[summitseeker]

So, I was climbing Tower Mountain last weekend and I swear that the summit cairn up there is big enough to be seen from space:

You can see it from above Granite Pass about 2 miles away as the crow flies. The thing has to be about 7 feet tall. Now that's a piece of work. I'm thinking it's probably the biggest cairn in all of Washington. Anyone know of a bigger one? Or a nicer one? Or a more elegant one? Let's see some photos!

[dicey]

Hmmm.. I don't think I have seen one bigger than that one! So, Did you have to summit the summit cairn to claim the summit?

[Riverside Laker]

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?

[Eric]

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?

[Spotly]

[summithound]

[summithound]

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 .

[Eric]

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.

[Matt]

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.

1 label

Blum summit cairn 2002

Note that according to this photo the summit cairn is about 2/3 the height of Baker. BTW I agree with Dicey that you can't say you've been to a lake unless you've actually touched the water.

[Mesahchie Mark]

Dang, that sucker is big! It's my opinion that summit cairns are caused by poor views and alcohol, hence this short-lived creation on Whitechuck:

Too much free time on top...

[Jason Hummel]

[boot up]

balanced Cairn on PCT

Certainly NOT the biggest, but this for some reason has always been my favorite found "cairn".

[crwdog]

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?!

[Jason Hummel]

I found this one near chain lakes:

Not big but cool.

[Matt]

Boot UP & JH, Cool pics of noteworthy configured cairns. Style is much more appealing than just size.