Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Copperhead Kid Member
Joined: 01 Feb 2002 Posts: 43 | TRs | Pics
|
Having gone to school in Missoula in the mid-70s, I spent a fair amount of time in Glacier and will always be fond of that area. I also love the North Cascades and believe there is a uniqueness to each region that makes it hard to judge one or the other as better or more interesting.
In Glacier, I loved the Logan Pass area and Clements Mt., as well as Reynolds Mt. -- very distinctive peaks. And the trail I REALLY loved was the Highline trail, which had been closed most of the first summer I visited (I went there for the first time during early Sept.) due to grizz encounters, but I hiked it just two weeks or so after it re-opened. Plus, a friend INSISTED I read "Night Of The Grizzlies" the week before I went, probably just to make me a bit paranoid.
And, naturally, as I passed one of the scattered thickets/huckleberry yum-yum-hide-a-bear spots, just a bit above the trail (up towards the Garden Wall), I could have SWORN I heard a faint snort from the brush ... which helped me boogie on down the trail a bit faster, towards Haystack Butte.
But the coolest thing was this: Up above the Highline Trail, a few hundred feet below the Garden Wall (with Haystack Butte behind and over my left shoulder), I looked east and saw 11 Bighorn sheep just standing around, very mellow, mingled with two or three crouching humans, one of them (the humans, not the sheep) a nature videographer taking movies of the Bighorns FROM ABOUT 20 FEET AWAY. This blew me away, and I had to check it out.
Slowly moving upward, crouching and in stop-and-start fashion, I soon found myself sitting with the few quiet onlookers (and the video guy, who I think was Australian), quietly observing the sheep as they stood, ambled, and even LAY DOWN in our immediate vicinity. One of 'em even stood there, watching me as I sat quietly, his head no more than 16 - 20 ft. from my face. Cool! The only thing I could figure was they were fairly used to mellow hiker humans ... either that, or not very familiar at all. Either way, they weren't too troubled.
Not so for two mountain goats two hundred feet above us, seemingly perched just below the summit ridge of the Garden Wall. One other guy and I started to move slowly up towards them, scrambling as quietly as we could, and those goats were like: "yeah, right, buckos" ... and they went "bippity-boppity-boing" and hopped on over the Garden Wall, where only the technical go ...
So that's one Glacier remembrance ...
CK
|
Back to top |
|
|
philfort Guest
|
|
philfort
Guest
|
Sun Dec 15, 2002 6:49 pm
|
|
|
From all the pictures I've seen, the peaks in G.N.P. sure look similar to those in the cdn rockies. Together, they look different from any other mountains I've seen.
|
Back to top |
|
|
#19 Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
#19
Member
|
Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:01 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | From all the pictures I've seen, the peaks in G.N.P. sure look similar to those in the cdn rockies. Together, they look different from any other mountains I've seen. |
I have yet to see someone post a pciture from Glacier that looked anything like the two Canadian Rockies pictures I posted. I realize there are many areas in Canada that look a lot like Glacier. But there are many that do not. It is not all crumbly, folded and layered limestone.
The Canadian Rockies are vast and are much more than Banff to Jasper.
|
Back to top |
|
|
polarbear Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics Location: Snow Lake hide-away |
Here is a good website with photos of Glacier National Park
http://www.glacierparkphotos.com/
I haven't driven through Glacier since I was little. I was really impressed with the Canadian Rockies on a trip through them a few years ago--vast and magnificent.
|
Back to top |
|
|
philfort Guest
|
|
philfort
Guest
|
Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:05 am
|
|
|
Pappy wrote: | I realize there are many areas in Canada that look a lot like Glacier. But there are many that do not. It is not all crumbly, folded and layered limestone.
The Canadian Rockies are vast and are much more than Banff to Jasper. |
Fair enough... I have never seen an area of the cdn Rockies that *didn't* look like folded and layered limestone (unless it's a view of an icefield :-), but maybe I haven't seen everything.
|
Back to top |
|
|
#19 Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
#19
Member
|
Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:08 pm
|
|
|
Check out the Selkirks, Purchells, Battle Range, Valhallas and Bugaboos in BC. Kind of the like the best parts of your favorite mountain range on steroids. SOLID walls and spires (mucho granite) and just like their neighbors to the east, they have massive ice too. Sometimes this whole region is referred to as the Selkirks and the other ranges mentioned as sub ranges of it. I get confused by it, but it is nothing like what people refer to as "the Canadian Rockies". They are definatley not part of the Coast range so I assumed they were part of the greater Rocky Mountains. I must be mistaken.
|
Back to top |
|
|
philfort Guest
|
|
philfort
Guest
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:06 am
|
|
|
That's right, the Selkirks, Monashees, Caribous, Purcells are not part of the Rockies. I've seen them referred to together as the Columbia Mtns. You're right, they look very different... nice country. The Cdn Rockies are technically what's east of the trench of the upper Fraser/Columbia rivers (Canoe Reach, etc...).
