Forum Index > Trip Reports > Three Fingers 8-24-07
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Dean
(aka CascadeHiker)



Joined: 02 Mar 2002
Posts: 1967 | TRs | Pics
Location: ex Kennewick, Wa & Lehi Utah
Dean
(aka CascadeHiker)
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 5:50 am 
On Friday,myself & fellow NWHiker members Eric, Bob (smmslt) and Bob's good friend Duane met at the TH for 3 Fingers. Most of us got minimal sleep so when we hit the trail we looked like zombies. However, the need to pay attention to where one needs to put their feet on the first 5 miles to Goat Flats soon made us alert otherwise you'd trip on a root or go into an endless supply of mud. One or two glimpses of where we were going added fuel to our energy so the five miles seemed to go by fairly quickly.
The good stuff starts above Goat Flats and the trail gets so scenic from that point on. Views opened to Mt. Baker to the north and Mt. Pilchuck and Mt. Rainier to the south. Also we got some good looks at 3 Fingers as well and that alone was worth the hike to this point. Two rangers were met just before the flats and one of them had some lopping shears to cut back the brush on the trail when they encountered it. Thanks guys for working on the trail, it needed all the brushing out it could get as the brush was very generous in sharing it moisture with me on the way up.
We met a couple at Goat Flats from Seattle and the gal had a big bandage on her head from nailing herself on one of the spikes that hold the ladders to place on the ladder route up to the lookout. She warned us to watch out for all the blood she left up there and assured us that no one was murdered. We later found her statements to be true and were amazed that she didn't fall off the ladder when she about knocked herself out on the metal rod she hit with her head. OUCH !! Along the two miles of trail to Tin Can Gap, we had a couple snowfields to cross but those were easy enough. The crux of the whole climb (or hike if you prefer) came just after Tin Can Gap where you encounter a shoulder of the Queest Alb Glacier. The trail is still buried at this point and the choice to cross it or take a rough route through a narrow moat where the glacier is separated from the rock needed to be dealt with. Two of us elected to cross the steep snow and two of us chose the moat. Even though I had an ice axe, I elected to do the moat. I had new boots on and still wasn't confident in my sure footedness on that one area where a slip could send you to the promised land. Think what you want, I wussed out but the moat was not easy either but it was safer. Had the moat not been there, I would have done the "airy footpath" as I called it but since there was a choice, I opted for the moat.
Click here for a bigger view of the above pic Eric and Bob were the two who walked across the snowslope while Duane and I challenged the moat, hoping it would go through to the other side, which fortunately it did. Some class three rock moves were necessary in the moat and the worst part was the rock was wet. Oh well, it was my choice and yet I found it kind of fun.
After the snow crossing (upper reach of the glacier actually), the trail became a real delight and I thoroughly enjoyed it as it wended its way behind snow banks, down another moat that had a rope hanging part way down it and across some spots where drops offs were on both sides to give a true high alpine feeling. Several snow fields remained to be crossed but none were a problem. Without giving a step by step description, suffice it to say that the trail to 3 fingers is one of the best I've been on, thanks to the years of hikers feet and good trail construction.
All the while, we kept looking up at 3 Fingers and the lookout, marveling that they could put such a structure up there. In time, we found ourselves at the base of a large snowfield and just above it was what we were looking for, the lookout itself. After ascending the snowfield, a bit of class three scrambling, very easy at that, led to the west side and an airy spot of trail leading to the base of the ladders. I had been looking forward to going up those ladders for years and now, right in front of me were the fabled three wooden ladders. Eric didn't even hesitate, he just went for it and soon was making his way up the ladders. The top ladder made him think a bit but he avoided hitting his head on the metal rods and soon he and Bob were up and waiting for Duane and myself. I went next and snapping pictures every chance I got, I soon found myself grabbing onto the rope that allows easy access at the top of the 3rd ladder.
Duane dispatched the ladders in fine style and soon the four of us were inside the lookout (shutters were all down) finding the "backdoor" to get to the actual highest spot on the peak itself. A small step ladder is built into the inside and outside of one of the windows, allowing easy access to this spot of rock that would make an Eagle jealous. Views down to the glacier and the north face were breathtaking but unfortunately clouds had moved in blocking the views of the surrounding mountains we had hoped for.
Some snacks were consumed for the energy we would need for our return back to our vehicles and I called my wife (a tradition I have) to share the summit with her. What a fantastic spot. At night the lights of the sound make the lookout a stellar spot to be and perhaps some day I'll be able to get back and spend a night in this lookout, perhaps.
All too soon we had to turn around and go down but as we hit the ladders for our return, we encountered what appeared to be a father and son combo waiting to come up. We left the lookout to their good keeping and made our way back the way we came. The crossing the glacier traverse was still intimidating to me so I used the moat again while the other three members of my party took the faster way. Bob kicked in some bomber footsteps but understand that I was having trouble with my boots. My previous boots had died and unfortunately I had to break in a new pair on this trip and that really proved what my wife has known all along, that I'm not too smart. As I came out of the moat, it was now 4 pm and we met a party of three hikers heading for the lookout. Two of the three had no snow experience while one did and he talked them into going across that traverse. They had one ice axe between them and only one knew how to use it. The problem on the traverse is if you slip, you die. I know that sounds dramatic, but it is true. That was no place to be if you didn't have an ice axe and the skills to self arrest. The other problem I could see is that they had no other real gear and were not going to be staying in the lookout, meaning they would have to re cross the traverse when it was icier. Not good. As it was, Bob, Duane and I could not bear to watch the novice pair go across. They had opted to go via the moat but the "experienced" hiker / climber felt they didn't have the time to do the moat so he convinced them to do the traverse as I mentioned earlier.
By the time I hit Goat Flats, my left foot was blistering up and some blister management was applied to the affected areas. I was hobbling by the time I got to the TH but the thought of a good Mexican dinner in Granite Falls made the pain go away. It was a great hike and one I'd do again. That sketchy traverse should be melted out adequately in another week or two. If you get the chance to do 3 fingers, do it. Those of you who have done it, I'm not telling you anything new.
The very first pic and the bottom pics are two taken by Bob Bolton. Thanks also to Eric, Bob and Duane. Better hiking companions cannot be found and we meshed together very well. Truly an enjoyable day thanks to good companions and fantastic surroundings. My foot responded well to my administrations and I tested it with a six mile hike on the local Badger Mtn on Monday. hockeygrin.gif

