There was an even bigger one on top of Blum, but someone knocked it down! We was up thar on Thursday and found it missing. Definitely was there in '02. Frankly I don't see why climbers have to build a cairn on summits -- is it ego to prove someone has been there?
Cairns are OK if the summit is obscure or if it is flat then it is nice to have an identifiable spot to touch to say you been to the top. But for steep and somewhat popular summits it is kinda pointless. Or pointedly pointless depending on the shape of the cairn?
So,
Did you have to summit the summit cairn to claim the summit?
That leads to the question... what is the true definition of attaining the summit of a mountain? Would it be standing at an erect position with both feet touching each other? Would it be standing in the Captain Morgan position with the upper foot on the summit?
Or would it be merely touching the summit with some part of your body? Your hand? Would you need to take your glove off to lay skin to rock? I've often wondered these things. When I summit a mountain, I make sure to at least touch the summit stone with some portion of my body, usually my boot (when it's on my foot of course).
Same thing goes with lakes. What is the definition of being "at a lake"? My personal definition is touching the water and that's what I've always done . I know, I'm a weird one.
-------------- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
0
-------------- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
Well, the lake in itself is the destination so any part of the lake would suffice .
A side note to my previous post... my decision to climb the haystack on Mount Si was solely based on my desire to attain the true summit. So, if I ever go missing in the wilderness, it was probably because I fell while reaching out for that highest point, or because I was eaten by a cougar .
-------------- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
0
-------------- Pain is just weakness leaving the body.
I'm gonna guess Abercrombie on Spotly's photo. Abercrombie is a slag heap, plus some people say it is only one foot shorter than Gypsy (7309 vs. 7308) for highest peak in Eastern WA. Supposedly there is a teeny tiny 7320+ contour that you can make out under the plus sign by the summit if you have the paper quadrangle but I'll be damned if I can see it. Regardless, it would not be surprising that people would build a huge cairn to try to boost its height above that of Gypsy. Though this would be a pyrrhic bit of handiwork because man-made alterations don't count for summit heights.
Just gotta touch the highpoint with any part of your body to bag that peak. Clothing counts for the body. I have no idea how a person bags a lake. It seems like you need to at least dip your toe in. Or a fishing pole must go in the water; save that a person should at least toss his hiking partner in.
I noticed in a recent picture that someone had knocked down the big summit cairn on Blum. Seems somewhat trivial to build them that big, but even more pointless and mean-spirited to knock them down. They aren't anything artificial, just a pile of the rocks that were already there.
I noticed in a recent picture that someone had knocked down the big summit cairn on Blum. Seems somewhat trivial to build them that big, but even more pointless and mean-spirited to knock them down. They aren't anything artificial, just a pile of the rocks that were already there.
there is one below lunch counter on Mt. Adams that is pretty damn big. It's also got a giant pole sticking up through the middle of it. I believe it marks a bunch of campsites before the LC but I don't know why people don't just go 500' higher?!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
. I know, I'm a weird one.
.
