Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6306 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
I was there in the second week of July (I think), and most of the higher peaks looked to be relatively snow free, so I'd say from the beginning of July on is the best time to hit the backcountry. I recall there was still some patchy snow at Logan Pass, but not too much that it would have been a major hassle.
|
Back to top |
|
|
McPilchuck Wild Bagger
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics Location: near Snohomish, Wa. |
Interesting exchange. I would have to agree that they (Selkirks) are not part of the Rockies and are a distinct range in themselves, similar to the Coast Range as compared to the Cascades or for that matter the Olympics as compared to the B.C. Coast Range...distinct difference if not geological locale separations. The Purcells are also distinct but as with the Selkirks because they extend into Northern Idaho, has become associated with the what some view as the Rockies as they extend on into Alberta and east edges of B.C. No problem with that perception.
But having said this, I have spent time in the Selkirks, Purcells, and Rockies and have come to this conclusion long ago...they are each separate and distinct ranges, all very beautiful in their own right. The lower Selkirk ridge slopes though are thick with conifirs (brushy and steep) which is not too inviting during November say I, but that's another story. As far as the Rockies go, they are grand, but having been all over the world, even seen the Alps during an Army stint, there is No Place Like Home (Dorothy said it) in the Washington Cascades. And I would match any of it up against the grandeur of the North Cascades.
McPil
"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 |
|
|
polarbear Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics Location: Snow Lake hide-away |
I've thought about hiking in the Purcells and Selkirks but just like Glacier I get nervous about the grizzlies. Does anyone know any figures on alpine lake density. How does the Cascades compare with the Rockies on lakes/square mile. Do the Rockies have any mountains like Daniel that are ringed with lakes? Sorry I guess I'm thread drifting a tad.
|
Back to top |
|
|
#19 Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
#19
Member
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:59 pm
A rose by any other name
|
|
|
pbear, you couldn't possibly drift any farther than me. Those are great questions.
Quote: | You consider broadcasting incorrect information to be "fortunate"? |
You are busting my and I don't appreciate it. The intent of my response has been repeated. It had nothing to do with "broadcasting information".
Quote: | I have only travelled across the Selkirks in Idaho on the I90 so I can't really speak for them |
Hmm, I don't have the geological data to prove this inaccurate, but my hunch is the Selkirks end somewhere around Sandpointe ID
That ought to keep you busy for a while.
McPil, You are wise.
|
Back to top |
|
|
McPilchuck Wild Bagger
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics Location: near Snohomish, Wa. |
I would add one final thought and it is one of great importance and when I state it...you will all know what I mean when we try to compare the Rockies to the Cascades, again not that the Rockies are not grand either in the U.S. or the Canadian Rockies, but they don't have VOLCANOES unless I am mistaken, do they? Nuff Said.
|
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 9:29 pm
|
|
|
I could very well be wrong about what I crossed in Idaho and I stand corrected if I am. I would be happy to learn more about that area.
McPilchuck - You're right there! When all is said and done, volcanoes rock!
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:57 pm
|
|
|
I always thought the Rockies were the line of mountains that ran through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana. Alberta/BC. The line does extend into Texas, but they are nothing more than eroded bumps there and I don't really consider them mountains per se. There are obviously different ranges in "The Rockies" like the Tetons, etc, but I've always heard of the entire stretch as being The Rockies. Is this in fact wrong?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brian Curtis Trail Blazer/HiLaker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics Location: Silverdale, WA |
polarbear- wrote: | I've thought about hiking in the Purcells and Selkirks but just like Glacier I get nervous about the grizzlies. Does anyone know any figures on alpine lake density. How does the Cascades compare with the Rockies on lakes/square mile. Do the Rockies have any mountains like Daniel that are ringed with lakes? Sorry I guess I'm thread drifting a tad. |
Lake density in the Rockies varies greatly depending on the location. In some areas they have huge numbers of lakes, some places they are spread further. You'll find especially high concentrations of lakes in the Wind River range of Wyoming (covers 3 wilderness areas and an Indian reservation), the Absoroka-Beartooth, mostly in Montana, the White Clouds, Sawtooth, and Bighorn Crags in Idaho, and the Uintas in Utah. It isn't really the Rockies, but the Cloud Peak Wilderness in eastern Wyoming has an insane number of lakes surrounding a central peak. The Eagle Cap in eastern Oregon has a lot lakes. I've hiked in all these areas. We did the Cloud Peak wilderness last summer. Seven Devils in Idaho is a group of mountains surrounded by a bunch of lakes, but I've never hiked there. I've heard it is beautiful.