Dean - working in Utah for awhile and feeling like it is a 'paid' vacation. http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=1160
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
greg
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 1159 | TRs | Pics
greg
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 6:44 am 
Cool report Dean, I was up there three weeks ago on an even cloudier day. At that time there was no moat behind the glacier, we had to cross it, and it was kind of spooky in the mist. But I found the rope and ladders at the lookout more unnerving. Still find it hard to believe they put a lookout on top of that rock!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Magellan
Brutally Handsome



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Inexorable descent
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 7:02 am 
Thanks for the memories, Dean. I don't think anyone who has done Queest-Alb was ever disappointed. We also used the moat and stemming out of it left a lot to be desired. At the second crossing I was about half way across when I realized the snowfield had holes in it. (Mostly above me) In late september the field was so hard I doubt I could have arrested. Later on when I saw boyscouts in tennis shoes crossing it, I paused to think. Was I gripped, or were these guys in over there heads? I decided an ice axe is crucial, and their leader was just silly. The most amazing part was the number of people making it to the lookout. If this trail wasn't 14+ miles roundtrip, it would be overrun. Nice work, Dean.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Foist
Sultan of Sweat



Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back!
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 7:43 am 
Great report! That snowfield looks damn steep and scary, I fully support your moat decision. up.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
pochac
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 32 | TRs | Pics
pochac
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 7:54 am 
Great TR and cool pics!! up.gif up.gif up.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 8:32 am 
Good report Dean. One other tidbit, some people have suggested that the north summit may be the higher summit. It's not. Here's a pic with the camera centered on the summit rock with the center of the lens at the same height as the south summit [yes I am that anal retentive]. You can clearly see the north summit below the horizon of 4000-5000 foot forested peaks. Without getting into the curvature of the earth calculations and all of that other dorkiness, let's just summarize by saying that the north summit is definitively lower. Hopefully the false rumor that it is higher will die. Nonetheless, it looks like an imposing and interesting climb in spite of its lower height. Anyway, what more can you say, Three Fingers is a Cascades classic. A few more pics:
Whitehorse
Whitehorse
North->Middle->South Summits
North->Middle->South Summits
LO
LO
Queest Alb Glacier
Queest Alb Glacier
Perched LO on Upper Left
Perched LO on Upper Left
Bob Descending Ladders
Bob Descending Ladders
Bob and Duane on final snowfield
Bob and Duane on final snowfield
Kid Ascending Final Ladder
Kid Ascending Final Ladder
Baker, Higgins and Round
Baker, Higgins and Round
Bob On Top Ladder
Bob On Top Ladder
Crazy Place to put a Lookout
Crazy Place to put a Lookout
Ridgeline
Ridgeline
North Summit
North Summit

