PEAX Equipment

Why do hunting boots have to be tall?

David658

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2021
Messages
541
Location
Northern NM
I am getting ready to throw my Danners about 1000' (if I can sling 'em hard enough, the Rio Grande is about 1000 feet below the canyon rim here). I cannot get them to lace tight enough on the lower part of my foot, and have used every trick I know. I think my final trick is to go back to my Vasque hiking boots - excellent support, no toe issues, and I'd almost wear em every day. But in my mind, hiking boots need to be high - 10", not mids like my hikers.

So my question is, why is that? Do I really need high topped boots, rather than mids like my very comfortable hikers?
 
That’s a question for you to answer. My answer is no.
 
Last year used a Salomon gtx with or with out gators from Aug- November.
 
My personal take is “hunting” boots tend to be taller because they market “more ankle support” with higher boots. I think a lot of hunters aren’t avid hikers or physically fit with good ankle strength so this is perhaps a selling point.

I think it greatly depends on who you are and your preference and the type of hunting you do. If you are hunting in Montana you are likely going to be doing more “hiking” than actual hunting. I agree with the above posts, I use Crispi Nevada’s which are a mid height boot or standard height hiking boot. Before them I had Danner Talus GTX. Both are about equal in durability, wish they hadn’t discontinued the Talus, didn’t know what a value that boot was when I bought it.
 
I have a pair of Vasque Breeze that I can walk all day in and wear around the house when I get home. My Danners have me looking forward to getting my boots off...

It appears Vasque has made a slightly higher version of their Breeze in this current generation. I need to try a pair, I suppose. I guess when it comes down to it, fit over "function".
 
Tall stiff boots are nice for side-hilling, shallow creek crossings, and bombing down choss. At the same time they are heavy, don’t dry out well, and are kinda a PITA to keep up.

I’ve been using trail runners and xtratufs for a lot of my hunts lately.
 
My wife got me the Danners several years ago, and I have been trying to make them work. Finally surrendering, when looking at my toes tonite after two days of humping my pack and fat butt up and down some of these nasty NM mountains.
 
I am getting ready to throw my Danners about 1000' (if I can sling 'em hard enough, the Rio Grande is about 1000 feet below the canyon rim here). I cannot get them to lace tight enough on the lower part of my foot, and have used every trick I know. I think my final trick is to go back to my Vasque hiking boots - excellent support, no toe issues, and I'd almost wear em every day. But in my mind, hiking boots need to be high - 10", not mids like my hikers.

So my question is, why is that? Do I really need high topped boots, rather than mids like my very comfortable hikers?

I stopped reading at 'Danners'. They made one pair of good boots, the Full Curl, the rest aren't all that great...
 
Danners are crap. Vasque are OK.

Try buying some quality tall boots before disparaging a whole class of boot based on junk like Danners.

I like tall boots when in rough terrain and especially side hilling. I make a lot more miles without getting tired than in shorter boots.
 
My wife got me the Danners several years ago, and I have been trying to make them work. Finally surrendering, when looking at my toes tonite after two days of humping my pack and fat butt up and down some of these nasty NM mountains.
Don’t let anybody pick out and buy your boots for you. Life is too short to hunt in bad boots.
 
I’ve done a lot of mountain hiking over the years. I’ve logged at least 200 miles each with crocs, tennis shoes, trail runners, 7” synthetic boots, 7” leather boots, 10” synthetic boots, and 10” leather boots.

Tennis shoes if there’s no snow/ice, scree fields, or thick brush. Otherwise I use 10” synthetic if it’s dry, and 10” leather with gaiters if its wet. The 7” boot is pointless to me because anything I can do in that boot I can do in a shoe, which is lighter, more comfortable, and dries rapidly. Just my personal preference. I have strong ankles so I am not concerned about support, but I don’t like getting my lower shins banged up on rocks or jabbed with thorns which is why I wear tall boots.

OP - if the boot cannot be laced tight enough, the boot doesn’t fit…don’t try and force it.
 
I’ve done a lot of mountain hiking over the years. I’ve logged at least 200 miles each with crocs, tennis shoes, trail runners, 7” synthetic boots, 7” leather boots, 10” synthetic boots, and 10” leather boots.

Tennis shoes if there’s no snow/ice, scree fields, or thick brush. Otherwise I use 10” synthetic if it’s dry, and 10” leather with gaiters if its wet. The 7” boot is pointless to me because anything I can do in that boot I can do in a shoe, which is lighter, more comfortable, and dries rapidly. Just my personal preference. I have strong ankles so I am not concerned about support, but I don’t like getting my lower shins banged up on rocks or jabbed with thorns which is why I wear tall boots.

OP - if the boot cannot be laced tight enough, the boot doesn’t fit…don’t try and force it.
Which 10in synthetic?
 
I have tried many of the higher end boots and have found that you have to pay for the fit and comfort of a good boot. I had Danners years ago when they were made in Oregon, Vasque, when they were made in Italy and they were both great and serviceable boots.

Today, they aren’t the same and I have found Lowa and Zamberlan boots to be what Danners used to be. Both the Lowa and Zamberlan fit well and were comfortable without the usual break in period you expect with new boots.

$450.00 is a lot of money for a pair of boots, but if you want good boots from the day of purchase, I would recommend Lowa and Zamberlan, as I didn’t have to worry about tying them loose at the flex point until they loosened up for a good fit. The tongue in both boots is always aligned when you lace them up as well.
 
Which 10in synthetic?
Cabellas Silent Stalk.

Pros: quiet, very light, glove-like fit, no break in, cheap, very comfortable. Basically a tall running shoe. Easy to put lots of miles on a day.

Cons: minimal rigidity, would not trust moisture barrier, 400 mile life (but at $90, not too bad)
 
I am getting ready to throw my Danners about 1000' (if I can sling 'em hard enough, the Rio Grande is about 1000 feet below the canyon rim here). I cannot get them to lace tight enough on the lower part of my foot, and have used every trick I know. I think my final trick is to go back to my Vasque hiking boots - excellent support, no toe issues, and I'd almost wear em every day. But in my mind, hiking boots need to be high - 10", not mids like my hikers.

So my question is, why is that? Do I really need high topped boots, rather than mids like my very comfortable hikers?
Have you heel locked the boot? That solved that issue for me. I double lock it myself
 
Everyone is different and likes different things, good example; some are into pee and poo play, tbose people probably also wear 12 in high boots.

I wear 6in Lowa boots both at work and for hunting. I alternate between an insulated and non-insulted pair depending on what I do. I also have an 8in pair that I never wear, I find they don't shed moisture as well as a 6in boot and ya boi's got sweaty feet!
 
Wearing 6" & 8" Lowa's these days,the 8"ers are GTX insulated. 10" Kenetrek grizzly pacs for deeper snow and work.
I wear the 6" Caminos everyday now just about. They are closer to 7".

I need kankle support,not calf. Actually new thicker legs would be good...

Gone thru half a dozen light Hikers in NM and none worked. Too light,too low & pincushions.
 
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Forum statistics

Threads
110,814
Messages
1,935,401
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top