Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
One Day Wonder Member
Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 69 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue, WA |
What do you think. We have a couple nice mountain ranges around the greater Seattle area.
Let's hear it:
Cascades
or
Olympics?
What do we pass our opinions on? Well let's say based on View? Diffuculty? Accessability? Its an open forum! The beauty of the internet.
|
Back to top |
|
|
MooseAndSquirrel Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 2036 | TRs | Pics
|
For an Eastsider it's got to be the Cascades, you can be at a trailhead in less than an hour. I haven't done much hiking in the Olympics due much to that fact. It's hard to do a day trip to the Olympics, what with the ferry trip or Tacoma Narrows hassle and driving time. Plus decent weather over there is even more iffy to plan on than over here. With that said though, I've had wonderful overnight trips on the coastal NP strip (south from La Push/Third Beach) and the Lake Ozette area. Also on the Bogachiel River trail (less crowded and just as scenic as the Hoh River trail-great rain forest) and Lake Crescent area. Haven't done any hikes into the Olympic interior yet but plan on it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
M and S said it very well. You must add the beach hiking aspect to the Olympic area too though. Dante and I did a wilderness beach hike once and it was wonderful. That area has that going for it too.
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
smmslt Prominencian
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics Location: Vancouver, WA |
|
smmslt
Prominencian
|
Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:18 pm
|
|
|
North Cascades, hands down. More extensive. Greater average relief. More rugged (based on having the steepest average slope angle in the entire US including Alaskan ranges, by far), more variety, etc. The link points to a post on a discussion forum about mountain prominence by one of its members who's a mathematician and writes software that computes such things using USGS data. If anyone's interested, you can join here.
|
Back to top |
|
|
polarbear Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics Location: Snow Lake hide-away |
I haven't done alot of hiking in the Olympics--onlyl Lake Constance and Lena Lake. The ferry boat ride is both a nice way to start and end a trip as long as you don't have to wait in a long line as several ferries arrive and depart.
|
Back to top |
|
|
MCaver Founder
Joined: 14 Dec 2001 Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
|
|
MCaver
Founder
|
Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:42 pm
|
|
|
The cascades are great, but there's nothing like the mossy areas on the west side of the Olympics -- Sol Duc, Hoh, Queets, Lake Quinault. For mossophiles like myself, it's fantastic. As far as drive times go, some parts of the east side of the Olympics are just a 2 hour drive. That's as close or closer than the Mt Baker, Washington Pass and even farther Mt Rainier areas. Granted, I usually head to the west side if i'm going that way and end up driving 4 hours to Lake Quinault, so I usually end up making a whole weekend of it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
I'm saying the Cascades just because I haven't spend too much time in the Olympics (never even touched the back country over there - Save the Boulder Creek / Appletone Pass trail). Each range has it's own characteristics and perks and downfalls. Parts of the Olympics are probably some of the most remote mountains in the lower 48, but parts of the Cascades are probably just as isolated. I guess we'll just have to suffer being pinned between the two...
|
Back to top |
|
|
Damian Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001 Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
U. R. Peon Guest
|
|
U. R. Peon
Guest
|
Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:11 am
|
|
|
The Sierra and Swiss Alps are "better" than either!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics Location: Cle Elum |
It is after all, peoples *opinion*!
It doesnt matter if the sierras and alps R better. They arent in my back yard and arent easily accessable, so I cant naturally go there often, so they dont count!
I say the Cascades. Because of their proximity I get there very often, and that makes them priceless!
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
Back to top |
|
|
#19 Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
|
|
#19
Member
|
Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:20 am
|
|
|
I think it is a great question ODW. Of course it's 'apples and oranges', but there are reasons why one prefers citrus and another enjoys the more locally grown fruit.
I prefer the Cascades, but my preference is as much to do with convenience as anything.
Olympics: less traveled, remote, small, exotic, wildlife, unique
Cascades: Alpine, rugged, popular, easy to get to, big, volcanic, unique
I think the notion that one mountain range is "better" than another is pretty funny. Like saying a rose is "better" than clover. Not to every bee.
|
Back to top |
|
|
catwoman Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 888 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere near Tacoma |
|
catwoman
Member
|
Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:12 am
|
|
|
What Damian said. It's a silly question.
|
Back to top |
|
|
McPilchuck Wild Bagger
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics Location: near Snohomish, Wa. |
"North Cascades, hands down"
I would have to agree. However, the interior of the Olympics is pretty awesome itself (Bailey Range & beyond) and the wildlife...bears, elk, deer, goats can't be beat. But as far as grandeure goes, the North Cascades has it locked.
McPil
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lead Dog Member
Joined: 27 Jan 2003 Posts: 790 | TRs | Pics Location: Kent Wa |
|
Lead Dog
Member
|
Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:31 pm
Cascades vs Olympics
|
|
|
My vote goes also to the Cascades. My biggest gripe with the Olympics is that who ever designed the trails liked gaining and losing elevation needlessly. Every trail I have hiked except the coastal "trails" gain and lose, gain and lose. For example- which there are many,The High Divide Low Divide trail.
My hair's turning white, my neck's always been red, my collor's still blue.
Lynard Skynard
My hair's turning white, my neck's always been red, my collor's still blue.
Lynard Skynard
|
Back to top |
|
|
Damian Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001 Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:39 pm
|
|
|
Come to think of it, I would have to agree with the negative comments about the Olympics. I recommend that people avoid them, especially the coastal streches, deep rain forests, and alpine meadows. The long drives through those backward hick towns are unbearable. The wildlife are dangerous. The goats pesky. The moss slippery. It always rains. The forests are dark and scary. Apples and oranges... what the heck was I thinking.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|