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Opus
Wannabe



Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 3700 | TRs | Pics
Location: The big rock candy mountain
Opus
Wannabe
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 8:32 am 
Awesome pics! I'm hoping to get up there soon. Last year around this time that snow crossing was much shorter and not quite so steep. I crossed it without pulling out my axe and didn't see any snow beyond, aside from the field below the lookout.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Spotly
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3723 | TRs | Pics
Location: Spokane Valley
Spotly
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 9:31 am 
Thanks for the detailed and inspirational TR.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jamin Smitchger
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 673 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pullman
Jamin Smitchger
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 12:02 pm 
Well it sort of looks that way from this pic. But then again, there are no 5000 foot peaks in that direction. I guess I was sort of dumb when I climbed the North Peak. http://picasaweb.google.com/deviates/3Fingers/photo#5087822017281873858

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 12:27 pm 
Quote:
I guess I was sort of dumb when I climbed the North Peak.
Naw, you were very smart to do so because it looks like a fun peak and a good day in the mtns. I apologize if my post came off as a little bit harsh on the north peak. It's just slightly lower which is pretty much irrelevatn unless you are into counting and bagging P400s or other prominence peaks. I'd like to go back up there sometime myself and visit the north peak and also to spend a night in the LO and catch a sunset and sunrise there.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Foist
Sultan of Sweat



Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back!
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 12:32 pm 
I don't understand how your photo proves that. It's all about perspective. If I hold my finger up near my camera in Seward Park it's bigger and higher than Mount Rainier... I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get how the photo proves anything.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
payton
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 188 | TRs | Pics
payton
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 2:01 pm 
Foist wrote:
I don't understand how your photo proves that. It's all about perspective. If I hold my finger up near my camera in Seward Park it's bigger and higher than Mount Rainier... I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get how the photo proves anything.
Foist, I don't think Eric meant that it was immediately obvious from his photo that the north peak is lower. Rather, I think he meant that based on knowing the exact positioning of his camera, the distance between the peaks, the curvature of the earth, and perhaps distance and elevation of background peaks, you can use the photo to calculate that the north peak is lower. My suspicion is that Eric mentioned the horizon and elevation of horizon peaks because it seems to me that if you can see the horizon over the top of mountain A from neighboring mountain B and that horizon line is formed by land of low enough elevation (far enough away), then B must be taller than A. As for your finger, if we knew the distance of your finger to the camera and the distance to Mt. Rainier, we could use your photo to calculate that Rainier is in fact much bigger and that there was no danger of you squashing the mountain between your index finger and thumb. wink.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Foist
Sultan of Sweat



Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back!
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 2:12 pm 
I'm not saying it's impossible to know, I'm asking how, even if you know a lot of other information, a photograph cinches the case. I'm not asking incredulously or rhetorically, I'm fully prepared for an explanation. Somehow the fact that the summit is in the exact center of the photo makes a difference?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
smmslt
Prominencian



Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vancouver, WA
smmslt
Prominencian
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 6:43 pm 
OK, I may be all messed up, but it seems to me that it is rather simple geometry. The curved earth only makes the case stronger because any distant mountains are rendered significantly lower by that curvature. The camera plays the role of effectively drawing a straight line - the imaginary line from the lens and extending across the top of the other peak in question and beyond. That line will either slope up or down. If it slopes down, the camera is at a higher place than the other summit. If the imaginery line slopes up, the other peak is higher. The trick is figuring out which way that line slopes. Well, if the distant peaks are lower or non-existent, and the line of sight across the top of the other peak intersects with earth below the sky line, doesn't it stand to reason that the line must be sloping downward, making the other peak lower? Conversely, when looking at a higher peak, the line should intersect with nothing but sky unless there's a much higher peak some distance behind. In the case of the north and south fingers of Three Fingers, it is very clear that the straight line from the lens across the top of the north finger, when viewed from the south finger, intersects with the earth below the distant sky line. The place where that intersection takes place is at a lower elevation than that of the camera, and as such the line MUST be sloping downward, making the south finger higher. Am I all wet here? confused.gif dizzy.gif Bob

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jamin Smitchger
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 673 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pullman
Jamin Smitchger
Member
PostTue Aug 28, 2007 8:42 pm 
Sounds like you are right. Shoot, now I have to climb the South Peak. My partner is going to be mad at me when he realizes that we spent 15 hours up there, hiked out in the dark, and didn't even climb the real summit.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trip Reports > Three Fingers 8-24-07
  Happy Birthday Traildad!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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