the WHitneyZone and you must pack out your waste. But there is no such rule, regulation or forest order. Its a policy that Garry Oye introduced into some published material years ago with no authority whatsoever, after he (illegally in my opinion) burned down the toilets at Trail Camp and Outpost. Another example is the supposed "no backtrack" rule from trailheads in Yosemite. You ask two Rangers about that one and you will get three different answers.

I know what you have heard, but I also know what I have read, and guess what, under our system its what the rules say and what the courts say that matters, not what, with all due respect, the rangers or even the agency brochures say, that matters.

So yeah, If I am irresponsible enough to camp in WZ or at Rae Lakes or Rock Creek without a canister, fine my ass and I will pay it. But ticket me while I am moving through Mclure Meadow, or over Mather Pass because I MIGHT have camped at Rae Lakes without a canister, or have been in the WZ without a WagBag, I'll see you in court, where you can explain to a US Magistrate what you have heard as opposed to what the regs and forest orders actually say.

I admit that I have only been casually following this discussion, but I need something clarified here:

The above statement makes it sound like a dayhiker would need a bearcan if he/she were in the Zone? (because something may happen and turn their dayhike into an overnigher?)

I wish this thread would get back to the incredible story of the hike.

Bee & Harvey: I agree with you both.

Ditto.

Soooooooooooo . . . helluvan accomplishment, eh?

OK, Another thing I admire - I almost hate to suggest it - I don't see one word about sponsorship. It was a completely solo, non commercial effort. Amateur in the highest sense, not amateurish. Very much like Brett Maune, he just jumped in and went for it for the sake of doing it.

That sets a standard.

It really IS an accomplishment. Nothing like conditioning for it by doing the entire PCT in 93 days.

Andrew Bentz obviously found the perfect blend of pace and nutrition to put his body through such a grueling exercise ...and succeed.

Oh my, where is that strawman, again. I did build up something that wasn't pertinent only to knock it down. I said there are canister requirements at Whitney, Rae Lakes and Yosemite. True statements. I was told at many places by those who should know the rules that if you pass through area you need a canister. True statements. If he went without a canister based on the latter statements he was in violation of the law.

Me thinks, you should learn what a strawman argument is.

Again, I will say for the at least the 3rd time this was a heck of feat.

Time to burn that straw man down. Just STOP already!