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hiker Boy Hinking Fool
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1569 | TRs | Pics Location: Northern Polar Icecap |
|
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:28 am
|
|
|
Pappy wrote: | Check out the Selkirks, Purchells, Battle Range, Valhallas and Bugaboos in BC. Kind of the like the best parts of your favorite mountain range on steroids. SOLID walls and spires (mucho granite) and just like their neighbors to the east, they have massive ice too. Sometimes this whole region is referred to as the Selkirks and the other ranges mentioned as sub ranges of it. I get confused by it, but it is nothing like what people refer to as "the Canadian Rockies". They are definatley not part of the Coast range so I assumed they were part of the greater Rocky Mountains. I must be mistaken. |
You are mistaken. They are not part of the Rockies. Assuming that the other mountain ranges are part of the Rockies is like assuming that the North Cascades become our Coastal Mountains. They are distinctly separate. Also you have forgotten two more ranges, the Monashee's and the Columbia. I also assume that you mean Purcells rather than Purchells. The Rockies are the oldest of the ranges and the furthest east. Most of other's run parallel to them with big river valley's (The Columbia River in many) separating them. The younger ranges are understandably not as eroded or as tall.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6307 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
From what I understand, the whole section between the Frazier and the Columbia / Kootenay trench to be known collectively as either the Selkirks or the Purcells. I may be wrong however. But, as said before, not part of the Rockies.
Hiker Boy wrote: | The Rockies are the oldest of the ranges and the furthest east. Most of other's run parallel to them with big river valley's (The Columbia River in many) separating them. The younger ranges are understandably not as eroded or as tall. |
The difference in height doesn't have anything to do with the age of the ranges. The Rockies were created on the North American continent by folding and upwards thrusting of the crust. The Purcells, Selkirks, Blues, Coast Range, Cariboos, the North Cascades (from about US 2 north) and everything else in between the Pacific and the Rockies are all Intercontinental Terrains that were fused onto the North American plate over hundreds of thousands of years by the movement of the earths plates. You can clearly see this illustrated on either side of 2. Pretty much everything to the south of 2 is volcanic in origin, and most of what is north of 2 is metamorphic or intrusive igneous rock. At least that's what I remember from geology. Or something to that extent.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hiker Boy Hinking Fool
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1569 | TRs | Pics Location: Northern Polar Icecap |
|
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:57 am
|
|
|
You're essentailly correct, the Rockies do rise over the North American Craton while the other ranges are old oceanic crust and island arcs etc that have been added later, however these ranges are thrusting or folding upwards at a faster rate than erosion whereas the Rockies are not.
The Monashee's are geographically distinct from the Selkirks as are the Selkirks from the Rockies with deep trenches dividing them. It's a common and unfortunate mistake for people from outside of BC to assume that they are all "the Rockies".
I picked up an interest in geology from my father who is now a retired geological engineer. I cannot tell you the number of times I got dragged along on vacations to ooooh and aaah over the striations in one rock formation or other. Later it was beneificial as I got work in mineral exploration camps doing assaying during my summers.
|
Back to top |
|
|
#19 Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
#19
Member
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:37 pm
Dear Hiker Boy
|
|
|
Quote: | Assuming that the other mountain ranges are part of the Rockies is like assuming that the North Cascades become our Coastal Mountains |
No it isn't. Map and globe makers have been plastering "The Rocky Mountains" on a very large section of western North America for years. Never seen a map or globe with "The Cascades" on any part of BC.
Quote: | It's a common and unfortunate mistake for people from outside of BC to assume that they are all "the Rockies". |
I'll bet the incorrect assumption I made is common even with some BCers? Just a guess that everyone in Canada doesn't know everything?
Why would it be "unfortunate" to make that mistake? I don't think Steve was going to end up at the wrong trailhead or mountain range because of my incorrect assumption.
Quote: | I also assume that you mean Purcells rather than Purchells. |
thanks for clearing up that mystery.
Quote: | Also you have forgotten two more ranges, the Monashee's and the Columbia. |
I didn't forget anything. I simply listed a few names of ranges that I thought were spectacular. I wasn't trying to give anyone a lesson.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Phlogiston Purveyor
Joined: 29 Jan 2002 Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics Location: Bothell |
|
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:58 pm
|
|
|
OK, so much for minutiae.
Next question: When is the best time to go to Glacier? Are the mosquitoes as bad as they are here? When does the snow melt out of the high country? I would be taking the family and would not want to slog through lots of snow.
Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Erik the Nav Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2002 Posts: 197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Erik the Nav
Member
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:03 pm
Posting from the most popular Guest IP
|
|
|
Went late, but not that long after the melt. Was a big snow year, there. Skeeters didn't seem too bad, don't recall bug problems really. But then, I put them outta my mind when they're not on me, so who knows. Seriously, I don't think it was a big deal.
I do remember one of the rangers telling me they were using dynamite to blast snow out of some of the trails in the backcountry, 'cause people had reservations for those trails and they needed to be open.
I was rather startled by this news.
IIRC, we went in mid-late August, and there was some concern about some of the trails being open, and we did cross a snowfield or two on the trails. But no long term slogging or anything.
Don't forget to look into the trail/backcountry campsite reservation system. Some popular hikes people sign up for from all over the country there, don't get aced out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hiker Boy Hinking Fool
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1569 | TRs | Pics Location: Northern Polar Icecap |
|
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:31 pm
|
|
|
I'll bet the incorrect assumption I made is common even with some BCers? Just a guess that everyone in Canada doesn't know everything?
Why would it be "unfortunate" to make that mistake? I don't think Steve was going to end up at the wrong trailhead or mountain range because of my incorrect assumption.
Alas, you're probably right. You consider broadcasting incorrect information to be "fortunate"? I am always greatful to learn more about the places I travel, especially if I'm mistaken...after all the last thing I want to be is another ignorant tourist.
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:50 pm
|
|
|
I was in Glacier in June 2001 and there was still some snow at Logan Pass, enough for me not to try the Hidden Lake Trail. Some people were doing it and I'm kicking myself now for not doing it. I don't know about backcountry trails, but everything else was open completely.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
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 NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
|