Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Golden State. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the California Climbing Partners forum.
 

Re: Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Postby mrchad9 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:50 pm

I'm game for both Hotlum (from Brewer Creek) and Bolum Glaciers. Though I am busy the next two weekends after this one. The next three look good though.

Also game for winter Whitney.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4214
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1218 times in 826 posts

Re: Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Postby Vitaliy M. » Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:35 pm

clmbr wrote:
Vitaliy M. wrote:That place has a different kind of energy to it than all other peaks I have been around. (And I do not believe in Lamurians)

There is only one mountain in the contiguous US I would climb as often as Shasta if its location was more convenient: MT Rainier. Over the last trip to Shasta I realized that it is easier for me to climb Rainier than Shasta. I think the seriousness of Rainier has something to do with that.


Why is it easier for you to climb Rainier than Shasta? I would say Rainier is significantly harder just due to NEEDING a partner and having one who would be able to haul you out of crevasse if needed. + more elevation gain.
User Avatar
Vitaliy M.

 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:23 am
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Thanked: 287 times in 215 posts

Re: Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Postby clmbr » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:29 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I'm game for both Hotlum (from Brewer Creek) and Bolum Glaciers. Though I am busy the next two weekends after this one. The next three look good though.

Also game for winter Whitney.

All right! I’ll keep posting and/or send PM.

Vitaliy M. wrote:Why is it easier for you to climb Rainier than Shasta? I would say Rainier is significantly harder just due to NEEDING a partner and having one who would be able to haul you out of crevasse if needed. + more elevation gain.

Well that is subjective. There are quite many people who traverse Rainier’s glaciers alone. One just has to be more careful and definitely self-sufficient. There were accidents on Rainier (and not only) in which roped climbers died or got injured in crevasses. It is how one defines and implements safety factors.

Correct, more elevation gain, at least 2,000 extra vertical feet, and almost any time I’ve climbed Rainier I did it with my full backpack all the way to the top (no base camp). On Shasta I stopped doing it some time ago, too much work.

Once I’ve climbed Rainier three times back to back, and another time two times in the row. I’ve never been able to do the same with Shasta even though intended many times. The exception was a few weeks ago when I set up my base camp at around 10,000 feet and from there climbed Shasta twice, then hiked up another mountain in a day and then again Shasta in one day--so three Shasta summits in six climbing days. Exception!

Rainier is big, challenging and exciting. The weather reliability is very low. Escaping from that mountain in case of emergency may not be that easy (if possible). Numerous crevasses with many more hidden create a huge labyrinth like a minefield--one wrong step may lead to a disaster. Not to mention huge rock and ice falls and avalanches that are more conmen than on Shasta. Plus steeper slopes. All of these raise excitement which takes away my focus from thinking about being tired. I believe that is the reason it’s easier for me to climb Rainier than Shasta. Perhaps we have tendency to ignore, to underestimate Shasta.
User Avatar
clmbr

 
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:21 am
Thanked: 76 times in 59 posts

Re: Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Postby Vitaliy M. » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:49 pm

Yea I agree on the last part. Before reading your comment to the end I thought to myself, that the only reason you are able to hike Rainier twice in a row is because it is not as boring. I do a lot better when the approach is scenic.

If you take regular DC route up Rainier it would be fairly safe regarding crevasses (with a trail of steps and all). Real pros usually do not rope for it when the are out on their own. It is a personal preference though...
User Avatar
Vitaliy M.

 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:23 am
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Thanked: 287 times in 215 posts

Re: Avalanche on Mt Shasta?

Postby clmbr » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:14 pm

Vitaliy M. wrote:f you take regular DC route up Rainier it would be fairly safe regarding crevasses (with a trail of steps and all). Real pros usually do not rope for it when the are out on their own. It is a personal preference though...

Unless one obtained a solo climb permit, the team members were supposed to be roped at (almost) all time on Rainier; the ranger my demand this from them. It's happened to me once above Camp Shurman. That time I took a friend and forgot to rope, did not feel any need to do so. Two climbing rangers on their way down approached us and were very seriously demanding that we rope.

Couple years ago there was a huge avalanche on DC route. The victims were quickly rescued because once the rescuers found one, they just followed the rope.
User Avatar
clmbr

 
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:21 am
Thanked: 76 times in 59 posts

Previous

Return to California

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.