I've done a lot of hiking in grizzly country. I've seen 10 or 12 on various trips, though none were in the lower 48. I love hiking in grizzly country. They are magnificent animals. You have to be aware of them, but you shouldn't let them stop you. The year before last we hiked in the Great Bear Wilderness which lies adjacent to Glacier Park. We didn't see any bears but we did find a kill sitting right where we wanted to camp. We climbed the local peak and camped on top instead.
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
|
Back to top |
|
|
Allison Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:20 am
|
|
|
Well, it's a quarter after four in the morning, I'm just home from work, what better time for a little thread drift?
For my money, I'd head to Yellowstone over Glacier due to the enormous range of stuff you'll see, including all kinds of way cool thermal activity that can't be found in your regular basic National Park. This on top of all kinds of rocks, prairies, critters, high spots, waterfalls, it's just an immense playground of neat and cool stuff.
I've been to a lot of NPs and seen loads of forests and sandstone, but where else can you see a boiling pot of mud?
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
Back to top |
|
|
Quark Guest
|
|
Quark
Guest
|
Wed Dec 18, 2002 9:24 am
|
|
|
Al, if you wanna see a boiling pot of mud, come over and let me cook dinner for you. You can bring your BOYFREIND, but he must be spelled correctly, though I wouldn't know the difference.
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:03 am
|
|
|
Yellowstone is nice, but nothing there blew me away really. The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone was nice, and seeing my first geyser erupt was pretty cool, and there was a nice waterfall at Tower-Roosevelt, but that's about it. I saw Old Faithful just because I figured I had to, being so famous and all (the geyser, not me). It was a nice trip and I'm glad I went, but I don't see going back any time soon. In the week I spent in Glacier, I was gaping the whole time. Same for the Canadian Rockies. And the Tetons. All of these are on my revisit list.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hiker Boy Hinking Fool
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1569 | TRs | Pics Location: Northern Polar Icecap |
|
Hiker Boy
Hinking Fool
|
Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:41 am
|
|
|
I thought the Beartooths which are right next to Yellowstone, are defintely worth seeing. I wasn't impressed with the Tetons. All the geothermal stuff at Yellowstone is really cool but just what is with all the amorous humping buffalo in that park? sheesh! LOL
|
Back to top |
|
|
Steve Phlogiston Purveyor
Joined: 29 Jan 2002 Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics Location: Bothell |
|
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
|
Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:14 pm
|
|
|
Earlier this year our family spent 25 days exploring Bryce, Zion, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, Arches, Grand Tetons and Yellowstone. That was the best vacation (at least from my point of view) I've ever been on but I am looking for something different now, although I would like to do one of the long hikes in the Tetons one of these years. Bryce was also great, would go there again if the opportunity arises.
Of course if I move to NZ my whole line of questions is moot.
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 |
|
|
McPilchuck Wild Bagger
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics Location: near Snohomish, Wa. |
As I spent the day up the Sauk and White Chuck Rivers today, I was reminded by how glorious those big, no huge, cedars and fir trees are. The Cascade and Olympic Mountain conifirs are awesome, those from 6 to 15 feet thick only grow in this neck of the woods along the Pacific Coast in our rain forests. I would have to add them to our volcanoes as being extraordinary, as well as the multitude of glacier-filled rivers that feed from the glaciers...all something the Rockies lack.
...thread drift here, incidentally I drove all the way up Rat Trap Pass, in 4x4 mode however.
|
Back to top |
|
|
El Puma Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2002 Posts: 341 | TRs | Pics Location: Inside, wanting outside |
|
El Puma
Member
|
Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:09 am
|
|
|
I spent a bit of time exploring Capitol Reef NP - one of my favorites. NO crowds, a little hard to access, Zion-like rocks and vegetated valleys south toward Hall's Creek and great rock formations in a desert environment north. Great geological history as well!
This is a friend's picture - I think it's CRNP - if not, scenery is very similar but less vegetation. (I'll remove this post in a few days to reduce space...):
Also check out the NPS web site:
http://www.nps.gov/care/home.htm
fins
|
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).
|