Beckler Peak Comments
[ Post a Comment ]
|Nice page - I especially enjoyed reading about the history of the name.|
Curious - what maps do you have that show the east peak as the highest? The USGS quad (at least the one I'm looking at) does not "mark" a point, just says Beckler Peak across the whole ridge. The west and east summits appear lower when you are on the middle peak, and the middle peak appears higher from the west peak (I haven't been to the east peak so can't comment on that vantage point).
Your route description is really only practical for the east summit. Most people that go to the west and middle peaks approach from earlier on the Beckler Peak Road - there is an old spur at elevation 2900' that you can take to the SW ridge. It actually looks like someone maintains a trail here (cut logs, etc.), but it was hard to tell as there was snow. This approach saves you from having to lose and regain 500' of elevation to go around the cliffy W face of the east peak, and it's also doable at more times of the year when snow prevents you from driving very far on the road.
|Posted Feb 19, 2010 1:51 am|
|First, I mentioned there were other approaches, but because I have not fully reviewed or attempted any of those other approaches I left that open for people to create "Route" pages (at least until/unless I try those other approaches first).|
Second, the point marked on maps as "5062" (the summit elevation) is on the East Peak.
Third, I personally thought the view from the East Peak felt like the Middle Peak was shorter in elevation. The same for the West Peak. In reality, the West Peak is probably higher in elevation. Here's why: The distance between the Middle Peak and West Peak is about twice the distance than the Middle Peak and East Peak, so although the West Peak might appear to be slightly shorter, it is probably actually higher due to distance perception and angle of parallax. The different peaks appear to be each different elevations from other mountains/angle, as well. In the grand scheme of things, it probably does not matter, but it's fun to have controversy like this. We need to bring some Geological Equipment up there to settle this. ;-)
|Posted Feb 19, 2010 2:22 pm|
|The west peak is clearly shorter than both the east and middle. I say this because I've been ON the west peak, twice. There is no question that the west peak is considerably shorter as you are looking UP at the middle peak from it. |
I suggest going to see for yourself. That whole ridge is really interesting to explore, anyway.
|Posted Feb 19, 2010 2:39 pm|
|I will, sometime... if for no other reason but because this kind of thing bugs me until I find out with certainty. :-)|
As with other SP pages I have created, I am constantly looking to improve them, if/when needed and if/when I discover hard facts that were not already shown on them. In fact, due to this controversy, I have now clarified the differences between the peaks, from an "official" elevation standpoint (i.e. contours).
|Posted Feb 19, 2010 8:38 pm|
|ericwillhite||The answer to the debate|
|There is an answer, I have part of it. I have attached a map that has 10 foot contours. The west peak can be ruled out completely, it is at least 10 feet lower. The debate is between the middle and east peak only. Chances are the rock route is higher if both came up the same at 10 feet. I wish I had printed a 5 foot contour map but I didn't think it would be this close. Maps can be made up to a 2 foot contour for this area as it has been flown and shot with LIDAR. I no longer have access to the maps but maybe can work a connection to get one. http://images.summitpost.org/original/747443.jpg|
|Posted Sep 19, 2011 1:30 pm|
|Redwic||Re: The answer to the debate|
|Keep me posted, if anything else arises! (Such as a true HP! lol)|
|Posted Sep 19, 2011 1:34 pm|
|ericwillhite||Old Trip Report|
|I trust these guys.|
|Posted Nov 6, 2011 12:25 am|